HomeMy Public PortalAboutParkwest_Draft_IS_MND-101122DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/
MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION
Parkwest Project
October 2022
City of Fullerton
Community & Economic Development Department
303 W. Commonwealth Avenue
Fullerton, California 92832
Table of Contents
P ARKW EST P ROJECT i
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Purpose of the Initial Study ........................................................................................................ 1-1
1.2 California Environmental Quality Act Compliance .......................................................... 1-1
1.3 Previous Environmental Documentation ............................................................................ 1-2
1.4 Project Summary ............................................................................................................................. 1-3
1.4.1 Location ............................................................................................................................... 1-3
1.4.2 Project Proponent ........................................................................................................... 1-3
1.4.3 Existing General Plan and Zoning ............................................................................ 1-3
1.4.4 Existing Setting ................................................................................................................. 1-3
1.4.5 Proposed Development ................................................................................................ 1-4
1.5 Summary of Findings .................................................................................................................... 1-4
1.6 Intended Uses of this Document .............................................................................................. 1-5
1.7 Organization of the Initial Study .............................................................................................. 1-5
2.0 Project Location and Environmental Setting ............................................................................ 2-1
2.1 Project Location ............................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Existing Site and Area Characteristics ................................................................................... 2-1
2.2.1 Site Access ........................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2.2 Existing Conditions ......................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2.3 Existing Physical Conditions ...................................................................................... 2-2
2.2.4 Surrounding Land Uses and Development .......................................................... 2-3
2.3 Planning Context ............................................................................................................................. 2-3
2.3.1 General Plan Designation ............................................................................................. 2-3
2.3.2 Zoning Designation ......................................................................................................... 2-3
3.0 Project Description ............................................................................................................................. 3-1
3.1 Residential Land Use ..................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2 Hotel Land Use ................................................................................................................................. 3-2
3.3 Retail Uses .......................................................................................................................................... 3-2
3.4 Project Amenities ............................................................................................................................ 3-2
3.5 Parking ................................................................................................................................................. 3-3
3.6 Private Open Space ........................................................................................................................ 3-3
3.7 Lighting ................................................................................................................................................ 3-3
3.8 Construction Activities ................................................................................................................. 3-4
3.8.1 Demolition .......................................................................................................................... 3-4
Table of Contents
ii P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
3.8.2 Building Construction .................................................................................................... 3-5
3.9 Discretionary Approvals .............................................................................................................. 3-5
3.9.1 Mitigated Negative Declaration ................................................................................. 3-5
3.10 Ministerial Approvals .................................................................................................................... 3-5
4.0 Environmental Checklist .................................................................................................................. 4-1
4.1 Aesthetics ........................................................................................................................................... 4-3
4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ................................................................................... 4-11
4.3 Air Quality ....................................................................................................................................... 4-13
4.4 Biological Resources ................................................................................................................... 4-31
4.5 Cultural Resources ...................................................................................................................... 4-37
4.6 Energy ............................................................................................................................................... 4-46
4.7 Geology and Soils ......................................................................................................................... 4-52
4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...................................................................................................... 4-60
4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ....................................................................................... 4-75
4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................................................. 4-86
4.11 Land Use and Planning .............................................................................................................. 4-95
4.12 Mineral Resources ..................................................................................................................... 4-104
4.13 Noise ................................................................................................................................................ 4-106
4.14 Population and Housing .......................................................................................................... 4-125
4.15 Public Services ............................................................................................................................ 4-128
4.16 Recreation ..................................................................................................................................... 4-135
4.17 Transportation ............................................................................................................................ 4-138
4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources ....................................................................................................... 4-149
4.19 Utilities and Service Systems ................................................................................................ 4-152
4.20 Wildfire ........................................................................................................................................... 4-160
4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance .................................................................................. 4-163
5.0 List of Preparers .................................................................................................................................. 5-1
6.0 References ............................................................................................................................................. 6-1
Table of Contents
P ARKW EST P ROJECT iii
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
TABLES
Table Page
3-1 Site 1 – Residential Units ............................................................................................................................ 3-1
3-2 Site 2 – Residential Units ............................................................................................................................ 3-2
3-3 Site 1 – Hotel Rooms ..................................................................................................................................... 3-2
3-4 Site 1 – Proposed Parking Breakdown ................................................................................................. 3-3
3-5 Site 2 – Proposed Parking Breakdown ................................................................................................. 3-3
3-6 Estimated Daily Construction Equipment ........................................................................................... 3-4
4-1 Air Quality Measurements at the Anaheim Monitoring Station ............................................. 4-16
4-2 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin ................................ 4-18
4-3 California and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards .............................................................. 4-20
4-4 South Coast Air Quality Management District Air Quality Significance
Thresholds ...................................................................................................................................................... 4-21
4-5 Estimated Maximum Daily Regional Construction Emissions ................................................ 4-24
4-6 Construction-Phase Localized Significance Threshold Emissions ........................................ 4-25
4-7 Peak Daily Operational Emissions ....................................................................................................... 4-26
4-8 Cultural Resource Studies Within 0.25-Mile of the Project Site ............................................. 4-43
4-9 Energy Use During Construction .......................................................................................................... 4-49
4-10 Energy Use During Operations .............................................................................................................. 4-50
4-11 Estimated GreenHouse Gas Emissions from Construction ....................................................... 4-67
4-12 Estimated Annual GreenHouse Gas Emissions from Project Operation ............................. 4-67
4-13 Estimated Total Project Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................... 4-68
4-14 The Fullerton Plan Climate Action Plan GHG Reduction Measures ...................................... 4-70
4-15 Proposed Project General Plan Consistency Analysis ................................................................. 4-99
4-16 Noise Levels For Common Events ..................................................................................................... 4-110
4-17 Noise Levels For Locations 3 and 4 ................................................................................................... 4-113
4-18 Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments .............................................. 4-115
4-19 City of Fullerton Noise Ordinance Standards for Residential Land Uses ......................... 4-116
4-20 Change in Traffic Noise with Project ................................................................................................ 4-118
4-21 Construction Noise Levels at Noise-Sensitive Uses ................................................................... 4-119
4-22 Vibration Damage Threshold Criteria .............................................................................................. 4-121
4-23 Vibration Annoyance Criteria .............................................................................................................. 4-121
4-24 Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment ............................................................................. 4-122
4-25 Vibration Annoyance Levels at Sensitive Uses ............................................................................. 4-122
4-26 Building Damage Levels at Nearby Uses ......................................................................................... 4-123
4-27 City of Fullerton Public Parks Within One Mile of the Project .............................................. 4-136
4-28 Project Trip Generation .......................................................................................................................... 4-142
4-29 Project Trip Distribution ........................................................................................................................ 4-143
Table of Contents
iv P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
EXHIBITS
Exhibit Follows Page
1-1 Regional Location and Local Vicinity .................................................................................................... 1-3
1-2 Aerial Photograph .......................................................................................................................................... 1-4
3-1a–f Site Plan .............................................................................................................................................................. 3-1
3-2a–c Building Elevations ........................................................................................................................................ 3-1
4-1a–e Site Photographs ............................................................................................................................................. 4-5
4-2a–b Photo Simulations .......................................................................................................................................... 4-8
APPENDICES
Appendix
A Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data
B Cultural Resources Records Search
C Energy Data
D Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report and Paleontological Records Search
E Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
F Phase II Environmental Site Assessment
G Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan
H Noise Data
I Parking Study, Local Transportation Analysis, and Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
J AB 52 and SB 18 Letters
Table of Contents
P ARKW EST P ROJECT v
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
ACRONYM LIST
AAM Annual Arithmetic Mean
AB Assembly Bill
ac acre
ACM asbestos-containing materials
af Acre-feet
AFY acre-feet per year
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
bgs below the existing ground surface
BMP Best Management Practice
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CalARPP California Accidental Release Prevention Program
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention
CALGreen Code California Green Building Standards Code
CalOSHA State Occupational Safety and Health Regulations
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CARB California Air Resources Board
CBC California Building Code
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEC California Energy Commission
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CGS California Geological Survey
CH4 methane
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
Cortese List Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List
CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
CWA Clean Water Act
cy cubic yards
dBA A-weighted decibel scale
DIFs Development Impact Fees
DOC Department of Conservation
DOGGR California Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources
DPM diesel particulate matter
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
DTSC-SLs Department of Toxic Substance Control Screening Levels
du dwelling units
EAP Energy Action Plan
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EMFAC EMissions FACtor
EO Executive Order
ESA Environmental Site Assessment
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
Table of Contents
vi P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
ft feet
FTA Federal Transportation Administration
FTC
GHG
Fullerton Town Center
greenhouse gas
GP General Plan
gpcd gallons per capita per day
HCP Habitat Conservation Plan
HFC hydrofluorocarbons
HOA Homeowners Association
HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
HWCA California Hazardous Waste Control Act
I Interstate
in/sec inches per second
IRPs integrated resources plans
IS/MND Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ISSD Investigative & Support Services Division
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
km kilometer
LACSD Los Angeles County Sanitation District
LBP lead-based paint
Leq energy average
Leq dBA Equivalent Continuous Noise Level in A-weighted decibels
Lmax maximum noise level
Lmin minimum noise level
LOS Level of Service
LST localized significance threshold
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MEI maximally exposed individual
mg Million Gallons
mgd million gallons of wastewater per day
mg/m3 milligrams per cubic meter
mph miles per hour
MPO metropolitan planning organization
MRF Materials Recovery Facility
MRZs Mineral Resources Zones
MRZ-1 Mineral Resource Zone-1 (an area with no significant mineral
deposits)
MRZ-2 Mineral Resource Zone-2 (an area with significant mineral deposits)
MRZ-3 Mineral Resource Zone-3 (an area containing known mineral
resources of undetermined significance)
MTCO2e metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
metric tons of CO2 equivalent
MTCO2e/yr metric tons of CO2 equivalent per year
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
N-C Neighborhood Commercial
NCCP Natural Community Conservation Plan
NHMP Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Table of Contents
P ARKW EST P ROJECT vii
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
N2O nitrous oxide
NO nitric oxide
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOI Notice of Intent
NOx nitrogen oxide
O3 ozone
OCPs organochlorine pesticides
OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
OPR Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
OSHA Federal Occupational Safety and Health Regulations
PEIR Program Environmental Impact Report
PFC perfluorocarbons
PM2.5 fine particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less
PM10 respirable particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less
ppm parts per million
ppv peak particle velocity
PRD Permit Registration Document
pvc polyvinyl chloride
R-1 One-Family Residential
R-3 Limited Density, Multiple Residential
R-4 Medium Density, Multiple Residential
RCP Regional Comprehensive Plan
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
REC recognized environmental condition
RHNA Regional Housing Needs Assessment
RPS Renewable Portfolio Standard
RSLs Residential Regional Screening Levels
RTP/SCS Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SB Senate Bill
S-C Service Commercial
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCE Southern California Edison
SCGC Southern California Gas Company
SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy
sf square feet
SF6 sulfur hexafluoride
SIP State Implementation Plan
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SoCAB South Coast Air Basin
S-P Specific Plan
SR State Route
SUSMP standard urban stormwater mitigation plan
SWP State Water Project
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TACs toxic air contaminants
Table of Contents
viii P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
The Fullerton Plan The Fullerton Plan 2030 General Plan
TPA Transit Priority Area
µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
VdB vibration decibels
VHFHSZ Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
VMT vehicle miles traveled
VOC volatile organic compound
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 1-1
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE OF THE INITIAL STUDY
The purpose of this Initial Study (IS) is to (1) describe the proposed Parkwest Project
(hereinafter referred to as the “Project”), which would be constructed in the City of Fullerton and
(2) provide an evaluation of potential environmental impacts associated with the Project’s
construction and operation. If impacts are identified, mitigation measures would be
recommended to lessen or avoid impacts on the environment. The Project involves re-
development of a 2.82-acre site with apartment units, hotel, retail, restaurant, and parking. This
IS has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as amended
(Section 21000 et. seq. of the Public Resources Code) and in accordance with the State CEQA
Guidelines (Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq. of the California Code of Regulations).
Pursuant to Section 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Fullerton (hereinafter
referred to as the “City”) is the lead agency for the Project. The lead agency is the public agency
that has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project that may have a
significant effect on the environment. The City, as the lead agency, has the authority for Project
approval and certification of the accompanying environmental documentation. In addition to
addressing the potential environmental impacts that would result from the proposed Project,
this IS/MND serves as the primary environmental document for future activities associated with
the Project, including discretionary approvals requested or required for Project implementation.
The City of Fullerton, as the Lead Agency, has reviewed and revised, as necessary, all submitted
drafts and technical studies and has commissioned the preparation of this IS/MND to reflect its
independent judgment. This IS/MND evaluates the potential environmental impacts of Project
implementation; includes significance determinations from the environmental analyses;
identifies regulatory requirements (RRs) to be incorporated into the Project; and sets forth
mitigation measures (MMs) that will lessen or avoid potentially significant Project impacts on
the environment.
1.2 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT COMPLIANCE
In accordance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, an IS has been prepared for the
proposed Project and its associated discretionary approvals. The IS indicates that the Project
would have less than significant impacts with mitigation measures required, and therefore, the
Project requires preparation of an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND).
This IS/MND serves as the environmental document that presents the analysis of Project impacts
on each of the environmental issue areas in the CEQA Environmental Checklist provided in
Section 4.0. This document will serve to inform City decision makers, representatives of affected
trustee and responsible agencies, and other interested parties of the potential environmental
effects that may occur with approval and implementation of the proposed Project.
Introduction
1-2 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
1.3 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
In compliance with CEQA, a Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) was prepared in 2010
by the City of Fullerton for the Fullerton Transportation Center (FTC) Specific Plan Project. In
addition to addressing the potential environmental impacts that would result from
implementation of the FTC Specific Plan, the PEIR intended to serve as the primary
environmental document for all subsequent entitlements associated with the proposed FTC
Specific Plan, including all discretionary approvals requested or required to implement the
project. The PEIR also discussed alternatives to the project and included a mitigation program
that would offset, minimize, or avoid significant environmental impacts. While mitigation
measures were proposed to reduce the potentially significant impacts pertaining to Air Quality;
Cultural Resources; Hazards and Hazardous Materials; Noise; Population, Housing and
Employment; and Transportation, a number of impacts remained significant and unavoidable, as
identified below:
• Air Quality: local exposure to short-term, construction-related emissions of PM10 and
PM 2.5 exceeding ambient air quality standards; long-term operational regional project-
related and cumulative emissions of VOC, PM10, and NOx; and exposure of sensitive
receptors to PM10 and PM2.5 emissions that exceed the 24-hour ambient air quality
standard during the mass grading and excavation phase.
• Noise: short-term construction noise levels within 80 feet of sensitive receptors could be
substantially greater than existing ambient noise levels.
• Population, Housing and Employment: substantial increase in population and housing
growth that was not anticipated for the project area, resulting in project and cumulative
impacts.
• Transportation and Traffic: implementation of the FTC Specific Plan would
significantly impact the intersection of Orangethorpe Avenue/Lemon Street (Years 2015,
2020 and 2035 General Buildout) using the City of Anaheim intersection capacity
utilization (ICU) methodology for analyzing impacts. The Orangethorpe Avenue/Lemon
Street intersection is also under the jurisdiction of the City of Anaheim.
The FTC Specific Plan envisioned creating a sustainable transit-oriented neighborhood near the
Santa Fe Train Depot and focus growth and development around the train depot to link land use
and transit. The main goals of the FTC Specific Plan were to: (1) create buildings, public spaces,
streets, and infrastructure that contribute to a sustainable built environment; (2) create a mixed-
use neighborhood that contributes toward a sustainable Downtown economy; (3) create a
mixed-use and transit-oriented neighborhood that contributes to a sustainable natural
environment; and (4) develop and promote a framework for a sustainable community lifestyle.
The Specific Plan also encouraged the inclusion of affordable housing in proximity to public
transit and new employment opportunities and intended to accommodate a portion of the City’s
housing obligation related to the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA).
Introduction
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 1-3
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
1.4 PROJECT SUMMARY
1.4.1 LOCATION
The approximate 2.82-acre project site is in the City of Fullerton, in Orange County, California.
The project site is comprised of three parcels, two parcels are located to the south of East Santa
Fe Avenue, and third parcel is at the northeast corner of South Pomona Avenue and East Santa
Fe Avenue. The site is bound by Metrolink and Amtrak Transportation corridor to the south and
Terry’s Automotive to the east, and the parcel at the northeast corner of South Pomona Avenue
and East Santa Fe Avenue is bound by a US Postal Service office to the north and
commercial/retail uses to the east. The Fullerton City Lights, a multi-family residential
development is located to the northeast. Local access to the site is provided by Harbor Boulevard,
Commonwealth Avenue, and Lemon Street. Regional access is provided by State Route 57
(SR-57) to the east, Interstate 5 (I-5) to the west, and State Route 91 (SR-91). See Exhibit 1-1,
Regional Location and Local Vicinity.
The proposed Parkwest Project is within the Fullerton Transportation Center (FTC) Specific
Plan, which is situated in the heart of the City, within Downtown Fullerton. Roadways that serve
as primary borders for the Specific Plan area include Commonwealth Avenue to the north,
Walnut Avenue/Truslow Avenue to the south, Lawrence Avenue to the east, and Harbor
Boulevard to the west. Portions of the Specific Plan area extend slightly east of Lawrence Avenue
and slightly south of Walnut Avenue. The Fullerton Train Depot (Amtrak/Metrolink station) and
the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Bus Transfer Terminal are located within
the FTC Specific Plan area to south of the intersection of Pomona Avenue and Santa Fe Avenue.
1.4.2 PROJECT PROPONENT
Craig G. Hostert
Parkwest General Contractors
3156 Eat La Palma Avenue, Suite J
Anaheim, CA 92806
(714) 632-8001
1.4.3 EXISTING GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
General Plan Land Use Designation: Fullerton Transportation Center Specific Plan
Zoning Classification: Specific Plan District (SPD)
1.4.4 EXISTING SETTING
Project Site
The project site is within a highly developed area of the City of Fullerton. The parcels to the south
of East Santa Fe Avenue are currently developed with surface parking, which provide parking
for the Amtrak and Metrolink commuters, and the parcel at the northeast corner of Pomona
Avenue and East Santa Fe Avenue is developed with a parking structure.
Site 1
Site 2
Public Parking Lot
FullertonCollege
SaintMarysSchool
FullertonHigh School
WoodcrestElementary School
Maple AvenueElementarySchool
RichmanElementarySchool RichmanPark LemonPark
Amerige Park
FordPark
HillcrestPark
WoodcrestPark OrangefairMarketplaceFullertonMetro Center
N L
e
m
o
n
S
t
S Le
m
o
n
S
t
N L
e
m
o
n
S
t
W V alenc ia Dr
SLemonSt
N Berkeley Ave
SLemonSt
S Le
m
o
n
S
t
W Valley View Dr
NLemonSt
Lon
g
v
i
e
w
D
r
W Valencia Dr
NHornet
Way
Dorothy Ln
Dorothy LnE Valleyview Dr
E Commonwealth Ave
E Chapman Ave
W Commonwealth Ave
W Chapman Ave
Har
b
o
r
B
l
v
d
Orangethorpe Ave
N H
a
r
b
o
r
B
l
v
d
E Orangethorpe Ave
NHarbor
Blvd
Har
b
o
r
B
l
v
d
W Orangethorpe Ave E OrangethorpeAve
N H
a
r
b
o
r
B
l
v
d
E Orangethorpe Ave
S H
a
r
b
o
r
B
l
v
d
A n a h e i m
F u l l e r t o n
D:\P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
3
F
U
L
\
0
2
0
1
0
2
\
M
X
D
\
M
N
D
\
e
x
_
L
V
_
R
L
_
2
0
2
2
0
9
2
7
.
m
x
d
²
Seal Beach
Project Location
San B
e
r
n
a
r
d
i
n
o
§¨5ST39
ST91
§¨105
§¨710
§¨605
ST19
ST90
ST261
ST142ST72
ST110
ST60
ST55
ST57
ST710
ST241
ST91
Los AngelesOrange
BeachHuntington
West Covina
Long Beach
Buena Park
Yorba Linda
Costa Mesa
Irvine
Lakewood
Downey
Westminster
Santa Ana
Whittier
Anaheim
Regional Location and Local Vicinity
Parkwest Project
Exhibit 1-1
(Rev: 09/28/2022 MMD) R:\Projects\FUL\3FUL020102\Graphics\MND\ex_LV_RL.pdf
1,000 0 1,000500Feet
Project Site
Introduction
1-4 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
The project site is covered with impermeable surfaces, and on-site and surrounding resources
are limited to scattered non-native ornamental trees and vegetation, which are typical of urban
landscaping.
Based on historic aerial photographs, the site was occupied with multiple buildings/structures
circa 1995 and earlier years. The previous buildings/structures have been demolished over the
approximate period between 1995 and 2003.
Surrounding Land Uses
The two southern parcels are bound by East Santa Fe Avenue to the north, Metrolink and Amtrak
Transportation corridor to the south, Terry’s Automotive to the east, and an asphalt paved
parking lot to the west. The parcel at the northeast corner of South Pomona Avenue and East
Santa Fe Avenue is bound by a US Postal Service office to the north and commercial/retail uses
to the east. The Fullerton City Lights, a multi-family residential development is located to the
northeast. See Exhibit 1-2, Aerial Photograph.
The project site is surrounded by development, and the general area consists of commercial,
residential, retail, office space, manufacturing, and industrial uses.
1.4.5 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The proposed Parkwest Project, within the FTC Specific Plan, would involve re-development of
a 2.82-acre site with apartment units, hotel, retail, restaurant, and parking. The Project is a multi-
story development, 6-stories in height and proposes to: 1) construct 140 residential units (i.e.,
97 one-bedroom apartments, 10 two-bedroom apartments, 33 studios), 124-room hotel, 3,570
square feet of retail, 3,570 square foot restaurant, and 412 parking stalls (i.e., 138 City parking,
150 residential parking, and 124 hotel and retail parking) in Site 1 at the southeast corner of
South Pomona Avenue and East Santa Fe Avenue; 2) demolish the existing parking structure
including the private parking lot at the northeast corner of South Pomona Avenue and East Santa
Fe Avenue and construct 146 residential units (i.e., 80 one-bedroom apartments, 10 two-
bedroom apartments, and 56 studios) and 248 residential parking stalls; 3) provide amenities in
both sites; and 4) reconfigure the surface parking lot in front of the Train Depot to provide better
flow and parking Additional detail is provided in Section 3.0, Project Description.
1.5 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Based on the environmental checklist form prepared for the Project and supporting
environmental analysis (Section 4.0), the proposed Project would have no impact or less than
significant impact on the environmental impact areas: Aesthetics, Agriculture and Forestry
Resources, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and
Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources,
Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, Tribal Cultural Resources,
Utilities and Service Systems, and Wildfire.
The proposed Project has the potential to have significant impacts to Cultural Resources, Geology
and Soils, and Noise unless the recommended mitigation measures described herein are
incorporated into the proposed Project.
Aerial Photograph Exhibit 1-2
Burlingt on Northern Santa Fe Rlwy
S P
o
m
o
n
a
A
v
e
E W a lnut Wa y
N P
o
m
o
n
a
A
v
e
E Santa Fe Ave
E Truslow Ave
E Walnut Ave
E Amerige Ave
N L
e
m
o
n
S
t
SLemonSt
E Commonwealth Ave
Site 1
Site 2
PublicParking Lot
D:\P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
3
F
U
L
\
0
2
0
1
0
2
\
M
X
D
\
M
N
D
\
e
x
_
A
e
r
i
a
l
_
2
0
2
2
0
9
2
7
.
m
x
d
200 0 200100Feet²
Aerial Source: Esri, Maxar 2020
Project Site
(Rev: 09/28/2022 MMD) R:\Projects\FUL\3FUL020102\Graphics\MND\ex_Aerial.pdf
Parkwest Project
Introduction
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 1-5
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
According to the State CEQA Guidelines, it is appropriate to prepare an IS/MND for the proposed
Project, as implementation of the recommended mitigation measures would eliminate or reduce
potentially significant environmental impacts of the Project to a less than significant level.
1.6 INTENDED USES OF THIS DOCUMENT
This IS/MND has been prepared to determine the appropriate level of environmental
documentation required for the proposed Project pursuant to CEQA. This document will also
serve as a basis for soliciting comments and input from members of the public and public
agencies regarding the proposed Project.
The Draft IS/MND will be circulated for a minimum 30 days, during which comment concerning
the analysis should be sent to:
City of Fullerton
Community & Economic Development Department
Attention: Bradley J. Misner, AICP
Contract Planner
303 W. Commonwealth Avenue
Fullerton, CA 92832
Bradley.Misner@cityoffullerton.com
1.7 ORGANIZATION OF THE INITIAL STUDY
The IS/MND is organized into sections, as described below.
• Section 1.0: Introduction. This section provides an introduction, Project summary, and
overview of the conclusions in the IS/MND.
• Section 2.0: Project Location and Environmental Setting. This section provides a brief
description of the Project location, relevant background information, and a description
of the existing conditions of the project site and vicinity.
• Section 3.0: Project Description. This section provides a description of the proposed
Project, a statement of purpose and need, and necessary discretionary approvals.
• Section 4.0: Environmental Checklist. The completed Environmental Checklist Form
from the State CEQA Guidelines provides an overview of the potential impacts that may
or may not result from Project implementation. The Environmental Checklist Form also
includes “mandatory findings of significance”, as required by CEQA.
• Section 5.0: List of Preparers. This section identifies the list of preparers for the
IS/MND.
• Section 6.0: References. This section identifies the references used to prepare
the IS/MND.
Introduction
1-6 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
This page intentionally left blank
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 2-1
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
2.0 PROJECT LOCATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
2.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The approximate 2.82-acre project site (i.e., 2 acres in Site 1 and 0.82 acre in Site 2) is in the City
of Fullerton, in Orange County, California. The City of Fullerton encompasses approximately 22.3
square miles and is surrounded by the cities of Placentia to the east, Brea to the northeast and
east, La Habra to the north and west, La Mirada (in Los Angeles County) to the northwest, Buena
Park to the west, and Anaheim to the south.
The two southern parcels are located to the south of East Santa Fe Avenue, and the third parcel
is at the northeast corner of South Pomona Avenue and East Santa Fe Avenue. The southern
parcels are bound by Metrolink and Amtrak Transportation corridor to the south and Terry’s
Automotive to the east. Local access to the site is provided by Harbor Boulevard, Commonwealth
Avenue, and Lemon Street, and regional access is provided by SR-57 to the east, I-5 to the west,
SR-91 to the south, and SR-90 to the north. Regional access is also provided by Santa Fe Train
Depot (Fullerton Amtrak/Metrolink station).
As indicated above, the Project is located within FTC Specific Plan Area, which is situated in the
heart of the City within Downtown Fullerton. Roadways that serve as primary borders for the
Specific Plan Area include Commonwealth Avenue to the north, Walnut Avenue/Truslow Avenue
to the south, Lawrence Avenue to the east, and Harbor Boulevard to the west. Portions of the
Specific Plan Area extend slightly east of Lawrence Avenue and slightly south of Walnut Avenue.
The Fullerton Train Depot (Amtrak/Metrolink station) and the Orange County Transportation
Authority (OCTA) Bus Transfer Terminal are located within the FTC Specific Plan area near the
intersection of Pomona Avenue and Santa Fe Avenue.
2.2 EXISTING SITE AND AREA CHARACTERISTICS
2.2.1 SITE ACCESS
Vehicular access to the project site is provided by Harbor Boulevard, Commonwealth Avenue,
and Lemon Street. Additionally, the site is approximately 1.2 miles from the SR-91 freeway
Harbor Boulevard on-ramp and 2.8 miles from the SR-57 freeway Chapman Avenue on-ramp.
Regional access is also provided by Santa Fe Train Depot (Fullerton Amtrak/Metrolink station).
Please refer to Exhibit 1-1, Regional Location and Local Vicinity in Section 1.0.
2.2.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The southern parcels combined has an approximate rectangular shape and is currently partially
occupied at the south of the property with the Fullerton Amtrak and Metro Link Station and the
Fullerton Train Museum, the remainder of the site is occupied with an asphalt paved parking lot.
This site is bound by a commercial property occupied with an automotive retailer (Terry’s
Automotive) to the east, East Santa Fe Avenue to the north, an asphalt paved parking lot to the
west, and train tacks to the south. The site is fully developed with impermeable surfaces and
contains scattered ornamental trees and vegetation. No areas with native vegetation or habitat
are observed on the site. See Exhibit 1-2, Aerial Photograph.
Project Location and Environmental Setting
2-2 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
The northern parcel at the northeast corner of South Pomona Avenue and East Santa Fe Avenue
is square in shape and currently developed with a multi-story public parking structure (Pomona
Parking Structure) and private parking lot. The site is bound by a US Postal Service office to the
north and commercial/retail uses to the east. The Fullerton City Lights, a multi-family residential
development is located to the northeast.
Land within the FTC Specific Plan area is owned by a combination of private property owners,
the City of Fullerton, the United States Postal Service, and the BN&SF Railroad. Existing land uses
include residential, industrial, retail, restaurants, public services, religious assembly, offices, and
public parking. Most properties are developed with one- and two-story buildings.
2.2.3 EXISTING PHYSICAL CONDITIONS
Geology and Soils Condition
The topography of the site is relatively flat with no significant changes in site grade elevations.
The project site is generally located in the Orange County portion of the Central Block (Central
Plain) within the Los Angeles Basin. This portion of Orange County is part of the Peninsular
Range Geomorphic Province of California. The basin is infilled with Holocene to Pleistocene non-
marine sediments. The depth of the sediments is generally shallower near the project site and
becomes deeper towards the south. The project site is located within an alluvial plain that is
composed of a mixture of soils including sand, silt, clay, and gravel. The project area includes
multiple alluvial soils associated with the Santa Ana River system (Geoquake 2019). The site is
underlain with undocumented fill materials underlain with young alluvial fan deposits
(Geoquake 2019).
Nearby faults include the Norwalk Fault, Whittier/Elsinore Fault, Newport-Inglewood Fault,
Sierra Madre/San Fernando/Santa Susana Fault, and the Palos Verdes Fault. Additionally, the
Puente Hills blind thrust fault extends from downtown Los Angeles southeast into northern
Orange County; the easternmost extent of the surface projection of the Puente Hills fault is
located approximately 5 to 10 miles northwest of the City of Fullerton.
Hydrology and Drainage Condition
The project site is level/flat with an average elevation of 164.4 ft and sloping of roughly 3
percent. Landscaping is located along the north side of the site facing East Santa Fe Avenue. The
existing site currently drains to two locations. Stormwater from the parking lot to the east of the
site sheet flows to the curb and gutter on Santa Fe Avenue leading to an existing facility (30-inch
reinforced concrete (RC) pipe catch basin). Stormwater from the parking lot on the west side of
the site sheet flows to an on-site v-gutter that leads to a catch basin on the site. The catch basin
connects to a 24-inch storm drainpipe that discharges to the curb and gutter on East Walnut
Avenue.
The project site is in the Coyote Creek watershed within the boundaries of the Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Santa Ana Region.
Project Location and Environmental Setting
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 2-3
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
2.2.4 SURROUNDING LAND USES AND DEVELOPMENT
The project site is bound by East Santa Fe Avenue to the north, Metrolink and Amtrak
Transportation corridor to the south, Terry’s Automotive to the east, and an asphalt paved
parking lot to the west. The parcel at the northeast corner of South Pomona Avenue and East
Santa Fe Avenue is bound by a US Postal Service office to the north and commercial/retail uses
to the east. The Fullerton City Lights, a multi-family residential development is located to the
northeast. See Exhibit 1-2, Aerial Photograph.
The FTC Specific Plan Area consists of approximately 39 acres located within Downtown
Fullerton. Surrounding land uses include residential and commercial to the north; industrial,
commercial, and residential to the south and east; and industrial and commercial to the west.
2.3 PLANNING CONTEXT
2.3.1 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
The project site currently has a General Plan land use designation of Fullerton Transportation
Center (FTC) Specific Plan. The land use designations adjacent to the project site include
Commercial to the north, east and west; Industrial to the east and west; and Downtown Mixed
Use to the north and east. Additionally, there is a small parcel designated as Religious Institution
to the north across East Commonwealth Avenue. As noted previously, the project site is located
within the FTC Specific Plan Area.
2.3.2 ZONING DESIGNATION
The project site is currently zoned Specific Plan District (SPD). Adjacent zoning designation
include M-G (Manufacturing General), G-C (General Commercial), C-3 (General Business District
Commercial), R-3 (Limited Density, Multiple Residential), R3-P (Limited Density, Multiple
Residential Preservation), and R-2 (Two-Family Residential).
Project Location and Environmental Setting
2-4 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
This page intentionally left blank
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 3-1
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed Parkwest Project, within the FTC Specific Plan, would involve re-development of
a 2.82-acre site with apartment units, hotel, retail, restaurant, and parking. The proposed Project
is a multi-story development, 6-stories in height. The Project proposes to: 1) construct 140
residential units (i.e., 97 one-bedroom apartments, 10 two-bedroom apartments, 33 studios),
124-room hotel, 3,570 square feet of retail, 3,570 square foot restaurant, and 412 parking stalls
(i.e., 138 City parking, 150 residential parking, and 124 hotel and retail parking) in Site 1 at the
southeast corner of South Pomona Avenue and East Santa Fe Avenue; 2) demolish the existing
parking structure including the private parking lot at the northeast corner of South Pomona
Avenue and East Santa Fe Avenue and construct 146 residential units (i.e., 80 one-bedroom
apartments, 10 two-bedroom apartments, and 56 studios) and 248 residential parking stalls; 3)
provide amenities in both sites; and 4) reconfigure the surface parking lot in front of the Train
Depot to provide better flow and parking
3.1 RESIDENTIAL LAND USE
The Project involves demolition and removal of the existing surface parking lot, parking
structure, and associated improvements to accommodate the proposed development. The
Project is a multi-story development, 6-stories in height. The Project proposes to construct a
total of 286 residential units including 1- and 2-bedroom units and studio apartments. The
residential component would have 15 percent of the total units (i.e., 43 units) reserved for
affordable housing. Please refer to Exhibits 3-1a through 3-1f, Site Plan and Exhibits 3-2a
through Exhibit 3-2cb, Building Elevations. For a breakdown of units per level, please refer to
Tables 3-1 through 3-3, below.
TABLE 3-1
SITE 1 – RESIDENTIAL UNITS
Levels
1-Bedroom
Units
(69%)
2-Bedroom
Units
(7%)
Studio
Apartments
(24%) Total
Level 1 - - - -
Level 2 17 2 5 24
Level 3 20 2 7 29
Level 4 20 2 7 29
Level 5 20 2 7 29
Level 6 20 2 7 29
Total 97 10 33 140
Source: Parkwest 2022
Source: TAG Design Works, TA Partners 2022
(10/11/2022 MMD) R:\Projects\FUL\3FUL020102\Graphics\MND\ex_Site_Plan_A0.1.pdf
D:\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
3
F
U
L
\
0
2
0
1
0
2
\
G
R
A
P
H
I
C
S
\
M
N
D
\
e
x
_
S
i
t
e
P
l
a
n
_
A
0
.
1
_
2
0
2
2
1
0
1
1
.
a
i
Parkwest Project
Site Plan Exhibit 3-1a
5%+163'
+163'
+157' 9"
+163'
+163'
GROUND FLOOR
115 PARKING STALLS
8 COMPACT 7%
16
10
11
16
5%
+169' 9"
+/- 88 CITY
STALLS ENCLOSED
15
17
3
CAFE
+/-3,570 SF
LOBBY
+/-2,360 SF
DOG WASH
BIKE STOR
+/-1,250 SF
RES
ENTRY
HOTEL
CITY
ENTRY
RES LOBBY
+/-2,290 SF
TR
A
S
H
LO
A
D
I
N
G
+/-
8
3
0
S
F
MECH
Project Summary - Site 2
Site Area-2: 0.6 + 0.22 = 0.82 Acres
Density - 178 Unit/Acre
Total Units: 146 units
Studio: 56 units (38%)
1 Bed: 80 units (55%)
2 Bed: 10 units (7%)
Total Parking: +/- 156 Stalls Req.
Studio 56 units x 1.0 = 56
1BR 80 units x 1.0 = 80
2BR 10 units x 2.0 = 20
+/- 248 Provided
9 x 199 x 19 9 x 19 9 x 199 x 19 9 x 199 x 199 x 19 9 x 199 x 199 x 19 9 x 19 9 x 199 x 19
9 x
1
9
9 x
1
9
9 x
1
9
9 x
1
9
9 x
1
9
9 x
1
9
9 x
1
9
9 x
1
9
9 x
1
9
9 x
1
9
9 x 199 x 19 9 x 199 x 19 9 x 19 9 x 199 x 19 9 x 19 9 x 199 x 19 9 x 199 x 19 9 x 19 9 x 199 x 19 9 x 19 9 x 199 x 19 9 x 19 9 x 199 x 19 9 x 19 9 x 199 x 19
27
STORAGE STORAGE
9 x 199 x 199 x 19 9 x 199 x 199 x 199 x 199 x 199 x 199 x 199 x 199 x 19 9 x 199 x 199 x 199 x 199 x 199 x 199 x 199 x 199 x 19 9 x 199 x 199 x 19
9 x 19 9 x 19 9 x 199 x 19 9 x 19 9 x 19 9 x 19 9 x 19 9 x 19
9 x 199 x 199 x 19
9 x 19 9 x 19 9 x 199 x 19 9 x 19 9 x 199 x 19 9 x 199 x 19 9 x 19 9 x 199 x 19 9 x 19 9 x 19 9 x 19
RES.CITY
comp9 x 16comp9 x 16comp9 x 16comp9 x 16comp9 x 16
+/- 27 RESIDENTIAL
STALLS ENCLOSED
9 x 19
9 x 19 9 x 19
25'
25'
27'
25'
25'
20'
25'
comp9 x 16comp9 x 16comp9 x 16
9 x
1
9
9 x 18 9 x 18 9 x 18 9 x 18 9 x 18 9 x 18 9 x 18 9 x 18 9 x 18 9 x 18 9 x 18 9 x 18 9 x 189 x 18 9 x 18 9 x 18
9 x 189 x 189 x 18 9 x 189 x 189 x 18 9 x 189 x 189 x 189 x 189 x 189 x 189 x 189 x 18
+164'
+164'+166'+170' 4"
+158' 4"
ELECT.
FIRE
CONT.
ROOM
+164'
TR
.
RE
.
OR
.
5%
+166'
10%
+164'
19
18
17
7
16
5%
+/-78 RESIDENTIAL
STALLS ENCLOSED
MECH EV EV
GROUND FLOOR
78 PARKING STALLS
9 x 189 x 18
Project Summary - Site 2
Site Area-2: 0.6 + 0.22 = 0.82 Acres
Density - 178 Unit/Acre
Total Units: 146 units
Studio: 56 units (38%)
1 Bed: 80 units (55%)
2 Bed: 10 units (7%)
Total Parking: +/- 156 Stalls Req.
Studio 56 units x 1.0 = 56
1BR 80 units x 1.0 = 80
2BR 10 units x 2.0 = 20
+/- 248 Provided
RES LOBBY
+/-3,680 SF
TRASH
LOADING
+/-870 SF
9 x 199 x 19 9 x 199 x 199 x 19 9 x 199 x 199 x 19 9 x 199 x 199 x 19 9 x 199 x 19 9 x 199 x 19 9 x 19
9 x
1
9
9 x
1
9
9 x
1
9
9 x
1
9
9 x
1
9
9 x
1
9
9 x
1
9
MECH
5%+166'
9 x 18 9 x 18
9 x 19 9 x 19 9 x 199 x 19 9 x 19 9 x 199 x 19 9 x 19 9 x 199 x 19 9 x 19 9 x 199 x 19 9 x 19 9 x 199 x 19 9 x 19 9 x 199 x 19
9 x 18
FULLERTON
STATION
EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING BUILDING
EXISTING BUILDING
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
B
U
S
DE
P
O
T
FULLERTON TRAIN MUSEUM
FULLERTON TRAIN MUSEUM
STOP STOP
CL SANTA FE AVENUE
CL
PO
M
O
N
A
A
V
E
N
U
E
EAST 415.77'
N0
0
°
0
1
'
1
5
"
W
16
9
.
2
0
'
N00°01'15"W 169.20'
17.
0
0
'
N0
0
°
0
0
'
5
4
"
W
N89°30'50"E 589.27'
N0
0
°
0
1
'
0
2
"
W
140
.
0
1
'
N0
0
°
0
1
'
0
2
"
W
49
.
7
2
'
N89°30'50"E 45.00'
60
'
80'
40'40'
30
'
30'
A.T.S.F. RAILROAD
20000217966 O.R.
20000217966 O.R.
20
0
0
0
2
1
7
9
6
6
O
.
R
.
CL
21
COMPACT COMPACT
88
ENTRANCE ONLY EXIT ONLY
BUSZONE
ONL
Y
BU
S
LOAD
I
N
G
ZON
E
EXIT O
N
L
Y
LOADINGUNLOADINGZONE
LOADINGUNLOADINGZONE
EVVANPOOLCLEAN AIR
EVVANPOOLCLEAN AIRCOMPACT AMTRAK AMTRAK AMTRAK AMTRAK
AP
P
BASE
D
ZON
E
EVVANPOOLCLEAN AIR
A0.1SITE PLAN
CONCEPTUAL DESIGNFULLERTON APARTMENT & HOTEL
N
0'10'20'40'80'120'
PROJECT SITE
VICINITY MAP
SITE
REFERENCE ONLY FOR
CEQA STUDY
Source: TAG Design Works, TA Partners 2022
(10/11/2022 MMD) R:\Projects\Client\3FUL020102\Graphics\ex_Site Plan.pdf
D:\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
c
l
i
e
n
t
\
3
F
U
L
0
2
0
1
0
2
\
G
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
\
e
x
_
S
i
t
e
P
l
a
n
_
A
1
.
0
_
2
0
2
2
1
0
1
1
.
a
i
Parkwest Project
Site Plan (Level B1)Exhibit 3-1b
A B C D E F G
27'-6"17'-0"
PHJKLMNO
18'
-
0
"
1
1.5
2
4
6
7
3
31'
-
0
"
15'
-
0
"
16'
-
0
"
18'
-
0
"
16'
-
0
"
15'-6"29'-0"29'-0"29'-0"29'-0"29'-0"29'-0"29'-0"29'-0"29'-0"29'-0"29'-0"29'-0"
Q
31'
-
0
"
5
5%+151'
+151'
+157' 9"
+151'
+151'
B1 LL PARKING
137 PARKING STALLS
46 COMPACT 34%
375 TOTAL SITE 1
14
37
7
65
+/-124 HOTEL VALET
STALLS ENCLOSED
31
+/-13 CITY
STALLS ENCLOSED
6
3.5
15'
-
0
"
9 x 199 x 199 x 19 9 x 199 x 199 x 199 x 199 x 199 x 199 x 199 x 199 x 19 9 x 199 x 199 x 199 x 199 x 199 x 199 x 199 x 199 x 19 9 x 199 x 199 x 199 x 199 x 199 x 199 x 199 x 199 x 199 x 19
9 x 19
comp
9 x 16
9 x 19
comp
9 x 16
9 x 19
comp
9 x 16
9 x 19
comp
9 x 16
9 x 19
comp
9 x 16
9 x 19
comp
9 x 16
9 x 19
comp
9 x 16
9 x 19
comp
9 x 16
9 x 19
comp
9 x 16
9 x 19
comp
9 x 16
9 x 19
comp
9 x 16
9 x 19
comp
9 x 16
9 x 19
comp
9 x 16
9 x 19
comp
9 x 16
9 x 19
comp
9 x 16
9 x 19
comp
9 x 16
9 x 19
comp
9 x 16
9 x 19
comp
9 x 16
9 x 19
comp
9 x 16
9 x 19
comp
9 x 16
9 x 19
comp
9 x 16
9 x 19
comp
9 x 16
9 x 19
comp
9 x 16
9 x 19
comp
9 x 16
9 x 19
comp
9 x 16
9 x 19
comp
9 x 16
9 x 19
comp
9 x 16
9 x 19
comp
9 x 16
9 x 199 x 199 x 199 x 199 x 199 x 199 x 199 x 199 x 19
9 x 19 9 x 19 9 x 199 x 19 9 x 19 9 x 19 9 x 19 9 x 19 9 x 19 9 x 19
comp
9 x 16
9 x 19
comp
9 x 16
9 x 19
comp
9 x 16
9 x 19
comp
9 x 16
9 x 19
comp
9 x 16
9 x 19
comp
9 x 16
9 x 199 x 19
comp9 x 16
9 x 19
9 x 19
comp
9 x 16
25'
25'25'
25'
CITY HOTEL
4
com
p
9 x
1
6
com
p
9 x
1
6
com
p
9 x
1
6
com
p
9 x
1
6
com
p
9 x
1
6
com
p
9 x
1
6
com
p
9 x
1
6
com
p
9 x
1
6
com
p
9 x
1
6
com
p
9 x
1
6
comp
9 x 16
9 x 199 x 199 x 19
9 x 189 x 18 9 x 189 x 189 x 18 9 x 189 x 189 x 18 9 x 189 x 189 x 18 9 x 189 x 18
9 x
1
8
9 x
1
8
9 x
1
8
9 x
1
8
9 x
1
8
9 x
1
8
9 x
1
8
9 x 189 x 18
9 x 18 9 x 18 9 x 18 9 x 18 9 x 18 9 x 18 9 x 18 9 x 18 9 x 18 9 x 18 9 x 18 9 x 18 9 x 18 9 x 18 9 x 18 9 x 18 9 x 18 9 x 18 9 x 18 9 x 18 9 x 18 9 x 18
9 x 18 9 x 18 9 x 18 9 x 18 9 x 18 9 x 18 9 x 18 9 x 18 9 x 189 x 18 9 x 18 9 x 18
9 x 18 9 x 189 x 189 x 18 9 x 189 x 189 x 18 9 x 189 x 189 x 18 9 x 189 x 189 x 189 x 18
9 x
1
8
9 x
1
8
9 x
1
8
9 x
1
8
9 x
1
8
9 x
1
8
9 x
1
8
+154'
+152'+154'+158' 4"
5%
+/-82 RESIDENTIAL
STALLS ENCLOSED
11
9
18
7
22
7
9 x 18
5
3
MECH
B1 LL PARKING
82 PARKING STALLS
248 TOTAL SITE 2
9 x 189 x 18
MECHSTOR
+152'5%
9 x 18 9 x 18
A1.0FLOOR PLAN: LEVEL B1 PARKING
CONCEPTUAL DESIGNFULLERTON APARTMENT & HOTEL
N
0'10'20'40'80'
REFERENCE ONLY FOR
CEQA STUDY
Source: TAG Design Works, TA Partners 2022
(10/11/2022 MMD) R:\Projects\Client\3FUL020102\Graphics\ex_Site Plan.pdf
D:\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
c
l
i
e
n
t
\
3
F
U
L
0
2
0
1
0
2
\
G
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
\
e
x
_
S
i
t
e
P
l
a
n
_
A
1
.
2
_
2
0
2
2
1
0
1
1
.
a
i
Parkwest Project
Site Plan (Level 2)Exhibit 3-1c
A B C D E F G
27'-6"17'-0"
PHJKLMNO
18'
-
0
"
1
1.5
2
4
6
7
3
31'
-
0
"
16'
-
0
"
18'
-
0
"
16'
-
0
"
15'-6"29'-0"29'-0"29'-0"29'-0"29'-0"29'-0"29'-0"29'-0"29'-0"29'-0"29'-0"29'-0"
Q
31'
-
0
"
5
5%+175'
+175'+175'
SECOND FLOOR
123 PARKING STALLS
8 COMPACT 7%
15
36
31
+/-123 RESIDENTIAL
STALLS ENCLOSED
+175'+169' 9"
17
TR
15
9 x
1
9
9 x
1
9
9 x
1
9
3.5
15'
-
0
"
15'
-
0
"
27
storage
9 x 199 x 199 x 19
9 x 199 x 199 x 19
9 x 199 x 199 x 19
9 x 199 x 199 x 19
9 x 199 x 199 x 19
9 x 19 9 x 19 9 x 19
9 x 199 x 199 x 19
9 x 19
9 x 19 9 x 19 9 x 19
9 x 199 x 199 x 19
9 x 199 x 199 x 19
9 x 199 x 199 x 19
9 x 199 x 199 x 19
9 x 199 x 199 x 19
9 x 19 9 x 19 9 x 19
9 x 199 x 199 x 19
9 x 199 x 199 x 19
9 x 19 9 x 19 9 x 19
9 x 199 x 199 x 19
9 x 199 x 19
9 x 19 9 x 19 9 x 19
9 x 199 x 199 x 19
9 x 199 x 199 x 19
9 x 19 9 x 19 9 x 19
9 x 199 x 199 x 19
9 x 199 x 199 x 19
9 x 19 9 x 19 9 x 19
9 x 199 x 199 x 19
9 x
1
9
9 x
1
9
9 x
1
9
9 x
1
9
9 x
1
9
9 x
1
9
9 x
1
9
9
comp9 x 16
9 x 19
comp9 x 16
9 x 19
comp9 x 16
9 x 19
comp9 x 16
9 x 19
comp9 x 16
9 x 19
comp9 x 16
9 x 19
9 x 19
9 x 199 x 199 x 199 x 199 x 199 x 199 x 199 x 199 x 199 x 199 x 199 x 199 x 199 x 199 x 199 x 199 x 19
retail
below
lobby
below
storage storage storage storage storage
com
p
9 x
1
6
com
p
9 x
1
6
25'
25'
25'25'
25'
20'
RES
POOL
ABOVE
9 x
1
8
9 x
1
8
9 x
1
8
9 x
1
8
9 x
1
8
9 x
1
8
9 x 18 9 x 18 9 x 18 9 x 18 9 x 18
9 x 18 9 x 189 x 189 x 18 9 x 189 x 189 x 18 9 x 189 x 189 x 18 9 x 189 x 189 x 189 x 18
+178'
+174' 8"+178'5%
+/-88 RESIDENTIAL
STALLS ENCLOSED
8
6
18
7
22
7
11
9 x 18 9 x 18 9 x 189 x 18 9 x 18 9 x 18
+170' 4"
9
5%
SECOND FLOOR\
88 PARKING STALLS
9 x 189 x 18
9 x 18 9 x 18 9 x 18
+176'5%+178'
9 x
1
8
9 x 19 9 x 19 9 x 199 x 19 9 x 19 9 x 199 x 19 9 x 19 9 x 199 x 19 9 x 19 9 x 199 x 19 9 x 19 9 x 199 x 199 x 199 x 19 9 x 19
9 x
1
9
9 x
1
9
9 x
1
9
9 x
1
9
9 x
1
9
9 x
1
9
9 x
1
9
9 x 199 x 19 9 x 199 x 199 x 19 9 x 199 x 199 x 19 9 x 199 x 199 x 19 9 x 19 9 x 199 x 19 9 x 199 x 199 x 19 9 x 199 x 19 9 x 19
MECH
9 x 18 9 x 18
9 x 18
9 x 199 x 19
A1.2FLOOR PLAN: MEZZANINE PARKING
CONCEPTUAL DESIGNFULLERTON APARTMENT & HOTEL
N
0'10'20'40'80'
REFERENCE ONLY FOR
CEQA STUDY
Source: TAG Design Works, TA Partners 2022
(10/11/2022 MMD) R:\Projects\Client\3FUL020102\Graphics\ex_Site Plan.pdf
D:\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
c
l
i
e
n
t
\
3
F
U
L
0
2
0
1
0
2
\
G
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
\
e
x
_
S
i
t
e
P
l
a
n
_
A
1
.
3
_
2
0
2
2
1
0
1
1
.
a
i
Parkwest Project
Site Plan (Level 3)Exhibit 3-1d
TYPICAL 4-7
TR
Fl. 2 - Hotel
Hotel Meeting and Service Area
16273 SF
fitness
kitchen
dining
meeting
rm 1
meeting
rm 2
st.laundrymeeting
rm 3
m.w.br.
bar
Spa
Hotel
Courtyard
Resi/gym
1800 SF
Resi/lounge
1550 SF Pool Spa
01 06
02
04 05
08
13
12
Apt
Courtyard
Apt
Courtyard
Fl. 2 - Apartment
24 units/Fl.
Studio-5 + 1Bed-17 + 2Bed-2/Fl.
Total units-24
Gym+Lounge = 3597 SF
THIRD FLOOR
Resi/gym
1320 SF
Resi/lounge
1500 SF
Pool0106
04 05 08
02
13 Apt
Courtyard
Project Amenity
1. Social Lounge with Chef Kitchen
2. Outdoor Cabanas
3. Outdoor Pet Area
4. Indoor/Outdoor Fitness Center
5. Yoga Studio
6. Game Room
7. Play Ground
8. Outdoor BBQ
9. Bike Storage with Elect Charging Station
10. Putting Green
11. Pet Wash
12. Nature Garden
13. Business Center
A1.3FLOOR PLAN: LEVEL 2
CONCEPTUAL DESIGNFULLERTON APARTMENT & HOTEL
UNIT TYPE LEGEND
HOTEL KING HOTEL LARGE KING
HOTEL DOUBLE QUEEN HOTEL SUITE
HOTEL LARGE SUITE
APT. STUDIO APT. 1 BEDROOM
APT. 2 BEDROOM APT. 2 BEDROOM 2
N
0'10'20'40'80'
REFERENCE ONLY FOR
CEQA STUDY
Source: TAG Design Works, TA Partners 2022
(10/11/2022 MMD) R:\Projects\Client\3FUL020102\Graphics\ex_Site Plan.pdf
D:\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
c
l
i
e
n
t
\
3
F
U
L
0
2
0
1
0
2
\
G
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
\
e
x
_
S
i
t
e
P
l
a
n
_
A
1
.
4
_
2
0
2
2
1
0
1
1
.
a
i
Parkwest Project
Site Plan (Level 4 to 7)Exhibit 3-1e
K
DQ
DQ
K
K
K
KDQDQKKK KDQDQK
KK KDQDQK DQDQDQ
K
K
serv.
TYPICAL 4-7
TR
Fl. 3-6 - Hotel
31 units/Fl.
Reg Stuite-28 + Lg Suite-3
Total units-124
Fl. 3-6 - Apartment
29 units/Fl.
Studio-7 + 1Bed-20 + 2Bed-2/Fl.
Total units-116
Note: all 6th floor units are with loft
K
suite
LK
large
suite
TYPICAL 4-7
A1.4FLOOR PLAN: LEVEL 3 TO 6
CONCEPTUAL DESIGNFULLERTON APARTMENT & HOTEL
UNIT TYPE LEGEND
HOTEL KING HOTEL LARGE KING
HOTEL DOUBLE QUEEN HOTEL SUITE
HOTEL LARGE SUITE
APT. STUDIO APT. 1 BEDROOM
APT. 2 BEDROOM APT. 2 BEDROOM 2
N
0'10'20'40'80'
REFERENCE ONLY FOR
CEQA STUDY
Source: TAG Design Works, TA Partners 2022
(10/11/2022 MMD) R:\Projects\Client\3FUL020102\Graphics\ex_Site Plan.pdf
D:\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
c
l
i
e
n
t
\
3
F
U
L
0
2
0
1
0
2
\
G
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
\
e
x
_
S
i
t
e
P
l
a
n
_
A
1
.
5
_
2
0
2
2
1
0
1
1
.
a
i
Parkwest Project
Site Plan (Roof)Exhibit 3-1f
loft mezzanine
A1.5FLOOR PLAN: ROOF
CONCEPTUAL DESIGNFULLERTON APARTMENT & HOTEL
N
0'10'20'40'80'
HOTEL ROOFTOP
BAR/ LOUNGE
ROOF AREA
Source: TAG Design Works, TA Partners 2022
(10/11/2022 MMD) R:\Projects\Client\3FUL020102\Graphics\ex_Building Elevations.pdf
D:\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
c
l
i
e
n
t
\
3
F
U
L
0
2
0
1
0
2
\
G
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
\
e
x
_
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
i
o
n
s
_
A
2
.
1
_
2
0
2
2
1
0
1
1
.
a
i
Parkwest Project
Building Elevations Exhibit 3-2a
Level 10' - 0"
Mezzanine12' - 0"
Level 222' - 0"
Level 332' - 0"
Level 442' - 0"
Roof deck72' - 0"
Level 552' - 0"
Level 662' - 0"
12'
10'
10'
10'
10'
10'
10'
72'
Level B1-11' - 0"
11
'
10'-
0
"
Level 10' - 0"
Mezzanine12' - 0"
Level 222' - 0"
Level 332' - 0"
Level 442' - 0"
Roof Deck80' - 0"
Level 552' - 0"
Level 6 with mezzanine62' - 0"
12'
10'
10'
10'
10'
10
'
18'
80'
Level B1-11' - 0"
11
'
5'85' - 0"
Parapet for
mech. screen
A2.1BUILDING ELEVATION
CONCEPTUAL DESIGNFULLERTON APARTMENT & HOTEL
LIGHT SAND FINISH STUCCO LIGHT GREY LIGHT SAND FINISH STUCCO DARK GREY LIGHT SAND FINISH STUCCO BEIGE WOOD SIDING WOOD SCREEN WALL54321 BRICK VENEER6 METAL SIDING SEAMED7
NORTH ELEVATION
SANTA FE AVE.
Source: TAG Design Works, TA Partners 2022
(10/11/2022 MMD) R:\Projects\Client\3FUL020102\Graphics\ex_Building Elevations.pdf
D:\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
c
l
i
e
n
t
\
3
F
U
L
0
2
0
1
0
2
\
G
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
\
e
x
_
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
i
o
n
s
_
A
2
.
2
_
2
0
2
2
1
0
1
1
.
a
i
Parkwest Project
Building Elevations Exhibit 3-2b
Level 10' - 0"
Mezzanine12' - 0"
Level 222' - 0"
Level 332' - 0"
Level 442' - 0"
Roof deck72' - 0"
Level 552' - 0"
Level 662' - 0"
12'
10
'
10'
10'
10
'
10'
10'
72'
Level B1-11' - 0"
11'
10'-
0
"
Level 10' - 0"
Level Mezz.12' - 0"
Level 222' - 0"
Level 332' - 0"
Level 442' - 0"
Roof Deck80' - 0"
Level 552' - 0"
Level 6 with mezzanine62' - 0"
12'
10'
10'
10
'
10'
10
'
18'
80'
Level B1-11' - 0"
11
'
Parapet for
mech. screen
85' - 0"5'
A2.2BUILDING ELEVATIONS
CONCEPTUAL DESIGNFULLERTON APARTMENT & HOTEL
LIGHT SAND FINISH STUCCO LIGHT GREY LIGHT SAND FINISH STUCCO DARK GREY LIGHT SAND FINISH STUCCO BEIGE WOOD SIDING WOOD SCREEN WALL54321 BRICK VENEER6 METAL SIDING SEAMED7
WEST ELEVATION
POMONA AVE
EAST ELEVATION
RAILROADSANTA FE AVE.RAILROAD SANTA FE AVE.
Source: TAG Design Works, TA Partners 2022
(10/11/2022 MMD) R:\Projects\Client\3FUL020102\Graphics\ex_Building Elevations.pdf
D:\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
c
l
i
e
n
t
\
3
F
U
L
0
2
0
1
0
2
\
G
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
\
e
x
_
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
i
o
n
s
_
A
2
.
3
_
2
0
2
2
1
0
1
1
.
a
i
Parkwest Project
Building Elevations Exhibit 3-2c
8'-0
"
Level 10' - 0"
Level Mezz.12' - 0"
Level 222' - 0"
Level 332' - 0"
Level 442' - 0"
Roof Deck80' - 0"
Level 552' - 0"
Level 6 with mezzanine62' - 0"
12'
10
'
10'
10'
10
'
10'
18
'
80'
Level B1-11' - 0"
11'
Parapet for
mech. screen
85' - 0"5'
Level 10' - 0"
Mezzanine12' - 0"
Level 222' - 0"
Level 332' - 0"
Level 442' - 0"
Roof deck72' - 0"
Level 552' - 0"
Level 662' - 0"
12'
10
'
10'
10'
10
'
10'
10'
72
'
Level B1-11' - 0"
11'
A2.3BUILDING ELEVATION
CONCEPTUAL DESIGNFULLERTON APARTMENT & HOTEL
LIGHT SAND FINISH STUCCO LIGHT GREY LIGHT SAND FINISH STUCCO DARK GREY LIGHT SAND FINISH STUCCO BEIGE WOOD SIDING WOOD SCREEN WALL54321 BRICK VENEER6 METAL SIDING SEAMED7
SOUTH ELEVATION
RAILROAD
Project Description
3-2 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
TABLE 3-2
SITE 2 – RESIDENTIAL UNITS
Levels
1-Bedroom
Units
(55%)
2-Bedroom
Units
(7%)
Studio
Apartments
(38%) Total
Level 1 - - - -
Level 2 16 2 8 26
Level 3 16 2 12 30
Level 4 16 2 12 30
Level 5 16 2 12 30
Level 6 16 2 12 30
Total 80 10 56 146
Source: Parkwest 2022
3.2 HOTEL LAND USE
The Project proposes a total of 124 hotel rooms, including 28 regular suites and 3 large suites
for a total of 31 units per floor. For a breakdown of rooms per level, please refer to Table 3-4,
below.
TABLE 3-3
SITE 1 – HOTEL ROOMS
Levels Rooms
Level 1 -
Level 2 -
Level 3 31
Level 4 31
Level 5 31
Level 6 31
Total 124
Source: Parkwest 2022
3.3 RETAIL USES
The Project proposes a total of 3,570 square feet of retail in Site 1. The retail use may consist of
a café at the southeast corner of South Pomona Avenue and East Santa Fe Avenue.
3.4 PROJECT AMENITIES
The proposed Project will include a total of 14,052 square feet of amenities (i.e., 7,397 square
feet in Site 1 and 6,655 square feet in Site 2). The proposed amenities include social lounge with
chef kitchen; outdoor cabanas; outdoor pet area; indoor/outdoor fitness center; yoga studio;
game room; playground; outdoor BBQ; bike storage with electrical vehicle (EV) charging station;
putting green; pet wash; nature garden; and business center.
Project Description
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 3-3
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
3.5 PARKING
The Parkwest Project would provide 660 on-site parking spaces/stalls, including 412
spaces/stalls in Site 1 and 248 stalls in Site 2. The Project would implement innovative parking
techniques to create an efficient and user-friendly parking system, as described below. A
breakdown of parking is shown below, in Tables 3-5 through 3-7.
• Implement a shared parking system to maximize the efficiency of the parking.
• Implement a Parking Management Plan to ensure the efficient use of available parking
spaces.
• Provide parking for retail and hotel uses within the parking facilities.
TABLE 3-4
SITE 1 – PROPOSED PARKING BREAKDOWN
Land Use Spaces
City Parking 138 (37 surface, 101 covered)
Residential Parking 150
Hotel + Retail Parking 124
Total 412
Source: Parkwest 2022
TABLE 3-5
SITE 2 – PROPOSED PARKING BREAKDOWN
Land Use Spaces
Residential Parking 248
Total 248
Source: Parkwest 2022
3.6 PRIVATE OPEN SPACE
A minimum of 50 square feet of common open space is required per dwelling unit. Therefore, for
a development consisting of 140 units, a total of 7,000 sf of common open space would be
required. The Project (Site 1) exceeds this requirement by providing approximately, 10,280 sf
common space.
3.7 LIGHTING
Lighting on the site would be provided following all necessary city code and Occupational Safety
and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements. Additionally, the proposed Project being a part
of the FTC Specific Plan area, would comply with lighting standards of the Specific Plan
document. Compliance would be required and verified during the entitlement process.
Project Description
3-4 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
3.8 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
Construction activities are anticipated to begin in 4th quarter of 2023 through 2nd quarter of
2025, for a total of approximately 20 months. Construction activity would occur for 8 hours per
day, and 6 days per week, in accordance with the City’s permitted hours of construction.
Construction stages such as demolition, site preparation, grading/excavation, utility installation,
building construction, paving, and architectural coating may occur concurrently.
Construction of the proposed Project would require common equipment as summarized in
Table 3-2, Estimated Daily Construction Equipment, below. No blasting or pile driving would be
required. Construction equipment is expected to operate at the site during construction, as
permitted by the City of Fullerton Municipal Code (between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on any day
except Sunday or a City-recognized holiday).
TABLE 3-6
ESTIMATED DAILY CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
Construction
Subphase Equipment Type
Demolition General Demolition Equipment
Site Preparation
Excavators
Loaders
Trucks
Compaction Equipment
Water Trucks
Grading and
Excavation
Loaders
Excavators
Trucks
Compactor
Water Trucks
Building Construction Cranes
General Construction Equipment
Paving General Paving Equipment
Architectural Coating General Painting Equipment
Source: Park West Residential 2022.
3.8.1 DEMOLITION
Implementation of the Project would include demolition of the existing parking structure in Site
2, surface parking spaces, and associated improvements. Demolition activities would include
onsite crushing of concrete and pavement.
A portion of the construction and demolition (C&D) debris (65 percent) would be recycled,
reused, and/or salvaged in compliance with the California Green Building Standards Code
(CALGreen Code) and City of Fullerton Construction and Demolition Project Waste Management.
Project Description
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 3-5
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
Materials that cannot be recycled, reused, or salvaged would be transported to one of the Orange
County Waste & Recycling local landfills (i.e., Frank R. Bowerman, Prima Deshecha, or Olinda
Alpha). Any hazardous materials (e.g., asbestos-containing materials and lead-based paint)
encountered during demolition would be handled and disposed of in accordance with South
Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) rules and other pertinent regulations.
3.8.2 BUILDING CONSTRUCTION
Construction activities would utilize standard construction equipment, as shown in Table 3-2,
above. Construction activities and construction staging would mainly occur within the project
site boundaries. The general contractor would set up a staging plan and would seek 50 to 60
parking spaces for lease in the surrounding area for construction workers. Implementation of
traffic control measures during construction activities would minimize obstruction of vehicular
traffic on public roadways in the vicinity of the project site. Additionally, temporary construction
signage would be provided following all necessary city code and OSHA requirements as well as
the signage standards of the FTC Specific Plan.
During construction, fire/emergency access to the site would be maintained in compliance
with California Fire Code Chapter 33, Fire Safety during Construction and Demolition, as well
as Fullerton Fire Code.
3.9 DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS
This IS/MND is intended to serve as the primary CEQA environmental document for all actions
associated with the proposed Project, including all other approvals beyond the City’s authority
needed to implement the Project. The following discretionary approvals are required for
Project approval.
3.9.1 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
In compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Fullerton would adopt the MND,
prior to approval of the Project. The MND serves as a finding that the Project would not have a
significant effect on the environment.
3.10 MINISTERIAL APPROVALS
In addition, the following ministerial permits would be sought from the City of Fullerton:
Demolition Permit for the existing surface parking lot, parking structure, and site
improvements
Grading Permit
Building Permits
Occupancy Permits
The Project would require coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Construction General Permit from the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB).
The Project would also require a demolition permit from the SCAQMD.
Project Description
3-6 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
This page intentionally left blank
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-1
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this Project, involving
at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages.
Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry
Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology and Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources
Noise Population and Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities and Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency.)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the Project have been made by or agreed to be the
Project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant
unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in
an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because al
potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that
earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed
upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
10/11/2022
Signature Date
Bradley J. Misner, AICP, Contract Planning
City of Fullerton
Printed Name For
Environmental Checklist
4-2 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
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 will not expose sensitive receptors to p ollutants, 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 (mitigation measures from “Earlier
Analysis,” as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced).
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 Analysis 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.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
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 significance.
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-3
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
4.1 AESTHETICS
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section
21099, would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of public views of the site and
its surroundings? (Public views are those that are
experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the
project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict
with applicable zoning and other regulations governing
scenic quality?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Fullerton Transportation Center Specific Plan PEIR
The analysis in the PEIR determined that implementation of the FTC Specific Plan would change
the character of the project area with the development of high-density mixed-use buildings
within a largely lower-density commercial and industrial/manufacturing land use environment.
With implementation of PDFs 1-1 through 1-6, land uses would be developed in accordance with
standards and requirements for streets and alleys, civic spaces, buildings, architectural features,
and landscaping and would ensure no adverse aesthetics effects would occur. This impact was
considered less than significant, and no mitigation was deemed necessary.
The project would include nighttime lighting, but would not substantially affect nighttime views
(i.e., generate additional “sky glow”), as the project within an urban environment was subject to
similar lighting. With implementation of PDF 1-4 (addressing building materials), PDF 1-5
(addressing lighting requirements), and PDF 1-6 (addressing design review), the FTC Specific
Plan would ensure no adverse light or glare effects would occur.
Additionally, because the Project and cumulative projects within the same viewshed would not
degrade the visual quality of the area and surroundings and would not contribute to light and
glare impacts that would have the potential to impact surrounding use, there would be no
cumulatively considerable impacts related to aesthetics or to light and glare.
For informational purposes, the PDFs, SCs, and MMs from the PEIR are provided below.
Project Design Features
PDF 1-1 Section 4.2, Streets and Alleys, of the Regulating Code for the FTC Specific Plan
identifies improvements to the existing street and alley network that would be
implemented including: wider sidewalks, street trees, and streetscape amenities. The
Street, Alley and Bike Path Regulating Plan is shown in Exhibit 3.3-6, in Section 3,
Project Description. Trees shall be planted along Santa Fe Avenue, Pomona Avenue,
Environmental Checklist
4-4 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
Lawrence Avenue, Walnut Avenue, and Walnut Way (as described in Chapters 4.2.4
through 4.2.14 of the FTC Specific Plan). Streetscape Design Standards are identified
in Chapter 4.2.19 of the FTC Specific Plan and include requirements related to
sidewalk pavement, streetlights, and street furniture.
PDF 1-2 The Regulating Code for the FTC Specific Plan includes the following civic spaces to
be implemented within the FTC Specific Plan (refer to Section 4.3 of the FTC Specific
Plan): Transit Plaza, North Neighborhood Park, South Neighborhood Park, Transit
Courtyard, Paseos, and Train Depot Property and Train Platforms. The Civic Space
Regulating Plan is shown in Exhibit 3.3-15, in Section 3, Project Description. A Rail
Promenade will also be provided along the north side of the BNSF corridor, as shown
in Exhibit 3.3-14. Standards for civic spaces identified include size, location, property
type, management, and maintenance.
PDF 1-3 Section 4.4, Buildings, of the Regulating Code for the FTC Specific Plan identifies the
types of buildings allowed within the project area and where the various types of
buildings are allowed to be developed (refer to Exhibit 3.3-2, Building Regulating
Plan, in Section 3, Project Description). Development standards that address aesthetic
character are identified for lot size, building placement, parking, building frontages,
building frontage elements, and height and mass.
PDF 1-4 Section 4.5, Architectural Standards and Guidelines of the Regulating Code for the FTC
Specific Plan sets forth the architectural standards for architectural style; facades,
including buildings, parking structures, and buildings that front the Transit Plaza;
exterior materials and finishes; windows and shade structures; signs; and utility and
mechanical equipment. Exterior building materials that would be used for structures
within the project area include materials such as windows with non-reflective
glazing, concrete, stucco, stone and brick masonry, steel beams and metal siding,
metal, aluminum, fiber-cement composite, wood waste/recycled plastic lumber
products, heavy timber beams, tile accents, and solid wood doors. The architecture of
new buildings shall be visually differentiated from nearby historic buildings and shall
be designed with architectural features that protect the historic integrity of nearby
historic structures.
PDF 1-5 Section 4.6, Landscape Standards and Guidelines, of the Regulating Code for the FTC
Specific Plan sets forth the requirements for planting; irrigation; common open
spaces; surface parking lots; paving materials; screening; site furniture; and lighting.
Required landscape features are described in Section 3, Project Description.
PDF 1-6 Section 4.1.2, Form-Based Regulations and Design Review, of the Regulating Code for
the FTC Specific Plan sets forth the design review requirements for development
applications for projects within the FTC Specific Plan area. The design review process
shall be conducted by the City of Fullerton Town Architect, a licensed architect or
architectural firm that has demonstrated experience in historic preservation and in
implementation of the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties. The Town Architect (or architectural firm) shall also be an accredited
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) professional(s). The Town
Architect shall be contracted or employed by the City to review and advise the
Director of Community Development on matters relating to the physical design
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-5
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
(including architecture, historic compatibility, sustainability, site design, signage, and
landscaping). Complete project applications shall be reviewed by City staff and the
Town Architect to determine if the project is in compliance with the goals and
objectives of the FTC Specific Plan. The Town Architect shall submit written findings
and a recommendation to the Director of Community Development or the Planning
Commission to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the project.
Standard Conditions and Requirements
SC 1-1 For streets not regulated by Section 4.2, Streets and Alleys, of the Regulating Code for
the FTC Specific Plan, and specifically the Street, Alley and Bike Path Regulating Plan,
the Property Owner/Developer shall install all street trees and plant material in the
public right-of-way pursuant to the City’s adopted Street Tree Program and
construction/planting standards. This includes, but is not limited to Commonwealth
Avenue, Harbor Boulevard, Lemon Street, and Walnut Avenue (west of Walnut Way).
All existing street trees adjacent to the project site which are missing, removed or
unhealthy, shall be replaced. The Property Owner/Developer shall provide irrigation
to street trees as required by the Director of Maintenance Services and/or Director of
Engineering.
Mitigation Measures
Although no significant impacts were identified related to visual changes during construction,
the following mitigation was recommended.
MM 1-1 Prior to commencement of construction activities, the contractor shall install a visual
barrier (e.g., green mesh fabric) along the perimeter of construction sites for vertical
construction projects. This requirement shall be included on the contractor
specifications and verified by the Community Development Department.
Existing Setting
Existing Views and Visual Character
The project site is currently developed with surface parking and a parking structure, which
provide parking for the Amtrak and Metrolink commuters. Vehicular access to the project site is
provided by East Santa Fe Avenue and South Pomona Avenue. Exhibits 4-1a through 4-1e, Site
Photographs, include photographs that depict the existing visual character of the project site.
More specifically, Views 1 through View 9 are views of the on-site surface parking lots, parking
structures, and site improvements.
View 1, looking east from the off-site surface parking lot, adjacent to the western
boundary of the Project’s southwest parcel, shows a view of the project site and existing
on-site surface parking lot. The visible surface parking currently serves Amtrak and
Metrolink commuters. On-site vegetation, including trees, signage associated with the
Amtrak Fullerton Station, and an on-site utility box are also visible from this vantage
point. The single mature oak tree within the roundabout/passenger drop off is the focal
point in this view. Views of the off-site Amtrak building, along the southern boundary of
Site Photographs Exhibit 4-1a
Parkwest Project
View 2
(09/27/2022 MMD) R:\Projects\FUL\3FUL020102\Graphics\MND\ex_SitePhoto.pdf
D:\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
3
F
U
L
\
0
2
0
1
0
2
\
G
R
A
P
H
I
C
S
\
M
N
D
\
e
x
_
S
i
t
e
P
h
o
t
o
_
A
_
2
0
2
2
0
9
2
7
.
a
i
View 1 <!
<!View 2
View 1
E Walnut Ave
S Pomona Ave
E Santa Fe Ave
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Rlwy
I 0 200100Feet
<!
<!
View 3
View 4
E Walnut Ave
S Pomona Ave
E Santa Fe Ave
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Rlwy
I 0 200100Feet
<!
<!
View 5
View 6
E Walnut Ave
S Pomona Ave
E Santa Fe Ave
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Rlwy
I 0 200100Feet
<!
<!
View 8
View 7
E Walnut Ave
S Pomona Ave
E Santa Fe Ave
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Rlwy
I 0 200100Feet
<!
View 9
E Walnut Ave
S Pomona Ave
E Santa Fe Ave
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Rlwy
I 0 200100Feet
Site Photographs Exhibit 4-1b
Parkwest Project
View 4
(09/27/2022 MMD) R:\Projects\FUL\3FUL020102\Graphics\MND\ex_SitePhoto.pdf
D:\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
3
F
U
L
\
0
2
0
1
0
2
\
G
R
A
P
H
I
C
S
\
M
N
D
\
e
x
_
S
i
t
e
P
h
o
t
o
_
B
_
2
0
2
2
0
9
2
7
.
a
i
View 3 <!
<!View 2
View 1
E Walnut Ave
S Pomona Ave
E Santa Fe Ave
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Rlwy
I 0 200100Feet
<!
<!
View 3
View 4
E Walnut Ave
S Pomona Ave
E Santa Fe Ave
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Rlwy
I 0 200100Feet
<!
<!
View 5
View 6
E Walnut Ave
S Pomona Ave
E Santa Fe Ave
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Rlwy
I 0 200100Feet
<!
<!
View 8
View 7
E Walnut Ave
S Pomona Ave
E Santa Fe Ave
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Rlwy
I 0 200100Feet
<!
View 9
E Walnut Ave
S Pomona Ave
E Santa Fe Ave
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Rlwy
I 0 200100Feet
Site Photographs Exhibit 4-1c
Parkwest Project
View 6
(09/27/2022 MMD) R:\Projects\FUL\3FUL020102\Graphics\MND\ex_SitePhoto.pdf
D:\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
3
F
U
L
\
0
2
0
1
0
2
\
G
R
A
P
H
I
C
S
\
M
N
D
\
e
x
_
S
i
t
e
P
h
o
t
o
_
C
_
2
0
2
2
0
9
2
7
.
a
i
View 5<!
<!View 2
View 1
E Walnut Ave
S Pomona Ave
E Santa Fe Ave
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Rlwy
I 0 200100Feet
<!
<!
View 3
View 4
E Walnut Ave
S Pomona Ave
E Santa Fe Ave
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Rlwy
I 0 200100Feet
<!
<!
View 5
View 6
E Walnut Ave
S Pomona Ave
E Santa Fe Ave
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Rlwy
I 0 200100Feet
<!
<!
View 8
View 7
E Walnut Ave
S Pomona Ave
E Santa Fe Ave
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Rlwy
I 0 200100Feet
<!
View 9
E Walnut Ave
S Pomona Ave
E Santa Fe Ave
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Rlwy
I 0 200100Feet
Site Photographs Exhibit 4-1d
Parkwest Project
View 8
(09/27/2022 MMD) R:\Projects\FUL\3FUL020102\Graphics\MND\ex_SitePhoto.pdf
D:\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
3
F
U
L
\
0
2
0
1
0
2
\
G
R
A
P
H
I
C
S
\
M
N
D
\
e
x
_
S
i
t
e
P
h
o
t
o
_
D
_
2
0
2
2
0
9
2
7
.
a
i
View 7
<!
<!View 2
View 1
E Walnut Ave
S Pomona Ave
E Santa Fe Ave
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Rlwy
I 0 200100Feet
<!
<!
View 3
View 4
E Walnut Ave
S Pomona Ave
E Santa Fe Ave
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Rlwy
I 0 200100Feet
<!
<!
View 5
View 6
E Walnut Ave
S Pomona Ave
E Santa Fe Ave
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Rlwy
I 0 200100Feet
<!
<!
View 8
View 7
E Walnut Ave
S Pomona Ave
E Santa Fe Ave
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Rlwy
I 0 200100Feet
<!
View 9
E Walnut Ave
S Pomona Ave
E Santa Fe Ave
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Rlwy
I 0 200100
Feet
Site Photographs Exhibit 4-1e
Parkwest Project
(09/27/2022 MMD) R:\Projects\FUL\3FUL020102\Graphics\MND\ex_SitePhoto.pdf
D:\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
3
F
U
L
\
0
2
0
1
0
2
\
G
R
A
P
H
I
C
S
\
M
N
D
\
e
x
_
S
i
t
e
P
h
o
t
o
_
E
_
2
0
2
2
0
9
2
7
.
a
i
View 9
<!
<!View 2
View 1
E Walnut Ave
S Pomona Ave
E Santa Fe Ave
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Rlwy
I 0 200100Feet
<!
<!
View 3
View 4
E Walnut Ave
S Pomona Ave
E Santa Fe Ave
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Rlwy
I 0 200100Feet
<!
<!
View 5
View 6
E Walnut Ave
S Pomona Ave
E Santa Fe Ave
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Rlwy
I 0 200100Feet
<!
<!
View 8
View 7
E Walnut Ave
S Pomona Ave
E Santa Fe Ave
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Rlwy
I 0 200100Feet
<!
View 9
E Walnut Ave
S Pomona Ave
E Santa Fe Ave
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Rlwy
I 0 200100
Feet
Environmental Checklist
4-6 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
the Project’s southwest parcel, as well as partial view of East Santa Fe Avenue, just north
of the Project’s southwest parcel, are visible from this viewpoint. An existing lighting
fixture is visible in the foreground.
View 2, looking south from East Santa Fe Avenue, along the northern boundary of the
Project’s southwest parcel, shows a view of the on-site surface parking lot across East
Santa Fe Avenue. From this location, the off-site Amtrak building and associated Amtrak
infrastructure, partially blocked by an ornamental tree, can be seen in the southern
portion of the parcel. On-site vegetation, including trees and hedges are visible from this
view. Existing on-site light fixtures and a dumpster enclosure are also visible from this
vantage point.
View 3, looking south from the intersection of East Santa Fe Avenue and South Pomona
Avenue shows a view of an entry/exist into the project site and the Fullerton Station,
dividing the Project’s southwest and southeast parcels. The view also depicts portions of
the respective parcels’ surface parking lots. On-site ornamental landscaping and mature
trees and off-site mature trees in the background are visible. This view also shows the
on-site signage and light fixtures as well as off-site infrastructure associated with Amtrak.
View 4, looking west from the entry road into the project site, shows a view of on-site
surface parking lot within the southwest parcel. The view also shows on-site mature
ornamental trees, as well as on-site ornamental landscaping. Signage and light fixtures
associated with on-site surface parking are also visible form this viewpoint. The Amtrak
building to the south of the southwest parcel is visible in the left side of the view.
View 5, looking west from the eastern boundary of the Project’s southeast parcel, shows
views of on-site surface parking lot, and associated parking lot light fixtures. Additionally,
off-site Amtrak infrastructure is visible on the left portion of the view. The view also
shows the on-site parking garage within the Project’s northern parcel, visible behind the
ornamental street trees along East Santa Fe Avenue.
View 6, looking west from the southeast corner of the Project’s southeast parcel, shows
views of the adjacent Fullerton Train Museum and infrastructure associated with Amtrak
uses south of the project site. The on-site surface parking lot and associated light fixtures
are visible from this view. Ornamental street trees are visible in the background.
View 7, looking northeast from the intersection of East Santa Fe Avenue and South
Pomona Avenue shows a view of the Project’s northern parcel. This view shows the
existing on-site Pomona Parking Structure, and associated improvements. The parking
structure’s facades are composed of red brick and off-white stucco. The two parking
structure vehicular entry/exits facing South Pomona Avenue and the one pedestrian
entry/exist facing East Santa Fe are visible. Colorful murals beneath red brick-clad arches
decorate the vehicular entry/exits. The southwest corner of the parking structure
includes a clock tower, of white stucco and red brick, as well as an exposed stairwell, of
green colored metal. The view also shows on-site vegetation and mature palm trees.
View 8, looking southwest from the northeast corner of the Project’s northern parcel
shows views of the existing on-site Pomona Parking Structure and the adjacent surface
parking. This view depicts the eastern wall of the parking garage. On-site mature trees,
as well as off-site ornamental landscaping and mature trees in the background, are visible
from this view. A green fence and associated entry/exit gate of the private surface parking
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-7
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
lot are visible. An off-site chain-link fence extending to the parking structure is also
visible on the right portion of the view.
View 9, looking northwest from the southeast corner of the Project’s northern parcel
along East Santa Fe Avenue, shows views of the on-site Pomona Parking Structure and
on-site private surface parking lot. Also visible is the red brick-clad pedestrian entry/exit
of the parking garage. Additionally, this view shows ornamental street trees and
landscaping, signage, and light fixtures.
Impact Analysis
Would the Project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Less than Significant Impact. According to The Fullerton Plan and associated Program
Environmental Impact Report (PEIR), scenic resources and vistas in the City include views of the
West and East Coyote Hills from the southern portion of the City and distant views of the City
and surrounding region from within these areas (City of Fullerton 2012b). The project site is
located within the southeastern boundary of the City and approximately 1.9 miles southwest of
the East Coyote Hills and 3.0 miles southeast of West Coyote Hills. However, views of these scenic
vistas and hillside from the project site are obstructed by intervening development and
landscaping, and direct views are not present. Therefore, implementation of the Project would
not obstruct the views as none exists in light of existing development. Therefore, impacts related
to scenic vistas would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No Impact. Based on The Fullerton Plan and associated PEIR and review of the California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) website, there are no designated State scenic highways
within the City of Fullerton (Caltrans 2022). Additionally, based on review of Exhibit 10, Scenic
Corridors, and Exhibit 9, Rural Streets, of The Fullerton Plan PEIR, there are no City-designated
scenic corridors or rural streets near the project site; the closest scenic corridor to the project
site is Harbor Boulevard, located 0.81 mile north of the project site. There are no scenic
resources, including trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings in the vicinity of the project
site.
Therefore, the proposed Project would not have an adverse effect on scenic resources (including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway)
or a locally designated rural street or scenic corridor. There would be no impact, and no
mitigation is required.
Environmental Checklist
4-8 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that
are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an
urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project is in an urbanized area and not near any scenic
resources, as discussed above. The aerial photograph (Exhibit 1-2) previously presented, shows
the project site’s relationship to the surrounding land uses. The northern parcel is bound by a US
Postal Service office to the north and commercial/retail uses to the east. The Fullerton City
Lights, a multi-family residential development is located to the northeast. The Fullerton Amtrak
and Metrolink Station and associated railroad infrastructure and the Fullerton Train Museum
are adjacent to the Project’s southern boundary along the southeastern and southwestern
parcels, with commercial uses south of the transit depot. Due to the developed nature and flat
topography of the project area, views of the project site are limited to immediately adjacent
vantage points, as further described below. However, given the views are from public and not
private vantage points, only views from East Santa Fe Avenue, South Pomona Avenue, East
Commonwealth Avenue, Lemon Street, and Amtrak/Metrolink experienced by transient users
(i.e., passengers in vehicles and train and pedestrians) would be considered. There are no other
public land uses such as public parks and trails that would have views of the project site. The
City protects scenic character and visual resources through implementation of the Fullerton
Zoning Code (Municipal Code Title 15), which provides specific development standards with
which the Project complies.
Visual Changes
During demolition and construction activities on the project site, views of construction
equipment; ongoing demolition and construction activities; short-term stockpiles of building
materials and debris; and haul trucks delivering building materials and removing debris would
be visible from surrounding area. These views are typical of construction sites in an urban
environment and temporary in nature. Project construction is anticipated to occur for a total of
five months. Additionally, construction staging would occur within the Project’s boundaries and
screened with a temporary fence. With implementation of standard conditions of approval
(COAs) AES-1 through AES-3, visual impacts associated with construction activities would be
reduced. Impacts would be less than significant.
Once construction is completed, the proposed Project would alter views of the project site
by replacing the existing parking structure and surface parking lots with apartment units, hotel,
retail, restaurant, and parking in Site 1, and apartment units and parking in Site 2, as shown on
Exhibits 4-2a and Exhibit 4-2b, Photo Simulations. While the visual character of the project site
would be modified from a surface parking lot to multi-story structures, given the urban character
of the area, the mixed-use nature of land uses, and the quality of the proposed uses on the site,
potential impacts would not be significant.
Furthermore, while the existing on-site trees which are currently part of the site’s ornamental
parking lot landscaping would be removed to accommodate the Project, the proposed Project
would replace existing on-site landscaping with trees, shrubs, and groundcover throughout the
project site, and in common open space areas of the project site. Considering this, views of the
site from the adjacent roadways would be of a high-quality development with landscaping.
Exhibit 4-2a
Parkwest Project
Photo Simulations – Site View 1
(09/27/2022 SAK) R:\Projects\3FUL020102\Graphics\Ex4-2a_Site View.pdf
D:\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
3
F
U
L
\
0
2
0
1
0
2
\
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
\
M
N
D
\
e
x
_
S
i
t
e
V
i
e
w
1
.
a
i
Source: TAG Design Works/TA Partners 2022
Fullerton Site View 1: Before and After
Before:
After:
Exhibit 4-2b
Parkwest Project
Photo Simulations – Site View 2
(09/27/2022 SAK) R:\Projects\3FUL020102\Graphics\Ex4-2b_Site View.pdf
D:\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
3
F
U
L
\
0
2
0
1
0
2
\
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
\
M
N
D
\
e
x
_
S
i
t
e
V
i
e
w
2
.
a
i
Source: TAG Design Works/TA Partners 2022
Fullerton Site View 2: Before and After
Before:
After:
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-9
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
In light of the above, while the visual character of the site would be modified, this change would
not be considered a degradation of the project site or its surroundings. The new development
would replace the existing parking garage and asphalt parking lot and increase visual interest
and character of the site with quality design and landscaping. All service areas would be screened
from view from public areas with shrubs or vertical structures. Additionally, all mechanical
equipment would be placed out of view on the roof, internally, or would be screened adequately.
In designing the proposed Project as part of the FTC Specific Plan, consideration would be given
to scale, massing, and architecture of the Project to ensure that it complements the existing
development surrounding the project site. The proposed architecture would result in a high-
quality development in a compatible environment. Renderings of the project site can be seen on
Exhibit 4-2a and Exhibit 4-2b. Additionally, it should be noted that the design review, required
in the FTC Specific Plan, would ensure that the proposed Project is in compliance with the
provisions of the Specific Plan (Regulatory Requirement [RR] AES-1).
In the absence of scenic resources in the vicinity of the site, the Project would not conflict with
applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality and resources. Impacts would
be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
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. The project site is in an area that is already subject to significant
ambient nighttime lighting from onsite and surrounding uses, including existing buildings,
streetlights along East Santa Fe Avenue and South Pomona Avenue, lighting at the train depot,
security lighting, and more.
With the demolition of the existing parking structure, surface parking lots, and associated
improvements and construction of the proposed Project, new light sources would be provided
with the proposed multi-family residential buildings, hotel, retail, restaurant, and parking uses.
This would change lighting levels at the project site but would be consistent with the ambient
and night-time lighting at the commercial uses surrounding the site.
However, all lighting installed for the Project would be subject to compliance with the provisions
of the FTC Specific Plan, which provide standards for the type and extent of lighting in the project
area. In accordance with the provisions of the FTC Specific Plan, outdoor lighting associated with
the proposed uses would provide sufficient illumination for access and security purposes.
Lighting would be directed and shielded away from sensitive uses, even though except for the
existing Fullerton City Lights apartments—located to the northeast of the northern parcel—no
other residential uses exist adjacent to the project site. Lighting would be designed to ensure
that it does not cause a distraction or nuisance for vehicle traffic Additionally, the Fullerton
Municipal Code (FMC) also requires all lighting to illuminate parking areas be arranged such that
would reflect the light and glare away from adjacent properties. This is generally accomplished
with shielding and directional lighting methods. All future development projects would undergo
site plan review to ensure compliance with the development standards and design guidelines of
the FTC Specific Plan. Due to the urban nature of the project site and existing lighting near the
project site, impacts associated with new lighting from the proposed Project would be less than
significant, and no mitigation is required.
Environmental Checklist
4-10 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
Glare is a common daytime phenomenon and is due mainly to the occurrence of a high number
of days per year with direct sunlight and the presence of large reflective surfaces. Excessive glare
not only restricts visibility but also increases the ambient heat reflectivity in a given area. Glare
is caused by light reflections from pavement, vehicles, and building materials such as reflective
glass and polished surfaces. During daylight hours, the amount of glare depends on intensity and
direction of sunlight. Glare can create hazards to motorists and nuisances for pedestrians and
other viewers. The proposed Project would be constructed with primarily non-reflective
materials in compliance with provisions of the FTC Specific Plan, such as clear non-reflective
glass, concrete, stucco, stone and brick masonry, steel beams and metal siding, metal, aluminum,
fiber-cement composite, wood waste/recycled plastic lumber products, heavy timber beams, tile
accents, and solid wood doors. Lighted signs incorporated within the proposed Project would
also comply with the requirements of the FTC Specific Plan. Impacts would be less than
significant, and no mitigation is required.
Standard Conditions of Approval
The following mitigation measures are from The Fullerton Plan PEIR and will be implemented
as conditions of approval (COAs) for the proposed Project.
COA AES-1 For future development located in or immediately adjacent to residentially zoned
properties, construction documents shall include language that requires all
construction contractors to strictly control the staging of construction equipment
and the cleanliness of construction equipment stored or driven beyond the limits
of the construction work area. Construction equipment shall be parked and staged
within the project site, as distant from the residential use, as reasonably possible.
Staging areas shall be screened from view from residential properties.
COA AES-2 Construction documents shall include language requiring that construction
vehicles be kept clean and free of mud and dust prior to leaving the development
site. Streets surrounding the development site shall be swept daily and
maintained free of dirt and debris.
COA AES-3 Construction worker parking may be located off-site with prior approval by the
City. On-street parking of construction worker vehicles on residential streets shall
be prohibited.
Mitigation Measures
Project implementation would not result in significant impacts related to Aesthetics; therefore,
no mitigation measures are required.
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-11
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland
of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,
to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of,
forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section
12220[g]), timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code Section
51104[g])?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest
land to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion
of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
Fullerton Transportation Center Specific Plan PEIR
This topic was focused out from detail analysis in the PEIR because it was determined that the
site was not located on or near designated agricultural land, nor was it in agricultural use. The
site was not under a Williamson Act Contract. As such, no impact would occur.
No PDFs, SCs, or MMs were identified nor required.
Impact Analysis
Would the Project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in
Public Resources Code Section 12220[g]), timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code Section 51104[g])?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Environmental Checklist
4-12 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
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. The project site is in an urbanized area and would not convert farmland to a non-
agricultural use. Based on review of the Orange County Important Farmland Map, prepared by
the California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
(FMMP), there are no lands designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance on or near the project site (FMMP 2022). The project site is classified as
“Urban and Built-Up Land” and is not being used, nor anticipated to be used or zoned for
agricultural purposes. The site is not subject to a Williamson Act contract, and it does not contain
Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Additionally, no forest land occurs on the
project site or in the surrounding area. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in the
conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-
agricultural uses. In addition, the project site does not contain designated forest land or
timberland, as defined in the California Public Resources Code (Section 12220[g] and 4526,
respectively) (OLC 2020). Therefore, no impacts to agricultural resources, forest land, or
timberland would result from Project implementation, and no mitigation is required.
Standard Conditions of Approval
None has been identified.
Mitigation Measures
Project implementation would not result in significant impacts related to Agriculture and
Forestry Resources; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-13
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
4.3 AIR QUALITY
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
air quality plan?
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors
adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Fullerton Transportation Center Specific Plan PEIR
Based on the analysis in the PEIR, short-term regional mass daily construction emissions would
be less than the SCAQMD thresholds. No mitigation would be required. During the periods of
mass grading and excavation, particulate emissions from the project site would have the
potential for a short-term exceedance of the 24-hour PM10 and PM2.5 ambient air quality
standards at the nearest residences. Implementation of MM 2-1 would provide additional
reductions, but this temporary, local impact would be significant and unavoidable. Therefore, the
Project would have the potential to violate the 24-hour PM10 and PM2.5 standards at nearby
receptors at some periods during the mass grading phase of the Project. Long-term operational
emissions would be less than the SCAQMD thresholds for all pollutants except VOC, NOx, and
PM10. There were no feasible mitigation measures to reduce emissions from principal
contributor to the projected VOC exceedance, the use of consumer products. While building
design and implementation of MM-2 would reduce VOC, NOx and PM10 emissions, these
reductions could not be accurately quantified. Therefore, the Project would contribute
substantially to existing occasional violations of the O3 and PM10 standards.
Construction of the Project would not cumulatively contribute to an increase of PM10, PM2.5,
VOC, or NOx. Operation of the FTC Specific Plan (under buildout conditions) would result in a
cumulatively considerable increase in VOC and NOx emissions. The impact would be significant
and unavoidable.
While Project traffic would increase congestion at some signalized intersections, the traffic
volumes would not be of the magnitude to cause CO emissions that would approach a standard
or expose persons to substantial CO concentrations. No mitigation would be required. During the
construction period, the Project could expose nearby residents to PM10 and PM2.5
concentrations in excess of 24-hour standards. SC 2-1 and MM 2-1 would reduce exposure, but
these reductions could not be quantified, and the impact would remain significant and
unavoidable. Exposure to CO, NO2, and TACs would be less than significant. Construction
emissions would be short-term and less than significant. Emissions during operation from on-
site sources, including the Fullerton Fire Station, diesel trucks, and restaurant cooking, and from
off-site emissions from diesel trucks and railroad engines would not be of a magnitude to expose
Environmental Checklist
4-14 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
persons to substantial TAC concentrations. Implementation of MM 2-2 would assure that
exposure to TAC emissions to future nearby residents would be less than significant.
The Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the AQMP because projected
exceedances of SCAQMD CEQA significance thresholds for long-term mass emissions associated
with the Project would be offset, with respect to AQMP projections, by reduced emissions
resulting from reduced VMT compared to VMT that could occur with development under
planning build-out assumption for the City.
Lastly, the Project would have a less than significant impact related to objectionable odors
affecting a substantial number of people.
For informational purposes, the SCs, and MMs from the PEIR are provided below.
Standard Conditions and Requirements
SC 2-1 Dust Control. During construction of the proposed Project, the Contractor shall be
required to comply with SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403, which shall assist in reducing
short-term air pollutant emissions. SCAQMD Rule 402 requires that air pollutant
emissions not be a nuisance off site. SCAQMD Rule 403 (Tables 1, 2, and 3 of Rule 403)
requires that fugitive dust be controlled with the best available control measures so
that the presence of such dust does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the
property line of the emission source. This requirement shall be included as notes on
the contractor specifications.
SC 2-2 Architectural Coatings. Architectural coatings shall be selected so that the VOC
content of the coatings is compliant with SCAQMD Rule 1113. This requirement shall
be included as notes on the contractor specifications.
Mitigation Measures
Construction-related (Short-Term) Impacts
MM 2-1 Dust Control Barriers. Prior to grading activities for large excavations, such as
underground parking areas, each Property Owner/Developer shall erect a dust
control barrier adjacent to the excavation site when there are residential receptors
within 250 feet of the excavation. The barrier shall be solid, thereby preventing dust
transmission through the barrier, and at least six feet tall. Where feasible, openings
in the barrier to allow equipment access shall be located on the side of the excavation
furthest from sensitive receptors.
Operational (Long-Term) Impacts
MM 2-2 Exposure to TAC. Prior to the approval of a building permit for residential uses within
300 feet of the White Bear Cleaners, located at 122 North Lemon Street, the Property
Owner/Developer shall conduct a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) to demonstrate that
the maximum incremental cancer risk would not exceed 10 in one million and the
chronic and acute health indices would be less than 1.0. If residential occupancy is
proposed to start after December 31, 2020, the HRA is not required.
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-15
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
Introduction
Existing Setting
The project site is located in the Orange County portion of the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB),
and, for air quality regulation and permitting, is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air
Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The SoCAB is a 6,600-square-mile area bound by the
Pacific Ocean to the west; the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the
north and east; and the San Diego County line to the south. The SoCAB includes all of Orange
County and the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties, in
addition to the San Gorgonio Pass area of Riverside County. The SoCAB’s terrain and
geographical location (i.e., a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills) determine
its distinctive semi-arid climate, which is characterized by moderate temperatures, oceanic
influence, and precipitation that is limited to a few storms during the winter (i.e., November
through April).
Air Quality Background Information
The SCAQMD has established quantitative thresholds for short-term (construction) emissions
and long-term (operational) emissions for the following criteria pollutants: ozone, carbon
monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter 10 and 2.5 microns. The
characteristics and health effects of these criteria pollutants are described below:
Ozone (O3) is a nearly colorless gas that is formed by photochemical reaction (when
nitrogen dioxide is broken down by sunlight). Ground-level O3 exposure can cause a
variety of health problems, including lung irritation, wheezing, coughing, pain when
taking a deep breath, and breathing difficulties during exercise or outdoor activities;
permanent lung damage; aggravated asthma; and increased susceptibility to respiratory
illnesses.
Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless and odorless toxic gas which, in the urban
environment, is associated primarily with the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels in
motor vehicles. CO combines with hemoglobin in the bloodstream and reduces the
amount of oxygen that can be circulated through the body. High CO concentrations can
lead to headaches, aggravation of cardiovascular disease, and impairment of central
nervous system functions.
Nitrogen oxides (NOx) are yellowish-brown gases, which at high levels can cause
breathing difficulties. NOx are formed when nitric oxide (a pollutant from internal
combustion processes) combines with oxygen.
Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is a colorless, pungent gas formed primarily by the combustion of
sulfur-containing fossil fuels. Health effects include acute respiratory symptoms and
difficulty in breathing for children.
Particulate Matter 10 (PM10) and Particulate Matter 2.5 (PM2.5) refer to particulate
matter less than ten microns and two and one-half microns in diameter, respectively.
Particulates of this size cause a greater health risk than larger-sized particles since fine
particles can more easily cause irritation. Particulate matter includes both aerosols and
solid particles. An example of particulate matter is fugitive dust. Short-term exposure to
high PM2.5 levels is associated with premature mortality and increased hospital
Environmental Checklist
4-16 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
admissions and emergency room visits. Long-term exposure to high PM2.5 levels is
associated with premature mortality and development of chronic respiratory disease.
Short-term exposure to high PM10 levels is associated with hospital admissions for
cardiopulmonary diseases, increased respiratory symptoms, and possible premature
mortality.
Existing Air Quality Conditions
Air quality data for the project site is represented by the Anaheim-Pampas Lane monitoring
station located at 1630 West Pampas Lane, Anaheim. The monitoring station is located
approximately 2.8 miles southwest of the project site. Pollutants measured at the Anaheim-
Pampas Lane Monitoring Station include O3, CO, PM10, NO2, and PM2.5. The monitoring data
presented in Table 4-1, Air Quality Levels Measured at the Anaheim-Pampas Lane Monitoring
Station, were obtained from the California Air Resources Board (CARB 2022). Federal and State
air quality standards are presented with the number of times those standards were exceeded.
TABLE 4-1
AIR QUALITY MEASUREMENTS AT THE ANAHEIM MONITORING STATION
Pollutant
California
Standard
National
Standard Year Max. Level a
State
Standard
Days Exceeded
National
Standard
Days Exceeded
CO
(1 hour) 20 ppm 35 ppm
2018 2.3 0 0
2019 1.3 0 0
2020 1.7 0 0
CO
(8 hour) 9 ppm 9 ppm
2018 1.9 0 0
2019 2.4 0 0
2020 2.3 0 0
O3
(1 hour) 0.09 ppm None
2018 0.112 1 1
2019 0.096 1 1
2020 0.142 6 15
O3
(8 hour) 0.070 ppm 0.070 ppm
2018 0.071 N/A 1
2019 0.082 N/A 1
2020 0.097 N/A 15
NO2
(1 Hour) 0.18 ppm 0.100 ppm
2018 0.0660 0 0
2019 0.0594 0 0
2020 0.0709 0 0
PM10
(24 hour) 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3
2018 129 13 0
2019 127 13 0
2020 120 13 0
PM2.5
(24 Hour) None 35 µg/m3
2018 68.0 N/A 7
2019 37.1 N/A 4
2020 41.4 N/A 1
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-17
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
TABLE 4-1
AIR QUALITY MEASUREMENTS AT THE ANAHEIM MONITORING STATION
Pollutant
California
Standard
National
Standard Year Max. Level a
State
Standard
Days Exceeded
National
Standard
Days Exceeded
O3: ozone; ppm: parts per million; PM10: respirable particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less; µg/m3:
micrograms per cubic meter; AAM: annual arithmetic mean; NO2: nitrogen dioxide; CO: carbon monoxide; PM2.5: fine
particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less
N/A indicates that there is no applicable standard.
a California maximum levels were used.
Regulatory Background
Pollutants and Standards
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) defines seven criteria air pollutants: O3, CO,
NO2, sulfur dioxide (SO2), PM10, PM2.5, and lead. These pollutants are called criteria pollutants
because the USEPA has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for the
concentrations of these pollutants (USEPA 2021). CARB has also established standards for the
criteria pollutants, known as California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), and the State
standards are generally more restrictive than the NAAQS. When a region has air quality that fails
to meet the standards, the USEPA and the CARB designate the region as “nonattainment” and the
regional air quality agency must develop plans to attain the standards.
Based on monitored air pollutant concentrations, the USEPA and the CARB designate an area’s
status in attaining the NAAQS and the CAAQS, respectively, for selected criteria pollutants. These
attainment designations are shown in Table 4-2.
Environmental Checklist
4-18 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
TABLE 4-2
ATTAINMENT STATUS OF CRITERIA POLLUTANTS
IN THE SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN
Pollutant State Federal
O3 (1 hour) Nonattainment No standards
O3 (8 hour) Nonattainment Nonattainment
PM10 Nonattainment Attainment/Maintenance
PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment
CO Attainment Attainment/Maintenance
NO2 Attainment Attainment/Maintenance
SO2 Attainment Attainment
Lead Attainment Attainment/Nonattainment*
All others Attainment/Unclassified No standards
O3: ozone; PM10: respirable particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5: fine particulate
matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter; CO: carbon monoxide; NO2: nitrogen dioxide; SO2: sulfur dioxide;
SoCAB: South Coast Air Basin.
* Los Angeles County is classified nonattainment for lead; the remainder of the SoCAB is in attainment
of the State and federal standards.
Source: SCAQMD 2016
CARB, a part of the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), is responsible for
coordinating and administering both the federal and State air pollution control programs in
California. In this capacity, CARB conducts research, sets the CAAQS (as shown in Table 4-3),
compiles emission inventories, develops suggested control measures, oversees local programs,
and prepares the State Implementation Plan (SIP). For regions that do not attain the CAAQS,
CARB requires the air districts to prepare plans for attaining the standards. These plans are then
integrated into the SIP. CARB establishes emissions standards for (1) motor vehicles sold in
California, (2) consumer products (e.g., hair spray, aerosol paints, barbecue lighter fluid), and
(3) various types of commercial equipment. It also sets fuel specifications to further reduce
vehicular emissions.
O3 is a secondary pollutant and is created when nitrogen oxides (NOx) and VOCs react in the
presence of sunlight. The predominant source of air emissions generated by project
development would be from vehicle emissions. Motor vehicles primarily emit CO, NOx, and VOCs.
The NAAQS and CAAQS are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace within a
reasonable margin of safety. The NAAQS and CAAQS for O3, CO, NO2, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and lead
are shown in Table 4-3.
The SCAQMD was established in 1977 by merging the individual air pollution control districts of
the four counties within the SoCAB: Orange County and the non-desert portions of Los Angeles,
Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. The SCAQMD and the Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG), in coordination with local governments and the private sector, develop the
Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the SoCAB to satisfy these requirements. The AQMP is
the most important air management document for the SoCAB because it provides the blueprint
for meeting State and federal ambient air quality standards.
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-19
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
On November 28, 2007, CARB submitted a SIP revision to the USEPA for O3, PM2.5 (1997
Standard), CO, and NO2 in the SoCAB. This revision is identified as the “2007 South Coast SIP”.
The 2007 South Coast SIP demonstrates attainment of the federal PM2.5 standard in the SoCAB
by 2014, and attainment of the federal 8-hour O3 standard by 2023. This SIP also includes a
request to reclassify the O3 attainment designation from “severe” to “extreme”. The USEPA
approved the redesignation effective June 4, 2010. The “extreme” designation requires the
attainment of the 8-hour O3 standard in the SoCAB by June 2024. CARB approved PM2.5 SIP
revisions in April 2011, and the O3 SIP revisions in July 2011. The USEPA approved the PM2.5
SIP on September 25, 2013, and has approved 47 of the 62 1997, 8-hour O3 SIP requirements
(USEPA 2016). On November 30, 2014, the USEPA proposed a finding that the SoCAB has
attained the 1997 PM2.5 standards (USEPA 2014). The comment period closed on January 22,
2015; no subsequent action has been taken.
On September 30, 2015, the USEPA proposed to approve elements of the South Coast 2012 PM2.5
Plan and 2015 Supplement, which addresses Clean Air Act requirements for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS and proposed to reclassify the area as a “serious” nonattainment area for the 2006 PM2.5
standard. The reclassification is based on the determination that the area cannot practicably
attain the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS by the moderate area attainment date (December 31, 2015). On
December 22, 2015, the EPA reclassified the South Coast area as a “Serious” nonattainment area
for the 2006 PM2.5 standard. The final reclassification requires the State to submit a “serious
area” plan that provides for attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable
as and no later than December 31, 2019 (USEPA 2016). On December 4, 2020, the South Coast
Air District adopted the South Coast Air Basin Attainment Plan for 2006 24-Hour PM2.5
Standard (Plan) to meet the Clean Air Act requirements. CARB was scheduled to consider
adopting the Plan on December 10, 2020 for submittal into the California SIP. However, this item
has been moved to the February 25, 2021 CARB meeting (CARB 2021).
Environmental Checklist
4-20 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
TABLE 4-3
CALIFORNIA AND FEDERAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
Pollutant Averaging Time
California
Standards
Federal Standards
Primarya Secondaryb
O3
1 Hour 0.09 ppm (180 µg/m3) — —
8 Hour 0.070 ppm (137
µg/m3) 0.070 ppm (137 µg/m3) Same as Primary
PM10 24 Hour 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3 Same as Primary
AAM 20 µg/m3 – Same as Primary
PM2.5 24 Hour – 35 µg/m3 Same as Primary
AAM 12 µg/m3 12.0 µg/m3 15.0 µg/m3
CO
1 Hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m3) 35 ppm (40 mg/m3) —
8 Hour 9.0 ppm (10 mg/m3) 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) —
8 Hour
(Lake Tahoe) 6 ppm (7 mg/m3) — —
NO2
AAM 0.030 ppm (57 µg/m3) 0.053 ppm (100 µg/m3) Same as Primary
1 Hour 0.18 ppm (339 µg/m3) 0.100 ppm (188 µg/m3) —
SO2
24 Hour 0.04 ppm (105 µg/m3) — —
3 Hour — — 0.5 ppm
(1,300 µg/m3)
1 Hour 0.25 ppm (655 µg/m3) 0.075 ppm (196 µg/m3) —
Lead
30-day Avg. 1.5 µg/m3 — —
Calendar Quarter — 1.5 µg/m3 Same as Primary Rolling 3-month Avg. — 0.15 µg/m3
Visibility
Reducing
Particles
8 Hour
Extinction coefficient
of 0.23 per km –
visibility ≥ 10 miles
(0.07 per km – ≥30
miles for Lake Tahoe) No
Federal
Standards Sulfates 24 Hour 25 µg/m3
Hydrogen
Sulfide 1 Hour 0.03 ppm (42 µg/m3)
Vinyl
Chloride 24 Hour 0.01 ppm (26 µg/m3)
O3: ozone; ppm: parts per million; µg/m3: micrograms per cubic meter; PM10: respirable particulate matter 10 microns or less in
diameter; AAM: Annual Arithmetic Mean; —: No Standard; PM2.5: fine particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter; CO: carbon
monoxide; mg/m3: milligrams per cubic meter; NO2: nitrogen dioxide; SO2: sulfur dioxide; km: kilometer.
a National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, within an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health.
b National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated
adverse effects of a pollutant.
Note: More detailed information in the data presented in this table can be found at the CARB website (www.arb.ca.gov).
Source: CARB 2016
On March 3, 2017, the SCAQMD adopted the 2016 AQMP, which is a regional and multi-agency
effort (SCAQMD, CARB, SCAG, and USEPA). The 2016 AQMP incorporates the latest scientific and
technical information and planning assumptions, including the SCAG 2016–2040 Regional
Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS); updated emission inventory
methodologies for various source categories; and SCAG’s latest growth forecasts (SCAG 2016).
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-21
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
The main purpose of an AQMP is to bring an area into compliance with the requirements of
federal and State air quality standards. For a project to be consistent with the AQMP, the
pollutants emitted from the project should not (1) exceed the SCAQMD CEQA air quality
significance thresholds or (2) conflict with or exceed the assumptions in the AQMP.
On October 1, 2015, the USEPA strengthened the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) for ground-level ozone, lowering the primary and secondary ozone standard levels to
70 parts per billion. The South Coast Air Basin is classified as an “extreme” non-attainment area
for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS. The 2022 AQMP will be developed to address the requirements for
meeting this standard. The 2022 AQMP will represent a comprehensive analysis of emissions,
meteorology, regional air quality modeling, regional growth projections, and the impact of
existing and proposed control measures (SCAQMD 2021).
Sensitive Air Quality Receptors
Sensitive receptors include, but are not limited to, children, the elderly, persons with preexisting
respiratory or cardiovascular illness, and athletes and others who engage in frequent exercise.
These sensitive receptor uses include, but are not limited to, sensitive receptors at schools, parks,
hospitals, high-density residential areas, and convalescent homes. The project site is proximate
to the railroads to the south of the project, industrial uses to the east, multifamily residential uses
to the north, and parking to the west. The nearest sensitive receptors are the multifamily
residential uses located across an alleyway to the north of the project site boundary.
Thresholds of Significance
The SCAQMD’s Air Quality Analysis Handbook (CEQA Handbook) provides significance
thresholds for both construction and operation of projects within the SCAQMD’s jurisdictional
boundaries (SCAQMD 2019). The SCAQMD recommends that projects be evaluated in terms of
the quantitative thresholds established to assess both the regional and localized impacts of
project-related air pollutant emissions. The City of Fullerton uses the current SCAQMD
thresholds to determine whether a proposed project would have a significant impact. These
SCAQMD thresholds are identified in Table 4-4.
TABLE 4-4
SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
AIR QUALITY SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS
Mass Daily Thresholdsa
Pollutant Construction Operation
NOx 100 lbs/day 55 lbs/day
VOC 75 lbs/day 55 lbs/day
PM10 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day
PM2.5 55 lbs/day 55 lbs/day
SOx 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day
CO 550 lbs/day 550 lbs/day
Lead 3 lbs/day 3 lbs/day
Environmental Checklist
4-22 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
TABLE 4-4
SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
AIR QUALITY SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS
TACs, Odor, and GHG Thresholds
TACs
(including carcinogens and
non-carcinogens)
Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk ≥ 10 in 1 million
Cancer Burden > 0.5 excess cancer cases (in areas ≥ 1 in 1 million)
Chronic & Acute Hazard Index ≥ 1.0 (project increment)
Odor Project creates an odor nuisance pursuant to South Coast AQMD Rule 402
GHG 10,000 MT/yr CO2e for industrial facilities
Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutantsb, c
NO2
1-hour average
annual arithmetic mean
South Coast AQMD is in attainment; project is significant if it causes or
contributes to an exceedance of the following attainment standards:
0.18 ppm (State)
0.03 ppm (State) and 0.0534 ppm (federal)
PM10
24-hour average
annual average
10.4 µg/m3 (construction)c & 2.5 µg/m3 (operation)
1.0 µg/m3
PM2.5
24-hour average
10.4 µg/m3 (construction)c & 2.5 µg/m3 (operation)
SO2
1-hour average
24-hour average
0.25 ppm (State) & 0.075 ppm (federal – 99th percentile)
0.04 ppm (State)
Sulfate
24-hour average
25 µg/m3 (State)
CO
1-hour average
8-hour average
South Coast AQMD is in attainment; project is significant if it causes or
contributes to an exceedance of the following attainment standards:
20.0 ppm (State) and 35 ppm (federal)
9.0 ppm (State/federal)
Lead
30-day average
Rolling 3-month average
1.5 µg/m3 (State)
0.15 µg/m3 (federal)
NOx: nitrogen oxides, lbs/day: pounds per day, VOC: volatile organic compound, PM10: respirable particulate matter with
a diameter of 10 microns or less, PM2.5: fine particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less, SO2: sulfur oxides,
CO: carbon monoxide, TACs: toxic air contaminants, GHG: greenhouse gases, MT/yr CO2e: metric tons per year of carbon
dioxide equivalents, NO2: nitrogen dioxide, ppm: parts per million, µg/m3: micrograms per cubic meter; South Coast
AQMD: South Coast Air Quality Management District
a Source: South Coast AQMD CEQA Handbook (South Coast AQMD 1993)
b Ambient air quality thresholds for criteria pollutants based on South Coast AQMD Rule 1303, Table A-2 unless
otherwise stated
c Ambient air quality threshold is based on South Coast AQMD Rule 403
Source: South Coast AQMD 2019
These regional emission thresholds cannot be used to correlate whether a specific health impact
would occur to an individual receptor. These significance thresholds were developed to assist
Lead Agencies with a consistent threshold that could be used to determine whether a project’s
emissions could significantly contribute to the total emissions occurring within an air basin. The
totality of the air basin’s emissions would determine whether it would be in attainment of the
CAAQS and NAAQS.
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-23
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
Impact Analysis
Would the Project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Less than Significant Impact. The SCAQMD develops rules and regulations, establishes
permitting requirements for stationary sources, inspects emissions sources, and enforces such
measures through educational programs or fines, when necessary. It is directly responsible for
reducing emissions from stationary (area and point), mobile, and indirect sources and has
prepared an AQMP that establishes a program of rules and regulations directed at attaining the
NAAQS and CAAQS.
As stated above, the SCAQMD adopted the 2016 AQMP on March 3, 2017 (SCAQMD 2017). The
2016 AQMP incorporates the latest scientific and technical information and planning
assumptions, including the SCAG 2016–2040 RTP/SCS, updated emission inventory
methodologies for various source categories, and SCAG’s latest growth forecasts.
The main purpose of an AQMP is to bring an area into compliance with the requirements of
federal and State air quality standards. For a project to be consistent with the AQMP, the
pollutants emitted from the project should not (1) exceed the SCAQMD CEQA air quality
significance thresholds or (2) conflict with or exceed the assumptions in the AQMP.
In order to be consistent with the AQMP, the following analysis compares the Project’s
construction and operational emissions with the SCAQMD CEQA air quality significance
thresholds shown in Table 4-4. A project may have a significant impact where project-related
emissions would exceed federal, State, or regional standards or thresholds, or where
project-related emissions would substantially contribute to an existing or projected air quality
violation.
A project with daily emission rates below the SCAQMD’s established air quality significance
thresholds (shown in Table 4-4) would have a less than significant effect on regional air quality.
Project emissions were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod)
version 2020.4.0 computer program (CAPCOA 2020). CalEEMod is designed to model
construction and operational emissions for land development projects and allows for the input
of project- and county-specific information. For air quality modeling purposes, construction of
the Project was based on the Project’s construction assumptions and default assumptions
derived from CalEEMod. The input for operational emissions was based on the vehicle trip
generation rates provided in the transportation impact analysis and the proposed building area.
Additional input details are included in Appendix A.
Construction Emissions
Air pollutant emissions would occur from construction equipment exhaust; dust from demolition
and site grading; exhaust and particulate emissions from trucks hauling demolition and
construction debris, soil, and building materials to and from the project site; from automobiles and
light trucks driven to and from the project site by construction workers; and VOCs from painting
and asphalt paving operations. The proposed Project would comply with applicable SCAQMD
rules and regulations, including Rule 403 for fugitive dust control (COA AQ-1). Rule 403
Environmental Checklist
4-24 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
measures include regular watering of active grading areas and unpaved roads, limiting vehicle
speeds on unpaved surfaces, stabilizing stockpiled earth, and curtailing grading operations
during high wind conditions. Watering of active grading areas is included in the CalEEMod
emissions analysis and results in reduced PM10 and PM2.5 emissions. The emission reductions
associated with compliance with this rule have been included in the emissions calculations.
Regional Emissions Thresholds – Maximum Daily Regional Emissions
Table 4-5, Estimated Maximum Daily Regional Construction Emissions, presents the estimated
maximum daily emissions during construction of the proposed Project and compares the
estimated emissions with the SCAQMD’s daily regional emission thresholds. As shown in
Table 4-5, Project construction mass daily emissions would be less than the SCAQMD’s
thresholds for all criteria air pollutants, and the impact would be less than significant. No
mitigation is required.
TABLE 4-5
ESTIMATED MAXIMUM DAILY REGIONAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Year
Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Year 1 3 36 29 <1 5 3
Year 2 3 34 29 <1 5 3
Year 3 90 17 27 <1 5 2
Maximum 90 36 29 <1 5 3
SCAQMD Thresholds (Table 4-4) 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds SCAQMD Thresholds? No No No No No No
lbs/day: pounds per day; VOC: volatile organic compound; NOx: nitrogen oxides; CO: carbon monoxide; SOx:
sulfur oxides; PM10: respirable particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5: fine particulate
matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter; SCAQMD: South Coast Air Quality Management District.
Source: SCAQMD 2019 (thresholds); see Appendix A for CalEEMod model outputs.
Construction-Phase Localized Significance Thresholds
In addition to the mass daily emissions thresholds established by the SCAQMD, short-term local
impacts to nearby sensitive receptors from on-site emissions of NO2, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 are
examined based on SCAQMD’s localized significance threshold (LST) methodology. To assess
local air quality impacts for development projects without complex dispersion modeling, the
SCAQMD developed screening (lookup) tables to assist lead agencies in evaluating impacts. The
LST method was developed to provide a conservative estimate of the level of project-generated
air pollutants that have the potential to exceed the NAAQS or CAAQS, which could consequently
result in adverse health impacts. Exceedance of the LST does not describe the prevalence or
magnitude of health effects, but rather assesses the potential for a project-related health effect
to occur. The LST method cannot provide an estimate of health effects related to ozone. Reactive
organic gases (ROGs) and NOx are pollutants that contribute to the formation of ozone, otherwise
known as ozone precursors. It would be too speculative to determine how an individual project
could affect the formation of ozone, and how it could affect the health for a specific receptor:
ozone does not fully form within the proximity of a project site, and the formation of ozone is
affected by solar irradiance, meteorological conditions, presence of ozone precursors from other
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-25
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
sources, and other factors. As such, modeling of ozone concentrations is conducted on the
“macro” scale of an air basin for all pollutant sources within the basin, and not for an individual
project. Consequently, the LST analysis focuses on a project-level analysis of the four criteria
pollutants of greatest concern (CO, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5).
The LST method is recommended to be limited to projects that are five acres or less. For the
purposes of an LST analysis, the SCAQMD considers receptors where it is possible that an
individual could remain for 1 hour for NO2 and CO exposure and 24 hours for PM10 and PM2.5
exposure. The emissions limits in the lookup tables are based on the SCAQMD’s Ambient Air
Quality Standards (SCAQMD 2016). The closest receptors to the project site that could be
exposed for 1 hour are industrial uses adjacent to the project site, and the closest receptors the
project site that could be exposed for 24 hours are residences 40 feet north of the Project’s
northern boundary. The emissions screening thresholds used in this analysis are for receptors
within 25 meters (82 feet) of the project site for NOx, CO, PM10 and PM2.5. The thresholds would
be higher for receptors located farther away.
Table 4-6, Construction-Phase Localized Significance Threshold Emissions, shows the maximum
daily on-site emissions for construction activities compared with the SCAQMD LST screening
thresholds. The thresholds shown are from the lookup tables for a daily site disturbance area of
2.5 acres, which is based on the maximum equipment disturbance area for equipment used on-
site. The Project’s maximum daily on-site emissions for all pollutants would occur during the
grading/excavation phase. As shown in Table 4-6, localized emissions for all criteria pollutants
would be less than their respective screening thresholds. Therefore, localized air quality impacts
would be less than significant, no mitigation is required.
TABLE 4-6
CONSTRUCTION-PHASE
LOCALIZED SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLD EMISSIONS
Emissions and Thresholds
Emissions (lbs/day)
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Project maximum daily on-site emissions 35 28 5 3
Localized Significance Threshold 159 853 7 4
Exceed threshold? No No No No
lbs/day: pounds per day; NOx: nitrogen oxides; CO: carbon monoxide; PM10: respirable particulate matter 10
microns or less in diameter; PM2.5: fine particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter.
Note: Data is for SCAQMD Source Receptor Area 16, North Orange County
Source: SCAQMD 2009 (thresholds); see Appendix A for CalEEMod model outputs.
Operational Emissions
The following section provides an analysis of potential long-term air quality impacts to regional
air quality with the long-term operation of the proposed Project. The potential operations-
related air emissions have been analyzed below for the regional criteria pollutant emissions and
cumulative impacts.
Operational emissions are comprised of area, energy, and mobile source emissions. The principal
source of VOC emissions associated with the Project would result from the use of consumer
Environmental Checklist
4-26 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
products; the primary source of CO, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions would be mobile sources.
Area and energy source emissions are based on CalEEMod assumptions for the specific land uses
and size. Mobile source emissions are based on estimated Project-related trip generation
forecasts, as contained in the Project traffic impact analysis. The Project would generate 2,286
daily trips (ATE 2022). Estimated peak daily operational emissions are shown in Table 4-7.
TABLE 4-7
PEAK DAILY OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Source
Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Area sources 6 <1 24 <1 <1 <1
Energy sources <1 2 1 <1 <1 <1
Mobile sources 5 3 42 <1 10 3
Stationary sources 3 9 8 <1 <1 <1
Total Operational Emissions* 14 15 75 <1 11 3
SCAQMD Significance Thresholds
(Table 4-4) 55 55 550 150 150 55
Significant Impact? No No No No No No
lbs/day: pounds per day; VOC: volatile organic compounds; NOx: nitrogen oxides; CO: carbon monoxide; SOx: sulfur oxides; PM10:
respirable particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5: fine particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter; SCAQMD:
South Coast Air Quality Management District.
* Some totals do not add due to rounding.
Note: CalEEMod model data sheets are included in Appendix A.
As shown in Table 4-7, the Project’s operational emissions would be less than the SCAQMD CEQA
significance thresholds for all criteria pollutants. It should be noted that the analysis provided
above in Table 4-7 is conservative, because it provides the gross emissions, and does not deduct
operational emissions from existing uses. Therefore, the Project’s operational impact on regional
emissions would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
With respect to the first criterion, based on the air quality modeling analysis conducted for the
proposed Project, above, construction and operation of the Project would not exceed the
SCAQMD’s CEQA thresholds of significance and consequently would not result in an increase in
the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations nor cause or contribute to new
violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions
reductions in the AQMP. Therefore, the Project is consistent with the first criterion.
With respect to the second criterion, the proposed Project was assessed as to whether it would
exceed the assumptions in the AQMP. The SCAQMD’s current air quality planning document is
the 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (2016 AQMP). The 2016 AQMP is a regional and
multi-agency effort among the SCAQMD, CARB, SCAG, and USEPA. The 2016 AQMP includes an
analysis of emissions, meteorology, atmospheric chemistry, regional growth projections, and the
impact of existing control measures. The purpose of the 2016 AQMP is to set forth a
comprehensive program that would promote reductions in criteria pollutants, greenhouse gases,
and toxic risk and efficiencies in energy use, transportation, and goods movement. The 2016
AQMP incorporates the latest scientific and technical information and planning assumptions,
including SCAG’s 2016-2040 RTP/SCS; updated emission inventory methods for various source
categories; and SCAG’s latest growth forecasts (SCAQMD 2017). The 2016 AQMP includes
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-27
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
strategies and measures necessary to meet the NAAQS. The AQMP is based on projections of
energy usage and vehicle trips from land uses within the SoCAB. The project site is within the
Fullerton Town Center (FTC—Focus Area D-Harbor Gateway in The Fullerton Plan). Growth
within the FTC—Focus Area D was factored into the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS through the Orange
County Projections (OCP) process, and as such, it includes growth associated with the Project.
The vision of The Fullerton Plan for the Harbor Gateway Focus Area is high density development,
which would consist of residential, commercial, and mixed-uses with convenient access to
regional transportation. The Project would be consistent with the FTC focus area vision and
would not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP. Implementation of the Project results in
emissions which are less than the significance thresholds adopted by the SCAQMD (as detailed
in the emissions analyses above). In addition, the proposed residential uses provide housing near
commercial uses, and this would minimize travel to and from this destination, which would
reduce transportation-related emissions and be consistent with the goals of the AQMP. As such,
the proposed Project is not anticipated to exceed the AQMP assumptions for the project site and
is found to be consistent with the AQMP for the second criterion. Therefore, the Project would
not result in an inconsistency with the SCAQMD’s 2016 AQMP. Less than significant impacts
would occur, and no mitigation is required.
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard?
Less than Significant Impact. A project may have a significant impact where project-related
emissions would exceed federal, State, or regional standards or thresholds, or where
project-related emissions would substantially contribute to an existing or projected air quality
violation. As identified in Table 4-2, Orange County is a nonattainment area for O3, PM10, and
PM2.5. The Project would generate PM10, PM2.5, and O3 precursors (NOx and VOC) during short-
term construction and long-term operations. The SCAQMD has developed construction and
operations thresholds to determine whether projects would considerably contribute toward a
violation of ambient air quality standards.
Construction Activities
Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would result in less than significant
construction-related regional and localized air quality impacts, as quantified above in Tables 4-
5 and 4-6, respectively. SCAQMD’s policy with respect to cumulative impacts associated with the
above referenced pollutants and their precursors is that impacts that would be directly less than
significant would also be cumulatively less than significant (SCAQMD 2003). As discussed under
Threshold 4.3(a), short-term construction emissions would be less than significant. Therefore,
consistent with SCAQMD policy, the cumulative construction impact of criteria pollutants would
be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Operational Activities
As shown in Table 4-7 under Threshold 4.3(a), operational emissions for all analyzed pollutants
would be below the SCAQMD CEQA significance thresholds. Therefore, the Project would not
contribute to a cumulatively considerable net increase of a pollutant for which the SoCAB is in
nonattainment. Emissions of nonattainment pollutants or their precursors would not be
cumulatively considerable and would be less than significant; no mitigation is required.
Environmental Checklist
4-28 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur when a project would generate
pollutant concentrations to a degree that would significantly affect sensitive receptors, which
include populations that are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than the population
at large. Exposure of sensitive receptors is addressed for the following situations: CO hotspots
and criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants (TACs, specifically diesel particulate matter
[DPM]) from on-site construction. Operational, long-term TACs may be generated by some
industrial land uses; commercial land uses (e.g., gas stations and dry cleaners); and diesel trucks
on freeways. Residential, hotel and retail land uses do not generate substantial quantities of TACs
and are therefore not addressed in this report.
Carbon Monoxide Hotspot
In an urban setting, vehicle exhaust is the primary source of CO. Consequently, the highest CO
concentrations generally are found close to congested intersections. Under typical
meteorological conditions, CO concentrations tend to decrease as the distance from the
emissions source (e.g., congested intersection) increases. Therefore, for purposes of providing a
conservative worst-case impact analysis, CO concentrations typically are analyzed at congested
intersection locations. If impacts are less than significant close to congested intersections,
impacts also would be less than significant at more distant sensitive-receptor and other
locations. As discussed within the Project’s traffic study, the proposed Project is estimated to
generate a total of 153 vehicle trips during the morning peak hour and 178 vehicle trips during
the evening peak hour. This magnitude of vehicle trips would not result in an increase in CO
concentrations occurring at nearby intersections that would exceed the State or Federal Ambient
Air Quality Standards especially since there has not been an exceedance of these standards for
over a decade. As such, Project-related vehicles would not result in a significant impact related
to CO hotspots.
Criteria Pollutants from On-Site Construction
Exposure of persons to NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions is discussed in response to
Threshold 4.3(a) above. As shown in Table 4-6, in response to Threshold 4.3(a), localized
emissions for all criteria pollutants would be less than their respective screening thresholds.
Therefore, localized air quality impacts to sensitive receptors would be less than significant.
Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions from On-Site Construction
Construction activities would result in short-term, Project-generated emissions of DPM from the
exhaust of off-road, heavy-duty diesel equipment used for site preparation (e.g., demolition,
excavation, and grading); paving; building construction; and other miscellaneous activities.
CARB identified DPM as a TAC in 1998. The dose to which receptors are exposed is the primary
factor used to determine health risk. Dose is a function of the concentration of a substance or
substances in the environment and the duration of exposure to the substance. Thus, the risks
estimated for a maximally exposed individual are higher if a fixed exposure occurs over a longer
time period. According to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, health risk
assessments—which determine the exposure of sensitive receptors to TAC emissions—should
be based on a 40-year exposure period; however, such assessments should be limited to the
period/duration of activities associated with the Project.
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-29
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
There would be relatively few pieces of off-road, heavy-duty diesel equipment in operation, and
the total construction period of less than three years would be relatively short when compared
to a 40-year exposure period. Combined with the highly dispersive properties of DPM and
additional reductions in particulate emissions from newer construction equipment, as required
by USEPA and CARB regulations, construction emissions of TACs would not expose sensitive
receptors to substantial emissions of TACs. The impact would be less than significant, and no
mitigation is required.
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?
Less than Significant Impact. Potential operational odors could be created by cooking and trash
collection associated with residential and retail uses. These odors would be similar to those of
existing uses surrounding the project site and throughout the City, and odors would be confined
to the immediate vicinity of the proposed dwelling units. Furthermore, according to the
SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses associated with odor complaints typically
include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants,
composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding (SCAQMD 1993). The Project
does not include any uses identified by the SCAQMD as being associated with odors and,
therefore, would not produce objectionable odors. The Project uses are also regulated from
nuisance odors or other objectionable emissions by SCAQMD Rule 402 (COA AQ-1). Rule 402
prohibits any the discharge from any source of air contaminants or other material which would
cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to people or the public. As such, the Project
would have a less than significant impact with regard to other emissions. No mitigation is
required.
Standard Conditions of Approval
Mitigation measures AQ-1 from The Fullerton Plan PEIR is applicable to the proposed Project
and incorporated herein as standard conditions of approval.
COA AQ-1 Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit, the Community Development Director and
the Building Official shall confirm that the Grading Plan, Building Plans, and
specifications stipulate that, in compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403, excessive
fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled by regular watering or other dust
prevention measures, as specified in the SCAQMD’s Rules and Regulations. In
addition, SCAQMD Rule 402 requires implementation of dust suppression
techniques to prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance off-site.
Implementation of the following measures would reduce short-term fugitive dust
impacts on nearby sensitive receptors:
• All active portions of the construction site shall be watered twice daily to
prevent excessive amounts of dust;
• Non-toxic soil stabilizers shall be applied to all inactive construction areas
(previously graded areas inactive for 20 days or more, assuming no rain),
according to manufacturers’ specifications;
• All excavating and grading operations shall be suspended when wind gusts (as
instantaneous gust) exceed 25 miles per hour;
Environmental Checklist
4-30 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
• On-site vehicle speed shall be limited to 15 miles per hour;
• All on-site roads shall be paved as soon as feasible, watered twice daily, or
chemically stabilized;
• Visible dust beyond the property line which emanates from the project shall
be prevented to the maximum extent feasible;
• All material transported off-site shall be either sufficiently watered or
securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust prior to departing the
job site;
• Track-out devices shall be used at all construction site access points;
• All delivery truck tires shall be watered down and/or scraped down prior to
departing the job site;
• A construction relations officer shall be appointed to act as a community
liaison concerning on-site construction activity including resolution of issues
related to fugitive dust generation;
• Streets shall be swept at the end of the day if visible soil material is carried
onto adjacent paved public roads and use of SCAQMD Rule 1186 and 1186.1
certified street sweepers or roadway; and
• Replace ground cover in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. (Mitigation
Measure AQ-1 of The Fullerton Plan PEIR).
Mitigation Measures
Project implementation would not result in significant impacts related to Air Quality; therefore,
no mitigation measures are required.
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-31
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified as
a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally
protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Fullerton Transportation Center Specific Plan PEIR
The analysis in the PEIR indicated that the Specific Plan area consisted of commercial, industrial,
transit-oriented, and residential development. The site was surrounded by an urbanized
environment and not within the boundaries of a habitat conservation area or an area protected
by any local policies or ordinances with respect to biological resources. It was identified that the
project area did not contain any jurisdictional wetlands or habitat to support sensitive plant or
wildlife species. The biological resources on the site were non-native and ornamental.
Due to the presence of ornamental trees on the site, there was the potential to support birds
subject to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Additionally, the City of Fullerton has an Urban
Forestry Ordinance. With implementation of MM Bio-1 and SC Bio-1, there would be less than
significant impacts pertaining to birds subject to the MBTA and removal of trees.
For informational purposes, the SCs, and MMs from the PEIR are provided below.
Environmental Checklist
4-32 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
Standard Conditions and Requirements
SC BIO-1 All tree plantings, removals, or alterations associated with implementation of the
Specific Plan, shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements set forth in
City of Fullerton’s Urban Forestry Ordinance, (Municipal Code Chapter 9.06 et.
seq.).
Mitigation Measures
MM BIO-1 Prior to approval of grading plans, the Community Development Department shall
verify that the following note is included on the contractor specifications to
ensure compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MTBA): “To avoid impacts
on nesting birds, the vegetation on the project site should be cleared between
September 1 and January 31. If vegetation clearing occurs inside the peak nesting
season (between February 1 and August 31), a pre-construction survey (or
possibly multiple surveys) shall be conducted by a qualified Biologist to identify
if there are any active nesting locations. If the Biologist does not find any active
nests within the impact area, the vegetation clearing/construction work will be
allowed. If the Biologist finds an active nest within the construction area and
determines that the nest may be impacted by construction activities, the Biologist
will delineate an appropriate buffer zone around the nest depending on the
species and the type of construction activity. Construction activities would be
prohibited in the buffer zone until the nest is determined to be abandoned by a
qualified Biologist.”
Impact Analysis
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?
No Impact. The project site is located within an urban area and surrounded by commercial,
industrial, and multi-family residential uses. As a result of urbanization of the land, the entire
project site and immediate surrounding areas are developed and no longer support undeveloped
land. Native plant communities were removed from the site several decades ago due to
development of the property. The existing vegetation on the project site consists of ornamental
plant species. As detailed in the FTC Specific Plan PEIR, the site is located within and adjacent to
the City’s Central Business District (CBD) and is entirely surrounded by development, which
consists of commercial, residential, retail, office, manufacturing, and industrial uses. The
biological resources present on the site are limited to parking lot landscape and ornamental
species. The site was surveyed by a BonTerra Consulting biologist on April 1, 2009 to determine
the potential for the presence of special status plant and/or wildlife species. Based on this survey,
it was determined there are no sensitive biological resources present on site and implementation
of the proposed Project would not impact any candidate or special status species (City of
Fullerton 2010). Additionally, according to The Fullerton Plan and associated PEIR, with the
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-33
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
exception of East Coyote Hills and West Coyote Hills in the City, vacant land with natural
vegetation supportive of sensitive species does not occur in the City (City of Fullerton 2012b).
No fish, amphibian, or hydrogeomorphic features (e.g., perennial creeks, ponds, lakes,
reservoirs) that would provide suitable habitat for fish or amphibians were observed on or
within the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, no fish are expected to occur and are presumed
absent from the project site. Due to the high level of anthropogenic disturbances on-site, and
surrounding development, no special-status reptilian species are expected to occur within the
project site. The project site provides minimal foraging habitat for bird or mammal species that
have adapted to human disturbance. The existing landscaping provides potential habitats for
common animal species that are typically found in urban areas, such as small mammals, birds,
small reptiles, and insects. However, the site does not provide natural habitats for sensitive plant
and animal species.
Review of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS’) Critical Habitat for Threatened and
Endangered Species shows there are no designated critical habitat areas on or near the project
site (USFWS 2022). The nearest critical habitat is located in East Coyote Hills, approximately
1.8 miles to the north.
Since there are no natural or sensitive biological resources on the project site, the proposed
Project would not impact any candidate, sensitive, or special status species, as identified in the
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife
(CDFW) or USFWS. There would be no impact on sensitive species, and no mitigation is required.
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact. The project site is currently developed, and surface water at the site consists of direct
precipitation onto the property, the drainage appears to be slight by sheet flow to the southeast
(Geoquake 2019). The site supports ornamental landscaping at scattered locations but does not
contain riparian habitat or sensitive natural vegetation communities identified by CDFW and
USFWS. There would be no impact to riparian habitats or sensitive natural vegetation
communities, and no mitigation is required.
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including,
but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means?
No Impact. The southern parcels are largely paved, and the northern parcel is developed with a
parking structure and surface parking, and they do not support State or federally protected
wetlands, or other areas under the jurisdiction of the CDFW, the Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB), or U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). There are no jurisdictional drainage,
wetland, or riparian habitats at the project site. As stated in The Fullerton Plan PEIR, remaining
areas of the City are primarily developed and do not include wetlands or wetland habitat (City
of Fullerton 2012b). Therefore, regulatory approvals from the CDFW, RWQCB, or USACE would
not be required for implementation of the Project. There would be no impact, and no mitigation
is required.
Environmental Checklist
4-34 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
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. The project site is developed and is surrounded by commercial,
industrial, and residential uses and roadways. The project site is isolated from regional wildlife
corridors and linkages, and there are no riparian corridors, creeks, or useful patches of
steppingstone habitat (natural areas) within or connecting the project site to any identified
wildlife corridors or linkages. According to The Fullerton Plan and associated PEIR, with the
exception of the West Coyote Hills Focus Area and East Coyote Hills, the remaining areas of the
City are largely developed and surrounded by development, and as such, wildlife movement
corridors do not occur within the City proper (City of Fullerton 2012b).
As a result, implementation of the proposed Project would not disrupt or have any adverse
effects on any migratory corridors or linkages in the surrounding area. The Project would not
affect the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or established
native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, as the Project is part of none. Also, there are no
native wildlife nursery sites on or near the project site.
Due to the presence of trees and vegetation on the project site, there is the potential for birds
protected by the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513
of the California Fish and Game Code to nest at the site. The MBTA protects common and special
status migratory birds and their nests and eggs. Bird species protected under the provisions of
the MBTA are identified by the List of Migratory Birds (50 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR]
Section 10.13, as amended). Since the 1970s, the MBTA has been interpreted to prohibit the
accidental or “incidental” take of migratory birds. However, in December 2017, the acting
Solicitor of the Department of the Interior issued a new memorandum disclaiming the
interpretation of the MBTA as prohibiting incidental take of migratory birds. In response to the
federal changes in interpretation of the MBTA, the CDFW and the California Attorney General
have issued an advisory affirming California’s protection for migratory birds.
Multiple sections of California Fish and Game Code provide protection for nesting birds and
raptors. Section 3503 makes it unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs
of any bird. Section 3503.5 specifically addresses raptors (i.e., birds of prey in the orders
Falconiformes and Strigiformes) and makes it unlawful to take, possess, or destroy these birds
or their nest or eggs. Section 3513 prohibits the take or possession of migratory non-game birds
or any part of such bird, as designated by the MBTA.
If demolition and site clearing activities occur during the nesting season, active bird nests on the
site may be disturbed or destroyed by the proposed Project, resulting in a significant impact.
Therefore, COA BIO-1 is required to avoid impacts to nesting birds and their fledglings. Upon
completion of construction and landscaping activities on the site, newly planted trees and
landscaping would provide nesting habitat for migratory birds. Therefore, impacts to migratory
birds may occur during the construction phase but would be less than significant with
implementation of COA BIO-1.
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-35
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as
a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Less than Significant Impact. The purpose of Chapter 9.06, Community Forestry, of the
Fullerton Municipal Code (FMC) is to realize the optimum public benefits of trees on the City’s
streets, in public places, and on private property. Section 9.06.110, Injuring Public Trees, and
Section 9.06.100, Alteration and Removal of Street Trees, prohibit the injury of street trees and
do not allow the removal of street trees without a permit. As indicated in Chapter 9.06 of FMC,
to facilitate the planting and maintenance of trees on newly proposed private development, the
Director of Community and Economic Development Services will review landscape plans to
ensure their conformance with the Community Forest Management Plan. The proposed Project
would not remove trees within the public rights-of-way. Therefore, impacts would be less than
significant, and no mitigation is required.
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. As identified in Section 5.11, Biological Resources, of The Fullerton Plan PEIR, one
habitat conservation plan, the Coyote Hills East Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), exists within
the City of Fullerton. This HCP applies to the northeastern part of the City and was developed in
response to the Coyote Hills East project. The Coyote Hills East HCP was prepared to protect
significant biological resources located within that site, including the California gnatcatcher
(Polioptila californica californica), cactus wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus), and coastal
sage scrub. The proposed Project is not located in the area addressed by the Coyote Hills East
HCP and would not conflict with the HCP. Therefore, the proposed Project would not have any
significant impacts in this regard, and no mitigation is required.
Standard Conditions of Approval
The following mitigation measure from The Fullerton Plan PEIR is applicable to the proposed
Project and incorporated herein as a standard condition.
COA BIO-1 Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the Community Development
Director or designee shall verify that the following requirements for nesting birds
and preconstruction survey are completed by the Project Applicant:
• The start of demolition and site-preparation activities shall be scheduled
outside of the bird nesting and breeding season (typically March 1 through
August 15). If demolition or site-preparation activities start during the
nesting season, a qualified Biologist shall conduct a nesting bird survey in
potential bird nesting areas within 200 feet of any proposed disturbance.
The survey shall be conducted no more than three days prior to the start
of ground disturbance activities (i.e., grubbing or grading).
• If active nests of bird species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
(MBTA) and/or the California Fish and Game Code (which, together, apply
to all native nesting bird species) are present in the impact area or within
200 feet of the impact area, a temporary buffer fence shall be erected a
Environmental Checklist
4-36 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
minimum of 200 feet around the nest site. This temporary buffer may be
greater or lesser depending on the bird species and type of disturbance, as
determined by the Biologist.
• Clearing and/or construction within temporarily fenced areas shall be
postponed or halted until juveniles have fledged from the nest and there
is no evidence of a second nesting attempt. The Biologist shall serve as a
construction monitor during those periods when disturbance activities
will occur near active nest areas to ensure that no inadvertent impacts on
these nests will occur.
Mitigation Measures
Project implementation would not result in significant impacts related to Biological Resources;
therefore, no mitigation measures are required.
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-37
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
Fullerton Transportation Center Specific Plan PEIR
Based on the discussion and analysis in the PEIR, there were no known archaeological or
paleontological resources identified within the FTC Specific Plan area; however, there were
seven historic buildings. The Specific Plan requires preservation of these buildings which
include: (1) Odd Fellows Lodge/Williams Family Trust Building, (2) Stubrik’s Steakhouse
Restaurant, (3) Pacific Electric Depot/Spadra Ristorante, (4) Union Pacific Depot/Old Spaghetti
Factory, (5) United States Post Office, (6) Santa Fe Depot-Fullerton Station1), and (7) Crystal Ice
House. The Lakeman Building has been identified as potentially historic. A plaque
commemorating the location of the original Fender Guitar manufacturing facility was also
located within the project area.
Although historic resources within the project area would be preserved under the provisions of
the FTC Specific Plan (PDF 3-1), the Specific Plan project had the potential to cause direct impacts
to adjacent historic resources due to vibration and construction. These impacts were considered
potentially significant but would be mitigated to a level considered less than significant with
implementation of MM 3-1 and MM 3-2. Indirect impacts related to setting and design
compatibility would be less than significant with PDF 3-2, which required design review of future
applications to ensure compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties. Structures not identified in the analysis that were determined
to be a historic resource in the future could be significantly impacted by project implementation;
this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of MM 3-4.
Ground disturbance activities (i.e., grading and excavation) could impact unknown
archaeological resources resulting in a potentially significant impact. This impact would be
mitigated to a level considered less than significant with implementation of MM 3-4.
Grading and excavation activities could impact unknown paleontological resources. This impact
would be reduced to a level considered less than significant with implementation of MM 3-6
(discussion of paleontological resources was included under the topic of Cultural Resources in
the PEIR).
1 The existing loading dock, although added at a later date and not of the same style, was included in the application that
placed the Santa Fe Depot on the California Historical Resources list and the National Register of Historical Places.
Environmental Checklist
4-38 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
Human Remains
The project area was not known to have been used for religious or sacred purposes, nor was
there other evidence to suggest the site has been used for human burials. State regulations
(California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5), which are mandatory for all development
projects (refer to Standard Condition Cult-1), dictate that if human remains are encountered, no
further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and
disposition pursuant to the Public Resources Code (Section 5097.98). With these mandatory
requirements in place and the unlikelihood of encountering human remains on the site, no
impacts were anticipated. Additionally, consultation with California Native American tribes was
conducted and no concerns or conflicts related to burial grounds were identified (California
Government Code Section 65352.3).
For informational purposes, the PDFs, SCs, and MMs from the PEIR are provided below.
Project Design Features
PDF 3-1 In compliance with Section 4.4.6, Preserved Buildings (Historic and Potentially
Historic Structures), the FTC Specific Plan intends to preserve/reuse the
following historic and potentially historic buildings within the project area:
• Williams Family Trust Building/Odd Fellows Lodge (historic)
• Stubrik’s Steakhouse Restaurant Building (historic)
• Pacific Electric Depot/Spadra Ristorate (historic)
• Union Pacific Depot/Old Spaghetti Factory (historic)
• United States Post Office (historic)
• Santa Fe Depot (historic)
• Crystal Icehouse Building (historic)
• Lakeman Building (potentially historic)
PDF 3-2 In compliance with Section 4.1.2, Form-Based Regulation and Design Review, of
the Regulating Code of the FTC Specific Plan, the property owner/developer shall
submit a Historic Compatibility Analysis (HCA) with any project application that
includes new construction adjacent to or in the immediate area of historical
resources (within and outside the FTC Specific Plan project area). The HCA is
required to determine compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards
for the Treatment of Historic Properties. The HCA shall be prepared by a qualified
licensed architect with demonstrated experience in historic preservation and
implementing the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties. The HCA shall include the following:
• Area of Potential Effect (APE) within which a proposed development may
indirectly cause changes in the character of historic properties, if such
properties exist in the proximity of the proposed development.
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-39
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
• Location of historic and potentially historic properties in the APE,
pursuant to Section 4.4.6 of the FTC Specific Plan.
• How the project’s mass, height and design components define the APE, and
how they could potentially affect historic properties in the APE.
• Measures taken to ensure the proposed project is compatible with the
historic structure within the APE, specifying how the proposal complies
with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties.
Once an application is deemed complete by the Community Development
Department, the project shall be reviewed by the City staff and the Town Architect
to determine if the project is in compliance with the Regulating Code for the FTC
Specific Plan and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties.
To maintain the existing character of the area, compatible project design and
compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties shall be determined based on mass, materials, relationship of
solids to voids, setbacks, scale, and color with the adjacent historical resources
and character of its surroundings. In compliance with Section 4.5.2, Architectural
Style, of the Regulating Code for the FTC Specific Plan, the design for buildings
within the project shall address the following:
The architecture of new buildings shall be visually differentiated from nearby
historic buildings to protect the historic integrity of historic structures. This
means that new buildings shall be clearly differentiated from adjacent historic
structures.
While visually different, new buildings shall include architectural features that
are visually compatible with nearby historic buildings. This means that new
structures shall not visually distract from the setting of the historic structure and
should include compatible features (such as similar window patterns, materials
and colors) and compatible building elements.
Findings and any recommended modifications from the Town Architect shall be
incorporated in the project design to ensure compliance with the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Compliance with the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties shall
be demonstrated prior to the approval of individual development applications.
Standard Conditions and Requirements
SC 3-1 If human remains are encountered during the conduct of ground-disturbing
activities, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further
disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of
origin and disposition of the materials pursuant to Public Resources Code Section
5097.98. The provisions of Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines shall also be
followed. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the
Environmental Checklist
4-40 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native
American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC will determine and notify a
Most Likely Descendent (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her
authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The
descendent must complete the inspection within 24 hours of notification by the
NAHC. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis
of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. These
requirements shall be included as notes on the contractor specification and
verified by the Community Development Department, Building and Permits
Division, prior to issuance of grading permits.
Mitigation Measures
Historic Resources
MM 3-1 Trenching and Shoring: Prior to the issuance of the first demolition, grading, or
building permit (whichever is first) for future development projects within the
FTC Specific Plan area, a qualified geotechnical engineer shall survey the
subsurface soil conditions beneath and adjacent to the historic resources located
adjacent to the identified project development area to establish baseline
conditions and allow for the subsequent preparation of the shoring design for new
construction. The qualified geotechnical engineer shall monitor all trenching and
shoring construction activities to ensure that undermining, surcharge and other
excavation/construction problems are limited to the greatest extent possible. The
qualified geotechnical engineer shall hold a valid license to practice geotechnical
engineering in the State of California and have demonstrated experience specific
to historic buildings. The lead agency shall determine qualifications prior to any
work being performed. The qualified geotechnical engineer shall submit to the
lead agency for review and approval, a technical soils report that establishes
baseline conditions to be monitored during design and construction. This shall
occur prior to the design of the proposed project’s structural system. All
subsurface historic resource foundation systems shall be fully protected from
exposure to water with flood protection systems, including protective coverings,
self-activating drainage pumps, and water evacuation systems.
MM 3-2 Vibration Protection: Prior to issuance of the first demolition, grading, or
building permit (whichever is first) for future development projects within the
FTC Specific Plan area adjacent to a historic resource, a pre-construction survey
shall be performed by a qualified structural engineer with expertise in vibration
analysis to establish baseline conditions and vibration levels. The qualified
structural engineer shall hold a valid license to practice structural engineering in
the State of California and have demonstrated experience specific to historic
buildings. The lead agency shall determine the structural engineer’s qualifications
prior to any work being performed. The structural engineer and shoring design
shall specify threshold limits for vibration causing activities, as well as specify a
minimum distance for pile drilling, as determined by baseline conditions of
historic buildings. These vibration limits shall be set in accordance with the
California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans’) Transportation and
Construction-Induced Vibration Guidance Manual prepared by David Buehler, P.E.
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-41
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
of Jones & Stokes, which documents the proper techniques for mitigating
vibratory damage due to construction. Vibration levels due to the use of vibration
generating equipment or processes in the immediate vicinity of or adjacent to a
historic property shall be monitored and controlled during construction to ensure
that no damage occurs to historical resources. If feasible, alternative means of
setting piles, such as predrilled holes or hydraulic pile driving, shall be employed.
Owners of historic properties within the FTC Specific Plan area shall be contacted
prior to, and throughout, construction to determine if damage occurs to their
properties. At the conclusion of vibration causing construction, the qualified
structural engineer shall issue a follow-up letter describing damage to any
adjacent or immediate historic resource. The letter shall include
recommendations for repair, as may be necessary, in conformance with the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.
Repairs to the adjacent or immediate historic resources shall be undertaken by
the project developer/builder and completed in conformance with all applicable
codes, including the California Historical Building Code (Part 8 of Title 24), prior
to issuance of any temporary or permanent Certificate of Occupancy for the new
building.
MM 3-3 Fender Guitar Shop Plaque: Prior to issuance of a demolition permit for the
Public Parking Structure (in the 100 block of South Pomona Avenue), a qualified
signage technician shall be retained and contracted to oversee the removal,
temporary storage, and re-installation of the Fender Guitar Shop plaque at the
corner of the Parking Structure’s site (northeast corner of Santa Fe and Pomona
Avenues).
MM 3-4 Future Historic Resource Identification: Prior to determining that any
submitted application for an individual development proposal within the FTC
Specific Plan is complete, the Town Architect shall confirm that no situation has
occurred subsequent to the approval of the FTC Specific Plan that alters the
assessments set forth in the FTC Identification and Assessment of Historical
Properties Report (R2A Architecture 2010). If it is subsequently determined that
an existing structure within the FTC Specific Plan area has the potential to be a
historic resource, and that the structure may be directly or indirectly impacted by
a proposed development project, then additional CEQA evaluation shall be
conducted as required. The CEQA evaluation shall include additional historic
evaluation to determine eligibility for listing on the California Register of
Historical Resources, as determined necessary by a qualified architectural
historian or historic architect. Requirements set forth in MMs 3-1 and 3-2 shall
remain applicable if future historic properties are identified within the FTC
Specific Plan area.
Archaeological Resources
MM 3-5 Prior to the issuance of each grading permit, the property owner/developer shall
retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor grading and excavation activities. The
archaeologist shall be present at the pre-grade conference. The archaeologist
shall submit to the City of Fullerton for review and approval, a written plan with
Environmental Checklist
4-42 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
procedures for archaeological resources monitoring. This plan shall include
procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling,
identification, and evaluation of the resources as appropriate. If the
archaeological resources are found to be significant, the archaeologist will
determine appropriate actions—in cooperation with the City of Fullerton—for
preservation or data recovery. The archaeologist shall prepare any excavated
material to the point of identification. Following the completion of
evaluation/data recovery, the archaeologist shall prepare a report detailing the
results of the program to be presented to the City of Fullerton Community
Development Department for approval. The report shall follow guidelines of the
California Office of Historic Preservation (1990). Excavated finds shall be offered
for curatorial purposes to the City of Fullerton, or its designee, on a first refusal
basis. Curation of recovered materials
Paleontological Resources
MM 3-6 Prior to issuance of a grading permit for each phase of development, the property
owner/developer shall submit a paleontology monitoring plan, prepared by an
Orange County certified paleontologist to the City of Fullerton that ensures that
the following actions are implemented:
a. Paleontologic monitoring shall be conducted as determined necessary by
the supervising paleontologist during grading and other excavation work.
Recommended hours for monitoring activities shall be established by the
supervising paleontologist and shall be outlined in the monitoring plan. It
shall be the responsibility of the supervising paleontologist to demonstrate,
to the satisfaction of the City, the appropriate level of monitoring necessary
based on the tentative map level grading plans, when available. Because of
the potential for producing small fragments of vertebrate microfossils,
periodic screening of sands from cuts in these units will be done by the
paleontological monitor. Such material may be removed in bulk and
screened off site to minimize interference with grading operations.
b. Any paleontological work at the site shall be conducted under the direction
of an Orange County Certified paleontologist.
c. If a fossil discovery occurs during grading operations when a
paleontological monitor is not present, grading shall be diverted around the
area until the monitor can survey the area, identify any fossils, evaluate their
significance and, if deemed necessary, remove them from the ground.
d. Any fossils recovered during the development, along with their contextual
stratigraphic data, shall be donated to the City of Fullerton, its designee, or
other appropriate institution with an educational and research interest in
the materials. A final report detailing findings and disposition of specimens
shall be submitted to the Community Development Department.
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-43
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
Introduction
Existing Setting
This analysis used information from The Fullerton Plan PEIR (City of Fullerton 2012b), the FTC
Specific Plan Draft Program EIR (City of Fullerton 2009), and a historic and archaeological record
search conducted by Psomas on March 25, 2021, at the South-Central Coastal Information Center
(SCCIC), located on the campus of California State University, Fullerton. The records search is
included in Appendix B, of this IS/MND. The SCCIC houses records of the California Historical
Resources Information System (CHRIS) for Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, and San Bernardino
Counties. The records search included a 0.5-mile radius around the project site.
The SCCIC, located on the campus of California State University, Fullerton, houses records of the
California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) for Orange, Los Angeles, San
Bernardino, and Ventura Counties. On March 25, 2021, Psomas completed a record search for
the project site, which included a 0.8-kilometer (0.5-mile) radius around the site. The purpose of
the literature search was to identify prehistoric or historic archaeological sites or historic
buildings and structures, previously recorded within and around the project site.
The SCCIC record search identified nine prior cultural resources studies (Table 4-8) within the
0.5-mile search radius that were initiated due to planned urban and residential developments,
roadways, utilities projects, and park uses. One of the nine studies is located approximately 0.25-
mile from project site. This study – OR-02761 – consists of an archaeological assessment and
field survey.
TABLE 4-8
CULTURAL RESOURCE STUDIES WITHIN 0.25-MILE OF THE PROJECT SITE
Report
No. Year Author(s) Affiliation Type of Study Title of Study
Proximity to
Project Site
OR-
02761
2002 Demcak, Carol R. Archaeological
Resource
Management
Corp.
Archaeological,
Field study
Archaeological Assessment
for Harbor Boulevard
Reconstruction Project
(#4436), City of Fullerton,
California
0.25 mile
Source: SCCIC 2021.
The records search did not identify any previously recorded cultural resources within a 0.25-
mile of the project site.
Environmental Checklist
4-44 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
Impact Analysis
Would the Project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Less than Significant Impact. As stated previously, there were seven historic buildings
identified within the FTC Specific Plan area. Of those seven historic buildings, two are located
within the project vicinity: United States Post Office and Santa Fe Depot-Fullerton Station. The
Specific Plan requires preservation of these buildings.
Although historic resources within the project area would be preserved under the provisions of
the FTC Specific Plan (PDF 3-1), the Specific Plan project had the potential to cause direct impacts
to adjacent historic resources due to vibration and construction. These impacts were considered
potentially significant but would be mitigated to a level considered less than significant with
implementation of MM 3-1 and MM 3-2.
With implementation of the same measures, the proposed Project potential impact to historic
resources would also be less than significant.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Less than Significant Impact. Based on the searches conducted, no archaeological resources
were discovered on the project site or within the 0.5-mile search radius of the site. However,
there is a possibility that buried historical and/or archaeological materials would be uncovered
during necessary subsurface excavations for the construction of the Project. To ensure no
significant impacts would result, COA CUL-1 is required in the event that cultural resources
(archaeological, historical, paleontological) resources are inadvertently unearthed during
excavation and grading. It requires that the Project proponent shall retain a qualified
professional (i.e., archaeologist) to evaluate the significance of the finding and appropriate
course of action. Implementation of COA CUL-1 would ensure that the potential for the
destruction of any significant archaeological resources would be less than significant.
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Less than Significant Impact. There is no indication that human remains are present within the
project site, and the SCCIC records search does not indicate evidence of human remains within
the 0.5-mile search radius of the site. However, construction activities may unearth previously
undiscovered human remains.
In compliance with State and federal regulations, if human remains are encountered during
excavation activities, all work shall halt at the site and or any nearby areas reasonably suspected
to overlie adjacent remains, and the County Coroner shall be notified (COA CUL-2). The Coroner
shall determine whether the remains are of forensic interest within two working days of
receiving notification. If the Coroner, with the aid of the qualified archaeologist, determines that
the remains are prehistoric, the Coroner shall contact the NAHC within 24 hours of the
determination. The NAHC shall be responsible for designating the most likely descendant (MLD),
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-45
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
who will be responsible for the ultimate disposition of the remains, as required by Section
5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code. Compliance with COA CUL-2 would ensure that
impacts on human remains would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Standard Conditions of Approval
The following mitigation measures from The Fullerton Plan PEIR are applicable to the proposed
Project and incorporated herein as standard conditions of approval.
COA CUL-1 In the event that cultural resources (archaeological, historical, paleontological)
resources are inadvertently unearthed during excavation and grading activities of
any future development project, the contractor shall immediately cease all earth-
disturbing activities within a 100-foot radius of the area of discovery. The project
proponent shall retain a qualified professional (i.e., archaeologist, historian,
architect, paleontologist, Native American Tribal monitor), subject to approval by
the City of Fullerton, to evaluate the significance of the finding and appropriate
course of action. If avoidance of the resource(s) is not feasible, salvage operation
requirements pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines shall be
followed. After the find has been appropriately avoided or mitigated, work in the
area may resume.
COA CUL-2 In the event that human remains are unearthed during excavation and grading
activities of any future development project, all activity shall cease immediately.
Pursuant to State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, no further disturbance
shall occur until the County coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin
and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the
remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner shall
within 24 hours notify the Native American.
COA GEO-1 from Section 4.7, Geology and Soils is applicable to this analysis.
Mitigation Measures
MM 3-1 and MM 3-1 of the FTC Specific Plan Program EIR, listed above, are applicable to this
analysis (historic resources). With implementation of these measures, potential impact to
historic resources would be less than significant. No addition mitigation is required.
MM 8-7 of the FTC Specific Plan Program EIR from Section 4.13, Noise, is applicable to this
analysis. With implementation of MM 8-7 potential impacts to Cultural Resources would be less
than significant. No additional mitigation is required.
Environmental Checklist
4-46 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
4.6 ENERGY
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact
due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption
of energy resources, during project construction or
operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Fullerton Transportation Center Specific Plan PEIR
Energy was not included in the Appendix G Environmental Checklist Form of CEQA Guidelines
as a separate topic, thus energy as a separate topic was not included in the PEIR. However,
Threshold 12.5 in Section 4.12, Utilities and Service Systems, was based on Appendix F of the
CEQA Guidelines, which sets forth guidelines to address impacts of a project on energy resources.
Threshold 12.5 focuses on “Encourage the wasteful or inefficient use of energy.”
The analysis in PEIR determined that a net increase in electricity and natural gas demand would
result from future development under the FTC Specific Plan. However, with implementation of
SCs 12-1 and 12-2 related to compliance with Title 24 and PDFs 13-1, 13-5, and 13-6 related to
energy efficient aspects of the Project, and PDF 12-3 related to a net zero water requirements, a
less than significant impact would occur with respect to the wasteful or unnecessary use of
energy. No mitigation would be required.
For informational purposes, the PDF and SCs from the PEIR are provided below.
Project Design Features
PDF 12-3 In compliance with Section 4.7.10 of the Regulating Code for the FTC Specific Plan,
and as described in Section 3, Project Description, proposed development within the
FTC Specific Plan shall have a net-zero demand on the City’s water supply sources. To
implement this standard, development projects shall fund water conservation
projects in other locations of the City, participate in water conservation programs
that directly benefit City residents, and/or obtain water from a completely new
source of water. A development project in the FTC Specific Plan could also participate
in regional water conservation efforts and/or projects when it can be shown to
achieve a direct and quantifiable effect on the City’s water supply. Examples of
methods that may be used to achieve this goal include but are not limited to (1) use
of artificial turf to replace natural turf in parks or recreation areas; (2) replacement
of existing inefficient water fixtures with low water-use fixtures; and (3) development
of a facility and system to collect, treat, and distribute recycled water. The City of
Fullerton Water Manager and Community Development Director shall approve all
net-zero water solutions proposed by developers within the FTC Specific Plan area.
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-47
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
Standard Conditions and Requirements
SC 12-1 Prior to the issuance of a building permit for residential or commercial structures, the
Property Owner/Developer shall be required to demonstrate that the project meets
the applicable Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and
Nonresidential Buildings (24 CCR, Part 6). These standards are updated, nominally
every three years, to incorporate improved energy efficiency technologies and
methods. The 2008 standards, which were applicable January 1, 2010, are
approximately 15 percent more energy efficient than the 2005 Building and Energy
Efficiency Standards. Title 24 covers the use of energy efficient building standards,
including ventilation, insulation and construction, and the use of energy saving
appliances, air conditioning systems, water heating, and lighting. Plans submitted for
building permits shall include written notes demonstrating compliance with energy
standards and shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development
Department prior to building permit issuance.
SC 12-2 Prior to the issuance of a building permit for residential or commercial structures on
the project sites, the Property Owner/Developer shall be required to demonstrate
that the project meets the applicable California Green Building Standards Code (24
CCR, Part 11).
PDFs 13-1, 13-5, and 13-6 in Section 4.13, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the PEIR related to
energy efficient aspects of the Project were also applicable.
Impact Analysis
Energy calculations and data are provided in Appendix C to this IS/MND.
Would the Project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or
operation?
Less than Significant Impact. Southern California Edison (SCE) and the Southern California Gas
Company (SCGC) are utility companies that currently provide and would continue to provide
electrical and natural gas services to the project site. Compliance with energy efficiency and
conservation policies and regulations is discussed in this section.
The City of Fullerton has adopted The Fullerton Plan which serves as the City’s General Plan
pursuant to State law. The Fullerton Plan has developed attainable conservation goals and policy
actions that would assist in energy conservation within the community. These conservation
goals and policy actions include:
Goal 1: Resilient and vital neighborhoods and districts.
P1.12 Energy- and Resource-Efficient Design
Environmental Checklist
4-48 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
Support projects, programs, policies and regulations to encourage energy and resource
efficient practices in site and building design for private and public projects. (See
Chapter 19: Open Space and Natural Resources for related policies.)
Goal 3: A supply of safe housing ranging in cost and type to meet the needs of all
segments of the community.
Policy Action 3.18 Encourage Sustainability and Green Building Practices.
The City has acknowledged the community’s concerns regarding the use and
conservation of energy resources and embraces the concept of sustainability and “green
building” practices in new and existing residential development, the City shall continue
to monitor industry trends, technologies, and techniques that encourage the sustainable
use of resources in new housing development and the retrofit of existing housing and
encourage the incorporation of sustainability in new and existing residential
development. The City shall determine the appropriateness of offering incentives or
other mechanisms to further encourage the incorporation of sustainability in residential
development.
Policy Action 3.20 Efficient Use of Energy Resources in Residential Development.
The City shall continue to encourage housing developers to maximize energy
conservation through proactive site, building and building system design, materials, and
equipment. The City’s goal is to provide the opportunity to exceed the provisions of Title
24 of the California Building Code. The City shall continue to support energy conservation
through encouraging the use of Energy Star-rated appliances, other energy-saving
technologies and conservation. To enhance the efficient use of energy resources, the City
shall review the potential of offering Incentives or other strategies that encourage energy
conservation.
The State of California has also adopted efficiency design standards within the Title 24 Building
Standards and CALGreen requirements. Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR,
specifically, Part 6) is California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Non-
residential Buildings (COA ENE-1). Title 24 was established by the California Energy Commission
(CEC) in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to create uniform building codes to reduce
California’s energy consumption and to provide energy efficiency standards for residential and
non-residential buildings. The 2019 California Green Building Standards Code (24 CCR, Part 11),
also known as the CALGreen Code, contains mandatory requirements for new residential and
nonresidential buildings throughout California (COA ENE-2). The development of the CALGreen
Code is intended to (1) cause a reduction in GHG emissions from buildings; (2) promote
environmentally responsible, cost-effective, healthier places to live and work; (3) reduce energy
and water consumption; and (4) respond to the directives by the Governor. The Code is
established to reduce construction waste; make buildings more efficient in the use of materials
and energy; and reduce environmental impact during and after construction. The regulation of
energy efficiency for residential and non-residential structures is established by the CEC and its
California Energy Code.
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-49
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
Construction
Project construction would require the use of construction equipment for demolition, grading
and building activities. All off-road construction equipment is assumed to use diesel fuel.
Construction also includes the vehicles of construction workers and vendors traveling to and
from the project site.
Off-road construction equipment use was calculated from the equipment data (mix, hours per
day, horsepower, load factor, and days per phase) provided in the CalEEMod construction output
files included in Appendix C to this IS/MND. The total horsepower hours for the Project was then
multiplied by fuel usage estimates per hours of construction activities included in the Off-Road
Model.
Fuel consumption from construction worker, vendor, and delivery/haul trucks was calculated
using the trip rates and distances provided in the CalEEMod construction output files. Total
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) was then calculated for each type of construction-related trip and
divided by the corresponding miles per gallon factor using CARB’s EMissions FACtor (EMFAC)
2017 model (CARB 2017a, 2017b). EMFAC provides the total annual VMT and fuel consumed for
each vehicle type. Construction vendor and delivery/haul trucks were assumed to be heavy-duty
diesel trucks.
As shown in Table 4-9, Energy Use During Construction, a total of 124,286 gallons of gasoline
and 23,257 gallons of diesel fuel is estimated to be consumed during Project construction.
TABLE 4-9
ENERGY USE DURING CONSTRUCTION
Source
Gasoline -
gallons
Diesel Fuel -
gallons
Off-road Construction Equipment 17,919 19,186
Worker commute 93,031 442
Vendors 13,333 223
On-road haul 4 3,407
Totals 124,286 23,257
Sources: based on data from CalEEMod, OffRoad and EMFAC2017. Energy data can be found in
Appendix C to this IS/MND.
Fuel energy consumed during construction would be temporary in nature and would not
represent a significant demand on energy resources. The Project would also implement best
management practices such as requiring equipment to be properly maintained and minimize
idling. Furthermore, there are no unusual Project characteristics that would necessitate the use
of construction equipment that would be less energy-efficient than at comparable construction
sites in other parts of the State. Energy used in the construction of the Project would enable the
development of buildings that meet the latest energy efficiency standards as detailed in
California’s Title 24 building standards (COA ENE-1). Therefore, the proposed construction
activities would not result in inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary fuel consumption.
Environmental Checklist
4-50 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
Operations
The proposed Project would promote building energy efficiency through compliance with energy
efficiency standards (Title 24 and CALGreen). The project site is currently developed with
parking lots. The proposed Project is required to comply with the latest adopted building energy
efficiency standards adopted by the State of California. The estimated energy consumption
attributable to the Project is shown in Table 4-10, below.
TABLE 4-10
ENERGY USE DURING OPERATIONS
Land Use Gasoline Diesel
Natural Gas
(kBTU/yr)
Electricity
(kWh/yr)
Project Land Uses 151,832 12,813 7,439,644 2,229,964
Sources: Energy data can be found in Appendix C of this IS/MND.
The CEC anticipates the new 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards would result in a
reduction of energy use as compared to previous energy standards (CEC 2018). Therefore, the
new buildings would be more energy efficient than the existing buildings to be demolished. In
terms of whether the operations phase would result in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during Project operation, the Project would add new energy
efficient units to the housing inventory within Orange County. Therefore, the proposed Project
would not result in an inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy. There would
be a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required.
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency?
No Impact. The Project would be required to comply with the State of California’s Title 24
Energy Efficiency Standards and Title 24 Building Standards (COA ENE-1 and COA ENE-2,
respectively). As discussed previously, the latest building standards would incorporate the CEC’s
building energy efficiency standards, which would reduce energy consumption through the
incorporation of energy efficiency requirements. This would result in efficient use of electricity,
natural gas, and water as compared to older buildings developed under less stringent Title 24
requirements. As such, the development of new Project-related buildings would result in greater
energy efficiency by providing buildings that meet the energy efficiency goals of The Fullerton
Plan.
Overall, the Project is an infill development. The project site is located adjacent to railroads that
serve Amtrak and Metro thus providing mass transit options close to the proposed residential
and hotel uses. The Project’s uses would also result in trip reductions due to the project site’s
proximity to nearby commercial uses, which are within walking distance of the project site.
Therefore, the Project would promote pedestrian activity in an area with complementary uses
and mass transit, which would reduce reliance on single-passenger vehicles.
In addition, Orange County had declared a housing shortage (Orange County 2018). The Project
would assist in increasing available housing within the City and County, which would provide
housing options to employees who work within Orange County and may result in decreased
worker commutes and consumption of transportation fuels. Shorter vehicle trip lengths would
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-51
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
also reduce the amount of traffic congestion, which is consistent with the City’s Transportation
and Mobility Strategy and Sustainable Regional Revitalization Efforts of the Climate Action Plan.
As the Project complies with the latest energy efficiency standards and provides additional
housing capacity within the City, which results in savings of transportation fuels, the Project
would be consistent with energy conservation goals established in The Fullerton Plan and would
not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. There
would be a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required.
Standard Conditions of Approval
COA ENE-1 The Project must be designed in accordance with the applicable Title 24 Energy
Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (California
Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 24, Part 6). These standards are updated,
nominally every three years, to incorporate improved energy efficiency
technologies and methods.
COA ENE-2 The Project is subject to the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen)
(CCR, Title 24, Part 11). These standards are updated, nominally every three
years, to incorporate improved energy efficiency technologies and methods.
Mitigation Measures
Project implementation would not result in significant impacts related to Energy; therefore, no
mitigation measures are required.
Environmental Checklist
4-52 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of a known
fault?
ii) Strong seismic groundshaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of
the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
direct or indirect risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Fullerton Transportation Center Specific Plan PEIR
The analysis in the PEIR identified that the “potentially active” Norwalk Fault was below a
portion of the FTC Specific Plan area and there were other active faults within 30 miles of the
project area. Potentially significant impacts related to the strong seismic ground shaking and
secondary seismic effects, including liquefaction and liquefaction-induced settlement, would be
less than significant with compliance with SC 4-1 and implementation of MM 4-1 and MM 4-2.
It was indicated that there were no known potentially significant on-site hazards related to soil
stability. With compliance with SC 4-1, all potential impacts related to the unstable soils would
be less than significant.
Future compacted fill materials derived from on-site excavations were anticipated to have
medium expansion potential. Potentially significant impacts related to expansive soils would be
less than significant with implementation SC 4-1 and MM 4-1 and MM 4-2. On-site soils were
considered corrosive to buried metals. Implementation of MM 4-1 and MM 4-2 would reduce
potential impacts to a less than significant level.
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-53
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
The FTC Specific Plan area would be subject to strong seismic ground shaking and secondary
seismic effects, including liquefaction, and liquefaction-induced settlement. No known
potentially significant on-site hazards related to soil stability was identified. Future compacted
fill materials derived from on-site excavations were anticipated to have medium expansion
potential. On-site soils were considered to be corrosive to buried metals.
For informational purposes, the PDF, SCs, and MMs from the PEIR are provided below.
Project Design Features
PDF 12-3 In compliance with Section 4.7.10 of the Regulating Code for the FTC Specific Plan,
and as described in Section 3, Project Description, proposed development within
the FTC Specific Plan shall have a net-zero demand on the City’s water supply
sources. To implement this standard, development projects shall fund water
conservation projects in other locations of the City, participate in water
conservation programs that directly benefit City residents, and/or obtain water
from a completely new source of water. A development project in the FTC Specific
Plan could also participate in regional water conservation efforts and/or projects
when it can be shown to achieve a direct and quantifiable effect on the City’s water
supply. Examples of methods that may be used to achieve this goal include but are
not limited to (1) use of artificial turf to replace natural turf in parks or recreation
areas; (2) replacement of existing inefficient water fixtures with low water-use
fixtures; and (3) development of a facility and system to collect, treat, and
distribute recycled water. The City of Fullerton Water Manager and Community
Development Director shall approve all net-zero water solutions proposed by
developers within the FTC Specific Plan area.
Standard Conditions and Requirements
SC 4-1 Geotechnical design considerations for the implementation of the FTC Specific
Plan are governed by the Fullerton Building Code, as set forth in Title 14 of the
Municipal Code, which incorporates by reference the California Building Code,
2007 Edition (i.e., 2007 California Building, Plumbing, Mechanical, Electrical and
Existing Building Codes). Project implementation shall comply with all applicable
requirements of the 2007 CBC, the Fullerton Municipal Code, and any applicable
building and seismic codes in effect at the time the grading plans are approved.
Mitigation Measures
MM 4-1 Prior to issuance of each grading permit and in compliance with Section
16.05.065, Soils Report, of the City of Fullerton Municipal Code, the property
owner/developer shall have a site-specific final geotechnical investigation
prepared by a qualified licensed soils/engineering geologist and/or geotechnical
engineer (geotechnical consultant). The geotechnical consultant shall determine
if additional subsurface geotechnical field work (e.g., borings, CPT tests),
laboratory testing, and/or geotechnical analysis is necessary in order to provide
site-specific geotechnical design recommendations that ensure compliance with
the Fullerton Municipal Code and the most recently adopted CBC in effect at the
time of building permit issuance. These site-specific recommendations would be
Environmental Checklist
4-54 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
in addition to those identified in the 2008 Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation
dated July 24, 2008. Recommendations from site-specific geotechnical
investigations shall be incorporated into the project site preparation and building
design specifications of the project. Compliance with this requirement shall be
verified by the City of Fullerton Building Official.
MM 4-2 The project site preparation and building design specifications shall include:
(1) recommendations from the 2008 Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation dated
July 24, 2008; (2) recommendations from the August 4, 2009 Supplemental
Geotechnical Information Memorandum; and (3) recommendations from the site-
specific geotechnical studies required by MM 4-1. These recommendations shall
include specifications for the following:
• Site Earthwork
o Site Preparation
o Over-excavation and Recompaction
o Fill Placement and Compaction
o Subterranean Foundation Excavation
o Trench Backfill and Compaction
• Foundation Recommendations
o Lateral Earth Pressures for Subterranean Walls
o Lateral Earth Pressures for Shoring Design
o Foundations (Slab-on-Ground and Footings)
• Vapor Retarder and Sand Below Slabs
• Non-structural Concrete Flatwork
• Pavement Recommendations
• Control of Surface Water and Drainage Control
• Construction Observation, Testing and Geotechnical Plan Review
• Geotechnical Plan Review
The project site preparation and building design specifications shall be verified
by the City of Fullerton Building Official prior to issuance of a grading permit.
Introduction
A Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report (Geotechnical Investigation) has been prepared
by Geoquake, Inc. (August 2019) for the proposed Project summarizing current subsurface soil
conditions and findings, infiltration tests, laboratory testing, engineering analysis, and
presenting foundation and earthwork recommendations for the proposed development.
(Geoquake 2019). The findings of the Geotechnical Investigation are summarized below, and the
report is included as Appendix D to this IS/MND.
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-55
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
Impact Analysis
Would the Project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for
the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?
Less Than Significant Impact. Ground rupture occurs when movement on a fault breaks
through the surface. The State of California has established Earthquake Fault Zones for the
purpose of mitigating the hazard of fault rupture by prohibiting the location of most human
occupancy structures across the traces of active faults. The project site is not included within an
Earthquake Fault Zone as created by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Faulting Zone Act. A review
of published geologic literature and maps pertaining to the site vicinity indicates that there are
no known or potentially active faults with the potential for surface rupture crossing or projecting
towards the site. Additionally, faut rupture through the site is not anticipated. However, because
of the high tectonic activity of the region and proximity of the Puente Hills Blind Thrust Fault
system and other faults such as the Elsinore Fault system the potential for surface rupture cannot
be precluded. The nearest known major active fault is the Puente Hills (Coyote Hills) thrust
located approximately 0.17 miles (0.27 kilometers) away from the project site. Other faults close
to the site are the Elsinore Fault located approximately 5.26 miles (8.4 kilometers) away, and the
Puente Hills (Santa Fe Springs) Fault located approximately 7.05 miles (11.3 kilometers) away.
It should be noted that the Southern California region is an area of moderate to high seismic risk
and it is not considered feasible to render structures fully resistant to seismic related hazards.
The minimum seismic design should comply with the 2019 California Building Code (CBC) and
ASCE 7-10 using seismic parameters recommended in the Geotechnical Investigation. Impacts
associated with surface rupture from an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone would be less than significant,
and no mitigation is required.
ii) Strong seismic groundshaking?
Less than Significant Impact. As stated under Threshold 4.7(a)(i), the project site is not located
within a designated State of California Earthquake Fault Zone. Ground rupture is generally
considered most likely to occur along preexisting active faults of Holocene age. Based on review
of existing geologic information, no active or potentially active faults are known to cross within
or immediately adjacent to the project site. As such, the potential for ground rupture at the
project site is considered low. Surface fault rupture resulting from the movement of nearby
major faults is unknown and uncertain. However, due to the proximity of known active and
potentially active faults, severe ground shaking should be expected during the life of the
proposed structures.
To reduce the effects of ground shaking, the Project would be designed in accordance with all
applicable current codes and standards utilizing the appropriate seismic design parameters to
reduce seismic risk as defined by California Geological Survey (CGS) Chapter 2 of Special
Publication 117a and the 2019 California Building Code (COA GEO-1). Per COA GEO-1, all
buildings and other structures constructed as part of the Project would be designed in
Environmental Checklist
4-56 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
accordance with applicable requirements of the CBC in effect at the time of grading plan
submittal, and any applicable building and seismic codes in effect at the time the grading plans
are submitted. The Geotechnical Investigation concludes that the proposed Project is feasible
from a geotechnical standpoint. Therefore, there would be a less than significant impact from
strong seismic groundshaking, and no mitigation is required.
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Less than Significant Impact. Liquefaction is a soil behavior phenomenon in which loose,
saturated soil loses a substantial amount of strength due to high excess pre pressure generated
during cyclic loading imposed by strong earthquake ground shaking. The amount of pressure
generation and subsequent loss of strength in the materials is dependent on the density and
other characteristics of the soil and the level of duration of shaking experienced. As a result, the
soil mass is distorted, and inter-particulate effective stresses are reduced to zero, the soil
behaves temporarily as viscous fluid (liquefaction) and, consequently, loses its capacity to
support the structures founded thereon.
Soils most susceptible to liquefaction are clean, loose, saturated, uniformly graded, and fine to
medium-grained sands. Empirical evidence indicates that loose to medium-dense gravels, silty
sands, and low to moderate plasticity silts and clays may be susceptible to liquefaction. In
addition, sensitive high-plastic soils may be susceptible to significant strains and/or strength
loss as a result of significant cyclic loading. The current practice categorizes the behavior of the
fine-grained materials during failure into “sand-like” behavior and “clay-like” behavior. The term
liquefaction is applicable to materials with the “sand-like” behavior during the seismic loading,
and the term cyclic softening is applicable to materials with “clay-like” behavior during a seismic
event.
According to current Seismic Hazard Zones map for the Anaheim Quadrangle published by the
California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) the project site is located in an area delineated
as having potential for liquefaction. However, groundwater was encountered at the site at a
depth of approximately 71.5 feet below ground surface (bgs). Based on the Geotechnical
Investigation liquefaction analysis prepared for the Project, the potential for liquefaction at the
project site under a design seismic event is deemed low. Therefore, the Project would not result
in a substantial adverse effect, including the risk of loss, injury, or death, due to seismic-related
ground failure, including liquefaction. There would be a less than significant impact, and no
mitigation is required.
iv) Landslides?
No Impact. The project site and surrounding area are located in a generally flat, urbanized
portion of the City, with the ground elevations on the project site at approximately 158 feet above
mean sea level (msl). The potential for seismically induced landslides to occur at the project site
is not considered a hazard due to the absence of slopes at the project site. In addition, based on
the State’s Seismic Hazard Zones Map for the Anaheim Quadrangle, the project site is not located
within an area susceptible to seismically induced landslides. Therefore, the Project would not
result in a substantial adverse effect, including the risk of loss, injury, or death, due to landslides.
No impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-57
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Less than Significant Impact. The project site is fully developed with surface parking, a parking
structure, and associated site improvements and has a relatively flat topography. During
demolition and construction activities, temporary soil erosion may occur due to soil disturbance
and the removal of parking structure and paved surfaces. In addition, soil erosion due to rainfall
and wind may occur if unprotected soils are exposed during construction. The project site is
located within an alluvial plain that is comprised of a mixture of soils including sand, silt, clay,
and gravel. The project area includes multiple alluvial soils associated with the Santa Ana River
System.
As the project site has over one acre of land area, it would be required to obtain a National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for construction activities or coverage
under the NPDES Construction General Permit. The Construction General Permit requires
preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and implementation of erosion
control, sediment control, tracking, waste management, and construction site maintenance best
management practices (BMPs) to reduce the potential for soil and wind erosion during
construction activities (see COA HYD-1, in Section 4.10).
Most of the project site is currently covered in impervious surfaces (90.18 percent), and Project
implementation would also result in an increase of impervious surfaces, to 92.31 percent
coverage. There would be minimal areas of exposed soils following completion of the proposed
Project where erosion could occur. Site improvements and landscaping would also prevent long-
term erosion. Therefore, long-term soil erosion would be less than significant, and no mitigation
is required.
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. As discussed above, the project site is not located in a potential
landslide zone, and therefore, the Project would not result in on-or off-site landslides. The project
site is located within a State-mapped Liquefaction Hazard Zone. However, groundwater was
encountered at the site at a depth of approximately 71.5 feet below ground surface (bgs). Based
on the Geotechnical Investigation liquefaction analysis prepared for the Project, the potential for
liquefaction at the project site under a design seismic event is deemed low. Seismically induced
lateral spreading involves lateral movement of earth materials due to the ground shaking.
Lateral spreading is characterized by near-vertical cracks with predominately horizontal
movement of the soil mass involved. In consideration of relatively flat ground level and absence
of nearby slopes the potential for lateral spreading at project site is considered negligible. As
such, there would be a less than significant impact regarding lateral spreading and liquefaction,
and no mitigation is required.
Ground accelerations generated from a seismic event can produce settlements in sands or in
granular earth materials both above and below the groundwater table. This phenomenon is often
referred to as seismic settlement and is most common in relatively clean sands, although it can
also occur in other soil materials. As indicated in the Geotechnical Investigation, the total and
differential seismically induced settlements are anticipated to be on the order of 1½ inch and ¾
inch in 30 feet. The Geotechnical Investigation determined that with adherence with standard
Environmental Checklist
4-58 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
structural design requirements from the current building code (COA GEO-1) potential impacts
pertaining to seismically induced settlement and collapse would be less than significant, and no
mitigation is required.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
Less than Significant Impact. Expansive soils are characterized by their ability to undergo
significant volume changes (shrink or swell) due to variations in moisture content. Expansive
soils contain significant amounts of clay particles that swell considerably when wet and shrink
when dried. Changes in soil moisture content can result from rainfall, landscape irrigation, utility
leakage, roof drainage, perched groundwater, drought, or other factors, and may cause
unacceptable settlement or heave of structures, concrete slabs supported on-grade, or
pavements supported over these materials. Depending on the extent and location below finished
subgrade, these soils could have a detrimental effect on the proposed construction.
As stated previously, the project site is located within an alluvial plain that is comprised of a
mixture of soils including sand, silt, clay, and gravel. The project area includes multiple alluvial
soils associated with the Santa Ana River System. The expansion potential of selected materials
was evaluated by the Expansion Index Testing as per ASTM D 4826. An Expansion Index (EI) of
25 indicates a low expansion potential. However, based on variable expansiveness of the fill
materials, additional expansion tests should be performed in the field during grading.
Furthermore, Project construction would be required to comply with 2019 California Building
Code (COA GEO-1). Therefore, Project impacts related to expansive soils would be less than
significant, and no mitigation is required.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
No Impact. The use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems is not proposed
by the Project. Therefore, no impact would result, and no mitigation is required.
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
Less than Significant Impact. The project site is located in the Downey Plain within the
southeastern margin of the Los Angeles Basin, a large structural depression within the
Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province of California. In general, the Downey Plain is bordered
by the Coyote and Peralta Hills on the north, the Santa Ana Mountains and Tustin Plain to the
east, the Pacific Ocean to the south, and Los Angeles Coastal Plain to the west. Several broadly
warped coastal mesas represent uplifted areas along the active Newport-Inglewood structural
fault zone. These mesas are separated by erosional gaps, which were created by historic routes
of the Santa Ana River.
The site lies near the lower reaches of the Santa Ana River and associated floodplain. Historical
accounts, documents, and results further support widespread sheet flooding and marine
transgression as being the dominant depositional process associated with the Santa Ana River
floodplain.
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-59
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
This analysis is based on the results of a literature review and records check conducted through
the Natural History Museum (LACM) of Los Angeles County and a review of geologic maps and
aerials of the project site. The paleontological records search was completed on May 19, 2021.
The record search included a thorough search of the LACM paleontology collection records for
the locality and specimen data for the project site and surrounding area. The record search did
not identify any fossil localities within the site. However, six localities were located nearby from
the same sedimentary deposits that occur in the project site, either at the surface or at depth. As
indicated above, the project site is generally underlain by Quaternary-aged young Holocene
alluvial soils, which could contain unknown fossils. However, the site history and geotechnical
analysis indicates these earthmoving activities would take place in previously disturbed soils,
which consist of re-deposited alluvial soil and artificial fill.
Nevertheless, while paleontological resources are not anticipated to be discovered during
excavations, if grading activities encounter unknown paleontological resources, implementation
of COA CUL-1 would ensure this impact be less than significant. Therefore, this impact would be
less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Standard Conditions of Approval
COA GEO-1 The Project Applicant shall adhere to the 2019 California Building Code
(California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2), including but not limited to
structural design requirements that provide minimum standards for mitigating
the effects of seismic shaking and adverse soil conditions.
COA CUL-1 from Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, are applicable to this analysis.
Mitigation Measures
MM 3-1 of the FTC Specific Plan Program EIR from Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, is applicable
to this analysis. With implementation of this measure potential impacts to Geology and Soils
would be less than significant.
.
Environmental Checklist
4-60 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
4.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
Fullerton Transportation Center Specific Plan PEIR
Based on the analysis in the PEIR, the estimated total construction related and operational GHG
emissions from the proposed FTC Specific Plan would be less than the significance thresholds of
4.6 MTCO2e/yr/SP and 25,000 MTCO2e/yr total emissions, and therefore the impact were
considered less than significant.
Additionally, it was determined that the Project would not conflict with an applicable plan,
policy, or regulation of State, regional, or local agencies. This impact was also considered less
than significant.
For informational purposes, the PDFs and SCs from the PEIR are provided below.
Project Design Features
PDF 13-1 The California Energy Commission (CEC) considers compact development forms
beneficial for minimizing energy consumption that leads to GHG emissions. The CEC’s
report on the connections between land use and climate change identifies density as
the project feature that best predicts the number of vehicle trips and vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) by project occupants. The proposed project is within the mixed-use
downtown area of the City of Fullerton (which includes parks, schools, and civic uses)
and involves implementation of a mixed-use development including high density
residential, office, hotel, and retail/commercial uses near a transportation center
(transit-oriented development). On a regional basis, this PDF will reduce VMT.
PDF 13-2 The proposed project would develop high density residential, office, hotel, and
retail/commercial uses near the Fullerton Transportation Center, which is served by
Metrolink and Amtrak passenger rail services and Orange County Transportation
Authority (OCTA) bus services, including the bus transfer terminal. Therefore, the
proposed project would facilitate walking and non-passenger car travel to a greater
extent than would be the case for a similar development in outlying areas without
transit availability. In addition, with the high density development, there would be a
greater number of potential residents that could use or engage in alternative modes
of travel than in a lower-density development within the project area.
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-61
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
PDF 13-3 In compliance with Sections 2.3.3, 4.2.19, and 4.6.4 of the Regulating Code for the FTC
Specific Plan, trash and recycle receptacles shall be provided near all benches and
near high traffic areas such as parks, plazas, transit stops, and retail and dining
establishments.
PDF 13-4 In compliance with Section 4.3.2 of the Regulating Code for the FTC Specific Plan, in
all landscaped spaces, both public and privately owned:
• Planting species selected shall be drought tolerant.
• All landscape areas shall include automatic irrigation controllers utilizing
either evapotranspiration or soil moisture sensor data. Sensors, either
internal or auxiliary, shall be installed to suspend or alter irrigation operation
during unfavorable weather conditions. Drip irrigation and other low water
use technologies shall be used to the maximum extent feasible to reduce water
consumption.
• Planter pots shall be irrigated by automatic irrigation systems.
PDF 13-5 In compliance with Section 4.3.2 of the Regulating Code for the FTC Specific Plan,
energy-efficient lighting shall be used in all civic spaces.
PDF 13-6 As identified in Section 1.1.2, Sustainability, of the FTC Specific Plan, the Specific Plan
is designed to achieve the equivalency of certification under the Leadership in Energy
and Environmental Design Rating System for neighborhood Development (LEED-
ND). Additionally, in compliance with Sections 4.4.2, 4.4.3, 4.4.4, and 4.4.5 of the
Regulating Code for the FTC Specific Plan, in Additional Building Types, Mixed Use
Buildings A, B and C, the design of each building and site shall incorporate sustainable
design features to demonstrate the equivalency to a certified project under the U.S.
Green Building Council’s (USGBC) LEED Rating System for New Construction. The
version of LEED for New Construction that is in effect when the application is deemed
complete shall be utilized. Official or formal certification by the USGBC is not required
by the City of Fullerton due to associated administrative costs. However, the project
shall be designed with measures in place to meet the equivalency of a LEED-certified
building. To implement this standard, the design team for the project shall include at
least one LEED Accredited Professional.
Prior to issuance of each building permit, the Project Applicant shall submit the
following to the City of Fullerton Community Development Department: (1) a final
LEED Checklist that documents how the project shall meet the equivalency of a
certified project under the USGBC’s LEED Rating System for New Construction; (2) a
signed declaration from the Project Applicant’s Project Architect and LEED
Accredited Professional declaring that the plans and plan details have been prepared
in accordance with the submitted LEED Checklist; and (3) stamped and signed plans
that include the LEED Checklist and the Signed Declaration on the front page of the
plan set. The above items shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Fullerton
Building Official prior to issuance of building permits.
PDF 13-7 In compliance with Section 4.7.4 of the Regulating Code for the FTC Specific Plan, the
proposed project shall provide bicycle parking spaces for residential, commercial,
general office, lodging, and institutional facilities. Section 4.7.4 establishes minimum
Environmental Checklist
4-62 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
bicycle parking requirements that are appropriate for an urban, mixed-use, transit-
oriented neighborhood. In addition to setting requirements for the number of spaces,
the regulation requires that bicycle spaces for residents and employees be easily
accessible, secure, enclosed spaces and that spaces for visitors and customers be
visible from the primary building entrance, illuminated at night, and protected from
damage from moving and parked vehicles. Alternatively, an in-lieu fee may be paid to
the City. In-lieu fees shall be used to fund bicycle facilities in the FTC Specific Plan,
such as a bike-n-ride station or public bike racks/lockers.
PDF 11-2, in Section 4.11 of the of the PEIR, also described improvements that would be made
to improve bicycle access and encourage bicycle use and is also applicable to the GHG emissions
analysis presented in this section.
PDF 12-3 was also applicable.
Standard Conditions and Requirements
The Project would comply with Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and
Nonresidential Buildings (24 CCR, Part 6) and applicable requirements of the California Green
Building Standards Code (24 CCR, Part 11).
Introduction
A Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions analysis was prepared by Psomas for the proposed Project.
The findings are included below, and the data is included in Appendix A to this IS/MND.
Existing Setting
Climate change refers to any significant change in measures of climate (e.g., average
temperature, precipitation, or wind patterns) over a period of time. Climate change may result
from natural factors, natural processes, and human activities that change the composition of the
atmosphere and alter the surface and features of the land. Significant changes in global climate
patterns have recently been associated with global warming, which is an average increase in the
temperature of the atmosphere near the Earth’s surface; this is attributed to an accumulation of
GHG emissions in the atmosphere. GHGs trap heat in the atmosphere which, in turn, increases
the Earth’s surface temperature. Some GHGs occur naturally and are emitted to the atmosphere
through natural processes, while others are created and emitted solely through human activities.
The emissions of GHGs through fossil fuel combustion in conjunction with other human activities
are associated with global warming.
GHGs, as defined under California’s Assembly Bill (AB) 32, include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane
(CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur
hexafluoride (SF6). General discussions on climate change often include water vapor,
atmospheric ozone, and aerosols in the GHG category. Water vapor and atmospheric ozone are
not gases that are formed directly in the construction or operation of development projects, nor
can they be controlled in these projects. Aerosols are not gases. While these elements have a role
in climate change, they are not considered by either regulatory bodies, such as the California Air
Resources Board (CARB), or climate change groups, such as the California Climate Action
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-63
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
Registry, as gases to be reported or analyzed for control. Therefore, no further discussion of
water vapor, atmospheric ozone, or aerosols is provided.
Regulatory Background
On June 1, 2005, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order (EO) S-3-05, which
calls for a reduction in GHG emissions to the year 2000 level by 2010, to year 1990 levels by
2020, and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
The principal overall State plan and policy adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions
is Assembly Bill (AB) 32 (California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006). AB 32 establishes
regulatory, reporting, and market mechanisms to achieve quantifiable reductions in GHG
emissions and establishes a cap on statewide GHG emissions. AB 32 recognizes that California is
the source of substantial amounts of GHG emissions. The statute states the following:
Global warming poses a serious threat to the economic well-being, public health,
natural resources, and the environment of California. The potential adverse
impacts of global warming include the exacerbation of air quality problems, a
reduction in the quality and supply of water to the state from the Sierra snowpack,
a rise in sea levels resulting in the displacement of thousands of coastal businesses
and residences, damage to marine ecosystems and the natural environment, and
an increase in the incidences of infectious diseases, asthma, and other human
health-related problems.
In order to avert these consequences, AB 32 establishes a State goal of reducing GHG emissions
to 1990 levels by the year 2020, codifying the goal of EO S-3-05.
CARB approved a Climate Change Scoping Plan as required by AB 32 in 2008; this plan is
required to be updated every five years. The Climate Change Scoping Plan proposes a
“comprehensive set of actions designed to reduce overall carbon GHG emissions in California,
improve our environment, reduce our dependence on oil, diversify our energy sources, save
energy, create new jobs, and enhance public health” (CARB 2008). The Climate Change Scoping
Plan has a range of GHG-reduction actions which include direct regulations, alternative
compliance mechanisms, monetary and non-monetary incentives, voluntary actions, market-
based mechanisms such as a cap-and-trade system, and an AB 32 implementation regulation to
fund the program. On February 10, 2014, CARB released the Draft Proposed First Update to the
Climate Change Scoping Plan (CARB 2014). The board approved the final First Update to the
Climate Change Scoping Plan on May 22, 2014. The first update describes California’s progress
towards AB 32 goals, stating that “California is on track to meet the near-term 2020 greenhouse
gas limit and is well positioned to maintain and continue reductions beyond 2020 as required by
AB 32” (CARB 2014). The latest update occurred in January 2017 and incorporates the 40
percent reduction to 1990 emissions levels by 2030.
The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008, Senate Bill (SB) 375,
established a process to coordinate land use planning, regional transportation plans, and funding
priorities in order to help California meet the GHG reduction goals established in AB 32. SB 375
required the SCAG to incorporate the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) into its Regional
Transportation Plans (RTPs) that will achieve GHG emission reduction targets though several
measures, including land use decisions. SCAG’s SCS is included in the SCAG 2020–2045 RTP/SCS
Environmental Checklist
4-64 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
(SCAG 2020). The goals and policies of the RTP/SCS that reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
focus on transportation and land use planning that include building infill projects; locating
residents closer to where they work and play; and designing communities so there is access to
high quality transit service.
On April 29, 2015, Governor Brown signed EO B-30-15, which ordered an interim statewide GHG
emission reduction target to reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 to
ensure California meets its target of reducing GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by
2050. Five key goals for reducing GHG emissions through 2030 include (1) increasing renewable
electricity to 50 percent; (2) doubling the energy efficiency savings achieved in existing buildings
and making heating fuels cleaner; (3) reducing petroleum use in cars and trucks by up to
50 percent; (4) reducing emissions of short-lived climate pollutants; and (5) managing farms,
rangelands, forests and wetlands to increasingly store carbon. EO B-30-15 also directs CARB to
update the Climate Change Scoping Plan to express the 2030 target in terms of million metric
tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.
On September 8, 2016, the Governor signed Senate Bill 32 (SB 32) to codify the GHG reduction
goals of EO B-30-15, requiring the State to reduce GHG emissions by 40 percent below 1990
levels by 2030 (Health and Safety Code Section 38566). As stated above, this goal is expected to
keep the State on track to meeting the goal set by EO S-3-05 of reducing GHG emissions by 80
percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
AB 197 was signed at the same time to ensure that the SB 32 goals are met by requiring CARB to
provide annual reports of GHGs, criteria pollutants, and TACs by facility, City and sub-county
level, and sector for stationary sources and at the County level for mobile sources. It also requires
the CARB to prioritize specified emission reduction rules and regulations and to identify
specified information for emission reduction measures (e.g., alternative compliance mechanism,
market-based compliance mechanism, and potential monetary and nonmonetary incentive)
when updating the Scoping Plan.
SB 350, signed October 7, 2015, is the Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015. SB 350
is the implementation of some of the goals of EO B-30-15. The objectives of SB 350 are as follows:
1. To increase from 33 percent to 50 percent, the procurement of our electricity from
renewable sources
2. To double the energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas final end uses of
retail customers through energy efficiency and conservation
The text of SB 350 sets a December 31, 2030, target for 50 percent of electricity to be generated
from renewable sources. SB 350 also requires the State to double statewide energy efficiency
savings in electricity and natural gas end uses by 2030. Additionally, SB 350 sets requirements
for large utilities to develop and submit integrated resources plans (IRPs), which detail how
utilities would meet their customers’ resource needs, reduce GHG emissions, and integrate clean
energy resources (CEC 2022a).
On September 10, 2018, Governor Brown signed SB 100, the 100 Percent Clean Energy Act of
2018. SB 100 requires renewable energy and zero-carbon resources to supply 100 percent of
electric retail sales to end-use customers and 100 percent of electricity procured to serve state
agencies by December 31, 2045. This policy requires the transition to zero-carbon electric
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-65
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
systems that do not cause contributions to increase of GHG emissions elsewhere in the western
electricity grid (CEC 2022b). SB 100 also creates new standards for the Renewable Portfolio
Standard (RPS) goals established by SB 350 in 2015. Specifically, the bill increases required
energy from renewable sources for both investor-owned utilities and publicly owned utilities
from 50 percent to 60 percent by 2030.
Further, on September 10, 2018, Governor Brown also signed California EO B-55-18, which sets
a new statewide goal of carbon neutrality as soon as possible, and no later than 2045 and achieve
net negative emissions thereafter. EO B-55-18 was added to the existing Statewide targets of
reducing GHG emissions, including the targets previously established by Governor Brown of
reducing emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (EO B-30-15 and SB 32), and by
Governor Schwarzenegger of reducing emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2040
(EO S-3-05).
The Fullerton Plan Climate Action Plan (CAP) provides a framework for reducing GHG emissions
and managing resources to best prepare for a changing climate (City of Fullerton 2012c). The
CAP recommends GHG emissions targets that are consistent with the reduction targets of the
State of California, including AB 32, and presents strategies for each category of GHG emissions
(e.g., transportation, emergency consumption, water consumption and waste disposal) that will
make it possible for the City to meet the recommended targets.
The CAP also suggests best practices for implementation and makes recommendations for
measuring progress. The Fullerton Plan CAP states the following (City of Fullerton 2012c):
One of the primary uses for a CAP is to establish significance thresholds for
reviewing projects under CEQA. CEQA requires the City to identify the significant
environmental impacts of its discretionary actions and to avoid or mitigate those
impacts if feasible. The CEQA Guidelines, as updated pursuant to SB 97,
acknowledges that climate change is an environmental issue that requires
analysis under CEQA and encourages the use of a plan consistency threshold for
cumulative impacts on climate change. Projects that demonstrate consistency
with the strategies, actions, and emission reduction targets contained in the CAP
would have a less than significant impact on climate change.
When the City undertakes a discretionary action, such as approval of a proposed
development project, plan, policy, or code change, the City will evaluate whether
that action would result in a significant climate change impact.
Project consistency with the CAP is discussed under Threshold 4.8(b) below. It is accepted as
very unlikely that any individual development project such as the size and character of the
proposed project would have GHG emissions of a magnitude to directly impact global climate
change; therefore, any impact would be considered on a cumulative basis.
Thresholds of Significance
Because the City has a CAP, which demonstrates how it will meet AB 32 requirements, the
determination of whether a project would generate GHG emissions that may have a significant
impact on the environment or conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for
the purpose of reducing GHG emissions can be made by determining the consistency of that
Environmental Checklist
4-66 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
project with the CAP. However, the City’s CAP does not address recent requirements established
by SB 32 to reduce GHG emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Therefore, in
addition to establishing the Project’s consistency with the CAP, the determination as to whether
the proposed Project would generate GHG emissions that may have a significant impact on the
environment is also determined by comparing the Project’s emissions to the suggested South
Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) threshold for all land use projects, discussed
below.
On December 5, 2008, the SCAQMD Governing Board presented the staff proposal for a tiered
threshold approach wherein Tier 1 determines if a project qualifies for an applicable CEQA
exemption, Tier 2 determines consistency with GHG reduction plans, and Tier 3 proposes a
numerical screening value as a threshold. At their September 28, 2010, meeting, the Working
Group suggested a Tier 3 threshold of 3,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e)
per year for all land use types (SCAQMD 2010). Tier 4 determines if the project meets
performance standards. Tier 4 has three options: Option 1—percent emission reduction target;
Option 2—early implementation of applicable measures, and Option 3—sector-based standard.
Tier 5 determines mitigation for CEQA offsets.
In the absence of adopted thresholds, the Tier 3 standard of 3,000 MTCO2e per year is used for
this analysis. The development of project-level thresholds in accordance with CEQA is an ongoing
effort at the State, Regional, and County levels, and significance thresholds may differ for future
projects based on new or additional data and information that may be available at that time for
consideration. The City of Fullerton has not officially adopted any GHG CEQA significance
threshold. The City defers to assessment methods and significance thresholds developed by the
SCAQMD. This impact analysis evaluates consistency with regulatory programs designed to
reduce GHG emissions and that contribute to the achievement of AB 32’s and SB 32’s goals as the
primary significance criterion. In addition, this impact analysis also evaluates the Project’s
estimated emissions compared to the Tier 3 threshold for impacts related to GHG emissions
proposed by staff of the SCAQMD, but not adopted by the SCAQMD Board.
Impact Analysis
Would the Project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
Less than Significant Impact. Project GHG emissions were estimated using the California
Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2020.4.0 computer program (CAPCOA 2022).
CalEEMod is designed to model construction and operational emissions for land development
projects and allows for the input of project- and County-specific information. For modeling
purposes, construction of the Project was based on the Project’s construction assumptions and
default assumptions derived from CalEEMod. The input for operational emissions was based on
the vehicle trip generation rates provided in the transportation impact analysis and the
proposed building area. Additional input details are included in Appendix A.
The estimated construction GHG emissions for the proposed Project would be 1,788 MTCO2e, as
shown in Table 4-11, Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Construction.
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-67
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
TABLE 4-11
ESTIMATED GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS FROM CONSTRUCTION
Year
Emissions
(MTCO2e)
Year 1 190
Year 2 936
Year 3 662
Total 1,788
MTCO2e: metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
Notes:
• Totals may not add due to rounding variances.
• Detailed calculations in Appendix A.
Operational GHG emissions would come primarily from vehicle trips; other sources including
electricity and water consumption; natural gas for space and water heating; and
gasoline-powered landscaping and maintenance equipment. Table 4-12, Estimated Annual
Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Project Operation, shows the annual GHG emissions from
proposed Project’s operations.
TABLE 4-12
ESTIMATED ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS FROM PROJECT OPERATION
Source
Emissions
(MTCO2e/yr)
Area 5
Energy 983
Mobile 1,343
Stationary 1
Waste 102
Water 97
Total Operational Emissions 2,532
MTCO2e/yr: metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year
Notes:
• Totals may not add due to rounding variances.
• Detailed calculations in Appendix A.
Because impacts from construction activities occur over a relatively short period of time, they
contribute a relatively small portion of the overall lifetime Project GHG emissions. In addition,
GHG emission reduction measures for construction equipment are relatively limited. The
SCAQMD recommends that construction emissions be amortized over a 30-year project lifetime
so that GHG reduction measures address construction GHG emissions as part of the operational
GHG reduction strategies (SCAQMD 2008). Therefore, construction and operational emissions
are combined by amortizing the construction and operations over an assumed 30-year Project
lifetime. This combination is shown in Table 4-13, Estimated Total Project Annual Greenhouse
Gas Emissions, using the proposed Project’s amortized construction and operational emissions.
Environmental Checklist
4-68 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
TABLE 4-13
ESTIMATED TOTAL PROJECT ANNUAL
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Source
Emissions
(MTCO2e/yra)
Construction (Amortized) 60a
Operations (Table 4-12) 2,532
Totalb 2,592
SCAQMD-Recommended Threshold (Tier 3) 3,000
Exceeds Threshold? No
MTCO2e/yr: metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year
a Total derived by dividing construction emissions (see Table 4-9) by 30.
b Total annual emissions are the sum of amortized construction emissions and
operational emissions.
As discussed above, there are no established applicable quantitative federal, State, regional, or
local CEQA significance criteria for GHG emissions for non-industrial projects in the SoCAB. The
SCAQMD has proposed, but not adopted, a threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year for non-industrial
land use projects. As shown, the estimated GHG emissions from the Project, without taking credit
for the GHG emissions from existing uses that would be removed with Project implementation,
would be less than this suggested threshold. The impact would be less than significant, and no
mitigation is required.
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less than Significant Impact.
On December 5, 2008, the SCAQMD Governing Board adopted the staff proposal for a tiered
threshold approach wherein Tier 1 determines if a project qualifies for an applicable CEQA
exemption; Tier 2 determines consistency with GHG reduction plans; and Tier 3 proposes a
numerical screening value as a threshold. At their September 28, 2010, meeting, the Working
Group suggested a Tier 3 threshold of 3,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e)
per year for all land use types. Tier 4 determines if the project meets performance standards.
Since the City of Fullerton has an adopted and certified Climate Action Plan, the SCAQMD’s Tier
2 approach could be used. As identified in the City’s CAP, when determining whether a proposed
project is consistent with the CAP, the following should be considered:
Step 1: Consider the consistency of the discretionary project (magnitude and
location of growth) with The Fullerton Plan’s year 2030 growth projections,
which are the basis of the GHG emissions inventory projects. If the project is
consistent with The Fullerton Plan projections, the project is consistent with the
CAP.
The CAP then states, “If the discretionary project is not consistent with The Fullerton Plan’s year
2030 growth projections, the project is not necessarily inconsistent with the CAP” and prescribes
Steps 2, 3, and 4 to be addressed. The following analyzes the Project’s consistency in accordance
with Step 1.
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-69
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
The proposed Project would be located in the Fullerton Town Center (FTC) Focus Area D-Harbor
Gateway in The Fullerton Plan and is consistent with the growth projections for this Focus Area.
As indicated in Table 3-4, Projected Land Use Change—Focus Areas, of The Fullerton Plan PEIR,
the land use buildout assumptions for this Focus Area forecast over 2,549 dwelling units of
additional residential uses, and over 1,438,580 sf of additional non-residential uses (City of
Fullerton 2012b). As indicated in Table 5.2-10, Forecast Employment Growth – Focus Area, of
The Fullerton Plan, the City anticipated 4,022 new employees in the Harbor Gateway Focus Area
(16.7 percent of the total employment growth in the City) (City of Fullerton 2012c). The
proposed Project would create employment opportunities during construction and long-term
operations in the Harbor Gateway Focus Area. The Project’s 3,570 sf of non-residential (retail)
uses would generate approximately 11 employees, which is based on the average space
utilization of 324.3 square feet of retail/wholesale space per employee (NAIOP 2009) and
6 employees for management of the multi-family residential uses. This is 0.6 percent of the
anticipated employment growth in the Harbor Gateway Focus Area. The Project would result in
286 dwelling units, which is 4 percent of the City’s projections for the Harbor Gateway Focus
Area. The proposed Project would result in development and employment that has been
envisioned by the City for the Harbor Gateway Focus Area. The Project’s employment and
dwelling units would not exceed and would be consistent with The Fullerton Plan’s year 2030
employment and population growth projections. The Project is consistent with the CAP based on
the Step 1 analysis. Therefore, the employment and population growth resulting from the Project
would be consistent with the CAP, resulting in a less than significant impact related to GHG
emissions and requiring no mitigation.
Section 15183.5 (b) (2) states, “An environmental document that relies on a greenhouse gas
reduction plan for a cumulative impacts analysis must identify those requirements specified in
the plan that apply to the project, and, if those requirements are not otherwise binding and
enforceable, incorporate those requirements as mitigation measures applicable to the project.”
The Fullerton CAP includes four strategies:
1. Transportation and Mobility Strategy - Promote a balanced transportation system that
promotes the use of public transportation and bicycles, reduces congestion, and helps
encourage residents to engage in healthy and active lifestyles.
2. Energy Use and Conservation Strategy - Reduce the carbon footprint of municipal
operations to serve as a leader for the community and support the construction of
buildings that are energy efficient and incorporate clean, renewable energy sources.
3. Water Use and Efficiency Strategy - Conserve and protect water resources and promote
efficiency through public education.
4. Solid Waste Reduction and Recycling Strategy - Manage solid waste generation and
diversion in order to achieve a zero-waste future.
The City has identified specific GHG reduction measures for these strategies, along with
implementation actions for each measure. The implementation actions are City efforts that do
not directly relate to development projects. However, the Project would comply with pertinent
programs and regulations that have been or will be developed as part of these implementation
actions and would support City efforts.
Environmental Checklist
4-70 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
Table 4-14, The Fullerton Plan Climate Action Plan GHG Reduction Measures, lists the City’s CAP
strategies and related GHG reduction measures and provides a general discussion of Project
features and regulations that support the CAP.
TABLE 4-14
THE FULLERTON PLAN CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
GHG REDUCTION MEASURES
MEASURE PROJECT SUPPORT
Transportation and Mobility Strategy
T-1: Reduction of Single Occupant Vehicle
Trips
Support regional and sub-regional efforts to
increase alternatives to and infrastructure
supporting a reduction of single occupant
vehicle trips.
The Project is a mixed-used development within the Fullerton Town
Center and Harbor Gateway Focus Area, which consists of residential and
retail uses proximate to other retail, office, and related uses. The vision
of The Fullerton Plan for the Harbor Gateway Focus Area is high density
development, which would consist of residential, commercial, and
mixed-uses with convenient access to regional transportation. The
placement of residential uses proximate to commercial, office, and
related uses would reduce use of single occupant vehicle trips. The
Project is located within a Transit Priority Area since it is located within
0.1 miles of the Fullerton Train Station. This train station provides access
to both Amtrak and Metrolink trains which would provide additional
transportation options outside of single occupant vehicles. The project
site is also located adjacent to an existing OC bus stops for the 24, 26 and
43 lines. Additionally, the Project would provide secure bicycle storage
spaces for future residents and visitors at the project site, which would
also support regional and sub-regional efforts to increase alternatives to
and infrastructure supporting a reduction of single occupant vehicle
trips.
T-2: Inter-Jurisdiction Connections
Support efforts to maintain, expand and
create new connections between the
Fullerton bicycle network and the bicycle
networks of adjacent cities, Orange County,
and the region.
There is an existing Class III bike route approximately 800 feet north of
the project site. Additionally, there is an existing multi-purpose path
approximately 500 feet south of the project site. There is a planned Class
II Bike Lane on Orangethorpe Avenue to the south of the site and a
planned Class III Bike Route on Lemon Street, east of the site (City of
Fullerton 2012). The Project would not preclude the future development
of these bike lanes and routes.
T-3: Bicycle Transportation Plan
Support projects, programs, and policies to
maintain and update as necessary a Bicycle
Transportation Plan prepared and approved
pursuant to the California Streets and
Highways Code to maintain eligibility for
funding for State Bicycle Transportation
Account funds.
There is an existing Class III bike route approximately 800 feet north of
the project site. Additionally, there is an existing multi-purpose path
approximately 500 feet south of the project site. There is a proposed
Class II Bike Lane on Orangethorpe Avenue to the south of the site and a
proposed Class III Bike Route on Lemon Street, east of the site (City of
Fullerton 2012). The Project would not preclude the future development
of these bike lanes and routes. The Project Applicant would provide 70
secure bicycle storage spaces for future residents and visitors at the
project site.
T-4: Bicycle Use on All Streets
Support projects, programs, policies and
regulations to recognize that every street in
Fullerton is a street that a bicyclist can use.
The Project would not preclude the future development of the City’s
proposed bicycle lanes, discussed above. The Project Applicant would
provide secure bicycle storage spaces for future residents and visitors at
the project site.
T-5: Bicycling Safety and Convenience
Support projects, programs, policies, and
regulations that make bicycling safer and
more convenient for all types of bicyclists.
The Project is a mixed-used development within the Fullerton Town
Center Harbor Gateway, which consists of residential and retail uses
proximate to other retail, office, and related uses. The Project would
promote pedestrian and bicycle activity and provide secure bicycle
storage and parking at the site for convenience.
T-6: Circulation Between Cities
Support regional and sub-regional efforts to
implement programs that coordinate the
multi-modal transportation needs and
The Project would not conflict with the Commuter Bikeways Strategic
Plan since no bikeways are existing or proposed along the site
boundaries. As discussed above, the nearest existing and proposed
bikeways are an existing Class III bike route approximately 800 feet
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-71
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
TABLE 4-14
THE FULLERTON PLAN CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
GHG REDUCTION MEASURES
MEASURE PROJECT SUPPORT
requirements across jurisdictions, including
but not limited to the Master Plan of Arterial
Highways, the Commuter Bikeways Strategic
Plan, the Signal Synchronization Master Plan,
the Orange County Congestion Management
Plan, and the Growth Management Plan.
north of the project site, an existing multi-purpose path approximately
500 feet south of the project site, a proposed Class II Bike Lane on
Orangethorpe Avenue to the south of the site, and a proposed Class III
Bike Route on Lemon Street, east of the site (City of Fullerton 2012). Also,
no conflict with the Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) would
occur since the needed street improvements would not change the
roadway configurations. The Project would result in less trips than
existing uses and would therefore not significantly impact Congestion
Management Plan (CMP) intersections based on CMP thresholds of
significance. No conflict with the Growth Management Plan is anticipated
since employment growth from the Project would be within The
Fullerton Plan and SCAG forecasts.
T-7: Infrastructure for Low and Zero
Emission Vehicles
Support projects, programs, policies, and
regulations to encourage the development of
private and/or public infrastructure
facilitating the use of alternative fuel vehicles.
The Project Applicant would meet CALGreen requirements (COA ENE-2)
and provide electric vehicle charging parking spaces at the project site
for light-duty vehicles and infrastructure to facilitate future electric
charging.
T-8: Rail and Rapid Transit
Participate in the planning efforts for regional
and inter-state rail and rapid transit projects
to represent the interests of the City.
The Project would not preclude planning efforts for regional and inter-
state rail and rapid transit projects. The Project is located within a
Transit Priority Area since it is located within 0.1 miles of the Fullerton
Train Station. This train station provides access to both Amtrak and
Metrolink trains which would provide additional transportation options
outside of single occupant vehicles.
T-9: Car Sharing Pilot Program
Explore the potential for a car sharing pilot
program to be implemented in one or more of
the City’s Focus Areas.
The Project Applicant would meet CALGreen requirements (COA ENE-2)
and provide electric vehicle charging parking spaces at the project site
for light-duty vehicles and infrastructure to facilitate future electric
charging.
Energy Use and Conservation Strategy
E-1: GHG Emissions from Electrical
Generation
Support regional and sub-regional efforts to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated
with electrical generation through energy
conservation strategies and
alternative/renewable energy programs.
The Project would comply with pertinent requirements in the 2019
California Building Code (CBC) (or latest applicable code), including the
Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards (COA ENE-1) and the CALGreen
Code (COA ENE-2). Additionally, residential uses are required to have
updated thermal envelope standards (preventing heat transfer from the
interior to exterior and vice versa); ventilation requirements; and
lighting requirements, via COA ENE-1.
E-2: Energy- and Resource-Efficient Design
Support projects, programs, policies and
regulations to encourage energy and resource
efficient practices in site and building design
for private and public projects.
The Project would comply with Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards
(COA ENE-1) and the CALGreen Code (COA ENE-2). These RRs would
lead to the planning and design of the Project with considerations for
energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, material
conservation and resource efficiency, and environmental quality.
E-3: Energy Efficient Retrofits
Prepare guidance to homeowners on energy
efficient retrofits of existing dwellings.
This measure is not applicable to the Project because it would be a new
development.
E-4: Efficient Use of Energy Resources in
Residential Development
The City shall encourage housing developers
to maximize energy conservation through
proactive site, building and building systems
design, materials, and equipment. The City’s
goal is to provide the development
community the opportunity to exceed the
The Project would comply with pertinent requirements in the 2019
California Building Code (CBC) (or latest applicable code), including the
Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards (COA ENE-1) and the CALGreen
Code (COA ENE-2). Additionally, the Project is a mixed-use development
which places residents and retail uses proximate to commercial, retail
uses and the Fullerton Station, which reduces energy consumption from
vehicles.
Environmental Checklist
4-72 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
TABLE 4-14
THE FULLERTON PLAN CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
GHG REDUCTION MEASURES
MEASURE PROJECT SUPPORT
provisions of Title 24 of the California
Building Code. The City shall continue to
support energy conservation through
encouraging the use of Energy Star-rated
appliances, other energy-saving technologies
and conservation. To enhance the efficient use
of energy resources, the City shall review the
potential of offering incentives or other
strategies that encourage energy
conservation.
E-5: Sustainable Regional Revitalization
Efforts
Support regional and sub-regional efforts
pertaining to community revitalization that
are rooted in sustainable development
principles.
The Project would also incorporate sustainable practices, as required
under the CALGreen Code (COA ENE-2). The Project is located within a
Transit Priority Area since it is located within 0.1 miles of the Fullerton
Train Station. This train station provides access to both Amtrak and
Metrolink trains which would provide additional transportation options
outside of single occupant vehicles. The project site is also located
proximate to OC bus lines 24, 26 and 43. The presence of bus and rail
services proximate to the project site will encourage the use of mass
transit.
Water Use and Efficiency Strategy
W-1: Conservation Efforts
Support regional and subregional efforts to
promote water efficiency and conservation.
The Project would comply with Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards
(COA ENE-1) and the CALGreen Code (COA ENE-2). The Project would
also participate in the City’s water conservation programs and comply
with existing water conservation regulations.
W-2: Sustainable Water Practices in New
Development
Support projects, programs, policies, and
regulations to encourage water efficient
practices in site and building design for
private and public projects.
The Project would comply with the water conservation measures in the
CALGreen Code (COA ENE-2) and with the City’s existing water
conservation regulations (e.g., Water Supply Shortage Conservation Plan
and Landscape Ordinance). The City’s Landscape Ordinance, as
contained in Section 15.50 of the Fullerton Municipal Code, require the
use of water efficient irrigation systems Specifically, the Project would
be designed to reduce the water consumption through efficient irrigation
systems and the use of water-efficient fixtures, such as low flush toilets
and aerators on sinks and showerheads within individual buildings.
W-3: GHG Emissions from Water
Conveyance
Support regional and subregional efforts to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated
with water conveyance through water
conservation strategies and alternative
supply programs.
The City does not receive recycled water from the Orange County
Sanitation District and there is no recycled water infrastructure near the
site. However, the City has several water conservation programs and
supports recycled water projects by indirectly providing treated water
for the Orange County Groundwater Replenishment System.
Waste Reduction and Recycling Strategy
SW-1: Regional Waste Management
Support regional and sub-regional efforts on
recycling, waste reduction, and product reuse.
The Project would comply with the CALGreen Code on the recycling
and/or salvage for reuse of a minimum of 65 percent of the
nonhazardous construction and demolition debris and the mandates of
SB 341 and AB 1826 for the provision of on-site recycling and organic
waste containers.
SW-2: Waste Reduction and Diversion
Support projects, programs, policies, and
regulations to promote practices to reduce
the amount of waste disposed in landfills.
The Project would comply with the CALGreen Code on the recycling
and/or salvage for reuse of a minimum of 65 percent of the
nonhazardous construction and demolition debris and the mandates of
SB 341 and AB 1826 for the provision of on-site recycling containers and
organic waste.
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-73
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
TABLE 4-14
THE FULLERTON PLAN CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
GHG REDUCTION MEASURES
MEASURE PROJECT SUPPORT
SW-3: Waste Stream Separation and
Recycling
Support projects, programs, policies and
regulations to expand source separation and
recycling opportunities to all households
(including multi-family housing), businesses,
and City operations.
The Project would comply with the CALGreen Code on the recycling
and/or salvage for reuse of a minimum of 65 percent of the
nonhazardous construction and demolition debris and the mandates of
SB 341 and AB 1826 for the provision of on-site recycling and organic
waste containers.
SW-4: Food-Waste Processing Facility
Explore the feasibility of a food-waste
processing facility to serve the City’s food-
service and food-processing businesses and
large institutions.
The Project does not propose a food waste processing facility or other
waste treatment and disposal facility.
SW-5: GHG Emissions from Waste
Support projects, programs, policies, and
regulations to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions from waste through improved
management of waste handling and
reductions in waste generation.
The Project would comply with waste reduction measures in the
CALGreen Code and the mandates of SB 341 and AB 1826 for on-site
recycling and organic waste containers.
Source: City of Fullerton 2012c.
The City of Fullerton is implementing its CAP and is realizing GHG reductions as a result of this
implementation. As discussed above, the Project would include features or would comply with
regulations that would support the CAP strategies and GHG reductions measures listed in the
City of Fullerton’s CAP and, thus, would reduce GHG emissions when compared with projects
that would not have these features. Project design and compliance with requirements would
reduce vehicle trips due to mass transit options provided by nearby bus lines and the Fullerton
Station, energy and water consumption, and solid waste disposal and, in turn, reduce GHG
emissions. Thus, the Project would support the CAP’s strategies and related GHG reduction
measures, and would be consistent with the City’s CAP. Since the Project is consistent with the
policies and goals of The Fullerton Plan and the City’s CAP, which in turn, were adopted in
compliance with AB 32 and included in the growth projections used in the SCAG RTP/SCS, the
Project would not conflict with the GHG reduction goals of these regulations and plans.
On a statewide level, the State policy and standards adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG
emissions that are applicable to the proposed Project are EO S-3-05, AB 32, the California Global
Warming Solutions Act of 2006 and SB 32. The quantitative goal of these regulations is to reduce
GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, and for SB 32,
to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Statewide plans and regulations (such as GHG
emissions standards for vehicles, the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Cap-and-Trade, and renewable
energy) are being implemented at the statewide level, and compliance at a project level is not
addressed.
Overall, the Project is an infill development project proximate to existing commercial and retail
uses as well as transit options provide by nearby buses and trains. Therefore, the Project would
promote pedestrian activity in an area with complementary uses, which would reduce reliance
on single-passenger vehicles. The proposed Project would not conflict with an applicable plan,
Environmental Checklist
4-74 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The impact would be
less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Standard Conditions of Approval
COA ENE-1 and COA ENE-2, in Section 4.6, Energy, are applicable to this topic.
Mitigation Measures
Project implementation would not result in significant impacts related to GHG Emissions;
therefore, no mitigation measures are required.
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-75
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
4.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would
it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles
of a public airport or public use airport, would the project
result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people
residing or working in the project area?
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly,
to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires?
Fullerton Transportation Center Specific Plan PEIR
Development of the FTC Specific Plan would involve demolition, grading and construction
activities that would have the potential to encounter hazardous materials resulting from
historical and/or current land uses on or near the project area. As discussed in the PEIR, the
Specific Plan area contained documented releases of various contaminants, primarily petroleum
hydrocarbons, and a regional volatile organic compound (VOC)-impacted groundwater plume
beneath the project area. At least 23 properties within the project area would have buildings that
may contain asbestos containing material (ACM) and/or lead based paint (LBP) and there was
potential to encounter polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) during demolition and grading
activities. These potentially significant impacts would be mitigated to less than significant with
implementation of SC 5-1, and MM 5-1 through MM 5-5. Handling and transport of contaminated
or otherwise hazardous materials could result in potential accidental exposure of the public or
construction workers. SC 5- 2 would require the transportation of hazardous materials to be
managed pursuant to the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, and this impact would be less
than significant.
Environmental Checklist
4-76 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
For informational purposes, the SCs and MMs from the PEIR are provided below.
Standard Conditions and Requirements
Asbestos and Lead
SC 5-1 Pre-demolition surveys, inspections, and analyses for asbestos-containing
materials (ACM) and lead-based paint (LBP) for applicable structures, as required
by MM 5-2, shall be performed by fully licensed and qualified individuals in
accordance with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations, including, but
not limited to: ASTM E 1527-05; 40 CFR (Subchapter R, Toxic Substances Control
Act); CalOSHA requirements; and South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD) Rule 1403 (Asbestos Emissions from Demolition/Renovation
Activities). The ACM survey shall be performed in accordance with the
requirements of the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA).
Dependent on the results of the surveys, ACM and LBP abatement or management
measures shall be implemented in accordance with all applicable regulations,
summarized below.
Any damaged ACM shall be removed, repaired, encapsulated, or enclosed. The
EPA recommends that all ACM be removed prior to any demolition or renovation
activities that may impact the material. Removal of materials reported to contain
detectable amounts of asbestos shall be performed by a licensed asbestos
abatement contractor prior to demolition activities. In addition, asbestos-
containing waste shall be disposed of by a licensed asbestos abatement contractor
and manifested as hazardous waste. Dry sawing, sanding, and drilling of ACM shall
be avoided to minimize airborne asbestos exposure. Building materials
containing asbestos may be exposed during demolition activities, and shall be
sampled and analyzed prior to further disturbance.
Should LBP be identified in any of the surveyed buildings intended for demolition,
workers shall comply with the requirements of Title 8 of the California Code of
Regulations 1532.1, which provides exposure limits, exposure monitoring,
respiratory protection, and good working practice by workers exposed to lead.
LBP debris and other waste shall be managed and disposed of in accordance with
the applicable provision of the California Health and Safety Code.
The requirement to adhere to all applicable regulations shall be included in the
contractor specifications, and such inclusion shall be verified by the City of
Fullerton Community Development Department prior to issuance of the first
demolition permit.
Hazardous Waste Transportation
SC 5-2 Any contaminated soils or other hazardous materials removed from the FTC
Specific Plan area shall be transported only by a Licensed Hazardous Waste
Hauler, who shall be in compliance with all applicable State and federal
requirements, including the U.S. Department of Transportation regulations under
49 CFR (Hazardous Materials Transportation Act), California Department of
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-77
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
Transportation (Caltrans) standards, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) standards, and under 40 CFR 263 (Subtitle C of Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act). The City of Fullerton Community Development
and/or Engineering Departments shall verify that only Licensed Haulers who are
operating in compliance with regulatory requirements are used to haul hazardous
materials.
Mitigation Measures
Phase 1 ESAs, Site Assessments and Remediation Plan
MM 5-1 As part of acquisition and development of any remaining privately-owned property
within the FTC Specific Plan area and/or prior to redevelopment of on-site properties,
the Property Owner/Developer(s) shall implement all applicable recommendations
provided in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Fullerton Transportation
Center, Fullerton, California (Kennedy/Jenks Consultants 2009), as summarized
below. Not all recommendations are applicable to all properties. The Property
Owner/Developer(s) shall provide evidence to the City of Fullerton that the
recommendations appropriate to that property have been implemented, and
compliance with these recommendations shall then be verified by the City of
Fullerton.
These recommendations are fully described in the Phase I ESA included in Appendix
F of this IS/MND.
• Complete Phase I ESA for Properties to be Acquired and/or Developed –
Prior to filing of a development application with the City, the Property
Owner/Developer shall have a qualified contractor complete an updated
Phase I ESA for those properties owned by the City or the Project Applicant
that were fully reviewed in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment,
Fullerton Transportation Center, Fullerton, California (Kennedy/Jenks
Consultants 2009). This includes properties at Map ID Nos. 16, 21, 26, 28, 29,
32, 37, and 38. For the remaining properties in the project area, the Property
Owner/Developer shall have a qualified contractor complete all elements of
the Phase I ESA standard practice (ASTM E 1527-05).
• Develop and Implement a Site Assessment Plan – Site assessment plans
shall be developed and implemented for all properties to be developed that
have RECs, Notable Findings, or may be adversely affected by other properties
in the area, based either on the findings of the Phase I ESA already completed
or the Phase I ESA documentation that would be completed as part of
individual project applications (as required above). This includes
consideration of VOC impacts related to the OCWD North Basin Groundwater
Protection Project. The Property Owner/Developer shall provide the City of
Fullerton with documentation of site assessment for soil vapor, soil, and/or
groundwater contamination, as applicable, prior to the issuance of grading
permits. Assessment activities shall be developed and implemented to
adequately address all Phase I ESA findings that warrant subsurface
characterization.
Environmental Checklist
4-78 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
Site assessment plans may involve evaluation of soil vapor, soil, and/or
groundwater quality beneath applicable properties. Assessment activities
shall be conducted in accordance with the process of procedures identified in
40 CFR (Subpart J, Part 300, National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution
Contingency Plan) and California Health and Safety Code, Chapter 6.8 of
Division 20, commencing at Section 25300, Hazardous Substances Account).
In addition, all applicable assessment guidance documents developed by the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the California
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) shall be followed.
Assessment documentation shall be prepared by a qualified environmental
professional registered in California (e.g., a Registered Environmental
Assessor II, a Professional Engineer, a Geologist, Certified Engineering
Geologist, or a Licensed Hazardous Substance Contractor). Soil vapor survey
activities shall be performed in accordance with current California regulatory
guidance (i.e., DTSC/RWQCB Active Soil Gas Advisory dated January 2003
[DTSC/RWQCB, 2003]). Soil and groundwater sampling activities shall be
conducted following industry-standard drilling, sampling, and analytical
protocols and guidelines established by the appropriate oversight agency. The
plans shall be developed on a case-by-case basis depending on the nature of
the finding (REC or Notable Finding) and the intended use of the property
(e.g., residential versus commercial).
If impacted soil or groundwater conditions are identified at a given property
during preparation of the site assessment plan, the Property
Owner/Developer shall enter into a voluntary cleanup program with the
applicable regulatory oversight agency(ies) such as the Orange County Health
Care Agency (OCHCA). Other regulatory agencies (i.e., City of Fullerton,
RWQCB, and/or DTSC) may have input or wish to take the lead regarding the
course of environmental action taken for the project area. If one or more of
these agencies chooses to become involved in oversight, then the
implementation of the FTC Specific Plan would be subject to the regulatory
requirements of those agencies.
The City of Fullerton shall review, or have reviewed by a qualified Contractor,
site assessment documentation provided by the Property Owner/Developer
to evaluate whether or not subsurface impacts, if determined present, have
been fully delineated both laterally and vertically based on the intended land
use of the property. Prior to issuance of grading permits, results of the site
assessment effort shall be evaluated against designated clean-up goals (e.g.,
California Human Health Screening Levels [CHHSLs], EPA Regional Screening
Levels [RSLs], EPA Maximum Contaminant Levels [MCLs]), or the regulatory
oversight agency(ies) approved site-specific levels based on property-specific
land uses and layout. A site assessment plan has been developed for the
developer-owned property at 336 E. Santa Fe Avenue; however, property
conditions shall be re-evaluated once the final land use plan for the property
is established to determine if additional investigation/remediation is
appropriate.
If hazardous materials are identified for any property that exceeds established
clean-up goals, then appropriate response/remedial action shall be
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-79
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
determined by the regulatory oversight agency and implemented by the
Property Owner/Developer to the satisfaction of the regulatory oversight
agency in accordance with applicable requirements and regulations. A likely
response to identified chemical impacts at a property is the performance of a
property-specific human health risk assessment (HHRA) to evaluate health
risk associated with exposure to such impacts (short- and long-term
scenarios). The HHRA shall be performed using industry standard modeling
programs and/or statistical analysis and shall be reviewed and approved by
the regulatory oversight agency prior to submittal to the City of Fullerton.
• Develop and Implement Remediation Plans for Impacted Properties –
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, mitigation plans shall be developed
for properties that are determined to have contamination above established
clean-up levels, as determined during the site assessment process described
above. Mitigation plans shall be developed on a property-specific basis based
on the condition and intended use of the property. The remediation plan shall
be submitted to the City of Fullerton. Possible remedies for identified impacts
include soil excavation and off-site disposal (likely remedy for properties
slated for sub grade development), in situ remediation, soil vapor and/or
groundwater extraction, engineering controls for future buildings (i.e., vapor
barriers, sub slab passive ventilation layers, sub grade parking with active
ventilation systems), and institutional controls (i.e., deed restrictions and land
covenants).
Prior to issuance of the first occupancy permits, the Property
Owner/Developer shall: (1) demonstrate that any abatement techniques
identified in the regulatory oversight agency-approved HHRA and associated
remedial strategy for a property have been fully installed, as verified through
an on-site inspection by the City of Fullerton or a qualified Contractor
designated by the City and (2) provide a Post-Remedial Report documenting
that the property has been appropriately remediated for review and approval
by the City of Fullerton. The City of Fullerton shall review, or have reviewed
by a qualified Contractor, the Post-Remedial Report and make a
determination that the property is safe for occupancy prior to issuance of the
first occupancy permit. The property is deemed safe for occupancy when the
calculated risk posed by any remaining contaminants, based on a residential
land use scenario, is demonstrated not to exceed the applicable SCAQMD TAC
thresholds (which are currently a carcinogenic risk of one excess case of
cancer in a population of one million and a toxicity that is not greater than a
Hazard Index of 1.0).
Post-remediation assessment activities shall be conducted in accordance with
the procedures identified in 40 CFR (Subpart J, Part 300, National Oil and
Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan) and California Health and
Safety Code, Section 25300 et seq. (Chapter 6.8 Hazardous Substances
Account). In addition, all applicable site assessment, HHRA, and remediation
guidance documents developed by the USEPA and the California DTSC shall be
followed in the preparation of the Post-Remedial Report. The Post-Remedial
Report shall be prepared by a qualified environmental professional registered
in California (e.g., a Registered Environmental Assessor II, Professional
Environmental Checklist
4-80 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
Engineer, Geologist, Certified Engineering Geologist, or a Licensed Hazardous
Substance Contractor).
Sub-Grade Developments
MM 5-2 Properties that require sub-grade excavation shall be adequately assessed prior to
issuance of grading permits to reduce the likelihood that significant unexpected
volumes of impacted soil are encountered. A Soil Management Plan (SMP) shall be
developed and submitted to the City of Fullerton prior to the issuance of any grading
permits for properties that require sub-grade excavation and implemented under
applicable requirements of the regulatory oversight agency to ensure worker
protection during construction activities that might encounter and disturb impacted
soil (e.g., excavation, backfilling, and grading activities). An SMP includes guidelines
for managing soil known in advance to be impacted and also sets forth appropriate
response actions in the event that previously unknown impacted soils are
encountered. The following items shall be addressed in the SMP prepared for the FTC
Specific Plan area:
• Site-Specific Health and Safety
• Field Screening
• Air Monitoring
• Impacted Soil Excavation and Segregation
• Confirmation Sampling
• Stockpile Management and Sampling
• Impacted Soil Disposal
• Backfill
• Import Soil Sampling and Tracking
On-Going In-Situ Remedial Actions
Three properties were under active in-situ remediation for fuel-related impacts during
preparation of the PEIR.
MM 5-3 The Property Owner/Developer shall develop a plan that allows remedial actions
and redevelopment to take place concurrently for any properties in which
remedial actions would continue after development. Such a plan may include
additional assessment, alternative remediation options, or engineered controls to
allow construction of habitable structures at these properties. The City of
Fullerton shall verify compliance with this mitigation measure, when applicable,
prior to issuance of demolition or grading permits, whichever comes first.
Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the Property Owner/Developer shall
coordinate with the property’s regulatory oversight agency(ies) to define a
monitoring and maintenance program for any abatement features installed at the
property. Subsequent to occupancy, the Property Owner/Developer shall allow
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-81
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
access to monitor and maintain the abatement features on the property as per the
agreement made with the regulatory oversight agency(ies). The Property
Owner/Developer shall fully respond, as soon as feasible, to any and all issues
associated with on-site abatement features, if identified during the course of
monitoring, pursuant to any regulatory agency(ies) recommendations.
MM 5-4 Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for any structure constructed prior
to 1980, the City of Fullerton shall verify that pre-demolition surveys for asbestos
containing materials (ACM) and lead-based paint (LBP) have been performed in
accordance with all applicable regulations, as described in SC 5-1. The
requirement to adhere to all applicable regulations shall be included in the
contractor specifications, and such inclusion shall be verified by the City of
Fullerton prior to issuance of the first demolition permit.
If the pre-demolition surveys/inspections identify ACM or LBP, all such materials
shall be handled in accordance with SC 5-1. The developer shall provide
documentation to the City of Fullerton as part of the application for a demolition
permit that appropriately qualified individuals have been retained to manage the
identified materials in accordance with all applicable regulations.
If the pre-demolition surveys/inspections do not identify ACM or LBP, the
developer shall provide documentation of the survey/inspection, and its
determination that no further abatement actions are required, to the City of
Fullerton as part of the application for a demolition permit.
MM 5-5 In accordance with the guidelines set forth in the property-specific SMP (refer to
MM 5-2, all soils encountered during demolition and earth-moving activities
having the potential to contain polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) (this includes
property within 25 feet of a possible historic source of PCBs or where visual
and/or other evidence of contamination is noted) shall be tested for PCBs using
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Method 8082. If detectable
concentrations of PCBs are identified, these shall be compared to appropriate
regulatory screening levels (i.e., EPA Regional Screening Levels [RSLs] or
California Human Health Screening Levels [CHHSLs]). In addition, coordination
with the applicable regulatory oversight agency(ies) shall be initiated and the
agency(ies) direction regarding the proper abatement and disposal of PCB-
impacted soil shall be implemented. This requirement shall be included in the
construction contractor’s specifications, and its performance shall be the
responsibility of the Property Owner/Developer. The Property Owner/Developer
shall provide documentation to the City of Fullerton as part of the application for
a demolition or grading permit, whichever comes first, that appropriately
qualified individuals have been retained to manage the identified materials in
accordance with all applicable regulations.
Environmental Checklist
4-82 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
Introduction
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA) and Phase II Environmental Site
Characterization Report (Phase II ESA) were prepared by Terradyne, Engineering, Inc. in 2019
and are summarized below; the reports are included as Appendix E and F to this IS/MND
(Terradyne 2019 a,b).
Impact Analysis
Would the Project:
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. Demolition and construction activities for the proposed Project
would involve the use of chemical substances such as solvents, paints, fuel for equipment, and
other potentially hazardous materials. Hazards to the environment or the public would typically
occur with the transport, use, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials. Demolition and
construction activities would be relatively short-term and the transport, use, and disposal of
hazardous materials as part of these activities would be temporary. The contractor would be
required to comply with existing regulations for the transport, use, storage, and disposal of
hazardous materials to prevent public safety hazards. These regulations include the Hazardous
Materials Transportation Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), California
Hazardous Waste Control Act (HWCA), and California Accidental Release Prevention Program
(CalARPP), among others.
Once constructed, the proposed residential, hotel, and retail/commercial uses would use
hazardous materials (e.g., paint, pesticides, cleansers, and solvents) for maintenance activities.
However, these uses would not utilize, store, or generate hazardous materials or wastes in
quantities that would pose a significant hazard to the public. Impacts would be less than
significant, and no mitigation is required.
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. Based on records provided by Environmental Data Resources
(EDR), the two southern parcels have been used as a parking area since around 2002. Previously
the eastern half of these parcels was used as a light industrial area, and the western half was a
parking area for the train station and part of a storage area for lumber, judging from aerial
photographs dating back to 1927.
According to the Phase I ESA, the two southern parcels have been used for many different light
industrial uses in the last 100 years, and it is possible that limited pockets of contamination may
be discovered during site development activities. However, most of the land has been used as a
parking area for many years and hydrocarbons and solvents naturally degrade ove r time. The
main concern was the former Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) site located on the
eastern half of these parcels at 210 East Santa Fe Avenue. It was discovered that the site formerly
contained a waste oil tank and an underground storage tank that was used to store gasoline. The
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-83
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
gasoline tank had leaked, and remediation was performed by removing the contaminated soil.
Although the site was considered closed (no further action needed) in 1997, hydrocarbon levels
were high enough (21,000 parts per million [ppm] or 2.1 percent) that migration could have
occurred. The tanks were located approximately 100 feet from the east edge of the property line.
Soil borings were drilled, and the lab results would determine whether more exploratory borings
would be needed to delineate the LUST site. The Phase I ESA recommended that a limited Phase
II Study be undertaken near Railroad Museum and the former loading dock area of the railroad
station to verify that there is no contamination on the south side of the property near the railroad
right-of-way.
A subsurface investigation was conducted as part of the Phase II ESA on November 19, 2019. The
results from the soil testing showed that there were no environmental issues that were caused
by the railroad operations at the site. Based on the conclusions and recommendations of the
Phase II ESA, no further action is required. As such, there would be a less than significant impact,
and no mitigation is required.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Less than Significant Impact. There is one school, Maple Elementary School, located 0.2 mile to
the south of the project site. During construction, a potential exists for the accidental release or
spill of hazardous substances such as gasoline, oil, hydraulic fluid, diesel fuel, or other liquids
associated with construction equipment operation and maintenance. However, use of these
materials would be in limited quantities as typical during the operation and maintenance of
construction equipment and would be conducted in compliance with applicable federal, State,
and local regulations. Additionally, the contractor would be required to use standard
construction controls and safety procedures, which would avoid and minimize the potential for
accidental release or spill of such substances into the environment. Therefore, the level of risk
associated with the accidental release of hazardous substances during demolition and
construction would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Residential, hotel and retail/commercial activities associated with occupancy of the proposed
dwelling units, hotel rooms and retail/commercial spaces would be similar to other land uses
surrounding the site and would not generate hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste in quantities that may impact students at
schools within 0.25 mile of the site, more specifically Maple Elementary School. There would be
a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required.
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. According to the Phase I ESA and review of the California Department of Toxic
Substances Control (DTSC) Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List – Site Cleanup (Cortese
List) (DTSC 2022), the project site is not included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled
pursuant to California Government Code Section 65962.5. Therefore, the Project does not have
the potential to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment due to presence of
an existing hazardous materials site identified on the Cortese List. No impact would occur, and
no mitigation is required.
Environmental Checklist
4-84 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
Project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in
the project area?
No Impact. The project site is not located within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport. The nearest airport is the Fullerton Municipal Airport, which is located 3.2 miles west of
the project site. Thus, no impact pertaining to safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing
or working in the project area would occur, and no mitigation is required.
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less than Significant Impact. As discussed in Section 2.2.2, Effects Found Not to be Significant,
of the FTC Specific Plan PEIR, during preparation of the Initial Study, the City of Fullerton
determined that the proposed FTC Specific Plan would not interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or evacuation plan. Therefore, no impacts or less than significant impacts would
occur. As identified in Section 5.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of The Fullerton Plan PEIR,
construction activities that involve roadway improvements or excavation activities in the public
right-of-way could reduce the number of lanes or temporarily close certain street segments
during a typical day-to-day emergency situation. Additionally, the City’s Emergency Operations
Plan anticipates that all major streets within the City would serve as evacuation routes, and City
highways and arterial streets that connect to the Artesia Freeway (SR-91) and the Orange
Freeway (SR-57) would serve as potential evacuation routes in the event of an extraordinary
emergency situation.
The proposed Project involves re-development of a 2.82-acre site with apartment units, hotel,
retail, restaurant, and parking. Access to the project site is provided by East Santa Fe Avenue and
South Pomona Avenue. Construction activities associated with the Project could temporarily
impact street traffic adjacent to the project site during the construction phase. This could reduce
the number of lanes during a typical day-to-day situation. Any such impacts would be limited to
the construction period and would affect only adjacent streets or intersections. With
implementation of COA HAZ-1, which requires preparation of a Traffic Control Plan, impacts to
emergency access would be reduced to less than significant. The Traffic Control Plan would be
prepared for implementation during the construction phase and would ensure that at least one
unobstructed lane shall be maintained in both directions and that temporary traffic signal, signal
carriers (i.e., flagpersons), or other appropriate traffic controls be implemented, if needed. The
lane closures would be temporary and would not block all travel lanes. With implementation of
the COA HAZ-1, construction impacts would be less than significant.
In the long-term, the Project would provide access off South Pomona Avenue and East Santa Fe
Avenue that would be used for emergency response to the site and for emergency evacuation of
the site. Operationally, the Project would not affect emergency response or emergency
evacuation of adjacent land uses. Therefore, the Project would have less than significant impacts
regarding interference with emergency response or evacuation plans during operation, and no
mitigation is required.
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-85
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires?
No Impact. The project site is located in a highly urbanized area of the City, and there are no
large, undeveloped areas and/or steep slopes on or near the site that may pose wildfire hazards.
The site and the surrounding areas are not located in designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity
Zones (VHFHSZ), as identified by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention (CAL
FIRE 2011). Rather, the site is within a Non-VHFHSZ area. Implementation of the Project would
not expose people or structures directly or indirectly to a significant risk of loss or death
associated wildland fires. No impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.
Standard Conditions of Approval
The following mitigation measure from The Fullerton Plan PEIR is applicable to the proposed
Project and incorporated herein as a standard condition.
COA HAZ-1 Prior to construction, the Applicant shall prepare a Traffic Control Plan for
implementation during the construction phase, as deemed necessary by the City
Traffic Engineer. The Plan may include the following provisions, among others:
• At least one unobstructed lane shall be maintained in both directions on
surrounding roadways.
• At any time only a single lane is available, the developer shall provide a
temporary traffic signal, signal carriers (i.e., flagpersons), or other
appropriate traffic controls to allow travel in both directions.
• If construction activities require the complete closure of a roadway
segment, the developer shall provide appropriate signage indicating
detours/alternative routes.
Mitigation Measures
Project implementation would not result in significant impacts related to Hazards and
Hazardous Materials and therefore, no mitigation measures are required.
Environmental Checklist
4-86 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
4.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface
or ground water quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that the
project impede sustainable groundwater management of
the basin?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including the alteration of the course of a stream
or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in
a manner which would:
i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-
site;
ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding
on- or offsite;
iii) create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff;
or
iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of
pollutants due to project inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
Fullerton Transportation Center Specific Plan PEIR
The analysis in the PEIR identified that implementation of the FTC Specific Plan would result in
both short-term, construction-related water quality impacts and long-term operational water
quality impacts. Compliance with SC 6-1, which requires the incorporation of BMPs and water
quality monitoring pursuant to the National Pollutants Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES)
Construction General Permit, would ensure that short-term construction impacts would be less
than significant. Incorporation of PDF 6-1 through PDF 6-6 (which include low impact
development [LID] features) and compliance with SC 6-2 (which mandates compliance with the
applicable NPDES MS4 permit and associated DAMP/LIP requirements) would ensure that long-
term water quality impacts would be less than significant.
Implementation of the FTC Specific Plan would increase the amount of pervious area within the
project limits. Increased pervious area, in conjunction with water quality BMPs related to LID,
would reduce the amount of storm water runoff from the project area and decrease demands on
the existing storm drain system. The analysis concluded that there would be no adverse impacts
to the storm drain system, and no mitigation would be required.
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-87
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
The project design ensures that impacts associated with the project site’s location within the
FEMA 100-year flood plain would be less than significant through incorporation of PDF 6-7.
The City of Fullerton Water System Management Division would provide domestic water service
for the Specific Plan area. Construction and operation of the project would not substantially
deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with the local groundwater table; the project would
not increase the amount of impervious surface on site and the site is not on a groundwater
recharge zone. Following completion of the project, the site would consist largely of impervious
surfaces and the limited landscaped areas would not result in a substantial increase in the
amount of erosion or sedimentation from the site. The project area is not within an inundations
zone and there are no levees or dams in the project vicinity. There are no water bodies proximate
to the project area that would subject the site to seiches or tsunamis, and no hillside areas that
would generate mudflow.
For informational purposes, the PDFs, SCs, and MMs from the PEIR are provided below.
Project Design Features
PDF 6-1 In compliance with Section 4.6.2, Planting Standards, of the Regulating Code for
the FTC Specific Plan, landscaping with drought-tolerant plantings shall be
required in all common open space areas, edge yards surrounding buildings
(excluding paved walkways), and surface parking lots.
PDF 6-2 In compliance with Section 4.6.3, Irrigation Standards, of the Regulating Code for
the FTC Specific Plan, all landscaped areas shall include automatic irrigation
controllers utilizing either evapotranspiration or soil moisture sensor data.
Sensors, either internal or auxiliary, shall be installed to suspend or alter
irrigation operation during unfavorable weather conditions. Drip irrigation and
other low water use technologies shall be used to the maximum extent feasible to
reduce water consumption. Planter pots shall be irrigated by automatic irrigation
system or irrigation bladders. Unless using an irrigation bladder, such pots shall
be positively drained through an underground drainage system or shall use a
waterproof tray to avoid staining the pavement.
PDF 6-3 In compliance with Section 4.6.4, Common Open Space Standards, of the
Regulating Code for the FTC Specific Plan, common open spaces shall include a
combination of paved surfaces and landscaped areas, and at least 40 percent of
the open space area shall consist of landscaped surfaces.
PDF 6-4 In compliance with Section 4.6.4, Common Open Space Standards, of the
Regulating Code for the FTC Specific Plan, planters and landscaped areas within
common open space areas shall be designed to receive and filter storm water
runoff from adjacent roofs.
PDF 6-5 In compliance with Section 4.6.5, Surface Parking Lot Standards, of the Regulating
Code for the FTC Specific Plan, private surface parking lots shall include fast-
growing trees provided at a rate of one tree per three parking spaces and be
located to maximize the even distribution of shade over the parking lot surface.
Trees planted within surface parking lots on private property shall be provided in
Environmental Checklist
4-88 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
curbed islands, flush mounted tree grates with tree guards, or bioswales with tire
stops (or other appropriate source of protection from vehicles). Parking stalls in
surface parking lots (not parking garages) shall be designed with permeable
pavers, ribbon drives, and/or turf block to minimize storm water runoff by
decreasing impervious surfaces. Drive aisles may also be designed with
permeable pavers.
PDF 6-6 In compliance with Section 4.2.3, Sustainable Design Features, of the Regulating
Code for the FTC Specific Plan, storm water runoff from streets shall be treated by
bio-retention cells that are installed within public sidewalks at select locations
throughout the FTC Specific Plan project area. Preliminary locations are identified
in Exhibit 3.3-13 in Section 3, Project Description.
PDF 6-7 In compliance with Section 3.6.2, of the FTC Specific Plan, habitable buildings
within the project area shall be designed and constructed 1 foot minimum above
the 100-year flood water surface elevation to ensure that the structure(s) shall be
protected from flooding events.
Standard Conditions and Requirements
SC 6-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for each development project, the
Property Owner/Developer shall file a Permit Registration Document (PRD) with
the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) in order to obtain coverage
under California’s General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with
Construction Activity (NPDES No. CAR000002 or the latest approved general
permit), which was approved on September 2, 2009. The Project
Applicant/Developer shall provide documentation of coverage under the
Construction General Permit to the City of Fullerton Community Development
Department. The PRD consists of: Notice of Intent (NOI); Risk Assessment; Site
Map; Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP); annual fee; and a signed
certification statement. Pursuant to the permit requirements, the Property
Owner/Developer shall develop and incorporate Best Management Practices
(BMPs) for reducing or eliminating construction-related pollutants in the site
runoff.
SC 6-2 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for each development project, the Project
Applicant/Developer shall submit a water quality management plan (WQMP) to
the City of Fullerton Community Development Department for review and
approval. The WQMP shall demonstrate compliance with the Drainage Area
Management Plan/Local Implementation Plan (DAMP/LIP) pursuant to the Santa
Ana RWQCB’s Municipal Permit (MS4 Permit, Order No. R8-2002-0010, NPDES
No. CAS618030, adopted January 2002) or the newly adopted fourth-term
General MS4 Permit, (Order No. R8-2009-0030), whichever is applicable at the
time of the WQMP submittal. The WQMP shall include a statement that the project
will incorporate appropriately sized source-control and treatment-control BMPs
targeted to address the pollutants of concern and to achieve the required level of
treatment to prevent pollutants from entering receiving waters to the maximum
extent practicable.
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-89
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
Mitigation Measures
Although no significant impacts would result and no mitigation be required, the analysis in the
PEIR recommended measures to ensure that water quality impacts would remain less than
significant.
MM 6-1 Prior to issuance of grading permits for individual projects, the following
requirements shall be included in the WQMP:
“The construction site shall be maintained in such a condition that a storm
does not carry wastes or pollutants off the site. Discharges other than storm
water (non-storm water discharges) are authorized under California’s
General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction
Activity only where they: (1) do not cause or contribute to a violation of any
water quality standard and (2) are controlled through implementation of
appropriate BMPs for elimination or reduction of pollutants. Non-storm water
discharges must be eliminated or reduced to the extent feasible.
Potential pollutants include but are not limited to: solid or liquid chemical
spills; wastes from paints, stains, sealants, solvents, detergents, glues, lime,
pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, wood preservatives, and asbestos fibers,
paint flakes or stucco fragments, fuels, oils, lubricants and hydraulic, radiator
or battery fluids; concrete and related cutting or curing residues; floatable
wastes, wastes from street cleaning; and super-chlorinated potable water line
flushing and testing.
During construction, disposal of such materials should occur in a specified and
controlled temporary area on the site that is physically separated from
potential storm water runoff, with ultimate disposal in accordance with local,
State and federal requirements.”
Inclusion of these requirements in the WQMP shall be confirmed by the
Community Development Department.
Introduction
A Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (PWQMP) was prepared by Plump Engineering,
Inc. in 2019 and is summarized below; the report is included as Appendix G to this IS/MND
(Plump 2019).
Existing Conditions
The project site is level/flat with an average elevation of 164.4 ft and sloping of roughly 3
percent. Landscaping is located along the north side of the site facing East Santa Fe Avenue. The
existing site currently drains to two locations. Stormwater from the parking lot to the east of the
site sheet flows to the curb and gutter on Santa Fe Avenue leading to an existing facility (30-inch
reinforced concrete (RC) pipe catch basin). Stormwater from the parking lot on the west side of
the site sheet flows to an on-site v-gutter that leads to a catch basin on the site. The catch basin
connects to a 24-inch storm drainpipe that discharges to the curb and gutter on East Walnut
Avenue.
Environmental Checklist
4-90 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
Impact Analysis
Would the Project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Less than Significant Impact. Implementation of the Project would involve demolition of the
existing surface parking lot, parking structure, and associated site improvements, and
construction of the proposed apartment units, hotel, retail, restaurant, and parking. Therefore,
the Project has the potential to result in short-term construction impacts to surface water quality
from demolition, grading, and construction-related activities. Storm water runoff from the
construction site would contain loose soils, organic matter, and sediments. Spills or leaks from
heavy equipment and machinery, such as fuel, oil and grease, and heavy metals, could also enter
the runoff. Building construction would involve the use of hazardous materials (e.g., paints,
solvents, cleansers) that, if not properly handled, may enter the stormwater runoff.
The Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes a framework for regulating potential water quality
impacts from construction activities, as well as new development and major redevelopment,
through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Construction
activities that disturb one acre or more of land are required to obtain an NPDES permit or
coverage under the NPDES Construction General Permit. This is accomplished by completing and
filing Permit Registration Documents (PRD) (including a Notice of Intent [NOI], a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan [SWPPP], an annual fee, and a signed certification) with the State
Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) prior to start of construction activities, per COA HYD-1.
The Best Management Programs (BMPs) in the SWPPP are implemented during construction to
reduce storm water pollutants to the maximum extent practicable.
Additionally, the Project would comply with COA HYD-2, which requires that, prior to the
issuance of any grading or building permits, if construction dewatering or discharges from other
specific activities are required, the Project Applicant would notify the Santa Ana Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and any discharges into surface waters would be conducted in
compliance with the Santa Ana RWQCB’s Order No. R8-2015-0004 (NPDES No. CAG998001).
Stormwater pollutants that would be generated by the Project in the long-term include sediment,
trash and debris, oil and grease, bacterial indicators, nutrients, and pesticides that would come
from landscaped areas, drive aisles, parking areas, and outdoor residential activities. In
accordance with the NPDES program and Chapter 12.18, Water Quality Ordinance, of the
Fullerton Municipal Code, the Project Applicant would be required to prepare and implement a
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) (COA HYD-3). As stated above, a Preliminary WQMP
(PWQMP) was prepared for the Project. The PWQMP is intended to comply with the
requirements of the County of Orange NPDES Stormwater Program, which requires preparation
of the PWQMP. PWQMPs are required for all significant redevelopment projects, where
significant redevelopment is defined as the addition or replacement of 5,000 or more square feet
of impervious surface on an already-developed site. The City would review and approve the plan
prior to construction and operation of the Project. The WQMP or Stormwater Mitigation Plan
would include low impact development (in the form of proprietary vegetated biotreatment
systems), non-structural BMPs and source control BMPs. Additionally, the use of hazardous
materials (e.g., cleaning solvents, pesticides, fertilizers, paint, oil, and grease) would be in limited
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-91
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
quantities and in accordance with existing regulations, as discussed in Section 4.9, Hazards and
Hazardous Materials. This would not result in soil, surface water, or groundwater contamination.
Compliance with COA HYD-1 through COA HYD-3 would reduce the risk of water degradation
from soil erosion and other pollutants related to construction activities, and potential violations
of water quality standards would be minimized through required BMPs. Therefore, the Project
would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Impacts would be
less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the project impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project would not involve direct or indirect withdrawals of
groundwater. Domestic water service would be provided by the City of Fullerton, as described
in Section 4.19, Utilities and Service Systems. Also, the Project would not deplete groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. Most of the project site is
currently covered in impervious surfaces (90.18 percent), and Project implementation would
result in an increase of impervious surfaces, to 92.31 percent coverage. Therefore, there would
be an increase in groundwater recharge, impacts would be less than significant, and no
mitigation is required.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including the
alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site;
Less than Significant Impact. As indicated in Response 4.10a, the Project would be required to
obtain a NPDES permit for construction activities or coverage under the NPDES Construction
General Permit. The Construction General Permit requires preparation of a SWPPP and
implementation of erosion control, sediment control, tracking, waste management, and
construction site maintenance BMPs to reduce the potential for soil and wind erosion during
construction activities (COA HYD-1). With compliance with these regulations, construction-
related erosion would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
There would be minimal areas of exposed soils following completion of the proposed Project
where erosion could occur. Site improvements and landscaping would also prevent long-term
erosion (COA HYD-3). Therefore, operation-related erosion would be less than significant, and
no mitigation is required.
Environmental Checklist
4-92 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or offsite;
iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing
or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff; or
Less than Significant Impact. Currently, approximately 90 percent of the project site is covered
with impervious surfaces, which would increase to approximately 92 percent with
implementation of the proposed Project. In the proposed condition, stormwater to the east of
the site would sheet flow from the parking structure to the landscape areas north of the parking
structure. Modular wetlands provided within the landscape area would filter the stormwater and
discharge it to the curb and gutter on East Santa Fe Avenue. Strom water runoff from the hotel
rooftop would drain directly to a modular wetland on the north side of the site. Similarly, the
modular wetland would discharge to the curb and gutter on East Santa Fe Avenue. The
stormwater on the west and south side of the proposed hotel would sheet flow from the parking
lot to the landscape areas. Modular wetlands provided within the landscape area would filter the
stormwater and discharge it to an existing 24-inch storm drainpipe. The 24-inch storm drainpipe
would discharge the water under the railroad to the curb and gutter on East Walnut Avenue.
These encroachments would occur in compliance with City regulations. Any right-of-way
dedication and public infrastructure improvements would also be done in accordance with the
City’s Municipal Code. Off-site improvements would include storm drain improvements,
parkway improvements, and utility connections (water, sewer, electricity, natural gas, and
telecommunication lines). The proposed changes resulting from the project site would not
substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in
flooding on- or offsite. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
Less than Significant Impact. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) designates
most of Fullerton, including the project site, as Zone X, which is an area subject to flooding from
the 500-year flood (0.2 percent annual chance of flooding) (FEMA 2022). As stated above,
modular wetlands provided within the landscape areas would filter the stormwater and
discharge it to an existing 24-inch storm drainpipe. This would reduce the potential for flooding
to occur as a result of the Project. Additionally, implementation of temporary and permanent
erosion control BMPs in the Project’s SWPPP and WQMP or Stormwater Mitigation Plan (see COA
HYD-1 and COA HYD-3) would ensure that substantial erosion or siltation would not occur on-
or off-site during short-term construction and long-term occupancy of the dwelling units or
hotel. Thus, the Project would not result in erosion or siltation that would alter the drainage
pattern of the area, impede, or redirect flood flows. Project impacts would be less than
significant, and no mitigation is required.
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation?
No Impact. A seiche is the resonant oscillation of a body of water caused by earthquake shaking
(waves). Seiche hazards exist where ground shaking causes water to splash out of the body of
water and inundate nearby areas and structures. The site is not located near a large body of
water that may be subject to seiche. Additionally, tsunamis are seismic sea waves generated by
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-93
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
undersea earthquakes or landslides. The City of Fullerton is not located along the coast, and the
project site is approximately 14 miles from the Pacific Ocean. Further, the project site is relatively
flat. There are no hillside areas on site or in the surrounding area that could generate mudflow.
As a result, no impacts related to seiche, tsunami, or mudflow would occur, and no mitigation is
required.
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater management plan?
Less than Significant Impact. As discussed above in Response 4.10a, the Project would comply
with applicable water quality regulations for short-term and long-term impacts. Specifically, the
Project would have coverage under the NPDES Construction General Permit and implementation
of the Project’s SWPPP (see COA HYD-1) would ensure that short-term, construction-related
water quality impacts would be less than significant. For long-term water quality impacts, in
accordance with Chapter 12.18, Water Quality Ordinance, of the Fullerton Municipal Code, prior
to issuance of a grading or building permit, the Project would prepare a WQMP or Stormwater
Mitigation Plan, which includes BMPs, in accordance with the Orange County DAMP (COA HYD-
3). Thus, with implementation of permanent BMPs in the WQMP or Stormwater Mitigation Plan,
the project site would generate less stormwater pollutants than under existing conditions.
There are no groundwater wells on the project site and no wells are proposed as part of the
Project. The proposed Project would not involve direct withdrawals of groundwater, nor would
it interfere with groundwater recharge such that it would result in a net deficit in aquifer volume
or lowering of the local groundwater table levels. As stated previously, the project site is located
within a plume protection boundary (North Basin Groundwater Protection Project); infiltration
is prohibited within a plume protection boundary (Plump 2019.) Excavation activities would not
extend into the underlying groundwater. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with or
obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan. Impacts are less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Standard Conditions of Approval
Mitigation measures HYD-1 and HYD-3 from The Fullerton Plan PEIR are applicable to the
proposed Project and incorporated herein as standard conditions.
COA HYD-1 Prior to issuance of any Grading or Building Permit, and as part of the future
development’s compliance with the NPDES requirements, a Notice of Intent shall
be prepared and submitted to the Santa Ana RWQCB providing notification and
intent to comply with the State of California General Construction Permit. Also, a
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be reviewed and approved
by the Director of Engineering for water quality construction activities on-site. A
copy of the SWPPP shall be available and implemented at the construction site at
all times. The SWPPP shall outline the source control and/or treatment control
BMPs to avoid or mitigate runoff pollutants at the construction site to the
“maximum extent practicable.” All recommendations in the Plan shall be
implemented during area preparation, grading, and construction. The project
applicant shall comply with each of the recommendations detailed in the Study,
and other such measure(s) as the City deems necessary to mitigate potential
stormwater runoff impacts.
Environmental Checklist
4-94 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
COA HYD-2 Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits, if construction
dewatering or discharges from other specific activities (e.g., dewatering from
subterranean seepage, potable water system maintenance discharges, fire
hydrant flushing, etc.) are required, the Project Applicant will notify the Santa Ana
RWQCB, and any discharges into surface waters will be conducted in compliance
with the Santa Ana RWQCB’s Order No. R8-2015-0004 (NPDES No. CAG998001),
which includes General Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) for discharges to
surface water that pose an insignificant (de minimis) threat to water quality. The
General WDRs include provisions mandating notification, testing, and reporting
of dewatering and testing-related discharges, and contain numeric and
performance-based effluent limits depending upon the type of discharge.
COA HYD-3 Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit, the Applicant shall provide, to the
satisfaction of the Director of Engineering, a Water Quality Management Plan or
Stormwater Mitigation Plan, which includes Best Management Practices (BMPs),
in accordance with the Orange County DAMP. All recommendations in the Plan
shall be implemented during post construction/operation phase. The Applicant
shall comply with each of the recommendations detailed in the Study, and other
such measure(s) as the City deems necessary to mitigate potential water quality
impacts.
Mitigation Measures
Project implementation would not result in significant impacts related to Hydrology and Water
Quality; therefore, no mitigation measures are required.
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-95
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
4.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict
with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for
the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect?
Fullerton Transportation Center Specific Plan PEIR
Based on the analysis in the PEIR, implementation of the FTC Specific Plan, including PDF 7-1
through PDF 7-4, would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over the project. To the extent that there is an inconsistency with the
[then] existing land uses authorized in the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, as
discussed in Section 3 of the PEIR, the amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance
that were part of the Project description (PDF 7-5 and PDF 7-6) would result in project
compliance consistent with the goals and policies in effect in the City’s General Plan. Additionally,
the analysis concluded that the proposed land uses would be compatible with onsite uses within
the Specific Plan area off-site land uses surrounding the project area. No significant impacts
would result, and no mitigation was required.
For informational purposes, the PDFs and SCs from the PEIR are provided below.
Project Design Features
PDF 7-1 The City of Fullerton shall administer the provisions of Chapter 4, Regulating
Code, of the FTC Specific Plan, which serves as the zoning, development and
design standards, and design guidelines for all parcels within the project area,
with the exception of legal non-conforming uses that were established prior to the
adoption of the FTC Specific Plan. The Regulating Code sets forth the Form-Based
Code regulations that dictate the following: Streets and Alleys (refer to PDF 1-1),
Civic Spaces (refer to PDF 1-2), Building Types (refer to PDF 1-3), Architectural
Standards and Guidelines (refer to PDF 1-4), and Landscape Standards and
Guidelines (refer to PDF 1-5). The Regulating Code also sets forth the Design
Review process, which includes review by the City of Fullerton Town Architect
and the Director of the Community Development Department (refer to PDF 1-6).
PDF 7-2 Section 4.7.5 of the Regulating Code for the FTC Specific Plan ensures the
compatibility of residential and non-residential uses within individual buildings
and on adjacent properties through the following standards:
• No use, activity, or process shall produce vibrations or noxious odors that
are perceptible without instruments by the average person at the property
line of the site or within the interior of residential units on the site.
Environmental Checklist
4-96 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
• Loading and unloading of major delivery vehicles on the site shall not
occur between the hours of 5:00 PM and 7:00 AM. For the purposes of this
Regulating Code, major delivery vehicles include any vehicle with a
commercial license plate that has a gross vehicle weight over 10,000
pounds. This standard does not apply to the loading and unloading of
other delivery vehicles, such as pick-up trucks and small vans.
• Outdoor lighting associated with commercial uses shall provide sufficient
illumination for access and security purposes. Lighting shall be directed
and shielded away from residential windows and outdoor spaces, and
shall not be a distraction or nuisance for vehicle traffic.
PDF 7-3 Section 4.4.4, Mixed-Use B (Mass and Height), of the Regulating Code for the FTC
Specific Plan allows towers with up to 3 additional floors on Mixed-use B buildings
developed on properties along the northern side of Santa Fe Avenue (maximum
of 100 feet).
PDF 7-4 Section 4.4.5, Mixed-Use C (Mass and Height), of the Regulating Code for the FTC
Specific Plan requires that Mixed-Use C development east of Lemon Street shall
not exceed 32 feet in height within 15 feet of the rear alley/rear property line, and
may not exceed 46 feet in height within 30 feet of the rear alley/rear property
line, in order to require a transition in building height and to respect the scale of
the existing residential neighborhood south of the alley.
PDF 7-5 As identified in Section 3.3.3 of the Project Description, the proposed project
includes an amendment to the General Plan Downtown Mixed-Use designation to:
(1) amend the General Plan text to create a new designation of “Fullerton
Transportation Center Specific Plan” and (2) change the land use map designation
for the project area to the new designation of “Fullerton Transportation Center
Specific Plan” (refer to Exhibit 3.3-16, Existing and Proposed General Plan Land
Use Designations).
PDF 7-6 As identified in Section 3.3.4 of the Project Description, the proposed project
involves an amendment to the City of Fullerton Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map
to change the zoning for the area within the FTC Specific Plan Boundaries to
“Specific Plan District (SPD)”. The changes to the Zoning Ordinance would state
that the FTC Specific Plan document, Chapter 4, Regulating Code, will serve as the
zoning, development, and design standards for all projects within the SPD zone.
Additional text amendments to FMC Title 15 will be made to ensure consistency
between the existing Zoning Ordinance and the FTC Specific Plan. The existing and
the proposed zoning are presented in Exhibit 3.3-15, Existing and Proposed
Zoning.
Standard Conditions and Requirements
SC 7-1 As set forth in Section 5.3.4 of the FTC Specific Plan, conditional use permits
(CUPs) and Administrative Restaurant Use Permits (ARUPs) shall be required for
land use classifications typically having unusual site development features or
operating characteristics requiring special consideration so that they may be
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-97
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
designed, located, and operated compatibly with uses on adjoining properties and
in the surrounding area. CUPs shall be granted in accordance with procedures
outlined in Chapter 15.70 of the Municipal Code before a conditionally permitted
use can be allowed within the FTC Specific Plan area. ARUPs shall be granted in
accordance with procedures outlined in Chapter 15.71 of the Municipal Code
before a conditionally permitted use can be allowed within the Specific Plan Area.
SC 7-2 As set forth in Section 4.1.3 of the FTC Specific Plan, legal nonconforming
industrial and manufacturing uses within the project area shall be required to
continue to be in compliance with Chapter 15.40.080 of the Fullerton Municipal
Code, which addresses “environmental pollution” requirements.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were required.
Introduction
One aspect of land use planning considered under CEQA is the consistency of a project with
relevant planning documents, which include the Southern California Association of
Governments’ (SCAG’s) 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities
Strategy (RTP/SCS), and the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP). Additionally, the Project is
subject to the City of Fullerton’s land use jurisdiction, including the City’s plans, policies and
regulations and are required to be consistent with the City’s General Plan (The Fullerton Plan),
Fullerton Municipal Code, and other City imposed requirements.
Information presented in this section is based on field reconnaissance; review of aerial
photographs; and review of the relevant planning documents identified in this section. Project
consistency with existing and planned land uses in the vicinity is evaluated through review of
the land use goals and policies contained in The Fullerton Plan and The Fullerton Plan PEIR, both
adopted in May 2012 (City of Fullerton 2012a, 2012b).
Existing Setting
The Fullerton Plan identifies twelve Focus Areas that present opportunities where land use and
design change can help fully implement the Fullerton Vision. The Fullerton Vision establishes a
community-based foundation, which captures the qualities, values, and characteristics of the City
of Fullerton now and in the future. The project site is located in one of these areas, Focus Area F:
Transportation Center. The Transportation Center Focus Area is located south of the Downtown,
east of Harbor Boulevard and north of the railroad tracks. This Focus Area is situated as a
gateway to the Downtown and is heavily used by City residents and commuters. The Fullerton
Transportation Center is one of the busiest in Orange County, providing access to Amtrak and
Metrolink rail service, the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) bus system, private
taxi service, and secure bicycle storage. The Transportation Center Focus Area is envisioned as
a major activity hub for both the City and the region, characterized by development that
encourages use of the regional transportation options available here. The Transportation Center
would contain compact, mixed-use development providing housing, as well as open space.
Increased transit, bicycle, and pedestrian access would support the area’s role as a destination
Environmental Checklist
4-98 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
and place of interest for City residents and visitors alike. A Specific Plan for the Fullerton
Transportation Center and its associated PEIR were adopted by the City Council in November of
2010.
Fullerton Transportation Center Specific Plan
The overall purpose and intent of the FTC Specific Plan is to create a sustainable transit-oriented
neighborhood near the Santa Fe Train Depot. The Specific Plan is intended to, among other
things, focus growth and development around the train depot to link land use and transit. The
main goals of the FTC Specific Plan are to: (1) create buildings, public spaces, streets, and
infrastructure that contribute to a sustainable built environment; (2) create a mixed-use
neighborhood that contributes toward a sustainable Downtown economy; (3) create a mixed-
use and transit-oriented neighborhood that contributes to a sustainable natural environment;
and (4) develop and promote a framework for a sustainable community lifestyle. The Specific
Plan also encourages the inclusion of affordable housing in proximity to public transit and new
employment opportunities and is intended to accommodate a portion of the City’s housing
obligation related to the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA).
Impact Analysis
Would the Project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
No Impact. With respect to the proposed Project, the two southern parcels are located to the
south of East Santa Fe Avenue, and the northern parcel is at the northeast corner of South
Pomona Avenue and East Santa Fe Avenue. Local access to the project site is provided by East
Santa Fe Avenue and South Pomona Avenue.
With respect to the proposed Project, the parcels to the south of East Santa Fe Avenue are
currently developed with surface parking and the northern parcel is developed with a parking
structure. The two southern parcels are bound by East Santa Fe Avenue to the north, Metrolink
and Amtrak Transportation corridor to the south, Terry’s Automotive to the east, and an asphalt
paved parking lot to the west. The northern parcel is bound by a US Postal Service office to the
north and commercial/retail uses to the east. The Fullerton City Lights, a multi-family residential
development is located to the northeast. Refer to Exhibit 1-2, Aerial Photograph.
No residential uses currently occur on the project site that would be impacted or divided by
development of the proposed Project. Therefore, the Project would not divide or disrupt the
physical arrangement of the existing adjacent residential neighborhoods. No impact would on
occur on an established community, and no mitigation is required.
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Less than Significant Impact. With respect to regional planning, SCAG is the metropolitan
planning organization (MPO) for Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, and
Imperial counties. As the designated MPO, the federal government mandates SCAG to prepare
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-99
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
plans for growth management, transportation, air quality, and hazardous waste management. In
addition, SCAG reviews projects of regional significance for consistency with the existing
regional plans. SCAG’s regional planning programs, including the RCP, Regional Housing Needs
Assessment (RHNA), and RTP/SCS, are not directly applicable to the proposed Project because
the Project is not of Statewide, regional, or area-wide significance, as defined by Section 15206
of the CEQA Guidelines.
The Project would contribute to new housing development in the City of Fullerton. Local plans
and programs relevant to the Project and the consistency of the proposed Project with these
plans and programs are discussed below.
City of Fullerton General Plan
The Fullerton Plan was adopted by City Council on May 1, 2012 (City of Fullerton 2012a) and is
organized into four Master elements, which include the elements as noted parenthetically:
(A) The Fullerton Built Environment (Community Development and Design, Housing,
Historic Preservation, Mobility, Bicycle, Growth Management, Noise Elements);
(B) The Fullerton Economy (Economic Development, Redevelopment and Revitalization
Elements);
(C) The Fullerton Community (Public Safety, Public Heath, Parks and Recreation, Arts and
Culture, Education, Community Involvement Elements); and
(D) The Fullerton Natural Environment (Water, Air Quality and Climate Change, Integrated
Waste Management, Open Space and Natural Resources, Natural Hazards Elements).
The housing element (2013-2021 Housing Element) was adopted under a separate cover on
May 5, 2015 (City of Fullerton 2015). Each element contains the City’s goals and policies related
to that element. An evaluation of the Project’s consistency with applicable goals, policies, and
actions of each element is provided in following Table 4-15, Proposed Project General Plan
Consistency Analysis.
TABLE 4-15
PROPOSED PROJECT GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
General Plan Goal Consistency Analysis
The Fullerton Built Environment—Community Development and Design
Goal 1
Resilient and vital neighborhoods and
districts.
Consistent. The Project would assist to implement this goal by
re-developing the site, currently developed with surface parking
and a parking structure, with apartment units, hotel, retail,
restaurant, and parking, thereby revitalizing this section of the
FTC Specific Plan area. Therefore, the Project would be
consistent with this Policy.
Goal 2
A positive identity and distinctive image. Consistent. In designing the proposed development,
consideration has been given to scale, massing, and architecture
of the Project to ensure that the Project as part of the FTC Specific
Plan, complements the existing buildings in the surrounding
area. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with this Policy.
Environmental Checklist
4-100 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
TABLE 4-15
PROPOSED PROJECT GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
General Plan Goal Consistency Analysis
The Fullerton Built Environment—Housing
Goal 3
A supply of safe housing ranging in cost and
type to meet the needs of all segments of
the community.
Consistent. The intent of this goal is to assist in the provision of
adequate housing to meet the needs of the community, including
the needs of both renter and owner households. The Project
implements this goal by proposing a multi-story development 6
stories in height, with 286 residential units in a well-designed
community. Additionally, 15 percent of the units (43 units)
would be affordable housing. Development is compatible with
the surrounding neighborhoods and provides housing
opportunities at different income levels. Therefore, the Project
would be consistent with this Policy.
The Fullerton Built Environment—Historic Preservation
Goal 4
Valued and preserved historic resources. Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, no
historic resources were identified on the project site or vicinity.
As such, the Project would comply with preserving historic
resources in the City. Therefore, the Project would be consistent
with this Policy.
The Fullerton Built Environment—Mobility
Goal 4
A balanced system promoting
transportation alternatives that enable
mobility and an enhanced quality of life.
Consistent. The Project is a transit-oriented development with
a prime location adjacent to transit. The Project complies with
the Specific Plan vision of encouraging alternatives modes of
mobility.
The Fullerton Built Environment—Bicycle
Goal 6
A bicycle-friendly city where bicycling is a
safe and convenient alternative to
motorized transportation and a
recreational opportunity for people of all
ages and abilities.
Consistent. There is a proposed Class I Bike Path along the Union
Pacific Right-of-Way, south of the site; a proposed Class III Bike
Route on Commonwealth Avenue, north of the site; and a
proposed Class III Bike Route on Lemon Street, east of the site.
The Project would not preclude the future development of the
City’s proposed bicycle lanes, discussed above. The Project
Applicant would provide bicycle storage for future residents and
visitors at the project site.
The Fullerton Built Environment—Growth Management
Goal 7
Growth and development aligned with
infrastructure capabilities.
Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.19, Utilities and Service
Systems, water, wastewater/storm drainage, electricity, natural
gas, telecommunications would comply with the Fullerton
Municipal Code, and the goals, policies, and actions in The
Fullerton Plan. Also, development and redevelopment within the
Specific Plan area, which include the project site, has been
aligned with existing infrastructure capabilities, and
improvements proposed, as needed. Additionally, the Project
would be required to comply with COA UTL-1 and COA UTL-2.
Therefore, the Project would be consistent with this Policy.
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-101
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
TABLE 4-15
PROPOSED PROJECT GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
General Plan Goal Consistency Analysis
The Fullerton Built Environment—Noise
Goal 8
Protection from the adverse effects of
noise.
Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.13, Noise, the Project
would be constructed in accordance with the City’s Municipal
Code Section 15.90.050 and would occur during the least noise-
sensitive portions of the day. This shall ensure that the project
site and architectural design features comply with the City’s
interior noise standard and provide an interior noise level of 45
A-weighted decibels (dBA) Community Noise Equivalent Level
(CNEL) or less (based on buildout traffic noise conditions) in all
habitable rooms of the proposed buildings. As such, the Project
would not result in generation of substantial temporary or
permanent increases in noise. Therefore, the Project would be
consistent with this Policy.
The Fullerton Economy—Revitalization
Goal 11
Revitalization activities that result in
community benefits and enhance the
quality of life in neighborhoods, districts,
and corridors.
Consistent. The Project would assist to implement this goal by
re-developing the site, currently developed with surface parking
and a parking structure, with apartment units, hotel, retail,
restaurant, and parking, thereby revitalizing this section of the
FTC Specific Plan area. Therefore, the Project would be
consistent with this Policy.
The Fullerton Community—Parks and Recreation
Goal 15 Parks, recreational facilities, trails, and
programs that promote a healthy
community and a desirable quality of life.
Consistent. The proposed Project would include private open
space for its residents. The Project would also include on-site
amenities, such as a pool, outdoor cabanas, pet area/wash
station, outdoor fitness center, playground, outdoor BBQ, putting
green, and nature garden. Additionally, the Project Applicant
would be responsible for paying park fees for the acquisition,
development, and improvement of public parks and recreational
facilities in the City. Therefore, the Project would be consistent
with this Policy.
The Fullerton Natural Environment—Water
Goal 20 A healthy watershed and clean urban
runoff.
Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water
Quality, the Project would minimize runoff and pollution of water
through the preparation of a SWPPP and implementation of
erosion control, sediment control, tracking, waste management,
and construction site maintenance BMPs to reduce the potential
for soil and wind erosion during construction activities (see COA
HYD-1, in Section 4.10). Therefore, the Project would be
consistent with this Policy.
The Fullerton Natural Environment—Air Quality and Climate Change
Goal 21 Protection and improvement of air quality. Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.3, Air Quality, the Project’s
emissions would be less than the SCAQMD’s thresholds for
criteria pollutants. Through compliance with COA AQ-1, for
fugitive dust control, COA AQ-1, for nuisance emissions, all
impacts would be less than significant, and the Project would
minimize adverse impacts of the Project on air quality.
Environmental Checklist
4-102 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
TABLE 4-15
PROPOSED PROJECT GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
General Plan Goal Consistency Analysis
Goal 22 Participation in regional efforts to address
climate change and its local impacts.
Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.8, Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, the Project’s emissions would be less than the
SCAQMD’s recommended thresholds GHG emissions. Through
compliance with COA ENE-1, Title 24 Energy Efficiency
Standards, and COA ENE-2, CALGreen code, the Project would
minimize GHG emissions. Additionally, the Project would reduce
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by providing residential uses
adjacent to commercial uses, thereby reducing GHG emissions
from mobile emissions.
Source: City of Fullerton 2015.
As demonstrated in Table 4-15, the Project would be consistent with The Fullerton Plan’s
applicable goals. Additionally, the Project would provide residential, hotel and
commercial/retail development to the surrounding community and would revitalize the site.
Therefore, in light of the above, there would be no conflict with the goals and policies of The
Fullerton Plan.
Additionally, the Project being part of the FTC Specific Plan would be consistent with the Specific
Plan and contribute to achieving the following planning objectives of the Specific Plan: (1)
provide for higher density residential development; (2) enhance the center as a destination for
residents and visitors alike; (3) promote a mix of uses accompanied by design that encourages
walkability; (4) maintain adequate capacity for parking needs, while increasing connecting
transit and bicycle and pedestrian access; and (4) link with other areas of the City including the
Civic Center, Downtown and Harbor Gateway. By providing apartment units and parking the
Project would assist in increasing housing density while providing additional street-adjacent
commercial/retail in a transit-rich area. Further, the proposed hotel use, in proximity to
Metrolink and Amtrak Transportation station, would enhance the area for visitors.
Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses
As discussed previously, the project site is surrounded by development, and the general area
consists of commercial, residential, retail, office space, manufacturing, and industrial uses. More
specifically, the two southern parcels are bound by East Santa Fe Avenue to the north, Metrolink
and Amtrak Transportation corridor to the south, Terry’s Automotive to the east, and an asphalt
paved parking lot to the west. The parcel at the northeast corner of South Pomona Avenue and
East Santa Fe Avenue is bound by a US Postal Service office to the north and commercial/retail
uses to the east. The Fullerton City Lights, a multi-family residential development is located to
the northeast. Refer to Exhibit 1-2, Aerial Photograph.
The proposed Project land uses are within the FTC Specific Plan area, which includes residential,
industrial, retail, restaurants, public services, religious assembly, offices, and public parking. The
Project proposes re-development of the site with apartment units, hotel, retail, restaurant, and
parking.
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-103
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
The Fullerton Plan identifies the Transportation Center Focus Area “as a major activity hub for
both the City and the region, characterized by development that encourages use of the regional
transportation options available here. The Transportation Center would contain compact,
mixed-use development providing housing, as well as open space. Increased transit, bicycle and
pedestrian access would support the area’s role as a destination and place of interest for City
residents and visitors alike.” As part of the FTC Specific Plan, the Project would comply with
density and intensity of this area and is of similar character, scale, and massing as envisioned in
the Specific Plan document. Therefore, the proposed development would be compatible with the
planned development and redevelopment within the FTC Specific Plan area and the Focus
Area F: Fullerton Transportation.
In light of the above, the proposed Project would be compatible with the planned development
and redevelopment within the FTC Specific Plan. The potential land use compatibility impacts
would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Standard Conditions of Approval
None has been identified.
Mitigation Measures
Project implementation would not result in significant impacts related to Land Use and Planning;
therefore, no mitigation measures are required.
Environmental Checklist
4-104 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
4.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Fullerton Transportation Center Specific Plan Project EIR
This topic was focused out from detail analysis in the PEIR because it was determined that the
project was not in an area classified with locally important or known mineral resources and
would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. Therefore, no impact
would occur.
No PDFs, SCs, or MMs were identified nor required.
Impact Analysis
Would the Project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value
to the region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
No Impact. The California Geological Survey (CGS) designates Mineral Resources Zones (MRZs)
according to the presence of or potential for underlying mineral resources. MRZ-1 is an area with
no significant mineral deposits; MRZ-2 is an area with significant mineral deposits; and MRZ-3
is an area containing known mineral resources of undetermined significance. The project site is
designated by the CGS as MRZ-1, which applies to areas where adequate information indicates
that no significant mineral deposits are present or where it is judged that little likelihood exists
for their presence (DMG 1994). The project site is developed with an existing parking structure
in the northern parcel, and surface parking lots in the southern parcels, and there are no mining
activities or mineral extraction uses on or near the project site. As identified in The Fullerton
Plan and associated PEIR, commercially productive mineral resources do not occur in the City of
Fullerton (City of Fullerton 2012b). Additionally, The Fullerton Plan does not identify any known
State or locally designated mineral resources or locally important mineral resource recovery
sites in the City (City of Fullerton 2012a). Thus, the Project would not result in the loss of
availability of locally important mineral resources. No impacts would occur, and no mitigation is
required.
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-105
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
There are no past or ongoing oil or gas drilling activities on or near the site. Review of the
California Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources’ (DOGGR’s) Well Finder shows no oil
or gas wells are located on the project site or in the vicinity of the site. The nearest well is a dry,
plugged hole approximately 1.15 miles northwest of the site (DOGGR 2022). Therefore,
redevelopment of the site would not result in the loss of availability of regional mineral
resources. No impacts would occur, and no mitigation is required.
Standard Conditions of Approval
None has been identified.
Mitigation Measures
Project implementation would not result in significant impacts related to Mineral Resources;
therefore, no mitigation is required.
Environmental Checklist
4-106 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
4.13 NOISE
Would the project result in:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the
project in excess of standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards
of other agencies?
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private
airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan
has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
Fullerton Transportation Center Specific Plan PEIR
Based on the analysis in the PEIR, construction equipment for the Project would have the
potential to generate temporary noise impacts above the existing ambient noise levels. When
construction would occur within 80 feet of sensitive receptors, noise levels could be substantially
greater than existing ambient noise level, resulting in a significant short-term impact. MMs 8-1
and 8-2 would minimize construction noise effects on sensitive receptors to the maximum extent
feasible but would not reduce noise levels to receptors on the second floor and above. The short-
term impact would be significant and unavoidable.
Implementation of the Project would expose proposed uses, including residential units and civic
spaces, to traffic and train noise levels in excess of 70 dBA CNEL levels, and noise from stationary
sources, including commercial and civic spaces, fire station operations, and mechanical
equipment. Compliance with the FTC Specific Plan noise standards (refer to PDF 8-3) and
required 45 dBA CNEL interior noise levels for residential uses (SC 8-2) would ensure these
impacts would be less than significant. MMs 8-3 and 8-5, which required final noise studies for
residential and park uses, and MM 8-4 which required resident notification of train operations
would further ensure these impacts would remain less than significant.
Project-related traffic noise would not increase noise levels in the areas adjacent to the project
site and adjacent to roadways and intersections evaluated in the traffic study more than 0.3 dBA
under each traffic scenario analyzed; this increase would not be perceptible. Existing ambient
traffic noise would mask most noise from the project area to off-site receptors resulting in a less
than significant impact. PDF 8-3 and MM 8-6 would further ensure impacts would be less than
significant.
The vibration levels expected as a result of construction activities within the project area may be
perceptible at immediately adjacent existing uses but would not be excessive and would not
result in structural damage. Train vibration would have the potential to generate perceptible
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-107
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
vibration levels at the residential buildings proposed to be constructed as near as 75 feet from
the BNSF rail line. Due to the vibration reduction provided by the building foundation and
structure, it was anticipated that the vibration impacts would be less than significant. However,
MM 8-8 required a detailed vibration analysis to be performed for each building to be
constructed within 200 feet of the railroad tracks to ensure that vibration impacts would be less
than significant.
Further, it was determined that the Project would not have a significant impact pertaining to
excessive noise levels in proximity to a public airport and a private airstrip.
For informational purposes, the PDFs, SCs, and MMs from the PEIR are provided below.
Project Design Feature
PDF 8-1 In compliance with Section 4.7.5 of the Regulating Code for the FTC Specific Plan,
the owner of each commercial space shall require that no use, activity, or process
shall produce vibrations that are perceptible without instruments by the average
person at the property line of the site or within the interior of residential units on
the site.
PDF 8-2 In compliance with Section 4.7.5 of the Regulating Code for the FTC Specific Plan,
the owner of each commercial space shall require that loading and unloading of
major delivery vehicles on the site shall not occur between the hours of 5:00 pm
and 7:00 am. This standard does not apply to the loading and unloading of other
delivery vehicles, such as pick-up trucks and small vans.
PDF 8-3 In compliance with Section 4.7.11 of the Regulating Code for the FTC Specific Plan,
noise standards shown in Table 4.8-8 shall be applicable for development within
the FTC Specific Plan area.
Standard Conditions of Approval
SC 8-1 Prior to approval of grading plans and/or prior to issuance of building permits,
contractor specifications shall include a note indicating that noise-generating
project construction activities shall take place between the hours of 7:00 AM and
8:00 PM on any day and are not permitted on Sundays or a City-recognized
holiday. This requirement is identified in Section 15.90.050 of the City of
Fullerton’s Noise Ordinance.
SC 8-2 The project shall comply with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, also
known as the California Building Standards Code, which establishes building
standards applicable to all occupancies throughout the state. Title 24 requires
that residential structures, other than detached single-family dwellings, be
designed to prevent the intrusion of exterior noise so that the interior noise level
with windows closed, attributable to exterior sources, shall not exceed 45 dBA
CNEL in any habitable room.
Environmental Checklist
4-108 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
Mitigation Measures
Construction-Related Noise Impacts
MM 8-1 Prior to issuance of each grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs
first, the Property Owner/Developer shall submit evidence to the Director of
Community Development that the following noise reduction measures are stated
as requirements on the construction plans and specifications:
• Construction traffic shall be limited to haul routes established by the City
of Fullerton.
• Stationary equipment (such as generators and air compressors) shall be
located as far from residences, including hotel rooms, as feasible.
• Equipment maintenance and staging areas shall be located as far away
from residences as feasible.
• Construction equipment shall be fitted with manufacturer’s standard, or
better, noise-shielding and muffling devices to reduce noise levels to the
maximum extent feasible.
• The Project Owner/Developer shall designate a Construction Complaint
Manager for the project. A telephone contact number shall be clearly
posted at all active access points.
MM 8-2 Prior to issuance of each grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs
first, and if the center of the construction area is within 80 feet of an occupied
residential land use, including hotels, the Property Owner/Developer shall submit
evidence to the Director of Community Development that the construction plans
include, where feasible, a temporary 12 foot high noise barrier between the
construction site and the residential land use. The barrier should be solid from
the ground to the top and should have a weight of at least 3 pounds per square
foot. This measure is not required if the construction is linear, such as for utility
installation, or if the construction work within 80 feet would not exceed 3
consecutive days.
Long-term Operational Noise Impacts
MM 8-3 Prior to issuance of each building permit, a detailed acoustical study using
architectural plans shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant and
submitted to the Community Development Department for residential structures.
This report shall describe and quantify the noise sources impacting the
building(s), the amount of outdoor-to-indoor noise reduction provided in the
architectural plans, and any upgrades required to meet the City’s interior noise
standards (Title 24 [Building Code] of the California Code of Regulations), as
applicable. Required upgrades may include, but not be limited to: upgraded dual
glazed windows, mechanical ventilation/air conditioning, exterior wall/roof
assemblies free of cut-outs or openings, and upgraded exterior wall assemblies.
The building upgrades described in the report shall be incorporated into the
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-109
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
architectural plans for the buildings and implemented with building construction
and shall be verified by the City’s Planning Division.
MM 8-4 Prior to the issuance of each occupancy permit for residential property adjacent
to and within the line of sight of the railroad tracks, each Property
Owner/Developer shall demonstrate to the City Community Development
Department how documents would inform residents that the property may be
subject to potentially disturbing noise levels due to train pass-bys. This
notification procedure shall include initial and subsequent residents.
MM 8-5 Prior to the approval of the development plans for the North and South
Neighborhood Parks, the Property Owner/Developer or the City, if the City is the
developer, shall prepare an acoustical analysis demonstrating that the exterior
noise levels in the park would be in the normally acceptable or conditionally
acceptable range established in the Fullerton General Plan.
MM 8-6 A detailed assessment of the noise generated by mechanical equipment for
proposed structures shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant prior
to the issuance of building permits. The assessment shall utilize noise data
provided by the manufacturer(s) of the equipment utilized by the project or noise
measurements from substantially similar equipment to project noise levels at the
noise sensitive uses (on- and off-site). Compliance with the FTC Specific Plan noise
standards (refer to PDF 8-3) shall be demonstrated and any measures required to
meet the noise standards shall be described and incorporated into the building
plans for the project. These measures may include, but not be limited to: selection
of quiet models of equipment, construction of barriers, equipment enclosures,
and placement of the equipment.
Vibration Impacts
MM 8-7 A detailed vibration analysis shall be performed when precise grading plans and
architectural plans are available for each building to be constructed within 200
feet of the railroad tracks. These buildings shall be designed to eliminate vibration
amplifications due to resonances of floors, walls, and ceilings. The detailed
analysis shall be submitted to the Planning Division as part of the final building
design showing that the vibration levels would be below 72 VdB.
Introduction
Noise and Vibration Concepts
Noise
“Sound” is a vibratory disturbance created by a moving or vibrating source and is capable of
being detected. “Noise” is defined as sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or undesired
and may therefore be classified as a more specific group of sounds. The effects of noise on people
can include general annoyance; interference with speech communication; sleep disturbance;
and, in the extreme, hearing impairment (Caltrans 2013).
Environmental Checklist
4-110 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
Sound pressure levels are described in units called the decibel (dB). Decibels are measured on a
logarithmic scale. A doubling of the energy of a noise source (such as doubling of traffic volume)
would increase the noise level by 3 dB. The human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies
within the sound spectrum. To accommodate this phenomenon, the A-scale was devised; the A-
weighted decibel scale (dBA) approximates the frequency response of the average healthy ear
when listening to most ordinary everyday sounds and is used in this analysis.
Human perception of noise has no simple correlation with acoustical energy. Due to subjective
thresholds of tolerance, the annoyance of a given noise source is perceived very differently from
person to person. The most common sounds vary between 40 dBA (very quiet) to 100 dBA (very
loud). Normal conversation at 3 feet is approximately 60 dBA, while loud jet engine noises at
1,000 feet equate to 100 dBA, which can cause serious discomfort. Table 4-16 shows the
relationship of various noise levels in dBA to commonly experienced noise events.
TABLE 4-16
NOISE LEVELS FOR COMMON EVENTS
Common Outdoor Activities
Noise Level
(dBA) Common Indoor Activities
110 Rock Band
Jet fly-over at 300 m (1,000 ft) 100
Gas lawn mower at 1 m (3 ft) 90
Diesel truck at 15 m (50 ft) at 80 km/hr (50 mph) 80 Food blender at 1 m (3 ft); garbage disposal at 1 m
(3 ft)
Noisy urban area, daytime gas lawn mower at 30
m (100 ft) 70 Vacuum cleaner at 3 m (10 ft)
Commercial area, heavy traffic at 90 m (300 ft) 60 Normal speech at 1 m (3 ft)
Quiet urban daytime 50 Large business office, dishwasher in next room
Quiet urban nighttime 40 Theater, large conference room (background)
Quiet suburban nighttime 30 Library
Quiet rural nighttime 20 Bedroom at night, concert hall (background)
10 Broadcast/recording studio
Lowest threshold of human hearing 0 Lowest threshold of human hearing
dBA: A-weighted decibels; m: meter; ft: feet; km/hr: kilometers per hour; mph: miles per hour
Source: Caltrans 2013.
Two noise sources do not “sound twice as loud” as one source. As stated above, a doubling of
noise sources results in a noise level increase of 3 dBA. It is widely accepted that (1) the average
healthy ear can barely perceive changes of a 3 dBA increase or decrease, (2) a change of 5 dBA is
readily perceptible, and (3) an increase (decrease) of 10 dBA sounds twice (half) as loud
(Caltrans 2013).
From the source to the receiver, noise changes both in the level and frequency spectrum. The
most obvious change is the decrease in noise level as the distance from the source increases.
Sound from a small, localized source (approximating a “point” source) radiates uniformly
outward as it travels away from the source in a spherical pattern. For point sources, such as
heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units or construction equipment, the sound
level attenuates (or drops off) at a rate of 6 dBA for each doubling of distance (i.e., if the noise
level is 70 dBA at 25 feet, it is 64 dBA at 50 feet). Vehicle movement on a road makes the source
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-111
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
of the sound appear to emanate from a line (line source) rather than a point when viewed over
some time interval. The sound level attenuates or drops off at a rate of 3 dBA per doubling of
distance for line sources.
A large object in the path between a noise source and a receiver can significantly attenuate noise
levels at that receiver location. The amount of attenuation provided by this “shielding” depends
on the size of the object and the frequencies of the noise levels. Natural terrain or landform
features as well as man-made features (e.g., buildings and walls) can significantly alter noise
exposure levels. For a noise barrier to work, it must be high enough and long enough to block the
view from the receiver to a road or other noise source. Effective noise barriers can reduce
outdoor noise levels at the receptor by up to 15 dBA.
Several rating scales (or noise “metrics”) exist to analyze effects of noise on a community. These
scales include the equivalent noise level (Leq), including Lmax and Lmin, which are respectively the
highest and lowest A-weighted sound levels that occur ding a noise event, and the Community
Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). Average noise levels over a period of minutes or hours are
usually expressed as dBA Leq, which is the equivalent noise level for that period of time. The
period of time averaging may be specified; for example, Leq(3) would be a three-hour average.
Noise of short duration (i.e., substantially less than the averaging period) is averaged into
ambient noise during the period of interest. Thus, a loud noise lasting many seconds or a few
minutes may have minimal effect on the measured sound level averaged over a one-hour period.
To evaluate community noise impacts, CNEL was developed to account for human sensitivity to
nighttime noise. CNEL represents the 24-hour average sound level with a penalty for noise
occurring at night. The CNEL computation divides a 24-hour day into three periods: daytime
(7:00 AM to 7:00 PM), evening (7:00 PM to 10:00 PM), and nighttime (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM). The
evening sound levels are assigned a 5-dBA penalty, and the nighttime sound levels are assigned
a 10-dBA penalty prior to averaging with daytime hourly sound levels.
Vibration
Vibration is an oscillatory motion through a solid medium in which the motion’s amplitude can
be described in terms of displacement, velocity, or acceleration. Vibration is normally associated
with activities such as railroads or vibration-intensive stationary sources but can also be
associated with construction equipment such as jackhammers, pile drivers, and hydraulic
hammers. Vibration displacement is the distance that a point on a surface moves away from its
original static position. The instantaneous speed that a point on a surface moves is described as
the velocity, and the rate of change of the speed is described as the acceleration. Each of these
descriptors can be used to correlate vibration to human response, building damage, and
acceptable equipment vibration levels. During construction of a project, the operation of
construction equipment can cause groundborne vibration. During the operational phase of a
project, receptors may be subject to levels of vibration that can cause annoyance due to noise
generated from vibration of a structure or items within a structure. Analysis of this type of
vibration is best measured in velocity and acceleration.
Environmental Checklist
4-112 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
The three main wave types of concern in the propagation of groundborne vibrations are surface
or Rayleigh waves, compression or P-waves, and shear or S-waves.
Surface or Rayleigh waves travel along the ground surface. They carry most of their
energy along an expanding cylindrical wave front, similar to the ripples produced by
throwing a rock into a lake. The particle motion is more or less perpendicular to the
direction of propagation (known as retrograde elliptical).
Compression or P-waves are body waves that carry their energy along an expanding
spherical wave front. The particle motion in these waves is longitudinal, in a push-pull
motion. P-waves are analogous to airborne sound waves.
Shear or S-waves are also body waves, carrying their energy along an expanding spherical
wave front. Unlike P-waves, however, the particle motion is transverse, or perpendicular
to the direction of propagation.
The peak particle velocity (ppv) or the root mean square (rms) velocity is usually used to
describe vibration amplitudes. The ppv is defined as the maximum instantaneous peak of the
vibration signal and the rms is defined as the square root of the average of the squared amplitude
of the signal. The ppv is more appropriate for evaluating potential building damage and also used
for evaluating human response.
The units for ppv velocity are normally inches per second (in/sec). Often, vibration is presented
and discussed in dB units in order to compress the range of numbers required to describe the
vibration. In this study, all ppv velocity levels are in in/sec and all vibration levels are in dB
relative to one microinch per second.
The threshold of perception is approximately 0.3 ppv in/sec. Typically, groundborne vibration
generated by human activities attenuates rapidly with distance from the source of the vibration.
Even the more persistent Rayleigh waves decrease relatively quickly as they move away from
the source of the vibration. Manmade vibration problems are, therefore, usually confined to short
distances (500 feet or less) from the source.
Construction generally includes a wide range of activities that can generate groundborne
vibration. In general, blasting and demolition of structures and pile driving generate the highest
vibrations. Heavy trucks can also generate groundborne vibrations, which vary depending on
vehicle type, weight, and pavement conditions. Potholes, pavement joints, discontinuities,
differential settlement of pavement, and other anomalies all increase the vibration levels from
vehicles passing over a road surface. Construction vibration is normally of greater concern than
vibration of normal traffic on streets and freeways with smooth pavement conditions. Trains
generate substantial quantities of vibration due to their engines, steel wheels, and heavy loads.
Existing Setting
The existing noise environment in the project area is primarily influenced by traffic noise on
nearby roads, train noise, and to a much lesser extent stationary sources of noise from local
industrial and commercial uses. The roadways contributing the most noise to the project site are
E. Commonwealth Avenue, S. Harbor Boulevard, Santa Fe Avenue, and Lemon Street. For the
purpose of this noise analysis, the study area includes the project site, the areas immediately
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-113
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
adjacent to the project site, and the land uses adjacent to the roadway segments where the
Project adds vehicular trips to the roadway system.
Psomas conducted ambient noise surveys on September 28, 2022 for the Project. Noise level
measurements were taken using a Larson Davis Laboratories SoundTrack LxT sound level meter
(LD LxT). The sound level meter was placed proximate to each of the project site’s property lines,
approximately five feet above the ground and equipped with a windscreen. Short-term noise
measurements were taken proximate to the southern, western, northern, and eastern property
lines. Noise levels at each location were affected by different noise sources.
TABLE 4-17
NOISE LEVELS FOR LOCATIONS 3 AND 4
Primary Noise
Sources
Minimum
(dBA Lmin)
Average
(dBA Leq)
Maximum
(dBA Lmax)
Southern Property Line Intercom at train
station 44.0 49.2 65.5
Western Property Line Intercom at train
station, passing
buses
46.0 60.9 82.6
Northern Property Line
Traffic along
Commonwealth
Avenue
52.3 58.4 67.4
Eastern Property Line Traffic along Lemon
Street, idling
vehicles at
automobile repair
45.4 61.9 77.8
Sensitive Receptors
The State of California defines noise-sensitive receptors as those land uses that require serenity
or are otherwise adversely affected by noise events or conditions (State of California 2015). The
land use categories requiring the lowest noise thresholds are schools, libraries, churches,
hospitals, and residences. Schools, libraries, churches, hospitals, and residences proximate to the
project site are referred to as the Project’s “noise sensitive receptors” due to sensitivity of
these uses to noise exposure. The closest noise-sensitive receptors to the project site include
multifamily residences located approximately 20 feet to the north of the project site
at E. Commonwealth Avenue.
Regulatory Setting
Public agencies have established noise guidelines and standards to protect citizens from
potential hearing damage and various other adverse physiological and social effects associated
with noise.
State of California
Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, also known as the California Building Code (CBC),
establishes building standards applicable to all occupancies throughout the state. The most
recent building standards adopted by the legislature and used throughout the State is the 2019
Environmental Checklist
4-114 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
version. The State of California codifies noise insulation standards in the CBC. Section 1206.4,
Allowable interior noise levels, states “Interior noise levels attributable to exterior sources shall
not exceed 45 dB in any habitable room. The noise metric shall be either the day-night average
sound level (Ldn) or the community noise equivalent level (CNEL), consistent with the noise
element of the local general plan.” (DGS 2021). These noise standards are for new construction
in California for the purposes of interior compatibility with exterior noise sources. The
regulations specify that acoustical studies must be prepared for new buildings with habitable
rooms that are near major transportation noises, and where such noise sources create an
exterior noise level of 60 dBA CNEL/Ldn or higher.
City of Fullerton
The City of Fullerton has established guidelines and standards in the General Plan (Fullerton Plan
2012) and the Municipal Code (Fullerton 2001).
The Fullerton Plan
The Fullerton Built Environment (specifically, Part II. A, Chapter 7) functions as the General Plan
Noise Element and provides a basis to control and abate environmental noise and to protect
citizens from excessive exposure (City of Fullerton 2012). The corresponding tables and exhibits
include the noise compatibility guidelines from the State General Plan Guidelines, shown in
Table 4-18. These guidelines are used to evaluate the proposed project’s compatibility with the
ambient noise level.
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-115
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
TABLE 4-18
LAND USE COMPATIBILITY FOR COMMUNITY NOISE ENVIRONMENTS
Land Use Category
CNEL (dBA)
Normally
Acceptable
Conditionally
Acceptable
Normally
Unacceptable
Clearly
Unacceptable
Residential – Low-Density, Single-
Family, Duplex, Mobile Homes 50–60 55–70 70–75 75–85
Residential – Multiple Family 50–65 60–70 70–75 70–85
Transient Lodging – Motel, Hotels 50–65 60–70 70–80 80–85
Schools, Libraries, Churches,
Hospitals, Nursing Homes 50–70 60–70 70–80 80–85
Auditoriums, Concert Halls,
Amphitheaters NA 50–70 N/A 65-85
Sports Arenas, Outdoor Spectator
Sports NA 50–75 N/A 70-85
Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks 50–70 NA 67.5-77.5 72.5-85
Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water
Recreation, Cemeteries
50–70 NA 70–80 80–85
Office Buildings, Business
Commercial, and Professional 50–70 67.5–77.5 75–85 N/A
Industrial, Manufacturing 50–75 70–80 75–85 N/A
CNEL: community noise equivalent level; dBA: A-weighted decibels; N/A: not applicable.
Normally Acceptable: Specified land use is satisfactory based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of
normal conventional construction without any special noise insulation requirements.
Conditionally Acceptable: New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the
noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features have been included in the design.
Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply system or air conditioning, will normally suffice.
Normally Unacceptable: New construction or development should be discouraged. If new construction or development
does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise-insulation features
must be included in the design.
Clearly Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally not be undertaken.
Source: Office of Planning and Research, California, General Plan Guidelines, October 2003.
City of Fullerton Municipal Code
Chapter 15.90 of the City of Fullerton Municipal Code, Noise Standards and Regulation, is the
City’s Noise Ordinance (City of Fullerton 2016b). The following sections from the Noise
Ordinance are applicable to the proposed project:
Section 15.90.030(A) defines the interior and exterior noise level limits for residential land uses;
this is shown in Table 4-19, City of Fullerton Noise Ordinance Standards for Residential Land
Uses. The City does not have specific noise level limits for commercial or industrial zones.
Environmental Checklist
4-116 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
TABLE 4-19
CITY OF FULLERTON NOISE ORDINANCE STANDARDS
FOR RESIDENTIAL LAND USES
Time Period
Noise Level (dBA) at Property Line*
Exterior Interior
7:00 AM–10:00 PM 55 55
10:00 PM–7:00 AM 50 45
dBA: A-weighted decibels.
* Applicable to all property within the Residential Noise Zone. A Residential Noise Zone
includes all properties with a residential zone classification.
Source: City of Fullerton 2001 (Chapter 15.90).
Section 15.90.030(B) further defines the applicability of the noise level limits for a sensitive use.
Section 15.90.030(B) defines a sensitive use as a private or public school, hospital, residential
care facility for the elderly, or religious institution. According to Section 15.90.030(B), it is
unlawful for any person within the incorporated area of the City to create any noise that causes
the noise level at any sensitive use to exceed the noise limits specified for the Residential Noise
Zone; notwithstanding, the sensitive use may be located outside of the Residential Noise Zone.
Section 15.90.030(C) identifies how the sound level limits identified in Section 15.90.030(A)
(see Table 4 above) will be enforced. Section 15.90.030(C) states the following:
It shall be unlawful for any person at any location within the incorporated area of the city
to create any noise which can be classified as being continuous, reoccurring, predictable,
or whose operation of noise-generating capability can be stopped or started at a specified
time, or allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied or otherwise
controlled by such person, which causes the noise level, when measured on the property,
either incorporated or unincorporated, to exceed:
1. The noise standard for a cumulative period of more than 30 minutes in any
hour;
2. The noise standard plus 5 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 15
minutes but less than 30 minutes in any hour;
3. The noise standard plus 10 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 5
minutes but less than 15 minutes in any hour;
4. The noise standard plus 15 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 1 minute
but less than 5 minutes in any hour; and
5. The noise standard plus 20 dBA for a cumulative period of less than 1 minute
in an hour.
Section 15.90.030(D) states that “in the event the ambient noise level exceeds any of the five
noise limit categories listed in Subsection C, the cumulative period applicable to the category
shall be increased to reflect the ambient noise level”.
Section 15.90.040(A)7 exempts noise from vehicular traffic on public streets from the noise level
standards specified in Chapter 15.90.
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-117
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
Construction Noise
Section 15.90.050, Activities with Special Provisions, is the relevant ordinance controlling
construction noise. Subsection A states the following:
The following activities shall be exempt from the noise level standards specified by this
chapter provided they take place between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on any
day except Sunday or a City-recognized holiday.
1. Noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, or grading of
any real property; . . .
3. Noise sources associated with the maintenance of real property, including
normal maintenance and repair by city and utility crews.
Subsection B states that “Installation of air conditioning, refrigeration and pool equipment shall
be certified to be within the provisions of this chapter for night and day operation noise levels”.
Chapter 15.90 does not set specific noise level limits on construction-related activity.
Impact Analysis
Would the Project:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
The analysis in this section is divided into the following categories: Off-site Noise Generated by
Project Traffic, Noise Generated by On-Site Project Sources and Project Construction Noise.
Off-Site Noise Generated by Project Traffic
Less than Significant Impact. Project-related off-site noise sources (i.e., roadway traffic noise)
have the potential to increase noise levels on local roadways proximate to the project site. The
City of Fullerton has not established an acceptable level of traffic noise increases. As such, a
noticeable increase of 3 dBA in CNEL was used for the traffic noise analysis. A 3 dBA change in
noise levels is considered to be the smallest change in noise levels that is detectable by human
hearing.
Operation of the proposed Project would result in an increase in 2,286 trips per day and 153
trips in the a.m. peak hour and 178 in the p.m. peak hour. Table 4-21 shows the changes in in
traffic noise levels at the analyzed roadways. Because the Project would not result in an audible
increase in traffic noise levels, it would result in less than significant noise impacts related to
traffic noise.
Environmental Checklist
4-118 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
TABLE 4-20
CHANGE IN TRAFFIC NOISE WITH PROJECT
Street Segment
Future No
Project
(dBA CNEL)
Future With
Project Traffic
(dBA CNEL)
Change in
Noise Levels
(dBA CNEL)1
Commonwealth Avenue W/O Harbor Boulevard 71.4 71.5 0.1
W/O Pomona Avenue 71.4 71.4 0.1
W/O Lemon Street 71.2 71.3 0.1
E/O Lemon Street 71.8 71.9 0.1
Santa Fe Avenue W/O Harbor Boulevard 60.5 60.8 0.3
W/O Pomona Avenue 61.8 63.2 1.3
W/O Lemon Street 58.2 60.3 2.1
E/O Lemon Street 56.0 56.0 0.0
Harbor Boulevard N/O Commonwealth
Avenue
73.1 73.2
0.0
N/O Santa Fe Avenue 73.6 73.7 0.1
S/O Santa Fe Avenue 73.7 73.8 0.1
Pomona Avenue N/O Commonwealth
Avenue
62.4 62.5
0.2
N/O Santa Fe Avenue 61.8 62.9 1.0
Lemon Street N/O Commonwealth
Avenue
72.9 72.9
0.0
N/O Santa Fe Avenue 73.7 73.7 0.1
S/O Santa Fe Avenue 73.7 73.8 0.1
1 Subtracted totals may be affected by rounding of numbers.
Source: Psomas using the FHWA RD 77-108 Highway Traffic Prediction Noise Model, 2022.
On-Site Project Noise Sources
Less than Significant Impact. Operational noise sources associated with the proposed Project
would include, but are not limited to, mechanical equipment (e.g., HVAC units and pool pumps);
landscape maintenance equipment; vehicles on the local internal roadway; the use of the pool
area, courtyard and rooftop terrace areas. The City of Fullerton’s Noise Ordinance is designed to
control unnecessary, excessive, and annoying sounds from sources on private property by
specifying noise levels that cannot be exceeded. Fullerton Municipal Code Section 15.90.030 –
Noise Standards. HVAC units and other stationary equipment would be installed to comply with
the City of Fullerton’s Noise Ordinance. Compliance with the City’s Noise Ordinance would
minimize these impacts to less than significant levels.
The Project also has outdoor uses such as courtyards and pools. Noise generated by these uses
typically include people talking, pool use, and amplified music. Any noise generated within the
courtyard would be substantially attenuated by the proposed Project structures and the distance
between the outdoor activities and the nearest property line and intervening buildings. All these
uses would be subject to the noise limits established in Section 15.90.030 of the Fullerton
Municipal Code. Compliance with this noise limit would result in less than significant noise
impacts from these noise sources.
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-119
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
Noise from landscape maintenance, vehicles, and residential activities would be similar to noise
currently occurring in existing residential neighborhoods and commercial uses. Compliance with
the City’s requirements specified under Municipal Code Section 15.90.050 would result in noise
levels that are acceptable to the City. As such, noise impacts from stationary sources would be
less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Project Construction Noise
Less than Significant Impact. The development of the proposed Project would entail
construction activities which include noise generated from demolition, grading/excavation, and
building construction activities. It is estimated that construction activities would begin in the
fourth quarter of 2023 and end in 2025.
Local commercial, industrial, and residential uses would be temporarily exposed to elevated
noise levels due to the operation of Project-related construction equipment. Construction
activities are carried out in discrete steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment and,
consequently, its own noise characteristics. These various sequential phases would change the
character of the noise levels surrounding the construction site as work progresses. Construction
noise levels reported in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA’s) Noise from
Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances were used to
estimate future construction noise levels for the Project (USEPA 1971). Typically, the estimated
construction noise levels are governed primarily by equipment that produces the highest noise
levels. Construction noise levels for each generalized construction phase (ground-
clearing/demolition, excavation, foundation construction, building construction, paving, and site
cleanup) are based on a typical construction equipment mix for a residential use project and do
not include use of atypical, very loud, and vibration-intensive equipment (e.g., pile drivers).
The degree to which noise-sensitive receptors are affected by construction activities depends
heavily on their proximity. Estimated noise levels attributable to the development of the
proposed Project are shown in Table 4-22, and calculations are included in Appendix H,
Noise Data.
TABLE 4-21
CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS AT NOISE-SENSITIVE USES
Construction Phase
Noise Levels (Leq dBA)
Residential Use to
the North of the
Project Site
Office Use
Northwest of the
Project Site
Residential Use
Southwest of the
Project Site
Commercial/Industrial
Uses to the East of the
Project Site
Max
(20 ft)
Avg
(220 ft)
Max
(105 ft)
Avg
(370 ft)
Max
(270 ft)
Avg
(475 ft)
Max
(10 ft)
Avg
(85 ft)
Ground Clearing/Demolition 91 70 77 66 68 63 97 78
Excavation 96 75 82 71 73 68 102 83
Foundation Construction 89 68 75 64 66 61 95 76
Building Construction 89 68 75 64 66 61 95 76
Paving and Site Cleanup 96 75 82 71 73 68 102 83
Leq dBA: Average noise energy level; Max: maximum; avg: average; ft: feet
Note: Noise levels from construction activities do not take into account attenuation provided by intervening structures.
Source: USEPA 1971.
Environmental Checklist
4-120 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
Table 4-22 shows both the maximum and average noise levels for construction equipment.
Maximum noise levels represent the noise levels from construction equipment occurring nearest
to the noise sensitive use/receptor. Average noise levels represent the noise exposure to
sensitive uses based on the distance to the center of the project site. Noise levels from general
Project-related construction activities would range from 66 to 102 dBA Leq for the maximum
noise levels and 61 to 83 dBA Leq for the average noise levels. At the nearest noise sensitive
receptors (residences), the average noise level would be 68 to 75 dBA Leq. Noise level reductions
from intervening buildings was not included. Noise levels would be approximately 20 dBA less
under a windows-closed condition. Noise levels from construction equipment would occur
within the allowable hours (7 a.m. to 8 p.m. except Sunday and holidays) for construction
activities per Fullerton Municipal Code Section 15.90.050 – Activities with special provisions.
Truck trips are needed for delivery of construction equipment and materials as well as the export
of the excavated soils. Noise generated from truck trips would be add to the ambient noise level
generated by vehicle traffic. However, noise increases associated with Project truck traffic would
be less than the 3-dBA noticeable increase threshold for daily exposures due to the small
magnitude of traffic resulting from hauling of grading materials relative to background traffic. In
general, a doubling of traffic would be necessary to increase noise levels by 3 dBA. As such, this
noise impact would be less than significant because it would result in increases in noise levels
below the 3-dBA noise threshold.
Noise from construction activities on site would be clearly audible above the existing ambient
noise environment near the project site but would occur during the least noise-sensitive portions
of the day as per Fullerton Municipal Code Section 15.90.050 – Activities with special provisions.
Because the Project would be limited to the least noise-sensitive hours of the day per Fullerton
Municipal Code Section 15.90.050, would not involve extremely loud construction equipment
(pile drivers) and would involve heavy offroad construction equipment, noise associated with
Project-related construction would not result in significant impacts and no mitigation is
required.
Off-Site Noise on Project
As indicated under Existing Conditions, the existing noise environmental in the project area is
primarily influenced by traffic noise on nearby roadways, the Fullerton Station and Fullerton
Transportation Center. As demonstrated in the CBIA v. BAAQMD ruling, the impact of existing
environmental conditions on a project is no longer under the purview of CEQA evaluation. The
direct effects of exterior noise from nearby noise and vibration sources relative to land use
compatibility of a future project are not evaluated under CEQA; however, noise from existing
sources is taken into account as part of the baseline. Therefore, a standard condition (COA NOI-1)
is included that requires preparation of an Acoustical Study prior to issuance of building permits.
The study will identify acoustic controls to limit interior noise in habitable rooms to 45 dBA
CNEL/Ldn or less.
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The proposed Project would not generate or
expose persons or structures to excessive groundborne vibration from the construction. There
are no applicable City standards for vibration-induced annoyance or building damage from
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-121
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
vibration. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) vibration damage potential
guideline thresholds are shown in Table 4-23.
TABLE 4-22
VIBRATION DAMAGE THRESHOLD CRITERIA
Building Class
Continuous
Source PPV
(in/sec)
Single-Event
Source PPV
(in/sec)
Class I: buildings in steel or reinforced concrete, such as factories, retaining walls,
bridges, steel towers, open channels, underground chambers and tunnels with and
without concrete alignment
0.5 1.2
Class II: buildings with foundation walls and floors in concrete, walls in concrete or
masonry, stone masonry retaining walls, underground chambers and tunnels with
masonry alignments, conduits in loose material
0.3 0.7
Class III: buildings as mentioned above but with wooden ceilings and walls in
masonry
0.2 0.5
Class IV: construction very sensitive to vibrations; objects of historic interest 0.12 0.3
Source: Caltrans 2013b.
The building damage threshold for “Class II Buildings” of 0.3 peak particle velocity (ppv) inch
per second (in/sec) is selected for retail buildings and Class III buildings are selected residential
buildings for this analysis. These thresholds represent the vibration limits for damage to
adjacent buildings to the project site from continuous sources of vibration.
The Caltrans vibration annoyance potential guideline thresholds are shown in Table 4-24. Based
on the guidance in Table 4-24, the “strongly perceptible” vibration level of 0.9 ppv in/sec is
considered as a threshold for a potentially significant vibration impact for human annoyance.
TABLE 4-23
VIBRATION ANNOYANCE CRITERIA
Average Human Response ppv (in/sec)
Severe 2.0
Strongly perceptible 0.9
Distinctly perceptible 0.24
Barely perceptible 0.035
ppv: peak particle velocity; in/sec: inch(es) per second
Source: Caltrans 2013b.
Pile driving and blasting are generally the sources of the most severe vibration during
construction. Neither pile driving nor blasting would be used during Project construction.
Conventional construction equipment would be used for demolition and grading activities.
Table 4-25 summarizes typical vibration levels measured during construction activities for
various vibration-inducing pieces of equipment.
Environmental Checklist
4-122 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
TABLE 4-24
VIBRATION LEVELS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
Equipment ppv at 25 ft (in/sec)
Pile driver (impact) upper range 1.518
typical 0.644
Pile driver (sonic) upper range 0.734
typical 0.170
Vibratory roller 0.210
Large bulldozer 0.089
Caisson drilling 0.089
Loaded trucks 0.076
Jackhammer 0.035
Small bulldozer 0.003
ppv: peak particle velocity; ft: feet; in/sec: inches per second.
Source: Caltrans 2013b; FTA 2006.
Demolition, grading, and construction would occur up to the property lines and, as noted above,
some land uses identified in Table 4-26 below are relatively close to the property lines.
Table 4-26, Vibration Annoyance Criteria at Sensitive Uses, shows the vibration levels from
construction-generated vibration activities proposed at the project site.
TABLE 4-25
VIBRATION ANNOYANCE LEVELS AT SENSITIVE USES
Equipment
Vibration Levels (ppv)
Residential Use to
the North of the
Project Site
Office Use
Northwest of the
Project Site
Residential Use
Southwest of the
Project Site
Commercial/
Industrial Uses to
the East of the
Project Site
(ppv @ 20 ft) (ppv @ 105 ft) (ppv @ 270 ft) (ppv @ 5 ft)
Vibratory roller 0.29 0.02 0.01 0.83
Large bulldozer 0.12 0.01 0.00 0.35
Small bulldozer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01
Jackhammer 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.14
Loaded trucks 0.11 0.01 0.00 0.30
Criteria 0.9 0.9 0.9 NA
Exceeds Criteria? No No No No
ppv: peak particle velocity; Max: maximum; avg: average; ft: feet; NA: not applicable
Source: FTA 2006 (Calculations can be found in Appendix H).
As shown in Table 4-26, the vibration generated by construction equipment would not exceed
the vibration annoyance criteria threshold when construction activities occur under maximum
(i.e., closest to the receptor) exposure conditions for vibration sensitive receptors. Vibration
levels may potentially exceed the vibration threshold for annoyance at the adjacent industrial
use (WM Will Mann, Inc. Precision Sheet Metal Fabrication) to the east of the northern project
site and the commercial use (Terry’s Automotive) to the east of the southern project site, but
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-123
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
these uses are not considered to be vibration sensitive uses relative to annoyance. However,
NOI-1 is prescribed to mitigate vibration related potential issues related any disturbance of
manufacturing occurring at WM Will Mann, Inc. Precision Sheet Metal Fabrication.
These vibration levels represent conditions when construction activities occur closest to
receptor locations. Construction-related vibration would be substantially less under average
conditions when construction activities are located further away. Because vibration levels would
be below the vibration annoyance significance thresholds, vibration generated by the Project’s
construction equipment would not be expected to generate strongly perceptible levels of
vibration at the nearest uses and would result in less than significant vibration impacts related
to vibration annoyance.
Table 4-27, Building Damage Levels at Sensitive Uses, shows the peak particle velocity levels
(ppv) relative to building damage to nearby structures. As shown in Table 4-27, with the
exception of the use of a vibratory roller, bulldozer, jackhammering, and loaded trucks at uses
located 5 feet or closer of the construction site, all vibration levels would be below the building
damage threshold at adjacent off-site structures. Mitigation Measure NOI-2 provides separation
distances between those project related construction vehicles and the nearest offsite buildings
to minimize offsite vibration exposure. This separation distance is sufficient to avoid cosmetic
building damage. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-2, vibration levels would
be below the building damage significance thresholds and would result in less than significant
vibration impacts related to vibration induced building damage.
TABLE 4-26
BUILDING DAMAGE LEVELS AT NEARBY USES
Equipment
Vibration Levels (ppv)1,2
Residential Use to
the North of the
Project Site
Office Use
Northwest of the
Project Site
Residential Use
Southwest of the
Project Site
Commercial/
Industrial Uses to
the East of the
Project Site
(ppv @ 20 ft) (ppv @ 105 ft) (ppv @ 270 ft) (ppv @ 5 ft)
Vibratory roller 0.29 0.02 0.01 2.35
Large bulldozer 0.01 0.01 0.02 1.00
Small bulldozer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03
Jackhammer 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.39
Loaded trucks 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.85
Criteria 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
Exceeds Criteria? No No No Yes
ppv: peak particle velocity; Max: maximum; avg: average; ft: feet
Source: FTA 2006 (Calculations can be found in Appendix H).
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the Project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact. The project site is located approximately 3 miles east of the Fullerton Municipal
Airport. The Fullerton Municipal Airport is the closest airport to the project site and there are no
Environmental Checklist
4-124 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
other airports located within 5 miles of the project site. The project site is located well outside
the existing and projected 65-dBA CNEL noise contour of the Fullerton Municipal Airport. The
project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Aircraft overflights do not
significantly contribute to the noise environment at the project site, and the Project would not
expose future Project residents to excessive noise levels. There would be no impact related to
aircraft noise exposure at the project site, and no mitigation is required.
Standard Conditions of Approval
COA NOI-1 Per Section 1206 Sound Transmission of the California Building Code, interior
noise levels attributable to exterior sources shall not exceed 45 dBA Community
Noise Equivalent Level/day-night average sound level (CNEL/Ldn) in any
habitable room. Prior to issuance of building permits, an Acoustical Study shall be
prepared to demonstrate that necessary acoustical controls are incorporated into
the design of the Project to limit interior noise in habitable rooms to 45 dBA
CNEL/Ldn or less.
Mitigation Measures
Project implementation would result in significant impacts related to construction generated
vibration. The following mitigation measures are required to attenuate vibration to offsite uses.
MM NOI-1 Prior to the start of construction activities occurring within 25 feet of the WM Will
Mann, Inc. Precision Sheet Metal Fabrication. The construction contractor shall
coordinate scheduling and activities with the manager at WM Will Mann, Inc.
Precision Sheet Metal Fabrication to avoid any manufacturing process that may be
affected by vibration from construction activities for the proposed Project.
MM NOI-2 Prior to the issuance of each grading permit, the Project’s contractor shall produce
evidence acceptable to the Manager of Building & Safety, or designee demonstrating
that the equipment to be used for construction or demolition activities that would
occur within 25 feet of an occupied structure shall not include vibratory rollers,
large bulldozers, loaded trucks or similar heavy equipment that weigh in excess of
24,000 lbs.
Also, MM 3-2 of the FTC Specific Plan Program EIR from Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, is
applicable to this analysis.
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-125
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
4.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an
area, either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
Fullerton Transportation Center Specific Plan PEIR
Based on the analysis in the PEIR, the FTC Specific Plan could generate a maximum of 1,560
residential units and approximately 4,569 new residents, under the High Residential/Low Office
scenario, which was used as the basis of housing and population analyses above as this scenario
would involve greater housing and population growth than the High Office/Low Residential
Scenario. Conversely, under the High Office/Low Residential Scenario, which would provide a
more conservative analysis of employment and jobs/housing ratios, implementation of the
project, combined with the number of employees sustained through the preservation of existing
uses, would result in a total of approximately 925 employees within the FTC Specific Plan area
(net gain of 113 employees).
Under the High Office/Low Residential scenario, the project would have a jobs/housing ratio of
0.61 (including remaining and new jobs), based on an estimated 925 jobs and 1,513 residential
units (lower than the 1,560 units developed under the High Residential/Low Office Scenario).
Therefore, the High Office/Low Residential scenario would result in greater benefits for
balancing jobs and housing. Project buildout would generate housing and population within City,
County, and be consistent with the intent of the [then] recently adopted 2006–2014 Housing
Element. However, the project (which includes a General Plan amendment and Zone Change),
would exceed the growth anticipated for the project area based on [then] current land use
designations. The exceedance of the site’s population and housing growth as envisioned in the
General Plan was considered a significant and unavoidable impact.
The FTC Specific Plan could generate up to 1,560 residential units and remove 1 existing single-
family residence. The project would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing and
would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere; therefore, impacts
would be less than significant.
No PDFs, SCs, or MMs were identified nor required.
Environmental Checklist
4-126 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
Impact Analysis
Would the Project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project involves the construction 286 residential
units, 124 hotel rooms, and 3,570 square feet of retail/commercial uses that would replace the
existing surface parking and parking structures on the site. Using Department of Finance (DOF)
for the City’s 2022 average household size of 2.85 persons per household (DOF 2022), the Project
would directly generate 815 residents. This would increase the City’s 2022 resident population
of 142,732 persons by approximately 0.57 percent to 143,547 residents. Additionally, the City’s
2022 housing stock of 50,511 (DOF 2022) would increase by 0.57 percent to 50,797 units.
Jobs that would be created during construction would be short-term and would be typically filled
by existing residents of the region. Therefore, the Project would not induce housing demand that
would generate indirect population growth near the construction site due to the temporary
nature of construction jobs. The proposed Project is anticipated to create both long-term
population and operation jobs for the proposed residential, hotel, and commercial/retail uses.
As with the temporary construction workers, long-term operation employees are anticipated to
be filled by existing residents of the region. The temporary construction crew, long-term
population, and operation employees of the Project would not create a significant change in
demand for goods and services that would induce business investment, growth, or development
in the area. These increases would be within anticipated growth for the City as projected by SCAG
at 158,300 residents, 52,900 households, and 85,400 jobs by 2045 (SCAG 2020a, 2020b).
Additionally, the proposed Project functions as a redevelopment project that is surrounded by
existing development and is served by existing roads and utility infrastructure. No extension of
roads or infrastructure is proposed by the Project, beyond what was anticipated in the FTC
Specific Plan, such that would encourage development levels beyond what is already planned
elsewhere in the City or indirectly induce growth. Therefore, the Project would not result in
substantial unplanned population growth, directly or indirectly. The impacts would be less than
significant, and no mitigation is required.
The significant physical impacts on the environment associated with the direct growth have been
evaluated in this IS/MND.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. The project site is currently developed with surface parking and a parking structure.
There are no existing housing and associated residents on the site that would be displaced by the
development of the proposed Project. The proposed Project would develop 286 dwelling units
and help meet the City’s housing goals under SCAG’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment
(RHNA), as identified in the 2013-2021 Housing Element of The Fullerton Plan (City of Fullerton
2015). The Project would result in demolition of the existing parking structure to accommodate
construction of the proposed development; demolition of the said structure would not lead to
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-127
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
the loss of existing housing. Thus, no impact related to displacement of housing and associated
residents would occur, and no replacement housing is required. Therefore, no significant impacts
would occur, and no mitigation is required.
Standard Conditions of Approval
None has been identified.
Mitigation Measures
Project implementation would not result in significant impacts related to Population and
Housing; therefore, no mitigation measures are required.
Environmental Checklist
4-128 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
Fullerton Transportation Center Specific Plan PEIR
The analysis determined that implementation of the project (Phases 1 and 2) would increase the
demand for the Fire Department services and equipment and Phase 2 would involve the
relocation of Fire of Station No. 1. The new fire station would be operational prior to demolition
of the existing fire station and would be developed to the satisfaction of the FFD and the
Community Development Department. Acceptable service ratios, response times, and other
performance objectives would be maintained with implementation of PDF 10-1, SC 10-1 and MM
10-1 and impacts would be less than significant.
Implementation of the project under both development scenarios would also increase the
demand for police protection services; however, it would not result in the need for the
construction of new or expanded police facilities. No physical environmental impacts would
result, and no significant impacts would occur. No mitigation was required.
Implementation of the project would generate additional students in the FSD and the FJUHSD
under both development scenarios. With payment of required development fees (pursuant to
Section 65995 of the Government Code), or implementation of a facility and funding agreement
pursuant to SC 10-2, these impacts would be less than significant.
Implementation of the project would increase the demand for library services under both
development scenarios; however, it would not result in the need for the construction of new or
expanded facilities. No physical environmental impacts would result, and no mitigation was
required.
Additionally, it was indicated that the FTC Specific Plan would increase the demand and use of
existing parks and recreational facilities in the City of Fullerton; however, the existing parkland
within the City as a whole, exceeded the park standards (4 acres per 1,000 residents). With
implementation of PDFs 10-2 and 10-3, and SC 10-3 impacts to park and recreational facilities
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-129
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
would be less than significant under both development scenarios. No additional impacts would
occur related to the construction or expansion of recreational facilities.
The cumulative impacts were also determined to be less than significant for all the above topics.
For informational purposes, the PDFs, SCs, and MMs from the PEIR are provided below.
Project Design Features
PDF 10-1 Prior to demolition of the existing Fire Station No. 1 located at 312 East
Commonwealth Avenue, a replacement fire station that provides fire protection
to the same service area shall be operational (refer to Chapter 3.7.2 of the FTC
Specific Plan).
PDF 10-2 The Regulating Code for the FTC Specific Plan (Section 4.3) includes a variety of
parks and civic spaces (totaling approximately 2.49 acres) to be implemented
within the FTC Specific Plan (refer to Section 4.3 and Figure 4-2 of the FTC Specific
Plan): Transit Plaza (0.45 acre); North Neighborhood Park (0.29 acre); South
Neighborhood Park(s) (0.63 acre); Transit Courtyard (0.23 acre); Existing Paseos
(0.27 acre); and Proposed Paseos (0.62 acre). Design standards for each civic
space are set forth in the Regulating Code and include requirements for the size
of the space; the location of both public and private properties; the process for
final design and location selection; and the responsible party for maintenance and
management. In compliance with Section 4.3 of the Regulating Code, the Transit
Plaza shall be a publicly owned and maintained public space. The other civic
spaces (excluding the existing paseos) may be owned and maintained by property
owner’s associations (private) or the City of Fullerton Parks and Recreation
Department and Maintenance Services Department (public). Although they may
be privately owned, these spaces shall be publicly accessible through public
access easements.
PDF 10-3 In compliance with Section 3.5.2 of the FTC Specific Plan, in addition to the civic
spaces, each development project within the FTC Specific Plan Area shall include
common open spaces for use by the development’s residents. The amount of
common open space shall be provided at a rate of 50 square feet per residential
unit. Private open space for each dwelling unit (such as balconies or patios) is not
mandatory but would be allowed. Design standards for common open spaces are
provided in Section 4.6.4, Common Open Space Standards, of the Regulating Code
for the FTC Specific Plan. The conceptual common open space plan for private
properties is illustrated in Exhibit 3.3-14 in Section 3, Project Description.
Standard Conditions and Requirements
SC 10-1 The Property Owner/Developer shall comply with all applicable codes,
ordinances and regulations, including the most current edition of the California
Fire Code and the City of Fullerton Municipal Code, regarding fire prevention and
(including sprinklers); fire access; water availability; requirements for high rise
structures; and other, similar requirements. Prior to issuance of building permits,
the City of Fullerton Community Development Department and the Fire
Environmental Checklist
4-130 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
Department shall verify compliance with applicable codes and that appropriate
fire safety measures are included in the project design. All such codes and
measures shall be implemented prior to occupancy.
SC 10-2 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall pay
new development fees to the Fullerton School District (FSD) and Fullerton Joint
Union High School District (FJUHSD) pursuant to California Government Code,
Section 65995. Under State law, payment of the developer fees provides full and
complete mitigation of the project’s impacts on school facilities. As an option to
the payment of developer fees, the FSD and/or FJUHSD and the Property
Owner/Developer can enter into a facility and funding agreement, if approved by
both parties. Evidence that agreements have been executed shall be submitted to
the Community Development Department, or fees shall be paid with each building
permit.
SC 10-3 In accordance with Chapter 21.12 of the City of Fullerton Municipal Code, prior to
the issuance of each building permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall remit
the most current park dwelling fee, and/or other negotiated park fees, to the City.
All money collected as fees imposed by Chapter 21.12 shall be deposited in the
park dwelling fund and shall be used for the acquisition, development and
improvement of public parks and recreational facilities in the City, as proposed by
the City's Five-Year Capital Improvement Program. The Community Development
Department shall confirm compliance with this requirement prior to issuance of
a building permit.
Mitigation Measures
The FTC Specific Plan EIR determined that while no significant impacts to fire protection and
emergency services would result with implementation of PDF 10-1, the following measure was
included to address the relocated Fire Station No.1 associated with Phase 2 and ensure that
impacts remain less than significant.
MM 10-1 Prior to the demolition of the Fire Station No. 1, a replacement fire station
(temporary or permanent) shall be fully operational with adequate personnel,
equipment, and facility space to serve the existing Fire Station No. 1 service area.
The new Fire Station No. 1 shall be located on a property that ensures adequate
service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives mandated by the
Fullerton Fire Department (FFD). The exact location and size of the facility,
equipment requirements, staffing requirements, and design and development
standards shall be determined to the satisfaction of the FFD and the Community
Development Department. A Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA)
shall be executed prior to the City processing a development project application
for the Fire Department site; the DDA shall specify the Property
Owner/Developer’s responsibilities related to the relocation of Fire Station No. 1.
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-131
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
Impact Analysis
Would the Project:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new
or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response
times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i) Fire protection?
Less than Significant Impact. Fire protection services for the project site would be provided by
the City of Fullerton Fire Department (FFD). The FFD is composed of three divisions,
Administration, Operations, and Prevention. Administration is responsible for the overall
leadership, coordination, and direction for the FFD. Operations includes three programs of
Suppression, Emergency Medical Services, and Training and is responsible for providing
continuous service for fire control and suppression, rescue, and medical aid; emergency
response; and training. The Prevention Division serves to protect the public from fire hazards
and is responsible for promoting public awareness of fire and life safety and enforcing the
California Fire Code, California Code of Regulations, and California Health and Safety Code.
The FFD is part of a mutual aid agreement with all Orange County fire agencies. If a Fullerton
engine is busy on a call and a second call comes in, dispatch automatically finds the closest
available engine. In many cases, it is closer to have an engine respond from a bordering
jurisdiction. The nearest fire station to the project site is Station No. 1, located approximately
0.05-mile northeast of the project site at 312 East Commonwealth Avenue (City of Fullerton
2012b).
The proposed Project would result in a resident population 815 persons, which is a nominal
increase in the total number of City residents (estimated at 142,732 in 2022) served by FFD (DOF
2022). The Project would also involve construction of 124 hotel rooms and 3,570 square feet of
retail space, which would increase demand for fire protection services. The proposed Project
would create the typical range of service calls to the FFD for medical aid, fire response,
emergency rescue, traffic collisions, and hazardous material incidents. As identified in The
Fullerton Plan PEIR, The Fullerton Plan includes policies and actions to ensure adequate
resources are available to respond to health, fire, and police emergencies (Policy 13.2) and that
the FFD is actively involved in the review of development projects to ensure the development
would comply with fire management policies (Action 24.2). The City and the FFD regularly
monitor FFD resources to ensure that adequate facilities, staffing, and equipment are available
to serve existing and future development and population increases. The Project would pay the
standard taxes that would go toward the City’s General Fund, which is FFD’s main source of
funding. Therefore, development of residential units, hotel rooms, and retail spaces would
provide revenue from property tax and sales tax to add to the General Fund, which could be used
by the FFD for improvements, maintenance, and addition of fire stations and resources as fire
service demands increase.
Further, Title 13 of the Fullerton Municipal Code contains the City’s fire prevention regulations,
with Chapter 13.20 of the Code adopting by reference the 2019 California Fire Code. The Project
Environmental Checklist
4-132 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
would be required to comply with all applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations (including
the City of Fullerton Municipal Code and the CBC) regarding fire prevention and suppression
measures, fire hydrants and sprinkler systems, emergency access, premises identification
requirements, emergency responder radio coverage requirements, defensible space
requirements, and other similar requirements (COA PS-1). The proposed buildings would be
equipped with automatic fire sprinkler systems for fire protection. Compliance with COA PS-1
would be confirmed by the FFD during its review of development plans; would prevent the
creation of fire hazards at the project site; and would facilitate evacuation and emergency
response in the event of a fire. The FFD has reviewed and conditionally approved the project site
plans to ensure fire prevention and suppression measures, fire hydrants and sprinkler systems,
emergency access, and other similar requirements are met. This would minimize Project demand
for fire protection services.
Therefore, no physical impacts associated with the provision of fire protection services would
occur. There would be less than significant impacts related to fire protection services, and no
mitigation is required.
ii) Police protection?
Less than Significant Impact. Police protection services for the project site are provided by the
Fullerton Police Department (FPD). The FPD is charged with enforcing federal, State, and local
laws and with protecting lives and property. The FPD operates from one station located at 237
West Commonwealth Avenue, approximately 0.31-mile northwest of the project site. The FPD
has approximately 125 sworn officers and 55 civilian employees (FPD 2022). The City
participates in a mutual aid program among all Orange County law enforcement agencies at
various levels. The mutual aid agreement provides back-up assistance to member departments,
as needed.
Funding for staff, facilities, and equipment for police services come primarily from the City’s
General Funds. Development of residential and hotel units, as well as retail spaces, will provide
revenue from property tax and sales tax to add to the General Funds, which could be used by the
FPD. The proposed Project would generate new employment opportunities at its retail and hotel
uses; however, the new jobs that would be created by the Project would not induce substantial
population growth because most of the new jobs would likely be filled by residents of the City
and surrounding area. The Project would generate a demand for police protection services once
the proposed dwelling units, hotel rooms, and retail uses are occupied. However, the incremental
demand of the Project for police protection services is not anticipated to increase FPD response
times to the project site or surrounding area. The City and FPD regularly monitor resources to
ensure that adequate facilities, staffing, and equipment are available to serve existing and future
developments and population increases. The Project would not require the construction of new
or alteration of existing police protection facilities to maintain an adequate level of service to the
project area, and no physical impacts would result. There would be a less than significant impact,
and no mitigation is required.
iii) Schools?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is within the service areas of both the Fullerton
School District (FSD), for elementary and junior high school, and Fullerton Joint Union High
School District (FJUHSD), for high school. The proposed Project involves the development of 286
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-133
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
dwelling units that would be occupied by 815 residents with potential school-aged children
requiring school services from the FSD and FJUHSD.
Appropriate developer impact fees, as required by State law, would be assessed and paid by the
Project to the school districts. State law establishes three levels of developer fees that may be
imposed upon new development by a school district’s governing board. These fee levels depend
upon meeting certain conditions within a district, such as multi-track year-round schedule, local
bond measure, issued debt or incurred obligations, and the use of relocatable classrooms. The
fee payment process for schools in the City is administered through FJUHSD. FJUHSD charges
$4.08 a square foot for residential construction and $0.66 a square foot for commercial
construction (FJUHSD 2022).
Based on the student generation rates for multi-family residential land uses from The Fullerton
Plan PEIR2, the Project may generate 143 elementary and middle school students, and 52 high
school students, for a total of 195 students (City of Fullerton 2012b). The Project would pay
school development fees to the FJUHSD for the improvement of school facilities that would be
needed to serve the Project’s demand for school services and facilities, per COA PS-2. As provided
under Section 17620 of the California Education Code and Section 65970-65995 of the California
Government Code, the payment of statutory school development fees would fully mitigate a
Project’s impacts on schools. Thus, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is
required.
vi) Parks?
Less than Significant Impact. According to The Fullerton Plan PEIR, there are approximately
640.41 acres of public parkland (Fullerton 2012a). The City’s standard is to provide 4 acres of
parkland per 1,000 residents (Fullerton 2012a). Therefore, based on the existing population of
142,732 residents (DOF 2022), the current parkland demand for the City is approximately 571
acres, and the City has an excess of 69.41 acres of parkland. Conservatively assuming that all 815
residents of the proposed Project are new to the City, the proposed Project would generate the
need for 3.3 acres of parkland. However, the Project would provide private open space and
amenities for its residents including a pool, outdoor cabanas, outdoor pet area/wash station,
outdoor fitness center, playground, outdoor BBQ, putting green, and nature garden. Additionally,
the Project Applicant would be required to pay a park fee as set forth in section Chapter 21.12,
Fee for Parks on the Construction of Dwelling Units, of the City’s Municipal Code (COA PS-2).
Given the nominal increase in population and payment of park fees, the potential impact
pertaining to provision of parkland would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Please refer to Section 4.16, Recreation for a detailed discussion of parks.
vi) Other public facilities?
Less than Significant Impact. The Fullerton Public Library (FPL) provides library services to
the City through the Main Library (located at 353 West Commonwealth Avenue) (FPL 2022).
The Main Branch is located approximately 0.42-mile northwest of the project site. An increased
demand for library services primarily results from an increase in permanent population
associated with a residential development; however, an increase in employees from a non-
2 The student generation factors in The Fullerton Plan PEIR are 0.3 to 0.5 student per dwelling unit for elementary and
middle school, and 0.182 student per multi-family dwelling unit for high school (City of Fullerton 2012b).
Environmental Checklist
4-134 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
residential project, albeit not permanent population, would also result in an increase in demand
for library services. The Project would generate a demand for library services that would be
served by the FPL and other nearby libraries. Due to the limited number of residents from the
Project (815 residents), compared to the City’s total 2022 population estimates of 142,732
persons (DOF 2022), the increase in library service demand is expected to be proportionately
0.57 percent of existing demand and would not result in the need for construction of new or
expanded library facilities. Additionally, while the proposed Project may increase the use of
library facilities, the Fullerton Public Library provides a wide range of electronic and digitized
resources that do not require physical library space. Therefore, impacts would be less than
significant, and no mitigation is required.
Standard Conditions of Approval
Mitigation measure PS-2 from The Fullerton Plan PEIR is applicable to the proposed Project and
incorporated herein as a standard condition.
COA PS-1 All development in the City shall comply with the Fullerton Fire Prevention
Ordinance (Chapter 13 of the City’s Municipal Code), which addresses fire
prevention and includes the City’s Fire Code. All development shall also comply
with the City’s Building Code (Chapter 14 of the City’s Municipal Code), which
adopts the California Building Code and other codes related to building
construction, in order to prevent the creation of fire hazards in the City.
COA PS-2 The Project Applicant shall pay the applicable park fee, in accordance with
Chapter 21.12, Fee for Parks on the Construction of Dwelling Units, of the
Fullerton Municipal Code, for the purpose of providing park and recreational
facilities to serve future residents of the Project development. Prior to the
issuance of building permits, the Project Applicant shall submit evidence to the
City of Fullerton that legally required school impact mitigation fees have been
paid per the mitigation established by the applicable school district.
Mitigation Measures
Project implementation would not result in significant impacts related to Public Services;
therefore, no mitigation measures are required.
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-135
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
4.16 RECREATION
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
Impact Analysis
Would the Project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated?
Less than Significant Impact. The City of Fullerton’s Parks and Recreation Department
provides a wide range of programs to the community pertaining to leisure and cultural services;
special event production; and development and operation of various facilities and parklands. The
City contains a range of recreational facilities that include over 50 parks, 19 hiking/walking
trails, and other recreational amenities (such as the Fullerton Community Center and Janet Evans
Swim Complex) that provide a range of community amenities including playgrounds, picnic
areas, sports facilities, bikeways, and recreational trails (City of Fullerton 2022b).
The proposed 286 residential units would result in a population of approximately 815 residents,
which would generate a demand for parks and recreational facilities. The Project would provide
private open space and amenities for its residents including a pool, outdoor cabanas, outdoor pet
area/wash station, outdoor fitness center, playground, outdoor BBQ, putting green, and nature
garden. Project residents would also use nearby City parks and other public and regional parks.
Union Pacific Park is the nearest City park to the Project, located 0.16 mile southwest of the
project site and is likely to be used by residents of the Project. The park has barbecues,
basketball, picnic tables, playground, recreation trail(s), and restrooms (City of Fullerton 2022a).
Table 4-28, City of Fullerton Public Parks within One Mile of the project site, lists additional City
park facilities within one mile of the Project boundary that could be utilized by the residents.
This table includes the name, location, distance from the project site, park acreage, and park
amenities (City of Fullerton 2022b, 2022c).
Environmental Checklist
4-136 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
TABLE 4-27
CITY OF FULLERTON PUBLIC PARKS WITHIN ONE MILE OF THE PROJECT
Name Location
Distance
from Site
Boundary
(mile) Size (acres) Amenities
Public Neighborhood Parks
Union Pacific Park
121 W. Truslow Ave. 0.16 1.7 Barbecues, basketball, picnic
tables, playground, recreation
trail(s), restrooms.
Plaza Park 144 E. Wilshire Ave. 0.17 0.60 Open grass, granite paths,
shaded seating, playgrounds,
picnic table, doggy bag
dispensers.
Truslow Park 401 E. Truslow Ave. 0.19 0.013 Playgrounds, picnic tables,
barbeques.
Downtown Plaza 125 E. Wilshire 0.21 1.15 Museum Center, shaded
seating, interactive fountain,
bandstand, restroom, parking.
Lemon Park 701 S. Lemon St. 0.25 5.09 Playground, spray pool,
basketball, softball, soccer,
bleacher seating, picnic tables,
picnic pavilion, barbeques,
activity building, restrooms,
parking.
Amerige Park 300 W.
Commonwealth Ave.
0.33 7.89 Fullerton Community Center,
baseball, soccer bleacher
seating, parking, restrooms,
parking.
Richman Park 711 S. Highland Ave. 0.46 2.21 Richman Community Center,
Playgrounds, baseball/softball,
soccer, picnic tables, covered
picnic areas, barbeques,
activity building, restrooms,
parking.
Ford Park 435 W. Wilshire Ave. 0.58 3.16 Baseball, soccer, picnic tables,
covered picnic areas,
barbeques, parking.
Byerrum Park 501 N. Raymond Ave. 0.81 2.5 Picnic Area, playground,
basketball, baseball/softball,
soccer.
Hillcrest Park 1200 N Harbor Blvd 0.85 37.8 Barbecues, lawn with fountain,
Hillcrest Recreation Center,
Hillcrest Terrace, Izaak Walton
Cabin, parking, picnic tables,
playground, recreation trail(s),
Red Cross Building, restrooms.
Woodcrest Park 440 W. Orangethorpe
Ave.
0.86 5.28 Playgrounds, softball, bleacher
seating, picnic tables,
barbeques, restrooms, parking.
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-137
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
TABLE 4-27
CITY OF FULLERTON PUBLIC PARKS WITHIN ONE MILE OF THE PROJECT
Name Location
Distance
from Site
Boundary
(mile) Size (acres) Amenities
Independence
Park
8-1 West Valencia
Drive
0.93 10 Exercise equipment,
gymnasium, picnic tables,
play areas, playground,
raquetball/handball court,
restrooms, skate park,
swim complex.
Source: City of Fullerton 2022b, 2022c.
Due to the small number of residents that would be generated by the Project, the increase in the
use of existing public park facilities by the residents would not be at a level that would result in
physical deterioration of existing parks and other recreational facilities, nor would it require the
need for new or physically altered facilities. Additionally, as stated in COA PS-2, the Project
Applicant would be responsible for paying park fees for the acquisition, development, and
improvement of public parks and recreational facilities in the City. Therefore, impacts would be
less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
Less than Significant Impact. As described above, the Project would provide private open space
and amenities for its residents, including a pool, outdoor cabanas, outdoor pet area/wash station,
outdoor fitness center, playground, outdoor BBQ, putting green, and nature garden. These areas
would be on the project site and the physical impacts resulting from the construction of these
facilities have been addressed through the impact analysis presented in this IS/MND document.
Additionally, the Project Applicant would pay the park fees to provide funds for parks facilities
to serve Project residents (see COA PS-2, above).
As the recreation needs of the residents would be partially met on site in addition to payment of
the necessary park fees, the proposed Project would not result in a substantial increased demand
for recreational facilities, requiring the construction of new parks that would adversely affect
the environment. There are also adequate regional parks and recreational facilities that would
serve the Project. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is
required.
Standard Conditions of Approval
COA PS-2, from Section 4.15, Public Services, is applicable.
Mitigation Measures
Project implementation would not result in significant impacts related to Recreation; therefore,
no mitigation measures are required.
Environmental Checklist
4-138 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
4.17 TRANSPORTATION
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Fullerton Transportation Center Specific Plan PEIR
Intersections
With implementation of PDF 11-1, which includes installation of traffic signals, the proposed FTC
Specific Plan would have a potentially significant impact at the following intersections:
• Harbor Boulevard/Chapman Avenue (Year 2035)
• Orangethorpe Avenue/Lemon Street (Years 2015, 2020 and 2035) (using ICU
methodology)
Feasible mitigation measure to reduce the impact at the intersection of Orangethorpe
Avenue/Lemon Street to a less than significant level was identified (MM 11-1). However,
improvements to this intersection were not considered feasible, as the intersection was in the
City of Anaheim, and the City of Fullerton could not require another agency to implement such
improvements. As such these impacts were considered significant and unavoidable for purposes
of CEQA analysis.
In addition to payment of Traffic Impact Fees (refer to SC 11-1), the Property Owner/Developer
shall pay its fair share cost for the traffic signal at the intersection of Harbor Boulevard/Santa Fe
Avenue, and implementation of improvements at the intersection of Harbor
Boulevard/Chapman Avenue (MMs 11-2 and 11-3).
Freeway Mainline Impacts
The increases in overall mainline freeway traffic volumes correspond to a D/C increase of 0.1
percent (0.001) to 0.7 percent (0.007), or less than 1.0 percent of the total capacity of the
segments included in the analysis. The proposed FTC Specific Plan would have a less than
significant impacts to freeway mainline facilities.
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-139
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
Construction Traffic
Short-term construction related-traffic impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level
with compliance with SCs 11-2 and 11-3 and implementation of MM 11-4.
No conflict with the Orange County CMP would occur with implementation of the FTC Specific
Plan.
Implementation of the FTC Specific Plan (which includes roadway improvements identified in
PDF 11-1) would not result in inadequate emergency access during operation. Emergency access
would also be maintained during construction (refer to MM 11-4). No significant impacts would
occur, and no mitigation is required.
The proposed Project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting
alternative transportation. No impact would occur.
The proposed Project would implement parking strategies to accommodate existing and
proposed uses, including parking for transit facilities (refer to PDF 11-4) resulting in a less than
significant impact related to parking.
For informational purposes, the SCs and MMs from the PEIR are provided below.
Standard Conditions and Requirements
SC 11-1 In accordance with Chapter 21.30 of the City of Fullerton Municipal Code, the
Property Owner/Developer shall participate in the implementation of the City’s
Master Plan of Highways through the payment of Traffic Impact Fees. The
payment of fees would allow the City to fund and mitigate off-site traffic impacts
that would be generated by the development proposed in the project area.
Payment of the traffic impact fees at the time of building permit issuance would
be required for each development component built at the site.
SC 11-2 In accordance with Chapter 8.28 of the City of Fullerton Municipal Code, Weight
Limits, contractors shall not operate any vehicles, including commercial vehicles
that exceed the weight limit established by the City for individual streets (as
posted on signs). Commercial vehicles may use restricted streets for the purpose
of delivering or picking up materials or merchandise by entering a restricted use
street at its intersection with an unrestricted street nearest to the destination,
then proceeding by the most direct route to such destination, and then directly to
the nearest unrestricted street.
SC 11-3 In accordance with Chapter 8.30 of the City of Fullerton Municipal Code, Truck
Routes and Terminals, construction vehicles exceeding 10,000 pounds shall use
designated truck routes to access construction sites. Non-designated truck routes
shall be used only as necessary to traverse a street or streets to a destination for
the purpose of loading or unloading.
Environmental Checklist
4-140 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
Mitigation Measures
Long-term Operational Impacts
Implementation of the following mitigation measures is required to mitigate project impacts
(2010, 2020 and 2035) at the intersections of Orangethorpe Avenue/Lemon Street and Harbor
Boulevard/Santa Fe Avenue. As identified previously in PDF 11-1, traffic signals would be
installed at the intersections of Lemon Street/Santa Fe Avenue and Lemon Street/Walnut Way
as part of the proposed Project.
MM 11-1 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Phase 1, improvements shall be made
at the Orangethorpe Avenue/Lemon Street intersection to bring the LOS to an
acceptable LOS D or better (based on the City of Anaheim ICU methodology). This
shall be accomplished by (1) converting the northbound right-turn lane to a third
northbound through right lane and restriping the southern leg of the intersection
and widening the northern leg of the intersection or (2) implementing alternative
improvements agreed to by the City of Fullerton in coordination with the City of
Anaheim that meet the same performance standard. Because this intersection is
partially within the City of Anaheim, the Property Owner/Developer and City of
Fullerton shall coordinate improvements at this intersection with the City of
Anaheim, which would need to approve any improvements within its jurisdiction.
MM 11-2 Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall
pay its fair share cost, or an equivalent contribution, for the traffic signal at the
intersection of Harbor Boulevard/Santa Fe Avenue. The traffic signal will be
installed by the City of Fullerton. The fair share cost, or an equivalent
contribution, shall be determined by the Director of Engineering in consultation
with the Property Owner/Developer, and verification of payment shall be
provided to the Community Development Department.
Implementation of the following mitigation measure is required to mitigate the project’s
contribution to impacts in 2035 at the intersection of Harbor Boulevard/Chapman Avenue.
MM 11-3 Pursuant to the City’s adopted General Plan Policy (General Plan Policy C-5.2,
Program b), in addition to payment of Traffic Impact Fees (refer to SC 11-1), the
Property Owner/Developer or subsequent project applicant shall pay the City of
Fullerton for its fair share of the cost for implementation of improvements at the
intersection of Harbor Boulevard/Chapman Avenue. This intersection is a
network intersection covered by the Traffic Impact Fee Program with an
established acceptable LOS E. The project contributes more than 10 percent of the
future traffic at this intersection that would operate at an unacceptable LOS F
during the PM peak hour at General Plan Build-out (Year 2035). The project’s
share of future PM peak hour traffic at this intersection is estimated at 12.2
percent, and shall be verified by the City of Fullerton Engineering Department
prior to payment of the additional Traffic Impact Fee. The necessary
improvements could consist of a northbound right-turn lane at the intersection,
or acceptable alternative improvements as determined by the City of Fullerton.
The actual amount and timing of payments or other financial security for such
payments that may be approved by the Director of Engineering shall be
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-141
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
determined prior to approval of the first building permit of any project within the
FTC Specific Plan. The cost for the required improvement that serves as the basis
for the fair share fee shall not exceed the cost for providing a northbound right-
turn lane at the intersection. Evidence of payment or timely compliance with an
approved fair share agreement that will ensure the ultimate construction of the
required improvements shall be provided to the City of Fullerton Engineering
Department prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy permit for each
individual project.
Short-term Construction Impacts
MM 11-4 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the property developer shall submit
Construction Traffic Management Plans to the City of Fullerton Engineering
Department for review and approval. The Traffic Management Plan shall describe
traffic-control measures to be implemented to maintain traffic flow in all
directions, including where utilities and other improvements are being
implemented in existing roadways. The Traffic Management Plans shall include,
but not be limited to (1) identification of construction haul routes that follow the
City’s approved truck routes and avoid residential streets; (2) identification of
emergency access points/routes; (3) duration and location of lane closures; (4)
location of parking for the public and construction workers during construction
phases; (5) use of flagmen; and (6) temporary routes for pedestrians and
bicyclists to avoid construction activities. The Construction Traffic Management
Plan shall be implemented during all project construction stages. The contractor
specifications shall include the requirements outlined in the Traffic Management
Plan, and this shall be verified by the City Engineering Department.
Introduction
A Local Transportation Analysis (LTA) and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) were prepared by
Associated Transportation Engineers (ATE) in September 2022. The findings of the LTA and VMT
are incorporated in the following analyses, and the report is included as Appendix I to this
IS/MND.
Impact Analysis
Would the Project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Trip generation estimates were calculated for the Project based on the steps recommended for
mixed-use projects in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual,
11th Edition.3 Given that the Project includes a mix of land uses (residential, hotel, and retail), the
3 Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 11th Edition, 2017.
Environmental Checklist
4-142 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
trip generation steps include: 1) calculating trip generation based on ITE rates and 2) calculating
internal trips that would remain on-site and not affect the adjacent street network.
ITE Rates. The ITE trip rates for Multi-Family Housing (Mid-Rise - Land Use Code #221), Hotel
(Land Use Code #310) and Shopping Plaza - No Supermarket (Land Use Code #821), were used
in the trip generation analysis for the residential and retail components of the Project.
Internal Capture. A portion of the trips made within the project site between the residential
and retail would be internal to the site and not affect the study-area street network. The trip
generation analysis assumes that 7 percent of the PM peak hour trips would be internal capture
trips. These internal capture rates were determined based on the Transportation Research
Board (TRB) National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 684: Enhanced
Internal Trip Capture Estimation of Mixed-Use Developments.
In addition, the residential units are within walking distance of commercial uses (retail,
restaurants, entertainment, etc.) located within a ½-mile radius of the project site. There is also
frequent transit service in downtown area of Fullerton to accommodate trips made by residents
of the Project. The trip generation analysis therefore assumes a mode split of 10 percent for non-
motorized trips and transit mode split for the residential and hotel component. Table 4-29 shows
the trip generation estimates for the Project.
TABLE 4-28
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
Land Use Size ADT AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Entering Exiting Total Entering Existing Total
Proposed Project
Apartments 286 Units 1,358 52 40 92 36 47 83
Hotel 124 Rooms 991 32 25 57 37 36 73
Retail
Commercial
3,570 Sq. Ft. 241 4 2 6 7 11 18
Total Trips: 2,590 88 67 155 80 94 174
Total External
Trips
2,486 72 51 123 60 67 127
(a) (External ADT (96 percent) based the average of 0 percent AM and 7 percent PM internal capture.
Source: ATE 2022 (Appendix I).
The data presented in Table 4-29 indicates that the Project would generate 2,486 average daily
trips (ADT), 123 AM peak hour trips and 127 PM peak hour trips that would be external to the
site and added to the adjacent street system.
Project Trip Distribution
Traffic generated by the Project was distributed onto the study-area street network based on the
trip distribution percentages presented in Table 4-30. The distribution pattern was developed
based on estimated service area for the Project.
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-143
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
The preliminary trip assignment of Project peak hour trip additions to the local street system
would not be significant.
TABLE 4-29
PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION
Route Origin/Destination Percentage
Commonwealth Avenue East
West
15%
20%
Santa Fe Avenue West 5%
Harbor Boulevard North
South
10%
20%
Pomona Avenue North 5%
Lemon Street North
South
10%
15%
100%
Source: ATE 2022 (Appendix I).
The Fullerton Plan Consistency
Mobility Element
The Fullerton Plan’s Mobility Element aims to link the City’s system of roadways, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities, bus and rail transit systems, and airports. The following policies of the
Mobility Element are applicable to the Project:
P5.6 Quality Highways and Roads—Support projects, programs, policies and regulations to
operate and maintain a comprehensive network of arterial highways and local roads supporting
safe and efficient movement of people, goods and services to, through and within the City.
P5.7 Complete Streets—Support projects, programs, policies and regulations to maintain a
balanced multi-modal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of the streets,
roads and highways – including bicyclists, children, persons with disabilities, motorists, movers
of commercial goods, pedestrians, users of public transportation and seniors – for safe and
convenient travel in a manner that is suitable to the suburban and urban contexts within the City.
P5.8 Maximization of Person-Trips—Support programs, policies and regulations to plan for
and implement an efficient transportation network that maximizes capacity for person-trips, not
just vehicle-trips.
P5.9 Coordination with Schools—Support projects, programs, policies and regulations to
improve – in coordination with the school districts – alternatives to the motorized transport of
students by parents to and from school.
P5.11 Integrated Land Use and Transportation—Support projects, programs, policies and
regulations to integrate land use and transportation planning and implementation.
Environmental Checklist
4-144 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
P5.12 Multi-Modal Traffic Analysis—Support programs, policies and regulations to analyze
and evaluate urban streets using an integrated approach from the points of view of automobile
drivers, transit passengers, bicyclists and pedestrians rather than autocentric thresholds which
conflict with other policies of The Fullerton Plan – including better environments for walking
and bicycling, safer streets, increased transit use, cost-effective infrastructure investments,
reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and the preservation of open space.
P5.13 Development-Oriented Transit—Support projects, programs, policies and regulations
to encourage transit improvements that incentivize investment and link neighborhoods, while
fitting the scale and traffic patterns of the surrounding area.
P5.14 Fair Share of Improvements—Support policies and regulations which require new
development to pay a fair share of needed transportation improvements based on a project’s
impacts to the multi-modal transportation network.
P5.15 Neighborhood and Focus Area Connections—Support projects, programs, policies and
regulations to connect neighborhoods via a multi-modal network to each other and to the City’s
Focus Areas.
The Project would not conflict with the Mobility Element, because it would provide mixed-use
uses within a transit priority area, with nearby bus stops (within a quarter-mile walk), rail
service, and other transportation services nearby, as discussed further below. The proposed
residential and hotel uses would be within walking distance of commercial uses, and the Project
would provide retail and bicycle storage, and neighborhood-supporting commercial uses. As
such, the Project would not conflict with the City’s Mobility Element.
Bicycle Element
The Bicycle Element (Chapter 5 of the Mobility Element) contains a summary of the Bicycle
Master Plan policy program. The Bicycle Element seeks to broaden transportation choices for
residents, employees, and visitors in the City. The following policies of the Bicycle Element are
applicable to the Project:
P6.4 Bicyclist Use on All Streets—Support projects, programs, policies and regulations to
recognize that every street in Fullerton is a street that a bicyclist can use.
P6.5 Bicycling Safety and Convenience—Support projects, programs, policies and regulations
that make bicycling safer and more convenient for all types of bicyclists.
P6.6 Safe Travel to Key Destinations—Support projects, programs, policies, and regulations
to facilitate safe travel by bicycle to key destinations within the community and the larger region.
P6.7 Development Projects—Support projects, programs, policies, and regulations to reduce
negative impacts to and increase opportunities for bicycle users and the bicycle network in
private and public development projects.
P6.8 Multi-Tiered Bicycle Network—Support projects, programs, policies and regulations to
develop a multi-tiered network of bicycle travel options that consider traffic volumes and rider
experience; and which recognizes that all streets should be safe for bicycling.
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-145
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
P6.9 Intersection Safety—Support projects, programs, policies, and regulations to support the
safe and efficient movement of bicyclists through and across intersections.
P6.10 Bicyclist Education—Support projects and programs in conjunction with local bike
shops, organizations and advocates to foster responsible ridership and reduce barriers to
bicycling.
P6.11 Neighborhood and Focus Area Connections—Support projects, programs, policies and
regulations to connect neighborhoods via a multimodal network to each other, and to and
through the City’s Focus Areas.
P6.12 Bicycle Parking and Facilities—Support projects, programs, policies, and regulations to
provide convenient bicycle parking and other bicycle facilities in existing and potential high
demand locations within the City, such as educational institutions, parks, business districts,
transit stops, retail, commercial and employment centers.
The Project would be consistent with the Bicycle Element polices because the Project would not
remove or interfere with the existing or planned bicycle facilities in the study area. There are no
designated bike routes adjacent to the project site, but, per P6.4 of the Bicycle Element, every
street in Fullerton is a street that a bicycle can use. The Project would provide bicycle storage for
residential and retail uses. Therefore, the Project would encourage ridership among future
residents and retail users of the site. As such, the Project would not conflict with local plans
addressing bicycle facilities.
Active Transportation and Public Transit Analysis
Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals. There are no
designated bike paths, lanes, or routes surrounding the project site.
The project site is has access to all three roadways. Orange County Transportation Authority
(OCTA) operates five bus lines on Project-adjacent roadways, including the following:
• OC Bus Route 26 – Fullerton to Yorba Linda via Commonwealth Avenue/Yorba Linda
Boulevard
o Stops located on Commonwealth Avenue at the Fullerton Transportation Center
o Weekday headways are one hour between approximately 5:40 AM and 10:30 PM
o Weekend and holiday headways are also one hour between approximately 7:40
AM and 7:15 PM
• OC Bus Route 30 – Cerritos to Anaheim via Orangethorpe Avenue
o Stops located on Orangethorpe Avenue at Harbor Boulevard and Lemon Street
o Weekday headways are one hour between approximately 6:20 AM and 9:00 PM
o Weekend and holiday headways are also one hour between approximately 6:20
AM and 9:00 PM
Environmental Checklist
4-146 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
• OC Bus Route 43 – Fullerton to Costa Mesa via Harbor Boulevard
o Provides direct access to Fullerton Transportation Center
o Stops located on Harbor Boulevard at Orangethorpe Avenue
o Weekday headways are approximately 25 minutes between 3:50 AM and 1:45 AM
o Weekend and holiday headways are also approximately 25 minutes between 3:50
AM and 1:45 AM
• OC Bus Route 47/A – Fullerton to Balboa via Anaheim Boulevard/Fairview Street
o Provides direct access to Fullerton Transportation Center
o Stops located on Lemon Street at Orangethorpe Avenue
o Weekday headways are between 20 and 30 minutes between approximately 3:55
AM and 11:50 PM
o Weekend and holiday headways are between 25 and 45 minutes between
approximately 4:55 AM and 11:00 PM
• OC Bus Route 543 – Fullerton Transportation Center to Santa Ana via Harbor Boulevard
o Provides direct access to Fullerton Transportation Center
o Stops located on Harbor Boulevard at Orangethorpe Avenue
o Weekday headways are approximately 25 minutes between approximately 5:15
AM and 7:25 PM
o Weekend and holiday headways are approximately 25 minutes between
approximately 6:50 AM and 7:10 PM
Other than the OCTA Depot at the FTC, the project area is the most heavily utilized location for
transit boarding and includes stops which have been identified on OCTA’s list of the 100 busiest
bus stops (OCTA 2022). In addition, three bus lines provide direct access to the FTC, which is
served by six total bus lines, and Metrolink and Amtrak. None of the bus stops or routes would
be affected by the Project. The above-mentioned bus stops provide connectivity of future
residents of the Project to the rest of the City.
The Project would not result in any changes to the roadway network in the area, and therefore,
there would be no impacts to the existing bicycle, pedestrian, or transit infrastructure. The
Project would not preclude proposed improvements to the network, such as those detailed in
the City of Fullerton Bicycle Master Plan. There would be a less than significant impact and no
mitigation measures are required.
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
No Impact. The City’s Transportation Assessment Policies and Procedures (TAPP) calls for a
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) assessment for all projects in accordance with CEQA. The VMT
Assessment required for the Project has been conducted and reported separately by the City’s
Traffic Engineer. The VMT assessment is included in Appendix I of the of this IS/MND.
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-147
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
The City’s TAPP sets certain criteria for the evaluation of projects and the conduct of such VMT
Assessments. The City relies on the North Orange County Collaborative VMT Traffic Study
Screening Tool, which assists in identifying projects that could be for screening from project
generated VMT impacts. Because the Project is located in a Transit Priority Area and is expected
to result in a net reduction of daily trips to and from the site, it was also determined that it is also
likely that the implementation of the Project would result in a net reduction in VMT. Additionally,
the City’s target VMT per service population threshold is 29.6. Analysis of the Project without a
VMT credit results in a 11.15 percent lower VMT generation rate than The Fullerton Plan
Buildout rate of 29.6. As a result, no further VMT study or analysis is required for the City or for
the purposes of CEQA. Therefore, the Project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines section 15064.3(b), and there would be no impact.
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses?
Less Than Significant Impact. Access to the project site would be from South Pomona Avenue
and East Santa Fe Avenue. Site 1 would include two separate entries along East Santa Fe Avenue,
one for hotel/City entry and the other for residential entry. In Site 2, the proposed residential
building would include two entries into the lobby off East Santa Fe Avenue and South Pomona
Avenue.
The on-site circulation layout of the proposed Project would be considered adequate. Motorists
entering and exiting the project site would be able to do so safely and without undue congestion
and the impact would be less than significant.
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less than Significant Impact.
Construction
Construction activities for the Project, including staging and laydown areas and worker parking,
will occur on site. Per the City’s permitted hours for construction, activities will occur for eight
hours per day, six days per week. Construction vehicles would access the site pursuant to an
approved Traffic Control Plan (SC TRA-1). Construction traffic volumes during the peak hours
and on a daily basis are expected to be lower than the traffic volumes at buildout of the Project;
therefore, because the Project is not expected to have any effects on transportation in the study
area, it is assumed that construction activities will also not have any operational effects on
transportation.
Construction activities associated with the Project could temporarily impact street traffic
adjacent to the project site during the construction phase. This could reduce the number of lanes
or temporarily close certain street segments during a typical day-to-day situation. Any such
impacts would be limited to the construction period and would affect only adjacent streets or
intersections. With implementation of SC HAZ-1, which requires preparation of a Traffic Control
Plan, impacts to emergency access would be less than significant. The Traffic Control Plan would
be prepared for implementation during the construction phase and would ensure that at least
one unobstructed lane shall be maintained in both directions and that temporary traffic signal,
signal carriers (i.e., flag persons), or other appropriate traffic controls be implemented, if needed.
The lane closures would be temporary and would not block all travel lanes. Additionally, as
Environmental Checklist
4-148 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
required by SC TRA-1, the City Community Development Department would consult with the
Fullerton Police Department to disclose temporary closures and alternative travel routes, if
required by construction of the Project. Therefore, construction impacts would be less than
significant.
Operations
In the long-term, the Project would provide an access driveway off South Pomona Avenue and
East Santa Fe Avenue that would be used for emergency response to the site and for emergency
evacuation of the site. Operationally, the Project would not affect emergency response or
emergency evacuation of adjacent land uses. Therefore, the Project would have less than
significant impacts regarding interference with emergency response or evacuation plans during
operation, and no mitigation is required.
Standard Conditions of Approval
SC HAZ-1, from Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, would be applicable to this
analysis.
SC TRA-1 The City Community Development Department shall consult with the Fullerton
Police Department to disclose temporary closures and alternative travel routes,
in order to ensure adequate access for emergency vehicles when construction of
future projects would result in temporary lane or roadway closures.
Mitigation Measures
Project implementation would not result in significant impacts related to Transportation;
therefore, no mitigation measures are required.
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-149
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
4.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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:
1. 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
2. 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, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the resource to a California
Native American tribe.
Tribal Cultural Resources was not included in the Appendix G Environmental Checklist Form of
CEQA Guidelines as a separate topic, thus it was not included in the PEIR.
Introduction
This section evaluates the Project’s potential to have adverse effects on Tribal Cultural
Resources. The analysis in this section is based on the results of the archaeological records
searches conducted by Psomas and consultation with California Native American Tribes,
conducted by the City of Fullerton for the Project, as required by CEQA per Assembly Bill 52
(AB 52) and Senate Bill 18 (SB 18). This information can be found in Appendix J, AB 52 and SB
18 Letters, to this IS/MND.
Additionally, an inquiry was made to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) by
Psomas to request a review of the Sacred Lands File (SLF) database regarding the possibility of
Native American cultural resources and/or sacred places in the Project vicinity that are not
documented on other databases. The NAHC completed its SLF search on August 31, 2022. The
NAHC SLF did not identify the presence of Native American traditional sites/places within the
project site or the immediate vicinity of the site.
The City of Fullerton initiated consultation on July 18, 2022, by notifying the City’s consultation
list of the Parkwest Project as required by AB 52 and SB 18. Since initiating the consultation, the
City did not receive responses from the tribes in response to AB 52 and SB 18 consultation
letters. AB 52 allows 30 days and SB 18 allows 90 days to request consultation.
Environmental Checklist
4-150 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
Impact Analysis
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:
1. 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)?
Less than Significant Impact. As discussed in Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, the SCCIC
record search and literature review did not identify any previously recorded prehistoric or
historic archaeological sites or historic structures within the project site. Furthermore, the
SLF search did not identify the project site as sensitive for known sacred lands/sites. As such,
there are no known tribal cultural resources within the project site.
Additionally, the project site is generally underlain by Quaternary-aged young Holocene
alluvial soils, and the native sediment has been disturbed. Therefore, the Project is not
anticipated to result in significant impacts to tribal cultural resources that are listed or may
be 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). No mitigation
is required
2. 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, the
lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California
Native American tribe.
Less than Significant Impact. The project site does not contain any known resources
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 compliance with State and federal regulations, if human remains are encountered during
excavation activities, all work shall halt at the site and or any nearby areas reasonably
suspected to overlie adjacent remains, and the County Coroner shall be notified. The Coroner
shall determine whether the remains are of forensic interest within two working days of
receiving notification. If the Coroner, with the aid of the qualified Archaeologist, determines
that the remains are prehistoric and the find is on federal land, the Coroner shall notify the
field archaeologist of the appropriate federal agency for the proper treatment and/or
disposition of the remains. If the find is on non-federal lands, the Coroner shall contact the
NAHC within 24 hours of the determination. The NAHC shall be responsible for designating
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-151
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
the most likely descendant (MLD), who will be responsible for the ultimate disposition of the
remains, as required by Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code.
Implementation of COA TCR-1 would ensure the Project would not have a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource determined by the lead agency or a
California Native American tribe, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, as
defined in Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, as indicated above. Thus, impacts are
considered less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Standard Conditions of Approval
COA TCR-1 If human remains are encountered during any Project-related ground-disturbing
activities, Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code states that no
further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a
determination of origin and disposition of the materials pursuant to Section
5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code. The provisions of Section 15064.5
of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines shall also be followed. The
County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are
determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner shall notify the Native American
Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC will determine and notify a Most Likely
Descendent (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized
representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The descendent
must complete the inspection within 24 hours of notification by the NAHC. The
MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human
remains and items associated with Native American burials. These requirements
shall be included as notes on the contractor specification and verified by the
Community and Economic Development Department, prior to issuance of grading
permits. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City in
consultation with the County Coroner.
COA CUL-1 from Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, of this IS/MND also applies to this topic.
Mitigation Measures
Project implementation would not result in significant impacts related to Tribal Cultural
Resources; therefore, no mitigation measures are required.
Environmental Checklist
4-152 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
4.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new
or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project and reasonably foreseeable future development
during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand
in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards,
or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or
otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction
goals?
e) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Fullerton Transportation Center Specific Plan PEIR
As discussed in the FTC Specific Plan PEIR, with implementation of proposed water and
wastewater infrastructure improvements identified in PDFs 12-1 and 12-2, and completion of
the sewer line upgrade in Santa Fe Avenue/Highland Avenue by the City, there would be no need
for additional water or wastewater utility upgrades or installation of new lines to accommodate
anticipated wastewater flows or to ensure adequate domestic water infrastructure, fire
pressures, and fire flows. MM 12-1 was proposed to require the Property
Owner(s)/Developer(s) to contribute their fair share for the cost to construct the new sewer
lines in Santa Fe Avenue/Highland Avenue. Construction of infrastructure improvements within
and immediately adjacent to the project area would result in short-term impacts related to air
quality, noise, and traffic. These impacts were addressed in the PEIR. No additional impacts
related to construction and operation of utility systems would occur.
A review of the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) facilities determined that the project’s
estimated wastewater generation could be accommodated by the [then] existing OCSD treatment
facilities, resulting in a less than significant impact.
Without consideration of net-zero water demand strategies (PDF 12-3), sufficient and reliable
water supplies would be available to serve the projected demand of the FTC Specific Plan project,
in addition to existing and planned future uses, during normal water years, single dry years, and
multiple dry years through the 20-year planning period for the Water Supply Assessment (WSA),
as required by SB 610. There would be a less than significant impact to water supply, and no
mitigation would be necessary.
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-153
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
With implementation of proposed dry utility infrastructure improvements identified in PDF 12-
4, there would be no need for additional dry utility upgrades or installation of new lines to
accommodate the net increase in electricity and natural gas demand. Construction of
infrastructure improvements within the Specific Plan area would result in short-term impacts
related to air quality, noise, and traffic. These impacts are addressed in the PEIR. No additional
impacts related to construction and operation of dry utility systems would occur.
A net increase in electricity and natural gas demand would result from future development under
the FTC Specific Plan. With compliance with SCs 12-1 and 12-2 related to compliance with Title
24, and PDFs 13-1,13-5, and 13-6 related to energy efficient aspects of the project, and PDF 12-
3 related to a net zero water requirement, a less than significant impact would occur with respect
to the wasteful or unnecessary use of energy. No mitigation measures would be required.
For informational purposes, the PDFs and SCs from the PEIR are provided below.
Project Design Features
PDF 12-1 As described in Section 3, Project Description, and shown on Exhibit 3.3-12, to
serve the proposed redevelopment of the FTC Specific Plan area, sanitary sewer
improvements within the project area shall be implemented and shall include:
• Removal of substandard sewer lines and manholes, including upsizing of
all existing sewer lines smaller than 8-inches to a minimum of 8-inches;
• Removal of existing sewer lines that are in conflict with proposed
buildings and improvements; and
• Installation of new manholes and sewer lines needed for servicing future
developments.
PDF 12-2 As described in Section 3, Project Description, and shown on Exhibit 3.3-11, to
serve the proposed redevelopment of the FTC Specific Plan area, improvements
to the existing domestic water system shall be implemented to provide adequate
water demand pressure and fire flow requirements to the future developments.
Domestic water improvements shall be implemented within and nearby the
project area, including:
• Removal of existing domestic water lines and fire hydrants that are in
conflict with proposed buildings and improvements;
• Replacement of the 12-inch water line in Santa Fe Avenue, from Harbor
Boulevard to Lawrence Avenue and up to Commonwealth Avenue, with a
new 12-inch water line; and
• Replacement of substandard water lines with larger water lines (8 inches
to 12 inches).
• Installation of 12-inch water line in Balcom Avenue to connect the project
area to water lines in Truslow Avenue.
• Abandonment of existing 4-inch water line in Lawrence Avenue and
installation of new 10-inch line to connect the project area to water lines
in Truslow Avenue.
Environmental Checklist
4-154 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
PDF 12-3 In compliance with Section 4.7.10 of the Regulating Code for the FTC Specific Plan,
and as described in Section 3, Project Description, proposed development within
the FTC Specific Plan shall have a net-zero demand on the City’s water supply
sources. To implement this standard, development projects shall fund water
conservation projects in other locations of the City, participate in water
conservation programs that directly benefit City residents, and/or obtain water
from a completely new source of water. A development project in the FTC Specific
Plan could also participate in regional water conservation efforts and/or projects
when it can be shown to achieve a direct and quantifiable effect on the City’s water
supply. Examples of methods that may be used to achieve this goal include, but
are not limited to (1) use of artificial turf to replace natural turf in parks or
recreation areas; (2) replacement of existing inefficient water fixtures with low
water-use fixtures; and (3) development of a facility and system to collect, treat,
and distribute recycled water. The City of Fullerton Water Manager and
Community Development Director shall approve all net-zero water solutions
proposed by developers within the FTC Specific Plan area.
PDF 12-4 In compliance with Section 3.6.2 of the FTC Specific Plan, and as described in
Section 3, Project Description, the following improvements associated with dry
utilities shall be implemented within the project area:
• Streets and alleys shall be improved with underground utilities to provide
communication and electric services, and existing overhead utilities shall
be removed (with the exception of major power lines passing through the
project area to the electric substation south of Walnut Avenue).
• Conduit lines and pull-boxes for fiber-optics or hybrid-fiber-coax cables
shall be installed throughout the project area. The installation of conduit
lines and pull-boxes will allow service providers to install fiber optics
and/or HFC technology in the future, while avoiding the need to trench
and repair streets and sidewalks. Through this comprehensive system,
access to broadband shall be facilitated for not only residents and workers
in the area, but also anyone who spends time in or near the transportation
center.
• The entire project area shall be WiFi ready, building upon downtown
Fullerton’s existing WiFi system.
• New dry utility facilities would be installed to connect proposed uses to
the backbone infrastructure.
Standard Conditions and Requirements
SC 12-1 Prior to the issuance of a building permit for residential or commercial structures,
the Property Owner/Developer shall be required to demonstrate that the project
meets the applicable Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and
Nonresidential Buildings (24 CCR, Part 6). These standards are updated,
nominally every three years, to incorporate improved energy efficiency
technologies and methods. The 2008 standards, which were applicable January 1,
2010, are approximately 15 percent more energy efficient than the 2005 Building
and Energy Efficiency Standards. Title 24 covers the use of energy efficient
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-155
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
building standards, including ventilation, insulation and construction, and the use
of energy saving appliances, air conditioning systems, water heating, and lighting.
Plans submitted for building permits shall include written notes demonstrating
compliance with energy standards and shall be reviewed and approved by the
Community Development Department prior to building permit issuance.
SC 12-2 Prior to the issuance of a building permit for residential or commercial structures
on the project sites, the Property Owner/Developer shall be required to
demonstrate that the project meets the applicable California Green Building
Standards Code (24 CCR, Part 11).
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were required.
Impact Analysis
Would the Project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
Less than Significant Impact.
Water
Water service for the Project would be provided by the City of Fullerton. The City meets all of its
water supply demands with a combination of imported water and local water, and works with
two primary agencies, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) and Orange
County Water District (OCWD) to ensure reliable water supply (City of Fullerton 2022d).
Implementation of the Project would increase demand for water services at the project site
compared to existing uses.
Given that the existing development on the site is limited to surface parking and a parking
structure, exiting water use is nominal. Water service to the Project would also be provided in
compliance with Chapter 12.04, Water Regulations, of the Fullerton Municipal Code, which sets
regulations for service connections, water rates, and other water system provisions (see COA
UTL-1). Construction plans would be designed to meet required fire flows and potable water
demand. The estimated water demand of the Project is not expected to exceed available supplies
or the available capacity within the distribution infrastructure that would serve the project site.
Additionally, development of the Project was accounted for in the Fullerton 2020 Urban Water
Management Plan (UWMP) (City of Fullerton 2022d). Based on the analysis above, the Project
would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water facilities,
such that would cause significant environmental effects. The Project would comply with COA
UTL-1. As such, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation required.
Environmental Checklist
4-156 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
Wastewater Treatment/Storm Drainage
The City does not own or operate wastewater treatment facilities but owns and operates the
wastewater collection system in its service area that sends all wastewater to Orange County
Sanitation District (OCSD) for treatment and disposal. Ultimately, the wastewater is treated at
OCSD treatment plants in Fountain Valley (Plant No. 1) and Huntington Beach (Plant No. 2) (City
of Fullerton 2022d). Plant No. 1 has a total rated primary capacity of 108 million gallons per day
(MGD) and a secondary treatment capacity of 80 MGD. Plant No. 2 has a rated primary capacity
of 168 MGD and secondary treatment capacity of 90 MGD (Woodard and Curran 202. Effluent
from the Project would be collected and directed to the OCSD trunk sewer lines. The Project
would not require the relocation or new or expanded wastewater or storm facilities to be built.
Sewer lines for the Project would be connected to existing City sewer lines. Therefore, there
would be a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required.
Under existing conditions, the project site is relatively level/flat with an average sloping of
approximately 3 percent. In the pre-Project condition, stormwater from the parking lot to the
east of the site sheet flows to the curb and gutter on Santa Fe Avenue leading to an existing facility
(30-inch RC pipe catch basin. Stormwater from the parking lot on the west side of the site sheet
flows to an on-site v-gutter that leads to a catch basin on the site. The catch basin connects to a
24-inch storm drainpipe that discharges to the curb and gutter on East Walnut Avenue (Plump
2019).
In the post development conditions, stormwater to the east of the site would sheet flow from the
parking structure to the landscape areas north of the parking structure. Modular wetlands
provided within the landscape area would filter the stormwater and discharge it to the curb and
gutter on East Santa Fe Avenue. Stormwater runoff from the hotel rooftop would drain directly
to a modular wetland on the north side of the site. Similarly, the modular wetland would
discharge to the curb and gutter on East Santa Fe Avenue. The stormwater on the west and south
side of the proposed hotel would sheet flow from the parking lot to the landscape areas. Modular
Wetlands provided within the landscape area would filter the stormwater and discharge it to an
existing 24-inch storm drainpipe. The 24-inch storm drainpipe would discharge the water under
the railroad to the curb and gutter on East Walnut Avenue (Plump 2019).
The storm water runoff from the project site would not exceed the capacity of the existing storm
drain system, and no other infrastructure improvements would be required beyond the
installation of on-site storm drain facilities. The construction of the on-site water quality BMPs
and storm drain lines within the project site has the potential for temporary construction-related
impacts. Since utility installations are within the construction impact limits identified for the
proposed Project, the potential impacts associated with the construction of storm drain lines
have been addressed in the respective sections of this IS/MND. Less than significant impacts
would occur, and no mitigation is required.
Electricity
Southern California Edison (SCE) currently provides electricity to the City of Fullerton, including
the project site (SCE 2022). The Project’s projected electricity usage is shown in Table 4-9,
Energy Use During Operations, in Section 4.6, Energy. Electrical service to the project site would
be provided in accordance with SCE’s policies and extension rules on file with the California
Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). Therefore, a significant impact related to the need for new
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-157
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
systems or supplies or substantial alterations related to electricity would not occur. The Project
Applicant would coordinate with SCE to ensure avoidance of any notable service disruptions
during the extension of, relocation of, upgrade of, or connection to services. Impacts are
considered less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Natural Gas
The Southern California Gas Company (SCGC) currently provides natural gas service to the City
of Fullerton, including the project site (SCGC 2011). The Project’s projected natural gas usage is
shown in Table 4-9, in Section 4.6, Energy. Natural gas service would be provided in accordance
with SCGC’s policies and extension rules on file with the CPUC. Therefore, a significant impact
related to the need for new systems or supplies or substantial alterations related to natural gas
would not occur. Additionally, the Project Applicant would coordinate with SCGC to ensure
avoidance of any notable service disruptions during the extension of, relocation of, upgrade of,
or connection to services. Impacts are considered less than significant, and no mitigation is
required.
Telecommunications
AT&T provides telecommunications service to the area, including the project site. The service
would be provided in accordance with AT&T’s policies and extension rules on file with the CPUC.
Therefore, a significant impact related to the need for new systems or supplies or substantial
alterations related to telecommunications would not occur. Additionally, the Project Applicant
would coordinate with AT&T to ensure avoidance of any notable service disruptions during the
extension of, relocation of, upgrade of, or connection to services. Impacts are considered less
than significant, and no mitigation is not required.
The Project would not require the construction or expansion of water or wastewater
infrastructure and treatment facilities, storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, and
telecommunications facilities. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is
required.
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple years?
Less than Significant Impact. As stated in response to Threshold 4.19a above, water service for
the Project would be provided by the City of Fullerton. The proposed development is estimated
to create a water demand of 96,945 gpd or 108.6 afy.
Given that the existing development on the site is limited to surface parking and a parking
structure, exiting water use is nominal. Additionally, development of the Project was accounted
for in the Fullerton 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) (City of Fullerton 2022d). The
increase in water demand generated by the proposed Project would be served by the City with
minor impacts on current water supplies and is within the projected growth and increased water
demand within City’s service area. With compliance with the City’s water conservation
measures, the proposed Project would not significantly impact the City’s domestic water supply.
Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Environmental Checklist
4-158 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may
serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Less than Significant Impact. As stated above, through OCSD, Plant No. 1 has a total rated
primary capacity of 108 MGD and a secondary treatment capacity of 80 MGD. Plant No. 2 has a
rated primary capacity of 168 MGD and secondary treatment capacity of 90 MGD. The Project’s
uses would contribute a very minimal amount of wastewater when compared to the wastewater
capacity of the City. The Project would not exceed the capacities of the wastewater treatment
facilities. As such, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity
of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction
goals?
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Less than Significant Impact. The City of Fullerton contracts with Republic Services to provide
trash, recycling, and special pickup services throughout the City. Republic Services provides
trash and recycling collection service to residences, as well as all commercial, governmental, and
industrial facilities within Fullerton (City of Fullerton 2022e). Waste in the County of Orange is
managed by the County and is disposed of at three landfills in the County: Olinda Alpha Landfill,
Frank R. Bowerman Landfill, and Prima Deshecha Landfill. Solid waste generated in the City is
disposed of in one of the three landfills. Operation of the Project would generate solid waste from
286 residential units, 124 hotel rooms, and 3,570 square feet of retail and restaurant uses.
According to CalRecycle, the City of Fullerton has an average disposal rate of 5.5 pounds per
resident per day in 2019 (CalRecycle 2022). Per The Fullerton Plan PEIR, a generation factor of
6.0 pounds/1,000 sf/day can be assumed for non-residential uses. For this Project, that would
result in 21.4 pounds per day of solid waste from non-residential uses at the project site. As such,
the Project’s solid waste disposal would equate to 1,594 pounds per day (0.80 tons per day), or
292 tons per year. This would be considered a negligible amount compared to the daily capacity
at the Olinda Alpha Landfill (8,000 tons/day), Frank R. Bowerman Landfill (11,500 tons/day),
and Prima Deshecha Landfill (capacity until 2102) (OC Waste and Recycling 2022). The City’s
solid waste disposal activities are required to be in compliance with the California Integrated
Waste Management Act of 1989 (Assembly Bill [AB] 939). AB 939 requires jurisdictions to meet
the statewide goal to divert 25 percent and 50 percent of solid waste generated by year 1995
and 2000.
The proposed Project involves demolition of the existing parking structure and paved surfaces
on the project site, which would generate demolition debris to be hauled off site. In accordance
with Section 4.408 of the CALGreen Code, at least 65 percent of demolition and construction
debris would need to be diverted from landfills by recycling, reuse, and/or salvage (COA UTL-2).
On October 6, 2011, the California Governor signed AB 341, establishing a State policy goal that
no less than 75 percent of solid waste generated be source reduced, recycled, or composted by
2020. The bill also mandates local jurisdictions to implement commercial recycling by July 1,
2012, for businesses and public entities generating four cubic yards of trash or more and multi-
family residential dwellings with five or more units. The proposed residences would have
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-159
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
regular waste collection services; be provided with recycling bins to promote residential
recycling; and be encouraged to participate in the City’s solid waste diversion programs.
Additionally, AB 1826 requires implementation of organic waste recycling program to divert
organic waste generated by businesses, including multifamily residential dwelling that consist
of five or more units.
Similarly, use of hazardous material during construction and occupancy of the proposed Project,
including maintenance activities, would be conducted in compliance with applicable regulations.
Solid waste generation during demolition and construction activities for the proposed Project
would be short-term and could be accommodated within the remaining capacities of the above-
mentioned landfills. No conflict with statutes and regulations related to solid waste would occur.
Thus, the Project would result in less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required.
Standard Conditions of Approval
COA UTL-1 As part of the plan check process for building construction, the Project Applicant
shall be required to demonstrate to the City Engineer that the water lines that
would be provided on site to serve the Project comply with the City’s regulations,
as contained in Chapter 12.04, Water Regulations, of the Fullerton Municipal Code
and the City’s Water Rates, Rules, and Regulations, including service charges,
water line extensions, water meters, and fire protection.
COA UTL-2 The Project contractor shall recycle, reuse, and/or salvage at least 65 percent of
demolition and construction debris, in accordance with Section 4.408 of the
CALGreen Code.
Mitigation Measures
Project implementation would not result in significant impacts related to Utilities and Service
Systems; therefore, no mitigation measures are required.
Environmental Checklist
4-160 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
4.20 WILDFIRE
If located in or near state responsibility areas or
lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or
the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency
water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may
exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or
ongoing impacts to the environment?
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability,
or drainage changes?
Fullerton Transportation Center Specific Plan PEIR
Wildfire was not included in the Appendix G Environmental Checklist Form of CEQA Guidelines
as a separate topic, thus it was not included in the PEIR. The only discussion pertaining to fire
was under the topic of Hazards and Hazardous Materials, as wildland fires and it was focused
out from detailed analysis in the PEIR. It was determined that the site would not be subject to
wildland fires, and as such no impacts would occur.
No PDFs, SCs, or MMs were identified nor required.
City of Fullerton Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
The City of Fullerton adopted a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) on May 21, 2020. The LHMP
provides a comprehensive assessment of the potential hazards that the City faces from natural
and human-caused events. Additionally, the plan provides a coordinated strategy to reduce these
threats and identifies resources and information that can help community members, City staff,
and local officials make informed decisions in the event of an emergency.
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-161
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
Impact Analysis
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard
severity zones, would the Project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
No Impact. The proposed Project is not within a State responsibility area nor a designated Very
High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ), as defined by the California Department of Forestry
and Fire Prevention (CAL FIRE). The nearest designated VHFHSZ is located approximately 2
miles northwest of the project site and is within a local responsibility area (LRA) (CAL FIRE
2011).
Additionally, the City of Fullerton has not identified any evacuation or emergency routes within
the City. The LHMP states that in the event of an emergency, use of the roadway system as
evacuation routes would be based on the incident occurring and areas of the City impacted (City
of Fullerton, 2020).
During construction activities, temporary lane closures on adjacent roadways may be required.
However, Project construction would not involve full closure of any public roadway during
construction that would result in impacts during emergency evacuations. Additionally, because
Checklist Response thresholds 4.20a through 4.20d apply only to those projects that are “located
in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones”,
no impacts related to these thresholds would occur, and no mitigation is required.
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and
thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
No Impact. The project site is in a highly urbanized area of the City, and there are no large,
undeveloped areas and/or steep slopes on or near the site that would exacerbate fire risks such
that would expose the Project and its occupants to wildfire related hazards. The site and the
surrounding areas are not located in designated VHFHSZ, as identified by CAL FIRE. Rather, the
site is within a Non-VHFHSZ area. Therefore, the Project is not expected to exacerbate wildfire
risks and create pollutants associated with wildfire or uncontrolled spread of wildfire.
Additionally, because Checklist Response thresholds 4.20a through 4.20d apply only to those
projects that are “located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire
hazard severity zones”, no impacts related to these thresholds would occur, and no mitigation is
required.
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads,
fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may
exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
No Impact. As previously described, the proposed Project is not within a designated VHFHSZ as
defined by CAL FIRE. As discussed in Section 3.0, Project Description, the site is located in a highly
urbanized area and surrounded by developed land on all sides. All proposed structures would
Environmental Checklist
4-162 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
be constructed to meet current building and fire codes. Implementation of the proposed Project
and maintenance of associated infrastructure would not exacerbate fire risk such that would
result in a significant temporary or ongoing impact. Additionally, because Checklist Response
thresholds 4.20a through 4.20d apply only to those projects that are “located in or near state
responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones”, no impacts
related to these thresholds would occur, and no mitigation is required.
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage
changes?
No Impact. As previously described, the proposed Project is not within a designated VHFHSZ as
defined by CAL FIRE. The Project is in a highly urbanized area that is in a generally flat
topographical area away from downslope or landslide areas. Specifically, implementation of the
Project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or
downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage
changes. Additionally, because Checklist Response thresholds 4.20a through 4.20d apply only to
those projects that are “located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very
high fire hazard severity zones”, no impacts related to these thresholds would occur, and no
mitigation is required.
Standard Conditions of Approval
None has been identified.
Mitigation Measures
Project implementation would not result in significant impacts related to Wildfire; therefore, no
mitigation measures are required.
Environmental Checklist
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 4-163
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
4.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially
degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish
or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a
rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? (‘Cumulatively
considerable’ means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects)
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
Impact Analysis:
Would the Project:
a) Have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare
or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory?
Less than Significant Impact. There are no sensitive biological resources, habitats, or species
on the project site that would be affected by the Project. As indicated in Section 4.4, Biological
Resources, of this IS/MND, given the current developed condition and the existing trees and
vegetation on the site, migratory birds may nest on the vegetation on-site. However, COA BIO-1
would avoid impacts to active bird nests during construction of the Project. Impacts on migratory
birds would be less than significant.
Therefore, the Project would not substantially degrade the quality of the environment;
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self-sustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; 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. Impacts would be less than
significant.
Environmental Checklist
4-164 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
b) 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. As identified in the preceding analyses, all Project-level impacts
have been determined to be less than significant with or without compliance with standard
conditions of approval. While the Project would contribute to potential environmental effects
related to noise, these impacts would not be cumulatively considerable, since there would be no
mitigation required. As discussed in Section 4.3, Air Quality, and Section 4.8, Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, of this IS/MND, the Project’s air quality and GHG emissions impacts would be less
than significant, and the impacts would not be considered cumulatively considerable.
Review of the City’s development shows that there are no new development or redevelopment
planned adjacent to the site that would occur concurrently with Project construction (City of
Fullerton 2022f). While there is one new development project located north of the project site,
at 2001 East Orangethorpe Avenue, involving modification of an existing industrial site into
office/warehouse buildings, construction for the adjacent project would be completed in 2022
(T&B Planning 2020). Development projects would be subject to environmental review by the
City, pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, to determine if they would lead to
cumulative environmental effects as part of the appropriate CEQA analysis for each project. Since
the proposed Project would not have significant unavoidable impacts after mitigation, the
Project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts when added to the impacts of
other projects planned or proposed in the vicinity of the site. Cumulative impacts would be less
than significant, and no mitigation is required.
c) Have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less than Significant Impact. Based on the environmental analyses above, with compliance
with standard conditions of approval, the Project would have less than significant impacts on
humans, as it relates to the following environmental issue areas: Aesthetics, Agriculture and
Forestry Resources, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions,
Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Mineral
Resources, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, Tribal Cultural
Resources, Utilities and Service Systems, and Wildfire. Therefore, the proposed Project would
not result in environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly. All impacts would be less than significant.
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 5-1
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
City of Fullerton (Lead Agency)
Planning Manager ................................................................................................. Bradley J. Misner, AICP
Traffic Engineer ...................................................................................................................... Dave Roseman
Psomas (CEQA Consultant)
Senior Project Manager .................................................................................................. Alia Hokuki, AICP
Assistant Project Manager .................................................................................................... Megan Larum
Environmental Analyst ............................................................................................. Jordan Werkmeister
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Noise Manager .......................................................... Tin Cheung
Senior Archaeologist ......................................................................................................... Charles Cisneros
GIS/Graphics ............................................................................................................................. Michael Deseo
Word Processing ........................................................................................................................ Sheryl Kristal
Environmental Checklist
5-2 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
This page intentionally left blank
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 6-1
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
6.0 REFERENCES
Associated Transportation Engineers. 2022 (June 29). Parking Study for the Fullerton Mixed-Use
Development – City of Fullerton, California. Santa Barbara, CA: ATE.
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2022. California Emission
Estimator Model (CalEEMod)TM Version 2020.4.0, Developed by Trinity Consultants in
Collaboration with SCAQMD and other California Air Districts. Sacramento, CA: CAPCOA.
http://www.caleemod.com/.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2022. Top 4 Summary for Anaheim-Pampas Lane
Monitoring Station. Sacramento, CA: CARB.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfourdisplay.php.
———. 2021. 2020 South Coast PM2.5 SIP Revision. Sacramento, Ca: CARB.
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/2020-south-coast-pm25-sip-revision
———. 2014. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan: Building on the Framework.
Sacramento, CA: CARB. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/ab-32-climate-
change-scoping-plan.
———. 2008. AB32 Climate Change Scoping Plan. Sacramento, CA: CARB.
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/ab-32-climate-change-scoping-
plan/2008-scoping-plan-documents
California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology (DMG). 1994. Generalized
Mineral Land Classification of Orange County, California. Sacramento, CA: DMG.
California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resources (DOGGR).
2022. (September 27 last accessed). Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources Well
Finder. Sacramento, CA: DOGGR.
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder/#close.
California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP).
2022 (September 27, last accessed). Orange County Important Farmland 2018.
Sacramento, CA: FMMP.
California Department of Finance (DOF). 2022 (May) E-5 Population Estimates for Cities,
Counties, and the State, January 2021-2022, with 2020 Benchmark. Sacramento, CA: DOF.
http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-5/
California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention (CAL FIRE). 2011 (March). Very High Fire
Hazard Severity Zones in LRA, As Recommended by CAL FIRE—Fullerton. Sacramento,
CA: CAL FIRE. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5883/c30_fullerton_vhfhsz.pdf.
California Department of Resources Recycle and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2022 (August 2, last
accessed). State of Disposal and Recycling and Exports in California for Calendar Year
2019 (DRRR-2020-1697). Sacramento, CA: CalRecycle.
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/Publications/Details/1697.
References
6-2 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2022 (July 28, access date).
Envirostor - Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese). Sacramento, CA: DTSC.
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?global_id=38330005.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2022 (September 27, last accessed).
California State Scenic Highways. Sacramento, CA: Caltrans.
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-
livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways.
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2022a (September, last accessed). Clean Energy and
Pollution Reduction Act—SB 350. Sacramento, CA: CEC.
https://www.energy.ca.gov/rules-and-regulations/energy-suppliers-reporting/clean-
energy-and-pollution-reduction-act-sb-350.
———. 2022b (September, last accessed). SB 100 Joint Agency Report. Sacramento, CA: CEC.
https://www.energy.ca.gov/sb100.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2022 (August 2, last accessed). FEMA Flood
Map Service Center: Search By Address. Washington, D.C.: FEMA.
Fullerton, City of. 2022a (September 27, access date). Union Pacific Park. Fullerton, CA:
https://www.cityoffullerton.com/gov/departments/parks_n_recreation/find_a_park/u
nion_pacific_park.asp.
———. 2022b (September 27, last accessed,). Parks & Recreation List of Parks. Fullerton, CA:
the City.
———. 2022c (September 27, last accessed). Park Map: Fullerton, CA: the City.
———. 2022d (September 27, last accessed). 2020 Urban Water Management Plan—Final Draft.
Fullerton, CA: The City.
———. 2022e (August 2, last accessed). Trash Service. Fullerton, CA: the City.
https://www.cityoffullerton.com/government/departments/administrative-
services/utility-services/trash-recycling/trash?locale=en.
———. 2022f (September 27, last accessed). Major Development Activity—City of Fullerton.
Fullerton, CA: City of.
https://fullertoncagis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapTour/index.html?appid=5f2cfeae350
d43fd9a90e3568566080e&webmap=20c92187f1a140ef9155ddf16ab313a7.
———. 2015 (May 5). The City of Fullerton General Plan Update 2013-2021 Housing Element, City
Council Resolution No. 2015-16. Fullerton, CA: the City.
———. 2012a (May). The Fullerton Plan 2030. Fullerton, CA: the City.
———. 2012b (May). Final Program EIR—The Fullerton Plan. Fullerton, CA: City of Fullerton. CA.
References
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 6-3
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
———. 2012c (February). The Fullerton Plan—Climate Action Plan. Fullerton, CA: City of
Fullerton.
https://www.cityoffullerton.com/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=8991.
———. 2001 (accessed June 18, 2021). Municipal Code.
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/fullerton/latest/fullerton_ca/0-0-0-11627
Fullerton Joint Union High School District (FJUHSD). 2022 (September 27, last accessed).
Facilities and Construction—2020/21 Fees. Fullerton, CA: FJUHSD.
https://www.fjuhsd.org/Page/1880.
Fullerton Police Department (FPD). 2022 (September 27, last accessed). About Fullerton PD.
Fullerton, CA: FPD. http://www.fullertonpd.org/about/default.asp.
Fullerton Public Library (FPL). 2022 (September 27, last accessed). Fullerton Public Library.
Fullerton, CA: FPL. https://www.fullertonlibrary.org/.
Geoquake, Inc. 2019 (August 20). Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report, Proposed Five-
Story Hotel and Four-Level Parking Structure, Fullerton Transportation Center, 200 East
Santa Fe Avenue, Fullerton, California. Anaheim Hills, CA: Geoquake.
Natural History Museum Los Angeles County. 2021 (May 19). Re: Paleontological Resources for
Project 3FUL020101. Los Angeles, CA: LACM.
Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). 2022 (June 12). OC Bus Bus Book. Orange, CA:
OCTA. https://www.octa.net/ebusbook/CompleteBusBook.pdf.
Orange County Waste and Recycling (OC Waste and Recycling). 2022 (September 27, last
accessed). Active Landfills. Santa Ana, CA: OC Waste and Recycling.
https://www.oclandfills.com/page/active-landfill-information.
Orange County Waste and Recycling (OC Waste and Recycling). 2021 (August 2, last accessed).
Active Landfills. Santa Ana, CA: OC Waste and Recycling.
https://www.oclandfills.com/page/active-landfill-information.
South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC). 2021 (March 25). Re: Records Search Results
for the 3FUL020101 Project. Fullerton, CA: SCCIC.
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2021. Historical Data By Year—2018,
2019, 2020 Air Quality Data Tables. Diamond Bar, CA: SCAQMD.
https://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/historical-air-quality-data/historical-data-
by-year.
———. 2019 (April, Revision). SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. Diamond Bar, CA:
SCAQMD. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-
quality-significance-thresholds.pdf.
References
6-4 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
———. 2017 (March). Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan. Diamond Bar, CA: SCAQMD.
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management-
plans/2016-air-quality-management-plan/final-2016-
aqmp/final2016aqmp.pdf?sfvrsn=11.
---------. 2010 (September 28). Greenhouse Gas CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder
Working Group Meeting #15 (slide presentation). Diamond Bar, CA: SCAQMD.
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-
ceqa-significance-thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-15/ghg-meeting-15-main-
presentation.pdf?sfvrsn=2.
———. 2016 (February). National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California
Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) Attainment Status for South Coast Air Basin.
Diamond Bar, CA: SCAQMD. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-
plans/air-quality-management-plans/naaqs-caaqs-feb2016.pdf?sfvrsn=2.
———. 2009 (October). Mass Rate Localized Significance Thresholds Look-up Tables. Diamond
Bar, CA: SCAQMD. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/appendix-c-mass-rate-lst-
look-up-tables.pdf?sfvrsn=2.
———. 2008 (October). Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG)
Significance Thresholds. Diamond Bar, CA: SCAQMD.
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-
ceqa-significance-thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-6/ghg-meeting-6-
guidance-document-discussion.pdf?sfvrsn=2.
———. 2003 (September 5). Attachment to BOARD MEETING DATE: September 5, 2003,
AGENDA NO. 29. White Paper on Regulatory Options for Addressing Cumulative Impacts
from Air Pollution Emissions. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/Agendas/Environmental-Justice/cumulative-impacts-working-
group/cumulative-impacts-white-paper.pdf
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2020a (September 3). Connect SoCal:
2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. Los
Angeles, CA: SCAG. https://scag.ca.gov/read-plan-adopted-final-plan.
———. 2020b. (September 3). Connect SoCal: Current Context Demographics and Growth
Forecast Technical Report. Los Angeles, CA: SCAG. ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-
attachments/0903fconnectsocal_demographics-and-growth-forecast.pdf.
———. 2016 (April). The 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities
Strategy: A Plan for Mobility, Accessibility, Sustainability, and a High Quality of Life. Los
Angeles, CA: SCAG. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-
attachments/f2016rtpscs.pdf?1606005557.
Southern California Edison (SCE). 2022 (August 2, last accessed). Incorporated Cities and
Counties Served by SCE. Rosemead, CA: Southern California Edison.
References
P ARKW EST P ROJECT 6-5
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
https://www.sce.com/sites/default/files/inline-
files/Incorporated_Cities_and_Counties_and_Unicorporated_Areas_Served_by_SCE.pdf.
Southern California Gas Company (SCGC). 2011. List of Cities and Communities Served. Los
Angeles, CA: SCGC. https://tariff.socalgas.com/regulatory/tariffs/tm2/pdf/CITIES.pdf.
Terradyne Engineering, Inc. 2019a (December 4). Phase II Environmental Site Characterization
Report, Fullerton Transportation Center, 120-240 E Santa Fe Avenue, Fullerton, Orange
County, CA 92832. Tustin, CA: Terradyne.
———. 2019b (October 17, revised). Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, Fullerton
Transportation Center, 120-240 E Santa Fe Avenue, Fullerton, Orange County, CA 92832.
Tustin, CA: Terradyne.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2021. Current Nonattainment
Counties for All Criteria Pollutants. Washington D.C., USEPA.
https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/ancl.html
———. 2014 (December 9). Clean Data Determination for 1997 PM2.5 Standards; California—
South Coast; Applicability of Clean Air Act Requirements. Federal Register 79(236):
72999–73007. Washington, D.C.: USEPA. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-12-
09/pdf/2014- 28709.pdf#page=1
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2022 (July 28, access date). Threatened & Endangered
Species. Washington, D.C.: USFWS. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/.
Woodard and Curran. 2021 (May). Sewer Capacity Assessment for the Street Lights Fullerton
Development Project. Woodard and Curran: Irvine, CA.
References
6-6 P ARKW EST P ROJECT
I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
This page intentionally left blank
5 Hutton Centre Drive,
Suite 300
Santa Ana, CA092707
www.Psomas.com