HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-29-19 3800 W CHAPMAN Apartments Exhibits 2 & 3
March 2017 | Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1845-16
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS
City of Orange
Prepared for:
City of Orange (Lead Agency)
Contact: Robert Garcia, Senior Planner
Community Development Department
Planning Division
300 East Chapman Avenue
Orange, California 92866
Prepared by:
PlaceWorks
Contact: Jorge Estrada, Senior Associate
3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100
Santa Ana, California 92707
714.966.9220
info@placeworks.com
www.placeworks.com
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
Table of Contents
March 2017 Page i
Section Page
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1
1.1 PROJECT LOCATION ...................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ..................................................................................................... 2
1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................. 13
1.4 CITY ACTION REQUESTED ...................................................................................................... 42
1.5 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE ....................................................................................... 43
2. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST .................................................................................. 45
2.1 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................ 45
2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED .......................................... 47
2.3 DETERMINATION (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE LEAD AGENCY) ........................ 47
2.4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ............................................................... 48
3. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ..................................................................................... 57
3.1 AESTHETICS .................................................................................................................................... 57
3.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES .................................................................. 72
3.3 AIR QUALITY ................................................................................................................................... 73
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ......................................................................................................... 80
3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................. 83
3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ................................................................................................................ 87
3.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ............................................................................................. 93
3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ....................................................................... 97
3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ................................................................................ 102
3.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING ................................................................................................... 114
3.11 MINERAL RESOURCES .............................................................................................................. 119
3.12 NOISE ................................................................................................................................................ 119
3.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING ............................................................................................... 134
3.14 PUBLIC SERVICES ........................................................................................................................ 136
3.15 RECREATION ................................................................................................................................ 143
3.16 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC ................................................................................................ 144
3.17 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................... 159
3.18 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ..................................................................................... 160
3.19 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ................................................................. 169
4. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ...................................... 171
5. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 181
6. LIST OF PREPARERS ................................................................................................ 187
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
Table of Contents
Page ii PlaceWorks
APPENDICES
Appendix A Air Quality and GHG Background and Modeling Data
Appendix B Geotechnical Due Diligence Report
Appendix C Preliminary Priority Water Quality Management Plan
Appendix D Preliminary Hydrology Report
Appendix E Noise Modeling Data
Appendix F Traffic Impact Analysis
Appendix G Sewer Capacity Analysis
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
Table of Contents
March 2017 Page iii
List of Figures
Figure Page
Figure 1 Regional Location ................................................................................................................................. 3
Figure 2 Local Vicinity ......................................................................................................................................... 5
Figure 3 Aerial Photograph ................................................................................................................................. 7
Figure 4a Site Photographs ................................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 4b Site Photographs ................................................................................................................................. 11
Figure5 Conceptual Illustrative Site Plan ....................................................................................................... 17
Figure 6 Apartment and Parking Garage Building Section .......................................................................... 19
Figure 7 Apartment Building Elevations ........................................................................................................ 21
Figure 8 Apartment Building Elevations ........................................................................................................ 23
Figure 9 Apartment Building Perspectives ..................................................................................................... 25
Figure 10 Apartment Building Perspectives ..................................................................................................... 27
Figure 11 Parking Structure Elevations ............................................................................................................. 31
Figure 12 Parking Structure Perspectives ......................................................................................................... 33
Figure 13 Preliminary BMP Exhibit .................................................................................................................. 39
Figure 14a Conceptual Shade and Shadow Study – Winter Solstice .............................................................. 63
Figure 14b Conceptual Shade and Shadow Study – Summer Solstice ........................................................... 65
Figure 14c Conceptual Shade and Shadow Study – Spring and Fall Equinox .............................................. 67
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
Table of Contents
Page iv PlaceWorks
List of Tables
Table Page
Table 1 Apartment Complex Plan and Unit Type Summary ..................................................................... 14
Table 2 Maximum Daily Regional Construction Emissions ...................................................................... 75
Table 3 Maximum Daily Regional Operational Phase Emissions ............................................................. 76
Table 4 Localized Construction Emissions ................................................................................................... 78
Table 5 Project-Related GHG Emissions ..................................................................................................... 95
Table 6 Construction BMPs .......................................................................................................................... 103
Table 7 Existing Traffic Noise Contours .................................................................................................... 121
Table 8 City of Orange Noise Level Limits ................................................................................................ 122
Table 9 Traffic Noise Conditions, Existing Plus Project Contributions ................................................ 125
Table 10 Traffic Noise Conditions, 2019 Plus Project Contributions ...................................................... 125
Table 11 Construction Equipment Vibration Levels .................................................................................. 127
Table 12 Construction Equipment Vibration Levels: Potential for Annoyance ..................................... 128
Table 13 Construction Equipment Vibration Levels: Potential for Architectural Damage .................. 128
Table 14 Construction Equipment Noise Levels ......................................................................................... 131
Table 15 OUSD Schools Serving the Project Site, Enrollment Capacities for the 2015-2016
School Year ................................................................................................................................ 140
Table 16 Existing Year (2016) Without Project Condition Intersection LOS ........................................ 147
Table 17 Existing Year (2016) With Project Condition Intersection LOS .............................................. 148
Table 18 Near-Term Year (2019) Without and With Project Condition Intersection LOS ................. 149
Table 19 Project Driveway Peak Hour Level of Service Summary ........................................................... 153
Table 20 City of Orange Water Supplies and Demands ............................................................................. 164
Table 21 Landfill Capacity ............................................................................................................................... 167
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
Abbreviations and Acronyms
March 2017 Page v
AAQS ambient air quality standards
AB Assembly Bill
AQMP air quality management plan
BAU business as usual
BMP best management practices
CalRecycle California Department of Resources, Recycling, and Recovery
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CARB California Air Resources Board
CBC California Building Code
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
cfs cubic feet per second
CGP Construction General Permit
CMP congestion management program
CNEL community noise equivalent level
CO carbon monoxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
Corps US Army Corps of Engineers
dB decibel
dBA A-weighted decibel
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
du/ac dwelling unit per acre
EIR environmental impact report
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GHG greenhouse gases
HCOC hydrologic conditions of concern
HVAC heating, ventilating, and air conditioning system
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Ldn day-night noise level
Leq equivalent continuous noise level
LID low-impact development
LLG Linscott Law & Greenspan, Engineers
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
Abbreviations and Acronyms
Page vi PlaceWorks
LOS level of service
LST localized significance thresholds
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
mgd million gallons per day
MND mitigated negative declaration
MT metric ton
MWD Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
NOX nitrogen oxides
NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
O3 ozone
OCSD Orange County Sanitation District
OCWD Orange County Water District
OFD City of Orange Fire Department
OPD City of Orange Police Department
OUSD Orange Unified School District
PPV peak particle velocity
RTP/SCS regional transportation plan / sustainable communities strategy
SB Senate Bill
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SoCAB South Coast Air Basin
SOX sulfur oxides
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TIA traffic impact analysis
UMIX Urban Mixed Use (general plan designation)
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
V/C volume-to-capacity ratio
VdB velocity decibels
VOC volatile organic compound
WQMP water quality management plan
March 2017 Page 1
1. Introduction
The Proposed Project is a mixed-use development on a 5.79-acre site, consisting of a 277-unit, five-story
apartment complex wrapped around a multilevel parking garage that would serve the apartment residents,
guests, and employees; a separate, stand-alone multilevel parking structure that would serve tenants of the
existing eight-story office building onsite; vehicular and pedestrian circulation improvements; and various
hardscape and landscape improvements. Development under the Proposed Project would occur on two
surface parking lots that are immediately adjacent to and primarily serve tenants of the existing eight-story
office building onsite. The surface lot west of the office building would be developed with the five-story
apartment complex, and the surface lot south of the office building would be developed with the stand-alone
multilevel parking structure. The onsite office building would remain in its existing condition. Project
development requires City approval of a tentative parcel map for subdivision purposes, a conditional use
permit for increased building heights, and an administrative adjustment from the City’s multifamily residential
parking standards and drive aisle width standards.
In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Orange, as lead agency, is
preparing the environmental documentation for the Proposed Project to determine if approval of the
discretionary actions requested and subsequent development would have a significant impact on the
environment. As defined by Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines, an Initial Study is prepared primarily to
provide the lead agency with information to use as the basis for determining whether an environmental
impact report, negative declaration, or mitigated negative declaration (MND) would provide the necessary
environmental documentation and clearance for the Proposed Project. This Initial Study has been prepared to
support the adoption of an MND (MND No. 1845-16).
1.1 PROJECT LOCATION
1.1.1 Regional Setting
The Project Site is in the City of Orange (City), which is in the north-central part of Orange County. The
City is approximately 32 miles south of downtown Los Angeles and 12 miles northeast of the Pacific Ocean.
The Santa Ana River marks the City’s western boundary, and the foothills of the Santa Ana Mountains mark
its eastern edge. The City of Anaheim borders the City of Orange to the north and west, and the cities of
Garden Grove, Santa Ana, and Tustin and unincorporated County of Orange border the City of Orange to
the south and east (see Figures 1, Regional Location, and 2, Local Vicinity). As shown in Figure 1, the City of
Villa Park is encompassed by the City of Orange.
Interstate and regional access to the City are provided predominantly by Interstate 5 (I-5/Santa Ana Freeway).
In addition, connections to the City from northern Orange County and San Diego, Los Angeles, Riverside,
and San Bernardino counties are provided by State Route 57 (SR-57/Orange Freeway), State Route 55 (SR-
55/Costa Mesa Freeway) and State Route 22 (SR- 22/Garden Grove Freeway).
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
1. Introduction
Page 2 PlaceWorks
1.1.2 Local Setting
The Project Site is adjacent to and just outside of the northwestern boundary of The Outlets at Orange
(formerly The Block at Orange), which is in the southwestern-most portion of the City. The Project Site is
within an area of the City known as the West Chapman Avenue /Uptown Orange focus area. The Outlets at
Orange is generally located south of Chapman Avenue, north of SR-22, east of Lewis Street, and west of
The City Drive. As shown in Figure 3, Aerial Photograph, the Project Site is generally located near the southeast
corner of the intersection of Chapman Avenue and Lewis Street.
Regional access to the Project Site is provided by SR-22, I-5, and SR-57; local access is provided via Chapman
Avenue, Lewis Street, and City Boulevard West. All of these streets are fully improved to their ultimate widths
and include asphalt paving, curb and gutter, and curb-adjacent sidewalks with landscaping behind the walks.
1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
1.2.1 Existing Land Use
The Project Site is currently developed with hardscape (i.e., asphalt paving, cement curbs, planters) and
landscape (i.e., planters with trees and shrubs) improvements associated with the two surface parking lots that
are immediately adjacent to the eight-story office building at 3800 West Chapman Avenue, which is also
within the boundaries of the Project Site (see Figures 3 and 4a and 4b, Site Photographs). The parking lots
primarily serve the needs of the tenants of the office building. Aside from the office building, no other
buildings or structures exist on the Project Site, and the site is relatively level.
1.2.2 Surrounding Land Use
As shown in Figure 3, the Project Site is surrounded by commercial and retail uses of the Outlets at Orange
and office uses to the southeast; multifamily residential uses (Terrace Apartments) to the south; single-family
residential uses to the north, across Chapman Avenue; commercial and office uses to the west; and office and
healthcare uses to the east.
1.2.3 General Plan and Zoning
1.2.3.1 GENERAL PLAN
The current (2010) City of Orange General Plan land use designation for the Project Site is Urban Mixed Use
(UMIX), which also applies to the overall Outlets at Orange and immediate properties to the south, east, and
west. As stated in the City’s General Plan Land Use Element (page LU-18), the UMIX designation provides
for integrated commercial retail, professional office, housing, and civic uses along West Katella Avenue and
Town and Country Road and within the West Chapman Avenue /Uptown Orange focus area. These areas are
intended to provide for urban, high-intensity, regionally oriented activity centers that define the character of
surrounding areas. Commercial retail is intended to be the primary use on the ground floor. Convenient
transit access, innovative housing options, and pedestrian-oriented design are key considerations.
PlaceWorks
Figure 1 - Regional Location
Base Map Source: USGS, NOAA, 2016
1. Introduction
0
Scale (Miles)
3
Note: Unincorporated areas are shown in white.
133
Site
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
City of Orange Boundary
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
1. Introduction
Page 4 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
PlaceWorks
Figure 2 - Local Vicinity
Base Map Source: USGS, NOAA, 2016
0
Scale (Feet)
500
5
22
City of OrangeCity of Garden Grove
City of Santa Ana
City of Anaheim
City Boundary
Project Boundary
The Outlets at Orange
Santa Ana RiverProject Site Boundary
The Outlets at Orange
1. Introduction
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
1. Introduction
Page 6 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
Office
PlaceWorks
Figure 3 - Aerial Photograph
Base Map Source: Google Earth Pro, 2016
0
Scale (Feet)
700
Project Site Boundary
Residential
UCI
Medical Center
22 The City DrChapman Ave
Orangewood
Children’s Home
Theo Lacy
Facility
Terrace
Apartments
Residential
DoubleTree
Hotel
County Juvenile
Justice Center
Justice Center Wy
City Pkwy WLewis StMetropolitan
D
r
Lampson Ave
City Blvd
5
LA
Fitness
The Outlets at Orange
AMLI Uptown
Orange Apartments
(Under Construction)
The Outlets at OrangeS M
a
n
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
A
v
e
City Boundary
City of
Garden Grove
Crystal
Cathedral
City Blvd WestCity Blvd Ea
s
t
Garden Grove Freeway (SR-22)
S
a
n
t
a
A
n
a
F
r
e
e
w
a
y
(
I
-
5
)
1. Introduction
City of Orange
Terrace
Apartments
Office
Office
Residential
Office
C
i
t
y
B
l
v
d
E
a
s
t
Designer DrEntertainment DrCHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
1. Introduction
Page 8 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
Source: PlaceWorks, 2016; Google Earth Pro, 2016
PlaceWorks
Figure 4a - Site Photographs
1. Introduction
Looking west across the project site.
Looking south across the project site.
Looking east across the project site.
Looking west across the project site.
Looking north across the project site.
0
Scale (Feet)
300
2 3
5
4
1
4
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
Chapman Ave
Lewis St1
2
5
3
Site BoundaryKey Map Photo Location and Direction1
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
1. Introduction
Page 10 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
Looking west across the project site.4
PlaceWorks
Figure 4b - Site Photographs
1. Introduction
Site Boundary
Looking north across the project site.
Looking north across the project site.
Looking west across the project site.
Key Map Photo Location and Direction
2 3
1 1
Source: PlaceWorks, 2016; Google Earth Pro, 2016
Chapman Ave
Lewis St23
4
1
0
Scale (Feet)
300
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
1. Introduction
Page 12 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
1. Introduction
March 2017 Page 13
As outlined in Table LU-1 (Land Use Designations) of the General Plan Land Use Element, the density and
intensity permitted under the UMIX land use designation are: residential density ranging from 30.0 to 60.0
dwelling units/acre (du/ac) (expected: 48.0 du/ac) and nonresidential intensity ranging from 1.5 to 3.0 floor
area ratio (FAR ) (expected: 1.7 FAR).
The Project Site is also within the West Chapman Avenue /Uptown Orange focus area, which consists of
mostly commercial and industrial properties west of SR-57. This focus area contains a mix of major
destination uses, including shopping, entertainment, offices, hotels, and a hospital. As a regional mixed-use
node, the West Chapman Avenue /Uptown Orange focus area can accommodate additional development
intensity, including high-density multifamily residential development. Additionally, as shown in Figure LU-8
(Urban Mixed-Use Sites Eligible for High Rise Development) of the City’s General Plan, the Project Site is in
an area eligible for high-rise development.
1.2.3.2 ZONING
Per the City’s zoning map, the zoning district of the Project Site is Urban Mixed Use (UMU). Zoning and
development standards for the UMU are incorporated into Chapter 17.19 (Mixed Use Districts) of the City’s
zoning code (Title 17 of the Orange Municipal Code). The UMU zoning district is intended to provide
urban, high-intensity, regionally-oriented activity centers. This zoning district provides for integrated
commercial retail, professional office, residential, and civic uses. Commercial retail uses are the preferred uses
on the ground floor. Residential development is allowed as part of a mixed-use project or as a freestanding
use. Convenient transit access, innovative housing options, and pedestrian-oriented design are key
considerations. Similar to the General Plan land use designation, the UMU zoning district permits a
residential density range of 30 to 60 du/ac and a nonresidential intensity range of 1.5 to 3.0 FAR.
1.2.4 Environmental Resources
The Project Site and its immediate surroundings are fully developed, and there are no biological resources
onsite or within the surrounding area. The Project Site contains no historic buildings, housing, scenic
resources, mineral resources, notable trees, or water bodies. Additional information regarding environmental
resources on the Project Site and its surroundings—or the lack of such resources—can be found in Section 3,
Environmental Analysis, of this Initial Study under each respective environmental topic.
1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Development of the Proposed Project includes demolition of the two surface parking lots. Project
development also requires removal of a number of trees and other landscape improvements associated with
the parking lots (site features to be demolished and removed are shown in Figure 3, Aerial Photograph, and
Figures 4a and 4b, Site Photographs).
Upon clearing, the 5.79-acre Project Site would be developed as a mixed -use project by W/GL 3800
Chapman Holdings VII, LLC (the Developer). Project development would include a five-story apartment
complex wrapped around a multilevel parking garage that would serve the apartment residents, guests, and
employees; a separate, stand-alone multilevel parking structure that would serve tenants of the onsite office
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
1. Introduction
Page 14 PlaceWorks
building (3800 West Chapman Avenue); vehicular and pedestrian circulation improvements; and various
hardscape and landscape improvements. Project development requires City approval of a tentative parcel map
for subdivision purposes, a conditional use permit for increased building heights, and an administrative
adjustment from the City’s multifamily residential parking standards and drive aisle width standards.
Following is a detailed description of the Proposed Project’s overall site plan and character and the various
development components and improvements that would be implemented under the Proposed Project.
Project phasing is discussed below in Section 1.3.7, Project Phasing and Construction.
1.3.1 Apartment Complex
1.3.1.1 SITE PLAN AND CHARACTER
After clearing this portion of the Project Site, the Developer would construct a five-story (up to 65 feet in
height—excluding the stairwell structure and elevator shaft, which would be up to 70 and 75 feet in height,
respectively) apartment complex on the site. Table 1 provides a breakdown of the plan and unit types that
would be offered. As shown in the table, 277 apartment units would be provided at a density of
approximately 48 dwelling units per gross acre (277 apartments divided by 5.79 gross acres); the square
footage of the units would range between 554 and 1,117 square feet. The units would include 20 studios, 133
one-bedroom units, and 124 two-bedroom units. Access to the units would be provided via internal
pedestrian corridors and walkways on each level of the apartment complex, and via elevators and stairwells
within the parking garage.
Table 1 Apartment Complex Plan and Unit Type Summary
Unit Area in Square Feet Quantity Percentage Total
Plan Type
P0a – Studio 554 10 3.6%
P0b – Studio 561 5 1.8%
P0c – Studio 555 5 1.8%
P1a – 1 bedroom/1 bathroom 696 55 19.9%
P1b – 1 bedroom/1 bathroom 733 55 19.9%
P1c – 1 bedroom/1 den/1 bathroom 852 23 8.3%
P2a – 2 bedrooms/2 bathrooms 1,012 28 10.1%
P2b – 2 bedrooms/2 bathrooms 1,052 74 26.7%
P2c - 2 bedrooms/2 bathrooms 1,117 22 7.9%
Total — 277 100%
Unit Type
Studio — 20 7.2%
1 Bedroom — 133 48.0%
2 Bedrooms — 124 44.8%
Total — 277 100%
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
1. Introduction
March 2017 Page 15
Figure 5, Conceptual Illustrative Site Plan, illustrates how the proposed apartment complex fits into the overall
layout of the Project Site. As shown in Figure 5, the apartment complex would be square-shaped and would
be placed just northwest of and adjacent to the proposed stand-alone parking structure (see description of
parking structure below), and west of the office building. The apartment complex and stand-alone parking
structure would be separated by an internal two -lane drive aisle.
As shown in Figure 5, the northwestern portion of the apartment complex would be wrapped around a
multilevel parking garage that would serve the needs of the apartment residents, guests, and employees only
(up to seven levels, with up to one-and-one-half levels below grade; see Figure 6, Apartment and Parking Garage
Building Section). The western portion would be wrapped around three courtyards (see description of
courtyards below). The leasing office and lobby of the apartments would be in the southeastern end of the
apartment complex, and a number of resident amenities and services (described below) would also be
provided in this portion of the apartment complex.
The onsite office building would not undergo any improvements or modifications under the Proposed
Project; it would remain in its existing condition. However, a number of landscape, hardscape, parking, and
circulation improvements would occur around the perimeter of the office building (see Figure 5).
Other project elements—such as parking, access and circulation improvements, pedestrian paths and
walkways, recreation areas and amenities, infrastructure improvements, and other hardscape and landscape
improvements—are discussed in detail throughout the rest of Section 1.3, Project Description.
1.3.1.2 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN AND CHARACTER
Figures 7 and 8, Apartment Building Elevations, and Figures 9 and 10, Apartment Building Perspectives, illustrate the
conceptual building elevations and the proposed architectural style and elements/features of the proposed
apartment complex. As shown in these figures, the proposed architectural style of the apartment complex
would be Contemporary, and design elements (e.g., roof style, window fenestration and details, wall material)
would be consistent with this architectural style. For example, the design elements would include stucco walls;
ground-level masonry (stone work); fiber-cement siding; metal railings, panels, columns, and awnings; vinyl
windows; aluminum storefront; and entry stoop. Building pop-outs and offsets, variations in building heights
and materials, and balconies would be added to offset the building’s massing, provide human scale, and
provide relief to and variation in the building form and style. The final design and architectural style of the
apartment complex are subject to review and approval by the City’s Design Review Committee.
1.3.1.3 LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING
As shown in Figure 5, Conceptual Illustrative Site Plan, a comprehensive landscape plan for the proposed
apartment complex would include a variety of new trees, shrubs, and groundcover along the building
perimeter, within the courtyards and common areas, and along the Chapman Avenue frontage. Proposed tree
types would include but not be limited to peppermint willows, cajeput trees, fruitless olive trees, southern live
oak trees, and Brisbane box trees. Ground-level landscape planters would be placed in various locations along
the building frontages (see Figures 7 through 10). All setbacks and other common areas not occupied by
buildings or hardscape improvements (e.g., drive aisles, pedestrian walkways) would be landscaped. As shown
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
1. Introduction
Page 16 PlaceWorks
in Figure 5, the vehicular entry/exit for the parking garage of the apartments and the proposed urban plaza
would include decorative pavers.
As noted above, project development requires the removal of a number of trees and other landscape
improvements associated with the existing parking lots where the proposed apartment complex and stand-
alone parking structure would be developed. Although development of the overall project would include
removal of most of the existing trees within the Project Site (approximately 74 trees), it would provide a
greater number of trees (approximately 222 new trees) than currently exist.
Lighting for the apartment complex would consist of building-mounted light fixtures; lighting for pedestrian
walkways; ground-mounted decorative lighting for landscape, architectural features, and signage; interior
lighting for the apartment complex and parking garage; lighting for the courtyards, including for the
swimming pool area; and security lighting. See Figures 9 and 10, Apartment Building Perspectives, for an
illustration of the potential nighttime lighting scheme for the apartment complex.
1.3.1.4 RESIDENT AMENITIES, RECREATION AREAS, AND SERVICES
Future residents and employees of the proposed apartment complex would have access to a number of
amenities, recreation areas and services, including: a leasing area with offices, employee work room, and break
room; a fitness center with restrooms; a yoga room; a centralized mail room; a clubhouse for resident
entertainment and gatherings; a business center; and three internal courtyards. Each apartment unit (minus
the studios) would include either a patio (ground-level units only) or balcony that would range from
approximately 57 to 89 square feet. All units would also include a washer and dryer room.
As shown in Figure 5, three courtyards internal to the apartment complex would be provided for use of the
project residents. The entertainment courtyard would feature a firepit with lounge seating on permeable
synthetic turf, communal dining table with outdoor kitchen, and landscaping. The lounge courtyard would
include lounge seating on permeable synthetic turf, communal dining table with outdoor kitchen, and
landscaping. The pool recreation courtyard would feature a lap pool and spa, custom cabanas with chase
lounges, daybeds on permeable synthetic turf, a firepit with lounge seating, dining tables and barbecue
counter, an entertainment terrace, lounge seating with double-sided fire place on permeable synthetic turf,
and landscaping. Furthermore, as shown in Figure 5, an urban plaza would be flanked by the apartment
complex and stand-alone parking structure; the plaza would feature enhanced paving with flush curb and a
green-wall background (on proposed stand-alone parking structure) and could be used for food truck staging.
Refuse areas would be provided on the first level of the parking garage for convenient solid waste truck
access and to shield the refuse areas from public view; the refuse areas would include separate bins for solid
waste and recyclable materials. The parking garage would also include rooms for storage and electrical needs,
and elevators and stairwells.
ORANGE, CAGreenlawÊPartners
18301 Von Karman Avenue
Suite 250
Irvine, CA 92612
(949) 221-8051
02.29.2016
507 30th St.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
949.675.9964
mjs-la.com
10.17.2016
60’15’0’30’L1.1CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN3800 CHAPMAN APARTMENTS
CHAPMAN AVENUE
CLUBHOUSE /
FITNESS
EXISTING
OFFICE
LEGEND
POOL RECREATION AREA - SEE SHEET
L1.2
1
ENTERTAINMENT COURTYARD - SEE
SHEET L1.4
2
LOUNGE COURTYARD - SEE SHEET L1.43
ENLARGED PATIOS at CHAPMAN AVENUE4
PEDESTRIAN CORRIDOR5
URBAN PLAZA - SEE SHEET L1.36
1
2
3
4
5 6
• pergola
• palms
• enhanced paving with flush curb
• date palms
• food truck staging
• green wall background (on parking
structure)
LOBBY
SOUTH LEWIS STREETTRASH STAGING7
7
ORANGE, CAGreenlawÊPartners
18301 Von Karman Avenue
Suite 250
Irvine, CA 92612
(949) 221-8051
02.29.2016
507 30th St.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
949.675.9964
mjs-la.com
10.17.2016
60’15’0’30’L1.1CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN3800 CHAPMAN APARTMENTS
CHAPMAN AVENUE
CLUBHOUSE /
FITNESS
EXISTING
OFFICE
LEGEND
POOL RECREATION AREA - SEE SHEET
L1.2
1
ENTERTAINMENT COURTYARD - SEE
SHEET L1.4
2
LOUNGE COURTYARD - SEE SHEET L1.43
ENLARGED PATIOS at CHAPMAN AVENUE4
PEDESTRIAN CORRIDOR5
URBAN PLAZA - SEE SHEET L1.36
1
2
3
4
5 6
• pergola
• palms
• enhanced paving with flush curb
• date palms
• food truck staging
• green wall background (on parking
structure)
LOBBY
SOUTH LEWIS STREETTRASH STAGING7
7
ORANGE, CAGreenlawÊPartners
18301 Von Karman Avenue
Suite 250
Irvine, CA 92612
(949) 221-8051
02.29.2016
507 30th St.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
949.675.9964
mjs-la.com
10.17.2016
60’15’0’30’L1.1CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN3800 CHAPMAN APARTMENTS
CHAPMAN AVENUE
CLUBHOUSE /
FITNESS
EXISTING
OFFICE
LEGEND
POOL RECREATION AREA - SEE SHEET
L1.2
1
ENTERTAINMENT COURTYARD - SEE
SHEET L1.4
2
LOUNGE COURTYARD - SEE SHEET L1.43
ENLARGED PATIOS at CHAPMAN AVENUE4
PEDESTRIAN CORRIDOR5
URBAN PLAZA - SEE SHEET L1.36
1
2
3
4
5 6
• pergola
• palms
• enhanced paving with flush curb
• date palms
• food truck staging
• green wall background (on parking
structure)
LOBBY
SOUTH LEWIS STREETTRASH STAGING7
7
PlaceWorks
Base Map Source: KTGY, 2016
Figure 5 - Conceptual Illustrative Site Plan
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
1. Introduction
0
Scale (Feet)
100
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
1. Introduction
Page 18 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
9'-1"9'-1"9'-1"9'-1"10'-7"55'-0"±56'-3"9'-1"9'-1"9'-1"9'-1"10'-7"±56'-3 1/256"5.0%5.0%
UP
MECH. SHAFT
MECH.SHAFT
DN
5.0%
BUILDING SECTIONS A4.0
0 8 16 32
ORANGE, CA
3800 CHAPMAN APARTMENTS
KTGY # 2015-0466 04.06.2016
KTGY Group, Inc.
Architecture+Planning
17911 Von Karman Ave., Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92614
949.851.2133
ktgy.com
Greenlaw Partners
18301 Von Karman Avenue
Suite 250
Irvine, CA 92612
(949) 221-8051 9'-1"9'-1"9'-1"9'-1"10'-7"55'-0"±56'-3"9'-1"9'-1"9'-1"9'-1"10'-7"±56'-3 1/256"5.0%5.0%
UP
MECH. SHAFT
MECH.SHAFT
DN
5.0%
BUILDING SECTIONS A4.0
0 8 16 32
ORANGE, CA
3800 CHAPMAN APARTMENTS
KTGY # 2015-0466 04.06.2016
KTGY Group, Inc.
Architecture+Planning
17911 Von Karman Ave., Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92614
949.851.2133
ktgy.com
Greenlaw Partners
18301 Von Karman Avenue
Suite 250
Irvine, CA 92612
(949) 221-8051
PlaceWorks
Figure 6 - Apartment and Parking Garage Building Section
1. Introduction
0
Scale (Feet)
50
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
Base Map Source: KTGY, 2016
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
1. Introduction
Page 20 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
9'-1"± 65'-0"Roof
Level 3
Level 2
Level 1 9'-1"9'-1"9'-1"9'-1"Level 4
Level 5
ORANGE, CA
3800 CHAPMAN APARTMENTS
KTGY # 2015-0466 10.11.2016
KTGY Group, Inc.
Architecture+Planning
17911 Von Karman Ave., Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92614
949.851.2133
ktgy.com
Greenlaw Partners
18301 Von Karman Avenue
Suite 250
Irvine, CA 92612
(949) 221-8051
BUILDING ELEVATIONS - APARTMENTS A3.0
1. East Elevation
0 8 16 32
2
1
2. South Elevation
Key Map N.T.S.
*Refer to landscape plan for plant species and placement 9'-1"± 65'-0"Roof
Level 3
Level 2
Level 1 9'-1"9'-1"9'-1"9'-1"Level 4
Level 5
ORANGE, CA
3800 CHAPMAN APARTMENTS
KTGY # 2015-0466 10.11.2016
KTGY Group, Inc.
Architecture+Planning
17911 Von Karman Ave., Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92614
949.851.2133
ktgy.com
Greenlaw Partners
18301 Von Karman Avenue
Suite 250
Irvine, CA 92612
(949) 221-8051
BUILDING ELEVATIONS - APARTMENTS A3.0
1. East Elevation
0 8 16 32
2
1
2. South Elevation
Key Map N.T.S.
*Refer to landscape plan for plant species and placement
PlaceWorks
Base Map Source: KTGY Group, Inc., 2016
Figure 7 - Apartment Building Elevations
1. Introduction
0
Scale (Feet)
60
1. East Elevation
2. South Elevation
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
1. Introduction
Page 22 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
9'-1"± 65'-0"Roof
Level 3
Level 2
Level 1 9'-1"9'-1"9'-1"9'-1"Level 4
Level 5
± 70'-0"± 75'-0"ORANGE, CA
3800 CHAPMAN APARTMENTS
KTGY # 2015-0466 10.11.2016
KTGY Group, Inc.
Architecture+Planning
17911 Von Karman Ave., Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92614
949.851.2133
ktgy.com
Greenlaw Partners
18301 Von Karman Avenue
Suite 250
Irvine, CA 92612
(949) 221-8051
BUILDING ELEVATIONS - APARTMENTS A3.1
1. West Elevation
0 8 16 32
2
1
2. North Elevation
Key Map N.T.S.
*Refer to landscape plan for plant species and placement
PlaceWorks
Base Map Source: KTGY Group, Inc., 2016
Figure 8 - Apartment Building Elevations
1. Introduction
0
Scale (Feet)
60
1. West Elevation
2. North Elevation
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
9'-1"± 65'-0"Roof
Level 3
Level 2
Level 1 9'-1"9'-1"9'-1"9'-1"Level 4
Level 5
± 70'-0"± 75'-0"ORANGE, CA
3800 CHAPMAN APARTMENTS
KTGY # 2015-0466 10.11.2016
KTGY Group, Inc.
Architecture+Planning
17911 Von Karman Ave., Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92614
949.851.2133
ktgy.com
Greenlaw Partners
18301 Von Karman Avenue
Suite 250
Irvine, CA 92612
(949) 221-8051
BUILDING ELEVATIONS - APARTMENTS A3.1
1. West Elevation
0 8 16 32
2
1
2. North Elevation
Key Map N.T.S.
*Refer to landscape plan for plant species and placement
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
1. Introduction
Page 24 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
ORANGE, CA
3800 CHAPMAN APARTMENTS
KTGY # 2015-0466 10.18.2016
KTGY Group, Inc.
Architecture+Planning
17911 Von Karman Ave., Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92614
949.851.2133
ktgy.com
Greenlaw Partners
18301 Von Karman Avenue
Suite 250
Irvine, CA 92612
(949) 221-8051
PERSPECTIVES A1.0
Key Map N.T.S.
1. Corner Perspective along Entry Drive and Fire Lane
*Refer to landscape plan for plant species and placement
PlaceWorks
Figure 9 - Apartment Building Perspectives
Base Map Source: KTGY Group, Inc., 2016
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
1. Introduction
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
1. Introduction
Page 26 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
ORANGE, CA
3800 CHAPMAN APARTMENTS
KTGY # 2015-0466 10.18.2016
KTGY Group, Inc.
Architecture+Planning
17911 Von Karman Ave., Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92614
949.851.2133
ktgy.com
Greenlaw Partners
18301 Von Karman Avenue
Suite 250
Irvine, CA 92612
(949) 221-8051
PERSPECTIVES A1.1
Key Map N.T.S.
1. View of Residential Building From Chapman Avenue
*Refer to landscape plan for plant species and placement
PlaceWorks
Base Map Source: KTGY Group, Inc., 2016
Figure 10 - Apartment Building Perspectives
1. Introduction
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
1. Introduction
Page 28 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
1. Introduction
March 2017 Page 29
1.3.2 Stand-Alone Parking Structure
1.3.2.1 SITE PLAN AND CHARACTER
After clearing this portion of the Project Site, the Developer would construct a separate, stand-alone multi-
level parking structure that would serve tenants of the onsite office building. The parking structure would not
serve the apartment residents, guests or employees, who would have their own parking garage. The stand-
alone parking structure would be up to seven levels, at an approximate height of 72 feet (excluding the
elevator shaft, which would be up to 81 feet in height). In addition to parking spaces and drive aisles, the
parking structure would include rooms for storage and electrical needs, as well as elevators and stairwells.
Figure 5, Conceptual Illustrative Site Plan, illustrates how the proposed parking structure fits into the overall
layout of the Project Site. As shown in Figure 5, the parking structure would be square-shaped and
surrounded with landscaped areas. The parking structure entry would front onto the proposed internal drive
aisle.
1.3.2.2 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN AND CHARACTER
Figures 11, Parking Structure Elevations, and 12, Parking Structure Perspectives, illustrate the conceptual building
elevations and proposed architectural style and elements/features of the proposed parking structure. As
shown in these figures, the proposed architectural style of the parking structure would be Contemporary with
an enhanced exterior treatment, including metal mesh screens, concrete and vehicular entry signage.
Landscaped green walls would be added to offset the structure’s massing, provide human scale, and provide
relief to and variation in the structures form and style. As shown in Figures 11 and 12, the parking structure
would be designed to be open so that natural light can enter and to enhance visibility for security purposes.
The final design and architectural style of the parking structure are subject to review and approval by the
City’s Design Review Committee.
1.3.2.3 LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING
As shown in Figure 5, a comprehensive landscape plan would be provided for the proposed parking structure
that includes a variety of new trees, shrubs, and groundcover along the parking structure perimeter. Proposed
tree types would include but not be limited to peppermint willows, fruitless olive trees, southern live oak trees,
and Brisbane box trees. Additionally, landscaped green walls would be provided along certain elevations of
the parking structure (see Figures 11 and 12). The proposed landscape elements for the parking structure
would help to visually soften the parking structure when viewed from public areas.
Lighting for the parking structure would consist of building-mounted light fixtures; lighting for pedestrian
walkways surrounding the structure; ground-mounted decorative lighting for landscape and architectural
features; and interior parking area lighting.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
1. Introduction
Page 30 PlaceWorks
1.3.3 Access and Circulation
1.3.3.1 VEHICULAR ACCESS AND CIRCULATION
As shown in Figure 5, vehicular access for the proposed apartment complex would be provided via an
existing, full-access driveway (all turning movements permitted) off Lewis Street and a new, restricted-access
driveway (right-in/right-out only) off Chapman Avenue. The driveways would lead to internal private drive
aisles, with decorative pavers provided along portions of the drive aisles (see Figure 5). Vehi cular access to the
apartment parking garage and for service and emergency vehicles would be via the new north-south drive
aisle that would connect to Chapman Avenue. Once inside the parking garage, vehicles would circulate via
internal drive aisles and vehicle ramps; wayfinding signs would be provided within the parking garage. The
parking garage would be restricted to residents, guests, and employees of the apartment complex, with gated
access entries.
Vehicular access to the stand-alone parking structure would be provided via an existing east-west drive aisle
that connects (via a drive aisle on the adjacent property) to City Boulevard West and an existing north-south
drive aisle on the eastern end of the Project Site that connects to Chapman Avenue; minor improvements
(e.g., landscaping, paving) would be undertaken for these existing drive aisles (see Figure 5). Entry/exit to the
parking structure would be on the northern end. Once inside the parking structure, vehicles would circulate
via internal drive aisles and vehicle ramps; wayfinding signs would be provided within the parking garage.
As proposed, the drive aisle widths within the apartment complex and stand-alone parking structures would
be provided at 24 feet in width—the City’s requirement for these types of drive aisles is 25 feet. The
provision of smaller drive aisle widths within the parking structures requires approval of an administrative
adjustment (Administrative Adjustment No. 0243-16) from the City’s drive aisle width standards. The
administrative adjustment is further discussed in Section 1.3.8, below.
1.3.3.2 PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AND CIRCULATION
As shown in Figure 5, pedestrian access for residents, guests, and employees of the apartment complex would
be provided via sidewalks that surround the building and tie into the existing sidewalks to the north and west.
Along the south and east sides of the apartment complex, pedestrian access would be through complete
streets (streets that are friendly to cars, bicycles, and pedestrians). As shown in Figure 5, a pedestrian corridor
featuring a pergola and shade trees would be provided along a portion of the southern end of the apartment
complex. Enhanced pedestrian crossings with decorative pavers would be provided at the parking garage
exit/entry intersection with the new north-south drive aisle.
Access to the individual apartment units would be provided via internal pedestrian corridors/walkways on
each level of the apartment complex, as well as elevators and stairwells. Pedestrian access to the upper levels
of the stand-alone parking structure would be provided via elevators and stairwells.
±67'-0"Roof
BUILDING ELEVATIONS - OFFICE GARAGE A4.2
2. West Elevation
0 8 16 32
1. North Elevation
4. East Elevation3. South Elevation
3
2
Key Map N.T.S.
1
4
ORANGE, CA
3800 CHAPMAN APARTMENTS
KTGY # 2015-0466 10.11.2016
KTGY Group, Inc.
Architecture+Planning
17911 Von Karman Ave., Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92614
949.851.2133
ktgy.com
Greenlaw Partners
18301 Von Karman Avenue
Suite 250
Irvine, CA 92612
(949) 221-8051
*Refer to landscape plan for plant species and placement ±67'-0"Roof
BUILDING ELEVATIONS - OFFICE GARAGE A4.2
2. West Elevation
0 8 16 32
1. North Elevation
4. East Elevation3. South Elevation
3
2
Key Map N.T.S.
1
4
ORANGE, CA
3800 CHAPMAN APARTMENTS
KTGY # 2015-0466 10.11.2016
KTGY Group, Inc.
Architecture+Planning
17911 Von Karman Ave., Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92614
949.851.2133
ktgy.com
Greenlaw Partners
18301 Von Karman Avenue
Suite 250
Irvine, CA 92612
(949) 221-8051
*Refer to landscape plan for plant species and placement
PlaceWorks
Base Map Source: KTGY Group, Inc., 2016
Figure 11 - Parking Structure Elevations
1. Introduction
0
Scale (Feet)
60
2. West Elevation
4 . East Elevation
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
1. North Elevation
3. South Elevation
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
1. Introduction
Page 32 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
ORANGE, CA
3800 CHAPMAN APARTMENTS
KTGY # 2015-0466 10.18.2016
KTGY Group, Inc.
Architecture+Planning
17911 Von Karman Ave., Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92614
949.851.2133
ktgy.com
Greenlaw Partners
18301 Von Karman Avenue
Suite 250
Irvine, CA 92612
(949) 221-8051
PERSPECTIVES A4.0
Key Map N.T.S.
*Refer to landscape plan for plant species and placement
1. Parking Structure Corner Perspective from Entry Drive
ORANGE, CA
3800 CHAPMAN APARTMENTS
KTGY # 2015-0466 10.18.2016
KTGY Group, Inc.
Architecture+Planning
17911 Von Karman Ave., Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92614
949.851.2133
ktgy.com
Greenlaw Partners
18301 Von Karman Avenue
Suite 250
Irvine, CA 92612
(949) 221-8051
PERSPECTIVES A4.1
Key Map N.T.S.
1. Parking Structure Corner Perspective from City Blvd West
*Refer to landscape plan for plant species and placement
ORANGE, CA
3800 CHAPMAN APARTMENTS
KTGY # 2015-0466 10.18.2016
KTGY Group, Inc.
Architecture+Planning
17911 Von Karman Ave., Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92614
949.851.2133
ktgy.com
Greenlaw Partners
18301 Von Karman Avenue
Suite 250
Irvine, CA 92612
(949) 221-8051
PERSPECTIVES A4.0
Key Map N.T.S.
*Refer to landscape plan for plant species and placement
1. Parking Structure Corner Perspective from Entry Drive
ORANGE, CA
3800 CHAPMAN APARTMENTS
KTGY # 2015-0466 10.18.2016
KTGY Group, Inc.
Architecture+Planning
17911 Von Karman Ave., Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92614
949.851.2133
ktgy.com
Greenlaw Partners
18301 Von Karman Avenue
Suite 250
Irvine, CA 92612
(949) 221-8051
PERSPECTIVES A4.1
Key Map N.T.S.
1. Parking Structure Corner Perspective from City Blvd West
*Refer to landscape plan for plant species and placement
PlaceWorks
Base Map Source: KTGY Group, Inc., 2016
Figure 12 - Parking Structure Perspectives
1. Introduction
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
1. Parking Structure Corner Perspective along Entry Drive 2. Parking Structure Corner Perspective from City Blvd West
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
1. Introduction
Page 34 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
1. Introduction
March 2017 Page 35
1.3.4 Parking
1.3.4.1 APARTMENT PARKING
As shown in Figure 5, the northern portion of the apartment complex would be wrapped around a multilevel
parking garage. As noted above, the parking garage would be up to seven levels, with up to one-and-one-half
levels below grade (see Figure 6, Apartment and Parking Garage Building Section). The parking garage would
accommodate approximately 510 spaces (including the required number of handicap spaces), which would be
restricted for residents, guests, and employees of the apartment complex via a gated entry/exit.
As proposed, the overall parking ratio (number of parking spaces per apartment unit) proposed for the
apartment complex would require City approval of an administrative adjustment (Administrative Adjustment
No. 0243-16) from the City’s multifamily residential parking standards. Specifically, in accordance with the
parking ratio requirements outlined in Section 17.34.060 (Required Number of Parking Spaces) of the
Orange Municipal Code for multifamily residential, an overall parking ratio of 2.0 spaces per unit (includes
resident and guest spaces) would be required for the apartment complex—at this ratio, the total number of
parking spaces required would be 554. As proposed, the total number of parking spaces that would be
provided in the parking garage (510 spaces) would equate to a parking ratio of 1.8 spaces per unit (510 spaces
divided by 277 units).
1.3.4.2 OFFICE PARKING
As noted above, development of the Proposed Project includes demolition of the two surface parking lots
that are adjacent to and primarily serve tenants of the onsite office building. Project development includes
replacing the demolished parking spaces, which currently total approximately 552 parking spaces. The parking
spaces would be provided within the stand-alone parking structure, and access would be restricted to office
tenants only via a gated access entry/exit. Approximately 688 parking spaces (including the required number
of handicap spaces) would be provided in the stand-alone parking structure. An additional 16 uncovered
surface parking spaces would be provided around the office building. As proposed, the number of parking
spaces proposed for the existing office use meets the City’s parking requirements for office uses under
Section 17.34.060 (Required Number of Parking Spaces) of the Orange Municipal Code.
1.3.4.3 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION-PHASE PARKING
Construction of the stand-alone parking structure in the southeastern portion of the Project Site (see Figure
5, Conceptual Illustrative Site Plan)—which would occur under phase one and extend approximately 10
months—would require demolition of the existing surface parking area and other site improvements in that
portion of the site. Temporary offsite parking needs—through the duration of the parking structures
construction phase—would need to be provided for the office building tenants that currently use the surface
parking area to be demolished. The number of parking spaces that would be demolished and temporarily
unavailable to office tenants during the parking structures construction phase would be approximately 136
spaces.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
1. Introduction
Page 36 PlaceWorks
To ensure that the temporary parking needs of the office tenants are met and that parking issues do not arise
during the construction phase, a construction parking management plan will be a condition of approval for
the Proposed Project—the plan will be required to be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to
the issuance of grading permits for the stand-alone parking structure. The construction parking management
plan will outline the necessary parking provisions and details to be implemented through the duration of the
stand-alone parking structures construction phase. Provisions and details to be included in the plan include
but are not limited to the area of impact and associated site exhibits; the number of surface parking spaces to
be demolished; the anticipated duration of the construction phase; a detailed description of the on- and
offsite parking area(s) that will be made available to the office tenants, along with associated site exhibits
delineating the parking area(s); and as necessary, written agreements obtained from any offsite owners/users,
which demonstrate and ensure that the selected offsite parking area(s) will be made available to the office
tenants throughout the construction phase of the stand-alone parking structure.
For example, upon demolition of the parking area that will house the stand-alone parking structure, the office
tenants that use this parking area could be provided with various options for temporary parking, including 1)
valet parking, 2) the existing onsite surface parking area that will eventually house the proposed apartment
complex, as this parking area will remain during construction of the stand-alone parking structure, 3) offsite
parking at Christ Cathedral, just west of the Project Site, across Lewis Street, and 4) offsite parking at the
adjacent or nearby office uses to the east/southeast, as some of these office uses may have capacity in their
designated surface parking areas or parking structures, or may have overflow parking areas that are
underutilized and have capacity.
However, the selected offsite parking area(s) as well as other pertinent construction-phase parking provisions
and details will be provided/determined in the final, City-approved construction parking management plan. It
should be noted that upon completion of the stand-alone parking structure, the office-building tenants will
have access to the parking structure and, therefore, the temporary construction-related offsite parking
situation would be eliminated. Additionally, upon completion of the stand-alone parking structure (phase
one), continued implementation of the construction parking management plan during the apartment complex
construction phase (phase two) would not be necessary/required as the office building tenants would have
full access to the completed parking structure, which will provide the required number of parking spaces to
adequately serve the tenants.
1.3.5 Infrastructure Improvements
1.3.5.1 WATER
The City’s Public Works Water Division provides potable water service to the Project Site and would continue
to do so for the uses under the Proposed Project. Potable water to the site, which includes service to the
existing office building and parking-area landscape, is provided via internal water lines that connect to the
existing public water main along Chapman Avenue.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
1. Introduction
March 2017 Page 37
As a part of the Proposed Project, the onsite potable water lines that serve the existing parking-area
landscape would be removed and replaced with a series of new potable water lines that would connect to the
existing offsite public water main along Chapman Avenue. Proposed potable water infrastructure
improvements would entail trenching and exposing existing lines onsite for connections, trenching and
installing new lines, and break-in connections to existing main lines. It is not anticipated that any offsite water
line construction or upsizing would be required to accommodate the proposed apartment complex; however,
a hydraulic study will be required to determine if any upsizing is required. Preparation of the hydraulic study
will be a condition of approval for the Proposed Project and be required prior to the issuance of
grading/building permits.
Some construction may occur within the public right-of-way of Chapman Avenue in order to make the
necessary infrastructure connections. The public water main along Chapman Avenue is and will continue to
be maintained by the City, while the proposed lateral connections and private onsite water lines would be
maintained by the property owner. Fire hydrants would be installed at key locations on the Project Site, as
required by the City of Orange Fire Department to meet hose-pull requirements and provide adequate fire
access.
1.3.5.2 WASTEWATER
The City’s Public Works Department provides wastewater collection service to the existing office building
onsite, and would provide wastewater collection service to the proposed apartment complex via the existing
sewer main that runs along Chapman Avenue, which is operated and maintained by the City’s Public Works
Department. Wastewater collected by the City flows through a system of regional trunk lines to Reclamation
Plants No. 1 (in the City of Fountain Valley) and No. 2 (in the City of Huntington Beach) for treatment; the
reclamation plants are owned and operated by the Orange County Sanitation District.
Wastewater service to the proposed apartment complex would be provided via new internal sewer lines that
connect to the existing sewer main on Chapman Avenue. Proposed wastewater infrastructure improvements
would entail trenching and exposing existing lines onsite for connections, trenching and installing new lines,
and break-in connections to the existing main line. No offsite sewer main construction or upsizing would be
required to accommodate the Proposed Project. However, some construction may occur within the public
right-of-way of Chapman Avenue in order to make the necessary infrastructure connections. The sewer main
within Chapman Avenue would continue to be maintained by the City, and the proposed lateral connections
and other onsite sewer lines would be maintained by the property owner.
1.3.5.3 DRAINAGE
Under existing conditions, the overall Project Site is relatively flat, and runoff from the site surface flows
generally southwest. Approximately 87 percent of the overall Project Site consists of impervious areas (e.g.,
buildings, paving), and the remainder is pervious (e.g., landscaping). Existing runoff flows across the paved
parking areas where it is captured by catch basins in various locations; once captured, site drainage is sent to a
private storm drain along Lewis Street via underground storm drain pipes, where it enters the East Garden
Grove-Wintersburg Channel before ultimately reaching the outlet point in Huntington Harbour.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
1. Introduction
Page 38 PlaceWorks
Under proposed conditions, stormwater runoff from the overall Project Site would be conveyed similar to
existing conditions, continuing to flow south/southwest via new onsite drainage collection and treatment
systems. Upon completion, approximately 84 percent of the Project Site would consist of impervious areas
(e.g., buildings and structures, paving), and the remainder would be pervious areas (e.g., landscaping).
As shown in Figure 13, Preliminary BMP Exhibit, site drainage improvements needed to accommodate the
Proposed Project would include new storm drain pipes, catch basins, and underground infiltration chambers.
Once runoff enters the catch basins, it would be conveyed via storm drain pipes to underground infiltration
chambers. Captured runoff would be pretreated in a dedicated isolator row prior to entering the infiltration
chambers. However, the final site drainage improvements for the Proposed Project would be determined by
and outlined in the final planning development document (e.g., water quality management plan).
1.3.5.4 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Plans for utilities that would serve the uses under the Proposed Project would include provision of electricity
(Southern California Edison), natural gas (Southern California Gas Company), telecommunications facilities
(including telephone and fiber-optic lines [AT&T]), cable service (Time Warner), and solid waste (CR&R
Waste & Recycling Services). Bins for both solid waste and recycling would be provided in the parking garage
of the apartment complex. All new utility infrastructure for electricity, natural gas, telecommunications, and
cable service would be installed underground or placed in enclosed spaces (e.g., utility closets) in the proposed
apartment complex and stand-alone parking structure.
1.3.6 Tentative Parcel Map
A parcel map is required for the division of land into four or fewer parcels for the purpose of sale, lease, or
financing, whether immediate or future, with certain exceptions. The tentative map facilitates the division of
land and provides clear transfer of ownership of any lots that are created; it is the parcel configuration
proposed prior to a final or parcel map, the official recorded document. Development of the Proposed
Project requires City approval of a tentative parcel map (TPM 2016-125) to subdivide the Project Site into
two parcels: Parcel 1 would encompass 3.42 acres of the Project Site and be developed with the proposed
apartment complex; Parcel 2 would encompass the remaining 2.36 acres and house the existing office
building and proposed stand-alone parking structure. Currently, the Project Site consists of a single parcel:
Parcel 2 of Parcel Map No. 94-117.
1.3.7 Conditional Use Permit
As proposed, project implementation requires City approval of conditional use permit (CUP NO. 3017-16).
Specifically, a CUP is required for the increased building heights proposed for both the apartment complex
and stand-alone parking structure, which are proposed at a height of up to 65 and 72 feet, respectively. Per
Section 17.19.120 (Development Standards) of the Orange Municipal Code, the maximum permitted building
height without discretionary approval (e.g., CUP) for the UMU zoning district is 45 feet or three stories,
whichever is less. As proposed, the apartment complex and parking structure would exceed the allowable
building height of 45 feet. Therefore, a CUP for increased building heights is required.
SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD
SDSDSDSDSDSD SD
SDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSD
SD
SDSDSDSDDWDWDWSSD14725 Alton Parkway
Irvine, CA 92618
Phone: (949) 472-3505
MBAKERINTL.COM
SD
SD
SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD
SDSDSDSDSDSD SD
SDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSD
SD
SDSDSDSDDWDWDWSSD14725 Alton ParkwayIrvine, CA 92618
Phone: (949) 472-3505
MBAKERINTL.COM
SD
SD
Proposed BMP
PlaceWorks
Base Map Source: Michael Baker International, 2016
Figure 13 - Preliminary BMP Exhibit
1. Introduction
0
Scale (Feet)
150
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
Existing Storm Drain
Surface Flow Direction
Proposed Storm Drain
DMA Boundary
Previous Area
Storm Drain Stencil
Dual Vortex Separator
(Pretreatment)
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
1. Introduction
Page 40 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
1. Introduction
March 2017 Page 41
1.3.8 Administrative Adjustment
As discussed in Section 1.3.3, Access and Circulation, above, the drive aisle widths within the apartment complex
and stand-alone parking structures would be provided at 24 feet in width—the City’s requirement for these
types of drive aisles is 25 feet. Therefore, the provision of smaller drive aisle widths within the parking
structures requires approval of an administrative adjustment (Administrative Adjustment No. 0243-16) from
the City’s drive aisle width standards.
Additionally, as discussed in Section 1.3.4, Parking , above, the overall parking ratio (number of parking spaces
per apartment unit) proposed for the apartment complex would require City approval of an administrative
adjustment (Administrative Adjustment No. 0243-16) from the City’s multifamily residential parking
standards. Specifically, in accordance with the parking ratio requirements outlined in Section 17.34.060
(Required Number of Parking Spaces) of the Orange Municipal Code for multifamily residential, an overall
parking ratio of 2.0 spaces per unit (includes resident and guest spaces) would be required for the apartment
complex—at this ratio, the total number of parking spaces required would be 554. As proposed, the total
number of parking spaces that would be provided in the parking garage (510 spaces) would equate to a
parking ratio of 1.8 spaces per unit (510 spaces divided by 277 units).
1.3.9 Green Building and Sustainability
Development under the Proposed Project must be designed using green building practices, including those of
the most current California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen [Title 24, California Code of
Regulations, Part 11]; incorporated by reference in Chapter 15.17 [California Green Building Code] of the
Orange Municipal Code). Some of the green building practices/features that would be incorporated into the
apartment complex and stand-alone parking structure (as applicable to each) are dual-pane and low-E
windows; low-VOC (volatile organic compound) paint, cabinets, and carpeting; low flow fixtures in
bathrooms (toilets, showers); Energy Star appliances; shielded lighting onsite to be dark-sky compliant;
minimized turf areas to reduce water consumption; use of drought-resistant plant material throughout;
minimized hard surface paving to allow more permeable open space and reduce the heat island effect; onsite
stormwater retention; bicycle storage space in parking garages; and bicycle racks in the common open space
areas. Other green building practices/features would be considered by the City as each component of the
Proposed Project is refined during the design and construction phase.
1.3.10 Project Phasing and Construction
Development of the Proposed Project is anticipated to be completed in two phases: Phase One would
include construction of the stand-alone parking structure (with approximately 688 parking spaces), and Phase
Two would include construction of the 277-unit apartment complex and associated parking garage (with
approximately 510 parking spaces). Overall project construction is estimated to take approximately 26
months, anticipated to commence in early 2018 or soon after. Construction of the stand-alone parking
structure and associated improvements under phase one would extend approximately 10 months. Upon
completion of the stand-alone parking structure, construction of the apartment complex and all associated
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
1. Introduction
Page 42 PlaceWorks
improvements would commence under phase two. This phase is anticipated to require approximately 16
months to complete.
Construction staging would occur onsite. The types of heavy construction equipment necessary to complete
the project would include but not be limited to bulldozers, scrapers, grading tractors, and dump trucks. No
soil import is anticipated; however, approximately 4,700 cubic yards of soil export would be required.
1.4 CITY ACTION REQUESTED
1.4.1 Lead Agency
This Initial Study is intended to serve as the primary environmental document for all future actions associated
with the Proposed Project, including all discretionary approvals requested or required to implement the
Proposed Project. The City of Orange is the lead agency under CEQA and has the principal approval
authority over the Proposed Project. As part of the Proposed Project, the following discretionary actions and
approvals are required by the City:
Adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for CEQA clearance (ENV No. 1845-16)
Approval of a Tentative Parcel Map for subdivision purposes (TPM 2016-125; No. 008-15)
Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for increased building heights (CUP No. 3017-16)
Approval of an Administrative Adjustment from the City’s multifamily residential parking standards (AA
No. 0243-16)
Approval of an Administrative Adjustment from the City’s drive aisle width standards (AA No. 0243-16)
Approval of a Major Site Plan Review (MJSP No. 0845-15)
Approval of the Design Review Committee (DRC No. 4843-16)
1.4.2 Responsible Agency
A responsible agency is a public agency other than the lead agency that has responsibility for carrying out or
approving a project (CEQA Guidelines § 15381 and Public Resources Code § 21069). As part of the
Proposed Project, the following approvals from responsible agencies are required:
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board: Compliance with the Construction General Permit
issued under Order No. 2009-009-DWQ and its subsequent revisions under Order No. 2012-0006-DWQ.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
1. Introduction
March 2017 Page 43
1.5 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
The information in this Initial Study is based, in part, on the following documents that include the Project
Site or provide information addressing the general project area or use:
City of Orange General Plan. The City of Orange General Plan is a policy document designed to give
long-range guidance for decisions affecting the future character of the City planning area. It represents
the official statement of the community’s physical development as well as its economic, social, and
environmental goals. The City’s general plan was used throughout this Initial Study as the fundamental
planning document governing development on the Project Site.
City of Orange Municipal Code. The Orange Municipal Code establishes the basic regulations under
which land in the City is developed and utilized. This includes but is not limited to allowable uses,
building setback and height requirements, and other development standards. Pursuant to state law, the
zoning ordinance must be consistent with the General Plan. The basic intent of the code is to promote
and protect the public health, safety, convenience, and welfare of present and future citizens of the City.
Program Environmental Impact Report for City of Orange General Plan (2010). A program
environmental impact report (SCH No. 2006031117) was prepared for the City of Orange General Plan
Update (2010), which were certified and adopted, respectively, by the Orange City Council in March
2010. The 2010 Certified PEIR evaluated the potential individual and cumulative environmental effects
associated with buildout of the General Plan Update, including direct (primary) and indirect (secondary)
impacts that might occur as a result of buildout. Subsequent development projects under the General
Plan Update are to be evaluated in light of the analysis provided in the 2010 Certified PEIR to determine
if additional environmental documentation is required (State CEQA Guidelines §§ 15168[b] and [c]). In
cases where further environmental review is required, the environmental analysis for the individual
development project can tier from the 2010 Certified PEIR consistent with Public Resources Code
Section 21093(a) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c). Where applicable, this Initial Study tiers
off of the 2010 Certified PEIR. The tiered analysis incorporates by reference analysis, background
information, and mitigation measures, where applicable, and concentrates on issues specific to the
Proposed Project (Public Resources Code § 21094; State CEQA Guidelines §§ 15168[c], 15385).
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
1. Introduction
Page 44 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
March 2017 Page 45
2. Environmental Checklist
2.1 BACKGROUND
1. Project Title: Chapman Apartments
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Orange
Community Development Department, Planning Division
300 East Chapman Avenue
Orange, CA 92866-1591
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Robert Garcia, Senior Planner
714.744.7231
4. Project Location:
The Project Site is just outside of and adjacent to the northwestern end of The Outlets at Orange, which
is in the southwestern-most portion of the City. The Project Site is generally located near the southeast
corner of the intersection of Chapman Avenue and Lewis Street.
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
Scott Murray, C/O Tarek Shaer
W/GL 3800 Chapman Holdings VII, LLC
18301 Von Karman, Suite 250
Irvine, CA 92612
6. General Plan Designation: Urban Mixed Use (UMIX)
7. Zoning: Urban Mixed Use (UMU)
8. Description of Project:
The Proposed Project entails development of a mixed-use project that consists of a 277-unit, five-story
apartment complex wrapped around a multilevel parking garage that would serve the apartment residents,
guests, and employees; a stand-alone multilevel parking structure that would serve tenants of the existing
onsite office building; vehicular and pedestrian circulation improvements; and various hardscape and
landscape improvements. The onsite office building would not undergo any improvements or
modifications under the Proposed Project; it would remain in its existing condition. Development under
the Proposed Project would occur on two surface parking lots that are immediately adjacent to the onsite
office building. A more detailed description of the Proposed Project is provided in Section 1.3, Project
Description.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
2. Environmental Checklist
Page 46 PlaceWorks
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
The Project Site is surrounded by commercial and retail uses of The Outlets at Orange and office uses to
the southeast; residential uses to the south and north; commercial and office uses to the west; and office
and health care uses to the east.
10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval Is Required:
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
2. Environmental Checklist
Page 48 PlaceWorks
2.4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported
by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. 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 involved (e.g., the project falls outside 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 would not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-
specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts.
3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist
answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation,
or less than significant. “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.
4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a
“Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly
explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an
effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In
this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above 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.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for
potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside
document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is
substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be
cited in the discussion.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
2. Environmental Checklist
March 2017 Page 49
8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies
should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental
effects in whatever format is selected.
9. 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.
Issues
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
I. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? x
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway? x
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of
the site and its surroundings? x
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? x
II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by 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?
x
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract? x
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))?
x
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to
non-forest use? x
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?
x
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
2. Environmental Checklist
Page 50 PlaceWorks
Issues
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant With
Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air
pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan? x
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to
an existing or projected air quality violation? x
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment
under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
x
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? x
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people? x
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
x
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?
x
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
x
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?
x
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance? x
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?
x
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? x
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? x
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature? x
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
2. Environmental Checklist
March 2017 Page 51
Issues
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant With
Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside
of dedicated cemeteries? x
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: x
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.
x
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? x
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? x
iv) Landslides? x
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? x
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?
x
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of
the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to
life or property? x
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?
x
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment? x
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted
for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases? x
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials? x
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?
x
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school? x
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?
x
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
2. Environmental Checklist
Page 52 PlaceWorks
Issues
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant With
Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
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 for people residing or working in the project area?
x
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working
in the project area? x
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan? x
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury
or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
x
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements? x
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-
existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
x
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river, in a manner which would result in a substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-site
x
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-
site?
x
e) 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? x
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? x
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped
on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate
Map or other flood hazard delineation map? x
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which
would impede or redirect flood flows? x
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury
or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the
failure of a levee or dam? x
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? x
k) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction
activities? x
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
2. Environmental Checklist
March 2017 Page 53
Issues
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant With
Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
l) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from post-construction
activities? x
m) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants
from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling,
vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste
handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery
areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas?
x
n) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or
surrounding areas? x
o) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity
or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? x
p) Result in the potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the
beneficial uses of the receiving waters? x
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? x
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation
of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but
not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal
program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
x
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan? x
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES. 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? x
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? x
XII. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess
of standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? x
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? x
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in
the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? x
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project? x
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 expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
x
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
2. Environmental Checklist
Page 54 PlaceWorks
Issues
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant With
Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels? x
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly
(for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
x
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? x
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? x
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? x
b) Police protection? x
c) Schools? x
d) Parks? x
e) Other public facilities? x
XV. RECREATION.
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood
and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated?
x
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? x
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy
establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of
the circulation system, taking into account all modes of
transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel
and relevant components of the circulation system, including
but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and
freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
x
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program,
including, but not limited to level of service standards and
travel demand measures, or other standards established by
the county congestion management agency for designated
roads or highways?
x
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks? x
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
2. Environmental Checklist
March 2017 Page 55
Issues
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant With
Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)? x
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? x
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding
public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise
decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? x
XVII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
Tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code
section 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:
• 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
• 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 Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code
Section 5024.1 for the purposes of this paragraph, the
lead agency shall consider the significance of the
resource to a California Native American tribe?
x
XVIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed waste water treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board? x
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or waste
water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
x
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
x
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources or are new or
expanded entitlements needed? x
e) 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?
x
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
2. Environmental Checklist
Page 56 PlaceWorks
Issues
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant With
Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? x
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste? x
XIX. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
x
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects.)
x
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly? x
March 2017 Page 57
3. Environmental Analysis
Section 2.4 provided a checklist of environmental impacts. This section provides an evaluation of the impact
categories and questions contained in the checklist and identifies mitigation measures, if applicable.
3.1 AESTHETICS
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
No Impact. A scenic vista, as defined by California Department of Transpo rtation, is a viewpoint that
provides expansive views of a highly-valued landscape for the benefit of the general public. Parts of the City
of Orange could be considered scenic, including undeveloped hillsides, open spaces, and ridgelines to the east
of the City that provide a backdrop to the urban environment.
The Project Site and areas immediately surrounding the site are in a highly-urbanized area of the City and are
developed with a mix of commercial, residential, office, and medical uses that do not exhibit any significant
visual resources or scenic vistas. Additionally, according to Figure NR-1 (Open Space Resources) of the City’s
General Plan Natural Resources Element, there are no designated open space resources onsite or in the
vicinity of the Project Site, a designation typically used to determine the value of certain public vistas in order
to gauge adverse effects. Furthermore, as shown in Figure NR-4 (Viewscape Corridors) of the City’s General
Plan Natural Resources Element, the Project Site is not within or in proximity of a designated viewscape
corridor.
Therefore, development of the Proposed Project would not result in a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista. No impact would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings,
and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No Impact. The Project Site is in a highly-urbanized area of the City and is not on or near a state-designated
scenic highway, as designated on the California Scenic Highway Mapping System of the California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans 2016). Additionally, the Project Site and surrounding area are not
characterized by unique visual resources, and no historic structures exist on the site. Furthermore, the Project
Site is not visible from the nearest state-designated scenic highway (State Route 91), which is approximately
six miles to the northeast (Caltrans 2016). Therefore, no impact to scenic resources within a state scenic
highway would occur due to implementation of the Proposed Project, and no mitigation measures are
necessary.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 58 PlaceWorks
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
Less Than Significant Impact. Following is a discussion of the potential aesthetic and visual effects and
shade and shadow effects of the Proposed Project.
Aesthetic and Visual Effects
The assessment of aesthetic impacts is subjective by nature. Aesthetics generally refers to the identification of
visual resources and their quality, as well as an overall visual perception of the environment. A project is
generally considered to have a significant aesthetic impact if it substantially changes the character of the
project site such that the site becomes visually incompatible or visually unexpected with its surroundings.
Visual Character – Project Construction Phase
Project implementation would result in construction activities that would temporarily change the visual
character of the Project Site and its surroundings. Construction activities would involve demolition, site
clearing, grading, building, and site improvements. Construction staging areas, including earth stockpiling,
storage of equipment and supplies, and related activities would contribute to a generally “disturbed site,”
which may be perceived by some as a visual impact.
However, these effects would be typical of any site in the City that undergoes development or
redevelopment. These activities may be unsightly during the site preparation and construction phases, but
they are not considered significant because they are temporary. Construction fencing that would be erected
along the site perimeter would help shield the construction areas and would also be temporary. Therefore,
project-related construction activities would not have a significant effect on the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are
necessary.
Visual Character – Project Operation Phase
The Project Site is in a highly-urbanized area of the City and is surrounded by a mix of commercial/retail,
residential, office, and medical uses (see Figure 3, Aerial Photograph). Buildings immediately adjacent to and
surrounding the Project Site include an eight-story office building (at the eastern end of Project Site) and a
three-story apartment complex (abuts the southern Project Site boundary), with similar multistory buildings
just east, southeast, and south of the Project Site.
Development of the Proposed Project includes demolition of hardscape on two surface parking lots that are
adjacent to and primarily serve the onsite office building; project development also requires the removal of a
number of trees and other landscape improvements from the surface parking lots (site features to be
demolished and removed are shown in Figures 3, 4a, and 4b).
After clearing, the Project Site would be developed with a five-story apartment complex (up to 65 feet in
height—excluding the stairwell structure and elevator shaft, which would be up to 70 and 75 feet in height,
respectively) wrapped around a multilevel parking garage (up to seven levels, with up to one-and-one-half
levels below grade; see Figure 6, Apartment and Parking Garage Building Section) that would serve the apartment
residents, guests, and employees; a stand-alone parking structure (up to seven levels, at an approximate height
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
March 2017 Page 59
of 72 feet—excluding the elevator shaft, which would be up to 81 feet in height) that would serve tenants of
the onsite office building; a number of vehicular and pedestrian circulation improvements; and various
hardscape and landscape improvements. Figure 5, Conceptual Illustrative Site Plan, illustrates how each of the
project components fit into the overall layout of the Project Site.
Figures 7 through 12 illustrate the conceptual building elevations and perspectives of the proposed apartment
complex and stand-alone parking structure; these figures also illustrate the proposed architectural style and
elements/features of the building and structure. As shown in these figures, the proposed architectural style
would be Contemporary. Each structure would include design elements (e.g., roof style, window fenestration
and details, wall material) that reflect this architectural style. For example, the apartment complex would
include stucco walls; ground-level masonry (stone work); fiber-cement siding; metal railings, panels, columns,
and awnings; vinyl windows; aluminum storefront; and entry stoop. The final design and architectural style of
the proposed building and structure are subject to review and approval by the City’s Design Review
Committee.
Although the proposed architectural style is Contemporary, it would be complementary to and not detract
from the visual character or quality of the surrounding area or uses. As shown in Figures 7 through 12,
building masses, elevations, and rooflines would be modulated to promote visual interest and articulation of
the proposed building and structure. Building pop-outs and offsets and variations in building heights,
materials and color schemes would be added to offset building massing, provide human scale, and provide
relief to and variation in the building form and style. For the stand-alone parking structure, metal mesh
screens and landscaped screen walls would offset the structure’s massing, provide visual relief, and help soften
views of the structure.
Overall, development of the Proposed Project would enhance and strengthen the character of the Project
Site and its surroundings through new landscaping, hardscape, and other improvements onsite and along the
street edges. The proposed architectural and landscape elements and design would ensure that development
of the Proposed Project is not detrimental to the surrounding area or uses. The building masses, landscaping,
and various hardscape and landscape improvements proposed throughout the Project Site would not only be
designed to create a sense of uniqueness, but also of unity with the surrounding area and uses.
Additionally, project implementation would provide similar and compatible uses to those existing adjacent to
and surrounding the Project Site. For example, the proposed apartment complex and parking structure
(including building massing and heights; see Figures 7 through 12) would be compatible with the surrounding
commercial/retail, office, and residential uses, which include buildings from one to eight stories that are
similar to the massing of the buildings and structures of the Proposed Project. As shown in Figure LU-8
(Urban Mixed-Use Sites Eligible for High Rise Development) of the City’s General Plan Land Use Element,
the Project Site is in an area eligible for high-rise development. The proposed apartment complex and stand-
alone parking structure would be mid-rise, well within and consistent with the building heights permitted
under the UMIX land use designation.
Furthermore, although the proposed apartment complex would be taller and larger in massing than the
single-story, single-family residences to the north (across Chapman Avenue), the height and massing of the
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 60 PlaceWorks
apartment complex would not detract from the visual character of the existing single-family neighborhoods.
The apartment complex would be developed on the south side of Chapman Avenue which already contains a
number of multistory buildings (e.g., Terrace Apartments, various office buildings). The width of Chapman
Avenue functions as a physical and visual buffer (over 100 feet between the nearest single-family residence
and the wall of the apartment complex) between the existing single-family residences and the proposed
apartment complex. The buffer formed by Chapman Avenue would help ensure that the height and massing
of the apartment complex do not take away from the smaller, single-story nature of the single-family
neighborhoods. The Proposed Project would also be designed to create a sense of cohesiveness on- and
offsite and along the Project Site boundaries, since the proposed architecture and landscaping, although
newer than that of the surrounding area and uses, would complement them and not detract from the visual
character of the site or surrounding area.
The provisions of the Orange Municipal Code and the City’s development review process (i.e., development
projects are subject to review and approval by the City’s Design Review Committee) would help ensure that
the Proposed Project is designed and implemented in a manner that would provide cohesiveness and
compatibility not only within the Project Site, but along the Project Site frontages and with its surroundings.
For example, the Proposed Project has been designed consistent with the mixed-use standards specified in
Section’s 17.19.080 (Mixed Use Development), 17.19.090 (Multi-family Development), and 17.19.120
(Development Standards) of the Orange Municipal Code, which call for among other provisions the
consistent use of architectural details and materials; the provision of design features at the street and upper
levels; design with neighborhood interface in mind; and required building setback and permitted building
heights. For example, as illustrated in the building elevations and perspectives provided in Figures 7 through
12, the architectural details and materials of the Proposed Project are in accordance with the provisions of
Subsection 17.19.080.B.2 —this section states that architectural style and use of quality materials shall be
compatible and consistent throughout an entire mixed-use project. The overall project design and site layout
also promotes a strong pedestrian environment and active street frontage along Chapman Avenue. This is
accomplished through the incorporation of various project features, including:
The provision of street-level features: As shown in Figures 8 and 10, variations in the front building
plane area have been incorporated through the use of varying building setbacks and variations in wall
planes. Long expanses of blank walls have been avoided.
The provision of upper-level features: Upper-floor balconies, windows and pop-out elements have been
provided throughout the building façades (see Figures 7 through 10).
The provision of neighborhood interface: The Proposed Project has been designed to be sensitive to the
scale and design characteristics of established structures in abutting residential neighborhoods to the
north and south, with the objective of achieving a harmonious transition between the new development
and existing neighborhood.
Compliance with the City’s development standards would be ensured through the City’s development review
process.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
March 2017 Page 61
Further, as shown in Figures 5 and 7 through 12, a comprehensive landscape plan would be part of the
Proposed Project and would enhance the visual character of the Project Site and surrounding area. All
setbacks and other common areas not occupied by buildings or hardscape improvements (e.g., drive aisles,
pedestrian walkways) would be landscaped, as required by Chapter 17.19.16 (Landscaping) of the Orange
Municipal Code. The landscape plan includes a variety of new trees, shrubs, and groundcover around the
proposed buildings and parking structure; along the street frontages; and within the parking areas and
common areas. Ground-level planters would be placed in various locations along the apartment complex
building frontages (see Figures 7 through 10), and landscape screen walls would be provided at various levels
of the parking structure (see Figures 11 and 12). Street trees are proposed to meet or exceed the minimum of
one tree for each 30 lineal feet of landscaping, as well as enhance the pedestrian environment and experience
around the Project Site. Overall, the Proposed Project’s landscape elements would help to visually soften the
height and massing of the proposed buildings when viewed from public areas, as well as help provide visual
interest and relief.
Additionally, all new utility infrastructure for electricity, natural gas, telecommunications, and cable service
would be installed underground in accordance with the provisions of Section 12.44.010 (Underground
Utilities Required) of the Orange Municipal Code, or placed in enclosed spaces (e.g., utility closets) within the
proposed apartment complex and stand-alone parking structure. All roof-mounted equipment would be
completely screened by parapet walls surrounding the roof or by other architectural means. In accordance
with Section 17.19.180 (Screening of Mechanical Equipment) of the Orange Municipal Code, the screening
will be integrated architecturally with the proposed building.
Based on the preceding, development of the Proposed Project would not substantially degrade the visual
character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no
mitigation measures are necessary.
Shade and Shadow Effects
The issue of shade and shadow pertains to whether onsite buildings or structures block direct sunlight from
adjacent properties. Shading is an important environmental issue because the users or occupants of certain
land uses have expectations for direct light and warmth from the sun for function, physical comfort, or
conduct of commerce. Factors that influence the extent of shading include season; time of day; weather (i.e.,
sunny vs. cloudy day); building height, bulk, and scale; topography; spacing between buildings; sensitivity of
adjacent land uses; and tree cover. The longest shadows are cast during the winter solstice, when the sun is
lowest on the horizon, and the shortest shadows are cast during the summer solstice. Shadows are also longer
in the early morning and late afternoon. Consequences of shadows cast on land uses may be positive,
including cooling effects during warm weather, or negative, such as the loss of natural light necessary for
solar energy purposes or the loss of warming influences during cool weather. The relative effects of shading
from str uctures are site specific. Land uses sensitive to shade and shadows include schools, playgrounds,
restaurants with outdoor dining, and residential uses.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 62 PlaceWorks
Development of the five-story apartment complex and stand-alone parking structure under the Proposed
Project would block sunlight and cast shadows on surrounding properties at certain times of the day that
change with the seasons. The nearest land uses to the Project Site that are sensitive to shade and shadow
effects include the Terrace Apartments to the south and west (abut the southern/western boundaries of the
Project Site) and the single-family residences to the north, across Chapman Avenue (see Figure 3, Aerial
Photograph).
Shadows cast by buildings and structures vary in length and direction throughout the day and from season to
season. Shadow lengths increase during the “low sun” or winter season and are longest during the winter
solstice, which represents the worst-case shadow condition when the potential for loss of access to sunlight
that a project could cause is greatest. Shadow lengths are shortest during the summer solstice, and shadows
cast during the spring and fall equinox fall midway between the summer and winter extremes.
Figures 14a through 14c illustrate the approximate extent of shadows that the Proposed Project’s buildings
and structures would cast on surrounding properties during the winter and summer solstices and the spring
or fall equinoxes at various times of the day. The figures depict shadows cast based on the location and
placement of the proposed buildings and structures. The shadows cast during the spring and fall equinox are
similar; therefore, separate exhibits were not provided for the spring and fall equinoxes.
As standard practice by the City, project impacts are considered significant if a substantial amount of
shadow-sensitive uses/areas would be shaded by project-related structures for two continuous hours or more
on any given day during the winter and summer solstice or the spring and fall equinox. This impact threshold
was applied to the Proposed Project for evaluating project-related impacts.
Winter Solstice Shadows
As shown in Figure 14a, shadows cast by the proposed apartment complex and parking structure at 9:00 AM
during the winter solstice would primarily fall to the north/northwest within the Project Site, along Chapman
Avenue , and within the parking area of the adjacent commercial use. A very small area of the adjacent
Terrace Apartments would be shaded at 9:00 AM; however, the shaded area consists of a drive aisle and
parking area of the apartments. At 1:00 PM, the shadows cast would have a similar direction as at 9:00 AM
(to the north), but would be much less extensive. At 4:00 PM, shadows would be cast to the north/northeast,
predominantly within the Project Site, along Chapman Avenue, and within the parking area of the adjacent
office use. The length of the shadows cast by the Proposed Project would be greatest at 4:00 PM.
Summer Solstice Shadows
As shown in Figure 14b, shadows cast by the proposed apartment complex and parking structure at 9:00 AM
during the summer solstice would fall to the west, primarily within the Project Site. As with the winter
solstice, a very small area of the adjacent Terrace Apartments would be shaded at 9:00 AM; however, the
shaded area consists of a drive aisle and parking area of the apartments. At 1:00 PM, minimal shadows would
be cast to the north. At 4:00 PM, shadows would be cast to the east, predominantly within the Project Site,
with minimal shadows being cast within the parking area of the adjacent office use. The length of the
shadows cast by the Proposed Project would be greatest at 4:00 PM.
ORANGE, CA
3800 CHAPMAN APARTMENTS
KTGY # 2015-0466 10.18.2016
KTGY Group, Inc.
Architecture+Planning
17911 Von Karman Ave., Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92614
949.851.2133
ktgy.com
Greenlaw Partners
18301 Von Karman Avenue
Suite 250
Irvine, CA 92612
(949) 221-8051
A2.3CONCEPTUAL SHADOW STUDY
WINTER SOLSTICE - 9AM WINTER SOLSTICE - 11AM
WINTER SOLSTICE - 3PM
WINTER SOLSTICE - 1PM
WINTER SOLSTICE - 4PM
W CHAPMAN AVE.W CHAPMAN AVE.W CHAPMAN AVE.
W CHAPMAN AVE.W CHAPMAN AVE.
NOT TO SCALE
PlaceWorks
Base Map Source: KTGY Group, Inc., 2016
Figure 14a - Conceptual Shade and Shadow Study - Winter Solstice
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 64 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
ORANGE, CA
3800 CHAPMAN APARTMENTS
KTGY # 2015-0466 10.18.2016
KTGY Group, Inc.
Architecture+Planning
17911 Von Karman Ave., Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92614
949.851.2133
ktgy.com
Greenlaw Partners
18301 Von Karman Avenue
Suite 250
Irvine, CA 92612
(949) 221-8051
A2.5CONCEPTUAL SHADOW STUDY
SUMMER SOLSTICE - 9AM SUMMER SOLSTICE - 11AM
SUMMER SOLSTICE - 3PM
SUMMER SOLSTICE - 1PM
SUMMER SOLSTICE - 5PM
W CHAPMAN AVE.W CHAPMAN AVE.W CHAPMAN AVE.
W CHAPMAN AVE.W CHAPMAN AVE.
NOT TO SCALE
PlaceWorks
Base Map Source: KTGY Group, Inc., 2016
Figure 14b - Conceptual Shade and Shadow Study - Summer Solstice
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 66 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
ORANGE, CA
3800 CHAPMAN APARTMENTS
KTGY # 2015-0466 10.18.2016
KTGY Group, Inc.
Architecture+Planning
17911 Von Karman Ave., Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92614
949.851.2133
ktgy.com
Greenlaw Partners
18301 Von Karman Avenue
Suite 250
Irvine, CA 92612
(949) 221-8051
A2.4CONCEPTUAL SHADOW STUDY
EQUINOX - 9AM EQUINOX - 11AM
EQUINOX - 3PM
EQUINOX - 1PM
EQUINOX - 5PM
W CHAPMAN AVE.W CHAPMAN AVE.W CHAPMAN AVE.
W CHAPMAN AVE.W CHAPMAN AVE.
NOT TO SCALE
PlaceWorks
Base Map Source: KTGY Group, Inc., 2016
Figure 14c - Conceptual Shade and Shadow Study - Spring and Fall Equinox
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 68 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
March 2017 Page 69
Spring and Fall Equinox
As shown in Figure 14c, shadows cast by the proposed apartment complex and parking structure at 9:00 AM
during the equinox would primarily fall to the north/northwest within the Project Site, along Chapman
Avenue and within the parking area of the adjacent commercial use. A very small area of the adjacent Terrace
Apartments would be shaded at 9:00 AM; however, the shaded area consists of a drive aisle and parking area
of the apartments. At 1:00 PM, minimal shadows would be cast to the north, primarily within the Project Site
and along Chapman Avenue. At 5:00 PM, shadows would be cast to the north/northeast, predominantly
within the Project Site, along Chapman Avenue, and within the parking area of the adjacent office use. The
length of the shadows cast by the Proposed Project during the equinox would be greatest at 5:00 PM.
Conclusion
As demonstrated above, no significant shade or shadow impacts would to occur during the winter or summer
solstices, or spring or fall equinoxes under the Proposed Project. Applying the threshold described above as a
standard City practice and as illustrated in Figure 14, no shade-sensitive land uses or areas surrounding the
Project Site would be shaded for more than two continuous hours on any day during the solstices or
equinoxes. Therefore, shade/shadow impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are
necessary.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
Less Than Significant Impact. Nighttime illumination and glare impacts are the effects of a project’s
exterior lighting upon adjoining uses and areas. Glare can also be generated by light reflecting off passing cars
and large expanses of glazing (i.e., glass windows) or other reflective surfaces. Excessive light and/or glare
can impair vision, cause annoyance, affect sleep patterns, and generate safety hazards when experienced by
drivers. Following is a discussion of the potential day and nighttime light and glare impacts in the project area
as a result of development that would be accommodated under the Proposed Project.
Architectural Treatments and Building Materials
Urban glare is largely a daytime phenomenon occurring when sunlight is reflected off the surfaces of
buildings or objects. Excessive glare not only impedes visibility, but also increases the ambient heat reflectivity
in a given area. The Proposed Project includes building materials and improvements that could cause daytime
glare, but not to such an extent that they would result in a significant impact. For example, the architectural
treatments of the proposed apartment complex and stand-alone parking structure would include style-
appropriate architectural building materials, such as stucco walls and brick elements; concrete; metal railings,
panels, columns, awnings, and fins; vinyl windows; and aluminum storefront (see building elevations and
perspectives in Figures 7 through 12). These building materials and architectural treatments are not reflective
and would therefore not create substantial day or nighttime glare. They are similar to building materials used
on other similar apartment complexes and parking structures in the surrounding area.
Additionally, as shown in Figures 7 through 10 (building elevations and perspectives of the proposed
apartment complex), the proposed apartment complex would not include large expanses of glazing (i.e., glass
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 70 PlaceWorks
windows). However, the windows of the building could potentially increase sources of glare, because they
would reflect sunlight during certain times of the day. In addition, vehicles parked onsite would increase the
potential for reflected sunlight during certain times of the day. However, glare from these sources is typical of
the surrounding area and would not increase beyond what is expected for an urban area.
Therefore, daytime glare impacts from project-related architectural treatments and building materials would
be less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary.
Nighttime Lighting
Lighting for the proposed apartment complex and stand-alone parking structure would consist of building-
mounted light fixtures; lighting for pedestrian walkways; ground-mounted decorative lighting for landscape,
architectural features, and signage; interior lighting for the buildings and structures; lighting for common and
recreation areas; and security lighting. See Figures 7 and 8, Apartment Building Perspectives, for an illustration of
the potential nighttime lighting scheme of the proposed apartment complex. Nighttime lighting and glare
from the Project Site would be visible to the surrounding residential, office, and commercial/retail uses from
various vantage points, and from surrounding roadways.
Although development of the Project Site would introduce new light sources to the area, the Proposed
Project’s light sources would be similar to the light sources of the surrounding office, commercial/retail, and
residential land uses. Considering the existing sources of lighting in surrounding areas, including street and
parking lot lights and lighting from the surrounding uses, the amount and intensity of nighttime lighting
proposed onsite would not be substantially greater or different than existing lighting in the surrounding area.
Additionally, Section 17.12.030 (Lighting) of the Orange Municipal Code requires that lighting on any
premises be directed, controlled, screened, or shaded in such a manner as not to shine directly on
surrounding premises, and that lighting on any residential property be controlled to prevent glare or direct
illumination of any public sidewalk or thoroughfares. Light and glare emissions are also regulated by Section
17.20.280 (Emission of Lighting, Glare, Dust and Heat) of the Orange Municipal Code. For example, every
land use is required to be operated in a manner to prevent glare emissions in such quantities or degrees as to
be readily detectable on any boundary line of the lot on which the use is located. Glare from exterior lighting
is required to be shielded, screened, or oriented so that it is not visible from any point beyond the exterior
boundaries of the property and that the source is not a nuisance to any point beyond the exterior boundaries
of the property or cause illumination in residential districts in excess of 0.5 foot-candle.
The lights associated with the Proposed Project would be directed toward the interior of the site to avoid
impacts to motorists on adjacent roadways or to surrounding uses, including the adjacent apartment residents
to the south. All exterior lighting for the proposed apartment complex and stand-alone parking structure, as
well as the interior and upper-level lighting for the parking structure, would be designed, arranged, installed,
directed, shielded, and maintained in such a manner as to contain direct illumination onsite and prevent light
and glare impacts offsite in accordance with the provisions of Sections 17.12.030 and 17.20.280 of the
Orange Municipal Code, preventing excess illumination and light spillover onto adjoining land uses and/or
roadways.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
March 2017 Page 71
For example, upper-level lighting fixtures for the parking structure would include full-cut-off or fully-shielded
light fixtures, which would ensure that all illumination is contained within the upper level of the structure.
Other design considerations that would not only help prevent light spill onto adjacent properties and uses but
ensure that they are not visible to residents of the adjacent apartments, include construction of the wall
around the upper-level parking structure perimeter and either placing light fixtures (e.g., light poles) away
from the upper level perimeter or installing wall-mounted light fixtures along the interior of the perimeter
upper-level wall.
Furthermore, the proposed perimeter landscaping, which includes planting a substantial number of trees
along the western boundary of the stand-alone parking structure and along the southern boundary of the
apartment complex (see Figure 5, Conceptual Illustrative Site Plan), along with the existing row of mature trees
that line the eastern boundary of the existing apartment complex to the west, would help shield nighttime
light and glare generated from the apartments and parking structure. As shown in Figure 12, Parking S tructure
Perspectives, the parking structure would also include metal mesh screens and landscaped green walls; these
features would help shield lighting generated within the parking structure. Additionally, an adequate distance
buffer (approximately 70 feet) would be provided between the proposed parking structure and the nearest
apartment units.
The Proposed Project would also be required to be designed and constructed in accordance with the City’s
building security standards, which are outlined in the City’s Building Security Ordinance (City Ordinance 7.79;
Section 15.52 [Building Security Standards] of the Orange Municipal Code). For example, as outlined in
Subsection 15.52.080.C.1, aisles, passageways and recesses related to and within building complexes are
required to be illuminated with an intensity of at least 0.25 foot-candle at the ground level during the hours
of darkness. Lighting would be installed to accommodate safety and security while minimizing impacts on
surrounding uses.
Finally, development of the Proposed Project would be required to comply with California’s Building Energy
Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of
Regulations, which outlines mandatory provisions for lighting control devices and luminaires. For example,
the Proposed Project’s lighting sources would be required to be installed in accordance with the provisions of
Section 110.9 (Mandatory Requirements for Lighting Control Devices and Systems, Ballasts, and Luminaires).
Compliance with the provisions of the Orange Municipal Code, City’s building security ordinance, and
California Building Energy Efficiency Standards is ensured through the City’s development review process.
As also noted in Section 1.3.8, Green Building and Sustainability, the Proposed Project would be designed to
include a number of green building practices/features, including the installation of shielded lighting that is
dark-sky compliant, which in turn would help prevent light and glare spillover. Other sustainability features
would be considered by the City as the Proposed Project is refined during the design and construction phase.
Based on the preceding, no significant nighttime light and glare impacts would occur as a result of
development of the Proposed Project and no mitigation measures are necessary.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 72 PlaceWorks
3.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies
may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the
California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and
farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by 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.
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
No Impact. The Proposed Project involves the construction of an apartment complex and stand-alone
parking structure in a fully developed, urbanized area of the City (see Figure 3, Aerial Photograph). According
to the City’s 2010 General Plan Update Certified PEIR (EIR No. 1815-09; State Clearinghouse No.
2006031117), the Project Site is in an area designated as Urban and Built-Up Land. According to the
California Resource Agency’s Department of Conservation, “Orange County Important Farmland 2010”
map, no areas in the City are designated Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, or Farmland
of Local Importance. Additionally, there is no agricultural use onsite or in the vicinity of the Project Site.
Therefore, project development would not convert mapped farmland to nonagricultural use. No impact
would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
No Impact. The Project Site is not zoned for agricultural use, and no active Williamson Act contract applies
to the Project Site or any areas surrounding the Project Site. Per the City’s zoning map, the zoning district of
the Project Site is Urban Mixed Use (UMU). Additionally, as noted above, the Project Site is an urbanized
area of the City and is heavily disturbed; the site does not contain farmland or other agricultural uses and is
not adjacent to or in proximity of such uses. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would not
conflict with zoning for agricultural uses or a Williamson Act contract. Accordingly, no impact would occur
and no mitigation measures are necessary.
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code
Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code
Section 51104(g))?
No Impact. Forest land is defined as “land that can support 10-percent native tree cover of any species,
including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest
resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public
benefits” (California Public Resources Code § 12220[g]). Timberland is defined as “land…which is available
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
March 2017 Page 73
for, and capable of, growing a crop of trees of any commercial species used to produce lumber and other
forest products, including Christmas trees” (California Public Resources Code § 4526).
As shown in Figures 3, Aerial Photograph, the Project Site is in a highly-urbanized area of the City and is
developed with asphalt parking lots. Surrounding uses consist of a mix of residential, commercial/retail,
office, and medical uses. Additionally, the Project Site is not designated or zoned for forest or timber land or
used for forestry. As stated above, the Project Site is zoned Urban Mixed Use (UMU). Furthermore, all trees
onsite are ornamental trees and are not cultivated for forest resources. Therefore, development of the
Proposed Project would have no impact on forest land or resources and no mitigation measures are
necessary.
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact. See response to Section 3.2(c), above.
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?
No Impact. See responses to Section’s 3.2(a), (b), and (c), above.
3.3 AIR QUALITY
The Air Quality section addresses the impacts of the Proposed Project on ambient air quality and the
exposure of people, especially sensitive individuals, to unhealthful pollutant concentrations. A background
discussion on the air quality regulatory setting, meteorological conditions, existing ambient air quality in the
vicinity of the Project Site, and air quality modeling data can be found in Appendix A.
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). Areas are classified under the
federal and California Clean Air acts as either in attainment or nonattainment for each criteria pollutant based
on whether the AAQS have been achieved. The South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB), which is managed by the
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), 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 (CARB 2014a).
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution
control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. A consistency determination plays an important role in local agency project
review by linking local planning and individual projects to the air quality management plan (AQMP). It fulfills
the CEQA goal of informing decision makers of the environmental efforts of the project under
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 74 PlaceWorks
consideration at an early enough stage to ensure that air quality concerns are fully addressed. It also provides
the local agency with ongoing information as to whether they are contributing to clean air goals in the
AQMP. The most recent adopted comprehensive plan is the 2012 AQMP, adopted on December 7, 2012 (see
Appendix A for a description of the 2012 AQMP).
Regional growth projections are used by SCAQMD to forecast future emission levels in the SoCAB. For
southern California, these regional growth projections are provided by the Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG) and are partially based on land use designations in city/county general plans. Typically,
only large, regionally significant projects have the potential to affect the regional growth projections. The
Proposed Project is not considered a regionally significant project that would warrant Intergovernmental
Review by SCAG under CEQA Guidelines section 15206.
The Proposed Project involves the demolition of two parking lots and the construction of a stand-alone
parking structure and a 277-unit apartment complex. The Proposed Project is not a project of statewide,
regional, or areawide significance that would require intergovernmental review under Section 15206 of the
CEQA Guidelines. While the Proposed Project would result in an increase of approximately 850 residents,
the project would not substantially affect the regional growth projections because the proposed land use is
consistent with the City of Orange’s underlying General Plan land use designation of the Project Site.
Additionally, the regional emissions generated by construction and operation phases of the Proposed Project
would be less than the SCAQMD emissions thresholds, and SCAQMD would not consider the project a
substantial source of air pollutant emissions that would have the potential to affect the attainment
designations in the SoCAB. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not affect the regional emissions
inventory or conflict with strategies in the AQMP. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation
measures are necessary.
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
Less Than Significant Impact. The following describes impacts from short-term construction activities
and long-term operation of the Proposed Project.
Short-Term Air Quality Impacts
Construction activities of the Proposed Project would result in the generation of air pollutants, primarily 1)
exhaust emissions from off-road diesel-powered construction equipment; 2) dust generated by grading, earth
moving, and other construction activities; 3) exhaust emissions from on-road vehicles; and 4) off-gas
emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from application of asphalt, paints, and coatings.
Construction activities on the 5.79-acre site would involve asphalt demolition, site preparation, site grading,
utility trenching, asphalt paving, construction of the apartment complex and stand-alone parking structure,
and architectural coating in two phases. Phase One would include construction of the stand-alone parking
structure, and Phase Two would include construction of the apartment complex. No soil import is
anticipated to be required; however, approximately 4,700 cubic yards of soil export would be required
(approximately 766 cubic yards in Phase One and 3,934 cubic yards in Phase Two).
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
March 2017 Page 75
Construction emissions were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod),
Version 2013.2.2, based on the project’s preliminary construction schedule, phasing, and equipment list
provided by the Developer. The construction schedule and equipment mix is based on preliminary
engineering and is subject to changes during final design and as dictated by field conditions. Results of the
construction emission modeling are shown in Table 2. As shown in the table, air pollutant emissions from
construction-related activities would be less than their respective SCAQMD regional significance threshold
values. Therefore, air quality impacts from project-related construction activities would be less than significant
and no mitigation measures are necessary.
Table 2 Maximum Daily Regional Construction Emissions
Source
Criteria Air Pollutants (lbs/day)1,2
VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Parking Structure (Phase One)
Asphalt/Hardscape Demolition and Soil Haul 5 54 34 <1 6 3
Site Preparation 4 39 31 <1 7 5
Rough Grading and Soil Haul 6 73 51 <1 6 4
Utility Trenching <1 3 3 <1 <1 <1
Fine Grading 7 73 51 <1 8 5
Building Construction 5 39 35 <1 3 2
Asphalt Paving 2 19 14 <1 2 1
Architectural Coating 5 6 6 <1 1 1
Finishing/Landscaping <1 3 3 <1 <1 <1
Maximum Daily Emissions Phase One 7 73 51 <1 8 5
Apartment Complex (Phase Two)
Asphalt/Hardscape Demolition and Soil Haul 6 62 51 <1 8 3
Site Preparation 4 39 31 <1 7 5
Rough Grading and Soil Haul 8 87 63 <1 9 5
Utility Trenching <1 3 3 <1 <1 <1
Fine Grading 7 73 51 <1 8 5
Building Construction (2017) 6 42 51 <1 7 3
Building Construction (2018) 5 37 49 <1 7 3
Asphalt Paving 2 16 14 <1 1 1
Architectural Coating (2018) 61 6 8 <1 1 1
Architectural Coating (2019) 61 5 8 <1 1 1
Finishing/Landscaping <1 2 2 <1 <1 <1
Maximum Daily Emissions Phase Two 61 87 63 <1 9 5
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 76 PlaceWorks
Table 2 Maximum Daily Regional Construction Emissions
Source
Criteria Air Pollutants (lbs/day)1,2
VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Daily Emissions (Phase One and Phase Two)
Maximum Daily Emissions 61 87 63 <1 9 5
SCAQMD Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Regional Threshold? No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod 2013.2.2. Notes: Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding.
1 The construction schedule is based on the preliminary information provided by the Developer. Where specific information regarding project-related construction
activities was not available, construction assumptions were based on CalEEMod defaults, which are based on construction surveys conducted by SCAQMD of
construction equipment and phasing for comparable projects.
2 Includes implementation of fugitive dust control measures required by SCAQMD under Rule 403, including watering disturbed areas a minimum of two times per day, reducing speed limit to 15 miles per hour on unpaved surfaces, replacing ground cover quickly, and street sweeping with Rule 1186–compliant sweepers.
Long-Term Operation-Related Air Quality Impact
Long-term air pollutant emissions generated by the Proposed Project would be associated with area sources
(e.g., landscape fuel use, aerosols, and architectural coatings), mobile sources from vehicle trips, and energy
use (natural gas). The primary source of long-term criteria air pollutant emissions that would be generated by
the Proposed Project would be emissions produced from project-generated vehicle trips. As outlined in the
Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the Proposed Project (see Appendix F), the project would generate a
total of 1,490 average daily trips during a weekday. Criteria air pollutant emissions for the Proposed Project
were modeled using CalEEMod.
Table 3 identifies criteria air pollutant emissions from the Proposed Project. As shown in the table, project-
related air pollutant emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD’s regional emissions thresholds for
operational activities. Overall, long-term operation-related impacts to air quality would be less than significant
and no mitigation measures are necessary.
Table 3 Maximum Daily Regional Operational Phase Emissions
Source
Criteria Air Pollutants (lbs/day)
VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Area 21 <1 23 <1 <1 <1
Energy <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Mobile Sources 4 4 40 <1 11 3
Total Emissions 24 5 64 <1 11 3
SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Regional Threshold? No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod 2013.2.2. Notes: Highest winter or summer emissions are reported. Totals may not equal to 100 percent due to rounding.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
March 2017 Page 77
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
Less Than Significant Impact. The SoCAB 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 under the National AAQS (CARB 2014a). According to SCAQMD methodology, any project that does
not exceed or can be mitigated to less than the daily threshold values would not add significantly to a
cumulative impact (SCAQMD 1993). As demonstrated in Section 3.3(b), above, construction and operational
activities of the Proposed Project would not result in emissions in excess of SCAQMD’s significant
thresholds. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in
criteria pollutants. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary.
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project could expose sensitive receptors to elevated pollutant
concentrations if it would cause or contribute significantly to elevated pollutant concentration levels. Unlike
regional emissions, localized emissions are typically evaluated in terms of air concentration rather than mass
so they can be more readily correlated to potential health effects.
Construction LSTs
Localized significance thresholds (LSTs) are based on the California AAQS, which are the most stringent
AAQS that have been established to provide a margin of safety in the protection of public health and
welfare. They are designated to protect sensitive receptors most susceptible to further respiratory distress,
such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and
people engaged in strenuous work or exercise. Construction LSTs are based on the size of the development
site, distance to the nearest sensitive receptor, and source receptor area. Receptors proximate to the Project
Site are the existing residences (apartment units) to the south (see Figure 3, Aerial Photograph).
Air pollutant emissions generated by project-related construction activities are anticipated to cause temporary
increases in air pollutant concentrations. Table 4 shows the maximum daily construction emissions (pounds
per day) that would be generated during onsite construction activities compared with SCAQMD’s LSTs. As
shown in the table, construction activities would not exceed the established LSTs. Therefore, localized
impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 78 PlaceWorks
Table 4 Localized Construction Emissions
Source
Pollutants(lbs/day)1,2
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Phase One: Landscaping Parking Structure 3 2 0.23 0.21
Phase Two: Landscaping Apartment Complex 2 2 0.16 0.15
Phase One: Painting Parking Structure 6 5 0.46 0.46
Phase Two: Painting Apartment Complex (2018) 5 5 0.40 0.40
Phase Two: Painting Apartment Complex (2019) 5 5 0.34 0.34
Phase One: Paving Parking Structure 19 13 1.39 1.28
Phase Two: Paving Apartment Complex 16 13 1.14 1.05
Phase One: Trenching Parking Structure 3 2 0.22 0.20
Phase Two: Trenching Apartment Complex 3 2 0.22 0.20
Phase One: Construction Parking Structure 36 26 2.04 1.95
SCAQMD ≤1.00-acre LST 81 485 8.19 3.52
Exceeds LST? No No No No
Phase Two: Construction Apartment Complex (2017) 33 23 2.23 2.11
Phase Two: Construction Apartment Complex (2018) 29 22 1.88 1.78
SCAQMD 1.50-acre LST 98 600 10.50 4.29
Exceeds LST? No No No No
Phase One: Site Prep Parking Structure 39 29 7.29 4.80
Phase Two: Site Prep Apartment Complex 39 29 7.29 4.80
Phase One: Demolition and Debris Haul Parking
Structure 47 26 4.56 2.48
Phase Two: Demolition and Debris Haul Apartment
Complex 47 37 6.28 2.76
SCAQMD 3.00-acre LST 138 894 17.42 6.05
Exceeds LST? No No No No
Phase One: Rough Grading and Soil Haul Parking
Structure 61 41 4.48 3.07
Phase Two: Rough Grading and Soil Haul Apartment
Complex 73 49 7.27 4.80
Phase One: Fine Grading Parking Structure 73 49 7.25 4.80
Phase Two: Fine Grading Apartment Complex 73 49 7.25 4.80
SCAQMD 4.50-acre LST 172 1,163 24.32 7.55
Exceeds LST? No No No No
Source: CalEEMod 2013.2.2; SCAQMD 2008; SCAQMD 2011. Notes: In accordance with SCAQMD methodology, only onsite stationary sources and mobile equipment occurring on the Project Site are included in the analysis. LSTs are based on nonsensitive receptors within 82 feet (25 meters) for NOx and CO and sensitive receptors at 125 feet (38 meters) of the site for PM10 and PM2.5 in Source Receptor Area 17.
1 The construction schedule is based on the preliminary information provided by the Developer. Where specific information regarding project-related construction activities was not available, construction assumptions were based on CalEEMod defaults, which are based on construction surveys conducted by SCAQMD of
construction equipment and phasing for comparable projects.
2 Includes implementation of fugitive dust control measures required by SCAQMD under Rule 403, including watering disturbed areas a minimum of two times per day, reducing speed limit to 15 miles per hour on unpaved surfaces, replacing ground cover quickly, and street sweeping with Rule 1186–compliant sweepers.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
March 2017 Page 79
Operation LSTs
Operation of the Proposed Project would not generate substantial quantities of emissions from onsite,
stationary sources. Land uses that have the potential to generate substantial stationary sources of emissions
and require a permit from SCAQMD include industrial land uses such as chemical processing and
warehousing operations where substantial truck idling could occur onsite. The Proposed Project does not fall
within these categories of uses. While operation of the Proposed Project would result in the use of standard
onsite mechanical equipment such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning units in addition to occasional
use of landscaping equipment for site maintenance, air pollutant emissions generated from these activities
would be nominal (see Table 3). Therefore, localized air quality impacts related to stationary-source emissions
would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary.
Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
Areas of vehicle congestion have the potential to create pockets of CO called hotspots. These pockets have
the potential to exceed the state one-hour standard of 20 parts per million or the eight-hour standard of 9.0
parts per million. Because CO is produced in greatest quantities from vehicle combustion and does not
readily disperse into the atmosphere, adherence to ambient air quality standards is typically demonstrated
through an analysis of localized CO concentrations. Hotspots are typically produced at intersections, where
traffic congestion is highest because vehicles queue for longer periods and are subject to reduced speeds.
The SoCAB has been designated as attainment under both the national and California AAQS for CO. Under
existing and future vehicle emission rates, a project would have to increase traffic volumes at a single
intersection by more than 44,000 vehicles per hour—or 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or
horizontal mixing is substantially limited—in order to generate a significant CO impact (BAAQMD 2011).
The Proposed Project would result in approximately 1,490 average daily trips during a weekday, 122 trips
during the morning peak hour and 139 trips during the evening peak hour, substantially less than the volumes
cited above. Furthermore, the SoCAB is in attainment of the national and California AAQS for CO. The
Proposed Project would not have the potential to substantially increase CO hotspots at intersections in the
vicinity of the Project Site. Therefore, localized air quality impacts related to mobile-source emissions would
be less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary.
Health Risk Assessment
SCAQMD currently does not require health risk assessments to be conducted for short-term emissions from
construction equipment. Emissions from construction equipment primarily consist of diesel particulate
matter (DPM). The Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment (OEHHA) has recently adopted
new guidance for the preparation of health risk assessments issued in March 2015. OEHHA has developed a
cancer risk factor and noncancer chronic reference exposure level for DPM, but these factors are based on
continuous exposure over a 30-year time frame. No short-term acute exposure levels have been developed for
DPM. The Proposed Project would be developed in approximately 26 months, which would limit the
exposure to on- and offsite receptors. SCAQMD currently does not require the evaluation of long-term
excess cancer risk or chronic health impacts for a short-term project. In addition, project-related construction
activities would not exceed LST significance thresholds, as demonstrated above. For these reasons, it is
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 80 PlaceWorks
anticipated that project-related construction emissions would not pose a threat to on- and offsite receptors at
or near the Project Site. Therefore, project-related construction health impacts would be less than significant,
and no mitigation measures are necessary.
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would not result in objectionable odors. The
threshold for odor is if a project creates an odor nuisance pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 402, Nuisance, which
states:
A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air
contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any
considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose,
health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural
tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. The provisions of this rule shall
not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations necessary for the growing of
crops or the raising of fowl or animals.
The type of facilities that are considered to have objectionable odors include wastewater treatments plants,
compost facilities, landfills, solid waste transfer stations, fiberglass manufacturing facilities, paint/coating
operations (e.g., auto body shops), dairy farms, petroleum refineries, asphalt batch plants, chemical
manufacturing, and food manufacturing facilities. The uses that would be developed under the Proposed
Project do not fall within the aforementioned land uses. Additionally, emissions from construction
equipment, such as diesel exhaust and volatile organic compounds from architectural coatings and paving
activities, may generate odors. However, these odors would be low in concentration, temporary, and are not
expected to affect a substantial number of people. Therefore, odor impacts would be less than significant and
no mitigation measures are necessary.
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
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?
No Impact. Sensitive biological resources are habitats or species that have been recognized by federal, state,
and/or local agencies as being endangered, threatened, rare, or in decline throughout all or part of their
historical distribution. The Project Site lies within the western portion of the City, which is highly urbanized
and does not contain habitat that would support listed species. As shown in Figure 3, Aerial Photograph, the
Project Site is currently developed with two surface parking lots and is surrounded by a mix of residential,
commercial/retail, office, and medical uses. Based on views of the Project Site and surrounding area from
Google Earth maps and a site visit conducted by PlaceWorks personnel, there is no suitable habitat for
sensitive species onsite, and no natural biological resources or communities exist on, adjacent to, or near the
Project Site. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
March 2017 Page 81
through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations. No impact would occur and no mitigation measures are
necessary.
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?
No Impact. Sensitive natural communities are communities that are considered rare in the region by
regulatory agencies; known to provide habitat for sensitive animal or plant species; or known to be important
wildlife corridors. Riparian habitats are those occurring along the banks of rivers and streams. As shown in
Figure 3, the Project Site is developed with paved surface parking lots and is in a highly-urbanized area of the
City. There is no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community currently onsite or in proximity of the
Project Site. Additionally, the site is over one mile from Santiago Creek and more than six miles from
Santiago Oaks Park and Peters Canyon Park, which are the areas of the City known to provide functional
riparian habitat. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in an impact on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community and no mitigation measures are necessary.
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No Impact. Wetlands are defined under the federal Clean Water Act as land that is flooded or saturated by
surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that normally does
support, a prevalence of vegetation adapted to life in saturated soils. Wetlands include areas such as streams,
swamps, marshes, and bogs. The National Wetlands Mapper does not show any streams, wetlands, or other
water bodies or any riparian habitat onsite, adjacent to, or within proximity of the Project Site (USFWS 2016).
Per the National Wetlands Mapper, the nearest designated wetland is the Santa Ana River, approximately 0.6
mile east of the Project Site. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not have an adverse effect,
either directly or indirectly, on the Santa Ana River or any other wetlands. Therefore, no impact to wetlands
would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The City’s primary functional wildlife
corridors are the Santa Ana River; Santiago Creek; SCE utility corridors in the northeastern portion of the
City, which link with Santiago Oaks Park; and preserved hillsides and ridgelines in the southeastern portion
of the City that link with Peters Canyon Regional Park. The Project Site is in the western portion of the City
and is approximately 0.6 mile from the Santa Ana River, over 1 mile from Santiago Creek, more than 6 miles
from Santiago Oaks Park, and over 10 miles from Peters Canyon Regional Park. Additionally, as shown in
Figure 3, Aerial Photograph, the Project Site is currently developed with two surface parking lots and is
surrounded by a mix of residential, commercial/retail, office, and medical uses.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 82 PlaceWorks
The Project Site does, however, include a number of ornamental trees along the site boundaries and internal
to the site (see Figure 3 and Figures 4a and 4b, Site Photographs), the majority of which would be removed
under the Proposed Project. Although ornamental, these trees may provide suitable habitat, including nesting
habitat, for migratory birds1 under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and Section 3513 et seq, of
the California Fish and Game Code. Section 3513 provides protection to the birds listed under the MBTA,
essentially all native birds. Additionally, Section 3503 of the code makes it unlawful to take, possess, or
needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird. The MBTA implements the United States’ commitment to
four treaties with Canada, Japan, Mexico, and Russia for the protection of shared migratory bird resources.
The MBTA governs the taking, killing, possession, transportation, and importation of migratory birds, their
eggs, parts, and nests. Under the provisions of the MBTA, it is unlawful “by any means or manner to pursue,
hunt, take, capture (or) kill” any migratory birds except as permitted by regulations issued by the US Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS). The ter m “take” is defined by USFWS regulation to mean to “pursue, hunt, shoot,
wound, kill, trap, capture or collect” any migratory bird or any part, nest or egg of any migratory bird covered
by the conventions, or to attempt those activities. USFWS administers permits to take migratory birds in
accordance with the MBTA.
The Developer would be required to comply with the MBTA by either avoiding site clearing, demolition, or
grading activities during the breeding/nesting season (February 1 to September 1) or conducting a site survey
for nesting birds prior to commencing such activities during the nesting season, as outlined in Mitigation
Measure BIO-1. Adherence to the MBTA regulations and Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would ensure that if
construction occurs during the breeding season, appropriate measures would be taken to avoid impacts to
nesting birds, if any are found. Compliance with the MBTA requirements and Mitigation Measure BIO-1
would be ensured through the City’s development review process. With adherence to the MBTA requirements
and Mitigation Measure BIO-1, impacts would be reduced to a level of less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
BIO-1 Prior to the commencement of any proposed actions (e.g., site clearing, demolition, grading)
during the breeding/nesting season (February 1 to September 1, as defined by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife), the monitoring biologist contracted by the project
applicant shall conduct a preconstruction survey(s) to identify any active nests in and near
the project area no more than three days prior to initiation of the action. If the biologist
does not find any active nests that would be potentially impacted, the proposed action may
proceed. However, if the biologist finds an active nest within or adjacent to the action area
and determines that the nest may be impacted, the biologist shall delineate an appropriate
buffer zone around the nest using temporary plastic fencing or other suitable materials, such
as barricade tape and traffic cones. The buffer zone shall range from a 300- to 500-foot
radius at the discretion of the biologist and in coordination with the construction contractor.
Only specified activities (if any) approved by the qualified biologist in coordination with the
construction contractor shall take place within the buffer zone until the nest is vacated.
1 Migratory birds include all native birds in the United States, as listed in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50, Section 10.13
(List of Migratory Birds).
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
March 2017 Page 83
Activities that may be prohibited within the buffer zone by the biologist may include but not
be limited to grading and tree clearing. Once the nest is no longer active and upon final
determination by the biologist, the proposed action may proceed within the buffer zone.
Any active nests observed during the survey shall be mapped on a recent aerial photograph,
including documentation of GPS coordinates.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
No Impact. The Project Site includes a number of ornamental trees along the site boundaries and internal to
the site (see Figures 3, 4a, and 4b), the majority of which would be removed under the Proposed Project.
Chapter 12.32 (Tree Preservation) of the Orange Municipal Code protects trees on undeveloped and public
interest properties in the City. Neither of these conditions applies to the Project Site, as the site is developed
with surface parking lots and is not a property of public interest. Additionally, although the Proposed Project
would include removal of the majority of the trees onsite (approximately 74 trees), it would provide a greater
number of trees onsite (approximately 222 trees) than currently exist. Therefore, project development would
not conflict with the City’s tree preservation ordinance and no significant impacts would occur. No mitigation
measures are necessary.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
No Impact. A portion of the City’s open space is in the 37,380 acres of open space preserve established by
the Orange County Central/Coastal Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) and Habitat
Conservation Plan (HCP), which is shown in Figure NR-3 (NCCP Habitat Reserve Area) of the City’s
General Plan Natural Resources Element. The NCCP/HCP seeks to identify and protect individual species
whose numbers have declined significantly by conserving natural communities at the ecosystem level while
accommodating compatible land uses. The Project Site and surrounding area are fully developed and in a
highly-urbanized area of the City, more than six miles from the Orange County Central/Coastal NCCP/HCP.
Therefore, the Proposed Project would not conflict with the provisions of the Orange County
Central/Coastal NCCP/HCP. No impact would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary.
3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in
§ 15064.5?
No Impact. Section 15064.5 defines historic resources as resources listed or determined to be eligible for
listing by the State Historical Resources Commission, a local register of historical resources, or the lead
agency. Generally, a resource is considered “historically significant” if it meets one of the following criteria:
i) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of
California’s history and cultural heritage;
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 84 PlaceWorks
ii) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;
iii) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction,
or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values;
iv) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
As shown in Figure 3, Aerial Photograph, and Figures 4a and 4b, Site Photographs, the Project Site is currently
developed with hardscape (e.g., asphalt paving, cement curbs and planters) and landscape (i.e., parking lot
planters with trees and shrubs) improvements associated with the two surface parking lots that are
immediately adjacent to the eight-story, onsite office building at 3800 West Chapman Avenue. No other
buildings or structures exist within the confines of the Project Site. Development under the Proposed Project
would not result in any exterior or interior modifications to the existing office building; it would remain in its
existing condition. The only changes proposed for the office building site are hardscape, parking area, and
landscape improvements around the building perimeter (see Figure 5, Conceptual Illustrative Site Plan).
Additionally, as shown in Figure CR-1 (Designated Historic Resources) of the City’s General Plan Cultural
Resources and Historic Preservation Element, there are no listed or designated historic resources onsite or
within the vicinity of the Project Site; most of the resources identified are in the Old Towne Historic District
and Plaza Historic District in the eastern part of the City. Furthermore, the Project Site is not a
recommended site for historic designation, as shown in Figure CR-2 (Resources Recommended for
Designation) of the City’s General Plan Cultural Resources and Historic Preservation Element. The Project
Site and existing office building are also not identified on these historic resource lists/databases—the
National Register of Historic Places and the California State Historical Landmarks, Points of Historical
Interest, and Register of Historic Places. Therefore, no impacts to historical resources would occur and no
mitigation measures are necessary.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to
§ 15064.5?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. As shown in Figure 3, Aerial Photograph, the
Project Site is developed with two surface parking lots. The Project Site is in a highly-urbanized area of the
City and is surrounded by a mix of residential, commercial/retail, and office uses. Given the highly-disturbed
condition of the Project Site and its surroundings, the potential for development of the Proposed Project to
impact an unidentified archeological or paleontological resource is considered low.
Additionally, the Project Site has already been subject to similar construction and ground-disturbing activities
that would occur under the Proposed Project. No archaeological or paleontological resources were identified
during prior development of the Project Site, and it is unlikely that any such resources would be uncovered or
affected during project-related grading and construction activities. Furthermore, the Project Site and
immediate surroundings are not recognized as an area of having the potential for subsurface archeological
resources.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
March 2017 Page 85
However, while unlikely, the presence of subsurface archaeological resources on the Project Site remains
possible, and these could be affected by ground-disturbing activities associated with grading and construction
at the site. It is possible that subsurface disturbance might occur at levels not previously disturbed (e.g.,
deeper excavation than previously performed) or may uncover undiscovered archeological resources at the
site.
Therefore, potential impacts to archeological resources could occur as a result of project-related construction
activities. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1, impacts to archeological resources
would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measures
CUL-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, and for any subsequent permit involving excavation
to increased depth, the project applicant shall provide a letter to the City of Orange from a
qualified archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications
for Archeology as defined at 36 CFR Part 61, Appendix A (Professional Archeologist). The
letter shall state that the project applicant has retained such an individual, and that the
consultant will be on call during all grading and other significant ground-disturbing activities.
In the event that archeological resources are discovered during ground-disturbing activities,
all such activity shall cease in the immediate area of the find, and the professional
archeological monitor shall have the authority to halt any activities adversely impacting
potentially significant cultural resources until they can be formally evaluated. Suspension of
ground disturbances in the vicinity of the discovery shall not be lifted until the
archaeological monitor has evaluated the discovery to assess whether it is classified as a
significant cultural resource pursuant to the CEQA definition of historical (State CEQA
Guidelines 15064.5[a]) and/or unique archeological resource (Public Resources Code
21083.2[g]). If the resource is classified as a significant cultural resource, the qualified
archeologist shall make recommendations on the treatment and disposition of the deposits.
For example, if archaeological resources are recovered, they shall be offered to a repository
with a retrievable collection system and an educational and research interest in the materials,
such as the Orange Public Library & History Center or Chapman University, or any other
local museum or repository willing to and capable of accepting and housing the resource. If
no museum or repository willing to accept the resource is found, the resource shall be
considered the property of the City and may be stored, disposed of, transferred, exchanged,
or otherwise handled by the City at its discretion. The final recommendations on the
treatment and disposition of the deposits shall be developed in accordance with all
applicable provisions of California Public Resource Code Section 21083.2 and State CEQA
Guidelines Sections 15064.5 and 15126.4. The project applicant shall follow all
recommendations made by the archeologist.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 86 PlaceWorks
The final written report containing site forms, site significance, and mitigation measures shall
be submitted immediately to the City of Orange Community Development Department. All
information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated
funerary objects shall be provided in a separate confidential addendum and not be made
available for public disclosure. The final written report shall be submitted to the appropriate
regional archaeological Information Center within three months after work has been
completed.
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. While unlikely and for the same reasons
outlined above in Section 3.4(b), the presence of subsurface paleontological resources on the Project Site
remains possible and could be affected by ground-disturbing activities associated with grading and
construction at the site. It is possible that subsurface disturbance might occur at levels not previously
disturbed (e.g., deeper excavation than previously performed in certain locations) or may uncover
undiscovered paleontological resources at the site. Therefore, potential impacts to paleontological resources
could occur as a result of project-related construction activities. However, with implementation of Mitigation
Measure CUL-2, impacts to paleontological resources would be reduced to less than significant levels.
Additionally, there are no unique geological features onsite or adjacent to or surrounding the Project Site. The
Project Site exhibits generally flat topography with overall gentle inclination to the south/southwest.
Therefore, development of the Proposed Project would not result in the destruction of any unique geological
features.
Mitigation Measure
CUL-2 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, and for any subsequent permit involving excavation
to increased depth, the project applicant shall provide a letter to the City of Orange from a
qualified paleontologist. The letter shall state that the project applicant has retained such
individual, and that the consultant will be on call during all grading and other significant
ground-disturbing activities. In the event that paleontological resources are discovered during
ground-disturbing activities, all such activity shall cease in the immediate area of the find and
the professional paleontologist monitor shall have the authority to halt any activities
adversely impacting potentially significant paleontological resources until they can be
formally evaluated. Suspension of ground disturbances in the vicinity of the discoveries shall
not be lifted until the paleontological monitor has evaluated discoveries to assess whether
they are classified as significant paleontological resources. If the materials encountered are
deemed significant paleontological resources, the paleontologist shall recommend a course
of action to further investigate and/or mitigate adverse impacts to those resources that have
been encountered. The project applicant shall follow all recommendations made by the
paleontologist.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
March 2017 Page 87
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
Less Than Significant Impact. There are no known human remains or cemeteries on or near the Project
Site. The Project Site is in a highly-urbanized area of the City and is surrounded by a mix of residential,
commercial/retail, office, and medical uses; has already been disturbed and is developed with surface parking
lots serving the surrounding office and commercial/retail uses; and has already been subject to similar
construction and ground-disturbing activities associated with the Proposed Project. Therefore, the likelihood
that human remains may be discovered during site clearing and grading activities is considered extremely low.
However, development of the Proposed Project would involve ground-disturbing activities that could have
the potential to disturb previously undiscovered subsurface human remains, if any exist. For example, the
Proposed Project would involve deeper excavation than previously performed in certain locations of the
Project Site.
In the unlikely event that human remains are uncovered during ground-disturbing activities, California Health
and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that disturbance of the site shall remain halted until the Los Angeles
Coroner has conducted an investigation into the circumstances, manner, and cause of any death, and the
recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the
person responsible for the excavation or to his or her authorized representative, in the manner provided in
Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. The coroner is required to make a determination within two
working days of notification of the discovery of the human remains. If the coroner determines that the
remains are not subject to his or her authority or has reason to believe the human remains to be those of a
Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage
Commission.
Compliance with existing law regarding the discovery of human remains would reduce potential impacts to
human remains to less than significant levels. No mitigation measures are necessary.
3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
The analysis in this section is based partly on the following technical studies, which are included as
Appendices B and C to this Initial Study:
Geotechnical Due Diligence Report, GeoTek, Inc., February 12, 2016. (Appendix B)
Preliminary Priority Water Quality Management Plan, Michael Baker International, November 2, 2016.
(Appendix C)
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 88 PlaceWorks
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
No Impact. The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was passed in 1972 to mitigate the hazard
of surface faulting to structures for human occupancy. Surface rupture is the most easily avoided seismic
hazard. Fault rupture generally occurs within 50 feet of an active fault line and is limited to the immediate
area of the fault zone where the fault breaks along the surface (CGS 2007). The main purpose of the
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act is to prevent construction of buildings used for human
occupancy on the surface of active faults, in order to minimize the hazard of surface rupture of a fault to
people and habitable buildings. Before cities and counties can permit development within Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zones, geologic investigations are required to show that the proposed development site
is not threatened by surface rupture from future earthquakes.
Geologic literature does not indicate the presence of active faulting on or within the vicinity of the
Project Site; the site is not within or near a currently established Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone.
There are no mapped active faults on or near the Project Site; the closest known active fault is the San
Joaquin Hills fault, approximately 10 miles from the site (GeoTek 2016). Active earthquake faults are
faults where surface rupture has occurred within the last 11,000 years. Due to the distance to the active
fault, the potential for surface rupture of a fault onsite is considered very low. Therefore, no impacts
from a fault rupture would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The most significant geologic hazard
to the design life of the Proposed Project is the potential for moderate to strong ground shaking
resulting from earthquakes generated on the faults in seismically active southern California. As with other
areas in southern California, it is anticipated that the Project Site will likely be subject to strong ground
shaking due to earthquakes on nearby faults. As noted above, the closest known active fault is the San
Joaquin Hills fault, approximately 10 miles from the site (GeoTek 2016). This fault as well as others in the
region are considered capable of producing earthquakes that would cause strong shaking at the Project
Site, thereby exposing people or structures on the site to potential substantial adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury, or death. The intensity of ground shaking on the Project Site would depend on
the magnitude of the earthquake, distance to the epicenter, and the geology of the area between the
epicenter and the Project Site.
However, the Project Site is not at a greater risk of seismic activity or impacts than other sites in southern
California. Seismic shaking is a risk throughout southern California. Additionally, the state regulates
development in California through a variety of tools that reduce hazards from earthquakes and other
geologic hazards. The California Building Code (CBC; California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2),
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
March 2017 Page 89
adopted by reference in Chapter 15.04 (California Building Code) of the Orange Municipal Code,
contains provisions to safeguard against major structural failures or loss of life caused by earthquakes or
other geologic hazards. The CBC contains provisions for earthquake safety based on factors including
occupancy type, the types of soil and rock onsite, and the strength of ground motion with specified
probability of occurring at the site. Project development would be required to adhere to the provisions
of the CBC, which are imposed on project developments by the City’s Community Development
Department during the building plan check and development review process. Compliance with the
requirements of the CBC for structural safety during a seismic event would reduce hazards from strong
seismic ground shaking.
Furthermore, incorporation of the recommendations provided in the Geotechnical Due Diligence
Report prepared for the Proposed Project (see Appendix B), as outlined in Mitigation Measure GEO-1,
would also reduce hazards from strong seismic ground shaking.
Therefore, compliance with the provisions of the CBC and implementation of the design parameters
outlined in the Geotechnical Due Diligence Report, as required by Mitigation Measures GEO-1, would
reduce impacts resulting from strong seismic ground shaking to less than significant levels.
Mitigation Measure
GEO-1 Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits, the project applicant shall demonstrate
to the City’s Community Development Department staff that all recommendations in the
project’s Geotechnical Due Diligence Report prepared by GeoTek, Inc. and dated February
12, 2016 (incorporated herein by this reference), pertaining to strong ground shaking and
site soils have been incorporated into the project design and grading plan. During grading
and construction, the City’s Community Development Department and Public Works staff
shall verify that grading and construction activities comply with these recommendations.
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Liquefaction refers to loose, saturated
sand or silt deposits that behave as a liquid and lose their load supporting capability when strongly
shaken. Loose granular soils and silts that are saturated by relatively shallow groundwater are susceptible
to liquefaction.
The Project Site is not in a soil liquefaction hazard area, as determined by the State of California.
Portions of the City along the Santa Ana River and Santiago Creek and developed areas adjacent to these
waterways have been designated significant liquefaction hazard areas. However, the Project Site is
approximately 0.6 mile west of the Santa Ana River and one mile south of Santiago Creek, a sufficient
distance from these waterways.
Additionally, as shown in Figure PS-1 (Environmental and Natural Hazard Policy Map) of the City’s
General Plan Public Safety Element, the Project Site does not lie in a designated liquefaction hazard area.
Furthermore, as stated in the Geotechnical Due Diligence Report prepared for the Proposed Project (see
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 90 PlaceWorks
Appendix B), the historical high groundwater mark in the project area is 35 feet or more below ground
surface. For these reasons and due to the relative thickness of the overlying nonliquefiable soils onsite,
surface manifestations resulting for soil liquefaction are not likely.
However, the soil analysis conducted by GeoTek Inc. as a part of the Geotechnical Due Diligence Report
revealed a seismic settlement potential of 2.75 inches with an estimated 1.4 inches of differential
settlement across a 40-foot span. Based on this information, the Geotechnical Due Diligence Report
outlined a number of recommendations, including the need for a structural engineer to evaluate the
seismic-induced settlement and determine the impact on the existing and/or proposed improvements.
Project compliance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Due Diligence Report would be
assured through implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1.
Therefore, implementation of the design parameters outlined in the Geotechnical Due Diligence Report,
as required by Mitigation Measures GEO-1, and compliance with the provisions of the CBC would
reduce seismic-related ground failure impacts to less than significant levels.
iv) Landslides?
No Impact. Landslides are the downslope movement of geologic materials. Slope failures in the form of
landslides are common during strong seismic shaking in areas of steep hills. Landslides are not expected
to occur at the Project Site, since the site is relatively flat and not within a landslide hazard area as
identified by the California Geologic Survey, which are areas having potential for seismic slope instability.
Additionally, as shown in Figure PS-1 (Environmental and Natural Hazard Policy Map) of the City’s
General Plan Public Safety Element, the Project Site does not lie in a designated landslide hazard area.
Therefore, geologic hazards associated with landsliding are not anticipated at the site. No impact would
occur and no mitigation measures are necessary.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Less Than Significant Impact. Erosion is the movement of rock and soil from place to place, and is a
natural process. Common agents of erosion in the project region include wind and flowing water. Significant
erosion typically occurs on steep slopes where stormwater and high winds can carry topsoil down hillsides.
Erosion can be increased greatly by earth-moving activities if erosion control measures are not used.
Following is a discussion of the potential erosion impacts resulting from the Proposed Project’s construction
and operational phases.
Construction Phase
Project development would involve excavation, grading, and construction activities that would disturb soil
and leave exposed soil on the ground surface. Common means of soil erosion from construction sites include
water, wind, and being tracked offsite by vehicles. These activities could result in soil erosion. However,
development of the Project Site is subject to local and state codes and requirements for erosion control and
grading during construction. For example, project development is required to comply with standard
regulations, including South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules 402 and 403, which would reduce
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
March 2017 Page 91
construction erosion impacts. Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with best available control
measures so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property
line of the emissions source. Rule 402 requires dust suppression techniques be implemented to prevent dust
and soil erosion from creating a nuisance offsite. For example, as outlined in Table 1 (Best Available Control
Measures) of Rule 403, control measures to reduce erosion during grading and construction activities include
stabilizing backfilling materials when not actively handling, stabilizing soils during clearing and grubbing
activities, and stabilizing soils during and after cut-and-fill activities.
Additionally, the Construction General Permit (CGP) issued by the State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB), effective July 17, 2012, regulates construction activities to minimize water pollution, including
sediment risk from construction activities to receiving waters. 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), which
is further discussed in Section 3.9, 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. For example, as outlined in Section 3.9, types of
BMPs that are incorporated in SWPPPs and would help minimize impacts from soil erosion include:
Erosion controls: cover and/or bind soil surface, to prevent soil particles from being detached and
transported by water or wind. Erosion control BMPs include mulch, soil binders, and mats.
Sediment controls: Filter out soil particles that have been detached and transported in water. Sediment
control BMPs include barriers, and cleaning measures such as street sweeping.
Tracking controls: Tracking control BMPs minimize the tracking of soil offsite by vehicles; for instance,
stabilizing construction roadways and entrances/exits.
Adherence to the BMPs in the SWPPP and adherence with local and state codes and requirements for
erosion control and grading during construction would reduce, prevent, or minimize soil erosion from
project-related grading and construction activities. Therefore, soil erosion impacts from project-related
grading and construction activities would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary.
Operation Phase
The Project Site is in a highly-urbanized area of the City and has little variation in topography (i.e., relatively
flat). No major slopes or bluffs are on or adjacent to the site. After project completion, the Project Site would
be developed with residential uses, access and circulation improvements, and landscape improvements and
would not contain exposed or bare soil. Upon project completion, the potential for soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil would be expected to be extremely low.
Additionally, a Preliminary Priority Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) was prepared for the Proposed
Project (see Appendix C). As specified in the WQMP and described below in detail in Section 3.9, Hydrology
and Water Quality, implementation of BMPs would help ensure that soil erosion would not occur under the
operation phase of the Proposed Project.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 92 PlaceWorks
Furthermore, Chapter 7.01 (Water Quality and Stormwater Discharges) of the Orange Municipal Code
outlines BMP requirements for proper water quality and stormwater runoff management. Chapter 16.40
(Grading Requirements) of the Orange Municipal Code outlines provisions to control erosion, excavation,
and grading and earthwork construction. Implementation of the Proposed Project would be subject to the
measures outlined in these chapters of the Orange Municipal Code.
Implementation of the BMPs in the WQMP and adherence to the provisions of the Orange Municipal Code
would reduce, prevent, or minimize soil erosion from project-related operational activities. Therefore, soil
erosion impacts from the Proposed Project’s operation phase would not be significant, and no mitigation
measures are necessary.
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?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Hazards from liquefaction and lateral
spreading are addressed above in Section 3.6(a)(iii), and landslide hazards are addressed above in Section
3.6(a)(iv); as concluded in these sections, no significant impact would occur.
Pursuant to Section 16.16.170 (Soil Report Required) of the Orange Municipal Code, a preliminary soils
report is required for every subdivision for which a parcel map is required. The preliminary soils report would
indicate the presence of critically expansive soils or other soil and foundation problems that may lead to
structural defects. In compliance with Section 16.16.170, a Geotechnical Due Diligence Report was prepared
for the Proposed Project (see Appendix B) to evaluate the presence of expansive soils or other soil problems
that may lead to liquefaction, landslides, collapsible soils, etc. Following is a discussion of the Project Site soil
conditions, as outlined in the Geotechnical Due Diligence Report.
Shrinkage and Subsidence
The major cause of ground subsidence is withdrawal of groundwater. As stated in the Geotechnical Due
Diligence Report, the historical high groundwater mark in the project area is 35 feet or more below ground
surface. Therefore, impacts resulting from subsidence would be negligible.
Additionally, shrinkage and subsidence are primarily dependent upon the degree of compacting achieved
during construction, depth of fill, and underlying site conditions. For planning purposes, a shrinkage factor
of 5 to 15 percent may be considered for the materials requiring removal and recompaction. As stated in the
Geotechnical Due Diligence Report, site balance areas should be available in order to adjust project grades,
depending on actual field conditions at the conclusion of site earthwork construction. Subsidence on the
order of 0.1 feet may occur onsite (GeoTek 2016).
After implementation of the recommendations of Geotechnical Due Diligence Report (which include
incorporating engineered soil into the construction process), impacts due to subsidence and shrinkage would
be reduced to a less than significant level. Implementation of the recommendations outlined in the
Geotechnical Due Diligence Report would be ensured through Mitigation Measure GEO-1.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
March 2017 Page 93
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or property?
Less Than Significant Impact. Expansive soils shrink or swell as the moisture content decreases or
increases; the shrinking or swelling can shift, crack, or break structures built on such soils. Based on
laboratory tests conducted as a part of the Geotechnical Due Diligence Report (see Appendix B), the near-
surface soils within the Project Site are generally anticipated to possess “very low” expansion potentials
(GeoTek 2016). Additionally, project development would be required to incorporate the recommendations
provided in the Geotechnical Due Diligence Report, as outlined above in Mitigation Measure GEO-1, and
adhere to the provisions of the CBC. Therefore, impacts related to expansive soils would be less than
significant and no mitigation measures are necessary.
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?
No Impact. The Proposed Project would require connection to existing sewers main lines and service lines,
which are currently available in the surrounding roadways. The project would not involve the use of septic
tanks or other alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation
measures are necessary.
3.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Scientists have concluded that human activities are contributing to global climate change by adding large
amounts of heat-trapping gases, known as greenhouse gases (GHGs), into the atmosphere. The primary
source of these GHG is fossil fuel use. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has
identified four major GHGs—water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and ozone (O3)—that are
the likely cause of an increase in global average temperatures observed within the 20th and 21st centuries.
Other GHG identified by the IPCC that contribute to global warming to a lesser extent include nitrous oxide
(N2O), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), hydro fluorocarbons, per fluorocarbons, and chlorofluorocarbons.2, 3
This section analyzes the Prosed Project’s contribution to global climate change impacts in California through
an analysis of project-related GHG emissions. Information on manufacture of cement, steel, and other “life
cycle” emissions that would occur as a result of the project are not applicable and are not included in the
2 Water vapor (H2O) is the strongest GHG and the most variable in its phases (vapor, cloud droplets, ice crystals). However, water
vapor is not considered a pollutant, but part of the feedback loop rather than a primary cause of change.
3 Black carbon contributes to climate change both directly, by absorbing sunlight, and indirectly, by depositing on snow (making it
melt faster) and by interacting with clouds and affecting cloud formation. Black carbon is the most strongly light-absorbing
component of PM emitted from burning fuels. Reducing black carbon emissions globally can have immediate economic, climate,
and public health benefits. California has been an international leader in reducing emissions of black carbon, with close to 95
percent control expected by 2020 due to existing programs that target reducing PM from diesel engines and burning activities
(CARB 2014b). However, state and national GHG inventories do not yet include black carbon due to ongoing work resolving the
precise global warming potential of black carbon. Guidance for CEQA documents does not yet include black carbon.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 94 PlaceWorks
analysis.4 A background discussion on the GHG regulatory setting and GHG modeling data can be found in
Appendix A.
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution
control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
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 greenhouse gas emissions on its own to influence global
climate change significantly; hence, the issue of global climate change is, by definition, a cumulative
environmental impact.
The Proposed Project would generate GHG emissions from vehicle trips generated by the project, energy use
(indirectly from purchased electricity use and directly through fuel consumed for building heating), area
sources (e.g., equipment used onsite, consumer products, coatings), water/wastewater generation, and waste
disposal. Annual GHG emissions were calculated for construction and operation of the Proposed Project.
Annual average construction emissions were amortized over 30 years and included in the emissions inventory
to account for GHG emissions from the construction phase of the Proposed Project. Project-related GHG
emissions are shown in Table 5.
4 Life cycle emissions include indirect emissions associated with materials manufacture. However, these indirect emissions involve
numerous parties, each of which is responsible for GHG emissions of their particular activity. The California Resources Agency, in
adopting the CEQA Guidelines Amendments on GHG emissions found that life cycle analysis was not warranted for project-
specific CEQA analysis in most situations, for a variety of reasons, including lack of control over some sources, and the possibility
of double-counting emissions (see Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action, December 2009). Because the amount of
materials consumed during the operation or construction of the Proposed Project is not known, the origin of the raw materials
purchased is not known, and manufacturing information for those raw materials is also not known, calculation of life cycle
emissions would be speculative. A life-cycle analysis is not warranted (OPR 2008).
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
March 2017 Page 95
Table 5 Project-Related GHG Emissions
Source MTCO2e/year Percent of Project Total
Area 5 <1%
Energy1 1,039 36%
Mobile 1,506 52%
Waste 184 6%
Water 100 3%
Amortized Construction Emissions2 57 2%
Total Emissions 2,890 100%
SCAQMD’s Bright-Line Threshold 3,000 NA
Exceeds Bright-Line Threshold No NA
Source: CalEEMod Version 2013.2.2.
MTCO2e: metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent
Note: Percent changes from each source may not total 100 percent due to rounding.
1 Assumes implementation of the 2016 California Green Building Standards Code and 2016 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards. The 2016 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards are 33.5 percent more energy efficient than the 2008 Standards for nonresidential buildings and 46.0 percent more energy efficient for residential buildings than the 2008 Standards. Multifamily buildings four stories and higher are regulated under the nonresidential building energy efficiency standards; therefore, the nonresidential performance standard was applied to the Proposed Project.
2 Construction emissions are amortized over a 30-year project lifetime per recommended SCAQMD methodology.
As shown in the table, the Proposed Project at buildout would generate approximately 2,890 metric tons of
carbon dioxide–equivalent (MTCO2e) emissions per year. GHG emissions from the Proposed Project would
not exceed the SCAQMD’s bright-line threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e,5 and the Proposed Project’s cumulative
contribution to GHG emissions is less than significant. Therefore, no significant impacts would occur and no
mitigation measures are necessary.
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less Than Significant Impact. The California Air Resources Board’s (CARB’s) Scoping Plan is California’s
GHG reduction strategy to achieve the state’s GHG emissions reduction target established by Assembly Bill
(AB) 32, which is to return to 1990 emission levels by year 2020. To estimate the reductions necessary, CARB
projected statewide 2020 business-as-usual (BAU) GHG emissions and identified that the state as a whole
would need to reduce GHG emissions by 28.5 percent from year 2020 BAU to achieve the target of AB 32
(CARB 2008). The GHG emissions forecast was updated as part of the First Update to the Scoping Plan. In
this update, CARB projected that statewide BAU emissions in 2020 would be approximately 509 million
MTCO2e.6 Therefore, to achieve the AB 32 target of 431 million MTCO2e (i.e., 1990 emissions levels) by
5 This threshold is based on a combined threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e for all land use types proposed by SCAQMD’s Working Group
based on a survey of the GHG emissions inventory of CEQA projects. Approximately 90 percent of CEQA projects’ GHG
emissions inventories exceed 3,000 MTCO2e, which is based on a potential threshold approach cited in the California Air Pollution
Control Officers Association’s white paper, “CEQA and Climate Change.”
6 The BAU forecast includes GHG reductions from Pavley and the 33% Renewable Portfolio Standard.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 96 PlaceWorks
2020, the state would need to reduce emissions by 78 million MTCO2e compared to BAU conditions, a
reduction of 15.3 percent from BAU in 2020 (CARB 2014b).7, 8
Statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions include the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, California Appliance
Energy Efficiency regulations, California Renewable Energy Portfolio standard, changes in the Corporate
Average Fuel Economy standards, and other early action measures as necessary to ensure the state is on target
to achieve the GHG emissions reduction goals of AB 32. Also, new buildings are required to comply with the
current Building and Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen. The statewide strategies in the Scoping
Plan apply to state agencies only and are not directly applicable to individual projects or cities (i.e., the
Scoping Plan does not require the City to adopt policies, programs, or regulations to reduce GHG emissions).
However, new regulations adopted by the state agencies outlined in the Scoping Plan result in GHG
emissions reductions at the local level. Local jurisdictions benefit from reductions in transportation emissions
rates, increases in water efficiency in the building and landscape codes, and other statewide actions that affect
local jurisdictions’ emissions inventory from the top down.
The Proposed Project’s GHG emissions would be reduced from compliance with statewide measures that
have been adopted since AB 32. Additionally, as noted in Section 1.3.8, Green Building and Sustainability, the
Proposed Project would include the following green building practices/features: dual-pane and low-E
windows; low VOC paint, cabinets, and carpeting; low-flow fixtures in bathrooms (toilets, showers); Energy
Star appliances; minimized turf areas to reduce water consumption; use of drought-resistant plant material
throughout; minimized hard surface paving to allow more permeable open space and reduce the heat island
effect; bicycle storage space in parking garages; and bicycle racks in the common open space areas.
In addition to AB 32, the California legislature passed Senate Bill (SB) 375 to connect regional transportation
planning to land use decisions made at a local level. SB 375 requires the metropolitan planning organizations
to prepare a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) in their regional transportation plans to achieve the per
capita GHG reduction targets. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) adopted the
2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) in April 2016
pursuant to the requirements of SB 375. The overarching strategy in the 2016 RTP/SCS is to provide a plan
that allows the southern California region to grow in more compact communities in existing urban areas;
provide neighborhoods with efficient and plentiful public transit and abundant and safe opportunities to
walk, bike, and pursue other forms of active transportation; and preserve more of the region’s remaining
natural lands (SCAG 2016). The SCS does not require that local general plans, specific plans, or zoning be
consistent with the 2016 RTP/SCS, but provides incentives for consistency for governments and developers.
7 If the GHG emissions reductions from Pavley I and the Renewable Electricity Standard are accounted for as part of the BAU
scenario (30 million MTCO2e total), then the state would need to reduce emissions by 108 million MTCO2e, which is a 20 percent
reduction from BAU.
8 In May 2014, CARB completed a five-year update to the 2008 Scoping Plan. CARB recalculated the 1990 GHG emission levels
with the updated global warming potential in the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, and the 427 million MTCO2e 1990 emissions
level and 2020 GHG emissions limit, established in response to AB 32, is slightly higher, at 431 million MTCO2e (CARB 2014b).
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
March 2017 Page 97
The Proposed Project is consistent with the underlying General Plan land use designation of the Project Site
and would not interfere with SCAG’s ability to implement the regional goals and strategies outlined in the
2016 RTP/SCS. In fact, the Proposed Project would help implement the 2016 RTP/SCS goals and strategies
by providing housing close to employment (a wide variety office, commercial, entertainment, hospitality and
medical employment opportunities are within walking and biking distance of the Project Site); integrating
pedestrian connections between complementary uses (project provides safe and efficient pedestrian
connections to a wide variety of complementary uses in the project vicinity); providing residential uses within
proximity of alternatives forms of transportation (a number of pedestrian and bicycle facilities as well as
public transit are available in the project vicinity); and providing residential development within a compact
and highly urbanized area of the City. Furthermore, the Proposed Project would be consistent with SCAG’s
regional goals of providing infill housing and integrating land uses near major transportation corridors.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary.
3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or
disposal of hazardous materials?
Less Than Significant Impact. Following is a discussion of the potential hazards impacts that could arise
from the Proposed Project’s construction and operational phases.
Project Operation
Operation of the proposed residences, and to a lesser extent the stand-alone parking structure, would involve
the use of small amounts of hazardous materials, such as cleansers, paints, fertilizers, and pesticides for
cleaning and maintenance purposes. Project residents can dispose of household hazardous waste materials at
the Household Hazardous Waste Collection Center at 1071 N. Blue Gum Street, in the City of Anaheim,
approximately five miles north of the Project Site (City of Orange 2016). Apartment complexes and parking
structures are also not associated with uses that use, generate, store, or transport large quantities of hazardous
materials; such uses generally include manufacturing, industrial, medical (e.g., hospital), and other similar uses.
Additionally, the use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials would be governed by existing
regulations of several agencies, including the US Environmental Protection Agency, US Department of
Transportation, California Division of Occupational Safety and Health, OC Environmental Health, and City
of Orange Fire Department (OFD). Compliance with applicable laws and regulations governing the use,
storage, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials would ensure that all potentially hazardous
materials are used and handled in an appropriate manner and would minimize the potential for safety impacts.
The Proposed Project would also be constructed and operated with strict adherence to all emergency
response plan requirements set forth by the City of Orange and OFD.
Therefore, hazards to the public or the environment arising from the routine use, storage, transport, and
disposal of hazardous materials during long-term operation of the Proposed Project would not occur.
Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 98 PlaceWorks
Project Construction
Project-related construction activities would involve the use of larger amounts of hazardous materials than
would project operation. Construction activities would include the use of materials such as fuels, lubricants,
and greases in construction equipment and coatings used in construction. However, the materials used would
not be in such quantities or stored in such a manner as to pose a significant safety hazard. These activities
would also be short term or one time in nature, and would cease upon completion of the Proposed Project’s
construction phase. Project construction workers would be trained in safe handling and hazardous materials
use.
Additionally, as with project operation, the use, storage, transport, and disposal of construction-related
hazardous materials would be required to conform to existing laws and regulations. Compliance with
applicable laws and regulations governing the use, storage, transportation, and disposal of hazardous
materials would ensure that all potentially hazardous materials are used and handled in an appropriate manner
and would minimize the potential for safety impacts. For example, all spills or leakage of petroleum products
during construction activities are required to be immediately contained, the hazardous material identified, and
the material remediated in compliance with applicable state and local regulations for the cleanup and disposal
of that contaminant. All contaminated waste would be required to be collected and disposed of at an
appropriately licensed disposal or treatment facility.
Furthermore, strict adherence to all emergency response plan requirements set forth by the City of Orange,
and OFD would be required through the duration of the project construction phase. Therefore, hazards to
the public or the environment arising from the routine use of hazardous materials during project
construction would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
Less Than Significant Impact. Following is a discussion of the potential hazards impacts that could arise
through the accidental release of hazardous materials from the Proposed Project’s construction and
operational phases, as well from existing site materials.
Hazardous Materials Associated with Project Construction and Operation
See response to Section 3.8(a), above. As concluded in this section, hazards to the public or the environment
arising from the routine use of hazardous materials during project operation and construction phases would
not occur. Additionally, the Proposed Project consists of the development of residential uses and a stand-
alone parking structure, neither of which would result in the generation of air toxics that would require a
permit by SCAMQD.
Hazardous Materials Onsite
As shown in Figure 3, Aerial Photograph, the Project Site is currently developed (and has been for many years)
with a multi-story office building and two surface parking lots that serve the office and commercial/retail uses
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
March 2017 Page 99
in the surrounding area. Development of the Proposed Project includes demolition of these two parking lots
and removal of a number of trees and other landscape improvements (site features to be demolished and
removed are shown in Figure 3 and Figures 4a and 4b, Site Photographs). However, none of the site
improvements to be demolished or removed are associated with or contain hazardous materials. Additionally,
any site materials demolished (e.g., asphalt, concrete) would either be reused onsite for development of the
Proposed Project’s site improvements (e.g., drive aisles, walkways), or hauled offsite to the appropriate
disposal or recycling facility and in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations associated with the
transport and disposal of hazardous and nonhazardous materials.
Furthermore, prior development of the Project Site did not find any hazardous materials onsite (including
site soils) or result in the creation of any hazardous materials due to the current site’s operation. Finally, since
the onsite office building would remain as it is, asbestos-containing materials are not anticipated to be of
significant concern. Likewise, lead-based paint is not considered to be a potential hazard.
Based on the preceding, it is unlikely that the construction or operation of the Proposed Project would cause
the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant
and no mitigation measures are necessary.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
No Impact. There are no schools within a quarter mile of the Project Site. The closest school to the site is
Page Private School, approximately 1.5 miles to the northwest. Additionally, the transport of any hazardous
materials during the Proposed Project’s construction phase would generally occur along the surrounding
roadways, including Chapman Avenue, Lewis Street, and The City Drive. The transport of such materials
would not occur along or around the streets that surround the private school site. Therefore, no impacts
would occur and no migration measures are necessary.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
No Impact. A regulatory database search was conducted using EnviroMapper (USEPA 2016), EnviroStor
(DTSC 2016), and GeoTracker (SWRCB 2016), which are databases that monitor leaking underground
storage tank cleanup sites, cleanup program sites, land disposal sites, military sites, waste discharge
requirement sites, irrigated lands regulatory program, permitted underground storage tank facilities, oil and
gas monitoring, noncase information/project sites, sampling points-public, field points, Department of Toxic
Substances Control (DTSC) cleanup sites, DTSC hazardous waste permit, Department of Water Resources
groundwater basins, and public water systems. According to these databases, no hazardous materials sites
were listed on or in proximity of the Project Site. Therefore, no impacts to the public or to the environment
would occur as a result of the Proposed Project and no mitigation measures are necessary.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 100 PlaceWorks
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles or a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
No Impact. The Project Site is not within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport; the nearest public use airports are John Wayne Airport and Fullerton Municipal Airport,
approximately 7.4 miles south and 7.3 miles northwest of the Project Site, respectively. The Project Site is
outside of areas where land uses are regulated to prevent air crash hazards and areas where structure heights
are limited to prevent airspace obstructions for aircraft approaching or departing both of these airports
(OCALUC 2008 and 2004). Therefore, development of the Proposed Project would not result in an airport-
related hazard for residents or workers on or near the Project Site. No impact would occur and no mitigation
measures are necessary.
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working in the project area?
No Impact. See response to Section 8(e), above.
Additionally, there are no private airstrips in proximity of the Project Site. However, UCI Medical Center has
an at-grade helipad at the southeast corner of Chapman Avenue and The City Drive, approximately 0.3 mile
east of the Project Site. Additionally, the Orange County Fire Training Facility at-grade helipad is
approximately 0.9 mile to the northeast, at the Orangewood Avenue and Rampart Street intersection.
Due to the relatively low building height of the proposed parking structure and apartment complex (both
mid-rise) and their distance from these helipads, the Proposed Project is not anticipated to result in a change
in air traffic patterns at these helipads that would result in a safety hazard for people residing or working
onsite or surrounding area. There are also similar-height buildings adjacent to and in proximity of the
helipads, as well as around the Project Site, and the size and siting of the proposed building and structure
would not interfere with helicopter operations at these helipads.
Additionally, over congested areas, helicopters are required to maintain an altitude of at least 1,000 feet above
the highest obstacle within 2,000 feet of the aircraft, except as needed for takeoff and landing (Code of
Federal Regulations, Title 14 § 91.119). Takeoffs and landings at these helipads are also infrequent.
Furthermore, helicopter takeoffs and landings are at a sufficient distance from the Project Site that they
would not pose a safety hazard to residents, workers, or guests within the Project Site or its surroundings.
Therefore, impacts associated with helipads would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are
necessary.
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Orange is a participant in PrepareOC, the County of Orange
Incident Preparedness, Response & Recovery Program. The goal of PrepareOC is to develop a coordinated
approach to preparedness planning for county government, local governments and organizations, and the
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
March 2017 Page 101
county’s constituents. Development of the Proposed Project would have no adverse impact on
implementation of PrepareOC, and the project is not considered a critical facility as defined by the Essential
Services Building Seismic Safety Act for buildings that provide essential services after a disaster.
Additionally, during the construction and operation phases, the Proposed Project would not interfere with
any of the daily operations of the County of Orange emergency operations center, the City’s emergency
operations center, or OFD. All construction activities would be required to be performed per the City’s and
OFD’s standards and regulations. The Proposed Project would be required to provide the necessary on- and
offsite access and circulation for emergency vehicles and services during the construction and operation
phases. The Proposed Project would also be required to go through the City’s development review and
permitting process and would be required to incorporate all applicable design and safety standards and
regulations in the CBC and Orange Municipal Code (including those of Chapter 15.32 [City of Orange Fire
Code]) to ensure that project development does not interfere with the provision of local emergency services
(provision of adequate access roads to accommodate emergency response vehicles, adequate
numbers/locations of fire hydrants, etc.).
Installation of an emergency responder radio system would also be required per Section 15.32.340
(Emergency Responder Radio Coverage) of the Orange Municipal Code and Section 510 of the California
Fire Code. The emergency responder radio system is required to be installed in accordance with the City of
Orange Emergency Responder Digital Radio Guideline. Knox boxes would also be required where necessary
(i.e., stairwells where the doors are locked for entry, parking structure gated entries) to provide access for
OFD personnel.
Furthermore, the Proposed Project would not require road closures or otherwise impact the functionality of
Chapman Avenue, South Lewis Street, or The City Drive as public safety access routes. The City Drive is a
designated evacuation corridor in the City of Orange from Orangewood Avenue to Garden Grove
Boulevard, as shown in Figure PS-4 (Generalized Evacuation Corridors) of the City’s General Plan Safety
Element.
However, project development includes offsite street improvements along Chapman Avenue and Lewis
Street, which include roadway pavement, curb and gutter, and landscaping, as well as the construction of a
new access drive off Chapman Avenue (see Figure 5, Conceptual Illustrative Site Plan). Project development
would also include construction of internal roadways, which would serve for pedestrian and emergency-
vehicle access. During project construction, emergency-vehicle access would not be restricted to the site or
surrounding areas. Roads surrounding the Project Site would remain open for regular traffic as well as
emergency vehicles. Additionally, in the event of an emergency (e.g., structural fire), emergency services’
access to the surrounding buildings and uses would not be impacted by the Proposed Project’s construction
phase, since adequate access for emergency vehicles and personnel exists for the surrounding buildings and
uses.
Based on the preceding, implementation of the Proposed Project (both the construction and operational
phases) would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with the adopted PrepareOC or any other
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 102 PlaceWorks
emergency response plan. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are
necessary.
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
No Impact. A wildland fire hazard area is typically characterized by areas with limited access, rugged terrain,
limited water supply, and combustible vegetation. As shown in Figure 3, Aerial Photograph, the Project Site is in
a highly-urbanized area of the City and is surrounded by a mix of residential, commercial/retail, office, and
medical uses. The Project Site is characterized by ornamental landscaping, has good access, and is served by
adequate water infrastructure. There is no combustible wildland vegetation on or near the site. The site is also
not in or next to a Fire Hazard Severity Zone mapped by the California Department of Forestry and Fire
Prevention; the nearest Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone to the Project Site is over five miles to the
northeast (CALFIRE 2011). Additionally, as shown in Figure PS-1 (Environmental and Natural Hazard Policy
Map) of the City’s General Plan Public Safety Element, the Project Site is not within a designated wildland
fire hazard area. Therefore, project development would not introduce people or structures to substantial
hazards from wildland fires. No impact would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary.
3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
The analysis in this section is based partly on the following technical studies, which are included as
Appendices C and D to this Initial Study:
Preliminary Priority Water Quality Management Plan, Michal Baker International, November 2, 2016.
(Appendix C)
Preliminary Hydrology Report, Michael Baker International, June 21, 2016. (Appendix D)
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
Less Than Significant Impact. Water quality within the City of Orange is regulated by the Santa Ana
Regional Water Quality Control Board and its Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin
(Basin Plan), which contains water quality standards and identifies beneficial uses for receiving waters (wildlife
habitat, agricultural supply, fishing, etc.) along with water quality criteria necessary to support these uses
consistent with federal and state water quality laws.
Following is a discussion of the potential water quality impacts as a result of the Proposed Project’s
construction and operational phases.
Construction Phase
Construction-related runoff pollutants are typically generated from waste and hazardous materials handling
or storage areas, outdoor work areas, material storage areas, and general maintenance areas (e.g., vehicle or
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
March 2017 Page 103
equipment fueling and maintenance, including washing). The Proposed Project’s construction phase may
cause deterioration in the quality of downstream receiving waters if construction-related sediments or
pollutants wash into the existing storm drain system and facilities in the area, which eventually enter the East
Garden Grove-Wintersburg Channel before ultimately reaching the outlet point in Huntington Harbour.
Construction projects of one acre or more are regulated under the 2009 CGP (2009-009-DWQ) and its
subsequent revisions (2012-0006-DWQ), issued by SWRCB. Projects obtain coverage by developing and
implementing a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), estimating sediment risk from construction
activities to receiving waters, and specifying BMPs that would be implemented as a part of the project’s
construction phase to minimize pollution of stormwater prior to and during grading and construction. Types
of BMPs that are incorporated in SWPPPs and would minimize impacts from soil erosion include those
listed in Table 6.
Table 6 Construction BMPs
Category Purpose Examples
Erosion Controls and Wind Erosion
Controls
Cover and/or bind soil surface, to prevent soil
particles from being detached and transported by
water or wind
Mulch, geotextiles, mats, hydroseeding,
earth dikes, swales
Sediment Controls Filter out soil particles that have been detached and
transported in water.
Barriers such as straw bales, sandbags,
fiber rolls, and gravel bag berms; desilting
basin; cleaning measures such as street
sweeping
Tracking Controls Minimize the tracking of soil offsite by vehicles
Stabilized construction roadways and
construction entrances/exits;
entrance/outlet tire wash.
Non-storm Water Management
Controls
Prohibit discharge of materials other than
stormwater, such as discharges from the cleaning,
maintenance, and fueling of vehicles and
equipment. Conduct various construction
operations, including paving, grinding, and concrete
curing and finishing, in ways that minimize non-
stormwater discharges and contamination of any
such discharges.
BMPs specifying methods for: paving and
grinding operations; cleaning, fueling, and
maintenance of vehicles and equipment;
concrete curing; concrete finishing.
Waste Management and Controls
(i.e., good housekeeping practices)
Management of materials and wastes to avoid
contamination of stormwater.
Spill prevention and control, stockpile
management, and management of solid
wastes and hazardous wastes.
Source: CASQA 2003.
The Proposed Project’s construction contractor would be required to prepare and implement an SWPPP and
associated BMPs in compliance with the CGP during grading and construction. The SWPPP would specify
BMPs, such as those outlined in Table 6, that the construction contractor would implement to protect water
quality by eliminating and/or minimizing stormwater pollution prior to and during grading and construction
and show the placement of those BMPs. Additional construction BMPs that would be incorporated into the
Proposed Project’s SWPPP and implemented during the construction phase include but are not limited to:
Perimeter control with silt fences and perimeter sandbags and/or gravel bags.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 104 PlaceWorks
Stabilized construction exit with rumble strip(s)/plate(s).
Installation of storm drain inlet protection on affected onsite drains and within roadways.
Installation of silt fences around stockpile and covering of stockpiles.
Use of secondary containment around barrels, containers and storage materials that may impact water
quality.
Stabilization of disturbed areas where construction ceases for a determined period of time (e.g., one
week) with erosion controls.
Installation of temporary sanitary facilities and dumpsters.
Adherence to the BMPs in the SWPPP would reduce, prevent, minimize, and/or treat pollutants and prevent
degradation of downstream receiving waters. BMPs identified in the SWPPP would reduce or avoid
contamination of stormwater with sediment and other pollutants such as trash and debris; oil, grease, fuels,
and other toxic chemicals; paint, concrete, asphalt, bituminous 9 materials, etc.; and nutrients.
Additionally, Section A-8 (Construction) of the City’s Local Implementation Plan and the City’s Grading
Manual specify BMP requirements for proper water quality and stormwater runoff management, which
would be applicable to the Proposed Project.
Therefore, no significant water quality and waste-discharge impacts from grading and construction activities
of the Proposed Project are anticipated to occur and no mitigation measures are necessary.
Operation Phase
The Project Site is in the Santa Ana Region 8, within the Westminster Watershed, which covers 74.1 square
miles in the southwestern corner of Orange County. The downstream receiving waters for the Project Site
include the East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Channel, Bolsa Bay, Huntington Harbour, and eventually
Anaheim Bay. Existing runoff from the Project Site surface flows across the paved parking areas where it is
captured by catch basins in various locations. Once captured, site drainage is sent to a private storm drain
located along Lewis Street via existing underground storm drain pipes, where it then enters the East Garden
Grove-Wintersburg Channel before ultimately reaching the outlet point in Huntington Harbour.
As stated in the Preliminary Priority WQMP prepared for the Proposed Project (see Appendix C), water
quality impairments (not meeting its designated beneficial uses) of Huntington Harbour include pathogens,
metals, pesticides, toxicity, and other organics. Water quality impairments of Anaheim Bay include metals,
pesticides, toxicity, and other organic compounds. There are no water quality impairments for Bolsa Bay.
Operational-related activities of the Proposed Project (e.g., runoff from parking areas, solid waste storage
9 Bituminous = resembling or containing bitumen; bitumen = any of various viscous or solid impure mixtures of hydrocarbons that
occur naturally in asphalt, tar, mineral waxes, etc.; used as a road surfacing and roofing material.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
March 2017 Page 105
areas, and landscaped areas) would generate pollutants that could adversely affect the water quality of
receiving waters if effective measures were not used to keep pollutants out of stormwater and remove
pollutants from stormwater.
Per Table 2.1 of the 2011 Model WQMP (which outlines expected or anticipated pollutants for various land
use types), the Proposed Project’s primary expected or anticipated pollutants of concern include suspended
solids/sediments, nutrients, heavy metals, pathogens (bacteria/viruses), pesticides, oil and grease, toxic
organic compounds, and trash and debris (MBI 2016a). For example, landscaping activities contribute to
sediments while anthropogenic activities (i.e., pet waste and food waste) contribute to bacteria. Mitigation of
these pollutants of concern is accomplished through the implementation of postdevelopment (operation
phase) BMPs, as discussed below.
In accordance with the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan and the City of Orange Local
Implementation Plan, a Preliminary Priority WQMP was prepared for the Proposed Project (see Appendix
C). The Drainage Area Management Plan and Local Implementation Plan prescribe how the City enforces
NPDES permit requirements. The Preliminary Priority WQMP specifies BMPs that would be used to
minimize water pollution from the Project Site during the operation phase. As outlined in the Preliminary
Priority WQMP, the Proposed Project would include low-impact-development BMPs (LID BMPs), site
design BMPs, nonstructural source control BMPs, and structural source control BMPs. A detailed list of the
BMPs and discussion of how the BMPs were selected based on their effectiveness to address and mitigate the
Proposed Project’s pollutants of concern are provided in the Preliminary Priority WQMP. The locations of
proposed postdevelopment BMPs are shown in Figure 13, Preliminary BMP Exhibit.
As shown in Figure 13, site drainage improvements needed to accommodate the Proposed Project would
include new storm drain pipes, catch basins, and underground infiltration chambers. Once runoff enters the
catch basins, it would be conveyed via storm drain pipes to underground infiltration chambers. Captured
runoff would be pretreated via a dedicated isolator row prior to entering the infiltration chambers. The final
BMPs to be implemented for the Proposed Project would be determined through the City’s review of the
final WQMP, which would occur during the City’s development review and building plan check process.
The information provided in the Preliminary Priority WQMP provides sufficient detail to identify the major
LID BMPs and other anticipated water quality BMPs and features that would be implemented as a part of the
Proposed Project and would prevent impacts to the quality of receiving waters, which include Bolsa Bay,
Huntington Harbour, and eventually Anaheim Bay. The combination of BMPs identified in the Preliminary
Priority WQMP addresses all identified pollutants of the Proposed Project. Implementation of these BMPs
would be ensured through the City’s development review and building plan check process.
Therefore, no significant water quality and waste-discharge impacts from operation activities of the Proposed
Project are anticipated to occur and no mitigation measures are necessary.
Hydrologic Conditions of Concern
Potential hydrologic conditions of concern (HCOC) were analyzed as a part of the Preliminary Priority
WQMP (see Appendix C). The purpose of the analysis was to identify any HCOCs with respect to
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 106 PlaceWorks
downstream flooding, erosion potential of natural channels downstream, impacts of increased flows on
natural habitat, etc. As specified in Section 2.2.3 of the 2011 Orange County Technical Guidance Document,
development projects must identify and mitigate any HCOCs. An HCOC is a combination of upland
hydrologic conditions and stream biological and physical conditions that presents a condition of concern for
physical and/or biological degradation of streams.
In the North Orange County permit area, HCOCs are considered to exist if any streams downstream from
the Project Site are determined to be potentially susceptible to hydromodification impacts and either of the
following conditions exists:
Postdevelopment runoff volume for the 2-year, 24-hour storm event exceeds the predevelopment runoff
volume for the 2-year, 24-hour storm by more than 5 percent.
Time of concentration of postdevelopment runoff for the 2-year, 24-hour storm event exceeds the time
of concentration of the predevelopment condition for the 2-year, 24-hour storm event by more than 5
percent.10
If these conditions do not exist or streams are not potentially susceptible to hydromodification impacts, an
HCOC does not exist and hydromodification does not need to be considered further. In the North Orange
County permit area, downstream channels are considered not susceptible to hydromodification, and therefore
do not have the potential for an HCOC if all downstream conveyance channels that will receive runoff from
a project are engineered, hardened, and regularly maintained to ensure design flow capacity, and no sensitive
habitat areas will be affected.
As stated in the Preliminary Priority WQMP, the Project Site downstream conditions are stabilized and are
not susceptible to hydromodification. No significant activities associated with the Proposed Project are
anticipated to result in HCOCs. Additionally, any hydromodification concerns would be addressed onsite via
the final LID BMPs. Therefore, downstream channel improvements or other stabilization measures are not
proposed or necessary with project implementation. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation
measures are necessary.
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which
would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Orange County Water District (OCWD) manages the Orange County
Groundwater Basin (Basin), which covers approximately 350 square miles beneath the Tustin and Downey
Plains. It is bounded by consolidated rocks exposed on the north in the Puente and Chino Hills, on the east in
the Santa Ana Mountains, and on the south in the San Joaquin Hills. The City obtains approximately 55
10 Time of concentration is the travel time between the furthest point on the watershed to the point represented by the hydrograph or
point of interest.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
March 2017 Page 107
percent of its water from City-owned groundwater wells. OCWD completed a Groundwater Replenishment
System, which injects purified sewer water into the Basin. This is designed to meet the drinking water needs
of the existing population of north and central Orange County and projected additional residents by 2020.
As shown in Figure NR-2 (Drainage Areas and Water Recharge Facilities) of the City’s General Plan Natural
Resources Element, groundwater recharge facilities within or adjacent to the City include the Santa Ana River
(northeast of the Project Site) and Santiago Creek (east of the Project Site). The Project Site is not located in
or near either of these groundwater recharge facilities. Moreover, geotechnical investigations conducted as a
part of the Geotechnical Due Diligence Report prepared for the Proposed Project (see Appendix B) revealed
that groundwater was not encountered at the Project Site. Historical high groundwater for the Project Site
and surrounding area is mapped by the California Geologic Survey at approximately 35 feet below ground
surface. Consequently, the Project Site does not represent a source of groundwater recharge. Therefore, the
Proposed Project would not substantially interfere with groundwater supplies or recharge and impacts would
be less than significant. No mitigation measures are necessary.
Impacts to groundwater supplies are further discussed in Section 3.18(d), below.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in a substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-site.
Less Than Significant Impact. Erosion and siltation impacts potentially resulting from alteration of the
drainage pattern as a result of the Proposed Project would, for the most part, occur during the project’s
construction phase, which would include site preparation and grading activities. Erosion and siltation are not
anticipated to occur during project operation.
Project Construction
As discussed above in Section 3.9(a), the project construction contractor would be required to prepare and
implement a SWPPP pursuant to the CGP during grading and construction. The SWPPP would specify
BMPs that the project construction contractor would implement prior to and during grading and
construction to minimize erosion and siltation impacts on- and offsite. BMPs that would be implemented
during the Proposed Project’s construction phase are discussed in detail in Section 3.9(a), above. For example,
BMPs would include but are not limited to: installation of perimeter silt fences, installation of silt fences
around stockpile and covering of stockpiles, and stabilization of disturbed areas where construction ceases
for a determined period of time (e.g., one week) with erosion controls. Adherence to the BMPs in the
SWPPP would reduce, prevent, or minimize soil erosion from project-related grading and construction
activities.
Therefore, project-related construction activities would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or
offsite. Construction-related impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 108 PlaceWorks
Project Operation
Currently, the Project Site is relatively flat and does not consist of bare or exposed soil. As shown in Figure 3,
Aerial Photograph, the Project Site is currently developed with two surface parking area lots and a multi-story
office building. Under the Proposed Project, there would be no bare or disturbed soil onsite at project
completion that would be vulnerable to erosion or siltation. All areas would either be paved or landscaped.
Under proposed conditions, stormwater runoff would also be conveyed similar to existing conditions,
continuing to flow generally southwest. Additionally, there are no areas of bare or disturbed soil adjacent to
or surrounding the Project Site; as shown in Figure 3, areas surrounding the Project Site are developed with
buildings, hardscape, and landscape.
Furthermore, project development would include the installation of underground infiltration chambers (see
Figure 13, Preliminary BMP Exhibit), which would be incorporated as a LID BMP and function as an onsite
stormwater retention feature. LID improvements are designed to capture or slow runoff leaving a
development site, which helps prevent erosion or siltation on or downstream of the site. Impacts resulting
from runoff velocity are discussed in Section 3.9(d), below.
Also, refer the Section 3.9(a) for an analysis regarding potential HCOCs, which were analyzed as a part of the
Preliminary Priority WQMP (see Appendix C). The purpose of the analysis was to identify any HCOCs with
respect to downstream flooding, erosion potential of natural channels downstream, impacts of increased
flows on natural habitat, etc. As concluded in Section 3.9(a), no significant activities associated with the
Proposed Project are anticipated to result in HCOCs, including erosion.
Therefore, development of the Proposed Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite. Operation-
related impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary.
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project Site lies within the Westminster Watershed, which covers 74.1
square miles in the southwestern corner of Orange County. The watershed includes portions of the cities of
Anaheim, Cypress, Fountain Valley, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, Los Alamitos, Santa Ana, Seal Beach,
Stanton, Orange, and Westminster. Three main tributaries drain this watershed: Los Alamitos Channel, Bolsa
Chica Channel, and East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Channel. The Los Alamitos Channel drains into the San
Gabriel River. The Bolsa Chica Channel empties into the Anaheim Bay-Huntington Harbour complex. The
East Garden Grove- Wintersburg Channel drains through Bolsa Bay into Huntington Harbour, and finally
into Anaheim Bay. The Project Site is in the East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Channel drainage area. These
drainages are maintained by the Orange County Flood Control District and have been designed to protect
habitable structures from flooding during a 100-year storm event (EMA 1996). Much of this system has also
been lined with concrete to minimize erosion.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
March 2017 Page 109
The majority of existing runoff from the Project Site surface-flows in a southwesterly direction across the
paved parking areas where it is captured by catch basins in various locations; once captured, site drainage is
sent to a private storm drain along Lewis Street via existing underground storm drain pipes, where it enters
the East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Channel before ultimately reaching the outlet point in Huntington
Harbour. However, some site runoff surface flows into the curb and gutter along Chapman Avenue.
Project implementation is not anticipated to substantially change the drainage pattern onsite or substantially
increase the rate or amount of runoff. Under proposed conditions, runoff from the overall Project Site
would be conveyed similar to existing conditions, continuing to flow southwesterly via new onsite drainage
collection and treatment systems. Project development would, however, result in a decrease in the amount of
impervious surfaces, which in turn would help decrease the rate or amount of runoff in comparison to
existing conditions. Currently, approximately 87 percent of the overall Project Site consists of impervious
areas (e.g., buildings, paving), with the remainder consisting of pervious areas (e.g., landscaping). Under
proposed conditions, approximately 84 percent of the Project Site would consist of impervious areas (e.g.,
buildings and structures, paving), with the remainder consisting of pervious areas (e.g., landscaping).
As required by the City of Orange, a Preliminary Hydrology Report was prepared for the Proposed Project
(see Appendix D). Consistent with the City’s requirements, the technical report included an analysis of
postdevelopment water runoff conditions from 10-, 25- and 100-year storm events. The Proposed Hydrology
Map (provided as Appendix B to the Preliminary Hydrology Report) shows the locations of the nodes and
subareas that were used in the Preliminary Hydrology Report. As concluded in the report, due to the
reduction in the overall site imperviousness, the volume of runoff expected for the overall Project Site under
the Proposed Project would be less than existing conditions. Specifically, under existing conditions for the
overall Project Site, runoff from a 10-year storm even is approximately 14.57 cubic feet per second (cfs),
runoff from a 25-year storm event is approximately 18.20 cfs, and runoff from a 100-year storm even is
approximately 23.56 cfs. Under proposed conditions for the overall Project Site, runoff from a 10-year storm
event would be approximately 14.02 cfs (a decrease of 0.55 cfs), runoff from a 25-year storm event would be
approximately 17.47 cfs (a decrease of 0.73 cfs), and runoff from a 100-year storm event would be
approximately 22.70 cfs (a decrease of 0.86 cfs).
Based on the preceding, postdevelopment runoff from the Project Site would be adequately handled by the
Proposed Project’s drainage system and would not exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the Project Site or area in a manner
that would result in flooding on- or offsite. In fact, postdevelopment runoff would decrease under proposed
conditions when compared to existing conditions. Therefore, impacts of the Proposed Project would be less
than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary.
e) 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?
Less Than Significant Impact.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 110 PlaceWorks
Capacity of Stormwater Drainage Systems
Project-related impacts on the capacity of stormwater drainage systems are addressed above in Section 3.9(d).
As discussed in this section, the overall site imperviousness would be reduced under proposed conditions.
Additionally, postdevelopment runoff would decrease under proposed conditions when compared to existing
conditions. Therefore, existing storm drain infrastructure, which was designed to handle the existing
condition runoff, would not be negatively affected by development of the Proposed Project. Based on the
analysis provided in Section 3.9(d), postdevelopment runoff from the Project Site would be adequately
handled by the Proposed Project’s drainage system and would not exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are
necessary.
Sources of Polluted Runoff
Project-related water quality impacts, which include impacts to related sources of polluted runoff during the
Proposed Projects construction and operational phases, are addressed above in Section 3.9(a). As concluded
in this section, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary.
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Less Than Significant Impact. See response to Section 3.9(a), above.
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
No Impact. According to Figure PS-1 (Environmental and Natural Hazard Policy Map) of the City’s Public
Safety Element and indicated on the Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map
Number 06059C0142J (effective December 3, 2009) covering the project area, the Project Site is not in a 100-
year flood zone. The Project Site is in Zone X, indicating that it is out of the 100-year and 500-year flood
zones (FEMA 2016). Development of the Proposed Project would not place people or structures at risk of
flooding in a 100-year flood zone and would not place structures in 100-year flood zones that would redirect
flood flows. Therefore, no flooding impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary.
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?
No Impact. See response to Section 3.9(g), above.
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
Less Than Significant Impact. Loss of life and damage to structures, roads, and utilities may result from a
dam or reservoir failure. Dams in the region that could pose a risk for future residents and employees of the
Proposed Project include Santiago Dam, Villa Park Dam, Peters Canyon Dam, and Prado Dam. Areas
downstream from these dams have high potential for inundation in the unlikely event of catastrophic dam
failure.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
March 2017 Page 111
The closest dams to the Project Site are Peters Canyon and Villa Park Dams, which are approximately 7.6 and
7.7 miles east and northeast, respectively, of the Project Site upstream of Santiago Creek. Santiago Dam,
which lies upstream (southeast) of the City of Orange, is approximately 9.7 miles east of the Project Site. The
Project Site is not within the inundation areas of any of these dams (CalEMA 2007).
However, the Project Site is within the Prado Dam Inundation Zone (CalEMA 2007). Prado Dam is
approximately 11 miles northeast of the eastern portion of the City (or 16 miles northeast of the Project
Site), near the cities of Chino Hills and Corona. Therefore, the Project Site could face the danger of
inundation if this dam failed with heavy rainfall or for engineering/design reasons. Prado Dam is owned by
the Orange County Flood Control District and operated by the Los Angeles District US Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps); the dam was constructed for the primary purpose of providing protection from floods for
the metropolitan areas in Orange County. Installation of the Seven Oaks Dam in San Bernardino County has
lessened the impact of a Prado Dam failure. Additionally, given seismic safety requirements for dams (e.g.,
design, frequent inspections, and monitoring) outlined in the California State Water Code, the minimum
amount of water that is commonly behind the dam (the dam does not impound a full reservoir most of the
time), and the capacity of channels below the dam, dam failure is very unlikely. The inundation areas for
Prado Dam also reflect events of an extremely remote nature. Site occupants would have sufficient time to
evacuate the Project Site in the event that flood waters reached the site; it would take approximately four
hours for flood waters from the dam to reach the site.
Furthermore, because dam failure can have severe consequences, the Federal Emergency Management
Agency requires that all dam owners develop emergency action plans for warning, evacuation, and postflood
actions. The responsibility for facilitation of emergency response is also the responsibility of the owner. As
noted above, Prado Dam is operated and maintained by the Corps. As part of their Dam Safety Program, the
Corps conducts routine inspections and operation of the dam and has developed an emergency action plan
for Prado Dam in coordination with local emergency management officials. The primary objective of the
Corps Dam Safety Program is to maintain public safety by making sure the dams owned and operated by the
Corps are safe and risks to the public are minimized (Corps 2016).
Finally, in the unlikely event of a Prado Dam failure, the Corps will contact the following agencies: Sheriff’s
Department Control One; Orange County Public Works; Orange County Disaster Preparedness; and
Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, Sacramento. Once contacted, these agencies notify all pertinent
federal, state, county, and local agencies through the state’s National Warning System and all applicable
Orange County communications systems.
Based on the preceding, development of the Proposed Project would not expose people or structures to
significant impacts involving flooding as a result of a failure of a dam. Impacts would be less than significant
and no mitigation measures are necessary.
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
No Impact. The following describes potential impacts to people and structures from seiches, tsunamis, and
mudflows.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 112 PlaceWorks
Seiche
A seiche is a surface wave created when a body of water is shaken, usually by earthquake activity. Seiches are
of concern relative to water storage facilities because inundation from a seiche can occur if the wave
overflows a containment wall, such as the wall of a reservoir, water storage tank, dam, or other artificial body
of water.
There are no water storage facilities or enclosed water bodies on or within the vicinity of the Project Site that
could pose a flood hazard to the site due to a seiche or failure of an aboveground reservoir. The nearest large
body of water is Irvine Lake, which is approximately nine miles east of the Project Site. Therefore, impacts
from a seiche would not occur and no mitigation measures are necessary.
Potential inundation impacts due to a dam failure are discussed in Section 3.9(i), above.
Tsunami
A tsunami is a sea wave caused by a sudden displacement of the ocean floor, most often due to earthquakes.
The Project Site elevation is approximately 135 feet above mean sea level, and the site is approximately 11
miles inland from the Pacific Ocean. Therefore, project development would not place people or structures at
risk of flooding due to a tsunami. No impact would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary.
Mudflow
A mudflow is a landslide composed of saturated rock debris and soil with a consistency of wet cement. The
Project Site and surrounding area are in an urbanized area and are relatively level and contain minimal rises or
changes in elevation. No major slopes or bluffs are on or adjacent to the Project Site. Therefore, impacts
from a mudflow would not occur and no mitigation measures are necessary.
k) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction activities?
Less Than Significant Impact. See response to Section 3.9(a), above.
l) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from post-construction activities?
Less Than Significant Impact. See response to Section 3.9(a), above.
m) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants from areas of material storage,
vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste
handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other
outdoor work areas?
Less Than Significant Impact. See response to Section 3.9(a), above, for a discussion regarding the
potential for the discharge of stormwater pollutants from waste and hazardous materials handling or storage
areas (construction and operations phases), outdoor work areas (construction phase only), material storage
areas (construction phase only), and general maintenance areas (e.g., vehicle or equipment fueling and
maintenance, including washing; construction phase only). Through implementation of the BMPs outlined in
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
March 2017 Page 113
the SWPPP and WQMP during the construction and operation phases of the Proposed Project, respectively,
the potential water quality impacts from these construction and operation activities and areas would be
reduced to a level of less than significant. For example, as noted in Section 3.9(a), BMPs that would be
incorporated into the Proposed Project’s SWPPP and implemented during the construction phase regarding
the discharge of stormwater pollutants from waste and hazardous materials handling or storage areas,
outdoor work areas, material storage areas, and general maintenance areas include but are not limited to:
Installation of silt fences around stockpile and covering of stockpiles.
Use of secondary containment around barrels, containers and storage materials that may impact water
quality.
Installation of temporary sanitary facilities and dumpsters.
Additionally, the Proposed Project involves residential development and does not include hazardous materials
handling or storage areas, vehicle or equipment fueling or maintenance areas, loading docks or delivery areas,
or outdoor material storage or work areas, which are features/activities typically associated with commercial
and industrial uses. Therefore, no significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary.
n) Result in the potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving
waters?
Less Than Significant Impact. As noted above in Section 3.9(a), the receiving waters for the Project Site
are Bolsa Bay, Huntington Harbour, and eventually Anaheim Bay via the East Garden Grove-Wintersburg
Channel. Present and potential beneficial uses of Bolsa Bay include contact and noncontact water recreation;
commercial and sport fishing; preservation of biological habitats of special significance; wildlife habitat; rare,
threatened, or endangered species; spawning, reproduction, and development; marine habitat; and shellfish
harvesting. Present and potential beneficial uses of Anaheim Bay include contact and noncontact water
recreation; preservation of biological habitats of special significance; wildlife habitat; rare, threatened, or
endangered species; spawning, reproduction, and development; marine habitat; and estuarine habitat. And
finally, present or potential beneficial uses of Huntington Harbour include navigation, which are waters are
used for shipping, travel, or other transportation; contact and noncontact water recreation; commercial and
sport fishing; wildlife habitat; rare, threatened, and endangered species habitats; and marine habitat
(SARWQCB 2008).
Implementation of construction and postconstruction BMPs, as outlined in Section 3.9(a) and specified in
the Proposed Project’s SWPPP and WQMP, would minimize project impacts to beneficial uses of these
receiving waters. Please refer to the list of construction and postconstruction BMPs in Section 3.9(a).
Therefore, no significant impacts on the beneficial uses of the receiving waters would occur and not
mitigation measures are necessary.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 114 PlaceWorks
o) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to
cause environmental harm?
Less Than Significant Impact. See responses to Sections 3.9(c), (d), and (e), above.
p) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas?
Less Than Significant Impact. See response to Section 3.9(c), above.
3.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING
a) Physically divide an established community?
No Impact. Development under the Proposed Project would occur on surface parking lots that currently
serve the surrounding office and commercial/retail uses. The Proposed Project would occur in a highly-
urbanized area of the City and would be compatible with and complementary to the surrounding residential,
commercial/retail, office, entertainment, hospitality, and medical uses. The Proposed Project would also help
create a sense of community for the limited existing multifamily residential development in the vicinity of the
Project Site. Additionally, the Proposed Project would function to better connect existing residential
development with existing commercial/retail, office, entertainment, hospitality, and medical uses in the
surrounding area (e.g., commercial/retail uses within The Outlets at Orange), thereby creating a more
integrated and connected urban environment. Project development would also not result in alteration or
modification of the existing public street or sidewalk systems and patterns in the area.
Furthermore, while there are established residential communities to the north and south of the Project Site
(see Figure 3, Aerial Photograph), development of the Proposed Project would not physically divide these
communities in any way because the project would be developed within the confines of the Project Site and
would not introduce roadways or other infrastructure improvements that would bisect or transect the
residential communities. Access to the existing residential communities would also not be interrupted as a
result of the project development, since residents of these communities do not have to cross the Project Site
to access their community.
Therefore, the Proposed Project would not create any land use barriers or otherwise divide or disrupt the
physical arrangement of the existing residential communities. No impacts would occur and no mitigation
measure are necessary.
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction
over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal
program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
No Impact. Adopted land use regulations applicable to the Project Site include the City’s General Plan and
Zoning Code. Following is an analysis of the Proposed Project’s consistency with these land use regulations.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
March 2017 Page 115
General Plan Consistency
The City’s General Plan land use designation for the Project Site is Urban Mixed Use (UMIX), which also
applies to the overall Outlets at Orange and immediate properties to the south and east. These properties are
within the West Chapman Avenue/Uptown Orange focus area designated by the City’s General Plan; future
residential and nonresidential development within this focus area was considered in the 2010 Certified PEIR
for the 2010 General Plan Update. As stated in the City’s General Plan Land Use Element (page LU-18), the
UMIX designation provides for integrated commercial retail, professional office, housing, and civic uses
within West Chapman Avenue/Uptown Orange. These areas are intended to provide for urban, high-
intensity, regionally oriented activity centers that define the character of surrounding areas. Convenient transit
access, innovative housing options, and pedestrian-oriented design are key considerations.
Consistent with the UMIX designation of the Project Site, the Proposed Project would be consistent with
and provide for the urban, high-intensity uses called for in the City’s General Plan for the Project Site—in
particular, the urban, high-intensity uses envisioned for the West Chapman Avenue/Uptown Orange focus
area. Specifically, the Proposed Project consists of the development of a 277-unit, five-story apartment
complex wrapped around a multilevel parking garage that would serve the apartment residents and a stand-
alone multilevel parking structure that would serve tenants of the existing eight-story office building onsite.
The proposed uses would be developed adjacent to a high-intensity, regionally oriented commercial/retail
center known as The Outlets at Orange.
The Proposed Project would also help implement and further a number of goals and policies of the City’s
General Plan. For example, the Proposed Project would be consistent with and help implement Policies 2.1
through 2.9 of the General Plan Land Use Element, which encourage mixed-use development for purposes
of promoting convenient and efficient relationships between housing, employment, services, and transit.
Additionally, the Proposed Project has been sited and designed to provide convenient access to transit,
innovative housing options, social interaction, and pedestrian-oriented design. For example, as shown in
Figure 5, Conceptual Illustrative Site Plan, the overall project has a pedestrian-oriented design and improves the
pedestrian circulation system and experience over existing conditions. As shown in Figure 5, pedestrian access
for residents, guests and employees of the apartment complex would be provided via walkways on all four
sides of the apartment complex. The apartment complex pedestrian circulation system would seamlessly
connect to the walkways within The Outlets at Orange and surrounding areas. Future project residents would
also be within walking distance of public transit offered by the Orange County Transportation Authority,
which currently offers bus services and stops along Lewis Street, Chapman Avenue, and The City Drive.
Additionally, the apartment complex would be oriented around three internal courtyards (see Figure 5) and
includes a number of resident amenities (e.g., clubhouse) for social interaction.
Furthermore, the residential density that would be provided under the Proposed Project would be consistent
with that outlined in Table LU-1 (Land Use Designations) of the General Plan Land Use Element. As
provided in Tables LU-1, the residential density permitted under the UMIX land use designation is 30.0 to
60.0 du/ac. The proposed apartment complex would be developed at a density of 48 dwelling units per gross
acre, well within the density permitted. The 277 apartment units and associated population increase (which is
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 116 PlaceWorks
estimated at 845 persons) under the Proposed Project also fall within the buildout assumptions of the 2010
Certified PEIR, which are reflected in the final development capacity numbers by land use in Table LU-2
(General Plan Development Capacity) of the City’s General Plan Land Use Element. Per Table LU-2, the
residential development capacity for the overall/City-wide Urban Mixed Use land use designation (which
applies to the Project Site) is 10,223 dwelling units, with a corresponding population buildout of 25,558
persons.
Additionally, as shown in Figure LU-8 (Urban Mixed-Use Sites Eligible for High Rise Development) of the
City’s General Plan, the Project Site is in an area eligible for high-rise development. The apartment and stand-
alone parking structure that would be developed under the Proposed Project would be midrise in nature (see
building elevations and perspectives provided in Figures 7 through 12), well within and complementary to the
building heights permitted under the UMIX land use designation. The building heights of the proposed
apartment complex and stand-alone parking structure would also be compatible with those of the
surrounding office, residential, and commercial/retail uses, which include buildings that range in height from
one to eight stories.
Furthermore, the Project Site is within the West Chapman Avenue /Uptown Orange focus area, which
consists of mostly commercial properties west of SR-57. This focus area contains a mix of major destination
uses, including shopping, entertainment, offices, hotels, and a hospital. As a regional mixed-use node, the
West Ch apman Avenue /Uptown Orange focus area can accommodate additional development intensity,
including high-density multifamily residential development. As noted above, the Proposed Project includes
the development of a 277-unit, five-story apartment complex; therefore, the Proposed Project would
introduce some of the development intensity envisioned for this area.
Based on the preceding, implementation of the Proposed Project would not conflict with the City’s General
Plan. Therefore, no significant land use impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary.
Zoning Consistency
General Zoning Consistency
The City’s zoning code (Title 17 of the Orange Municipal Code) establishes the basic zoning regulations
under which land is developed and utilized and by which the City’s General Plan is systematically
implemented. It is the method the City uses to implement control of land uses, in accordance with the City’s
General Plan goals and policies.
Per the City’s zoning map, the zoning district of the Project Site is Urban Mixed Use (UMU). Zoning and
development standards for the UMU are incorporated into Chapter 17.19 (Mixed Use Districts) of the City’s
zoning code. The UMU zoning district is intended to provide urban, high-intensity, regionally oriented
activity centers. This zoning district provides for integrated commercial retail, professional office, residential,
and civic uses. Residential development is allowed, either as part of a mixed-use project or as a freestanding
use. Convenient transit access, innovative housing options, and pedestrian-oriented design are key
considerations. Similar to the General Plan land use designation, the UMU zoning district permits a
residential density range of 30 to 60 du/ac and a nonresidential intensity range of 1.5 to 3.0 FAR.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
March 2017 Page 117
Development of the Proposed Project would not require the approval of a zoning code amendment or zone
change; nor would it require a variance from the City’s zoning standards. With exception of the maximum
building height permitted and the parking ratio required, the project as proposed would be implemented in
accordance with the provisions of the City’s zoning code. Specifically, the Proposed Project has been
designed consistent with the development standards outlined in Chapter 17.19 (Mixed Use Districts) of the
City’s zoning code. For exam ple, as demonstrated under the General Plan Consistency section, above, the
Proposed Project is consistent with the residential density and required setback standards outlined in Section
17.19.120 (Development Standards) of the City’s zoning code. As demonstrated in detail in Section 3.1(b),
above, the project has also been designed consistent with the provisions of Section’s 17.19.080 (Mixed Use
Development) and 17.19.090 (Multi-family Development) of the City’s zoning code, which call for among
other provisions the consistent use of architectural details and materials; the provision of design features at
the street and upper levels; and design with neighborhood interface in mind. The uses that would be
developed under the Proposed Project are also consistent with those permitted under the UMU zoning
district.
Conditional Use Permit
Concerning the permitted building height standard, as proposed, project implementation requires City
approval of a conditional use permit (CUP No. 3017-16). Specifically, a CUP is required for the increased
building heights proposed for the apartment complex and stand-alone parking structure, which are proposed
at up to 65 and 72 feet in height, respectively. Per Section 17.19.120 (Development Standards) of the Orange
Municipal Code, the maximum permitted building height without discretionary approval (e.g., CUP) for the
UMU zoning district is 45 feet or three stories, whichever is less. As also stated in Section 17.19.120, building
heights may exceed the maximum allowed provided no part of the building exceeds one-quarter of the
horizontal distance, measured in feet, between the ground point of the building and the nearest single-family
residential district boundary line.
As proposed, the apartment complex and parking structure would exceed the allowable building height of 45
feet. However, approval of the CUP would not result in a significant land use impact concerning zoning. As
proposed, no part of the proposed apartment complex or stand-alone parking structure exceeds one-quarter
of the horizontal distance, measured in feet, between the ground point of the buildings and the nearest
single-family residential district boundary line. The nearest single-family residential district to the Project Site
is to the north (existing single-family residential neighborhood), across Chapman Avenue.
Additionally, as stated in the General Plan Consistency section, above, the Project Site is in an area eligible for
high-rise development, per Figure LU-8 (Urban Mixed-Use Sites Eligible for High Rise Development) of the
City’s General Plan. The proposed apartment complex and stand-alone parking structure would be midrise
(see building elevations and perspectives provided in Figures 7 through 12), well within and complementary
to the building heights permitted under the UMIX land use designation. The proposed building heights
would also be compatible with those of the surrounding office, residential and commercial/retail uses, which
include buildings that range in height from one to eight stories.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 118 PlaceWorks
Administrative Adjustment
Multifamily Parking Standards
Concerning the number of parking spaces required, the overall parking ratio (number of parking spaces per
apartment unit) proposed for the apartment complex would require City approval of an administrative
adjustment (Administrative Adjustment No. 0243-16) from the City’s multifamily residential parking standards
is required. Specifically, in accordance with the parking ratio requirements outlined in Section 17.34.060
(Required Number of Parking Spaces) of the Orange Municipal Code for multifamily residential, an overall
parking ratio of 2.0 spaces per unit (includes resident and guest spaces) would be required for the apartment
complex—at this ratio, the total number of parking spaces required would be 554. As proposed, the total
number of parking spaces that would be provided in the parking garage (510 spaces) would equate to a
parking ratio of 1.8 spaces per unit (510 spaces divided by 277 units).
However, approval of the administrative adjustment from the City’s multifamily residential parking standards
would not result in a significant land use impact concerning zoning or result in a parking deficiency impact.
The proposed parking ratio is consistent with the ratio provided in other similar development projects in the
City of Orange, including the Amli Uptown Orange Apartments that are under construction to the west, near
the intersection of Chapman Avenue and The City Drive (see Figure 3, Aerial Photograph). As with the Amli
Uptown Orange Apartments, the parking ratio for the proposed apartment complex would be adequate to
serve the needs of the apartment residents, guests, and employees.
Additionally, granting of the administrative adjustment would allow the apartment complex parking garage to
be reduced in size by one or two levels, either above or below grade. Furthermore, with adoption of the
administrative adjustment, the Proposed Project would remain consistent with the land use, multi-modal
transportation, and urban design objectives of the City’s General Plan, and the intent of the mixed-use
zoning provisions of Chapter 17.19 (Mixed Use Districts) of the City’s zoning code.
Drive Aisle Width Standards
As proposed, the drive aisle widths within the apartment complex and stand-alone parking structures would
be provided at 24 feet in width—the City’s requirement for these types of drive aisles is 25 feet. The
provision of smaller drive aisle widths within the parking structures requires approval of an administrative
adjustment (Administrative Adjustment No. 0243-16) from the City’s drive aisle width standards.
However, approval of the administrative adjustment from drive aisle width standards would not result in a
significant land use impact concerning zoning or result in a vehicular access deficiency. The proposed drive
aisle width is consistent that provided in other similar development projects in the City of Orange, including
the Amli Uptown Orange Apartments that are under construction to the west, near the intersection of
Chapman Avenue and The City Drive (see Figure 3, Aerial Photograph). As with the Amli Uptown Orange
Apartments, although one foot smaller, the proposed drive aisle widths would provide adequate vehicular
access for all vehicle types accessing the parking structures, including emergency vehicles and waste haulers
and delivery trucks.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
March 2017 Page 119
Additionally, with adoption of the administrative adjustment, the Proposed Project would remain consistent
with the land use, multi-modal transportation, and urban design objectives of the City’s General Plan, and the
intent of the mixed-use zoning provisions of Chapter 17.19 (Mixed Use Districts) of the City’s zoning code.
Conclusion
Based on the preceding, implementation of the Proposed Project would not conflict with the City’s zoning
code. Therefore, no significant land use impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary.
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
No Impact. See response to Section 3.4(f), above.
3.11 MINERAL RESOURCES
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?
No Impact. While mineral resources exist within the City, as stated in the City’s General Plan Natural
Resources Element, they are primarily limited to sand and gravel resources in and along portions of the Santa
Ana River and Santiago Creek; the resource areas associated with these water bodies are not in proximity of
the Project Site. No mineral resource areas that would be of value to the region and residents of the state
exist on or near the Project Site. Additionally, no locally important mineral resource recovery sites are on or
near the Project Site. Mining would be incompatible with the surrounding uses and is not a permitted use
under the UMU zoning district of the Project Site, which is in a highly urbanized are of the City and
surrounded by a mix of residential, commercial/retail, office, and medical uses. Therefore, no impact to
mineral resources or mineral resource recovery sites would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary.
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
No Impact. See response to Section 3.11(a), above.
3.12 NOISE
Noise is defined as unwanted sound and is known to have several adverse effects on people, including hearing
loss, speech and sleep interference, physiological responses, and annoyance. Based on these known adverse
effects, the federal government, State of California, and City of Orange have established criteria to protect
public health and safety and prevent disruption of certain human activities. Characterization of noise and
vibration, existing regulations, and calculations for construction noise and vibration levels can be found in
Appendix E to this Initial Study.
Terminology and Noise Descriptors
The following terminology is used in this section:
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 120 PlaceWorks
Sound. A vibratory disturbance that, when transmitted by pressure waves through a medium such as air,
is capable of being detected by a receiving mechanism, such as the human ear or a microphone.
Noise. Sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or otherwise undesirable.
Decibel (dB). A unitless measure of sound on a logarithmic scale.
Vibration Decibel (VdB). A unitless measure of vibration, expressed on a logarithmic scale and with
respect to a defined reference vibration velocity. In the United States, the standard reference velocity is 1
microinch per second (1x10-6 in/sec).
A-Weighted Decibel (dBA). An overall frequency-weighted sound level in decibels that approximates
the frequency response of the human ear.
Equivalent Continuous Noise Level (Leq) or Energy-Equivalent Noise Level. The value of an
equivalent, steady sound level which, in a stated time period (often over an hour) and at a stated location,
has the same A-weighted sound energy as the time-varying sound. Therefore, the Leq metric is a single
numerical value that represents the equivalent amount of variable sound energy received by a receptor
over the specified duration.
Statistical Sound Level (Ln). The sound level that is exceeded “n” percent of time during a given
sample period. For example, the L50 level is the statistical indicator of the time-varying noise signal that is
exceeded 50 percent of the time (during each sampling period); that is, half of the sampling time, the
changing noise levels are above this value and half of the time they are below it. This is called the
“median sound level.” The L10 level, likewise, is the value that is exceeded 10 percent of the time (i.e.,
near the maximum) and this is often known as the “intrusive sound level.” The L90 is the sound level
exceeded 90 percent of the time and is often considered the “effective background level” or “residual
noise level.”
Day-Night Level (Ldn or DNL). The energy average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring during a
24-hour period, with 10 dB added to the A-weighted sound levels occurring during the period from
10 PM to 7 AM.
Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The energy average of the A-weighted sound levels
occurring during a 24-hour period, with 5 dB added to the sound levels occurring during the period from
7:00 PM to 10:00 PM and 10 dB added to the sound levels occurring during the period from 10:00 PM to
7:00 AM. For general community/environmental noise, CNEL and Ldn values rarely differ by more than
1 dB. As a matter of practice, Ldn and CNEL values are interchangeable and are treated as being
equivalent in this assessment.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
March 2017 Page 121
Sensitive Receptor. Noise- and vibration-sensitive receptors include land uses where quiet environments
are necessary for enjoyment and public health and safety. Residences, schools, motels and hotels, libraries,
religious institutions, hospitals, and nursing homes are examples.
Existing Noise Environment
The nearest existing noise-sensitive areas to the Project Site are an apartment complex directly to the south, a
restaurant directly to the west, and UC Irvine Health Manchester Pavilion approximately 450 feet to the east.
Office uses lie directly to the east and abut the eastern boundary of the Project Site (see Figure 3, Aerial
Photograph). Access to the Project Site would be provided via Chapman Ave and Lewis Street. I-5 is
approximately 2,150 feet east of the Project Site center. Traffic on the adjacent Chapman Avenue and Lewis
Street, as well as the more distant I-5, is the primary source of noise in the vicinity of the Project Site. Given
the prevalence of traffic flow noise sources in the area, the existing noise environment for the Proposed
Project was modeled using the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Traffic Noise Prediction computer
model (1978). Table 7 lists the calculated existing noise levels on roadways in the vicinity of the Project Site at
50 feet from the roadway centerline. Distances to the standard noise levels of 60, 65, and 70 dBA CNEL are
also provided.
Other sources of noise that add to the existing noise environment in the project area, although distant,
include noise from events at Anaheim Stadium as well as firework noise from Disneyland, which occurs every
evening around 9:30 PM.
Thresholds of Significance
The analysis of noise impacts considers project-related construction and operational phase noise, as defined
by the City of Orange, State of California, and pertinent industry standards from the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA). The Proposed Project would have a significant adverse noise impact if the project
would result in any of the following:
Table 7 Existing Traffic Noise Contours
Roadway Segment
Noise Level at 50 feet (dBA CNEL)
Distance to Noise Contour (feet)
70 dBA CNEL 65 dBA CNEL 60 dBA CNEL
Chapman Avenue Lewis Street to Manchester Avenue 72.5 73 157 339
Chapman Avenue Manchester Avenue to The City Drive 71.7 65 141 303
Chapman Avenue The City Drive to I-5 SB Ramps 73.8 90 194 417
Metropolitan Drive Lewis Street to SR-22 WB Ramps 63.5 18 40 86
Metropolitan Drive SR-22 WB Ramps to The City Drive 67.1 32 68 148
Lewis Street Chapman Avenue to Lampson Avenue 69.3 45 97 209
State College Boulevard I-5 SB Ramps to Chapman Avenue 72.4 72 156 336
The City Drive Dawn Way to Metropolitan Drive 70.7 56 120 260
Notes: Input information from Linscott Law & Greenspan, 2016.Calculations performed by PlaceWorks using FHWA-RD77-108 methodologies. Details are included in Appendix E.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 122 PlaceWorks
Noise
Project-related construction activities occur outside of the hours of 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM Monday
through Saturday and outside of 9:00 AM to 8:00 PM on Sunday, as specified in the Orange Municipal
Code, Subsection 8.24.050E.
For noise compatibility, long-term impacts to residents at noise-sensitive areas would exceed the City of
Orange exterior noise standard of 65 dBA CNEL and interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL.
For a substantial increase in ambient noise levels, a significant traffic noise impact would occur if project-
related traffic increases the ambient noise levels by 5 dB where the existing ambient noise level is less
than 65 dBA CNEL. Where the existing ambient noise level is greater than 65 dBA CNEL, a significant
traffic noise impact would occur if project-related traffic increases the ambient noise level by 3 dB.
Exceed the exterior noise standards set by the Orange Municipal Code Section 8.24.040 (Exterior
Standards), as noted in Table 8.
Table 8 City of Orange Noise Level Limits
Noise Level Metric Noise Level Limit Time Period
Hourly Average (Leq) 55 dB (A) 7:00 a.m.–10:00 p.m.
50 dB (A) 10:00 p.m.–7:00 a.m.
Maximum Level 70 dB (A) 7:00 a.m.–10:00 p.m.
65 dB (A) 10:00 p.m.–7:00 a.m.
Source: City of Orange Municipal Code, Section 8.24.040 (Exterior Standards).
Groundborne Vibration
The Orange Municipal Code does not contain thresholds or limits for vibration impacts. In lieu of such local
standards, the vibration threshold for annoyance and for architectural damage that are promoted by the FTA
were used in this assessment (FTA 2006):
Project-related construction activities that would generate vibrations that are strong enough to cause
vibration-induced architectural damage to existing residences based on the FTA Noise and Vibration
Impact Guideline, which is 0.2 peak particle velocity (PPV) in inches per second (in/sec) for typical
wood-framed buildings.
Project-related construction activities that would generate vibrations that are strong enough to exceed the
threshold for vibration annoyance. The FTA standard is 78 VdB for residential uses and 84 VdB for
office uses. Human annoyance occurs when construction vibration rises significantly above the threshold
for extended periods of time.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
March 2017 Page 123
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Less Than Significant Impact. The following describes the exterior and interior noise environments for
the residential portion of the Proposed Project, as well as the project’s stationary-source noise impacts to
surrounding noise-sensitive uses.
Exterior Noise Compatibility
The City’s exterior noise compatibility standard for Multi-Family Residential uses is 65 dBA CNEL, which is
considered “normally acceptable.” The Proposed Project would primarily be affected by traffic on Chapman
Avenue and Lewis Street, which border the Project Site to the north and west, respectively (see Figure 3,
Aerial Photograph). Some façades of the proposed apartment complex are within 50 feet of the centerline of
Chapman Avenue and within 230 feet of the centerline of Lewis Street. I-5 also contributes to traffic noise in
the project area, but to a much lesser degree due to relatively long propagation distances (over 0.4 mile from
the Project Site) and shielding from many intervening buildings. Further, operations at nearby commercial
uses do not substantially increase overall noise levels at the Project Site, as compared to the noise from
ongoing traffic flows on Chapman Avenue and Lewis Street.
As presented Table 7, Existing Traffic Noise Contours, the exterior noise levels at the building façades facing
Chapman Avenue would be approximately 73 dBA CNEL and those facing Lewis Street would be
approximately 69 dBA CNEL. For the latter, however, noise levels along Lewis Street would increase as
receptor locations approached Chapman Avenue. Therefore, exterior noise levels at Lewis Street façades
could approach the upper 60s to low 70s dBA CNEL (due to the more pronounced influence of Chapman
Avenu e traffic flows over those on Lewis Street). It should be noted that any CNEL values above 65 dBA
CNEL would exceed the City’s “normally acceptable” exterior noise standard for multifamily developments.
Therefore, the majority of the exterior units facing either Chapman Avenue or Lewis Street can be expected
to fall within the City’s “conditionally acceptable” or “normally unacceptable” ranges for noise compatibility,
both of which mandate a detailed acoustical analysis as well as the inclusion of adequate acoustical treatments
aimed at acceptable exterior-to-interior noise reduction performance. The acoustical analysis and overall
detailed architectural design of the proposed apartment complex would also need to account for proper
ventilation features to allow adequate air exchanges with these façade-related windows closed. For apartment
units that would not have direct line-of-sight to Chapman Avenue traffic flows (such as the units looking to
the south or those facing interior common areas), special acoustical treatments may not be necessary.
However, the mandated, detailed acoustical analysis would need to encompass the entire apartment complex
to define which units would need acoustical treatments and the extent of those noise reduction measures.
From a broader viewpoint, although, it is important to note that with the recent Supreme Court decision
regarding the assessment of the environment’s impacts on proposed projects (CBIA v BAAQMD, issued
December 17, 2015)11, it is generally no longer the purview of the CEQA process to evaluate the impact of
existing environmental conditions onto any given project. For noise, the application of this ruling means that
11 California Supreme Court, California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) [Case No. S213478].
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 124 PlaceWorks
the analysis of traffic, rail, and aircraft noise effects at the Project Site in terms of land use compatibility
issues is no longer part of CEQA. Therefore, exterior noise effects from nearby roadways relative to the land
use compatibility of the Proposed Project is no longer a topic for impact evaluation under CEQA, and no
statement of impact significance for external noise intrusion is germane.
Interior Noise Compatibility
The City’s interior noise standard for residential uses is 45 dBA CNEL in habitable rooms. Standard windows
and doors in a warm-weather climate typically achieve a minimum of 12 dB of noise reduction with windows
open and a minimum of 24 dB of noise reduction with windows closed. The interior noise level is the
exterior noise level at the building façade minus the exterior-to-interior noise reduction provided by building
insulation.
With the indicated result that the exterior noise levels at the nearest building façades facing Chapman Avenue
would be as high as 73 dBA CNEL (see Table 7, Existing Traffic Noise Contours), standard building construction
materials and techniques would be expected to result in interior environments of approximately 49 dBA
CNEL.12 This applies to a windows-closed configuration (including provisions for appropriate fresh air
supply systems13). A windows-open configuration would be approximately 12 dB louder.
As discussed above for exterior noise environments, this interior issue is also no longer under the purview of
the CEQA process (as an impact of the environment on the project). Therefore, noise effects from nearby
roadways relative to state building code standards for interior noise acceptability of the Proposed Project are
no longer a topic for impact evaluation under CEQA, and no statement of impact significance is germane.
Nonetheless, the demonstration of adherence to the CBC is necessary to the issuance of building permits by
the City’s Community Development Department. A detailed acoustical analysis would need to be conducted
for the Proposed Project to establish a sufficient level of exterior-to-interior noise reduction (along with the
adequacy of the associated ventilation system). However, this detailed acoustical analysis is not provided or
required as mitigation for the Proposed Project; it would be required by City staff during the City’s
development review and building plan check process.
Traffic Noise
The Proposed Project would generate noise associated with additional vehicles traveling to and from the
Project Site on local roadways. Traffic volumes for existing and 2019 conditions—with and without the
Proposed Project—were obtained from the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the Proposed Project (see
Appendix F). The distances to the 70, 65, and 60 CNEL contours for selected roadway segments in the
vicinity of the Project Site are included in Appendix E.
12 That is, an exterior CNEL of 76 dBA minus 24 dB for exterior-to-interior noise reduction would yield an interior result of 52 dBA
CNEL.
13 This ventilation must conform to the 2013 California Building and Mechanical Code as well as the American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers standards. Additionally, such ventilation systems and the associated HVAC units
must be selected and installed to comply with the noise standards in the Orange Municipal Code.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
March 2017 Page 125
A significant impact could occur if the Proposed Project would result in an increase of 5 dB in an area where
the existing ambient noise level is less than 65 dBA or an increase of 3 dB where existing ambient noise level
is greater than 65 dBA.
Table 9 presents the roadway noise level increases due to development of the Proposed Project over existing
conditions at a common distance of 50 feet from the centerline of each roadway segment. As demonstrated
in this table, traffic noise increases along analyzed roadway segments due to implementation of the Proposed
Project would be no more than 0.1 dB (in the pertinent CNEL noise metric). These increases would be much
less than the thresholds of significance along all analyzed roadways. Therefore, traffic noise increases for
existing-plus-project conditions would be less than significant.
Table 9 Traffic Noise Conditions, Existing Plus Project Contributions
Roadway Segment
CNEL at 50 feet
No Project With Project Project Contribution
Chapman Avenue Lewis Street to Manchester Avenue 72.5 72.6 0.1
Chapman Avenue Manchester Avenue and The City Drive 71.7 71.9 0.1
Chapman Avenue The City Drive and I-5 Southbound Ramps 73.8 73.9 0.1
Metropolitan Drive Lewis Street and SR-22 Westbound Ramps 63.5 63.6 0.1
Metropolitan Drive SR-22 Westbound Ramps and The City Drive 67.1 67.1 0.0
Lewis Street Chapman Avenue and Lampson Avenue 69.3 69.4 0.1
State College Boulevard I-5 Southbound Ramps and Chapman Avenue 72.4 72.5 0.1
The City Drive Dawn Way and Metropolitan Drive 70.7 70.7 0.0
Source: Input information from Linscott Law & Greenspan, 2016. Calculations performed by PlaceWorks, 2016, using FHWA-RD77-108 methodologies. Details are included in Appendix E.
Table 10 presents the roadway noise level increases due to development of the Proposed Project over 2019
(buildout) conditions at a common distance of 50 feet from the centerline of each roadway segment. As
shown in this table, traffic noise increases along analyzed roadway segments due to implementation of the
Proposed Project would no more than 0.1 dB (in the pertinent CNEL noise metric). As stated above, these
increases would be much less than the thresholds of significance along all analyzed roadways. Therefore,
traffic noise increases for the 2019-plus-project conditions would be less than significant.
Table 10 Traffic Noise Conditions, 2019 Plus Project Contributions
Roadway Segment
CNEL at 50 feet
No Project With Project Project Contribution
Chapman Avenue Lewis Street to Manchester Avenue 73.4 73.5 0.1
Chapman Avenue Manchester Avenue and The City Drive 72.5 72.6 0.1
Chapman Avenue The City Drive and I-5 Southbound Ramps 74.4 74.4 0.1
Metropolitan Drive Lewis Street and SR-22 Westbound Ramps 64.0 64.1 0.1
Metropolitan Drive SR-22 Westbound Ramps and The City Drive 67.6 67.6 0.0
Lewis Street Chapman Avenue and Lampson Avenue 69.7 69.7 0.1
State College Boulevard I-5 Southbound Ramps and Chapman Avenue 74.0 74.1 0.0
The City Drive Dawn Way and Metropolitan Drive 71.5 71.5 0.0
Source: Input information from Linscott Law & Greenspan, 2016. Calculations performed by PlaceWorks, 2016, using FHWA-RD77-108 methodologies. Details are included in Appendix E.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 126 PlaceWorks
In summary, for both existing-plus-project and 2019-plus-project conditions, no roadway segments would
result in a significant increase in traffic noise levels due to implementation of the Proposed Project.
Therefore, traffic noise increases would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary.
Stationary Noise
Section 8.24.040 (Exterior Standards) of the Orange Municipal Code limits stationary-source noise levels
from exceeding the noise standards specified in Table7, Existing Traffic Noise Contours. Heating, ventilation, and
air conditioning (HVAC) systems and other noise sources from the Proposed Project would be required to
comply with the City’s noise standards, outlined in Section 8.24.040 of the Orange Municipal Code.
Stationary noise sources associated with residential uses include HVAC, landscaping, trash removal, and truck
deliveries. Stationary noise from the Proposed Project would likely be indistinguishable within the ambient
noise environment due to the traffic noise along Chapman Avenue and Lewis Street as well as operational
noise from adjacent and nearby commercial and office uses. In addition, the types and levels of noise
generated from any new residential uses would be similar to the systems already installed at the existing,
nearby residences. Therefore, noise emissions from stationary sources of the Proposed Project would not be
expected to notably change the overall community noise environment. Therefore, stationary noise impacts
from the Proposed Project would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary.
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise
levels?
Less Than Significant Impact. Following is a discussion of the long-term, operation-related and short-
term, construction-related vibration impacts as a result of development of the Proposed Project.
Project Operations Vibration (Long Term)
The Proposed Project would not include any long-term vibration sources during ongoing operations.
Therefore, vibration effects or impacts from operations sources would be less than significant and no
mitigation measures are necessary.
Project Construction Vibration (Short Term)
Project construction, however, can generate varying degrees of ground vibration depending on the type of
construction and equipment. Construction equipment generates vibrations that spread through the ground
and diminish in amplitude with distance from the source. The effect on buildings near the construction site
varies depending on soil type, ground strata, and receptor building construction. Vibration can result in no
perceptible effects at the lowest levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibrations at moderate levels,
to slight building damage at the highest levels. Ground vibration from construction activities rarely reaches
levels that can significantly damage structures, but it can achieve the audible and perceptible ranges in
buildings close to a construction site. Groundborne vibration is usually highest during the demolition and
grading phases of construction, when the heaviest equipment is utilized. Table 11 lists vibration levels for
different types of construction equipment.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
March 2017 Page 127
Table 11 Construction Equipment Vibration Levels
Equipment
Approximate RMS1 Velocity Level at 25 Feet (VdB)
Approximate PPV Velocity at 25 Feet (in/sec)
Vibratory Roller 94 0.210
Large Bulldozer 87 0.089
Caisson Drilling 87 0.089
Loaded Trucks 86 0.076
Jackhammer 79 0.035
Small Bulldozer 58 0.003
FTA Criteria – Annoyance 78 for daytime residential
84 for office/commercial —
FTA Criteria – Architectural Damage — 0.200 for Wood-Framed
0.500 for Reinforced Masonry
Source: FTA 2006. Notes: RMS = root mean square; PPV = peak particle velocity; VdB = vibration decibel; in/sec = inches per second
1 RMS velocity calculated from vibration level (VdB) using the reference of 1 microinch/second and a crest factor of 4.
Vibration Annoyance
Vibration is typically noticed nearby when objects in a building generate noise from rattling windows or
picture frames. It is typically not perceptible outdoors, and therefore impacts are normally based on the
distance to the nearest building (FTA 2006). Although the maximum vibration levels 14 associated with certain
construction activities could be perceptible in certain instances, the impact would be limited because those
activities would not occur frequently throughout the day. Additionally, construction activities occur in the
daytime when people are least sensitive to vibration levels, and annoyance would only occur for a very limited
duration when equipment is working in close proximity. Further, construction activities are typically
distributed throughout the Project Site. Therefore, vibration annoyance impacts are based on average
vibration levels (levels that would be experienced by sensitive receptors the majority of the time) that exceed
the FTA’s significance threshold for vibration-induced annoyance of 78 VdB for residential land uses.
Table 12 lists the average vibration levels for construction equipment anticipated to be used at the Project
Site, as measured at the nearest vibration-sensitive receptors. As shown in Table 12, project-related
construction activities at the nearest sensitive receptors would not have the potential to exceed the vibration
annoyance thresholds of 78 or 84 VdB. More-distant sensitive receptors would experience still lower levels of
vibration due to distance attenuation effects. Although vibratory rollers may exceed the annoyance threshold
when operating within 150 feet of the nearest residences, these incidences would be sporadic and short-term.
Therefore, vibration annoyance impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are
necessary.
14 Maximum vibration is based on construction equipment operating on the property line.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 128 PlaceWorks
Table 12 Construction Equipment Vibration Levels: Potential for Annoyance
Vibration Source
Vibration Level (VdB) at Receptor Land Use1
Homes to South (292 feet) Restaurant to West (273 feet) Offices to East (173 feet)
Vibratory Roller 73 73 77
Hydraulic Excavators 71 71 75
Graders 71 71 75
Front-End Loaders 73 73 77
Large bulldozer 66 66 70
Caisson Drill 66 66 70
Small bulldozer 58 37 41
Loaded trucks 65 65 69
Significance Threshold (VdB) 78 84 84
Source: FTA 2006. Notes: VdB = vibration decibel
1 Distance measured from center of general construction area to nearest structure.
Vibration-Induced Architectural Damage
In addition to vibration-induced annoyance, project-related construction vibration was evaluated for its
potential to cause structural damage based on FTA’s architectural damage criteria. The FTA threshold of 0.20
PPV in/sec is the point at which there is a risk of architectural damage15 to normal houses with plastered
walls and ceilings. Typically, only construction equipment generating extremely high levels of vibration, such
as pile drivers, has the potential for vibration-induced structural damage. No pile driving is expected to be
required during construction of the Proposed Project.
Table 13 shows the potential vibration levels (in PPV in/sec) that can be generated by heavy construction
equipment at the nearest offsite sensitive receptors.
Table 13 Construction Equipment Vibration Levels: Potential for Architectural Damage
Equipment
Vibration Levels1 (PPV)
Homes to South (125 feet) Restaurant to West (75 feet) Offices to East (55 feet)
Caisson Drill 0.008 0.017 0.027
Vibratory Roller 0.019 0.040 0.064
Large bulldozer 0.008 0.017 0.027
Jackhammer 0.003 0.007 0.011
Loaded trucks 0.007 0.015 0.023
Significance Threshold (PPV) 0.2 0.5 0.5
Source: FTA 2006.
Notes: PPV = peak particle velocity
1 Distance measured from closest construction activity zone to the nearest structure.
15 The term architectural damage is typically used to describe effects such as cracked plaster, cracks in drywall seams, sticking doors or
windows, loosened baseboard/crown moldings, and the like.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
March 2017 Page 129
As shown in Table 13, project-related construction activities would not result in vibration levels at nearby
structures that exceed the FTA’s pertinent criteria for vibration-induced architectural damage (i.e., 0.20 PPV
in/sec for nonengineered timber and masonry buildings or 0.50 PPV in/sec for reinforced buildings).
Therefore, project-related construction activities are not expected to result in levels that would cause
vibration-induced damage. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary.
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
Less Than Significant Impact. As described in Section 3.12(a), above, operational noise levels related to
the Proposed Project would not substantially increase the existing noise environment. Similarly, noise from
project-related traffic along local roadways would not significantly increase noise levels in the project area and
would likewise not result in a significant impact. Therefore, permanent noise impacts would be less than
significant and no mitigation measures are necessary.
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Noise levels generated during construction
are based on the type of equipment operating and the amount of equipment operating at the same time.
Sensitivity to noise is based on the location of the equipment relative to sensitive receptors, time of day, and
the duration of the noise-generating activities. Two types of short-term noise impacts could occur during
construction: (1) mobile-source noise from the transport of workers, material deliveries, and debris/soil
hauling and (2) onsite noise from use of construction equipment. Construction activities would last
approximately two years in total, with demolition, site preparation, grading, and utility trenching activities
lasting approximately five months total between phases. The following discusses construction noise impacts
to the nearby, offsite sensitive receptors.
Construction Vehicles
The transport of workers and equipment to the construction site would incrementally increase noise levels
along site access roadways, principally, Chapman Avenue and Lewis Street. Project-related construction
worker vehicles, haul trucks, and vendor trucks would pass by existing residential uses along Lewis Street. It is
anticipated that construction-related activities would generate, as a worst-case, approximately 855
construction trips per day during the highest demand phase—the asphalt/hardscape demolition and debris
removal phase.16 The existing roadway volumes along the segments of Chapman Avenue and Lewis Street in
the vicinity of the Project Site average from 17,171 to 33,665 average daily vehicle trips (LLG 2016).
Therefore, the number of construction worker and vendor trips would represent increases of 1 percent or
less to the volumes of traffic currently generated along these roadway segments. This would equate to noise
level increases of less than 0.1 dB due to construction traffic increases. In addition, these truck trips would be
16 Other notable construction phases would include 656 trips per day during rough grading soil haul and 559 trips per day during the
overlapping fine grading, building construction, and architectural coating phases. This estimation was based on the methodology in
CalEEMod (ver. 2013.2.2) for calculating construction worker and vendor trips and it is consistent with the air quality assessment.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 130 PlaceWorks
spread throughout the work day and would primarily occur during nonpeak traffic periods. Furthermore,
construction-related truck traffic would cease upon completion of the construction phase. Therefore, noise
impacts from construction-related truck traffic would be less than significant at noise-sensitive receptor
locations along the construction routes. No mitigation measures are necessary.
Construction Equipment
Noise generated during construction is based on the type of equipment used, the location of the equipment
relative to sensitive receptors, and the timing and duration of the noise-generating activities. Each stage of
construction involves the use of different kinds of construction equipment and, therefore, has its own
distinct noise characteristics. Noise levels from construction activities are dominated by the loudest piece of
construction equipment, and the dominant noise source is typically the engine, although work piece noise
(such as dropping of materials) can also be notable. Noise levels from project-related construction activities
were calculated from the simultaneous use of all applicable construction equipment at spatially averaged
distances (using the center of the general construction area) to the property line of the nearest sensitive
receptors. These calculations are based on the expected construction equipment mix, categorized by activity
phase, and consistent with the equipment mix used in the air quality assessment. The sound propagation
portion of the calculations conservatively accounted for only spherical spreading loss (i.e., 6 dB per distance-
doubling) and neglected air absorption, attenuation from ground effects, and other potential sound losses.
Overall construction of the proposed improvements would occur over an approximately two-year period. It
is anticipated that of that time frame, the total duration for demolition, site preparation, rough grading, and
utility trenching activities (which are the activities that generate the greatest amount of noise) would be
approximately five months. Therefore, the activities that would generate the highest noise levels would be
relatively short in duration. In addition, completion of the exterior shell of the buildings would attenuate
noise from interior construction activities.
Typically, demolition and grading activities generate the loudest noise levels because they involve the largest
and most powerful equipment. However, the area of the proposed improvements is relatively level, and only a
nominal amount of heavy earthwork would be required. In general, therefore, construction activities for the
Proposed Project would utilize relatively small- to medium-sized equipment such as delivery/dump trucks,
loaders/backhoes, a rubber-tired dozer, a grader, a forklift, and a crane. As mentioned previously, the total
duration for construction would be approximately two years.
As shown in Table 14, operational maximum noise levels of most construction equipment range between 80
and 88 dBA at 50 feet.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
March 2017 Page 131
Table 14 Construction Equipment Noise Levels
Type of Equipment Range of Maximum Sound Levels Measured (dBA at 50 feet) Suggested Maximum Sound Levels for Analysis (dBA at 50 feet)
Jack Hammers 75–85 82
Pneumatic Tools 78–88 85
Pumps 74–84 80
Dozers 77–90 85
Scrapers 83–91 87
Haul Trucks 83–94 88
Cranes 79–86 82
Portable Generators 71–87 80
Rollers 75–82 80
Tractors 77–82 80
Front-End Loaders 77–90 86
Hydraulic Backhoe 81–90 86
Hydraulic Excavators 81–90 86
Graders 79–89 86
Air Compressors 76–89 86
Trucks 81–87 86
Source: Bolt, Beranek & Newman 1987.
Leveraging this per-item information, composite construction noise, by phase, has been characterized in a
study conducted by Bolt Beranek and Newman (USEPA 1971). In their study, construction noise for
earthwork and finish work related to domestic housing or office/commercial/hotel development is presented
as an aggregate of 88 to 89 dBA Leq when measured at a distance of 50 feet from the construction effort.
This summed value takes into account both the number of pieces and the spacing of the heavy equipment
used in the construction effort. Noise levels are typically reduced from this value due to usage factors as well
as the barrier effects provided by the physical structures themselves (once erected). However, as a worst-case
scenario, the 89 dBA Leq value (at 50 feet) is used to assess the impact of construction.
The operation of such equipment during project construction would result in the generation of both steady
and episodic noise significantly above the ambient levels currently experienced near the Project Site.
Construction equipment typically moves around on a construction site and uses various power levels. In
general, noise would be intermittent as well as temporary during the Proposed Project’s construction phase.
Noise from localized point sources (such as construction equipment) decreases by approximately 6 to 7.5 dB
with each doubling of distance between the source and receptor (conservatively ignoring other attenuation
effects from air absorption and/or shielding/scattering effects).17 Therefore, at 100 feet, the earthwork
17 As sound energy travels outward from the source, spreading loss accounts for a 6 dB decrease in noise level. Soft ground effects
can decrease this by an additional 1.5 dB.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 132 PlaceWorks
aggregate source noise level would be about 6 dB less or 83 dBA Leq. Similarly, at 200 feet, the noise level
would be about 12 dB less or 77 dBA Leq.
The nearest offsite sensitive receptors are residents of the apartment complex to the south (see Figure 3,
Aerial Photograph). The distance to the nearest apartment unit of this apartment complex, as measured from
the center of the Project Site, is approximately 170 feet, or approximately 30 feet from the edge of the
construction zone to the nearest dwelling unit.
Assuming the above aggregated grading/earthwork construction phase, the noise levels would be from 77 to
85 dBA Leq at the nearest apartment units (to the east). Subsequent construction phases would mostly use
lighter and less-noisy equipment—such as forklifts, cranes, welders, and compressors—so the noise levels
would be expected to be less than for site preparation and grading.
With enforcement of the provisions of Subsection 8.24.050E of the Orange Municipal Code, construction
activities would occur during the least-noise-sensitive portions of the day (i.e., 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM Monday
through Saturday and 9:00 AM to 8:00 PM on Sunday). However, construction-related noise would still often
be in the mid-80s dBA Leq at the nearest apartment units and businesses surrounding the Project Site.
Therefore, with the relatively close proximity of both sensitive and nonsensitive receptors to the Project Site,
construction noise would be a potentially significant impact. To reduce these impacts to the extent reasonably
feasible, mitigation is needed. With implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1, construction-related noise
impacts would be reduced to a level of less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
NOI-1 The following measures shall be implemented by the construction contractor during the
extent of the project’s construction phase:
Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits, the construction contractor shall
list all the following noise-reduction measures on the grading and building plans
submitted to the City of Orange Community Development Department.
1. Prior to the start of construction activities, the construction contractor shall:
a. Maintain and tune all proposed construction equipment in accordance with the
manufacturer’s recommendations to minimize noise emission.
b. Inspect all proposed construction equipment and should fit all equipment with
properly operating mufflers, air intake silencers, and engine shrouds that are no
less effective than as originally equipped by the manufacturer.
c. Post a sign, clearly visible at the site, with a contact name and telephone number
of an authorized City of Orange and/or construction contractor representative
to respond in the event of a noise complaint.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
March 2017 Page 133
d. Place stationary construction equipment and material delivery
(loading/unloading) areas as far as practicable from surrounding residences.
e. Limit unnecessary engine idling to the extent feasible.
f. Use smart back-up alarms, which automatically adjust the alarm level based on
the background noise level, or switch off back-up alarms and replace with
human spotters.
g. Use low-noise emission equipment.
h. Limit use of public address systems.
i. Minimize grade surface irregularities on construction sites.
2. During all phases of active construction, the construction contractor shall restrict
construction activities, including material deliveries, haul-on truck trips, and haul-off
truck trips, to the daytime hours of 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM Monday through Saturday
and 9:00 AM to 8:00 PM on Sundays, in accordance with the provisions of
Subsection 8.24.050E of the City of Orange Municipal Code. No construction shall
be conducted on federal or local holidays.
3. During all phases of active construction, the construction contractor shall schedule,
to the extent reasonably feasible, all construction-related delivery or haul trips so as
to avoid peak traffic periods along Lewis Street and Chapman Avenue (i.e., morning
rush hour, mid-afternoon school pick-up time, and afternoon rush hour).
The above measures shall be monitored and verified in the field by the City of Orange
Community Development Department staff.
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 expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact. The Project Site is not within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport; the nearest public use airports are John Wayne Airport and Fullerton Municipal Airport,
approximately 7.4 miles south and 7.3 miles northwest of the Project Site, respectively. Measured noise
contours associated with operations at these airports indicate critical noise contours do not impact any
neighborhoods in Orange, including the Project Site (OCALUC 2008 and 2004). Therefore, the Proposed
Project would not expose future residents or workers onsite or in the project area to excessive noise levels
from aircraft noise. No significant impact would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 134 PlaceWorks
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Less Than Significant Impact. There are no private airstrips in proximity of the Project Site. However,
there is a UCI Medical Center at-grade helipad located at the southeast corner of Chapman Avenue and The
City Drive intersection, approximately 0.3 mile east of the Project Site. Additionally, the Orange County Fire
Training Facility at-grade helipad is approximately 0.9 mile to the northeast, at the Orangewood Avenue and
Rampart Street intersection.
Over congested areas, helicopters are required to maintain an altitude of at least 1,000 feet above the highest
obstacle within 2,000 feet of the aircraft, except as needed for takeoff and landing (Code of Federal
Regulations Title 14 Section 91.119). Takeoffs and landings at these helipads are also infrequent.
Furthermore, helicopter takeoffs and landings are at a sufficient distance from the Project Site and would not
subject future project residents to the noise associated with these activities. Therefore, impacts associated
with helipads would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary.
3.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would result in a substantial and unplanned level of
growth if estimated development would exceed local or regional population growth projections. The
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is the regional body charged with allocating
regional housing requirements and projecting regional growth down to the local level.
The Proposed Project consists of the development of 277 apartment units at a density of approximately 48
dwelling units per gross acre (277 apartments divided by 5.79 gross acres), consistent with the residential
density range (30–60 du/ac) permitted for the UMU zoning district. Therefore, development of the
Proposed Project would add 277 additional units to the City’s housing stock. According to the California
Department of Finance, the average household size in the City of Orange in 2015 was 3.05 persons (DOF
2015). Applying this average household size, approximately 845 residents would be added to the City’s
existing population under the Proposed Project. The population of the City of Orange is forecast to increase
from 140,862 people in 2015 to 151,400 people in 2035 (DOF 2015; SCAG 2013), a net increase of 10,538
people. The Proposed Project’s 845 residents would represent approximately 8 percent of the City’s projected
population increase, which does not represent a significant increase.
Additionally, the Proposed Project’s apartment units and associated population increase also fall within the
buildout assumptions of the Certified PEIR, which are reflected in the final development capacity numbers
by land use in Table LU-2 (General Plan Development Capacity) of the City’s General Plan Land Use
Element. Per Table LU-2, the residential development capacity for the overall/City-wide Urban Mixed Use
land use designation (which applies to the Project Site) is 10,223 dwelling units, with a corresponding
population buildout of 25,558 persons. The population increase under the Proposed Project would also be
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
March 2017 Page 135
consistent with the regional population forecast for population growth in the City, which is based on General
Plan and SCAG projections.
Furthermore, the Proposed Project would help carry out the goals, objectives, and policies of the City’s
General Plan Housing Element (2006-2014) by developing a new for-sale residential development that offers
additional housing opportunities in the City. Specifically, the housing element indicates the need/objective for
construction of 5,079 new dwelling units in the City (Table C-1, Progress in Achieving Quantified Objectives:
2006-2014 Planning Period, of the housing element) in order to accommodate the City’s forecast growth in
the number of households, to replace expected demolitions and conversion of housing units to nonhousing
uses, and to achieve a future vacancy rate that allows for healthy functioning of the housing market. Project
development would help accomplish a portion of this need/objective through the provision of 277
apartment units. The proposed apartment complex would also be built at a density that the California
Department of Housing and Community Development recognizes as a density of development where the
market rate rent tends to be a more affordable workforce housing option than the for-sale market rate tends
to be.
Regarding employment, operation of the proposed apartment complex would not generate large-scale
employment; approximately 10 employees (e.g., management, leasing and maintenance staff) would be
generated. Project construction would generate some temporary employment. The unemployment rate in
Orange County in July 2016 was estimated at 4.6 percent (EDD 2016); therefore, the Proposed Project’s
operation- and construction-related employment generation is expected to be absorbed from the regional
labor force and would not attract new workers into the region.
Finally, as discussed in Section 3.18, Utilities and Service Systems, adequate infrastructure and utilities are
available to serve the Project Site, and the Proposed Project would not require new infrastructure or
extension of existing infrastructure that may indirectly induce population growth nearby.
Based on the preceding, no significant impacts to population and housing would occur as a result of project
development and no mitigation measures are necessary.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
No Impact. No housing exists on the Project Site. As shown Figure 3, Aerial Photograph, and Figures 4a and
4b, Site Photographs, the Project Site consists of two surface parking lots, with no housing development on
them. Therefore, project development would not displace housing or people. No impact would occur and no
mitigation measures are necessary.
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
No Impact. See response to Section 3.13(b), above.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 136 PlaceWorks
3.14 PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new
or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the
public services:
a) Fire protection?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Orange Fire Department (OFD) currently provides fire
protection and emergency services to the entire City, including the Project Site. OFD operates eight fire
stations and employs 137 staff (includes 124 sworn firefighters) to serve the residents of the City (City of
Orange 2010b). Station No. 6 at 345 City Drive South, which is approximately 0.5 mile southeast of the
Project Site, would be the primary station to provide fire protection services for the Proposed Project. Along
with a fire engine, Station No. 6 also has a squad vehicle and utility vehicle. In the event of an emergency at
the Project Site that required more resources than Station No. 6 could provide, OFD would direct resources
to the site from other OFD stations nearby (e.g., Station Nos. 5 and 1) and, if needed, would request
assistance from other nearby fire departments. OFD has automatic aid agreements with the cities of
Anaheim, Santa Ana, and Garden Grove and with the Orange County Fire Authority. The nearest fire stations
of these agencies to the Project Site include:
Anaheim Fire Station No. 3 at 1717 S. Clementine Street: approximately 1.9 miles northwest of the
Project Site.
Santa Ana Fire Station/OCFA Fire Station No. 71 at 1029 W. 17th Street: approximately 3 miles
southeast of the Project Site.
Garden Grove Fire Station No. 6 at 12111 Chapman Avenue: approximately 1.4 miles west of the
Project Site.
Development of the 277 apartments and introduction of 845 new residents under the Proposed Project
would result in an increase in calls for fire protection and emergency medical service. However, considering
the existing firefighting resources available in and near the City, project impacts on fire protection and
emergency services are not expected to occur. The City also involves OFD in the development review
process in order to ensure that the necessary fire prevention and emergency response features are
incorporated into development projects. All site and building improvements proposed under the project
would be subject to review and approval by OFD prior to building permit and certificate of occupancy
issuance.
The City does not use a service ratio, response time, or other performance ratio to measure the adequacy of
fire protection levels in the City. Adequacy of fire personnel and facilities is monitored on a consistent basis
by the Fire Chief, and management staff and service needs are budgeted on an annual basis. Although the
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
March 2017 Page 137
Proposed Project would incrementally contribute to demand for additional fire protection services, the
Developer would be required to comply with the requirements of the Orange Municipal Code during the
City’s development review process, including payment of the required fire protection facilities fee, as outlined
in Chapter 15.38 (Fire Protection Facilities Program) of the Orange Municipal Code. The fee outlined in
Section 15.38.020 (Fee) is required to be paid prior to issuance of building permits, certificate of occupancy,
and/or approval of grading plans. Pursuant to Section 15.38.050 (Disposition of Proceeds—Fund Created),
the funds collected under the program would go toward acquiring, developing, maintaining, and improving
the City’s fire protection service necessary to mitigate impacts resulting from development projects.
Therefore, payment of the fire protection facilities fee would help offset the incremental demand created by
the Proposed Project.
Furthermore, development of the Proposed Project is required to comply with the most current adopted fire
codes, building codes, and nationally recognized fire and life safety standards of the City of Orange and
OFD, such as those outlined in Chapter 15.32 (City of Orange Fire Code) of the Orange Municipal Code.
Compliance with these codes and standards is ensured through the City’s and OFD’s development review and
building permit process. For example, fire hydrants would be installed at key locations within the Project Site,
as required by the City of Orange Fire Department to meet the hose-pull requirements and provide adequate
fire access for the land uses of the Proposed Project. Additionally, knox boxes would be placed where
necessary (i.e., stairwells where the doors are locked for entry, parking structure gated entries) to provide
access for OFD personnel.
Therefore, development of the Proposed Project would not have a significant impact on fire protection and
emergency services and no mitigation measures are necessary.
b) Police protection?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Orange Police Department (OPD) currently provides police protection
services to the entire City, including the Project Site. OPD employs 167 sworn officers out of their
headquarters at 1107 N. Batavia Street and 15 officers from their Reserve Officer Program, with goals of
expanding to 50 reserve officers (City of Orange 2010b). OPD also has a substation at The Outlets at
Orange. OPD comprises the Administrative, Field, and Investigative Divisions. OPD does not use a standard
officer-to-population or standard response time objective ratio to measure the adequacy of policing levels in
the City. Instead, OPD analyzes demographics, service calls, population, crime trends, and other changing
factors to determine the level of police protection services needed. OPD also has a mutual aid agreement
with all law enforcement agencies in Orange County in the event that supplementary assistance is needed.
Development of the 277 apartments and introduction of 845 new residents to the City under the Proposed
Project would result in an increase in calls for police protection service. In and of itself, development of the
Proposed Project is not anticipated to have a significant impact on police protection services. For example,
the additional population of the Proposed Project represents less than one percent of the total population of
the City and would not trigger the need for new or physically altered police facilities.
However, the cumulative effect of development of the Proposed Project and other development projects
proposed in the immediate vicinity (City Parkway Apartments [Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration;
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 138 PlaceWorks
ENV No. 1846-16) and City Plaza Apartments and Hotel [EIR Addendum; ENV Nos. 1847-16 and 1848-16],
each of which is fully analyzed in a separate, stand-alone CEQA document, as referenced above in brackets)
would result in a significant impact on police protection service. Factors that would contribute to the
cumulative impact from development of the Chapman Apartments, City Parkway Apartments, and City Plaza
Apartments and Hotel include inherent crime in parking garages (i.e., vehicle break-ins, stolen vehicles and to
a lesser extent, violent crimes), recent relaxation of property-crime laws (Proposition 47), and general calls for
police service in multifamily residential housing. For example, the cumulative increase in the number of
residents that would be generated by all three projects would equate to approximately 2,495 (845 for
Chapman Apartments, 650 for City Parkway, and 1,000 for City Plaza). The cumulative increase in residents in
turn would result in a higher generation of calls for police service than would the increase alone under the
Proposed Project.
In 2007, the Orange City Council committed to increasing sworn police staffing; however, when the
economic downturn occurred soon after, the anticipated staffing increase did not occur. With addition of the
Proposed Project and those noted above in a growing area of the City, there is justification for the need to
increase sworn police staff to lessen the impact of these projects. To a certain extent, good design and the
implementation of lighting and security measures help keep an area safe and reduce the need to increase the
number of police officers, which can further aid in reducing crime rates. The City has also benefited from
lower than average crime in the past; however, the cumulative impacts of large projects such as the Proposed
Project and those noted above have not been considered in the past.
Pursuant to Chapter 3.13 (Police Facility Development Fee) of the Orange Municipal Code, the City charges
a police facility development fee for all new residential developments. The fee outlined in Section 3.13.020
(Fee) is required to be paid prior to issuance of building permits, certificate of occupancy, and/or approval
of grading plans. Pursuant to Section 3.13.050 (Disposition of Proceeds—Fund Created), funds collected
under the program would go towards acquiring, developing, maintaining, and improving OPD services
necessary to mitigate impacts resulting from development projects. During the City’s development review
process, the Developer would be required to comply with the requirements of the Orange Municipal Code,
including payment of the police facility development fee outlined in Chapter 3.13. Therefore, payment of the
police facility development fee would help offset the incremental demand created by the Proposed Project.
Additionally, the Proposed Project would be required to be designed and constructed in accordance with the
City’s building security standards, as outlined in the City’s Building Security Ordinance (City Ordinance 7.79,
Section 15.52 [Building Security Standards] of the Orange Municipal Code), as well as the lighting and
security provisions outlined in Section 17.19.090 (Multi-Family Development) of Chapter 17.19 (Mixed-Use
Districts) of the Orange Municipal Code. For example, as outlined in Subsection 15.52.080.C.1, aisles,
passageways, and recesses related to and within building complexes are required to be illuminated with an
intensity of at least 0.25 foot-candle at the ground level during the hours of darkness. Additionally, as
outlined in Subsection 17.19.090.E (Security), multifamily residential development projects in mixed-use
districts are required to be designed to minimize security risks to residents and to minimize the opportunities
for vandalism and theft. This may be accomplished by:
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
March 2017 Page 139
Maximizing visibility to common open space areas, internal walkways, and public sidewalks. Use
opportunities for natural surveillance to increase visibility.
Using walkways, low fences, lighting, signage, and landscaping to clearly guide people and vehicles to and
from the proper entrances.
Eliminating areas of concealment, hiding places, and dead spaces.
Using lighting to improve the visibility of common areas while enhancing the pedestrian environment.
Lighting should not be overly bright and should provide a uniform level of light over the subject area to
eliminate dark spaces.
Furthermore, to ensure adequate police protection services are provide and to minimize the demands on such
services, the Proposed Project is required to be designed with the security and design measures and strategies
that employ Defensible Space concepts. These measures and strategies incorporate the concepts of Crime
Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED), which involves consideration of measures and
strategies such as placement and orientation of structures; access and visibility of common areas; and
placement of doors, windows, addressing and landscaping. CPTED promotes public safety and physical
security, and allows residents the ability to monitor activity in neighboring areas. For example, some of the
CPTED design measures and strategies that would be implemented for the proposed apartment complex
include but are not limited to:
The provision of open space and common area gathering locations dispersed throughout the Project Site
to encourage outdoor activity and resident interaction within the site.
The multistory nature of the apartment complex and provision of windows on all sides increases
visibility into the area to improve the “eyes on the street” crime prevention method, by providing eyes
from a higher vantage point.
The placement of dense plantings immediately adjacent to buildings will be avoided to eliminate the
creation of hiding places.
The provision of adequately-sized elevators that discourage hiding places and include view panels.
The provision of illuminated diagrammatic apartment directories at the main entrance to the apartment
complex to assist in response time for emergency personnel.
The stand-alone parking structures would also be designed to implement CPTED design measures and
strategies, including but not limited to:
Painting/staining interior walls, columns and ceilings white for better illumination.
Providing high ceilings and minimizing shear walls to increase surveillance.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 140 PlaceWorks
Illuminating interiors to a minimum maintained three to five foot-candles of light on the parking surface,
and a minimum maintained one foot-candle of light on the parking surface of the roof level.
Providing glass backs for elevator cabs for added visibility from parking areas and streets.
Providing security screening around the first level between open spandrels to control access into the
structure.
The City involves OPD in the development review process in order to ensure that the necessary police
protection measures and strategies are incorporated into development projects. All site and building
improvements proposed under the project will be subject to review and approval by OPD. The final CPTED
design strategies and features that would be required to be implemented for the Proposed Project will be
determined and are subject to review and approval by OPD.
Finally, a construction security plan and an address and photometric lighting plan will be required to be
submitted to the OPD Crime Prevention Bureau for review and approval prior to the commencement of
construction. The provisions of these plans will be a condition of approval for the Proposed Project.
Therefore, with compliance of the requirements and standards of the Orange Municipal Code and OPD and
implementation of the CPTED design measures and strategies, development of the Proposed Project would
not have a significant impact on police protection services and no mitigation measures are necessary.
c) Schools?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project Site is within the Orange Unified School District’s (OUSD)
service boundaries and in the existing attendance areas for Lampson Elementary School, Portola Middle
School, and Orange High School (OUSD 2016). These three schools provide education in grades K-6, 7-8,
and 9-12, respectively. Each of the schools’ enrollments and capacities for the 2015-2016 school year are
shown in Table 15.
Table 15 OUSD Schools Serving the Project Site, Enrollment Capacities for the 2015-2016 School Year
School Grades 2015-2016 Enrollment1 2015-2016 Capacity 2015-2016 Remaining Capacity
Lampson Elementary School K-5 833 1,140 307
Portola Middle School 6-8 711 1,112 401
Orange High School 9-12 1,810 2,580 770
Source: Strother 2016.
Development of the 277 apartments under the Proposed Project would result in an increase in the number
of students that would attend these schools. According to the OUSD’s 2013 Student Projections report, the
student generations rates for apartment dwelling units are: 0.116 at the elementary level, 0.013 at the middle
school level, and 0.032 at the high school level. Based on these student generation rates, the Proposed Project
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
March 2017 Page 141
would generate approximately 32 elementary school students, 4 middle school students, and 9 high school
students.
Additionally, based on information gathered from the 2014 Census Bureau’s American Community Survey
five-year estimates for Block Group 1 of Census Tract 761.01, which is the census tract just northwest of the
census tract that the Project Site is located in (Block Group 4 of Census Tract 761.02), the number of school-
aged children within Block 1 of Census Tract 761.01 is: 180 children that are 5 to 9 years old; 55 children that
are 10 to 14 years old; 187 children that are 15 to 17 years old; and 121 children that are 18 to 19 years old.
Per the 2014 Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, the number of households within Block 1 of
Census Tract 761.01 is 2,200, of which 1,983 live in apartment units. Block 1 of Census Tract 761.01 was
selected for reference and comparison purposes only, because similar-type apartment developments exist
within this census tract, providing a basis for gauging how many school-aged children would reside in the
Proposed Project.
The increase in students as a result of the Proposed Project would incrementally increase demand for school
facilities. However, as shown in Table 15, there is more than adequate capacity at each of the schools to serve
the anticipated number of students that would be generated by the Proposed Project. Additionally, should
seating be unavailable for students, they could be assigned to other schools within OUSD on a space-available
basis. If and when students are assigned to other schools, OUSD provides transportation, and bus fees will
be assigned to the parents.
Furthermore, the need for additional school services and facilities is addressed by compliance with school
impact assessment fees per Senate Bill 50, also known as Proposition 1A. SB 50—codified in California
Government Code Section 65995—was enacted in 1988 to address how schools are financed and how
development projects may be assessed for associated school impacts. To address the increase in enrollment at
OUSD schools that would serve the Proposed Project, the Developer would be required to pay school impact
fees to reduce any impacts to the school system, in accordance with SB 50. These fees are collected by school
districts at the time of issuance of building permits. As stated in Government Code Section 65995(h),
The payment or satisfaction of a fee, charge, or other requirement levied or imposed … are
hereby deemed to be full and complete mitigation of the impacts of any legislative or
adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of
real property, or any change in governmental organization or reorganization … on the
provision of adequate school facilities.
Payment of the school impact fees would offset impacts from increased demand for school services
associated with buildout of the Proposed Project by providing an adequate financial base to construct and
equip new and existing schools. Although implementation of the Proposed Project would cause an
incremental increase in demand for schools, this increase would be offset by the payment of school fees.
Therefore, project-related impact to school facilities would be less than significant and no mitigation
measures are necessary.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 142 PlaceWorks
d) Parks?
Less Than Significant Impact. See response to Section 3.15(a), below.
e) Other public facilities?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City’s public libraries operate according to the Public Library Facilities
Master Plan (2002-2020). This master plan outlines current and projected future demand based on City’s
General Plan buildout. The document outlines a master plan intended to ensure that the California State
Library’s recommended standard of 4 volumes and 0.7 square foot per capita is maintained, and that the
City’s library services needs are met as future development occurs.
The nearest public library is the Orange Public Library & History Center (Main Library) at 407 E. Chapman
Avenue, approximately 2.7 miles east of the Project Site. The Main Library consists of a space of 45,000
square feet and includes a homework center, a Teen Zone, a Children’s Library, a literacy center, a local
history room, a Friends of the Orange Public Library bookstore, community meeting space, study room
space, and 100 public-use computers. In addition to the Main Library, two branch libraries would also be
available to project residents: El Modena Branch Library at 380 S. Hewes Street and Taft Branch Library at
740 E. Taft Avenue. Each is operated as a community resource and gathering place to provide library
materials, computer access, meeting room space, and family programs serving their respective parts of the
City. Additionally, the Chapman University Library at One University Drive would be available to project
residents.
Demands for libraries depend on the population within the libraries’ service areas. As outlined in Section
3.13(a), above, development of the 277 apartment units under the Proposed Project would add approximately
845 residents to the City’s existing population. The population increase would result in an increase in the
demand for books, periodicals, and similar materials. Using the California State Library standard of 4 volumes
and 0.7 square foot per capita, the Proposed Project would generate an estimated demand for approximately
3,380 volumes and 592 square feet of library space. However, the increase in population associated with the
Proposed Project would have a nominal effect on the library service ratio, and library service capacity would
continue to be met with development of the Proposed Project.
Additionally, during the City’s development review process, the Developer would be required to comply with
the requirements of the Orange Municipal Code, including payment of the required library facilities fee, as
outlined in Chapter 3.50 (Library Facilities Fees) of the Orange Municipal Code. The fee outlined in Section
15.38.020 (Fee) is required to be paid prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy. Pursuant to Section
3.50.080 (Use of Library Facilities Fees), the funds collected under the program would be used for the
purpose of (1) paying the actual or estimated costs of acquiring, building, improving, expanding, maintaining,
and operating public libraries located within the City of Orange or (2) reimbursing the City of Orange for the
development's share of those library facilities already constructed by the City of Orange or for costs
advanced with respect to a specific library facility project.
Therefore, impacts to library service as a result of development of the Proposed Project would not be
significant and no mitigation measures are necessary.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
March 2017 Page 143
3.15 RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Orange Community Services Department provides recreation
services and maintains City parks. The nearest public community parks to the Project Site are El Camino Real
Park in the City of Orange, approximately 1.5 miles to the northeast, and Twin Lakes Recreation Park in the
City of Garden Grove, approximately 0.9 mile to the southwest. Another nearby City of Orange park is Hart
Park, approximately 3 miles southeast of the Project Site. Demands for parks and recreation services depend
on the population within the parks’ service areas. As outlined above in Section 3.13(a), development of the
277 apartment units under the Proposed Project would add approximately 845 residents to the City’s existing
population, and therefore would cause some increase in demands for parks and recreation services and
facilities. Based on the formula for calculating parkland dedication outlined in Section 16.60.050 (Standards
and Formula for Land Dedication) of the Orange Municipal Code, development of the Proposed Project
would require approximately 2.53 acres of parkland.
Section 16.60.050 (Standards and Formula for Land Dedication) of the Orange Municipal Code states that
the City requires the payment of in-lieu fees for the dedication of parkland or the dedication of parkland
based on the cost of three acres of parkland per 1,000 persons. Park facilities fees are outlined in Chapter
3.40 (Park Facilities Fees) of the Orange Municipal Code. Park facilities fees are allocated to land acquisition
and construction of new parks or expansion of existing parks, or purchase of equipment for new or existing
parks. Although implementation of the Proposed Project would cause an incremental increase in demand for
parks, this increase would be offset by the payment of park fees by the Developer. Payment of fees for parks
would enable the City to acquire additional parkland, improve new or existing parkland, or both.
Additionally, as shown in Figure 5, Conceptual Illustrative Site Plan, future residents of the proposed apartment
complex would be provided with and have access to a number of amenities, recreation areas, and services,
including: a fitness center with restrooms; a yoga room; a clubhouse for resident entertainment and
gatherings; and three internal courtyards. The entertainment courtyard would feature a firepit with lounge
seating on permeable synthetic turf, communal dining table with outdoor kitchen, and landscaping. The
lounge courtyard would include lounge seating on permeable synthetic turf, communal dining table with
outdoor kitchen, and landscaping. The pool recreation courtyard would feature a lap pool and spa, custom
cabanas and daybeds, a firepit with lounge seating, an entertainment terrace, lounge seating with double-sided
fire place on permeable synthetic turf, and landscaping. Each apartment unit (minus the studios) would also
include either a patio (ground-level units only) or balcony that range in size from approximately 57 to 89
square feet.
Therefore, with the provision of onsite open space and recreation areas and payment of park facilities fees,
no significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 144 PlaceWorks
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?
Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed above and shown in Figure 5, the Proposed Project includes
the development of number of recreational areas and amenities. The Proposed Project does not involve any
construction of recreational facilities beyond what is proposed to serve future residents of the apartment
complex. Additionally, construction of the proposed recreational areas and amenities by themselves are not
considered likely to result in a significant construction- or operational-related impact. The physical impacts
associated with construction of the Proposed Project’s recreational areas and amenities are also analyzed in
other sections of this Initial Study. Therefore, no significant impacts would occur under the Proposed Project
and no mitigation measures are necessary.
3.16 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
The analysis in this section is based partly on the following technical study, which is included as Appendix F
to this Initial Study:
Traffic Impact Analysis, Linscott Law & Greenspan, Engineers, June 7, 2016.
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for
the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation
including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation
system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian
and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
Less Than Significant Impact. Linscott Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) prepared a Traffic Impact
Analysis (TIA) for the Proposed Project (see Appendix F). The purpose of the TIA was to evaluate the
potential traffic and circulation impacts associated with the Proposed Project and recommend improvements
to mitigate impacts (if any) considered significant in comparison to established regulatory thresholds
determined by the City of Orange. The TIA was prepared in accordance with the City of Orange Traffic
Impact Analysis Guidelines, dated August 15, 2007; Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact
Studies, dated December 2002, where applicable; and requirements and procedures outlined in the most
current Congestion Management Program (CMP) for Orange County.
In coordination with the City of Orange Traffic Engineering staff, the TIA evaluated the existing operating
conditions at 11 key study intersections and 8 key roadway segments in the project vicinity, estimated the trip
generation potential of the Proposed Project, and forecast existing and future operating conditions without
and with the Proposed Project. The TIA also provided an evaluation for site access and internal circulation.
Following is a summary of the findings and conclusions of the TIA.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
March 2017 Page 145
Intersection Analysis
Study Area Intersections and Traffic Analysis Scenarios
The TIA analyzed existing and future weekday daily, AM and PM peak hour traffic conditions at the 11 key
study intersections and 3 Project Site driveways—which are located in the cities of Orange and Garden
Grove and shown in Figure 3-1, Existing Roadway Conditions and Intersection Controls, of the TIA—for
the following traffic scenarios:
Existing Year (2016) Without Project Conditions
Existing Year (2016) With Project Conditions
Near-Term Year (2019) Without Project Conditions
Near-Term Year (2019) With Project Conditions
It should be noted that the traffic analysis contained in this section is applicable to the 11 key study
intersections only. The traffic analysis for the 3 Project Site driveways is discussed separately below, under the
Site Access Analysis section.
Additionally, a total of 35 planned and/or approved cumulative projects were considered in the cumulative
traffic analysis of the TIA. Figure 6-1, Location of Cumulative Project, of the TIA depicts the location of
the cumulative projects (see Appendix F).
Project Trip Generation
Both daily and peak-hour trip generation rates and trip generations for the Proposed Project are shown in
Table 5 -1, Project Traffic Generation Forecast, of the TIA. Project trip generation was estimated using trip
generation rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Trip Generation (9th edition). As shown in
Table 5-1, the Proposed Project is projected to generate approximately 1,490 daily vehicle trips, 122 of which
would occur during the AM peak hour and 139 during the PM peak hour.
Level of Service Criteria, Impact Criteria, and Thresholds
City of Orange Locations
According to the City of Orange General Plan Circulation Element and as stated in the City of Orange
Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines, dated August 15, 2007, level of service (LOS) D is the minimum
acceptable condition that should be maintained during the AM and PM peak commute hours on all
intersections and the minimum acceptable condition that should be maintained on a daily basis on all roadway
segments. Impacts to local and regional transportation systems located in the City of Orange are considered
significant if:
The project increases traffic demand at the study intersection by 1 percent of capacity (ICU increase ≥
0.010), causing or worsening LOS E or LOS F (ICU > 0.900).
The project increases traffic demand at the roadway segment by 1 percent of capacity (V/C increase ≥
0.010), causing or worsening LOS E or LOS F (V/C > 0.900).
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 146 PlaceWorks
City of Garden Grove Locations
The City of Garden Grove’s minimum acceptable LOS conditions for intersections and roadway segments, as
well as the impact significance thresholds for local and regional transportation systems, are the same as those
noted above for the City of Orange.
Caltrans Locations
Consistent with the Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, dated December 2002, the
following criterion was used in the TIA to determine project impacts at the Caltrans-controlled study
intersections.
Caltrans endeavors to maintain a target level of service at the transition between LOS C and D on state
highway facilities. However, Caltrans acknowledges that this may not always be feasible and recommends
that the lead agency consult with Caltrans to determine the appropriate target level of service. Caltrans
has established that LOS D is the operating standard for all Caltrans facilities. Caltrans has determined
that all state-owned facilities that operate below LOS D should be identified and improved to an
acceptable level of service. The Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies states that
if an existing state-owned facility operates at less than the target LOS (LOS D) the existing service level
should be maintained.
Existing Year (2016) Without Project Conditions
Table 16 summarizes the Existing Year (2016) Without Project condition peak-hour service level calculations
for the 11 key study intersections based on existing traffic volumes and current street geometry. As
demonstrated in the table, 1 of the 11 key study intersections currently operates at an unacceptable level of
service (LOS E) during the AM peak hour : Lewis Street at Chapman Avenue. The remaining 10 key study
intersections currently operate at acceptable level of service (LOS D or better) during the AM and PM peak
hours.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
March 2017 Page 147
Table 16 Existing Year (2016) Without Project Condition Intersection LOS
Intersection Time Period Jurisdiction
Minimum Acceptable LOS Control Type ICU LOS
1. Lewis Street at Chapman Avenue AM Orange/ D 8 Phase 0.912 E
PM Garden Grove Signal 0.853 D
2. Lewis Street at Lampson Avenue/Metropolitan Drive AM Orange/ D 2 Phase 0.605 B
PM Garden Grove Signal 0.625 B
3. Manchester Avenue at Chapman Avenue AM Orange D 6 Phase 0.675 B
PM Signal 0.552 A
4. SR-22 WB Ramps at Metropolitan Drive AM Orange/ D 4 Phase 0.447 A
PM Caltrans Signal 0.514 A
5. State College Boulevard at Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps AM Orange/ D 5 Phase 0.412 A
PM Caltrans Signal 0.639 B
6. State College Boulevard at I-5 SB Ramps AM Orange/ D 2 Phase 0.414 A
PM Caltrans Signal 0.350 A
7. The City Drive at Chapman Avenue AM Orange D 8 Phase 0.724 C
PM Signal 0.659 B
8. The City Drive at Metropolitan Drive AM Orange D 3 Phase 0.459 A
PM Signal 0.475 A
9. The City Drive at SR-22 EB Ramps AM Orange/ D 6 Phase 0.595 A
PM Caltrans Signal 0.533 A
10. I-5 SB Ramps at Chapman Avenue AM Orange/ D 4 Phase 0.554 A
PM Caltrans Signal 0.587 A
11. Rampart Street at Chapman Avenue AM Orange D 3 Phase 0.380 A
PM Signal 0.449 A
Source: LLG 2016. Note: Bold ICU/LOS values indicate unacceptable level of service.
Existing Year (2016) With Project Conditions
Table 17 summarizes the Existing Year (2016) With Project condition peak-hour service level calculations for
the 11 key study intersections based on existing traffic volumes and current street geometry. As demonstrated
in the table, traffic associated with the Proposed Project would not significantly impact any of the 11 key
study intersections, when compared to the LOS standards and significant impact criteria specified in TIA.
Although the intersection of Lewis Street at Chapman Avenue is forecast to operate at an unacceptable level
of service (LOS E) during the AM peak hour under the Existing Year (2016) With Project condition, the
Proposed Project is expected to add less than the threshold amount to the ICU value (ICU increase ≥ 0.010).
Additionally, the Lewis Street/Chapman Avenue intersection operates at unacceptable LOS E under the
Existing Year (2016) Without Project condition. The remaining 10 key study intersections currently operate
and are forecast to continue to operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS D or better) during the AM and
PM peak hours with the addition of Proposed Project–generated traffic.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 148 PlaceWorks
Table 17 Existing Year (2016) With Project Condition Intersection LOS
Intersection Time Period
Minimum Acceptable
LOS
Existing Year (2016) Without Project Condition
Existing Year (2016) With Project Condition Project Significant Impact
ICU LOS ICU LOS Increase Yes/ No
1. Lewis Street at Chapman Avenue AM D 0.912 E 0.919 E 0.007 No
PM 0.853 D 0.852 D 0.000 No
2. Lewis Street at Lampson Avenue/Metropolitan
Drive
AM D 0.605 B 0.614 B 0.009 No
PM 0.625 B 0.627 B 0.002 No
3. Manchester Avenue at Chapman Avenue AM D 0.675 B 0.690 B 0.015 No
PM 0.552 A 0.565 A 0.013 No
4. SR-22 WB Ramps at Metropolitan Drive AM D 0.447 A 0.449 A 0.002 No
PM 0.514 A 0.516 A 0.002 No
5. State College Boulevard at Anaheim Way/I-5 NB
Ramps
AM D 0.412 A 0.412 A 0.000 No
PM 0.639 B 0.640 B 0.001 No
6. State College Boulevard at I-5 SB Ramps AM D 0.414 A 0.414 A 0.000 No
PM 0.350 A 0.358 A 0.008 No
7. The City Drive at Chapman Avenue AM D 0.724 C 0.733 C 0.009 No
PM 0.659 B 0.664 B 0.005 No
8. The City Drive at Metropolitan Drive AM D 0.459 A 0.463 A 0.004 No
PM 0.475 A 0.478 A 0.003 No
9. The City Drive at SR-22 EB Ramps AM D 0.595 A 0.597 A 0.002 No
PM 0.533 A 0.536 A 0.003 No
10. I-5 SB Ramps at Chapman Avenue AM D 0.554 A 0.561 A 0.007 No
PM 0.587 A 0.597 A 0.010 No
11. Rampart Street at Chapman Avenue AM D 0.380 A 0.383 A 0.003 No
PM 0.449 A 0.451 A 0.002 No
Source: LLG 2016. Note: Bold ICU/LOS values indicate unacceptable level of service.
Near-Term Year (2019) Without and With Project Conditions
Table 18 summarizes the peak hour level of service results at the 11 key study intersections for Near-Term
Year (2019) Without and With conditions. The first column (1) lists projected cumulative traffic conditions
(existing plus ambient traffic plus cumulative project traffic) based on existing intersection geometry, but
without any traffic generated from the Proposed Project. The second column (2) presents forecast Year 2019
near-term traffic conditions with addition of the Proposed Project traffic. The third column (3) shows the
increase in ICU value due to the added peak hour project trips and indicates whether the traffic associated
with the Proposed Project would have a significant impact based on the LOS standards and significant impact
criteria defined in the TIA.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
March 2017 Page 149
Table 18 Near-Term Year (2019) Without and With Project Condition Intersection LOS
Intersection Time Period
Minimum Acceptable LOS
(1) Near-Term Year (2019) Without Project
Condition
(2) Near-Term Year (2016) With Project Condition
(3) Project Significant Impact
ICU LOS ICU LOS Increase Yes/ No
1. Lewis Street at Chapman Avenue AM D 0.979 E 0.987 E 0.008 No
PM 0.954 E 0.953 E 0.000 No
2. Lewis Street at Lampson Avenue/Metropolitan Drive AM D 0.656 B 0.665 B 0.009 No
PM 0.664 B 0.666 B 0.002 No
3. Manchester Avenue at Chapman Avenue AM D 0.740 C 0.754 C 0.014 No
PM 0.632 B 0.639 B 0.007 No
4. SR-22 WB Ramps at Metropolitan Drive AM D 0.495 A 0.496 A 0.001 No
PM 0.569 A 0.571 A 0.002 No
5. State College Boulevard at Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps AM D 0.623 B 0.623 B 0.000 No
PM 0.794 C 0.794 C 0.000 No
6. State College Boulevard at I-5 SB Ramps AM D 0.501 A 0.503 A 0.002 No
PM 0.464 A 0.472 A 0.008 No
7. The City Drive at Chapman Avenue AM D 0.818 D 0.826 D 0.008 No
PM 0.796 C 0.807 D 0.011 No
8. The City Drive at Metropolitan Drive AM D 0.524 A 0.528 A 0.004 No
PM 0.541 A 0.545 A 0.004 No
9. The City Drive at SR-22 EB Ramps AM D 0.671 B 0.674 B 0.003 No
PM 0.615 B 0.618 B 0.003 No
10. I-5 SB Ramps at Chapman Avenue AM D 0.596 A 0.603 B 0.007 No
PM 0.621 B 0.631 B 0.010 No
11. Rampart Street at Chapman Avenue AM D 0.415 A 0.417 A 0.002 No
PM 0.491 A 0.493 A 0.002 No
Source: LLG 2016. Note: Bold ICU/LOS values indicate unacceptable level of service.
Near-Term Year (2019) Without Project Condition s
As shown in Table 18, in future cumulative traffic conditions (Near-Term Year [2019] Without Project
condition), the addition of ambient traffic growth and cumulative project traffic will adversely impact 1 of
the 11 key study intersections: Lewis Street at Chapman Avenue during the AM and PM peak hour. The
remaining 10 key study intersections are forecast to continue to operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS
D or better) during the AM and PM peak hours with the addition of ambient traffic growth and cumulative
project traffic.
Near-Term Year (2019) With Project Conditions
As demonstrated in Table 18, traffic associated with the Proposed Project would not significantly impact any
of the 11 key study intersections under the Near-Term Year (2019) With Project condition, when compared
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 150 PlaceWorks
to the LOS standards and significant impact criteria specified in the TIA. Although the intersection of Lewis
Street and Chapman Avenue is forecast to operate at unacceptable LOS E during the AM and PM peak
hours, the Proposed Project is expected to add less than the threshold amount to the ICU value (ICU
increase ≥ 0.010). Additionally, the Lewis Street/Chapman Avenue intersection is forecast to operate at
unacceptable LOS E under the Near-Term Year (2019) Without Project condition. The remaining 10 key
study intersections are forecast to continue to operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS D or better)
during the AM and PM peak hours with the addition of the Proposed Project–generated traffic in the Year
2019.
Roadway Segment Analysis
As stated above, the TIA evaluated the existing operating conditions at eight key roadway segments in the
project vicinity:
Chapman Avenue, between Lewis Street and Manchester Avenue (Orange)
Chapman Avenue, between Manchester Avenue and The City Drive (Orange)
Chapman Avenue, between The City Drive and I-5 SB Ramps (Orange)
Metropolitan Drive, between Lewis Street and SR-22 WB Ramps (Orange)
Metropolitan Drive, between SR-22 WB Ramps and The City Drive (Orange)
Lewis Street, between Chapman Avenue and Lampson Avenue (Orange/Garden Grove)
State College Boulevard, between I-5 SB Ramps and Chapman Avenue (Orange)
The City Drive, between Dawn Way and Metropolitan Drive (Orange)
Existing Year (2016) Without Project Conditions
Table 3-5, Existing Roadway Segment Level of Service Summary, of the TIA summarizes the Existing Year
(2016) Without Project service level calculations for the eight key roadway segments based on existing 24-
hour traffic volumes and current roadway geometry. All eight key roadway segments currently operate at
acceptable levels of service (LOS C or better) on a daily basis.
Existing Year (2016) With Project Conditions
Table 8 -2, Existing Plus Project Roadway Segment Level of Service Summary, of the TIA summarizes the
roadway segment level of service results at the eight key roadway segments for Existing Year (2016) With
Project condition. As shown in the table, traffic associated with the Proposed Project would not significantly
impact any of the eight key roadway segments when compared to the LOS standards and significant impact
criteria specified in the TIA. All roadway segments currently operate and are forecast to continue to operate
at an acceptable service level (LOS D or better) on a daily basis with the addition of project-generated traffic.
Near-Term Year (2019) Without and With Project Conditions
Table 9-2, Year 2019 Roadway Segment Level of Service Summary, of the TIA summarizes the roadway
segment level of service results at the eight key roadway segments for Near-Term Year (2019) Without and
With Project conditions.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
March 2017 Page 151
Near-Term Year (2019) Without Project Condition s
As shown in Table 9-2, all eight of the key roadway segments are forecast to operate at an acceptable level of
service (LOS D or better) on a daily basis under Year 2019 cumulative traffic conditions (i.e., existing plus
ambient traffic plus cumulative project traffic).
Near-Term Year (2019) With Project Conditions
As shown in Table 9-2, traffic associated with the Proposed Project would not significantly impact any of the
eight key roadway segments under the Near-Term Year (2019) With Project condition, when compared to the
LOS standards and significant impact criteria specified in the TIA. The eight key roadway segments are
forecast to continue to operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS D or better) on a daily basis with the
addition of project-generated traffic in the Near-Term Year (2019) With Project condition.
Caltrans Facilities Analysis
In conformance with the current Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, existing and
projected peak hour operating conditions at the five Caltrans-controlled study intersections within the study
area were evaluated in the TIA. The Caltrans intersections include:
SR-22 WB Ramps at Metropolitan Drive
State College Boulevard at Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps
State College Boulevard at I-5 SB Ramps
The City Drive at SR-22 EB Ramps
I-5 SB Ramps at Chapman Avenue
Existing Year (2016) Without and With Project Conditions
Table 10-2, Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis – Caltrans, summarizes the peak
hour level of service results at the five Caltrans study intersections within the study area for the Existing Year
(2016) Without and With Project conditions.
Existing Year (2016) Without Project Conditions
As shown in Table 10-2 of the TIA, all five Caltrans study intersections currently operate at an acceptable
level of service (LOS C or better) during the AM and PM peak hours under the Existing Year (2016) Without
Project condition.
Existing Year (2016) With Project Conditions
As shown in Table 10-2 of the TIA, traffic associated with the Proposed Project would not significantly
impact any of the five Caltrans study intersections under the Existing Year (2016) With Project condition,
when compared to the LOS standards specified in TIA. The five Caltrans study intersections are forecast to
continue to operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS C or better) with the addition of project-generated
traffic to existing traffic.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 152 PlaceWorks
Near-Term Year (2019) Without and With Project Conditions
Table 10-3, Year 2019 Peak Hour Intersection Capacity – Caltrans, summarizes the peak hour level of service
results at the five Caltrans study intersections within the study area for the Near-Term Year (2019) Without
and With Project conditions.
Near-Term Year (2019) Without Proj ect Conditions
As shown in Table 10-3 of the TIA, the addition of ambient traffic growth and cumulative projects traffic
would not adversely impact any of the five Caltrans study intersections under the Near-Term Year (2019)
Without Project Condition. The five Caltrans study intersections are forecast to continue to operate at
acceptable level of service (LOS C or better) during the AM and PM peak hours with the addition of
ambient traffic growth and cumulative projects traffic.
Near-Term Year (2019) With P roject Conditions
As shown in Table 10-3 of the TIA, traffic associated with the Proposed Project would not significantly
impact any of the five Caltrans study intersections under the Near-Term Year (2019) With Project condition,
when compared to the LOS standards specified in the TIA. The five Caltrans study intersections are forecast
to continue to operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS C or better) with the addition of project-
generated traffic.
Site Access Analysis
As shown in Figure 5, Conceptual Illustrative Site Plan, vehicular access for the apartment complex would be
provided via an existing full-access driveway (all turning movements permitted) off Lewis Street and a new
restricted-access driveway (right-in/right-out only) off Chapman Avenue; the driveways lead to internal drive
aisles, with decorative pavers provided along portions of the drive aisles. Vehicular access for the stand-alone
parking structure would be provided via an existing full-access driveway (all turning movements permitted)
off Chapman Avenue that connects to a north-south drive aisle on the eastern end of the Project Site (east
of the office building), as well as via an existing east-west drive aisle that connects (via a drive aisle on the
adjacent property) to City Boulevard West (see Figure 5). It should be noted that although no residential
traffic is anticipated to enter the Project Site via the eastern full-access driveway off Chapman Avenue, it is
assumed that some existing traffic would be routed to this driveway with development of the Proposed
Project; therefore, this full-access driveway was considered in the site access analysis.
Table 19 summarizes the intersection operations at the project driveways off Lewis Street and Chapman
Avenue for the Near-Ter m Year (2019) With Project condition at completion and full occupancy of the
Proposed Project. As shown in this table, the three project driveways are forecast to operate at acceptable
levels of service (LOS D or better) during the AM and PM peak hours under the Near-Term Year (2019)
With Project condition. Therefore, project access would be adequate. Motorists entering and exiting the
Project Site would be able to do so comfortably, safely, and without undue congestion.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
March 2017 Page 153
Table 19 Project Driveway Peak Hour Level of Service Summary
Intersection Time Period Jurisdiction Intersection Control
Near-Term Year (2019) With Project Traffic Conditions
HCM LOS
1. Lewis Street at Project Driveway 1 AM Orange One-Way Stop 16.9 s/v C
PM 20.7 s/v C
2. Chapman Avenue at Project Driveway 2 AM Orange One-Way Stop 26.6 s/v D
PM 22.2 s/v C
3. Chapman Avenue at Existing Office Driveway AM Orange One-Way Stop 21.3 s/v C
PM 34.4 s/v D
Source: LLG 2016. Note: s/v = seconds per vehicle
Internal Circulation Analysis
As concluded in the TIA, the onsite circulation layout of the Proposed Project, as illustrated in Figure 5, is
adequate and would not result in any vehicular conflicts. Additionally, curb return radii were confirmed and
are generally adequate for small service/delivery (FedEx, UPS) trucks and trash trucks. Impacts regarding
hazards due to an internal circulation design feature and emergency access are discussed in detail in Sections
3.16(d) and (e), below.
Alternative Modes of Transportation Analysis
Alternative modes of transportation are discussed in Section 3.16(f), below.
Conclusion
As demonstrated above, no significant traffic or circulation impacts would occur as a result of development
of the Proposed Project and no mitigation measures are necessary.
Additionally, during the City’s development review process, the Developer would be required to comply with
the requirements of the Orange Municipal Code, including payment of the transportation systems
improvement program fee, as outlined in Chapter 15.34 (Transportation System Improvement Program) of
the Orange Municipal Code. As stated in Section 15.41.010 (Findings and Purpose), the purpose of the fee is
to establish development impact fees in accordance with the provisions of Section 66000 et seq. of the
California Government Code, also known as the Mitigation Fee Act. The transportation systems
improvement program fee is necessary in order to fund needed improvements to the City’s circulation and
transportation systems to reduce the cumulative transportation impacts caused by new development, and is
apportioned to new development based on new development’s fair share of the estimated costs of the
improvements. As stated in Section 15.41.020 (Fee), fees for residential development are due on the date of
final inspection or certificate of occupancy for each unit, whichever occurs first. The rate at which the fee
shall be charged for residential development is based on the rate that was in place at the time a building
permit is issued for each unit.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 154 PlaceWorks
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level
of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
No Impact. The congestion management program in effect in Orange County is the 2013 Orange County
Congestion Management Program (CMP), which was issued by the Orange County Transportation Authority
in November 2013. The CMP requires analysis of traffic impacts to CMP roadways and intersections if a
project generates 2,400 or more daily trips, or 1,600 or more daily trips for projects that directly access the
CMP highway system. Per the CMP guidelines, this number is based on the desire to analyze any impacts that
will be 3 percent or more of the existing CMP highway system facilities’ capacity (LLG 2016). As shown in
Table 5-1, Project Traffic Generation Forecast, of the TIA, the Proposed Project is projected to generate
approximately 1,490 daily vehicle trips, and therefore does not meet the criteria required for a CMP traffic
analysis. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not have the potential to conflict with the CMP. No impact
would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary.
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change
in location that results in substantial safety risks?
No Impact. The Project Site is not within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport. The nearest airports are Fullerton Municipal Airport at approximately 7.3 miles to the
northwest and John Wayne airport at approximately 7.4 miles to the south. The Project Site is outside of the
areas where land uses are regulated for air crash hazards and areas where structure heights are limited to
prevent airspace obstructions for aircraft approaching or departing both of these airports (OCALUC 2008
and 2004). Additionally, the Proposed Project would not result in an increase in air traffic.
The Project Site is also in proximity of the UCI Medical Center helipad (approximately 0.3 mile to the east,
at-grade near the southeast corner of The City Drive/Chapman Avenue intersection) and Orange County
Fire Training Facility heliport (approximately 0.9 mile to the northeast, at-grade at the Orangewood
Avenue/Rampart Street intersection). Due to the relatively low building heights of the proposed apartment
complex and stand-alone parking structure (both five stories), the Proposed Project is not anticipated to
result in the change in air traffic patterns at these helipads. Additionally, over congested areas, helicopters are
required to maintain an altitude of at least 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within 2,000 feet of the
aircraft, except as needed for takeoff and landing (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 14, § 91.119).
Helicopter takeoffs and landings are also at a sufficient distance from the Project Site.
Therefore, development of the Proposed Project would not cause any changes in air traffic pattern for the
aforementioned airports or helipads that would lead to safety risks. Impacts would be less than significant and
no mitigation measures are necessary.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
No Impact. As shown in Figure 5, Conceptual Illustrative Site Plan, vehicular access to the Project Site would be
provided via unsignalized stop-controlled full-access driveways (all turning movements permitted) off City
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
March 2017 Page 155
Boulevard East and Lewis Street, and via a new stop-controlled restricted access driveway (right-in/right-out
only) off Chapman Avenue. The driveways would connect to a network of internal private drive aisles; with
decorative pavers provided along portions of the drive aisles. The internal drive aisles would connect at an
internal intersection, which would also function and be designed as an urban plaza (see Figure 5).
The City of Orange and OFD have adopted roadway design standards that preclude the construction of any
unsafe roadway, circulation, or access design features. The design of the proposed internal drive aisles, access
driveways, and other circulation improvements would be required to adhere to the City’s Standard Plans and
Specifications (most current version dated April 2013), the City’s Standard Specifications for Public Works
Construction (also known as the Green Book), and OFD’s design standards, which are imposed on project
developments by the City’s Public Works Department and OFD during the building plan check and
development review process. Compliance with these established design standards would ensure that hazards
due to design features would not occur and that the placement of the circulation improvements would not
create a conflict for motorists, pedestrians, or bicyclists traveling within or around the Project Site.
Additionally, the design of any proposed vehicular access driveways and intersections would be required to
adhere to the sight distance requirements of Standard Plan No. 126 (Intersection Sight Distance), which
would ensure that vehicles exiting/entering the Project Site would be able to make safe turning movements
out of/into the site without any visual or physical obstructions (e.g., walls, trees).
Furthermore, the Proposed Project would provide a network of low-speed internal drive aisles that would be
safe and walkable for pedestrians, while maintaining an efficient circulation system for vehicles. The Proposed
Project would also not include incompatible uses such as farm equipment on area roadways.
Therefore, no impacts resulting from hazards due to design features or incompatible uses would occur as a
result of the Proposed Project and no mitigation measures are necessary.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less Than Significant Impact. As outlined above, the Proposed Project would introduce a number of new
onsite vehicular access and circulation improvements. To address fire access needs, the improvements would
be required to be designed in accordance with all applicable OFD design standards for emergency access (e.g.,
minimum lane width and turning radius). For example, internal drive aisles would be designed to meet the
minimum width requirements of OFD to allow the passing of emergency vehicles. The minimum height
requirement would also be provided for the parking garage entries in order to accommodate fire trucks and
other large emergency vehicles.
Additionally, the Proposed Project would be required to incorporate all applicable design and safety
requirements as set forth in the most current adopted fire codes, building codes, and nationally recognized
fire and life safety standards of the City of Orange and OFD, such as those outlined in Chapter 15.32 (City
of Orange Fire Code) of the Orange Municipal Code. The Proposed Project would also be required to be
designed and constructed in accordance with the City’s building security standards, as outlined in the City’s
Building Security Ordinance (City Ordinance 7.79; Section 15.52 [Building Security Standards] of the Orange
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 156 PlaceWorks
Municipal Code). Compliance with these provisions and standards is ensured through the City’s and OFD’s
development review and building plan check process.
Additionally, during the building plan check and development review process, the City would coordinate with
OFD and OPD to ensure that the necessary fire prevention and emergency response features are
incorporated into the Proposed Project and that adequate circulation and access (e.g., adequate turning radii
for fire trucks) are provided within the traffic and circulation components of the Proposed Project. All site
and building improvements proposed under the project would be subject to review and approval by the City,
OFD, and OPD prior to building permit and certificate of occupancy issuance.
Implementation of the Proposed Project would also not require major road closures or otherwise impact the
functionality of City Boulevard West, Lewis Street, or Chapman Avenue as public safety access routes.
However, some minor improvements would be required within the Lewis Street and Chapman Avenue rights-
of-way, which would require temporary closure of small portions of these roads. For example, some
construction would occur within the public right-of-way of these roads in order to make the necessary
potable water and wastewater infrastructure connections, and in order to accommodate the new driveway
proposed off Chapman Avenue. Any minor road closures would be temporary and would only be necessary
during the construction activities associated with these improvements. All proposed road closures would also
be subject to review and approval by the City. Upon completion of the roadway improvements, all road
conditions would be restored to normal.
However, to ensure that significant impacts to emergency personnel and vehicle access would not occur,
Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 requires the Developer to prepare and submit a Construction Traffic
Management Plan prior to the issuance of grading permits for any street improvements proposed along
Chapman Avenue and/or Lewis Street. The plan would be implemented during the Chapman Avenue and/or
Lewis Street roadway improvement activities and would outline the necessary measures to ensure that
adequate traffic circulation is maintained along these roads for emergency vehicles throughout the duration
of the street improvements. With implementation of the mitigation measure, impacts would be reduced to a
less than significant level.
Mitigation Measures
TRAF-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits for any street improvements proposed along
Chapman Avenue and/or Lewis Street, the project applicant shall submit a Construction
Traffic Management Plan to the City of Orange Community Development Department. The
plan shall be required to be implemented throughout the duration of the street improvement
activities and to identify contractor contact information and responsibilities; demolition and
construction hours; all necessary traffic control measures and signs; and delineators to be
implemented by the construction contractor throughout the duration of demolition and
construction activities. The plan shall also require the construction contractor to implement
the following measures during demolition and construction activities. These measures shall
also be discussed at the predemolition and grading conference/meeting.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
March 2017 Page 157
Minimize obstruction of through-traffic lanes and provide temporary traffic controls,
such as a flag person, during all demolition and construction activities to maintain
adequate access for emergency vehicles and personnel.
Develop a traffic plan to minimize interference for emergency vehicles and personnel
from demolition and construction activities (e.g., advanced public notice of demolition
and construction activities).
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian
facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
No Impact. Following is a discussion of the potential impacts to alternative modes of transportation as a
result of development of the Proposed Project.
Pedestrian Facilities
As shown in Figure 5, Conceptual Illustrative Site Plan, pedestrian access for residents, guests, and employees of
the apartment complex would be provided via walkways on all four sides of the apartment complex. The
pedestrian circulation system of the apartment complex would seamlessly connect to the public sidewalks
along Chapman Avenue and Lewis Street, as well as the walkway system of The Outlets at Orange and
surrounding areas. Project residents would be within walking distance of complementary uses surrounding
the Project Site, which include commercial/retail, entertainment, office, hospitality, and medical uses. The
Proposed Project’s pedestrian circulation system would be accessible from and connect to all points of the
Project Site as well as points of interest beyond the Project Site.
Additionally, as shown in Figure 5, enhanced pedestrian crossings (i.e., crossing with decorative paving) would
be provided at key locations and internal intersections, making them more visible to oncoming motorists and
providing added safety for pedestrians.
Furthermore, the design and construction of the proposed pedestrian circulation improvements would be
required to adhere to the design standards set forth by the City, including the provision of safe, convenient,
and accessible pedestrian routes. For example, well-marked, publicly accessible paths of travel would be
required to be provided in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Title 24 of the
California Code of Regulations.
Therefore, development of the Proposed Project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs regarding pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. In
fact, the Proposed Project would enable and enhance the use of pedestrian facilities. No impact would occur
and no mitigation measures are necessary.
Bicycle Facilities
Under current conditions and as shown in Figure CM-3 (Plan for Recreational Trails and Bikeways) of the
City’s General Plan Circulation and Mobility Element, there are no existing dedicated on- or off-street bicycle
lanes, paths, or routes provided along the roads that abut the Project Site (Chapman Avenue and Lewis Street)
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 158 PlaceWorks
or anywhere in the vicinity of the site. Per Figure CM 3, the nearest existing bicycle route (a Class I bikeway)
to the Project Site runs along the Santa Ana River, approximately 0.7 mile east of the site. Additionally, as
shown in Figure CM-3, there are no planned bicycle lanes, paths, or routes along the roads that abut the
Project Site; however, a future Class II (on-street) bikeway is proposed along Lewis Street just west of the
Project Site.
Although no dedicated on- or off-street bikeways exist or are proposed along the roads that abut the Project
Site, there are existing sidewalks along these roads and along Lewis Street. Section 21100(h) of the California
Vehicle Code allows bicycles to ride on sidewalks; therefore, residents and employees of the Proposed Project
would be able to connect to the existing bikeway along the Santa Ana River and the future proposed bikeway
along Lewis Street via the public sidewalks along these roads and others nearby. Project development would
therefore not interfere with or impact the existing or future development of bicycle circulation or facilities in
the project area.
Additionally, as noted above in Section 1.3.8, Green Building and Sustainability, the Proposed Project would be
designed to include a number of green building practices/features, including the provision of bicycle storage
space in parking garages and bicycle racks in the common open space areas, which would help promote
bicycle use. Other sustainability features would be considered by the City as the Proposed Project is refined
during the design and construction phase.
Therefore, development of the Proposed Project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs regarding bicycle facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. In
fact, the Proposed Project would enable and enhance the use of bicycle facilities. No impact would occur and
no mitigation measures are necessary.
Public Transit
As an alternative to automobile travel, the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) provides public
transit bus service in the City of Orange. The Proposed Project has been designed to provide convenient
access to public transit offered by OCTA. For example, future project residents would be within walking
distance of public transit provided along Lewis Street, Chapman Avenue, and The City Drive; a number of
bus stops are located along these roadways. Safe access to the bus stops from the Project Site would be
available via the Proposed Project’s pedestrian paths internal to the site and those surrounding the Project
Site.
Therefore, development of the Proposed Project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs regarding public transit, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. In fact,
the Proposed Project would enable and enhance the use of public transit. No impact would occur and no
mitigation measures are necessary.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
March 2017 Page 159
3.17 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a Tribal cultural resource, defined in
Public Resources Code section 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:
• 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
• 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 Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource
Code Section 5024.1 for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe?
Less Than Significant Impact. Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) requires meaningful consultation with California
Native American Tribes on potential impacts to tribal cultural resources, as defined in Public Resources Code
Section 21074. Tribal cultural resources are sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and
objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either eligible or listed in the
California Register of Historical Resources or local register of historical resources (CNRA 2016).
As part of the AB 52 process, Native American tribes must submit a written request to the relevant lead
agency (in this case, the City of Orange) if it wishes to be notified of projects within its traditionally and
culturally affiliated area. The lead agency must provide written, formal notification to the tribes that have
requested it within 14 days of determining that a project application is complete, or deciding to undertake a
project. The tribe must respond to the lead agency within 30 days of receipt of the notification if it wishes to
engage in consultation on the project, and the lead agency must begin the consultation process within 30 days
of receiving the request for consultation. Consultation concludes when either 1): the parties agree to
mitigation measures to avoid a significant effect, if one exists, on a tribal cultural resource, or 2) a party,
acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached. AB 52
also addresses confidentiality during tribal consultation per Public Resources Code Section 21082.3(c).
To date, two tribes (Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians and Torres Martinez Dessert Cahuilla Indians) have
requested to be included on the City’s AB 52 consultation list, which is a list of potential tribes the City
maintains for consultation purposes for the purpose of mitigating potential impacts to tribal cultural
resources under CEQA. A letter was sent to each of the tribes on June 20, 2016, which requested comments
and responses from the tribes. To date, neither of the tribes has responded to the City’s AB 52 consultation
letter.
Additionally, as shown in Figure CR-1 (Designated Historic Resources) of the City’s General Plan Cultural
Resources and Historic Preservation Element, there are no listed or designated historic resources onsite or
within the vicinity of the Project Site; most of the resources identified are in the Old Towne Historic District
and Plaza Historic District in the eastern part of the City. The Project Site is also not selected as a site
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 160 PlaceWorks
recommended for historic designation, as shown in Figure CR-2 (Resources Recommended for Designation)
of the City’s General Plan Cultural Resources and Historic Preservation Element. Furthermore, the Project
Site and existing office building are not identified on any of these historic resource lists/databases—the
National Register of Historic Places and the California State Historical Landmarks, Points of Historical
Interest, and Register of Historic Places.
Finally, no sites were documented in the Native American Heritage Commissions’ sacred lands file search
conducted for the USGS quadrangle that encompasses the Project Site. There are also no resources onsite
determined by the City to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1.
Based on the preceding, impacts to tribal cultural resource would be less than significant and no mitigation
measures are necessary.
3.18 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
The analysis in this section is based partly on the following technical studies, which are included as
Appendices D and G to this Initial Study:
Preliminary Hydrology Report, Michael Baker International, June 21, 2016. (Appendix D)
Sewer Capacity Analysis, Michael Baker International, July 15, 2016. (Appendix G)
a) Exceed waste water treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) is responsible for the
collection, treatment, and disposal of domestic, commercial, and industrial wastewater generated by people
living and working in central and northwestern Orange County. OCSD facilities, Reclamation Plant No. 1 in
the City of Fountain Valley and Treatment Plant No. 2 in the City of Huntington Beach, would receive
wastewater generated from the apartment complex of the Proposed Project. Both plants provide a mix of
advanced primary and secondary treatment. OCSD is required by federal and state law to meet applicable
standards of treatment plant discharge requirements. Specifically, OCSD’s wastewater treatment system is
subject to NPDES Permit No.CA0110604 issued by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board in
2012 under Order No. R8-2012-0035 (SARWQCB 2012). The NPDES permit regulates the amount and type
of pollutants that the system can discharge into receiving waters. OCSD’s wastewater treatment system is
operating in compliance with and would continue to operate subject to state waste discharge requirements
and federal NPDES permit requirements, as set forth in the NPDES permit and order.
Additionally, the Proposed Project consists of residential development and does not propose any industrial or
commercial land uses that could require special treatment. Furthermore, as discussed in greater depth below
in Section 3.18(b), project-generated effluent can be accommodated with the available capacity of the OCSD
system, so project occupancy would not require an expansion of capacity that may result in exceedance of the
existing waste discharge requirements.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
March 2017 Page 161
Therefore, the additional wastewater (quantity and type) that would be generated by the Proposed Project and
treated by OCSD would not impede OCSD’s ability to continue to meet its wastewater treatment
requirements. Impacts on OCSD’s wastewater treatment requirements would be less than significant and no
mitigation measures are necessary.
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or waste water treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
Less Than Significant Impact. Following is a discussion of the Proposed Project’s potential impacts on
water and wastewater facilities, including those related to treatment, distribution, and collection.
Water Treatment System
The City’s Public Works Water Division provides potable water service (which includes imported water,
groundwater, and surface water) to land uses within the City and would provide potable water for the uses
under the Proposed Project. Water imported by the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) is treated at the
Robert Diemer Filtration Plant in the City of Yorba Linda, which has capacity of 520 million gallons per day
(MWD 2013). Water treatment facilities filter and/or disinfect water before it is delivered to customers. Once
treated, the water is supplied to the City’s Public Works Water Division through eight imported water
connections (Malcolm Pirnie 2011).
As shown below in Section 3.18(d), the Proposed Project is forecast to require approximately 291 gallons of
water per day per unit, for a total of 80,607 gallons of water per day, which equates to approximately 90 acre-
feet per year. Part of the potable water supplied to the Project Site would come from MWD’s imported water,
which would be required to be treated at the Robert Diemer Filtration Plant before being delivered to the
City’s Public Works Water Division and eventually to the Project Site. Based on the capacity of the Robert
Diemer Filtration Plant noted above, there is adequate water treatment capacity in the region for the
Proposed Project’s forecast water demand. Therefore, project development would not require the
construction of new or expanded water treatment facilities. No significant impacts would occur and no
mitigation measures are necessary.
Wastewater Treatment System
As noted above in Section 3.18(a), OCSD provides wastewater treatment for the City of Orange via two
reclamation plants: Reclamation Plant No. 1 in Fountain Valley and Tre atment Plant No. 2 in Huntington
Beach. Reclamation Plant No. 1 has a capacity of 204 million gallons per day (mgd) for advanced primary and
secondary treatment; the plant treats an average of 97 mgd, and the remaining capacity at this plant is
approximately 107 mgd (OCSD 2013). Current capacity for Treatment Plant No. 2 is 168 mgd of primary
treated wastewater and 150 mgd of secondary treated wastewater. The current average flow of primary
treated wastewater is 103 mgd; therefore, remaining capacity at this plant is approximately 67 mgd (OCSD
2013).
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 162 PlaceWorks
According to City’s 2010 General Plan Update Certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR No. 1815-09;
State Clearinghouse No. 2006031117), the City’s 2003 Sewer Master Plan Update has a calculated flow rate
per capita of approximately 75 gallons per person per day. This figure includes total wastewater flow from
industrial and commercial land uses as well as residential uses. Based on this generation rate, it is estimated
that the 845 residents of the Proposed Project would generate approximately 63,375 gallons per day of
wastewater, which is less than 1 percent of OCSD’s total remaining daily treatment capacity of Reclamation
Plant No. 1 and Treatment Plant No. 2.
Additionally, in order for OCSD to keep its facilities in good condition to prevent system failures, permit
violations, sewage spills, and beach closures, the Developer or owner/operator of the proposed apartment
complex would be required to pay a yearly sewer service fee to OCSD. The sewer service fee is for the
collection, treatment, and disposal of wastewater that is collected, treated, and/or recycled by OCSD. The fee
is collected annually as a line item on property tax bills (OCSD 2016).
Furthermore, during the City’s development review process, the Developer would be required to comply with
the requirements of the Orange Municipal Code, including payment of the sewer main connection fee, as
outlined in Chapter 13.60 (Sanitation and Sewage Charges) of the Orange Municipal Code. The fee helps
offset the construction and maintenance of the City’s sewer system. As stated in Section 13.56.090 (Charges
for Sewer Mains or Extensions), fees for residential development are due on the date of final inspection or
certificate of occupancy for each unit, whichever occurs first. The rate at which the fee shall be charged for
residential development is based on the rate that was in place at the time a building permit is issued for each
unit.
Therefore, project development would not require the construction of new or expanded wastewater
treatment facilities. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary.
Water Distribution System
The City’s Public Works Water Division provides potable water service to the Project Site and would continue
to do so for the uses under the Proposed Project. Potable water to the site, which includes service to the
existing office building, is provided via internal water lines that connect to the existing public water main
along Chapman Avenue. As a part of the Proposed Project, the existing potable water lines onsite would be
removed and replaced with a series of new potable water lines that would connect to the existing public water
main along Chapman Avenue. Proposed potable water infrastructure improvements would entail trenching
and exposing existing lines onsite for connections, trenching and installing new lines, and break-in
connections to existing main line.
It is not anticipated that any offsite water line construction or upsizing would be required for the potable
water system to accommodate the Proposed Project; however, a hydraulic study will be required to be
completed to determine if any upsizing is required. Preparation of the hydraulic study will be provided as a
condition of approval for the Proposed Project and be required prior to the issuance of grading/building
permits.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
March 2017 Page 163
Additionally, the Proposed Project is consistent with the City’s adopted General Plan (adopted March 2010),
which underwent a full update in 2010 to implement a number other changes in the General Plan, including
the provision of high-density residential development in the West Chapman Avenue/Uptown Orange focus
area, which the Project Site is a part of. The 2010 Certified PEIR prepared for the 2010 General Plan Update
addressed, at a programmatic level, the impact to the City’s water system from creation of new residential
units in the area of the Proposed Project. Since the Proposed Project is consistent with the City’s General
Plan, the proposed water demand should be as well.
Therefore, it is not anticipated that project development would require the construction of new or expanded
water distribution facilities. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary.
Wastewater Collection System
The City’s Public Works Water Division provides wastewater collection service to the existing onsite office
building via internal wastewater lines that connect to the existing public sewer main along Chapman Avenue.
Wastewater collection service to the proposed apartment complex would be provided via new internal sewer
lines that connect to the existing sewer main on Chapman Avenue. Proposed wastewater infrastructure
improvements would entail trenching and exposing existing lines onsite for connections, trenching and
installing new lines, and break-in connections to the existing main line.
To determine if the existing offsite wastewater collection facilities (i.e., sewer pipes along Chapman Avenue
and downstream) would be adequate to serve the needs of the Proposed Project, a Sewer Capacity Analysis
was prepared for the project (see Appendix G). As stated in the Sewer Capacity Analysis, the City’s criteria
requires that increased wastewater flows from a development project not result in an impact to downstream
wastewater collection facilities. An impact would be triggered if the downstream normal depth/diameter ratio
(d/D) were to exceed 50 percent with the Proposed Project’s flows added. As concluded in the Sewer
Capacity Analysis, the proposed d/D would not exceed the 50 percent maximum. Based on the calculations
provided in the Sewer Capacity Analysis, the Proposed Project would not create a deficiency in the
downstream wastewater collection system.
Additionally, as noted above, the Proposed Project is consistent with the City’s adopted General Plan
(adopted March 2010), which underwent a full update in 2010 to implement a number other changes in the
General Plan, including the provision of high-density residential development in the West Chapman
Avenue/Uptown Orange focus area, which the Project Site is a part of. The 2010 Certified PEIR prepared
for the 2010 General Plan Update addressed, at a programmatic level, the impact to the City’s wastewater
system from creation of new residential units in the area of the Proposed Project. Since the Proposed Project
is consistent with the City’s General Plan, the proposed wastewater generation should be as well.
Therefore, project development would not require the construction of new or expanded wastewater
collection facilities. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 164 PlaceWorks
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Less Than Significant Impact. See response to Section 3.9(d), above. As concluded in this section and
demonstrated in the Preliminary Hydrology Reports that were prepared for the Proposed Project (see
Appendices D1 and D2), postdevelopment runoff from the Project Site would be adequately handled by the
Proposed Project’s drainage system. The Proposed Project would not result in any net increase in runoff
leaving the Project Site, and therefore would not contribute postdevelopment runoff that would impact the
capacity of the local stormwater drainage systems. In fact, postdevelopment runoff would decrease under
proposed conditions when compared to existing conditions. Therefore, development of the Proposed Project
would not require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary.
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Orange Public Works Water Division provides potable water
service to land uses within the City and would provide potable water for the uses under the Proposed Project.
The City’s main sources of water supply are groundwater from the Lower Santa Ana River Groundwater
Basin, which is managed by the Orange County Water District (OCWD), and imported water from MWD
through the Municipal Water District of Orange County. The City’s water supplies consist of 62 percent
groundwater (which is pumped from 15 active wells throughout the City), 34 percent imported, and 4 percent
surface water (Malcolm Pirnie 2011).
Forecast City of Orange water supplies and water demands in normal, dry, and multiple dry year conditions
from 2015 through 2035 are listed in Tables 3-14, Projected Normal Water Supply and Demand; 3-15,
Projected Single-Dry Year Water Supply and Demand; and 3-16, Projected Multiple Dry Year Period Supply
and Demand, of the City’s most current (2010) Urban Water Management Plan (2010 UWMP; Malcolm
Pirnie 2011). Table 20 (which is a reproduction of Table 3-14 of the 2010 UWMP) shows the forecast City
of Orange water supplies and water demands in normal water year conditions from 2015 through 2035.
Table 20 City of Orange Water Supplies and Demands
Supplies 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Groundwater 21,028 21,304 21,562 21,767 21,718
Local Surface Water 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200
Imported 11,688 11,858 12,016 12,141 12,111
Total Supplies 33,916 34,362 34,778 35,108 35,029
Total Demand 33,916 34,362 34,778 35,108 35,029
Source: Malcolm Pirnie 2011.
A water generation rate of 106,229 gallons of water per year per dwelling unit—65,154 gallons for indoor
water use and 41,075 gallons for outdoor water use—outlined in Appendix D of the CalEEMod User’s
Guide (SCAQMD 2013b), equates to 291 gallons of water per day per dwelling unit. The 277 units that
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
March 2017 Page 165
would be developed under the Proposed Project are forecast to require approximately 80,607 gallons of water
per day.
As demonstrated in Tables 3-14, 3-15, and 3-16 of the 2010 UWMP, the City forecasts that it will have
adequate water supplies to meet demands from 2015 through 2035 in normal, dry-year, and multiple-dry-year
conditions (Malcolm Pirnie 2011).
Additionally, the City’s current and future water needs and projections (which include the demands of the
potential residential development of the Project Site consistent with the City’s General Plan land use
designation of the site, Urban Mixed Use) outlined in the 2010 UWMP are based in part on the City’s
General Plan land use plan, which was adopted in March 2010. The City’s General Plan and the associated
population projections (which included the potential/future population increase of developing the Project
Site with residential uses) were utilized in the 2010 UWMP in projecting current and future water demands.
Therefore, the City’s current and future water demands outlined in the 2010 UWMP took into consideration
future development of the Project Site with residential uses and its associated population increase.
Also, following Governor Brown’s declared State of Emergency (issued January 17, 2014), the governor
issued the fourth in a series of Executive Orders on actions necessary to address California's severe drought
conditions, which directed the State Water Resources Control Board to implement mandatory water
reductions in urban areas to reduce potable urban water usage by 25 percent statewide. On May 5, 2015, the
State Water Board adopted an emergency conservation regulation in accordance with the governor's directive.
The provisions of the emergency regulation went into effect on May 18, 2015.
Per the emergency regulation, Orange is required to reduce water use by 21 percent from water usage in June
2013—reduction percentage was originally set at 28 percent in June 2015, but was reduced to 21 percent in
March 2016. In response to these recent actions and in order to help the City meet its water reduction
percentage and help reduce daily water use, the City voluntarily signed the Memorandum of Understanding
regarding Urban Water Conservation in California through its participation in the California Urban Water
Conservation Council, and has committed to a good faith effort in implementing 14 identified best
management practices to conserve water (Orange 2016a).
The Orange City Council also adopted Ordinance 05-14 (the City of Orange Water Conservation and Water
Supply Shortage Program) at their May 12, 2015, meeting. Ordinance 05-14 is meant to help conserve the
available water supply and provide a contingency plan in times of drought or other water emergencies. The
conservation requirements of Ordinance 05-14 include:
Watering or irrigation of landscaping is prohibited between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
Watering or irrigation of landscaping is limited to no more than 10 minutes of watering per station on
days allowed.
Watering or irrigation of landscaping with potable water is limited to two days per week (Tuesday and
Friday) during the months of April through October.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 166 PlaceWorks
Watering landscape areas during and within 48 hours of measurable rainfall is prohibited.
During the months of November through March, watering landscape area with potable water is limited
to no more than one day per week (Tuesday).
Washing down hard or paved surfaces such as driveways, streets, sidewalks, etc., is prohibited.
Watering or irrigation of landscaping in a manner that causes or allows excessive runoff onto driveways,
streets, sidewalks, etc., is prohibited.
Using water to wash a vehicle is prohibited except by hand-held bucket or hand-held hose equipped with
positive self-closing water shut-off nozzle.
Obligation to fix leaks within 48 hours.
The City’s implementation of the water conservation best management practices and mandatory water
restrictions under Ordinance 05-14 help Orange achieve its required water reduction target of 21 percent.
The Developer would be required to comply with all applicable mandatory water restrictions and thereby help
the City in continuing to meet its water reduction target.
Furthermore, as noted in Section 1.3.8, Green Building and Sustainability, the Proposed Project would be
designed to include a number of green building practices/features (which would help reduce water usage and
demand), including low-flow fixtures in bathrooms (toilets, showers), minimized turf areas to reduce water
consumption, and use of drought-resistant plant material throughout. Other sustainability features would be
considered by the City as the Proposed Project is refined during the design and construction phases.
The Proposed Project’s landscaping would also be required to be installed and maintained in compliance with
the water-efficient landscape requirements outlined in the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Guidelines, which
applies to all new landscape installations or rehabilitation projects. These guidelines were instituted to
promote the use of water-conserving landscaping and irrigation in new and rehabilitated landscapes through
conservation in design, installation, and maintenance.
Finally, development of the Proposed Project would be required to comply with the provisions of
GALGreen, which contains requirements for indoor water use reduction and site irrigation conservation.
Specifically, project development would be required to adhere to mandatory residential measures outlined in
Division 4.3 (Water Efficiency and Conservation) of CALGreen, including those of Sections 4.303 (Indoor
Water Use) and 4.304 (Outdoor Water Use).
As demonstrated above, there are adequate water supplies to meet the water demands of the Proposed
Project, and development the Proposed Project would not require the City of Orange Water Division to
obtain new or expanded water supplies. Therefore, impacts on water supplies as a result of project
development would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
March 2017 Page 167
e) 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?
Less Than Significant Impact. See response to Section 3.18(b), above.
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid
waste disposal needs?
Less Than Significant Impact. Trash, recyclables, and green waste within the City are collected by CR&R
Waste & Recycling Services. Orange County Waste and Recycling operates three landfills in the County of
Orange: Frank R. Bowerman Landfill, Olinda Alpha Landfill, and Prima Deshecha Landfill. Table 21
identifies the location and capacity of disposal landfills used by the City.
Table 21 Landfill Capacity
Landfill Location
Current Remaining Capacity (Cubic Yards) Estimated Close Date
Maximum Daily Load (tons)
Average Daily Disposal, 2015 (tons)1
Frank R.
Bowerman
11002 Bee Canyon
Access Road
Irvine, CA
205,000,000 2053 11,500 7,296
Olinda Alpha 1942 North Valencia Avenue
Brea, CA 36,589,707 2021 8,000 7,043
Prima Deshecha 32250 La Pata Avenue
San Juan Capistrano, CA 87,384,799 2067 4,000 1,336
Total Not applicable 328,974,506
(or 88,823,116 tons)
Not applicable 23,500 15,675
Sources: CalRecycle 2016a; CalRecycle 2016b; CalRecycle 2016c; CalRecycle 2016d.
1 Average daily disposal is calculated based on 300 operating days per year. Each of the three facilities is open six days per week, Monday through Saturday, except certain holidays.
Development of the Proposed Project would result in the generation of solid waste from the short-term
construction period and from long-term project operations. As outlined in Section 3.13, Population and
Housing, development of the 277 apartments would add approximately 845 new residents to the City’s
population. According to the Certified PEIR, multifamily residential units are estimated to generate
approximately 8.0 pounds of solid waste per dwelling unit per day (Orange 2010). Applying a solid waste
generation rate of 8.0 pounds per unit per day, the 277 dwelling units of the Proposed Project would generate
approximately 2,216 pounds of solid waste per day, or 1.108 tons per day. Project construction would also
generate some greenwaste from site clearance and solid waste (e.g., asphalt, concrete) from demolition of the
parking lots and associated improvements.
As demonstrated in Table 21, there is adequate landfill capacity in the region for the Proposed Project’s
forecast solid waste disposal, and project development would not require additional landfill capacity at any of
the three landfills serving the City. Additionally, the total amount of solid waste expected to be generated
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 168 PlaceWorks
under the Proposed Project would be approximately 0.007 percent of the total permitted daily maximum
solid waste tonnage per day of the three landfills.
Additionally, as outlined in the Certified PEIR, the City will take (and has been taking) a more aggressive
stance in recycling. The City is working to expand recycling pickup to all residential addresses and expand
community outreach and education regarding residential recycling opportunities and household hazardous
wastes. These waste diversion and public education programs, including those already established for the City
(approximately 42 programs in total) would help in reducing the amount of solid waste at the source before
making it to landfills.
Furthermore, bins for both solid waste and recycling would be provided within the refuse areas of the
apartment complex, which would be located in the parking garage. The provision of recycling bins would
help reduce the amount of solid waste that would need to be transported to the landfills serving the
Proposed Project.
The Proposed Project would also be required to comply with the provisions of CALGreen, which outlines
requirements for construction waste reduction, material selection, and natural resource conservation. For
example, Section 5.408 (Construction Waste Reduction, Disposal, and Recycling) of CALGreen requires that
at least 50 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste from nonresidential construction
operations be recycled and/or salvaged for reuse.
Based on the preceding, no significant impacts on landfill capacity would occur and no mitigation measures
are necessary.
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
No Impact. See response to section 3.18(f), above.
Additionally, the following federal and state laws and regulations govern solid waste disposal. The EPA
administers the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 and the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965,
which govern solid waste disposal. In the State of California, Assembly Bill 939 (Integrated Solid Waste
Management Act of 1989; Public Resources Code 40050 et seq.) required every California city and county to
divert 50 percent of its waste from landfills by the year 2000 by such means as recycling, source reduction,
and composting. In addition, AB 939 requires each county to prepare a countywide siting element specifying
areas for transformation or disposal sites to provide capacity for solid waste generated in the county that
cannot be reduced or recycled for a 15-year period. AB 1327, the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling
Access Act of 1991, requires local agencies to adopt ordinances mandating the use of recyclable materials in
development projects. There are 42 solid waste diversion programs in the City of Orange, including
composting, recycling, household hazardous waste, and business waste reduction programs. Furthermore,
Assembly Bill 341 (Chapter 476, Statutes of 2011) increases the statewide waste diversion goal to 75 percent
by 2020, and mandates recycling for commercial and multi-family residential land uses.
Compliance with AB 939 is measured in part by actual disposal rates compared to target disposal rates; actual
rates at or below target rates are consistent with AB 939. Actual disposal rates for the City of Orange in 2014,
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
March 2017 Page 169
the latest year for which data are available, were 5.3 pounds per day (ppd) per resident and 10.1 ppd per
employee; target disposal rates were 10.1 ppd per resident and 14.1 ppd per employee (CalRecycle 2016e).
Therefore, disposal rates in the City of Orange in 2014 were consistent with AB 939. The Developer would
be required to comply with all applicable laws and regulations governing solid waste, including those listed
above, and in doing so, not affect the City’s ability to continue to meet the required AB 939 waste diversion
requirements.
Therefore, no impact related to solid waste statutes and regulations would occur and no mitigation measures
are necessary.
3.19 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The Project Site is currently developed
and disturbed and is located in a highly-urbanized area of the City. As shown in Figure 3, Aerial Photograph,
and Figures 4a and 4b, Site Photographs, the site is developed with two surface parking lots that serve the
surrounding office and commercial/retail uses. Onsite vegetation includes a number of decorative trees and
shrubs along the site boundaries and internal to the Project Site. As shown in Figure 3, the Project Site is
surrounded by a mix of residential, office, and commercial/retail uses. The Project Site does not contain any
sensitive natural resources that could be disturbed as a result of project development. As demonstrated in
Section 3.4, Biological Resources, implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in the reduction of
the habitat of fish or wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels;
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal. Impacts to nesting habitat for migratory birds would be reduced to a less than
significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 (see Section 3.4[d], above). Additionally,
as demonstrated in Section 3.5, Cultural Resources, no historic resources were identified onsite, and therefore
the project does not have the potential to eliminate important examples of California history or prehistory.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects,
and the effects of probable future projects.)
Less Than Significant Impact. Section 3.10, Land Use and Planning, includes a detailed analysis of the
Proposed Project’s potential land use impacts. Specifically, this section includes a detailed analysis of adopted
land use regulations applicable to the Project Site, which include the City’s General Plan and zoning code, and
the Proposed Project’s consistency with these adopted land use regulations. As demonstrated in Section 3.10,
implementation of the Proposed Project would be consistent and not conflict with the City’s General Plan or
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 170 PlaceWorks
zoning code. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would not weigh short-term goals above
long-term environmental goals of the City. The issues relevant to development of the Proposed Project are
confined to the immediate project area.
Additionally, as stated in Section 3.13, Population and Housing, the 277 apartment units and associated
population increase (which is estimated at 845 persons) under the Proposed Project fall within the buildout
assumptions of the Certified Program EIR, which are reflected in the final development capacity numbers by
land use in Table LU-2 (General Plan Development Capacity) of the City’s General Plan Land Use Element.
Per Table LU-2, the residential development capacity for the overall/City-wide Urban Mixed Use land use
designation (which applies to the Project Site) is 10,223 dwelling units, with a corresponding population
buildout of 25,558 persons. Therefore, cumulative environmental effects of the Proposed Project in
combination with all other development permitted under the City’s General Plan buildout were considered in
the 2010 Certified PEIR.
Furthermore, the Project Site is in a highly-urbanized area of the City where supporting utility infrastructure
(e.g., water, wastewater, and drainage) and services (e.g., solid waste collection) currently exist. The Project
Site is also generally too small in scope to appreciably contribute to existing cumulative impacts.
Cumulative traffic impacts were also considered in the TIA prepared for the Proposed Project (see Appendix
F), whose findings and conclusions are provided in Section 3.16, Transportation/Traffic. Specifically, the TIA
included traffic that would be generated by the related cumulative projects in the project study area under the
Near-Term Year (2019) Without Project and Near-Term Year (2019) With Project conditions. As concluded
in Section 3.16, no impacts would occur under these future traffic conditions, which considered cumulative
traffic impacts.
Finally, impacts related to other topical areas such as air quality, GHG, hydrology and water quality, and
recreation would not be cumulatively considerable with development of the Proposed Project in conjunction
with other cumulative projects.
In consideration of the preceding factors, the Proposed Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would
be rendered less than significant; therefore, project impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed in the respective topical
sections of this Initial Study, implementation of the Proposed Project would result in impacts in the areas of
air quality, geology and soils, and noise that may cause adverse effects on human beings. However, feasible
mitigation measures have been identified to reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. Therefore,
implementation of the Proposed Project would have no substantial adverse effects on human beings.
March 2017 Page 171
4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
PROJECT NAME: Chapman Apartments
PROJECT LOCATION: The Project Site is adjacent to and just outside of the northwestern boundary of
The Outlets at Orange (formerly The Block at Orange), which is in the southwestern-most portion of the
City. The Project Site is within an area of the City known as the West Chapman Avenue/Uptown Orange
focus area. The Outlets at Orange is generally located south of Chapman Avenue, north of SR-22, east of
Lewis Street, and west of The City Drive. The Project Site is generally located near the southeast corner of
the intersection of Chapman Avenue and Lewis Street.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Proposed Project consists of a mixed-use development on a 5.79-acre
site that consists of a 277-unit, five-story apartment complex wrapped around a multilevel parking garage that
would serve the apartment residents, guests, and employees; a separate, stand-alone multilevel parking
structure that would serve tenants of the existing office building onsite; vehicular and pedestrian circulation
improvements; and various hardscape and landscape improvements. Development under the Proposed
Project would occur on two surface parking lots that are immediately adjacent to and primarily serve tenants
of the existing eight-story office building onsite. The surface lot west of the office building would be
developed with the five-story apartment complex, and the surface lot south of the office building would be
developed with the stand-alone multilevel parking structure. The onsite office building would not undergo
any improvements or modifications under the Proposed Project; it would remain in its existing condition.
Project development requires City approval of a tentative parcel map for subdivision purposes, a conditional
use permit for increased building heights, and an administrative adjustment from the City’s multifamily
residential parking standards and drive aisle width standards.
LEAD AGENCY: City of Orange
CONTACT PERSON/ TELEPHONE NO.: Robert Garcia, Senior Planner; (714) 744-7231.
APPLICANT: W/GL 3800 Chapman Holdings VII, LLC
CONTACT PERSON: Scott Murray, C/O Tarek Shaer
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 172 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
March 2017 Page 173
No. Mitigation Measure
Time Frame and Responsible Party for
Implementation
Time Frame and Responsible Party for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
Biological Resources
BIO-1 Prior to the commencement of any proposed actions
(e.g., site clearing, demolition, grading) during the
breeding/nesting season (February 1 to September
1, as defined by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife), the monitoring biologist contracted by
the project applicant shall conduct a preconstruction
survey(s) to identify any active nests in and near the
project area no more than three days prior to
initiation of the action. If the biologist does not find
any active nests that would be potentially impacted,
the proposed action may proceed. However, if the
biologist finds an active nest within or adjacent to the
action area and determines that the nest may be
impacted, the biologist shall delineate an appropriate
buffer zone around the nest using temporary plastic
fencing or other suitable materials, such as barricade
tape and traffic cones. The buffer zone shall range
from a 300- to 500-foot radius at the discretion of the
biologist and in coordination with the construction
contractor. Only specified activities (if any) approved
by the qualified biologist in coordination with the
construction contractor shall take place within the
buffer zone until the nest is vacated. Activities that
may be prohibited within the buffer zone by the
biologist may include but not be limited to grading
and tree clearing. Once the nest is no longer active
and upon final determination by the biologist, the
proposed action may proceed within the buffer zone.
Any active nests observed during the survey shall be
mapped on a recent aerial photograph, including
documentation of GPS coordinates.
Time Frame: Prior to
the commencement of
any proposed actions
(e.g., site clearing,
demolition, grading)
during the
breeding/nesting
season (February 1 to
September 1)
Responsible Party:
Project Applicant,
Biologist, and
Construction
Contractor
Time Frame:
Throughout the
duration of any
proposed actions
(e.g., site clearing,
demolition, grading)
during the
breeding/nesting
season (February 1 to
September 1)
Responsible Party:
City of Orange
Community
Development
Department staff
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 174 PlaceWorks
No. Mitigation Measure
Time Frame and Responsible Party for
Implementation
Time Frame and Responsible Party for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
Cultural Resources
CUL-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, and for any
subsequent permit involving excavation to increased
depth, the project applicant shall provide a letter to
the City of Orange from a qualified archaeologist who
meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional
Qualifications for Archeology as defined at 36 CFR
Part 61, Appendix A (Professional Archeologist). The
letter shall state that the project applicant has
retained such an individual, and that the consultant
will be on call during all grading and other significant
ground-disturbing activities. In the event that
archeological resources are discovered during
ground-disturbing activities, all such activity shall
cease in the immediate area of the find, and the
professional archeological monitor shall have the
authority to halt any activities adversely impacting
potentially significant cultural resources until they can
be formally evaluated. Suspension of ground
disturbances in the vicinity of the discovery shall not
be lifted until the archaeological monitor has
evaluated the discovery to assess whether it is
classified as a significant cultural resource pursuant
to the CEQA definition of historical (State CEQA
Guidelines 15064.5[a]) and/or unique archeological
resource (Public Resources Code 21083.2[g]). If the
resource is classified as a significant cultural
resource, the qualified archeologist shall make
recommendations on the treatment and disposition of
the deposits. For example, if archaeological
resources are recovered, they shall be offered to a
repository with a retrievable collection system and an
educational and research interest in the materials,
such as the Orange Public Library & History Center
or Chapman University, or any other local museum
or repository willing to and capable of accepting and
Time Frame: Prior to
the issuance of
grading permits, and
for any subsequent
permit involving
excavation to
increased depth
Responsible Party:
Project Applicant,
Archeological
Consultant, and
Construction
Contractor
Time Frame:
Throughout the extent
of the project’s
grading phase
Responsible Party:
City of Orange
Community
Development
Department staff
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
March 2017 Page 175
No. Mitigation Measure
Time Frame and Responsible Party for
Implementation
Time Frame and Responsible Party for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
housing the resource. If no museum or repository
willing to accept the resource is found, the resource
shall be considered the property of the City and may
be stored, disposed of, transferred, exchanged, or
otherwise handled by the City at its discretion. The
final recommendations on the treatment and
disposition of the deposits shall be developed in
accordance with all applicable provisions of
California Public Resource Code Section 21083.2
and State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.5 and
15126.4. The project applicant shall follow all
recommendations made by the archeologist.
The final written report containing site forms, site
significance, and mitigation measures shall be
submitted immediately to the City of Orange
Community Development Department. All
information regarding site locations, Native American
human remains, and associated funerary objects
shall be provided in a separate confidential
addendum and not be made available for public
disclosure. The final written report shall be submitted
to the appropriate regional archaeological
Information Center within three months after work
has been completed.
CUL-2 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, and for any
subsequent permit involving excavation to increased
depth, the project applicant shall provide a letter to
the City of Orange from a qualified paleontologist.
The letter shall state that the project applicant has
retained such individual, and that the consultant will
be on call during all grading and other significant
ground-disturbing activities. In the event that
paleontological resources are discovered during
ground-disturbing activities, all such activity shall
cease in the immediate area of the find and the
Time Frame: Prior to
the issuance of
grading permits
Responsible Party:
Project Applicant,
Paleontological
Consultant, and
Construction
Contractor
Time Frame:
Throughout the extent
of the project’s
grading phase
Responsible Party:
City of Orange
Community
Development
Department staff
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 176 PlaceWorks
No. Mitigation Measure
Time Frame and Responsible Party for
Implementation
Time Frame and Responsible Party for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
professional paleontologist monitor shall have the
authority to halt any activities adversely impacting
potentially significant paleontological resources until
they can be formally evaluated. Suspension of
ground disturbances in the vicinity of the discoveries
shall not be lifted until the paleontological monitor
has evaluated discoveries to assess whether they
are classified as significant paleontological
resources. If the materials encountered are deemed
significant paleontological resources, the
paleontologist shall recommend a course of action to
further investigate and/or mitigate adverse impacts to
those resources that have been encountered. The
project applicant shall follow all recommendations
made by the paleontologist.
Geology and Soils
GEO-1 Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits,
the project applicant shall demonstrate to the City’s
Community Development Department staff that all
recommendations in the project’s Geotechnical Due
Diligence Report prepared by GeoTek, Inc. and
dated February 12, 2016 (incorporated herein by this
reference), pertaining to strong ground shaking and
site soils have been incorporated into the project
design and grading plan. During grading and
construction, the City’s Community Development
Department and Public Works staff shall verify that
grading and construction activities comply with these
recommendations.
Time Frame: Prior to
the issuance of
grading and building
permits
Responsible Party:
Project Applicant and
Construction
Contractor
Time Frame:
Throughout the extent
of the project’s
grading and
construction phases
Responsible Party:
City of Orange
Community
Development
Department staff
Noise
NOI-1 The following measures shall be implemented by the
construction contractor during the extent of the
project’s construction phase:
• Prior to the issuance of grading and building
permits, the construction contractor shall list all
Time Frame:
Throughout the extent
of the project’s
construction phase
Time Frame:
Throughout the extent
of the project’s
construction phase
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
March 2017 Page 177
No. Mitigation Measure
Time Frame and Responsible Party for
Implementation
Time Frame and Responsible Party for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
the following noise-reduction measures on the
grading and building plans submitted to the City
of Orange Community Development
Department.
1. Prior to the start of construction activities, the
construction contractor shall:
a. Maintain and tune all proposed
construction equipment in accordance with
the manufacturer’s recommendations
to minimize noise emission.
b. Inspect all proposed construction
equipment and should fit all
equipment with properly operating mufflers,
air intake silencers, and engine shrouds
that are no less effective than as originally
equipped by the manufacturer.
c. Post a sign, clearly visible at the site, with
a contact name and telephone number of
an authorized City of Orange and/or
construction contractor representative to
respond in the event of a noise
complaint.
d. Place stationary construction equipment
and material delivery
(loading/unloading) areas as far as
practicable from surrounding residences.
e. Limit unnecessary engine idling to the
extent feasible.
f. Use smart back-up alarms, which
automatically adjust the alarm level based on
the background noise level, or
switch off back-up alarms and replace
with human spotters.
g. Use low-noise emission equipment.
h. Limit use of public address systems.
Responsible Party:
Project Applicant and
Construction
Contractor
Responsible Party:
City of Orange
Community
Development
Department staff
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 178 PlaceWorks
No. Mitigation Measure
Time Frame and Responsible Party for
Implementation
Time Frame and Responsible Party for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
i. Minimize grade surface irregularities on
construction sites.
2. During all phases of active construction, the
construction contractor shall restrict
construction activities, including material
deliveries, haul-on truck trips, and haul-off
truck trips, to the daytime hours of 7:00 AM to
8:00 PM Monday through Saturday and 9:00
AM to 8:00 PM on Sundays, in accordance
with the provisions of Subsection 8.24.050E
of the City of Orange Municipal Code. No
construction shall be conducted on federal or
local holidays.
3. During all phases of active construction, the
construction contractor shall schedule, to the
extent reasonably feasible, all construction-
related delivery or haul trips so as to avoid
peak traffic periods along Lewis Street and
Chapman Avenue (i.e., morning rush hour,
mid-afternoon school pick-up time, and
afternoon rush hour).
The above measures shall be monitored and
verified in the field by the City of Orange
Community Development Department staff.
Transportation/Traffic
TRAF-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits for any street
improvements proposed along Chapman Avenue
and/or Lewis Street, the project applicant shall
submit a Construction Traffic Management Plan to
the City of Orange Community Development
Department. The plan shall be required to be
implemented throughout the duration of the street
improvement activities and to identify contractor
contact information and responsibilities; demolition
and construction hours; all necessary traffic control
measures and signs; and delineators to be
Time Frame: Prior to
the issuance of
grading permits for
any street
improvements
proposed along
Chapman Avenue
and/or Lewis Street
Time Frame: Prior to
the issuance of
grading permits for
any street
improvements
proposed along
Chapman Avenue
and/or Lewis Street
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
March 2017 Page 179
No. Mitigation Measure
Time Frame and Responsible Party for
Implementation
Time Frame and Responsible Party for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
implemented by the construction contractor
throughout the duration of demolition and
construction activities. The plan shall also require the
construction contractor to implement the following
measures during demolition and construction
activities. These measures shall also be discussed at
the predemolition and grading conference/meeting.
• Minimize obstruction of through-traffic lanes
and provide temporary traffic controls, such as
a flag person, during all demolition and
construction activities to maintain adequate
access for emergency vehicles and personnel.
• Develop a traffic plan to minimize interference
for emergency vehicles and personnel from
demolition and construction activities (e.g.,
advanced public notice of demolition and
construction activities).
Responsible Party:
Project Applicant and
Construction
Contractor
Responsible Party:
City of Orange
Community
Development
Department staff
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 180 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
March 2017 Page 181
5. References
Airnav, LLC. 2016. Airport Information. http://www.airnav.com/airports.
Beranek, Leo. 1998. Noise and Vibration Control. Revised Edition. Institute of Noise Control Engineering.
Washington, D.C.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2011, Revised. California Environmental Quality
Act Air Quality Guidelines.
Bies, David A. and Colin H. Hansen. 2009. Engineering Noise Control: Theory and Practice. 4th Ed. New
York: Spon Press.
Bolt Beranek & Newman. 1987. Noise Control for Buildings and Manufacturing Plants.
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2013. California Emissions Estimator
Model (CalEEMod). Version 2013.2.2. Prepared by: ENVIRON International Corporation and the
California Air Districts.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2014b, May 15. Proposed First Update to the Climate Change
Scoping Plan: Building on the Framework. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scoping plan/scopingplan.htm.
———. 2014a, August 22. Area Designations Maps/State and National.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/ adm.htm.
———. 2013, October 23. Proposed 2013 Amendments to Area Designations for State Ambient Air Quality
Standards. http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2013/area13/area13isor.pdf.
———. 2008, October. Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan, a Framework for Change.
California Department of Education (CDE). 2016. Dataquest. http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/.
California Department of Finance (DOF). 2015, May. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities,
Counties, and the State, January 2011- 2015, with 2010 benchmark.
http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-5/2011-20/view.php.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention (CALFIRE). 2011, October. Very High Fire Hazard
Severity Zones in LRA: Orange. http://frap.fire.ca.gov/webdata/maps/orange/fhszl_map.30.pdf.
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2016a. Facility/Site Summary
Details: Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary LF (30-AB-0360).
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/30-AB-0360/Detail/.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
5. References
Page 182 PlaceWorks
———. 2016b. Facility/Site Summary Details: Olinda Alpha Sanitary Landfill (30-AB-0035).
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/30-AB-0035/Detail/.
———. 2016c. Facility/Site Summary Details: Prima Deshecha Sanitary Landfill (30-AB-0019).
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/30-AB-0019/Detail/.
———. 2016d. Landfill Tonnage Reports. http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Landfills/Tonnages/.
———. 2016e. Countywide, Regionwide, and Statewide Jurisdiction Diversion/Disposal Progress Report.
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/Reports/jurisdiction/diversiondisposal.aspx.
California Department of Toxic Substances and Control (DTSC). 2007. EnviroStor.
http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2016. California Scenic Highway Program.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/scenic_hwy.htm.
———. 2009, November. Technical Noise Supplement (“TeNS”). Prepared by ICF International.
———. 2004, June. Transportation- and Construction-Induced Vibration Guidance Manual. Prepared by
ICF International.
———. 2006. Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Division of Environmental Analysis. 2002, February.
Transportation Related Earthborne Vibration (Caltrans Experiences). Technical Advisory, Vibration.
TAV-02-01-R9601. Prepared by Rudy Hendricks.
California Emergency Management Agency (CalEMA). 2007, November. DVD. Dam Inundation.
California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA). 2016. AB 52 Regulatory Update.
http://resources.ca.gov/ceqa/.
California Geological Survey (CGS). 2007. Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California. Special Publication 42,
Interim Revision 2007. ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/sp/Sp42.pdf.
Employment Development Department (EDD). 2016, April 15. Report 400C: Monthly Labor Force Data for
Counties. May 2016–Preliminary. http://www.calmis.ca.gov/file/lfmonth/countyur-400c.pdf.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2015. FEMA Flood Map Service Center.
https://msc.fema.gov/portal.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2011, July. Noise Compatible Planning, a Federal Approach – The
Audible Landscape. United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration,
Office of Planning, Environment, & Realty.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
5. References
March 2017 Page 183
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/noise_compatible_planning/federal_approach/audibl
e_landscape/al04.cfm
———. 2006. Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM), Version 1.0.
———. 1978. December. Federal Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model. United States Department of
Transportation Report No. FHWA-RD77-108.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2006, May. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. United
States Department of Transportation. FTA-VA -90-1003-06.
Geotek, Inc. 2016, February 12. Geotechnical Feasibility Investigation.
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). 2008, June. Technical Advisory, CEQA and Climate
Change: Addressing Climate Change Through CEQA Review.
http://www.opr.ca.gov/ceqa/pdfs/june08-ceqa.pdf.
Harris, Cyril M. 1998. Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control, Third Edition. Acoustical
Society of America. Woodbury, NY.
Linscott Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG). 2016, March 24. Traffic Impact Analysis.
Malcolm Pirnie. 2011, June. City of Orange 2010 Urban Water Management Plan.
http://www.water.ca.gov/urbanwatermanagement/2010uwmps/Orange,%20City%20of/Orange%2
0Final%202010%20UWMP.pdf.
Michael Baker International. 2013, November 2. Preliminary Priority Water Quality Management Plan.
———. 2016, July 15. Sewer Capacity Analysis. Michael Baker International.
———. 2016, June 21. Preliminary Hydrology Report.
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). 2013, October 28. Robert B. Diemer Treatment
Plant. http://www.mwdh2o.com/mwdh2o/pages/yourwater/plants/diemer01.html.
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2015, February. Air Toxics Hot Spots
Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk
Assessments. http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/2015/2015GuidanceManual.pdf.
Orange, City of. 2016. Environment. http://www.cityoforange.org/faqs/categoryqna.asp?id=7#547.
———. 2010a, March 9. General Plan.
http://www.cityoforange.org/depts/commdev/planning/general_plan.asp.
———. 2010b, March. Orange General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report.
http://www.cityoforange.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=8417.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
5. References
Page 184 PlaceWorks
Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (OCALUC). 2008, April 17. Airport Environs Land Use
Plan for John Wayne Airport. http://www.ocair.com/commissions/aluc/docs/JWA_AELUP-April-
17-2008.pdf.
Orange County Environmental Management Agency (EMA). 1996, January. Orange County Local Drainage
Manual.
Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). 2016. Sewer Fees. http://www.ocsd.com/residents/sewer-fees.
———. 2013, June 26. Budget Update, Fiscal Year 2013-14.
http://www.ocsd.com/Home/ShowDocument?id=14973.
———. 2004, November 18. Airport Environs Land Use Plan for Fullerton Municipal Airport.
http://www.ocair.com/commissions/aluc/docs/FMA_AELUP-November-18-2004.pdf.
Orange Unified School District. Maps of schools. 2016.
http://www.orangeusd.k12.ca.us/downloads/OUSD_MapOfSchools.pdf.
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB). 2012, June 15. Order No. RS-2012-0035,
NPDES NO. CA0110604: Waste Discharge Requirements and National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System Permit for Orange County Sanitation District Reclamation Plan No. 1 and
Treatment Plant No. 2.
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/rwqcb8/board_decisions/adopted_orders/orders/2012/12_035_W
DR_OCSD.pdf.
———. 2008, February. Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin (Basin Plan).
http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb8/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/index.shtml.
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2013, February. Final 2012 Air Quality
Management Plan. http://www.aqmd.gov/home/library/clean-air-plans/air-quality-mgt-plan.
———. 2011. Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds.
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-
thresholds/caleemod-guidance.pdf.
———. 2008, July. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology.
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/final-
lst-methodology-document.pdf.
———. 1993. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Handbook.
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2016, April. Proposed Final, The 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/Documents/2016/final/f2016RTPSCS.pdf.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
5. References
March 2017 Page 185
———. 2013, October 9. 2012 Adopted Growth Forecast.
http://www.scag.ca.gov/DataAndTools/Pages/SMDL.aspx.
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2012. Geotracker. http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/.
Strother, Matthew C. (Executive Director, Facilities and Planning). 2016, June 27. E-mail conversation
regarding school capacities and enrollment. Orange Unified School District.
Thalheimer, E. 2000. Construction Noise Control Program and Mitigation Strategy as the Central
Artery/Tunnel Project. Institute of Noise Control Engineering.
US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2016. Dam Safety Program: Prado Dam.
http://www.spl.usace.army.mil/Media/FactSheets/tabid/1321/Article/477349/dam-safety-
program.aspx.
US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1978, November. Protective Noise Levels. EPA 550/9-79-
100. Condensed Version of 1971 and 1974 EPA Levels Documents.
———. 1974, March. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and
Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. U.S. EPA Office of Noise Abatement and Control,
Washington, D.C.
———. 1971, December. Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and
Home Appliances. Prepared by Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc., Cambridge, MA for the U.S. EPA
Office of Noise Abatement and Control. Washington, D.C.
———. 2012. EnviroMapper. http://www.epa.gov/emefdata/em4ef.home.
US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2016. National Wetlands Mapper.
http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
5. References
Page 186 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
March 2017 Page 187
6. List of Preparers
LEAD AGENCY
Robert Garcia, Senior Planner
PLACEWORKS
William Halligan, Esq., Principal, Environmental Services (Principal-in-Charge)
Jorge Estrada, Senior Associate (Project Manager)
Nicole Vermilion, Associate Principal, Air Quality, GHG and Noise Services
Bob Mantey, Senior Scientist, Noise, Vibration and Acoustics
Stephanie Chen, Planner, Air Quality, GHG, and Traffic
Natalie Foley, Planner, Noise and Vibration
Skylar Hall, Planner
Justin Rickenbach, Planner
Cary Nakama, Graphic Artist
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
6. List of Preparers
Page 188 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
Appendix
March 2017
Appendix A Air Quality and GHG Background and
Modeling Data
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
Appendix
PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
Appendix
March 2017
Appendix B Geotechnical Due Diligence Report
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
Appendix
PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
Appendix
March 2017
Appendix C Preliminary Priority Water Quality
Management Plan
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
Appendix
PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
Appendix
March 2017
Appendix D Preliminary Hydrology Report
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
Appendix
PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
Appendix
March 2017
Appendix E Noise Modeling Data
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
Appendix
PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
Appendix
March 2017
Appendix F Traffic Impact Analysis
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
Appendix
PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
Appendix
March 2017
Appendix G Sewer Capacity Analysis
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ORANGE
Appendix
PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
April 2019 | Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1845‐16
and Response to Comments
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS
City of Orange
Prepared for:
City of Orange
Contact: Robert Garcia, Senior Planner
Community Development Department
Planning Division
300 East Chapman Avenue
Orange, California 92866
Prepared by:
PlaceWorks
Contact: Jorge Estrada, Senior Associate
3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100
Santa Ana, California 92707
714.966.9220
info@placeworks.com
www.placeworks.com
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1845-16
AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
CITY OF ORANGE
Table of Contents
April 2019 Page i
W Section Page
1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 FORMAT OF THE FINAL IS/MND ........................................................................................................ 1-1
1.3 SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................................... 1-2
2. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ...................................................................................................... 2-1
3. REVISIONS TO PUBLIC DRAFT IS/MND ................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2 IS/MND REVISIONS IN RESPONSE TO CITY COMMENTS ........................................................ 3-1
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
Table 1A Existing Plus Project Intersection Queuing Analysis1 .............................................................. 2-17
Table 1B Near-Term Year (2019) Plus Project Intersection Queuing Analysis1 ................................... 2-18
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1845-16
AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
CITY OF ORANGE
Table of Contents
Page ii PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
April 2019 Page 1-1
1. Introduction
1.1 INTRODUCTION
This Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Final IS/MND) has been prepared in accordance
with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as amended (Public Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq.)
and CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations §§ 15000 et seq.). Pursuant to CEQA, the potential
environmental effects of the proposed Chapman Apartments (hereinafter referred to as the “Proposed
Project”) have been analyzed in a public draft IS/MND dated March 2017, which was circulated for public
review from March 29, 2017, to April 17, 2017. Subsequent to releasing the public draft IS/MND and
although not a requirement of CEQA, the City extended the public review period from March 29, 2017 to
December 3, 2018.
This document and the circulated public draft IS/MND comprise the Final IS/MND for the Lead Agency –
the City of Orange (City). This document has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA
Guidelines and represents the independent judgment of City.
This Final IS/MND consists of:
(a) The circulated public draft IS/MND;
(b) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies comments on the public draft IS/MND,
and response to those comments;
(c) Any other information added and deemed necessary by the Lead Agency.
The purpose of the Final IS/MND is to respond to all comments received by the City regarding the
environmental information and analyses contained in the circulated public draft IS/MND. This Final
IS/MND also contains any clarifications/corrections to the text, tables, figures, and appendices of the
circulated public draft IS/MND generated either from responses to comments or independently by the City.
1.2 FORMAT OF THE FINAL IS/MND
This document is organized as follows:
Section 1, Introduction. This section describes the CEQA content of this Final IS/MND.
Section 2, Response to Comments. This section provides a list of agencies, organizations and interested
persons commenting on the public draft IS/MND, copies of comment letters received during the public
review period, and individual responses to written comments. To facilitate review of the responses, each
comment letter has been reproduced and assigned a number (A-1 through A-4). Individual comments have
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1845-16
AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
CITY OF ORANGE
1. Introduction
Page 1-2 PlaceWorks
been numbered for each letter and the letter is followed by responses with references to the corresponding
comment number.
Section 3. Revisions to the Public Draft IS/MND. This section contains revisions to the public draft
IS/MND text in response to comments received by agencies, organizations and interested persons as
described in Section 2, and/or errors and omissions discovered subsequent to release of the public draft
IS/MND for public review. Additionally, any clarifications/corrections to the text, tables, figures, and
appendices of the circulated public draft IS/MND generated either from responses to comments or
independently by the City are provided in this section.
1.3 SUMMARY
Based on the City’s review of the material contained in the Final IS/MND, the City has determined that none
of this material constitutes the type of significant new information that requires recirculation of the public
draft IS/MND for further public comment under CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5. None of this new
material indicates that the project will result in a new significant environmental impact not previously
disclosed in the public draft IS/MND. Additionally, none of this material indicates that there would be a
substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified environmental impact that will not be mitigated,
or that there would be any of the other circumstances requiring recirculation described in Section 15073.5.
April 2019 Page 2-1
2. Response to Comments
This section provides all written comments received on the circulated public draft Initial Study/Mitigated
Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and the City’s responses to each comment. The following is a list of
agencies, organizations and persons that submitted comments on the public draft IS/MND during the public
review period, which extended from March 29, 2017, to December 3, 2018. Comment letters and specific
comments are given letters and numbers for reference purposes.
Number
Reference Commenting Agency/Organization/Person Date of Comment Page No.
A1 Kurt and Teri Nehrenz April 2, 2017 2-3
A2 Orange County Transit Authority April 17, 2017 2-7
A3 Metropolitan Water District April 17, 2017 2-11
A4 California Department of Transportation May 1, 2017 2-15
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1845-16
AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
CITY OF ORANGE
2. Response to Comments
Page 2-2 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1845-16
AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
CITY OF ORANGE
2. Response to Comments
April 2019 Page 2-3
LETTER A1 – Kurt and Teri Nehrenz (1 page)
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1845-16
AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
CITY OF ORANGE
2. Response to Comments
Page 2-4 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1845-16
AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
CITY OF ORANGE
2. Response to Comments
April 2019 Page 2-5
A1. Response to Comments from Kurt and Teri Nehrenz, dated April 2, 2017.
A1-1 The commenter made a general statement regarding additional traffic on the
surrounding streets, which are already impacted during the morning and evening
commutes. The commenter did not provide any substantive or factual information or
rational to substantiate the comment. However, in response to the commenter, the
Proposed Project’s traffic-related impacts are detailed in Section 3.16, Transportation and
Traffic, of the public draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND). The
analysis, findings and conclusions contained in Section 3.16 were based in part on the
detailed Traffic Impact Analysis report prepared for the Proposed Project—which was
reviewed and approved by the City’s Traffic Engineer—and included as Appendix F tp
the public draft IS/MND.
The comment regarding the lack of adequate grocery stores in the area to support the
additional families is not directed at the substance or technical adequacy of the public
draft IS/MND. The comment is acknowledged, included in the official environmental
record of the Proposed Project, and will be forwarded to the appropriate City decision-
makers for their review and consideration. Additionally, the Proposed Project’s impacts
on population and housing are detailed in Section 3.13, Population and Housing, of the
public draft IS/MND. As substantiated in Section 3.13, no significant impacts to
population and housing would occur as a result of the Proposed Project and no
mitigation measures were necessary.
The commenter made a general statement regarding excess dirt, noise, and other major
disturbances during construction. The commenter did not provide any substantive or
factual information or rational to substantiate the comment. However, in response to
the commenter, the public draft IS/MND includes an analysis of all phases of the
Proposed Project (planning, construction, and operation) and their potential to result in
environmental impacts. The Proposed Project’s construction-related impacts are detailed
in the various topical sections of the public draft IS/MND—these include impacts
related to aesthetics and visual character; biological and cultural resources; geology and
soils; greenhouse gas emissions; hazards and hazardous materials; hydrology and water
quality; noise and vibration; transportation and traffic; and tribal cultural resources. For
example, and in direct response to the comment about dirt and noise impacts, Sections
3.3, Air Quality, and 3.12, Noise, of the public draft IS/MND discuss the project’s
construction-related impacts associated with these sensitive environmental topical
areas/issues. The analysis, findings, and conclusions provided in Sections 3.3 and 3.12
were based in part on detailed air quality and noise modeling analysis, which are included
as Appendices A and E, respectively, of the public draft IS/MND. As substantiated in
Sections 3.3 and 3.12, no significant construction-related air quality or noise impacts
would occur as a result of the Proposed Project and no mitigation measures were
necessary.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1845-16
AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
CITY OF ORANGE
2. Response to Comments
Page 2-6 PlaceWorks
The commenter inquired about where the additional power supply to serve the
Proposed Project would come from. As stated in Subsection 1.3.5.4, Utilities and Service
Systems, of the public draft IS/MND, plans for utilities that would serve the residential
uses under the Proposed Project include the provision of electricity by Southern
California Edison (SCE). The project applicant/developer has been in contact and
coordinated directly with SCE during the Proposed Project’s design and planning
process to ensure that SCE will be able to adequately provide electrical services to the
project. SCE has acknowledged that there is more than adequate capacity and
infrastructure in their electrical grid to provide electrical services to the Proposed
Project. Additionally, SCE was one of the utility providers that received a copy of the
Notice of Intent that accompanied the public draft IS/MND, which was circulated for
public between March 29, 2017, and December 3, 2018. As with other agencies,
organizations and persons notified, SCE had the opportunity to review and comment on
the public draft IS/MND. The City did not receive any response or comment from SCE
on the public draft IS/MND.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1845-16
AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
CITY OF ORANGE
2. Response to Comments
April 2019 Page 2-7
LETTER A2 – Orange County Transit Authority (1 page)
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1845-16
AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
CITY OF ORANGE
2. Response to Comments
Page 2-8 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1845-16
AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
CITY OF ORANGE
2. Response to Comments
April 2019 Page 2-9
A2. Response to Comments from Orange County Transportation Authority, Dan Phu, Manager,
Environmental Programs, dated April 17, 2017.
A2-1 The commenter commented on the bicycle facilities discussion and analysis provided
under impact statement f) on page 154 of Section 5.13, Transportation and Traffic, of the
public draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND). Specifically, the
commenter stated that the City of Orange Bikeways Master Plan (January 2001) calls for
a future Class II (on-street) bike lane along Chapman Avenue, which forms the project
site’s northern boundary. The commenter stated that the analysis provided in Section
5.13 should discuss the future Class II bike lane and the Proposed Project’s potential
impacts to this bicycle facility.
However, the commenter is incorrect. As shown in the Proposed Routes exhibit of the
Bikeways Master Plan (provided on page 27), the Bikeways Master Plan does not call for
a Class II bike lane along Chapman Avenue, at least not along the portion of this
roadway that abuts or is in proximity of the project site. As illustrated in the Proposed
Routes exhibit and clearly noted on page 30 of the phasing table of the Bicycle Master
Plan, the only Class II bike lane proposed along Chapman Avenue would occur between
Hewes Street and Cannon Street, which is over file miles east of the project site.
Additionally, it should be noted that the Bikeways Master Plan formed in part the basis
for development of the bicycle circulation and facilities discussion, policies, and exhibits
(specifically, Figure CM-3 [Plan for Recreational Trails and Bikeways] and Figure CM-5
[Bikeway Standards]) of the City’s General Plan Circulation and Mobility Element (see
reference to Bikeways Master Plan provided on page CM-26 of the Circulation and
Mobility Element).
Furthermore, as disclosed under impact statement f) on page 157 of the public draft
IS/MND, under current conditions and as shown in Figure CM-3 (Plan for Recreational
Trails and Bikeways) of the Circulation and Mobility Element, there are no existing
dedicated on- or off-street bicycle lanes, paths, or routes provided along Chapman
Avenue, which forms the Project Site’s northern boundary. The bicycle lanes, paths, and
routes shown in Figure CM-3 are in accordance with those called for in the Proposed
Routes exhibit of the aforementioned Bikeways Master Plan. Per Figure CM 3, the
nearest existing bicycle route (a Class I bikeway) to the Project Site runs along the Santa
Ana River, approximately 0.7 mile east of the site. Additionally, as shown in Figure CM-
3 and disclosed above, there are no planned bicycle lanes, paths, or routes along the
portion of Chapman Avenue that abuts or in is in proximity of the Project Site.
Therefore, no changes to the discussion or analysis under impact statement f) of Section
5.13 are required.
Finally, as shown in Figure CM-3 of the Circulation and Mobility Element and the
Proposed Routes exhibit of the Bikeways Master Plan, a future Class II (on-street) bikeway
is proposed along Lewis Street, which forms a very small portion of the western
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1845-16
AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
CITY OF ORANGE
2. Response to Comments
Page 2-10 PlaceWorks
boundary of the Project Site (See Figure 3, Aerial Photograph, of the public draft
IS/MND). However, no modifications or improvements to Lewis Street (e.g., reduced
right-of-way, physical barriers) are proposed or would occur under the Proposed Project
that would impede future development of the Class II bike lane. Additionally, during the
City’s development review and building plan check process, the City would ensure that
project development would not impede or impact the City’s ability to implement the
Class II bike lane in the future. For example, during the development review process, the
City would refer to and consult the City’s General Plan Mobility Element and Bikeways
Master Plan to ensure consistency with active transportation facility plans and encourage
enhancements along corridors where possible.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1845-16
AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
CITY OF ORANGE
2. Response to Comments
April 2019 Page 2-11
LETTER A3 – Metropolitan Water District (2 pages)
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1845-16
AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
CITY OF ORANGE
2. Response to Comments
Page 2-12 PlaceWorks
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1845-16
AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
CITY OF ORANGE
2. Response to Comments
April 2019 Page 2-13
A3. Response to Comments from Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Vikki Dee
Bradshaw, Interim Team Manager, Environmental Planning Section, dated April 17, 2017.
A3-1 The commenter provided a summary of the Proposed Project and of Metropolitan
Water District’s (Metropolitan) service area and responsibilities. The comment is
acknowledged and included in the official environmental record of the proposed
project. No response is necessary.
A3-2 The commenter provided a description of the water infrastructure (transmission and
treatment) serving the project site and its surroundings. Specifically, the commenter
stated that Metropolitan owns and operates the 34-inch-inside-diameter Orange County
Feeder, which is located below Lewis Street within the public right-of-way. The
commenter stated that the Proposed Project has the potential to impact Metropolitan’s
Orange County Feeder, and that Metropolitan must be allowed to maintain its rights-of-
way and requires unobstructed access to its facilities to maintain and repair its system.
Any design plans for any activity in the area of Metropolitan’s pipelines or facilities are
required to be submitted to Metropolitan for review and approval.
As shown in Figure 3, Aerial Photograph, of the Proposed Project’s public draft Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, Lewis Street abuts the project site’s southwestern
site boundary; this area of the project site includes an existing full-access driveway off
Lewis Street. As shown in Figure 5, Conceptual Illustrative Site Plan, vehicular access for the
Proposed Project would continue to be provided via the driveway off Lewis Street. The
only improvements proposed for this driveway includes reconstruction of the driveway,
new paving for the onsite drive aisle that connects to the driveway, and installation of
new landscaping. No improvements are proposed on or within Lewis Street. Therefore,
no impact to Metropolitan’s underground Orange County Feeder would occur.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1845-16
AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
CITY OF ORANGE
2. Response to Comments
Page 2-14 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1845-16
AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
CITY OF ORANGE
2. Response to Comments
April 2019 Page 2-15
LETTER A4 – California Department of Transportation (1 page)
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1845-16
AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
CITY OF ORANGE
2. Response to Comments
Page 2-16 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1845-16
AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
CITY OF ORANGE
2. Response to Comments
April 2019 Page 2-17
A4. Response to Comments from California Department of Transportation, Maureen El Harake,
Branch Chief, Regional-Community-Transit Planning, District 12, dated May 1, 2017.
A4-1 The commenter provided a summary of the Proposed Project and of the California
Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans) mission and responsibilities, as well as the
existing local and state routes in the vicinity of and serving the project site. The
comment is acknowledged and included in the official environmental record of the
proposed project. No response is necessary.
A4-2 The commenter requested that the queuing analysis for intersections within Caltrans’
jurisdiction be provided. In response to the commenter and on behalf of the City of
Orange, Linscott, Law, & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) conducted the requested
queuing analysis. Tables 1A and 1B below, summarizes the 95th percentile queuing
analysis for the four study intersections within Caltrans’ jurisdiction for the Existing
Year Plus Project and Near-Term Year (2019) Plus Project Conditions, respectively. As
shown in these tables, all movements, which include project traffic at the affected
Caltrans’ ramps, have adequate storage to accommodate the 95th percentile queues. It
should be noted that all of the queuing values presented in the tables are contained in
the appendices of the Traffic Impact Analysis report (dated June 7, 2016) prepared for
the Proposed Project, which is included in Appendix F of the public draft Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Table 1A Existing Plus Project Intersection Queuing Analysis1
Key Intersection
Existing Year Plus Project Traffic Conditions
Estimated
Storage
Provided
(in feet)
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Max. Queue/
Min. Storage
Required
Adequate
Storage
(Yes / No)
Max. Queue/
Min. Storage
Required
Adequate
Storage
(Yes / No)
4. SR-22 Westbound Ramps at
Metropolitan Drive
Northbound Left-Turn
(845’+ 100’)
945’ 123’ Yes 127’ Yes
6. State College Boulevard at
I-5 Southbound Ramps
Eastbound Right-Turn
(1,000’+ 250’)
1,250’ 209’ Yes 174’ Yes
9. The City Drive at
SR-22 Eastbound Ramps
Eastbound Left-Turn
(520’+ 45’)
565’ 257’ Yes 215’ Yes
10. I-5 Southbound Ramps at
Chapman Avenue
Northbound Left-Turn
(770’+ 340’)
1,110’ 152’ Yes 146’ Yes
Source: LLG 2018.
1 Queue is based on the 95th Percentile Queue and is reported in total queue length (feet).
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1845-16
AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
CITY OF ORANGE
2. Response to Comments
Page 2-18 PlaceWorks
Table 1B Near-Term Year (2019) Plus Project Intersection Queuing Analysis1
Key Intersection
Near-Term Year (2019) Plus Project Traffic Conditions
Estimated
Storage
Provided
(in feet)
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Max. Queue/
Min. Storage
Required
Adequate
Storage
(Yes / No)
Max. Queue/
Min. Storage
Required
Adequate
Storage
(Yes / No)
4. SR-22 Westbound Ramps at
Metropolitan Drive
Northbound Left-Turn
(845’+ 100’)
945’ 156’ Yes 165’ Yes
6. State College Boulevard at
I-5 Southbound Ramps
Eastbound Right-Turn
(1,000’+ 250’)
1,250’ 228’ Yes 217’ Yes
9. The City Drive at
SR-22 Eastbound Ramps
Eastbound Left-Turn
(520’+ 45’)
565’ 269’ Yes 235’ Yes
10. I-5 Southbound Ramps at
Chapman Avenue
Northbound Left-Turn
(770’+ 340’)
1,110’ 174’ Yes 172’ Yes
Source: LLG 2018.
1 Queue is based on the 95th Percentile Queue and is reported in total queue length (feet).
A4-3 The commenter requested that Caltrans be kept informed of the Proposed Project and
any future development that could potentially impact state transportation facilities. The
comment is acknowledged and included in the official environmental record of the
proposed project. Through its development and environmental review process for
development projects (including the Proposed Project), the City of Orange will continue
to inform and involve Caltrans in all necessary stages of development projects that
could result in an impact to Caltrans facilities.
April 2019 Page 3-1
3. Revisions to Public Draft IS/MND
3.1 INTRODUCTION
This section contains revisions to the circulated public draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
(IS/MND) based on (1) additional or revised information required to prepare a response to a specific
comment; (2) applicable updated information that was not available at the time of IS/MND publication; (3)
clarifications/corrections to the text, tables, figures, and appendices of the IS/MND generated independently
by the City; and/or (4) typographical errors. The provision of these revisions does not alter any impact
significance findings or conclusions as disclosed in the IS/MND.
3.2 IS/MND REVISIONS IN RESPONSE TO CITY COMMENTS
The following text of the public draft IS/MND has been revised or supplemented based on applicable
updated information that was not available at the time of IS/MND preparation or publication and based on
clarifications/corrections generated independently by the City.
Page 13, Section 1.3, Project Description.
Since the time of preparation of the IS/MND dated March 2017, which was circulated for public review
from March 29, 2017, to December 3, 2018, minor revisions have been made to the Proposed Project. The
minor revisions mostly deal with internal unit sizes and reconfiguration. The minor revisions did not result in
an increase in the number of units or residential density analyzed in the IS/MND, as the unit count remains
the same. Additionally, no relocation, reconfiguration or redesign of the apartment buildings or other site
features are necessary to accommodate the minor revisions.
The proposed minor revisions are negligible and do not constitute the need for additional environmental or
technical analysis. The revisions would not result in a new significant environmental impact not previously
disclosed in the public draft IS/MND; result in a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified
environmental impact; or alter any impact significance findings or conclusions as disclosed in the IS/MND.
Various Pages and Sections of the Public Draft IS/MND
Since the time of preparation of the IS/MND dated March 2017, which was circulated for public review
from March 29, 2017, to December 3, 2018, the initial project applicant request for an administrative
adjustment from the City’s multifamily residential parking standards was determined to no longer be required
to implement the Proposed Project, as the project will be designed and developed in accordance with the
applicable City of Orange parking standards. Therefore, the applicant’s request for administrative adjustment
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1845-16
AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Revisions to Public Draft IS/MND
Page 3-2 PlaceWorks
from the City’s multifamily residential parking standards was subsequently withdrawn and is no longer a
required discretionary action necessitating City review and approval.
Following are sections of the IS/MND where revisions area required to remove the references to and
discussion of the prior requested administrative adjustment from the City’s multifamily residential parking
standards. Changes to the IS/MND text are shown in underlined text for additions and strikeout text for
deletions. In summary, the proposed revisions are negligible and do not constitute the need for additional
environmental or technical analysis. The revisions would not result in a new significant environmental impact
not previously disclosed in the public draft IS/MND; result in a substantial increase in the severity of a
previously identified environmental impact; or alter any impact significance findings or conclusions as
disclosed in the IS/MND.
Page 1, Introduction Paragraph
The Proposed Project is a mixed-use development on a 5.79-acre site, consisting of a 277-unit, five-story
apartment complex wrapped around a multilevel parking garage that would serve the apartment residents,
guests, and employees; a separate, stand-alone multilevel parking structure that would serve tenants of the
existing eight-story office building onsite; vehicular and pedestrian circulation improvements; and various
hardscape and landscape improvements. Development under the Proposed Project would occur on two
surface parking lots that are immediately adjacent to and primarily serve tenants of the existing eight-story
office building onsite. The surface lot west of the office building would be developed with the five-story
apartment complex, and the surface lot south of the office building would be developed with the stand-alone
multilevel parking structure. The onsite office building would remain in its existing condition. Project
development requires City approval of a tentative parcel map for subdivision purposes, a conditional use
permit for increased building heights, and an administrative adjustment from the City’s multifamily residential
parking standards and drive aisle width standards.
Page 14, Section 1.3, Project Description
Upon clearing, the 5.79-acre Project Site would be developed as a mixed-use project by W/GL 3800
Chapman Holdings VII, LLC (the Developer). Project development would include a five-story apartment
complex wrapped around a multilevel parking garage that would serve the apartment residents, guests, and
employees; a separate, stand-alone multilevel parking structure that would serve tenants of the onsite office
building (3800 West Chapman Avenue); vehicular and pedestrian circulation improvements; and various
hardscape and landscape improvements. Project development requires City approval of a tentative parcel map
for subdivision purposes, a conditional use permit for increased building heights, and an administrative
adjustment from the City’s multifamily residential parking standards and drive aisle width standards.
Page 35, Subsection 1.3.4.1, Apartment Parking
As proposed, the overall parking ratio (number of parking spaces per apartment unit) proposed for the
apartment complex would require City approval of an administrative adjustment (Administrative Adjustment
No. 0243-16) from the City’s multifamily residential parking standards. Specifically, be provided in accordance
with the parking ratio requirements outlined in Section 17.34.060 (Required Number of Parking Spaces) of
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1845-16
AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Revisions to Public Draft IS/MND
April 2019 Page 3-3
the Orange Municipal Code for multifamily residential, an overall parking ratio of 2.0 spaces per unit
(includes resident and guest spaces) would be required for the apartment complex—at this ratio, the total
number of parking spaces required would be 554. As proposed, the total number of parking spaces that
would be provided in the parking garage (510 spaces) would equate to a parking ratio of 1.8 spaces per unit
(510 spaces divided by 277 units). The following table provides a detailed breakdown of the required and
proposed number of parking spaces for the Proposed Project.
Parking Summary
Residential Parking Required No. Units Spaces Required Spaces/Unit
Leasing parking: 2,500 sf x 4.0 spaces/ 1,000 sf — 10 —
Studio 27 33 1.2
1 Bed 132 225 1.7
2 Bed 119 238 2.0
Guest 278 56 0.2
Total — 562 2.0
Residential Parking Provided
Level -2
52
Level -1 75
Level 1
64
Level 2
74
Level 3
74
Level 4
74
Level 5
74
Level 6
75
Total residential parking spaces provided
562 2.0
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1845-16
AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Revisions to Public Draft IS/MND
Page 3-4 PlaceWorks
Page 41, Subsection 1.3.8, Administrative Adjustment
1.3.8 Administrative Adjustment
As discussed in Section 1.3.3, Access and Circulation, above, the drive aisle widths within the apartment complex
and stand-alone parking structures would be provided at 24 feet in width—the City’s requirement for these
types of drive aisles is 25 feet. Therefore, the provision of smaller drive aisle widths within the parking
structures requires approval of an administrative adjustment (Administrative Adjustment No. 0243-16) from
the City’s drive aisle width standards.
Additionally, as discussed in Section 1.3.4, Parking , above, the overall parking ratio (number of parking spaces
per apartment unit) proposed for the apartment complex would require City approval of an administrative
adjustment (Administrative Adjustment No. 0243-16) from the City’s multifamily residential parking
standards. Specifically, in accordance with the parking ratio requirements outlined in Section 17.34.060
(Required Number of Parking Spaces) of the Orange Municipal Code for multifamily residential, an overall
parking ratio of 2.0 spaces per unit (includes resident and guest spaces) would be required for the apartment
complex—at this ratio, the total number of parking spaces required would be 554. As proposed, the total
number of parking spaces that would be provided in the parking garage (510 spaces) would equate to a
parking ratio of 1.8 spaces per unit (510 spaces divided by 277 units).
Page 41, Subsection 1.3.8, Administrative Adjustment
1.3.10 Project Phasing and Construction
Development of the Proposed Project is anticipated to be completed in two phases: Phase One would
include construction of the stand-alone parking structure (with approximately 688 parking spaces), and Phase
Two would include construction of the 277-unit apartment complex and associated parking garage (with
approximately 510 562 parking spaces). Overall project construction is estimated to take approximately 26
months, anticipated to commence in early 2018 or soon after. Construction of the stand-alone parking
structure and associated improvements under phase one would extend approximately 10 months. Upon
completion of the stand-alone parking structure, construction of the apartment complex and all associated
improvements would commence under phase two. This phase is anticipated to require approximately 16
months to complete.
Page 42, Section 1.4, City Action Requested
1.4.1 Lead Agency
This Initial Study is intended to serve as the primary environmental document for all future actions associated
with the Proposed Project, including all discretionary approvals requested or required to implement the
Proposed Project. The City of Orange is the lead agency under CEQA and has the principal approval
authority over the Proposed Project. As part of the Proposed Project, the following discretionary actions and
approvals are required by the City:
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1845-16
AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Revisions to Public Draft IS/MND
April 2019 Page 3-5
Approval of an Administrative Adjustment from the City’s multifamily residential parking standards (AA
No. 0243-16)
Pages 117 and 118, Section 3.10, Land Use and Planning
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
Zoning Consistency
Administrative Adjustment
Multifamily Parking Standards
Concerning the number of parking spaces required, the overall parking ratio (number of parking spaces per
apartment unit) proposed for the apartment complex would require City approval of an administrative
adjustment (Administrative Adjustment No. 0243-16) from the City’s multifamily residential parking standards
is required. Specifically, in accordance with the parking ratio requirements outlined in Section 17.34.060
(Required Number of Parking Spaces) of the Orange Municipal Code for multifamily residential, an overall
parking ratio of 2.0 spaces per unit (includes resident and guest spaces) would be required for the apartment
complex—at this ratio, the total number of parking spaces required would be 554. As proposed, the total
number of parking spaces that would be provided in the parking garage (510 spaces) would equate to a
parking ratio of 1.8 spaces per unit (510 spaces divided by 277 units).
However, approval of the administrative adjustment from the City’s multifamily residential parking standards
would not result in a significant land use impact concerning zoning or result in a parking deficiency impact.
The proposed parking ratio is consistent with the ratio provided in other similar development projects in the
City of Orange, including the Amli Uptown Orange Apartments that are under construction to the west, near
the intersection of Chapman Avenue and The City Drive (see Figure 3, Aerial Photograph). As with the Amli
Uptown Orange Apartments, the parking ratio for the proposed apartment complex would be adequate to
serve the needs of the apartment residents, guests, and employees.
Additionally, granting of the administrative adjustment would allow the apartment complex parking garage to
be reduced in size by one or two levels, either above or below grade. Furthermore, with adoption of the
administrative adjustment, the Proposed Project would remain consistent with the land use, multi-modal
transportation, and urban design objectives of the City’s General Plan, and the intent of the mixed-use
zoning provisions of Chapter 17.19 (Mixed Use Districts) of the City’s zoning code.
Page 171, Section 4, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Proposed Project consists of a mixed-use development on a 5.79-acre
site that consists of a 277-unit, five-story apartment complex wrapped around a multilevel parking garage that
would serve the apartment residents, guests, and employees; a separate, stand-alone multilevel parking
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1845-16
AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Revisions to Public Draft IS/MND
Page 3-6 PlaceWorks
structure that would serve tenants of the existing office building onsite; vehicular and pedestrian circulation
improvements; and various hardscape and landscape improvements. Development under the Proposed
Project would occur on two surface parking lots that are immediately adjacent to and primarily serve tenants
of the existing eight-story office building onsite. The surface lot west of the office building would be
developed with the five-story apartment complex, and the surface lot south of the office building would be
developed with the stand-alone multilevel parking structure. The onsite office building would not undergo
any improvements or modifications under the Proposed Project; it would remain in its existing condition.
Project development requires City approval of a tentative parcel map for subdivision purposes, a conditional
use permit for increased building heights, and an administrative adjustment from the City’s multifamily
residential parking standards and drive aisle width standards.
Page 73, Section 3.3, Air Quality.
To revalidate the results of the previous Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas (AQ/GHG) emissions technical
analysis and modeling prepared for the Proposed Project (March 2017), PlaceWorks prepared a supplemental
AQ/GHG technical memorandum in March 2019. Given the date of the previous AQ/GHG technical
analysis and modeling prepared for the Proposed Project, the supplemental AQ/GHG technical
memorandum was prepared to substantiate that the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
previous AQ/GHG technical analysis and modeling remain valid and that existing conditions remain similar
to the original baseline condition. As substantiated in the AQ/GHG technical memorandum, the findings,
conclusions, and recommendations contained in the previous AQ/GHG technical analysis and modeling
remain valid and the current existing conditions remain similar to the original baseline condition.
Page 119, Section 3.12, Noise.
To revalidate the results of the previous Noise and Vibration technical analysis and modeling prepared for the
Proposed Project (March 2017), PlaceWorks prepared a supplemental Noise and Vibration technical
memorandum March 2019. Given the date of the previous Noise and Vibration technical analysis and
modeling prepared for the Proposed Project, the supplemental Noise and Vibration technical memorandum
was prepared to substantiate that the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the previous Noise and
Vibration technical analysis and modeling remain valid and that existing conditions remain similar to the
original baseline condition. As substantiated in the supplemental Noise and Vibration technical
memorandum, the findings, conclusions, and recommendations contained in the previous Noise and
Vibration technical analysis and modeling remain valid and the current existing conditions remain similar to
the original baseline condition.
Page 144, Section 3.3, Transportation/Traffic.
To revalidate the results of the previous City-approved Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) report (June 2016)
prepared by Linscott, Law, & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) for the Proposed Project, LLG prepared a
supplemental Traffic Impact Assessment technical memorandum March 2019. Given the date of the City-
approved TIA, the supplemental Traffic Impact Assessment technical memorandum was prepared to
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1845-16
AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Revisions to Public Draft IS/MND
April 2019 Page 3-7
substantiate that the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the TIA remain valid and that existing
conditions remain similar to the original baseline condition. As substantiated in the supplemental Traffic
Impact Assessment technical memorandum, the findings, conclusions, and recommendations contained in the
City-approved TIA remain valid and the current existing conditions remain similar to the original baseline
condition.
CHAPMAN APARTMENTS FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1845-16
AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
CITY OF ORANGE
3. Revisions to Public Draft IS/MND
Page 3-8 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.