Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout75C - PH - THE BOWERYREQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: AUGUST 18, 2020 TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING — ADOPT A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 2020-02, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2020-01, AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO. 2020-01, AND OVERRULING THE ORANGE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION INCONSISTENCY ACTION FOR A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PROPOSED AT 2300, 2310, AND 2320 SOUTH REDHILL AVENUE is/Kristine Ridge CITY MANAGER CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: Ip1„1.16011W ❑ As Recommended ❑ As Amended ❑ Ordinance on 11' Reading ❑ Ordinance on 2ntl Reading ❑ Implementing Resolution ❑ Set Public Hearing For CONTINUED TO FILE NUMBER RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Adopt a resolution certifying Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2020-01 (SCH No. 2019080011), including adoption of environmental findings of fact pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 2. Adopt a resolution approving General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 2020-02 to change the General Plan land use designation of the project site. 3. Adopt an ordinance approving Amendment Application (AA) No. 2020-01 to establish Specific Development No. 96. 4. Adopt a resolution with findings overruling the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission's determination of inconsistency for the project with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION At its regular meeting on May 26, 2020, and after receiving public testimony on the item, the Planning Commission voted 5:0:2 (Phan abstained and Contreras -Leo absent) to recommend that the City Council certify Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 2020-01 and approve General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 2020-02 and Amendment Application (AA) No. 2020-01 for the Bowery mixed -use development located at 2300, 2310, and 2320 South Redhill Avenue (Exhibits 1-5),In addition, the commission advised the applicant to consider changing the name of the project to reflect current market trends and directed staff to provided additional details on open space and economic benefits of the project to the City Council. 75C-1 Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Development Project August 18, 2020 Page 2 DISCUSSION Jeremy Ogulnick, representing Arrimus Capital, is requesting approval of a general plan amendment and amendment application (zone change) to facilitate the construction of a mixed -use development. The development would consist of four primary buildings and one freestanding commercial pad that would contain a total of 1,100 residential units and 80,000 square feet of leasable commercial area at 2300, 2310, and 2320 South Redhill Avenue. The general plan amendment and amendment application (zone change) would change the subject site's general plan land use and zoning district designations. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed development requires certification of an environmental impact report, adoption of environmental findings of fact and a statement of overriding considerations, and adoption of a mitigation monitoring and reporting program. In addition, the applicant is requesting that the City Council overrule the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission's (ALUC) determination of inconsistency for the project with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport (JWA). Since the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant has revised the site plan to include a larger 13,764-square foot publicly accessible courtyard (Courtyard No. 1) along Building D and combined two freestanding retail pads into one along Redhill Avenue. It is recommended that the City Council approve the applicant's request as the project demonstrates high -quality site planning, design, and amenities; contains a mixture of land uses that promotes sustainable living integrated with commercial development; is close to jobs -rich employment centers; and will contribute to the City's housing stock through production of units. Project Description The project includes demolition and removal of three existing industrial buildings totaling approximately 268,443 square feet and their existing parking and landscape areas and the construction of a mixed -use commercial and residential community that would contain 1,100 residential units, 80,000 square feet of leasable commercial area, landscaping, onsite amenities for the public and the community's residents, and surface and structured parking. Site Planning The project site is broken up by onsite lanes, paseos, and plazas, which result in a village of four major buildings that are pedestrian in scale and easy to access by foot from any point on the project site (Exhibit 6). The project's defining features are the commercial plaza adjacent to the freestanding commercial pad building, and the pedestrian paseo that leads from the commercial area between Buildings A and B to Building D. The commercial plaza is designed to provide a passive area for the development's residents, commercial patrons, and visitors that will be furnished with seating and passive recreation features and is sheltered from the nearby Redhill and Warner intersection. Residential Components The residential component of the proposed project will be contained within four large buildings, each wrapping its own parking structure. Of the four buildings, three (Buildings A, B, and C) will be mixed -use with commercial components facing Redhill and Warner avenues, while the fourth building (Building D), toward the rear of the project site, will contain only residential units. Each building will contain five levels of residential units. The three mixed -use buildings will contain 75C-2 Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Development Project August 18, 2020 Page 3 seven levels total, with the first two ground -floor levels occupied by commercial uses. Building heights will range between 56 feet and 94 feet. A description and breakdown of unit types are provided in Table 1 below. Table 1: Total Units by Type Unit Type and Size Range Quantity Percent of Overall Project Studio 634-760 sq. ft. 211 19% One -Bedroom (634-833 sq. ft.) 600 55% Two -Bedroom (907-1,096 sq. ft.) 274 25% Three -Bedroom 1,362 sq. ft. 15 1% Total 1,100 100% Commercial Areas The project's commercial components will be contained in three of the project's mixed -use buildings (Buildings A, B, and C), as well as one freestanding retail pad fronting Redhill Avenue. The commercial areas in Buildings A, B, and C will be designed to accommodate a range of uses common within mixed -use developments, such as cafes, small to mid -size retail, neighborhood markets, and service uses. The freestanding retail pad will be designed to accommodate medium -intensity uses, such as large -format restaurants, food halls, fast -casual dining, and/or larger retail. Table 2 below provides a breakdown of the project's commercial component per building. Table 2: Commercial Square Footage Distribution Building Commercial Square Footage A 6,000 B 24,000 C 20,000 Freestanding Pad 30,000 Total 80,000 Of the commercial areas within the mixed -use buildings, the Building B commercial area has been designed with double -volume capabilities so that a two-story tenant could occupy the space, which is common at large -format restaurants and gymnasiums. All commercial components will be available to both residents and the general public wishing to patronize the businesses. To ensure the freestanding pad of the project is constructed, the applicant has agreed to execute a Mutual Declaration of Acknowledgment and Acceptance of Approval Conditions that specifies the timing of when the freestanding pan needs to be constructed (Exhibit 12). Onsite Parking Onsite parking is proposed in a combination of large, secured parking structures, a small surface parking lot, and in parallel spaces along the project's private lanes. A small surface parking lot will be located on Redhill Avenue and will contain 28 parking spaces. This lot will provide quick, convenient parking to passerby traffic near the project site. In the event the parking lot fills, additional parking will be available in the project site's multiple onsite parking structures. 75C-3 Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Development Project August 18, 2020 Page 4 The project site will contain four large, multi -level parking structures wrapped by the project's four primary mixed-use/residential structures (Buildings A, B, C, and D). These structures will contain parking for residents, residential visitors, and customers and employees of the commercial components. The project will provide 2.0 parking spaces per residential unit and 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross commercial area, for a total of 2,600 parking spaces. Additional parking details are provided in Table 3: Onsite Parking. Of the 2,600 parking spaces provided, a total of 2,375 will be actual parking spaces, with 2,036 residential stalls and 339 commercial stalls. Through mandatory onsite valet service, the 339 commercial stalls will be configured to allow up to an additional 61 valet stalls, achieving the commercial parking ratio of 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet (1 per 200 sq. ft.). In select areas in Buildings A, B and C, the 2,036 residential stalls will be retrofit to contain 164 parking lifts, which will result in a residential parking ratio of 2.0 spaces per unit. The parking structures will be designed and engineered to incorporate installation of these vehicular lifts. Table 3: Onsite Parking Building/Area Quantity Parking Spaces and Ratio A 300 residential 548 stalls and 52 lifts (600 spaces total); 2.0 units per unit B 248 residential 449 stalls and 47 lifts (496 spaces total); 2.0 units per unit C 322 residential 580 stalls and 64 lifts (644 spaces total); 2.0 units per unit D 230 residential 460 spaces total; 2.0 per unit units Commercial and Surface 80,000 square 400, comprised of physical and valet spaces Parking Areas (Buildings A, feet (1 space per 200 square feet) B, and C, and freestanding ad Total Initial Onsite Parking 2,600 total spaces The applicant has prepared a parking management plan (PMP) that contains details for managing the onsite commercial valet parking and installation of vehicular lifts (Exhibit 7). The PMP also details how valet services will meet the commercial component's customer and employee needs for onsite parking, for example when the project site's surface parking area reaches full capacity. Architecture, Open Space, & Amenities The project's five buildings are designed in a cohesive manner with unifying materials, floor heights, and articulation using contemporary architecture in an "industrial tech" style. High -quality building materials will ensure long-term durability and maintaining a high value project, including metal trim, awnings, railing, slats, and cladding; brick veneers and high -quality light sand finish stucco; glass railing; and poured concrete forms. Onsite furniture and details, such as lighting, waste receptacles, benches, tables, and open space areas, have been designed to complement the site's contemporary architecture. High ground -floor window and ceiling heights will contribute to the high -quality commercial component of the project site, which has been designed to create 75C-4 Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Development Project August 18, 2020 Page 5 a dynamic, commercial and residential village. These finishes and designs are consistent with the development standards and design guidelines found in the City's mixed -use zoning areas such as the Transit Zoning Code and Metro East Mixed Use (MEMU) Overlay Zone, as well as the Citywide Design Guidelines. When reviewing proposals for Specific Development zones, staff compares proposed projects against the development standards found in other existing mixed -use documents. For reference, the Metro East Mixed -Use Overlay Zone (MEMU) and Harbor Mixed -Use Transit Corridor Specific Plan (SP-2) require the most amount of onsite open space, equivalent to 15 percent of the development lot area. The project's proposed open space equals approximately 40 percent of the development area (5.75 acres), including ground -level recreation areas, landscape areas, plazas, walkways, courtyards, paseos, balconies, roof amenity decks, community rooms, fitness, and other services. Of this acreage, 2.57 acres (18 percent of the entire site) will be publicly accessible open space located on the ground floor. This includes the central paseo, plaza, walkways and landscape areas and Courtyard No. 1. The remaining 3.18 acres will be private common open space areas for residents that will contain pools, courtyards, fitness areas, relief areas for pets, and other amenities typical to high -quality mixed -use developments found in Santa Ana and in Orange County. Of these 3.18 acres of private/resident area, 1.59 acres is provided through residential patios and balconies. Economic Analysis The City utilized the services of AECOM to prepare an economic and fiscal analysis of the proposed project and to compare its impacts again those of an industrial prototype that could be built pursuant to the M-1 zoning district standards on the project site. The analysis reviewed key areas including residential, industrial, and retail market assessments; development feasibility; and economic and fiscal impacts of the project. AECOM's analysis reveals positive economic and fiscal impacts from either the proposed development or the industrial prototype due to the project site's location in a high -value, jobs -rich area surrounded by employment centers and commercial developments. The report's conclusions about the proposed project and the industrial prototype are illustrated in Table 4. Table 4: Key Findings of the Proposed Project and Industrial Prototype Comparison of Impacts Topic Proposed Project Industrial Prototype Residential Market The proposed quantity of residential N/A — Residential not permitted by Assessment units could be absorbed with low current M-1 zoning designation vacancy and high rents Industrial Market N/A — The proposed project does not The industrial prototype (up to Assessment contain industrial buildings or uses 320,000-square foot light industrial office/industrial building) could be absorbed into the broader market, as the expected incremental demand for new industrial square footage by 2026 is 2.2 millionsquare feet Retail Market The proposed 80,000 square feet of N/A — The industrial prototype does Assessment leasable commercialsquare footage not contain a significant commercial 75C-5 Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Development Project August 18, 2020 Page 6 Topic Proposed Project Industrial Prototype could be absorbed by the market component as commercial uses are area due to the buildout anticipated limited by the M-1 zoning designation within a two-mile market area Development $65 million ($100/square foot of land) $17 million ($26/square foot of land) Feasibility/Residual Land Value (RLV) Economic Impact $498 million in one-time construction $76 million in one-time construction impacts, $58 million in annual impacts, $153 million in annual economic impacts, and 1,200jobs, of economic impacts, and 1,400jobs, of which 349 would be in the City which 638 would be in the City Fiscal Impact Annual net fiscal surplus of $1 million Annual net fiscal surplus of $525,000 ($2.5 million revenue but $1.5 million ($710,000 revenue but $185,000 expenditures), a 40 percent positive expenditures), a 74 percent positive ratio ratio Housing Opportunity Ordinance Compliance The City's inclusionary housing ordinance, known as the Housing Opportunity Ordinance (SAMC Sec. 41-1900 et seq.) applies to housing projects proposing five or more units that are also requesting an increase in allowable density or are located in certain sections of the City that were "up -zoned" to allow additional residential development pursuant to an overlay zone or after November 28, 2011. As the proposed project is located in a section of the City that does not presently allow construction of housing, the applicant's request is subject to the Housing Opportunity Ordinance (HOO) requirements of production of affordable housing or payment of in - lieu fees. Pursuant to SAMC Sec. 41-1904, the applicant has selected the option to pay in -lieu fees. Based on available figures for the project and under the current ordinance, the project will contribute an estimated $12,935,010 in in -lieu fees, which must be spent on production of affordable housing in the City of Santa Ana. Table 5 below illustrates the calculation methodology. Table 5: HOO In -Lieu Fee Calculation Estimated habitable square feet In -lieu fee per habitable square foot Final estimated total (habitable square feet multiplied by in -lieu fee 862,334 SF $15 $12,935,010 General Plan Amendment To facilitate the applicant's request, a general plan amendment is required to change the subject site's current General Plan land use designation from Professional and Administration Office (PAO) to District Center (DC). The applicant's requests is consistent with the changes required for similar projects that were on properties not zoned for such developments, such as The Heritage at 2001 East Dyer Road and Elan at 1660 East First Street. The DC land use designation allows medium- to high -intensity mixed -use developments such as the proposed project, and areas designated DC are typically located on the City's major thoroughfares. Residential developments within these areas are allowed at a density of up to 90 dwelling units per acre. The subject site's location at the intersection of Redhill Avenue and Warner Avenue, near the Costa Mesa (SR-55) Freeway, renders the DC designation appropriate for the proposed mixed -use development. Moreover, the subject site is in the vicinity of The Heritage, which was entitled in 2016, and the Tustin Legacy Specific 75C-6 Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Development Project August 18, 2020 Page 7 Plan, a large master -planned community across Redhill Avenue in the City of Tustin that allows a mixture of land uses that are compatible with and complement the proposed development. If approved, the project would support several goals and policies of the Housing and Land Use elements of the General Plan. First, the project would be consistent with Goal 2 of the Housing Element, which encourages diversity of quality housing, affordability levels, and living experiences that accommodate Santa Ana's residents and workforce of all household types, income levels and age groups to foster an inclusive community. Second, the project would also be consistent with goals of the Land Use Element, including Goal 1 to promote a balance of land uses to address basic community needs and Goal 6 to reduce residential overcrowding to promote public health and safety. The proposed project will provide additional market rate housing in the City, thereby assisting in addressing the shortage of available housing within the region. In addition, the request for the proposed general plan amendment is consistent with the City's comprehensive General Plan update currently underway. A key component of the update is to focus new growth and development along major corridors reducing the pressure for growth in low -density neighborhoods and to identify areas for future development, including but not limited to higher density residential development. As part of the update, the City has evaluated new land use designations for the General Plan and development opportunities in the area surrounding the project site known as the 55 Freeway/Dyer Road Focus Area. Identified goals for this area include protecting the industrial and employment base, attracting economic activity into the area, providing complementary housing, and maintaining hotel and commercial uses. Amendment Application (Zone Chang The applicant's request to change the existing zoning of Light Industrial (M-1) to Specific Development (SD) will facilitate construction of the proposed development. The SD is the appropriate zoning designation for the subject site as the M-1 zoning allows primarily industrial activities with ancillary, supportive commercial uses such as restaurants. The SD zoning district allows flexibility for developments that are master -planned and often mixed -use in nature, such as the proposed project. The SD is established for the purpose of protecting and promoting the public health, safety and general welfare of the City and its residents. This new zoning designation for the site is crafted to be consistent with the proposed project. The project's draft SD zoning designation, if approved, would contain allowable uses, development standards, parking requirements, landscaping standards, and signage regulations that address the specific needs of the development. The SD document will be of a format consistent with recently -approved SD documents for similar projects such as The Heritage and Legacy Sunflower at 651 West Sunflower Avenue. In addition, the proposed SD to allow the use of the site for residential development is supported as the location has elements to make the site a viable mixed -use commercial and residential development. The elements include having regional access to freeway and transportation systems and being within proximity to employment centers and nearby retail and commercial shopping opportunities. The zone change is consistent with the goals identified in the 55 Freeway/Dyer Road Focus Area considered in the comprehensive General Plan update. 75C-7 Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Development Project August 18, 2020 Page 8 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an environmental impact report (EIR) was prepared for this project. To determine what potential effects would be caused by the project, the Draft EIR analyzed issues related to Aesthetics; Air Quality; Cultural Resources; Energy; Geology and Soils; Greenhouse Gas Emissions; Hazardous Materials; Hydrology and Water Quality; Land Use and Planning; Noise; Population and Housing; Public Services and Recreation; Transportation; Tribal Cultural Resources; Utilities and Service Systems; and Project Alternatives. The Draft EIR analyzed the direct and indirect impacts resulting from construction and operation of the proposed project. On July 26, 2019, the Notice of Availability was released to solicit comments regarding the scope and content of the Draft EIR (DEIR). A scoping meeting was held on August 15, 2019 with one (1) person in attendance and 10 written comment letters received at the conclusion of the 30-day public comment period. The comments were reviewed and addressed as required by the CEQA. The comments are included as part of the Final EIR. On January 3, 2020, the Draft EIR was circulated for review and comment to the public, City Council, Planning Commission, local, regional and state agencies, and interested parties for a 45-day public comment review period, which ended on February 18, 2020. In addition, a Planning Commission work-study session was held on February 10, 2020 where staff presented the proposed project and described the Draft EIR. The City has evaluated the comments received from persons and agencies on the Draft EIR and completed detailed Response to Comments, revisions to the Draft EIR including clarifications and/or corrections to typographical errors, and prepared a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). The MMRP contains mitigation measures to address impacts to Air Quality, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Transportation, and Tribal Cultural Resources. The response to comments, MMRP and Final EIR were published on April 27, 2020 for public review. The Draft EIR, responses to comments document, revisions to the Draft EIR, and the MMRP constitute the Final EIR for the project. Three project alternatives were also analyzed within the document. These included a no build alternative, where the existing buildings would remain on site as is and be reoccupied by an office/industrial use (Alternative 1); a reduced multi -family project consisting of a 30 percent reduction in residential density and commercial square footages (Alternative 2); and build out of the site under the existing Professional zoning district development standards, which could result in an approximately 317,552-square foot light industrial office/industrial building (Alternative 3). The Draft EIR determined that the proposed project would require mitigation related to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, hazardous materials, construction noise and vibration, interior noise, transportation, and tribal resources. The EIR identifies significant and unavoidable impacts associated with this project pertaining to Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Transportation. Air Quality impacts stem from emissions from operation of the project exceeding SCAQMD's threshold for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that would be derived from consumer products and vehicular activity that neither the applicant nor the City have the ability to reduce. Greenhouse Gas Emissions impacts stem from approximately 60 percent of the GHG emissions being generated by vehicle trips. Neither the applicant nor the City can substantively or materially reduce the vehicular -source GHG emissions. Lastly, Transportation impacts stem from the project's requirement to pay fair share funds to improve right -turn overlap phasing at the intersections of Grand and Warner avenues and Redhill and Alton avenues, calculated at 5.93 and 8.57 percent, respectively, and 75C-8 Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Development Project August 18, 2020 Page 9 to construct or fully fund right -turn overlap phasing at the intersection of Redhill Avenue and Barranca Parkway. As a result of these impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level, adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required prior to approving the project. A Statement of Overriding Considerations is the process through which decision makers balance the economic, legal, social, and technological or other benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable environmental impacts. ORANGE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION (ALUC) Pursuant to Section 21676(b) of the California Public Utilities Code (PUC), the proposed project was reviewed by the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for a determination of consistency with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport (JWA). On May 21, 2020, the ALUC held a public hearing on the project and found the project to be inconsistent with the AELUP for JWA in accordance with AELUP Sections 1.2 and 2.1.4 and Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 21674 (Exhibit 9). These sections empower the ALUC "to assist local agencies in ensuring compatible land uses in the vicinity of existing airports to the extent that the land in the vicinity of those airports is not already devoted to incompatible uses," and "to coordinate planning at the state, regional and local levels so as to provide for the orderly development of air transportation, while at the same time protecting the public health, safety and welfare." Based on this determination, the ALUC issued a letter of inconsistency. As a final review authority on legislative acts, the City Council may, after a public hearing, choose to overrule the ALUC's decision by following the procedure established in PUC Sections 21676 and 21676.5. On June 16, 2020, City Council met and authorized staff to initiate and complete the procedure for the City Council to consider the project and the proposed overriding of the determination made by the ALUC by (1) issuing a Notice of Intent to overrule and (2) giving notice to the ALUC of its decision to overrule as required by PUC Section 21676(b). On June 30, 2020, the Planning Division provided a Notice of Intent to overrule the commission's determination with findings to the ALUC and the State Division of Aeronautics (Exhibit 10). On August 5, 2020, the City received a comment letter from the ALUC regarding the draft findings to overrule the ALUC's determination of inconsistency with JWA AELUP for the project (Exhibit 11 ). As of the date of publishing this report, comments from the Division of Aeronautics have not been received. PUC Section 21676 permits the City Council, by a two-thirds vote, to overrule the ALUC's determination if it finds that the proposed project is consistent with the purposes of the State Aeronautics Act. The Act states: "It is the public interest to provide for the orderly development of each public use airport in this State and the area surrounding these airports so as to promote the overall goals and objectives of the California noise standards... and to prevent the creation of new noise and safety problems." Based on staff's review of the project, the project will not adversely impact the operations of the airport, the future development plans that exists for the airport, the approaches to the airport runways, create noise concerns, or create public health, safety or welfare concerns. Additionally, the project falls within a level of acceptable risk considered to be a community norm. Lastly, the applicant will be required to record an aviation easement to prevent claims, actions or lawsuits for nuisance or interference with the use of the property against the City and John Wayne Airport. 75C-9 Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Development Project August 18, 2020 Page 10 CONCLUSION Based on the analyses provided within this report and attachments, staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution certifying Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2020-01 (SCH No. 2019080011), including adoption of environmental findings of fact pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; a resolution approving General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 2020-02; an ordinance approving Amendment Application (AA) No. 2020-01 to establish Specific Development No. 96; and a resolution with findings overruling the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission's determination of inconsistency for the project with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with approval of this action. Submitted By: Minh Thai, Executive Director - Planning and Building Agency Exhibits: 1. Planning Commission Staff Report Dated May 26, 2020 2. Resolution Certifying Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2020-01 and Link to Final EIR 3. Resolution Approving GPA No. 2020-02 4. Ordinance Approving AA No. 2020-01 5. Resolution Overruling the Orange County ALUC Determination 6. Link to Final Plans and Project Renderings 7. Parking Study and Management Plan 8. Economic and Fiscal Analysis 9. ALUC Determination and Reports 10. Notice of Intent to Overrule the Commission's Determination Letter 11. ALUC Response to Notice of Intent to Overrule ALUC Action 12. Mutual Declaration of Acknowledgment and Acceptance of Approval Conditions 75C-10 Exhibit 1 REQUEST FOR Planning Commission Action PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: MAY 26, 2020 TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING — FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 2020-01, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2020-02, AND AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO. 2020-01 TO FACILITATE CONSTRUCTION OF A MIXED - USE DEVELOPMENT AT 2300, 2310, AND 2320 SOUTH REDHILL AVENUE {STRATEGIC PLAN NOS. 3, 2; 5, 3} Jerry C. Guevara and Prepared by Ali Pezeshkpour, AICP - Exe tie Director RECOMMENDED ACTION Recommend that the City Council: PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY APPROVED ❑ As Recommended ❑ As Amended ❑ Set Public Hearing For DENIED ❑ Applicant's Request ❑ Staff Recommendation CONTINUED TO Planning ger Adopt a resolution certifying Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2020-01 (SCH No. 2019080011), including adoption of environmental findings of fact pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; 2. Adopt a resolution approving General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 2020-02; and 3. Adopt an ordinance approving Amendment Application (AA) No. 2020-01 to establish Specific Development No. 96. Executive Summary At its regular meeting on May 11, 2020, and after receiving public testimony on the project, the Planning Commission by a vote of 3:2 (Phan abstained and Contreras -Leo absent) continued the project to May 26, 2020. The two -week continuance was provided so staff could address several topics/items, including: A. Two written communications sent to the City by Lozeau Drury LLP on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility, and Mitchell M. Tsai on behalf of Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters; B. A request by the City of Tustin for a two -week continuance to May 26, 2020; and C. Questions regarding onsite open space. 75C-11 EIR No. 2020-01, GPA No. 2020-02, & AA No. 2020-01 — The Bowery Mixed -Use Development May 26, 2020 Page 2 Following the May 11, 2020 Planning Commission hearing, staff and the environmental consultant prepared a memorandum that addresses the two written communications sent by Lozeau Drury LLP and Mitchell M. Tsai. The memorandum is attached as Exhibit 1. In addition, the Planning Commission received a request from the City of Tustin requesting a two -week continuance to May 26, 2020 to allow City of Tustin staff additional time to review the final environmental impact report (EIR) and the EIR's responses to comments. On May 21, the City of Tustin provided additional comments on the Final EIR. A review of the May 21 letter indicates that the City of Tustin's questions are adequately answered by the Final EIR on pages 2-49 through 2-62 (Responses to Comments). Lastly, following Planning Commission questions, staff prepared the following clarifications to address onsite open space. Like most cities, Santa Ana does not have a development regulation requiring public parkland on residential developments, but instead, has onsite open space requirements to address active and passive recreation. When reviewing proposals for Specific Development zones, staff often compare proposed projects against the development standards found in other existing mixed -use documents. For reference, the City's Metro East Mixed -Use Overlay Zone (MEMU) and Harbor Mixed -Use Transit Corridor Specific Plan (SP-2) require the most amount of onsite open space, equivalent to 15 percent of the development lot area. The project's proposed open space will be provided onsite in a variety of means and equals approximately 39 percent of the development area (5.76 acres), including ground -level recreation areas, landscape areas, plazas, walkways, courtyards, paseos, balconies, roof amenity decks, community rooms, fitness, and other services. Of this acreage, 2.44 acres (17 percent of the entire site) will be publicly accessible open space located on the ground floor. This area includes the central paeso, plaza, walkways and landscape area. The remaining 3.32 acres will be private common open space areas for residents that will contain pools, courtyards, fitness areas, relief areas for pets, and other amenities typical to high -quality mixed -use developments found in Santa Ana and in Orange County. Of this 3.32 acres of private/resident area, 1.59 acres is provided through residential patios and balconies. During the 45-day comment period on the draft EIR, the cities of Tustin and Irvine sent letters expressing concerns with Santa Ana allowing new residential land uses near the cities' borders because residents in Santa Ana would result in additional strain on their parks. Subsequent to receiving these comments, the City prepared responses to comments in the Final EIR that highlight that the proposed development would contain sufficient onsite open space to serve the needs of its community. To add context to this figure, the Final EIR and the staff report illustrate that utilizing the City's goal of providing two (2) acres of public park and/or recreational area per 1,000 residents (SAMC Sec. 35-108), a project of this scale would typically require 4.2 acres of parkland to serve the new residents assuming an occupancy of 2,081 residents. As proposed, the project provides ample open space that exceeds the minimum required by many of the City's existing regulations. In addition, 81.88 acres of Santa Ana parkland exist within three miles of the project site and provide a variety of facilities that include sports fields, exercise equipment, picnic 75C-12 EIR No. 2020-01, GPA No. 2020-02, & AA No. 2020-01 — The Bowery Mixed -Use Development May 26, 2020 Page 3 areas, and playgrounds to serve the park and recreational needs of the future project's residents and employees. In addition to the onsite open space being provided, the applicant will also pay the required in - lieu parks fees to the City, which are estimated to be $4,173,738. These park fees are placed in a special fund (Park Acquisition and Development Fund) and are used by the Parks, Recreation and Community Development Services Agency for the acquisition, construction and renovation of park and recreation facilities to reach the City's goal of providing two (2) acres of public park and/or recreational area per 1,000 residents. Lastly, as part of the comprehensive General Plan update underway, the City is closely examining future public park opportunities in the 55 Freeway/Dyer Road focus area. Should future residential and commercial opportunities be identified in the update for this area, the City will pursue programs to develop future parkland and recreation opportunities to serve future residents, employees, and visitors to the area. Conclusion Based on the analyses provided within this report and attachments, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt a resolution certifying Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2020-01 (SCH No. 2019080011), including adoption of environmental findings of fact pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; a resolution approving General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 2020-02; and an ordinance approving Amendment Application (AA) No. 2020-01 to establish Specific Development No. 96. Ali Pezeshkpour, AICP Jerry C. u ra Senior Planner Assista Planner I AP/JG:sb SAPIanning Commission\2020\05-26-20\The Bowery Continued\GPA-2020-2 AA-2020-1 EIR-2020-1 The Bowery 05262020.pc FINAL.docx Exhibits: 1. Memorandum Responding to Lozeau Drury LLP Comment Letter dated May 11, 2020 and to Mitchell M. Tsai Comment Letter dated May 11, 2020 2. Planning Commission Staff Report & Exhibits Dated May 11, 2020 75C-13 EXHIBIT 1 75C-14 Response to Planning Commission Comment Letters This section provides all written comments submitted to the Planning Commission on The Bowery Mixed Use Project on May 11, 2020, which is after the close of the Draft EIR public comment period on February 18, 2020. Comment letters and responses to those comments are provided on the following pages. Letter Number Commenting Agency/Organization/ Individual Comment Date Page Number PC1 Lozeau Drury LLP May 11, 2020 4 PC2 Mitchell M. Tsai May 11, 2020 107 75C-15 This page intentionally left blank. 75C-16 Letter PC1: Lozeau Drury LLP Comment Letter Dated May 11, 2020 (90 pages) i DRURYL,P T 510.836.4200 1939 Harrison street. Ste, 150 www.lozeaudrury.com F 510.836.4205 i Oakland. CA 94612 rebecca@1ozeaudrurycom May 11,2020 Via Email Mark McLoughlin, Chair Jerry C Guevara, Assistant Planner I Cynthia Conteras-Leo, Vice Chair City of Santa Ana Planning and Building Thai V. Phan, Commissioner Agency Norma Garcia, Commissioner PO Box 1988 Kenneth Nguyen, Commissioner Santa Ana, CA 92702 Felix Rivera, Commissioner jguevara@santa-ana.org Angie Cann, Commissioner Santa Ana Planning Commission Sarah Bernal Santa Ana Council Chambers Recording Secretary 20 Civic Center Plaza, 2nd Floor City of Santa Ana Santa Ana, CA 92702 20 Civic Center Plaza —M20 econunents@santa-ana.org Santa Ana, CA 92701 ecomments@santa-ana.org Re: Final Environmental Impact Report for the Bowery Mixed -Use Project (SCH No.2019080011) Dear Honorable Commissioners: I am writing on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility and its members living and working in and around the City of Santa Ana (collectively "SAFER") regarding the Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") prepared for the Bowery Mixed -Use Project, located in Santa Ana, California (SCH No. 2019080011) ("Project"), After reviewing the FEIR, together with our consultants, it is clear that the document fails to comply with CEQA, and fails to adequately analyze and mitigate the Project's impacts. Certified Industrial Hygienist, Francis `Bud" Offermann, PE, CIH, has conducted a review of the Project, the FIR and relevant appendices regarding the Project's indoor air emissions. Mr. Of eratan concludes that it is likely that the Project will expose future residents of the Project to significant impacts related to indoor air quality, and in particular, emissions of the cancer -causing chemical formaldehyde. Mr. Of ermarm is one of the world's leading experts on indoor air quality and has published extensively on the topic. Mr. Offerman's expert comments and CV are attached hereto as Exhibit A. 75C-17 The Bowery Mixed -Use Project CEQA Comment May 11, 2020 Page 2 Traffic engineer Dan Smith also reviewed the FIR and provided expert comments detailing numerous deficiencies in the EIR's traffic impact analysis. In particular, the analysis violates CEQA because it relies on ahypothetical baseline, ratherthan actual conditions that existed at the time environmental analysis began. Asa result, the baseline traffic level is significantly higher than it should be, which artificially reduced the traffic impacts created by the Project when compared to the baseline levels of traffic, Mr. Smith's expert comments and CV are attached hereto as Exhibit B. In addition, environmental consulting firm SoillWater/Air Protection Enterprise ("SWAPE") has reviewed the Project, the DEIR, and the FEIR. SAFER concludes that the Project's analysis and mitigation of impacts related to hazardous materials are inadequate. SWAPE's expert comments, as well as the C Vs of the S WAPE's consultants who prepared the comments are attached hereto as Exhibit C. A revised EIR should he prepared and recirculated prior to Project approval to analyze all impacts and require implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, as described more fully below. PROJEC]' DRSCRivrION The Project is a mixed -use development that includes up to 1,150 multi -family residential units and up to 90,000 square feet of commercial retail and restaurant space on a 14.58 acre site in Santa Ana, California. The Project includes demolition of three existing buildings acid removal of all existing improvements, landscaping, and pavement. In its place, the Project would develop three mixed -use buildings, each of which would be 6-stores, acid one residential building that would be 5-stories in height. Each building would have an adjacent parking structure. Two parking structures would provide 7-levels of above -ground parking and two would provide 6 levels of above -ground parking. In addition, the Project would also develop two one-story retail/restaurant commercial buildings and a surface parking lot. The Projed would provide a total of 174,555 square feet of exterior open space area, with each of the four residential buildings having a recreation space that includes a pool, spa/hot tub, outdoor kitchen, seating areas, fitness center, and club room. At full occupancy, the Project would house approximately 2,081 residents, and the commercial space would gcnerale 320 employees - The Projed site is designated as Professional and Administrative Office ("PAO") it the General Plan, and has a Zoning designation orl.ighl Industrial (M-1). The Project Becks to change the General Plan land use designation to District Center and to change the zone to Specific Development 'lho Pmjcct site is currently developed with three partially occupied industrial buildings, parking area=, and vehicle circulation drives The buildings are currently used by various lessees, including 119,121 square feet that is used by warehousing and distribution operations, 5,000 square foot being used for research and development, and 30,000 square feel being used as 75C-18 The Bowery Mixed -Use Project CEQA Comment May 11, 2020 Page 3 a 200-bed temporary homeless shelter. The remaining 53,000 square feet of building area is currently vacant. 11. LEGAL STANDARDS CEQA requires that an agency analyze the potential environmental impacts of its proposed actions in an EIR (except in certain limited circumstances). (See, e.g., Pub. Resources Code, § 21100.) The EIR is the very heart of CEQA. (Dunn -Edwards v. BA.4QMD (1992) 9 Cal. App.4th 644, 652.) "The `foremost principle' in interpreting CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act to be read so as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language." (Communities for a Better Environment v_ Cal. Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal AppAth 98, 109 ("CBE v CR4 ")) CEQA has two primary purposes. First, CEQA is designed to inform decision makers and the public about the potential, significant envirommental effects of a project. (14 Cal Cade Regs_ ("CEQA Guidelines") § 15002(a)(1).) `Its purpose is to inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made. Thus, the EIR `protects not only the environment but also informed self-government "' (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 553, 564.) The EIR has been described as "an environmental `alanm bell - whose purpose it is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological points of no return." (Rarkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay v_ Bd of Port Commis_ (2001) 91 Cal App_4th 1344, 1354 (Berkeley.lets"); County oflnyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 795, 810.) Second, CEQA requires public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage when "feasible" by requiring "environmentally superior" alternatives and all feasible mitigation measures. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15002(a)(2) and (3); See also Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th at 1354; Citizens of Goleta Valley, 52 Cal 3d at 564_) The EIR serves to provide agencies and the public with information about the environmental impacts of a proposed project and to "identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced." (CEQA Guidelines, §15002(ax2).) If the project will have a sign frcant effect on the environment, the agency may approve the project only if it finds that it has "eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible" and that any unavoidable significant effects on the environment are "acceptable due to overriding concerns." (Pub. Resources Code, § 21081; CEQA Guidelines, § 15092(b)(2XA) & (B).) While the courts review an EIR using an "abuse of discretion" standard, "the reviewing court is motto `uncritically rely on every study or analysis presented by a project proponent in support of its position. A `clearly inadequate or unsupported study is entitled to no judicial deference."' (RerkeleyJets, 91 CaLApp.4th at 1355 (emphasis added), quoting, Laurel Heights ImprovementAssn. v. Regents of University ofCal fornia (1999) 47 Cal. 3d 376, 391409, n. 12.) As the court stated in Berkeley Jcts, 91 Cal.App.4th at 1355: A prejudicial abuse of discretion occurs "if the failure to include relevant information procludes informed decisionmaking and informed public 75C-19 The Bowery Mixed -Use Project CEQA Comment May 11, 2020 Page 4 participation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR process." (San Joaquin Raptor/WildlifeRescue Center v, County ofStanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713, 722; Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management Dist. (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1117; County ofAmador e E1 Dorado County Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal. App. 4th 931, 946.) More recently, the California Supreme Court has emphasized that: When reviewing whether a discussion is sufficient to satisfy CEQA, a court must be satisfied thatthe EIR (1) includes sufficiclrt detail to enable those who did not participate in its preparation to understand and to consider meaningfully the issues the proposed project raises [citation omitted].... (Sierra Club v. Cry. of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 510 (2018), citing Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v Regents of University ofCaliforrrio (1988) 47 C31.3d 376, 405.) The Court in Sierra Club v. Cty, of Fresno also emphasized at another primary consideration of sufficiency is whether the EIR "makes a reasonable effort to substantively connect a project's air quality impacts to likely health canscquences." (6 Cal5th A 510.) `Whether or not the alleged inadequacy is the complete omission of a required discussion or a patently inadequate one - paragraph discussion devoid of analysis, the rcvicwing court must decide whether the t,IR serves its purpose as an informational document." (Id. at 516.) Although an agency has discretion to decide the manner of discussing potentially significant effects in an EIR, "a reviewing court must determine whether the discussion of a potentially signi.ficard effect in sufficient or iusul)iciem, i.e., whether the EIR comports with its intended function of including `detail sufficient to enable those who did not participate in its preparation to understand and to consider meaningfully the issues raised by the proposed project."' (6 Cal.5tb at 516, citing Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City gfBakersfreld (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1197.) "Me determination whether a discussion is sufficient is not solely amatter of discerning whether there is substantial evidence to support the agency's factual conclusions." (6 Cal.5th at 516.) As the Court emphasized (Sierra Club v. Cty. of Fresno, 6 Cal.5th at 514.): [W]hether a description of an envircrunental impact is insufficient because it lacks analysis or omits the magnitude of the impact is not a substantial evidence question. A conclusory discussion of an environmental impact that an EIR deems significant can be determined by a court to be inadequate as an informational document witbom reference to substantial evidence_ In general, mitigation measures must be designed to minimize, reduce or avoid an identified environmental impact or to rectify or compensate fOr that impact_ (CEQA Guidelines § 15370.) Where several mitigation measures are available to mitigate an impact, each should be discussed and the hasis for selecting a particular measure should he identified. (Id. at § 15126.4(a)(1)(B).) A lead agency may not make the required CEQA findings unless the administrative record clearly shows that all uncertainties regarding the mitigation of significant environmental impacs have been rcgWved_ 75C-20 The Bowery Mixed -Use Project CEQA Comment May 11, 2020 Page 5 III. ANALYSIS A. THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE T'HA F THE PROJECT WILL HAVE SIGNIFICANT INDOOR AIR QUALITY IMPACTS. Certified Industrial Hygienist, Francis "Bud" Q &rmarm, PE, CIH, has conducted a review of the proposed Project and relevant documents regarding the Project's indoor air emissions. Indoor Environmental Engineering Comments (May 4, 2020) (Exhibit A). Mr. Offermann concludes that it is likely that the Project will expose residents of the Project and employees who work in the commercial space to significant impacts related to indoor air quality and in particular, emissions or the cancer -causing chemical formaldehyde. Mr. Ofi'ermann is a leading expert oa indoor air quality and has published extensively on the topic. See attached CV Mr Offorniann explains that many composite wood products used in modem apartment home eonstructien contain forrnaldchyde-based glues which off -gas formaldehyde over a very long time period. He states, "'fhe primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea -formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and particleboard_ These materials arc commonly used in building construction for flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims." Offennann, pp. 2-3. Formaldehyde is a known human carcinogen. Mr. Offemiann states that there is a fair argument that future residents of the Project will be exposed to a cancer risk from formaldehyde of approximately 112 per million, assuming all materials are compliant with the California Air Resources Board's formaldehyde airborne toxic. control measure. Id., p. 3-4. This more than 11 times the South Coast Air Quality Management District's ("SCAQMD") CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk of 10 per million. In addition, Mr. Offermann concludes that people working the commercial spaces of the Project will be exposed to an increased cancer risk from formaldehyde of 16.4 per million, which also exceeds the threshold of significance. Id. at 5. Mr. Otfennann concludes that these significant envirolunental impacts must be analyzed in the FIR and mitigation measures should be imposed to reduce the risk of formaldehyde exposum. Id_, p. 4-5. Mr. Offermann also notes that the high cancer risk that may be posed by the Project's indoor air emissions likely will be exacerbated by the additional cancer risk that cxisla as a result of the Project's location near roadways with moderate to high traffic (i.e. CA-55, Carnegie Avenue, Warner Drive, Red I till Avenuc, and Pullman Street) and the high levels of PM 2.5 already present in the ambient air. 011ermamr, pp. 10-11. No analysis ha& been conducted of the significant curnulalivo health impacts that will result to Ihlure residents orlhe Project Mr. Offermann identifies mitigation measures that are available to reduce these significant health risks, including the preferred mitigation measure that would require the applicant use only composite wood materials (e_g. hardwood plywood, medium density 75C-21 The Bowery Mixed -Use Project CEQA Comment May 11, 2020 Page 6 fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no - added fonmaldchyde (NAF) resins or ultra -low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resifts in the buildings' interiors. Id at 12-13. Proposed mitigation also includes the installation of air filters and outdoor air ventilation. Id. The City has a duty to investigate issues relating to a project's potential environmental impacts, especially those issues raised by an expert's comments. See Cry. Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v. Cry. of Kern, (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1597-98 Cimder CEQA, the lead agency bears a burden to investigate potential environmental impacts"). In addition to assessing the Project's potential health impacts to residents, Mr. Offermann identifies the investigatory path that the City should be following in developing an EI`R to more precisely evaluate the Projects' firture formaldehyde emissions and establishing mitigation measures that reduce the cancer risk below the SCAQMD level. Id, pp. 5-10. Such an analysis would be similar in form to the air quality modeling and traffic modeling typically conducted as part of a CEQA review. The failure to address the pr*ct's formaldehyde emissions is contrary to the California Supreme Court's decision in California Building lndustryAss'n v. Ray Area Air Quality Mgmt Dist. (2015) 62 CalAth 369, 386 C`CBIA"). At issue in CRIA was whether the Air District could enact CEQA guidelines that advised lead agencies that they must analyze the impacts of adjacent environmental conditions on aproject. the Supreme Court held that CEQA does not generally require lead agencies to consider ilte environment's effects on a project. CBIA, 62 Cal.44h at 800- 801. However, to the extent a project may exacerbate existing adverse environmental conditions at or near a project site, those would still have to be considered pursuant to CEQA. Id. at 801 ("CEQA calls upon an agency to evaluate existing conditions in order to assess whether a project could exacerbate hazards that are already present"). In so holding, the Court expressly held that CEQA'e statutory language required lead agencies to disclose and analyze "impacts on a project's users or residents that arise from the project's efjeels on the environment." Id. at 800 (emphasis added). The carcinogenic formaldehyde emissions identified by Mr. Offermann are not an existing environmental condition. "Those emissions to the air will be from the Project. Residents and workers will be users of the Project. Curreally, there is presumably little if any formaldehyde emissions at the site Once the project is built, emissions will begin at levels that pose significant health risks. Ratherthan excusing the City from addressing the impacts of carcinogens emitted into the indoor air from the project, the Supreme Court in CBIA expressly finds that this type of effect by the project On the environment and a -project's users and residents" must be addressed in the CEQA process. "11Ee Supreme Court's reasoning is well-grounded in CEQA's statutory language. CEQA expressly includes a project's cf reds on human beings as an cll'ect on the environment that must be addressed in an environmental review_ "Suction 21083(b)(3)'s express language, for example, requires a finding of a `significant effect on the enviromnent' (§ 21083(b)) whenever the `environmental dFcels of project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly Or indirectly."' C81A, 62 CalAth at 800 (emphasis in original). Likewise, "the 75C-22 The Bowery Mixed -Use Project CEQA Comment May 11, 2020 Page 7 Legislature has made clear —in declarations accompanying CEQA's enactment —that public health and safety are of great importance in the statutory scheme." fd, citing e.g., §§ 21000, subds. (b), (c), (d), (g), 21001, subds. (b), (d). It goes without saying that the hundreds of future residents and employees of the Project are human beings and the health and safety of those individuals is as important to CEQA's safeguards as nearby residents currently living and working near the project site. Mr. Offermann's expert comments constitute substantial evidence of a fair argument of a significant envirommental impact to future users of the project, but this potentially significant impact is not analyzed in the EIR. A revised EIR must be prepared to disclose and mitigate those impacts. S. THE EIR FAILS TO ADEQUATELY ANALYZE AND MITIGATE TRAFFIC IMPACTS. As detailed more fully in the attached comments oftraffic engineer Dan Smith (Ex. B), the Project will have significant impacts on traffic that have either been underestimated or have not been addressed at all in the EIR. By failing to disclose the Ildl exlent of the Project's traffic impacts, the EIR fails as an informational document. The EIR violets CEQA because it relies on a hypodreticai baseline rather than conditions that exist at the time environmental analysis begins_ Every CEQA document must start from a `baseline" assumption. The CEQA "baseline" is the set of environmental conditions against which to compare a project's anticipated impacts. Cmry. for a BetterEnv't v. So. Coast Air Qual, Mgmnt. Dist. (2010) 48 Cal 4th 310, 321. Section 15125(a) of the CEQA Guidelines (14 C.C.R, § 15125(a)) states in pertinent part that a lead agency's environmental review under CEQA: "...must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time [environmental analysis) is commenced, from both a local and regional perspective. This environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a Lead Agency determines whether an impact is significant." See, Save Our Peninsula Committee v. County of Monterey (2001) 8:7 Cal.App.4th 99, 124-125. As the court of appeal has explained, `the impacts of the project must be measured against the `real conditions on the ground,"' and not against hypothetical permitted levels. (Save Our Peninsula, 87 Cal.App.4th at 121-123. Using such a skewed baseline "tnislead(s) the public" and "draws a red herring across the path of public input" San Joaquin Raptor Rescue ('enter v. County of Merced (2007) 149 Ca1.App.4th 645, 656; Woodward Park Homeowners v. City of Fresno (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 683, 708-711. 75C-23 The Bowery Mixed -Use Project CEQA Comment May 11, 2020 Page 8 Here, the EIR's traffic analysis does precisely what the courts prohibit. The EIR relies on hypothetical permitted levels of use radterthan the real conditions on the ground when the environmental analysis began. By relying on a skewed baseline, the EIR understates the Project's traffic impact. In order to determine the amount oftraffic generated by the Project compared to the baseline levels, the EIR calculated the Project's projected traffic, and then deducted "trip credits" based on estimates of existing traffic levels. Mr. Smith explains in his comments that the "trip credits" taken for existing use of the site are excessive, overstating existing traffic, and as a result understates the Project's traffic impacts. Ricoh (Electronics, Inc., a manufacturer and distributer of thermal paper and toner, formerly occupied the entire Project site from 1985 through 2017. DEIR, 3-1. The DEIR lists the Project site's current uses as: 1) 119,121 square feet of warehouse and distribution, 2) 5,000 square feet of research and development, 3) 53,000 square foot of vacant space, and 4) 30,000 square foci in use as a temporary homeless shelter. DEIR. 3-1. The DEIR species that these "tenants began utilizing the site after cessation of the Ricoh Electronics operations" DEIR, 5.9- 13. Rather than relying on baseline traffic conditions existing at the time the Notice of Preparation ("NOP") was issued July 26, 2019, the EIR's traffic analysis relies on a baseline Drat. assumes the entire 212,121 square feet of existing building area is fully occupied and being used as at industrial park. Smith, p. 1. There is no evidence that the Project site was fully occupied andoperating, as an industrial park when the NOP was issued or when the EIR was prepared. It is unclear whether the EIR's baseline assumption is premised on the site being zoned for Light Industrial, or if it was based on the site previously being fully operated with industrial uses. Either explanation requires use of a hypothetical baseline, which violates CEQA. Table 1— Trip Rates Based on Prior Land Use* Land Use Category Use Sire (sq. ft.) DaityTrips" AM Peak"" PM Peak"* Warehouse 119,121 279 27 31 Research & Development 5,000 SIS 2 2 Homeless Shelter 30,000 negligible 0 0 Vacant Space 53,000 0 0 0 Total trips from existing uses 207,121"•* 335 29 33 FIR Baseline based on Industrial Park Use 212,121 1,37a 159 159 Percent increase when EIR baseline is compared to Existing Use baseline 395% 540% 491% ° Data based on Trip Ganerai,on, Ilya Edition is Numbers are trips in passenger car equivalents ("PCE"). 75C-24 The Bowery Mixed -Use Project CEQA Comment May 11, 2020 Page 9 **The existing uses described in the EIR only add up to 207,121 square feet, while the EIR's traffic study relied on 212,121 square feet of land uses at the Project site. When Mr. Smith analyze trip generation based on uses existing at the time the environmental analysis began in July 2019, he determined that baseline traffic levels are significantly lower than was analyzed in the EIR. The DEIR concludes that based on a fully occupied industrial park, the baseline trip generation would be 159 passenger car equivalent ("ME-) trips in the AM peak hour and the PM peak hour, with a daily total of 1,326. Smith, p. 2, (citing DEIR, 5.14-11, table 5.14-5). In contrast, based on the actual existing land uses at the time the NOP was circulated, the maximum trip generation is 29 ME trips in the AM peak, and 33 ME trips in the PM peak hour, for a daily total of 335 trips. Smith, p. 2. In other words, while existing uses generate only 29 PCE trips in the AM peak, the EIR takes credit for 159 Mlb trips, an increase of 540%. Similarly, the EIR's baseline inflates the trips generated in the PM peak and daily trips by 481% and 395%, respectively. Overstating baseline traffic skews the calculation of what additional traffic the Project will generate. For example, the DEIR. assumes the Project will generate 604 PM peak trips. By deducting an additional 126 trips' based on an existing industrial park use, the DEIR underestimates the Prpjeet's traffic impact by nearly 21 percent. "I'his (law alone is sufficient to significantly after findings of impact and mitigation requirements." Smith, p. 2. The EIR's error is similar to that in Woodward Pork Homeowners v. City of Fresno ("Woodward') (2007) 150 Cal.AppAth 683, 708-711.) In that case, a developer proposed to build a shopping mall on a vacant lot. The EIR erroneously used as a baseline an office park that was previously approved for the parcel, and subtracted the difference. Ibc court held that the baseline should have been zero since the property was actually vacant. Using the non -zero baseline for the vacant parcel misled the public into thinking the proposed shopping mall's impacts would be much less than they would be when compared to the existing vacant parcel, This is exactly what happened here. The EIR underestimates traffic generated from the Project because it relies on excessive deductions of traffic ofthe prior use of the Project site. Using an inflated baseline premised on a hypothetical use of the Project site as an industrial park misleads the public and decision makers into believing the Project's traffic impacts will be much less than they are when compared to the existing land uses. The EIR's traffic baseline violates CEQA. Tlnc EIR must be revised to analyze the Project's traffic impact using a baseline as it existed at the time the environmental analysis began. 2. 'fhc EIR jmpranerly classifies 18 000 square r. of of retail in the Project as a shopping center. To Calculate the amount of traffic generated from the 18,000 square feel of retail space included in the Project, the EIR relied on "Land Use Category 820, "Shopping Center." Smith, ' (159 trips based m full industrial park use) - (33 nips based an uses at time NOP ma ued) — 126 excess nnps. 75C-25 The Bowery Mixed -Use Project CEQA Comment May 11, 2020 Page 10 p. 2. But Mr. Smith observes that 18,000 square feet of retail does not make a shopping center. Id. He explains: Shopping centers only generate trips at the average rates employed in the subject analysis when they reach a size of about 400,000 square feet of floor area. Small footprint retail normally generates trips at much higher peak and daily rates per thousand square feet than the shopping center average. The 18,000 square feet of retail in the Project is about the typical size of a boutique gmcery like a Trader Joe's or a W algreens Pharmacy. Smith, pp. 3-4. By inappropriately relying on the Shopping Center land use category, the EIR greatly underestimates the Project's trip generation. Table 1, below, compares the significant difference in trips generated by a Shopping Center compared to a Pharmacy or Supermarket land use category_ For example, a Shopping Center land use would generate only 37.75 daily trips per 1,000 square feet, while a Supermarket would generate 106.78 daily trips, nearly three times as many. 'fable 2— Trip Rates Per 1,000 Square Feet Rased on Land Use Category Land Use Category Daily AM Peak PM Peak Supermarket 106.78 3.82 9.24 Pharmacy 90.08 2.94 8.51 Shopping Center 37.75 0.94 3.81 Table 2 compares the trips generated for the Projects 18,000 square feet of retail when the three difiirent land use categories are applied_ Table 3 — Trip Rates for 18,000 Square Feet of Retail Based on Land Use Category Land Use Category Daily AM Peak PM Peak Supermarket 1,922 69 166 Pharmacy 1,622 53 153 Shopping Center 1 680 17 69 Mr. Smith concludes that these difference in trip generation rates, `when added to adjustment of the improper credit for the prior rrse, take on cumulative significance" Smitb, p. 3. 'there is no evidence to support the EIRs use of the Shopping Center land use category for the Project's 18,000 sgmre feet of retail when that category is meant for structures of 400,000 square feet of retail or more. As a result, then: is no evidence to support the EIR's findings regarding the severity of the Project's traffic impact_ 75C-26 The Bowery Mixed -Use Project CEQA Comment May 11, 2020 Page I I '11rc EIR makes excessive assumptions of trip reductions from internalization mid passer-by attraction. The EIR assumes that internal trips and attracted passers-by will account for 31.5 percent of the Project's gross trip generation in the AM traffic peak hour and 42 percent of the Project's gross trip generation in the PM traffic peak hour. Smith, p. 4. When combined with the improper deductions taken for the abandoned prior use as an industrial park, deductions eliminate 47.2 percent of the gross AM peak trip generation and 54 percent of the gross PM peak trip generation. Id. This analysis assumes internalization rates and attracted passerby rates at the maximum end ofthe range provided for in the Trip Generation Handbook, 31a Edition_ Id_ In doing so, thc EIR makes another in a series of assumptions, all most favorable to the Project, and all minimizing trip and traffic generation. CEQA requires more than merely disctosing the most gcncrous interpretation orpotential impacts. CEQA requires a lead agency to disclose the full scope of potential impacts. By relying solely on the most favorable assumptions, with no discussion of the possibility of greater impacts, the EfR misleads the public mid decision makers, and fails as an informational document. 4. the EIR fails to adequately respond to comments on traffic by the Orange County Transportation Aaenev. In its comments on the HEIR, the Orange County Transportation Agency idemiftes numerous roadways for which the DEIR's description of roadway cross-section is wrong. FEIR, 2-35 to 2-37. In response, "the FEIR corrects the text of the relevant table but fails to analyze whether the changes have arty consequential impact on the outcomes of impact analysis." Smith, p. 4. Overstating the number of lanes on several roadways could have significant consequences on the Project's traffic impacts and the mitigation required for those impacts, Tlie FEIR must be revised to address the impact of these changes on the traffic analysis. As a result of numerous deficiencies. the EIR's traffic analvsis violates CEQA. Based on the above deficiencies, Mr. Smith correctly concludes as follows: Because the DF,IR improperly deducted trips for a prior use of the Project site that was not present when the NOP was circulated nor when baseline traffic counts for the analysis were taken, because it unreasonably treats 18,000 square Ccet of unspecified retail commercial as a "shopping center" rather than a logical specific use or range of uses that would occupy a retail floor area oCthis size and because the analysis consistently makes assumptions most favorable to the Project with regard to trip internalization and passer- by attraction, the FEIR should not be certified, the traffic analysis should be redone and the environmental document should be recirculated in "draft" status_ El 75C-27 The Bowery Mixed -Use Project CEQA Comment May 11, 2020 Page 12 Smith, p. 4. It would be an abuse of discretion far the City to approve the EIR because the traffic analysis fails to include relevant information, as discussed above, which precludes informed 10 decision making and informed public participation. By failing to disclose the full extent of the Project's traffic impacts, the EEZ fails as an informational document. C. THE PROJECT WILL RAVE SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON POPULATION AND HOUSING BECAUSE IT WILL DISCLOSE 200 HOMELESS PEOPLE, RESULTING IN THE NEED FOR NEW HOUSING. CEQA requires the lead agency to determine whether the "environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly." Pub Res. Code § 21083(b)(3), (d)_ CEQA Guidelines Appendix O, Section XIV provides that a project will have a significant impact on population and housing if it will "[djisplace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the constructionof replacement housing elsewhere." Here, 30,000 square feet of the Project site is currently being used as a homeless shelter, housing 200 homeless. DEIR 5.1 I-3. By converting the homeless shelter into market rate housing the Project will displace up to 200 people, who by definition have no other housing The DEIR claims that the Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction ofreplacement housing elsewhere. DEIR, 5.11-11. The DEIR supports this conclusion based solely on the statement that "Santa Am is working on various homeless shelter solutions, including the purchase of a permanent homeless shelter site, that are anticipated to be available for the existing persons on the Project site priorto construction of the proposed Project." Id. This statement does not constitute substantial evidence to support the DEIR's conclusion that the Project will not have a significant impact. Whilo Santa Ana may be working on -carious homeless shehor solutions," this is not evidence that up to 200 homeless people will be displaced as a result of the Project, and those 200 people will require housing elsewhere. Moreover, if the City is looking to purchase a perniancnt homeless shelter site, it will need to construct replacement housing on that site, constituting a significant impact under CEQA. The City's conclusion that the Project will not have a signil icanl impact stemming Cram displacement of up to 200 homeless people violates C 14QA becawo it is not supponcd by substantial evidence_ 75C-28 The Bowery Mixed -Use Project CEQA Comment May 11, 2020 Page 13 1). 'THE Ella FAILS TO ADEQUATELY DISCLOSE, ANALYZE, AND NHTIGATE THE PROJECT'S IMPACTS RELATED TO HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. The FIR fails as an informational document because A. fails to disclose that the Project site is contaminated with hazardous materials and is on the Cortese List. A Project has a significant impact on the environment if it is "located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 [the Cortese List] and, as a result, creates] a significant hazard to the public or the environment_" CEQA, .Appendix Cr; DEIR, 57-21. The DFIR states that the Project would have no such impact. It claims: No Impact. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessments that was conducted database searches to determine if the Project area or any nearby properties are identified as currently having hazardous materials. 'Me record searches determined that although the site has a history of various uses„ and ident fed as previously generating hwardous wastes and clean-up activities, the Project site is nut located on or near by a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites pursuant to Govemiment Code Section 659625 (Phase 12019) The Phase I ESA did not identify any nearby or surrounding area sites that are included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to (iovemment Code Section 65962.5, and as a result, impacts related to hazards from being located on or adjacent to a hazardous materials site would not occur from implementation of the proposed Project. DEIR, 5.7-26. The FEIR goes on to claim that `Bites where response actions have been completed and no operation and maintenance activities are required are not included on the list.' This statement is false and the FIR provides not evidence to support it or the REIR's analysis. The Department of Toxic Substances Control states in no uncertain terms in its comments drat the Project is on the Cortese List See, FEIR, 2$. The DEER even aoknowledges DTSC's expertise in this area, noting that DTSC "is responsible for a portion of the information contained in the Cortese List" DEIR, 5.7-4_ Closure of an underground storage tank case does not take a site off the Cortese List. A ease is closed if Olean -up activities achieve certain standards_ The level ofromediation required depends on the proposed future use of the site. For example, a site may be closed because it was remediated to a level sufficient for the site to be used for industrial purposes, but residual 12 13 75C-29 The Bowery Mixed -Use Project CEQA Comment May 11, 2020 Page 14 contamination may remain at levels that would not be safe for residential development. This is why it is important to keep sites on the Cortese List even if they are closed. But even assuming argaendo the Project site was no longer on the Cortese List because it was a closed site — which is untrue —the EIR still needed to discuss the Cortese List because, according to the Phase I and II reports, the site will need to he reopened for additional remediation, which - under the h;IR's €easoning would put the site back on the List once again. In addition to not disclosing that the site is on the Cortese List, the FIR also fails to disclose material information about the Project site_ Instead, to truly learn about the hazardous materials and contamination at the Project site, the public and decision makers are required to dig through thousands of pages in the appendices in order to find out basic information ahont the Project 'this violates CEQA For example: • The DEIR does not disclose that the Project site is contaminated with hazardous materials at levels that exceed residential human health screening levels, • The DEng does not disclose the impact the existing contamination could have on human health of construction workers or future residents of the Property. • 'Itre DEIR does not mention or describe previous hazardous materials remodiation efforts at the Project site • The DEIR does not disclose that the Project will need to re -open its formerly closed case in order to further remediate existing contamination such that the site would meet residential contamination standards. This important information is only available in the EIR's appendices. Burying this information in hundreds of pages of appendices does not remedy this omission from rise EIR. Multiple courts have held thatrelevant information about a Project'& environmental impact must he presented in th,e EIR itself "Information `sealtened hem and them in EIR appendices' or a report `buried in an appendix' is not a substitute for `a good faith reasoned analysis.' Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth v. Ciry of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 442. the EIR's failure to disclose the above information renders the EIR inadequate as an informational document. 2. the FIR fails to provide a good faith reasoned response to comments from DTSC. 13 la Public and sister -agency participation is an essential part of the CEQA process. Public review of environmental documents serves the following purposes: (a) sharing expertise; (b) 15 disclosing agency analyses; (c) checking for accuracy; (d) detecting emissions; (e) discovering public concems; and (f) soliciting counter proposals. CEQA Guidelines, § 15200. 75C-30 The Bowery Mixed -Use Project CEQA Comment May 11, 2020 Page 15 An.. agency's responses to comments must specifically explain the reasons for rejecting suggestions received in comments and for proceeding with a project despite its environmental impacts. Such explanations mustbe supported with specific references to empirical information, scientific authority, and/or explanatory information. (Cleary v. County ofstawslaus (1981) 1 IS Cal. App.3d 348, 35T) The responses, moreover, must manifest a good faith, reasoned analysis; eonclusory statements unsupported by factual information will not suffice. (People v. County of Kern (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 830, 841.) The responses to comments on a draft EIR must state reasons for rejecting suggestions andobjections concerning significant environmental issues. City ofMaywood vLos Angeles Unffied Sch. Dist. (2012) 208 CA4th 362, 391. Responses to comments must manifest a good faith, reasoned analysis; conclusory statements unsupported by factual information will not suffice. People v. County of Kern (1974) 39 Cal. App.3d 830, 841. The need for a reasoned, factual response is particularly acute when critical comments have been made by other agencies orexperis. Berkeley Keep.Iets Over the Bay Con?_ v_ BoardofPort Cmrs_,(200l)91 Cal. App.4th 1344, 1367, 1371 ("Berkeley Jets") (conclusory responses to comments from experts and other agencies that criticized data aid methodologies wed to assess impacts and that were based on extensive supporting studies rendered EIR legally inadequate). "Where comments from responsible experts or sister agencies disclose new or conflicting data or opinions that cause concern that the agency may not have fully evaluated the project and its alternatives, these comments may not simply be ignored. There must be good faith, reasoned analysis in response_' Id_ at 1367 (F'dR inadequate due to failure to respond to expert evidence on toxic air contaminants). The City's responses to comments made by the Department of Toxic Substances Control ("DTSC") were cursory and inadequate. DTSC noted in its comments that the "EIR states that. this Project is not located on or near by a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5," commonly referred to as the "Cortese List" FEIR, 2-3. DTSC requested that the EIR be revised to state that the Project is in fact listed on Geotracker and is located near several hazardous materials sites. Id. In response to DTSC's comment, the FEIR states: The State Water Resources Control Board GeoTracker site identities that previous contamination on the site occurred from an underground storage tank (UST) occurred onsile and that cleanup acid UST removal activities occurred onsite from 1986 through 2006. The cleanup and remediation activities resulted in a "Completed - Case Closed" status as of August 13, 2010, as shown in the attached GeoTracker Listing forthe project site. The Geofrackerinformation identifies only one other hazardous materials site within t,ODO feet of the project site, which is a military UST site located in the former Tustin Marine Corps Air Station. The GeoTracker information can be accessed at the following link, hnps://geolracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile report.asp?global_ id-T0605900440 15 75C-31 The Bowery Mixed -Use Project CEQA Comment May 11, 2020 Page 16 FEIR, 2-7. The City's response does not clearly or adequately reply to DTSC's comments. DISC says that the DEIR incorrectly states that the Project site is not on the Cortese List, when iu fact. it is. DTSC therefore requested that the EIR be corrected to inform the public and decisionmakers of the listing and the potential hazards relating to the site. Rather than replying by fixing the EIR, or providing some evidence that the site is not on the Cortese List, the City neither admits that the Project is on the Cortese List nor denies that it is. Instead, the City tries to obfuscate the issue by noting that a previous remediation resulted in a Case Closure status as of August 2010. This is particularly troubling because the EIR admits that DTSC is an expert on this subject, noting that DTSC "is responsible for a Portion of the information contained in the Cortese List." DEIR, 5.7-4 If the City disagrees with IYfSC's conclusion that the Project is on the Cortese List, it most say so, accompanied by a reasoned explanation_ " (W)hera comments from responsible experts or sister agencies disclose now or conflicting data or opinions that cause concern that the agency may not have fully evaluated the project and its alternatives, these comments may not simply be ignored." Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Vewport Beach (2017)'2 Carl_ 5th 919, 940_'llic PF.lR does not include a good faith, reasoned explanation as to why it did not revise the EIR to correct the false statement that the Project site is not on the Cortese list This was an abuse of discretion. The City also failed to respond at all to DTSC',, comments relating to the inadequacy of the EIR's analysis of "whether the Project Site was remediated to meet the residential land use cleanup goals." FEIR, 2-3. The FEIR's response to DTSC's comments never even mentions residential land use clean up goals, or provides evidence that the site has been remedaated to such levels. The EIR does not Adequately Mitigate Hazards and Hazardous Waste Impacts. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 does not fully mitigate the Project's hazardous materials impacts. As environmental consulting firm SWAPV explains in its expert Comments' Mitigation Measure I-IAZ-1 requires a soil management plan to be used during Cnnslruclion to guide the removal and disposal of the areas of'FPH-impaclod soil_ On its own, a soil management plan is insufficient. To ensure the adequacy and the health- protcctivencss of the Cleanup, engagement of the DTSC is necossary_ DTSC engagement should he Canalized through a voluntary cleanup agreement and the cleanup of the Project site should follow an assessment and cleanup program directed by DTSC_ SWAPE, p. 1. S W APE explains that "asoil management plan is not an instrument that is used by DTSC 15 16 75C-32 The Bowery Mixed -Use Project CEQA Comment May 11, 2020 Page 17 or any other regulatory agency in assessing the need for clemmps or in planning for cleanups to be health protective." S WAPE, p. 2. The soil management plan that would be required by Mitigation Measure IIAZ- l would include: • A certified hazardous waste hauler to romove all potentially hazardous soils • Excavation mid mmoval of contaminated soils • Sampling of soil during excavation to ensure that all contaminated soils are removed, and that residential Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) for residential uses are not exceeded. • Subsurface materials exposed during construction activities that appear suspect of contamination, either from visual staining or suspect odors, shall require immediate cessation of excavation activities and soils suspected of contamination shah be tested. • If contamination is found to be present per the California Department. of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) or Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) ESLs for residential uses, it shall be transported and disposed of per California Hazardous Waste Regulations • Preparation of a Health and Safety Plan. Contrary to the ERL's claims in response to comments from DTSC, the soil management plan would in no way "meet the same intent and requirements as the Removal Action Workplan or a Remedial Action Plan_" SWAPS, p. 2. For example, SWAPE notes that a removal action work plan, as recommended by DTSC in its comments, shall: • Identify the nature and the extent of contaminants • Describe the health effects of the contaminants • Perform a health risk evaluation • Identify cleanup goals • Perform an engineering evaluation and cost analysis • Compare remodial alternatives • Describe the selected rcirnedy • Allow for public participation • Provide dust control • Conduct confirmatory sampling. SWAPS, p. 2. A Removal Workplar or a Remedial Action Plan is necessary for mitigation orthe Project's significant impacts stemming from on -site contamination. 4. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 constitutes deferred miliaation under CECA. CEQA disallows deferring the formulation of mitigation measures to post -approval 16 17 75C-33 The Bowery Mixed -Use Project CEQA Comment May 11, 2020 Page Is studies. CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1)(B); Sundstrom v. County ofMendoclno (1988) 202 Cal. App.3d 296, 308-309. "[MJitigation measure[sJ [that do) no more than require a report be prepared and followed" do not provide adequate information for informed decisionmaking under CEQA. Endangered Habitats League. Inc. v. County of Orange (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th T77, 794; (sidelines § 15126.4(a)(1)(B). Deferral of formulation of mitigation measures pending the completion of a future study is appropriate only where there is a practical reason that prevents formulation of a mitigation measures during CEQA. review. Sacramento Old City Assn. v. City Council (1991) 229 Cal. App. 3d 1011, 1028-29. Moreover, by deferring the development of specific mitigation measures, the Applicant has effectively precluded public input into the development of those measures. CEQA prohibits this approach. As explained by the Sundstrom court An EIR ... [is] subject to review by the public and interested agencies. This requirement of "public and agency review" has been called "the strongest assurance of the adequacy of the EIR." The final EIR must respond with specificity to the "significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process." ... flare, the hydrological studies envisioned by the use permit would be exempt from this process of public and governmental scrutiny. Sundstrom, 202 Ca1.App.3d at 308. 17 Mitigation Measure RA7-1 requires that, prior to issuance of a grading permit, a "Soil Management Plan (SMP) shall be prepared by a qualified hazardous materials consultant and shall detail procedures and protocols for excavation and disposal of ornsitc hazardous materials..." DEIR, t-12. Mitigation Measure: IIAZ-1 constitutes precisely the type of deferred mitigation CEQA prohibits. The EIR defers preparation of the soil management plan until after completion of CEQA review, without imposing any substantive standards, and without providing for say pubic review. Moreover, there is no requirement that the Soil Management Plan be submitted to any agency for approval, so the applicant in essence is itself determining what constitutes sufficient mitigation. Deferral of mitigation is also impermissible if it removes the CEQA decision -making body from its decision -making role. The City may not delegate the formulation and approval of mitigation measures to address environmental impacts because an agency's legislative body must ultimately review and vouch for all environmental analysis mandated by CEQA. Sundstrom v County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 306-308. Thus, the OR may not rely on programs to be developed and implemented later without approval by the City. Yetthat is precisely what MM HAZ-i does. The EIR may not rely on the soil management plan to be developed, approved, and implemented later without any approval by the City, at some future time after the Project has 75C-34 The Bowery Mixed -Use Project CEQA Comment May 11, 2020 Page 19 been approved. Without valid mitigation, the Project's significant hazardous materials impact I 17 remains significant. 5. The EIR's conclusions related to hazardous impacts from contaminated groundwater are not supported by substantial evidence. The FIR must be revised to correct its inconsistent statements about the likelihood of encountering contaminated groundwater during Project construction. The FEIR states, [I]t is described on page 5.5-5 in Section 5.5, Geology and Soils, of the Draft EIR that based on onsite borings the depth of groundwater is in the range of 24 to 33 feet below ground surface (bgs). This depth of groundwater would not impact persons onsite during operation of the proposed mixed -uses. Also, the Draft EIR page 3-19, Section 3.0, Project Description, describes that excavation and grading during project construction would be a minimum of 5 feet below the bottom of the building foundations. As the depth of groundwater currently ranges between 24 to 33 feet, project excavation of approximately 5 feet below building foundations would not result in encountering groundwater. Thus, construction workers would also not be in contact with, and therefore impacted by, contaminated groundwater. Therefore, the potential risk to future receptors associated with groundwater contamination would be less than significant. FEIR, 2-8. But SWAPE points out that the assertion that groundwater is in the range of 24 to 33 feet deep contradicts the case closure summary attached to the SARWQCB No Further Action letter for the Project site, which states that groundwater is at depths of 5.67 to 13 feet deep (as excerpted in the below table). SWAPE, p. 3 (citing No Further Action Letter, attached hereto as Exhibit D). IN. Release and She Characterization Information Causear4rypadialse : Unknown Site ckanobsoa Ipn Moderate to bx wnwnnation of Gale approved by agar congetea pewkmcamwe um nyeona m aNectee in Me soil and groundwater M the south aM soutnweat of Me UST. The afbobd soil and gmundwabr was net deb,ed to nwaebd Mwifomp wads Yes Number I 11 prnparscreen Yoe Instal Man, Deepest G`N depth 13 had Shallowest GW depth 507 bd Based on this data, SWAPE concludes that `if Project excavation is `a minimum of 5 feet below the bottom of building foundations' (FEIR, p. 2-8), groundwater is likely to be encountered if found at depths as shallow as 5.67 feet as stated by the SARWQCB in the table 18 75C-35 The Bowery Mixed -Use Project CEQA Comment May 11, 2020 Page 20 above. The FEIR needs to plan for protection of construction workers who may encounter contaminated groundwater when excavation is conducted" SWAPF., p_ 4_ IV. CONCLUSION 18 For the foregoing reasons, SAFER requests the Planning Commission decline to recommend approval of the Project and certification of the FEIR, and instead require preparation of a revised EIR that conforms with CEQA, as described above. Sincerely, Rebecca L. Davis 75C-36 EXHIBIT A 75C-37 ME INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING 1313 1448 Pine Sheet, Snite 103 San Fre��cisen, Califon. 94109 Telephone; (41 ) 567-7700 E-mall: o7t-enrcam>(d lEh>9F ama htta:i ww .icesfmin Date: May 4, 2020 To: Rebecca Davis Lozeau I Drury UP 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150 Oakland, California 94612 From: Francis J. Offermann PE CIH Subject: Indoor Air Quality: The Bowery — Santa Ana, CA (IEE File Reference: P-4358) Pages: 19 Indoor Air Quality Impacts Indoor air quality (IAQ)directly impacts the comfort and health of building occupants, and the achievement of acceptable IAQ in newly emrslrueted and mnovat'ed building% is a well - recognized design objective. For exarnple, IAQ is addressed by major high-performance building rating systems and building codes (C.alifomia Building Standards Commission, 2014; USC.BC, 2014). Indoor air quality in homes is particularly important because occupants, on average, spend approximately ninety pcTcent of their time indoors with the majority of this time spent at home (EPA; 2011). Some segments of the population that are most susceptible to the effects of poor IAQ, such as the very young mid the elderly, occupy their homes almost continuously. Additionally, an increasing number of adults are working from home at least some of the time during the workweek. Indoor air quality also is a serious concern for workers in hotels, mriices and other business establishments. The conccnhutions of many air pollutants often are cicvated in homes and other buildings relative to outdoor air because many of the materials and products used indoors contain and release a variety of pollutants to air (Hodgson at aL, 2002, O1t'ermann and Hodgson; 19 75C-38 2011)- With respect to indoor air contaminanN for which inhalation is the primary rodle of exposure, the critical design andconstmehon parameters are the provision of adequate ventilation and the reduction of indoor sources of the contaminants. Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Impact. In the California New Home Study (CNHS) of 108 new homes in California (Offemrann, 2009), 25 air contaminants were measured, and formaldehyde was identified as the indoor air contaminant with the highest cancer risk as determined by the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (OEHHA, 2017a), No Significant Risk Levels (NSRL) for carcinogens. The NSRL is the daily intake level calculated to result in one excess case of cancer in an exposed population of 100,000 (i.e., ten in one million cancer risk) and for formaldehyde is 40 µg/day. The NSRL concentration of formaldehyde that represents a daily dose of 40 µg is 2 µg/ms, assuming a continuous 24-hour exposure, a total daily inhaled air volume of 20 m3, and 100% absorption by the respiratory system. All of the CNHS homes exceeded this NSRL concentration of 2 µg/m3. The median indoor formaldehyde concentration was 36 µg/m3, and ranged from 4.8 to 136 µg/m3,. which corresponds to a median exceedance of the 2 µg/ms NSRL concentration of 18 and a range of 23 to 68. Therefore, the cancer risk of a resident living in a California home with the median indoor formaldehyde concentration of 36 pglms, is 190 per million as a result of formaldehyde atone. The CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk is 10 per million, as c tablishod by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD, 2015), Besides being a human carcinogen, formaldehyde is also a potent eye and respiratory irritant. In the CNHS, many homes exceeded the non -cancer reference exposure levels (RELs) prescribed by California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA, 2017b). The percentage of homes exceeding the RELs ranged from 98%for the Chronic REL of 9 µg/m3 to 28%for the Acute REL of 55 µg/m;. The primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea -formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and 2of19 10 20 75C-39 particleboard- These materials are commonly used in building construction for flomirg, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims. In January 2009, the California Air Resources Board (GARB) adopted an airborne toxins control measure (ATCM) to reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, including hardwood plywood, particleboard, medium densityfiberboard, and also furniture and other finished products made with these wood products (California Air Resources Board 2009). While this formaldehyde ATCM has resulted in reduced emissions from composite wood products sold in California, they do not preclude that homes built with composite wood products meeting the CARB ATCM will have indoor formaldehyde concentrations that are below cancer and non -cancer exposure guidelines. A follow up study to the California New Hnme Study (CNHS) was conducted in 2016.2018 (Chan et. al., 2019), and found that the median indoor formaldehyde in new homes mostly (69 of 70) bnilt in 2012 or later with CARB phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials had lower indoor formaldehyde concentrations, with a median indoor concentrations of 22A kg/m' (18.2 ppb) as compared to a median of 36 µg/m' found in the 2007 CNHS. Thus, while new homes built aflerthe 2009 CARB formaldehyde ATCM have a 38% lower median indoor formaldehyde concentration and cancer risk, the median lifetime cancer risk is still 112 per million for homes built with CARB compliant composite wood products, which is more than 11 times the OEHHA 10 in a million cancer risk tbreshold (OEIIHA, 2017a). With respect to this project, the buildings i n The Bowery Mixed -Use Project in Santa Ana, CA consist of residential and commercial retail and restaurant apace'_ "fire residential occupants will potentially have continuous exposure (e.g. 24 hours per day, 52 weeks per year). These exposures are anticipated to result in significant cancer risks resulting from exposures to formaldehyde released by the building materials and furnishing commonly found in residential construction. 3of19 20 21 75C-40 Because these residences will be constiructed with CARE Phase 2 Porrtaldelrydc A'1'CM materials, and be ventilated with the minimum code required amount of outdoor air, the indoor residential formaldehyde concentrations are likely similar to those coocentratims observed in residences built with CARE Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, which is a median of 22.4 µglm3 (Chan el. al„ 2019) Assuming that the residential occupants inhale 20 m= of air per day, the average 70-year lifetime formaldehyde daily dose is 448 pglday for continuous exposure in the residences. This exposure represents a cancer risk of 112 per million, which is more than 11 times the South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million (SCAQMD, 2015). For occupants that do not have continuous exposure, the cancer risk will be proportionally less but still substantially over the SCAQMD CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million (e_g. for 12llteur/day occupancy, more than 5 times the SCAQMD CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million). The employees ofthe commercial spaces are also expectedte experience significant indoor exposures (e.g., 40 hours perweek, 50 weeks peryear). These exposures for employees are anticipated to result in significant cancer risks resulting from exposures to formaldehyde released by the building materials and furnishing conunonly found in offices, warehouses, residences and hotels. Because these commercial will be constructed with CAR© Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, and be ventilated with the minimum code required amount of outdoor air, the indoor warehouse formaldehyde concentrations are likely similar to those concentrations observed in residences built with CARE Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, which is a median of 22.4 µg/n13 (Chan et. al., 2019)- Assuming, that the commemial spate employees work 8 hours per day and inhale 20 in Of air perday, the formaldehyde dose per work -day at the offices is 149 ug/day. Assuming that the commercial space employees work 5 days per week and 50 weeks per year for 45 years (start at age 20 and retire at age 65) the average 70-year lifeline 4of19 21 75C-41 fommaldebyde daily dose is 65.6 jig/day. This is 1.64 times the NSRL (QEHHA, 2017a) of 41) µg/day and represents a cancer risk of 16.4 per million, which exceeds the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. Tltis impact should be analyzed in an environmental impact report CUR'), and the agency should impose all feasible mitigation measures to reduce this impact. Several feasible mitigation measures are discussed below and these and other measures should be analyzed in an EIR. While measurements of the indoor concentrations of formaldehyde in residences built with CARE Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials (Cbm et_ al, 2019), indicate that indoor formaldehyde concentrations in buildings built with similar materials (eg, hotels, residences, offices, warehouses, schools) will pose cancer risks in excess of the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million, a determination of the cancer risk that is specific to this project and the materials used to construct these buildings can and should be conducted prior to completion of the environmental review. Appendix A, Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations and the CARB Formaldehyde ATCM, provides analyses that show utilization of CARB Phase 2 Fomraldehyde ATCM materials will not ensure acceptable cancer risks with respect to formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products. The following describes a method that sbould be used prior to construction in the environmental review under CEQA, for determining whether the indoor concentrations resulting from the formaldehyde cmissions of the specific building materiala/fumiabings selected for the building exceed cancer and non -cancer guidelines. Such a design analyses can be used to identify those materialWFamishings prior to the completion of the City's CEQA review and project approval, that have fornraldohyde emission rates that contribute to indoor concentrations that exceed cancer and non -cancer guidelines, so that alternative lower emitting materials/furnishings may be selected and/or higher minimum outdoor air ventilation rates can he increased to achieve acceptable indoor concentrations and 5of19 P] 22 75C-42 incorporated as mitigation measures fur this project_ Pre -Construction Building Material/Fumishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment. This formaldehyde emissions assessment should be used in the environmental review under CEQA to assess the indoor formaldehyde concentrations from the proposed loading of building materials/furnishings, the area -specific formaldehyde emission rate data for building materials/furnishings, and the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rates. This assessment allows the applicant (and the City) to determine before the conclusion of the environmental review process and the building materials/furnishings are specified, purchased, and installed if the total chemical emissions will exceed cancer and non -cancer guidelines, mid if so, allow for changes in the selection of specific material/furnishings andior the design minimum outdoor air ventilations rates such that cancer and non -cancer guidelines are not. exceeded. 1.) Defune Indoor Air Ouality Zones. Divide the building into separate indoor air quality zones, (IAQ Zones). IAQ Zones are defined as areas of well -mixed air. Thus, each ventilation system with recirculating air is considered a single zone, and each room or group of rooms where air is not recirculated (e.g. 100%outdoor air) is considered a separate zone. For IAQ Zones with the same construction matenal/fumishings and design minimum outdoor air ventilation rates. (e.g. hotel rooms, apartments, condominiums, etc,) the formaldehyde emission rates need only be assessed for a single IAQ Zone of that type. 2.) Calculate MateriallFumishing Loading. For cacti IAQ Zone, determine the building material and furnishing loadings (e.g., mz of matenallm' floor area, units of fumishings/m' floor area) from an inventory of all potential indoor formaldehyde sources, including flooring, ceiling tiles., furnishings, finishes, insulation, sealants, adhesives, and any products constructed with composite wood products containing urea -formaldehyde resins (e.g, plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard} 3 ) Calculate the Formaldehyde Emission Rate. For each building material, calculate the fomialdehyde emission rate (µg/h) from the product of the area -specific formaldehyde 6of19 22 75C-43 emission rate (µg/m2-h) and the area (m') of material' in the 1AQ Zone, and from each famishing (e.g. chaos, desks, etc.) from the unit -specific formaldehyde emission rate (µglunit-b) and the number of units in the IAQ `Lone. NOTE: As a result of the high -pert mnance building rating systems and building codes (California Building Standards Commission, 2014; USGBC, 2014), most manufacturers of building materials furnishings sold in the United States conduct chemical emission rate tests using the California Department of Health "Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers", (CDPH, 2017), or other equivalent chemical emission rate testing methods. Most manufacturers of building furnishings sold in the United States conduct chemical emission rate tests using ANSIIBIFMA M7.1 Standard Test Method for Determining VOC Emissions (BIFMA, 2019) or other equivalent chemical emission rate testing methods. CDPH, BIFMA, and other chemical emission rate testing programs, typically certify that a material or famishing does not create indoor chemical concentrations in excess of the maximum concentrations permitted by their certification. For instance, the CDPH emission rate testing requires that the measured emission rates when input into an office, school, or residential model do not exceed one-half of the OEHHA Chronic Exposure Guidelines (OEHHA, 2017b) forthe 35 specific VOCs, including formaldehyde, listed in Table 4-1 of the CDPH test method (CDPH, 2017). These certifications themselves do not provide the actual area -specific formaldehyde emission rate (i.e., pwm'-h) of the product, but rather provide data that the formaldehyde emission rates do not exceed the maximum rate allowed for the certification. Thus for example, the data for a certification of a specific type of flooring may be used to calculate that the area -specific emission rate of formaldehyde is less than 31 µglm'-h, but not the actual measured specific emission rate, which may be 3, 19, or 30 µglm'-h. Tbesc area -specific emission rates determined from the product certifications of CDPH. HIFA, and other certification programs can be used as an initial estimate of the formaldehyde emission rate. 7of19 22 75C-44 If the actual area -specific entiusum rates of a building material or famishing is needed (i e. the initial emission rates estimates from the product certifications are higherdtan desired), then that data can be acquired by requesting from the manufacturer the complete chemical emission rate test report. For instance if the complete CDPH emission test report is requested for a CDHP cettified product, that report will provide the actual area -specific emission rates for not only the 35 specific VOCs, including formaldehyde, listed in Table 4-1 of the CDPH test method (CDPH, 2017), but also all of the cancer and reproductive/developmental chemicals listed in the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (OEHIIA, 2017a)_ all of the toxic air contaminants (TACs) in the California Air Resources Board'roxic Air Contamination List (CARE, 2011), and the 10 chemicals with the greatest emission rates. Alternatively, a sample of the building material or furnishing can be submitted to a chemical emission rate testing laboratory, such as Berkeley Analytical Laboratory (hops-l/berkcicyanalytical_cour), to measure the formaldehyde emission rate. 4.) Calcuate the "Dotal Formaldehyde Emission Rate. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the total formaldehyde emission rate (i.e. µglh) from the individual formaldehyde emission rates from each of the building material/fitmishings as determined in Step 3. 5.) Calculate the Indoor Formaldehyde Concentration. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the indoor formaldehyde concentration (µg/m3) from Equation II by dividing the total formaldehyde emission rates (i.e. µg/h) as determined in Step 4, by the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate (ms/h) for the IAQ Etq where: Cm = indoor formaldehyde concentration (µglm3) Etaai = total fonualdchvdc emission rate (µgill) into the IAQ Zone_ Q,, — design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate to the IAQ Zone (m3lh) The above Equation 1 is basedupon mass balance theory, and is referenced in Section SOf19 22 75C-45 3.10.2 "Calculation of Estimated Building Concentrations" of the California Department of Health "Standard Method Liar the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers", (CI)PH, 2017). 6.) Calculates the Indoor Exposure Cancer and Von -Cancer Health Risks. For each IAQ Zonc, calculate the cancer and non -cancer health risks from the indoor formaldehyde concentrations determined in Step 5 and as described in the OEHHA Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Guidance Manual for Preparation. or health Risk Assessments (OEHHA, 2015). 7.) Mitigate Indoor Formaldehyde Exposures of exceeding the CEOA Cancer and./or Non - Cancer Health RiskA In each IAQ Zone, provide mitigation for any formaldehyde exposure risk as determined in Stop 6, that excccds the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million or the CEQA non -cancer Hazard Quotient of 1.0. Provide the source andlor ventilation mitigation required in all IAQ Zones to reduce the health risks of the chemical exposures below the CEQA cancer and non -cancer health risks. Source mitigation for formaldehyde may include: 1.) reducing the amount materials andlor furnishings that emit formaldehyde 2.) substituting a difforerrt material with a lower area -specific emission rate of formaldehyde Ventilation mitigation for formaldehyde emitted from building materials and furnishings may include: I.) increasing the design minimum outdoor air ventilation Tale to the IAQ Zoiw NOTE: Mitigating the formaldehyde emissions through use of less materiallfumishings, or use of lower emilling materialsifum ishings, is the prelcrred mitigation option, as mitigation with increased outdoor au ventilation increases initial and operating costs associated with the heating/cooling systems. 9of19 22 75C-46 Further, we are not asking that the builder to "speculate" on what and how much composite materials be used, but other at the design stage to select composite wood materials based on the formaldehyde emission rates that manufacturers routinely conduct using the California Department of Health "Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers", (COPH, 2017), and use the procedure described earlier (i.e. Pre -Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde. Outdoor Air Ventilation Impact Another important finding of the CNHS, was that the outdoor air ventilation rates in the homes were very low. Outdoor air ventilation is a very important factor influencing the indoor concentrations of air contaminants, as it is the primary removal mechanism of all indoor air generated air contaminants. Lower outdoor air exchange rates cause indoor generated air contaminants to accumulate to higher indoor air concentrations. Many homeowners rarely open their windows or doors for ventilation as a result of their concerns for securitylsafety, noise, dust, and odor concerns (Price, 2007). In the CNHS field study, 32% of the homes did not use tbeirwindows during the 24-hour Test Day, and 15% of the homes did not use their windows during the entire preceding week Most of the homes with no window usage were homes in the winter field session. Thus, a substantial percentage of homeowners never open their windows, especially in the winter season. The median 24-hour measurement was 0.26 ach, with a range of 0,09 ach to 5.3 ach. A total. of 67%of the homes had outdoor air exchange rates below the minimum California Building Code (2001) requirement of 0.35 ach. Thus, the relatively tight envelope construction, combined with the fact that many people never open their windows for ventilation, results in homes with low outdoor air exchange rates and higher indoor air contaminant concentrations. The Bowery Mixed -Use Project in Anaheim, CA is close to roads with moderate to high traffic (e.g. CA-55, Carnegie Avenue, Warner Drive, Red Hill Avenue, and Pullman Street) and the John Wayne Airport. As a result of the outdoor vehicle and air traffic noise, the Project site is likely to be a sound impacted site The noise analyses provided in the Draft 10 of 19 22 23 75C-47 Environmental fmpaet Report(EPU Solotions- 2020), repons iu Appendix I,'I'ablc 8-2, that the exterior traffic noise levels will range from 68.6 to 73.2 dBA CNEL. As a. result of the high outdoor noise levels,. the current project will require the need for mechanical supply ofoutdoor air ventilation air to allow for a habitable interior environment with closed windows and doors. Such a ventilation system would allow windows and doors to be kept closed at the occupant's discretion to control exterior noise within building interiors - PM2s Outdoor Concentrations Impact. An additional impact of the nearby motor vehicle traffic associated with this project, are the outdoor concentrations of PM2s. According to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EPD7 Solutions. 2020), this Project is located in South Coast Air Basin, which is a State and Federal non -attainment area for PM2.5. An air quality analyses should to be conducted to determine the concentrations of PMzs in the outdoor mid indoor air that people inhale each day. This air quality analyses needs to consider the cumulative impacts of the project related emissions, existing and projected future emissions from local PM2s sources (e.g. stationary sources, motor vehicles, and airport traffic) upon the outdoor air concentrations at the project site. X the outdoor concentrations are determined to exceed the California and National annual average PM2,5 exceedence concentration of 12 µg/m2, or the National 24-hour average exceedence concentration of 35 µg/ms, then the buildings need to have a mechanical supply of outdoor air that has air filtration with Sufficient PM2s removal efficiency, such that the indoor concentrations of outdoor PM25 particles is less than the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards - It is my experience that based on the projected high traffic noise levels, the annual average concentration of PM25 will exceed the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards and warrant installation of high efliuioncy air fillers (r-d_ MERV 13 or higher) in all mechanically supplied outdoor air ventilation systems. 11 of 19 23 24 75C-48 Indoor Air Quality Impact Mitigation Mcasuros The following are recommended mitigation measures to minimize the impacts upon indoor quality: indoor formaldehyde concentrations outdoor an ventilation PMss outdoor air concentrations Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Mili�,ation. Use only composite wood materials (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with C,ARH approved no -added formaldehyde (NAP) resins or ultra - low emitting formaldehyde (IJLEF) resins (CARE, 2009). Other projects such as the AC by Marriott Hotel — West San Jose Project (Asset Gas SC Inc.) and 2525 North Main Street, Santa Ana (AC 2525 Main LLC, 2019) have entered into settlement agreements stipulating the use of composite wood materials only containing NAF or ULEF resins. Alternatively, conduct the previously described Pre -Construction Building Material/Furnishing Chemical Emissions Assessment, to determine that the combination of formaldehyde emissions from building materials and furnishings do not create indoor formaldehyde concentrations that exceed the CEQA cancer and non -cancer health risks. It is importantto note that we are not asking that the builder to "speculate" on what and how much composite materials be used, but rather at the design stage to select composite wood materials based on the formaldehyde emission roles thatmanufacturcrs routinely conductusing the California Department of Health "Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers", (CDPH, 2017), and use the procedure described earlier (i.e. Pre -Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from matenal off gassing of formaldehyde_ Outdoor Air Ventilation Mitigation. Provide each habitable room with a continuous mechanical supply of outdoor air that meet% or exceeds the California 2016 Building Energy 12 of 19 25 75C-49 Efl➢oiency Standards (California Energy Comuissiou, 2015) reyuiremerits of the greater of 15 efin/occupant or 0.15 cfm/ft' of floor area Following installation of the system conduct testing and balancing to insure that required amount of outdoor air is entering each habitable room and provide a written report documenting the outdoor airflow rates. Do not use exhaust only mechanical outdoor air systems, use only balanced outdoor air supply and exhaust systems or outdoor air supply only systems. Provide a manual for the occupants or maintenance personnel, that describes the purpose of the mechanical outdoor air system and the operation and maintenance requiremerns of the system. PM25 Outdoor Air Concentration Mitigation_ Install air filtration with sufficient PM25 removal efficiency (e.g. MERV 13 or higher) to filter the outdoor air entering the mechanical outdoor air supply systems, such that the indoor concentrations of outdoor PM2,5 particles are less than the California and National PM,,.s annual and 24-hour standards_ Install the air filters in the system such that they are accessible for replacement by the occupants or maintenance personnel Include in the mechanical outdoor air ventilation system manual instructions on how to replace the au filters and the estimated frequency of replacement. References AC 2525 Main LLC. 2019. Environmental Settlement Agreement with Laborers' International Union of North America Local 652. Asset Gas SC. Inc. 2019. Settlement Agreement and Release with Jose Mexican, Alejandro Martinez, and Iaborers' International Union of North America Local 652 BIFA, 2018. BIFMA Product Safety and Performance Standards and Guidelines, www.bifma.org/T)ape:staiidarcisoverview California Air Resources Board. 2009. Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Reduce Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products. California Environmental 13 of 19 25 75C-50 Protection Agency, Sacraincuto, CA- https:/J w r.mb.ca og v/regact/2007/wmywoodO7lf�final.pdf Califomia Air Resources Board. 2011. Toxic Air Contaminant Identification List. California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA. hqs:/hvww.arb.ca.VN,,'toxics/id/iaclist.htm California Building Code. 2001, California Code of Regulations, "title 24, Part 2 Volume 1, Appendix Chapter 12, Interior Environment, Division 1, Ventilation, Section 1207: 2001 California Building Code, California Building Standards Commission- Sacramento, CA. California Building Standards Commission (2014)- 2013 California Green Building Standards Code. California Code or Regulations, Title 24, Part I California Building Standards Commission, Sacramento, CA htto:l/wtvw.bsc.ca.Eov/Home/CAI.Creen.asnx. California Energy Commission. 2015. 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, California Code of Regulations, "Title 24, Part 6. htto://www.eneray.ca. eov/2015ortblications/CEC-400-2015-037/CEC-400-2015-037- CMF.vdf CDPH2017. StandardMethodforihe TestingandEvaluanonof Yolanie Organic ChemicalEmissiorrs forindoorSources Using Environmental Chambers. Veraron 1.). California Department ofPublic Health, Richmond, CA, https:// w .cdph.ca.gov/Pmgrams/CCDPIIP/ DEi)IlG4SI I LBIIAQYPageg/VQC.aspX- Chan, W., Kim, Y-, Singer, B-, and Walker I. 2019_ Ventilation and Indoor .Air Quality in New CalUbmia Mines with Gas Appliances and Mcehanical Ventilation_ Lawrenoe Berkeley National Laboratory, Energy Technologies Area, I.BNI.2001200, DOI: 1.0.203571B7QC7X. EPD Solutions. 2020. Draft Emimumental Impact Report -The Bowery Mixed -Ilse Project -Banta Ana, CA_ State Clearinghouse No 20140R0011_ 14 of 19 75C-51 EPA 2011. Exposure Factors Handbook: 2011 Edition, Chapter 16 — Activity Factors. Repoil EPA1600/R-09/05217, September 201L U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. Hodgson, A. T., D. Beat, J.E.R. McIlvaine. 2001 Sources of formaldehyde, other aldehydes and terpenes in a new manufactured house. Indoor Air 12, 235-242. OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment)_ 20171_ Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels. No Significant Risk Levels for Carcinogens and Maximum Allowable Dose Levels for Chemicals Causing Reproductive Toxicity Available at http://www.ochha,c&gov/pror65/pdt`/safeliarborO8l5l3.pd OEHHA- Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2017b. All OEHHA Acute, 8-hour and Chronic Reference Exposure Levels. Available at: tiny//oehha.ca.eovlairrallrels.lrlml O.ffenmann, F. J. 2009. Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in New Homes. California Air Resources Board and California Energy Commission, PIER Energy Related Environmental Research Program- Collaborative Report CEC-500-2009,085_ h�s7lwww.arb.ca. ¢ov/rescarchianr'oasV 04310.udf Offermann, F_ ,I_ and A T- Hodgson. 2011. F.mivvion Rates Of Volatile Organic Compounds in New Homes. Proceedings Indoor Air 2011 (12' International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climatc 2011), Juno 5-10, 2011, Auslin, TX USA. Price, Phillip P., Max Sherman, Robert H. Lee, and Thomas Piazza 2007, Study of Ventilation Practices and Household Characteristics in New California Homes_ 15 of 19 75C-52 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2015. California Environmental Quality Act Ai.r Quality handbook. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Diamond Bar, Crihttua/www.aumd.aov lromo/rules-comoliancc/ccna,air-auality-analysis-handbook USaHQ 2014, 1,ISIsI.) 131)+C Iiomes v4. U.S_ C=on building (OunCil, Washington, I?_C. httn://www.usgbc.org/credits/homes/v4 1G of 19 75C-53 APPENDIX A INDOOR FORMALDEHYDE CONCENTR ANDTHE CARS FORMALDEHYDE ATCM With respeetto form. ildchyde emissions from composite wood products, the CAR13 ATOM regulations of formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, do not assure healthful indoor air quality. The following is the stated purpose of the CARS ATOM regulation - The purpose of this airborne toxic control measure is to "reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, and finished goods that contain composite wood products, that are sold, offered for sale, supplied, used, or manufactured for sale in Cal forma". In other words, the CARS ATCM regulations do not "assure healthful indoor air quality", but rather "reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products". Just how much protection do the GARB ATCM regulations provide building occupatts from the formaldehyde emissions generated by composite wood products ? Definitely some, but certainly the regulations do not "assure healthful indoor air quality" when CARB Phase 2 products are utilized Asshown in the Chan 2019 study of new California homes, the median indoor formaldehyde concentration was of 22.4 µgtmr (18.2 pph), which corresponds to a cancer risk of 112 per million for occupants with continuous exposure, which is more than I times the Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. Another way of looking at how much protection the CARS ATCM regulations provide building occupants from the formaldehyde emissions generated by composite wood products is to calculate the maximum number of square feet of composite wood product that can be in a residence without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy. For this calculation I utilized the floor area (2,272 ftt), the ceiling height (8.5 ft), and the numberof bedrooms (4) as defined in Appendix B (New Single -Family Residence Scenario) of the Standard Methodfarthe Testingandlivaluationof Volatile Orgame Chemical Em issions ferindoor 17 of 19 26 75C-54 Sources UsingEnviraruoental Chambers, Vcrsion 1.1, 2017, CaliformaDepadmant of Public Health, Richmond, CA. https://wv .odph.ca.gcv/Pmgrams/CCDPEP! DEODC/E HLBII AQ/Page s/ V OC. asp r. For the outdoor air ventilation rate I used The 2019 Title 24 code required mechanical ventilation rate (ASHRAE 62.2) of 106 dw (180 m3/h) calculated for this model residence. For the composite wood formaldehyde emission rates I used the CARB ATCM Phase 2 rates. The calculated maximum number of square feet of composite wood product that can be in a residence, without excecding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy are as follows for the different types of regulated composite wood products. Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) - 15 It' (0.7% of the floor area), or Particle Board - 30 ft2 (1.3% of the floor area), or Hardwood Plywood - 119 ftc (5.3% ofthe floor area), or "Ilrin MDF 46 ft2 (2.0 % of the floor area). For offices and hotels the calculated maximum amount of composite wood product (% of floor area) that canbe used without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants, assuming 8hours/day occupancy, andthe California Mechanical Code minimum outdoor air ventilation rates are as follows for the different types of regulated composite wood products. Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) - 3.6 %(offices) and 4.6% (hotel rooms), or Particle Board - 7.2 % (akiloes) and 9 40% (hotel rooms), or Hardwood Plywood - 29 % (offices) and 37% (hotel rooms), or Thin MDF - II No (of ices) and 14 %(hotel rooms) Clearly the GARB ATOM does not regulate the formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products such dial the potentially large areas of these products, such as for flooring, hacehonrds, interior doors, window and door trims, and kitchen and hathroom cahinetry, 18 of 19 26 75C-55 could be used without causing indoor Formaldehyde concentrations that result in CEQA cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy If CARD Phase 2 compliant composite wood products are utilized in construction, then the resulting indoor formaldehyde concentrations should be determined in the design phase using the speck amounts of each type of composite wood product, the specific formaldehyde emission rates, and the volume and outdoor air ventilation rates or the indoor spaces, and all feasible mitigation measures employed to reduce this impact (e.g. use less formaldehyde containing composite wood products andlor incorporate mechanical systems capable of higher outdoor air ventilation rates). See the procedure described earlier (i.e., Pre -Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material orygassing of formaldehyde. PStcmai vely, and perhaps a simpler approach, is to use only composite wood products (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no -added formaldehyde (NAF) resins or ultra - low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins. These products are now readily available and many other projects such as the AC by Marriott Hotel — West San Jose Project and 2525 North Main Street, Santa Ana have entered into settlement agreements stipulating the use of composite wood materials only containing NAF or ULEF resins. 19 of 19 ►39 75C-56 Francis (Bud) J. Offermann 1U PE, C1H Indoor Envinrmnental Engineering l %Pirm Sveq. Suite ld}, San Pranciyro,CA 94109 Phone 4I5,567,7700 Email, Offermann(�iea�.cam httPJnuw.ia�srcom Education M.S. Mcelianical Engineering (1985) Stanford University, Stanford, CA. Graduate Studies in Air Pollution Monitoring and Control (1980) University of California, Berkeley, CA. B.S. in Mechanical Engineering (1976) Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, N.Y. Professional Experience President: Indoor Environmental Engineering, San Francisco, CA. December, 1981 - present. Direct team of environmental scientists, chemists, and mechanical engineers in conducting State and Federal research regarding indoor air quality instrumentation development, building air quality field Studies, ventilation and air Gleaning performance measurements, and chemical emission rate testing. Provide design side input to architects regarding selection of building materials and ventilation system components to ensure a high quality indoor environment. Direct Indoor Air Quality Consulting Team for the winning design proposal for the new State of Washington Ecology Department building. Develop a Rill -scale ventilation test facility for nicasin-ing the performance of air diffusers; ASHRAE 129, Air Change Effectiveness, and ASHRAE 113, Air Diffusion Performance Index. Develop a chemical emission rate testing laboratory far measuring the chemical emissions from building materials, fnmishings, and equipment. Principle Investigator of the California New Homes Study (2005-2007). Measured ventilation and indoor air qualify in 109 new single family detached homes in northern and southern California. Develop and teach IAQ professional development workshops to building owners, managers, hygienists, and engineers. 75C-57 Air Pollution Engineer: Earth Metrics Inc., Burlingame, CA, October, 1985 to March, 1987. Responsible for development of an air pollution laboratory including installation a forced choice olfhctorneter, tracer gas electron capture chromatograph, and associated calibration facilities. Field team leader for studies of fugitive odor emissions from sewage treatment plants, entrainment of fume bood exhausts into computer chip fabrication rooms, and indoor air quality investigations. Staff Scientist. Building Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality Program, Energy and Envimimicnl Division, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA. January, 1980 to August, 1984. Deputy project leader far the Control Techniques group, responsible for laboratory and field studies aimed at evaluating the performance of indoor air pollutant control strategies (i.e_ ventilation, filtration, precipitation, absorption, adsorption, and source control) Coordinated field and laboratory studies of air-to-air heat exchangers including evaluation of thermal performance, ventilation efficiency, cross -stream contaminant transfer, and the effects of free?,iog�delrosling. Developed an in situ test protocol for evaluating the performance of air cleaning systems and introduced the concept of effective cleaning rate (ECR) also known as the Clean Air Delivery Rate (CADR). Coordinated laboratory studies of portable and ducted air cleaning systems and their effect on indoor concentrations of respirable particles and radon progeny - Co -designed an automated instrument system for measuring residential ventilation rates and radon concentrations_ Designed hardware and software for a multi -channel automated data acquisition system used to evaluate the performance of air-to-air heat transfer equipment_ Assistant Chief Engineer: Alta Bates Hospital, Berkeley, CA, October, 1979 to January, 1990. Responsible for energy management projects involving installation of power factor correction capacitors on large inductive electrical devices and installation of steam meters on physical plant steam lines_ Member of Local 39, International Union of Operating Engineers. Manufacturing Engineer;, American Precision Industries, Buffalo, NY, October, 1977 to October, 1979. 75C-58 Responsible for reorganizing the manufacturing procedures regarding production of shell and tube heat exchangers. Designed customized automatic assembly, welding, and testing equipment. Designed a large paint spray booth. Prepared economic studies justifying new equipment purchases. Safety Director. Protect En2incer Aroata Graphics, Buffalo, N.Y. June, 1976 to October, 1977. Responsible for the design and installation of a bulk ink storage and distribution system and high speed automatic counting and marking equipment. Also coordinated material handling studies which led to the purchase and installation of new equipment. PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION MEMBERSHIP American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) • Chairman of SPC-145P, Standards Project Committee - Test Method fsrr Assessing the Performance of Gas Phase Air Cleaning Equipm0711 (1991.1997) • Member SPC-129P, Standards Project Committee - Tcst Method for Ventilation Effectiveness (1986-97) - Member of Drafting Committee • Member Environmental Health Committee (1992-1994, 1997-2001, 2007-201.0) - Chairman of EHC Research Subcommittee - Member of Man Made Mineral Fiber Position Paper Subcommittee - Member of the IAQ Position Paper Committee - Member of the Legionella Position Paper Committee - Member of the Limiting Indoor Mold and Dampuess in Buildings Position Paper Committee • Member SSPC-62, Standing Standards Project Committee - Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality (1992 to 2000) - Chairman of Source Control and Air Cleaning Subcommittee • Chairman ofTC-410, Indoor Environmental Modeling (1989.92) - Member of Research Subcommittee • Chairman of TC-2.3, Gaseous Air Contaminants and Control Equipment (1989-92) - Member of Research Subcommittee American Society for Testing and Materials (/LS9'M) • D-22 Sampling and Analysis of Atmospheres - Member of indoor Air Quality Subcommittee • E-06 Performance of Building Constructions American Board of Industrial Hygiene (ABIH) American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIII) • Bioaerosols Conummittee (2007-2013) 75C-59 American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) Cal -OSHA Indoor Air Quality Advisory Committee International Society of Indoor Air Quality and Climate (ISIAQ) • Co -Chairman of Task Force on IIVAC Hygiene U. S. Green Building Council (USGBC) - Member of the IEQ 'technical Advisory Group (2007-2009) - Member of the IAQ Performance Testing Work Group (2010-2012) Western Construction Consultants (WESTCON) PROFESSIONAL CREDENTIALS Licensed Pmfcssional Engineer - Mochanical Engineering Certified Industrial Ilygiamst - American Board of Industrial Hygienists SCIENTIFIC MEETINGS AND SYMPOSIA Biological Contamination, Diagnosis, and Mitigation, Indoor Air'90, Toronto, Canada, August, 1990. Models for Predicting Air Quality, Indoor Aif'90, Toronto, Canada, August, 1990. Microbes in Braiding Matenais and Systems, Indoor Air '93, Helsinki, Finland, July, 1993 Microorganisms in Indoor Air Assessment and Evaluation of Health Effects and Probable Causes, Walnut Creek, CA- February 27, 1997_ Controlling Microbial Moisture Problems in Buildings, Walnut Creek, CA, February 27, 1997. Scientific Advisory Committee, Rocmvent 98, 0 International Conference on Air Distribution in Rooms, KTH, Stockholm, Sweden, June 14-17, 1998. Moisture and Mould, Indoor Air'99, Edinburgh, Scotland, August, 1999, Ventilation Modeling and Simulation, Indoor Air '99„ Edinburgh, Scotland, August, 1999. Microbial Growth in Materials, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August, 2000. 4 75C-60 Co -Chair, Dioaerosols X- Exposures in Residences, Indoor Air 2002, Monterey, CA, July 2002. Healthy Indoor Environments, Anaheim, CA, April 2003, Chair, Environmental Tobacco Smoke in Multi -Family }Tomes, Indoor Air 2008, Copenhagen, Denmark, Tidy 2008_ Co -Chair, 1SIAQ 'task Force Workshop; HVAC Hygiene, Indoor Air 2002, Monterey, CA, July 2002. Chair, ETS in Multi -Family Housing: Exposures, Controls, and Ugalitics Forum, Healthy Buildings 2009, Syracuse, CA, September 14, 2009. Chair, Energy Conservation and IAQ in Residences Workshop, Indoor Air 2011, Austin, TX, June 6, 2011. Chair, Electronic Cigarettes: Chemical Emissions and Exposures Colloquium, Indoor Air 2016, Ghent, Belgium, July 4, 2016. SPECIAL CONSULTATION Provide consultation to the American Home Appliance Manufacturers on the development of a standard for testing portable air cleaners, At IAM Standard AC-1, Served as an expert witness and special consultant for the U.S. Federal Trade Commission regarding the performance claims found in advertisements of portable air cleaners and residential furnace filters. Conducted a forensic investigation for a San Mateo, CA pro se defendant, regarding an alleged homicide where the victim was kidnapped in a steamer trunk Determined the air exchange rate in the steamer trunk and how long the person could survive_ Conducted in situ measurement of human exposure 10 toluene fumes released during nailpolish application for a plaintiffs attorney pursuing a California Proposition 65 product labeling case. June, 1993. Conducted a forensic in situ investigation for the Butte County, CA Sheriff's Department of the omissions of a portablo hcatcr used in the bedroom of two twin one year old girls who suffered simultaneous crib death. Consult with OSHA on the 1995 proposed new regulation regarding indoor air quality and environmeulal tobacco smoke. 75C-61 Consult with EPA on the proposed Building Alliance program and with OSHA on the proposed new OSHA IAQ regulation. Johnson Controls AuditlCerafication Expert Review; Milwaukee, WI. May 28-29, 1997. Winner of the nationally published 1999 Request for Proposals by the State of Washington to conduct a comprehensive indoor air quality investigation of the Washington State Department of Ecology building in Lacey, WA Selected by the State of California Attorney General's Office in August, 2000 to conduct a comprehensive indoor air quality investigation of the Tulare County Court House. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory IAQ Experts Workshop: "Cause and Prevention of Sick Building Problems in Offices: The Experience of Indoor Environmental Quality Investigators", Berkeley, California, May 26-27, 2004, Provide consultation and chemical emission rate testing to the State of California Attorney (general's Office in 2013-2015 regarding the chemical emissions from e- cigarettes. PEER -REVIEWED PUBLICATIONS FACiflennann, C.D.Hollowell, and G.D.Roseme, "Low-Infihration Housing in Rochester, New York: A Study of Air Exchange Rates and Indoor Air Quality," Enwromnenl Inlernanonal 8 pp. 435-445, 1982 W.W.Nazaroff, F.J.Offemtann, and A.W.Robb, "Automated System for Measuring Air Exchange Rate and Radon Concentration in Houses," Health Phvstes. 45 pp. 525-537, 1983. F.J.0t1'eimann, W.J.Fisk, D.T.Grimsrud, $Pedersen, and K.1,.Rev7ao, "Ventilation Efficiencies of Wall- or Window-Mountcd Residential Air -to -Air Heat Exchangers," ASHR,gh, ?nnual Transactions_ 89�2H pp 507-527, 1983_ W.J.Fisk, K.M.Archer, R.E Chant, 1). I Iekmat, F.J.Of Tertian, and 13.1'cdersen, "Onset of Freezing in Residential Air -to -Air Heal F_xchangen," ASHRAF, Annual Transactrons, 91- IB, 1984. W.J.Fisk, K.M.Arclier, R-E Chant, D. Hekntat. F.J.Oflermann, and B.Pedcrsen, "Performance of Residential Air-lo-Air I lent Exchangers Diming Operation with Freezing and Periodic Defrosts," ASHRAI•; Annual Transactions. 91�11? 1984. F.J.Offennanry R.G.Sextro, W.J.Fisk, D.T.Grimsrud, W.W.Nazaroff, A.V.Nero, and K.L.Revzan, "Control of Respirable Particles with Portable Air Cleaners," Atmospheric Envitom Pit Vol. 19,pp.1761-1771,1985. 75C-62 R.G.Sextro, F.J.Olfemtanu, W.W.Naxaroff, A.V.Nero, K.L.Rewan, and J.Yater, "Evaluation of Indoor Control Devices and 'Their Effects on Radon Progeny Concentrations,"Atmospheric EnvironrnenL I2 pp. 429-438, 1986. W.J. Fisk, R.K.Spencer, F.J.Olfennamx, R K.Spencer, B.Pedersen, R Sextro, "indoor Air Quality Control Techniques," Noyes Data Corporation, Park Ridge, New Jersey, (1987). RJOffemrann, "Ventilation Effectiveness and ADPI Measurements of a Forced Air Heating System," ASHRAE Transactions , Volume 94, Part 1, pp 694-704, 1988. F.J.Offermann and D. Int-Rout "Ventilation Effectiveness Measurements of Three SupplylRetum Air Configurations," EmRronrnent International, Volume 15, pp 585-592 1989. F.J.. Olerrnann, S-A. Loiselle, M.C. Quinlan, and M 8- Rogers, "A Study of Diesel Fume Entrainment in an Office Building," .IAO 'A9, The Human Equation: Health and Comfort, pp 179-183, ASHRAF, Atlanta, GA, 1989. R.G.Sextro and F.J.Offermann, "Reduction of Residential Indoor Particle and Radon Progeny Concentrations with Ducted Air Cleaning Systems,' submitted to Indoor At 1990. S.A.Loiselle, A.T.Hodgson, and F.J.Offermann, "Development of An Indoor Air Sampler for Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds", Indoor Air, Vol2, pp 191-210, 1991. F.J.Offermanu, 9ALoiselle, A T Hodgson, 1, A Gundcl, and J M. Daisey, "A Pilot Study to Measure Indoor Concentrations and Emission Rates of Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds", Indoor Air, Vol 4, pp 497-512,1991. F.J. Offetmann, S. A. Loiselle, R.G. Sextro, "Performance Comparisons of Six Different Air Cleaners Installed in a Residential Forced Air Ventilation System," IAQ'91. Healthy Buildings, pp 342-350, ASHRAE, .Atlanta, GA(1991), F.J. 011'crmsrm, J. Daisey, A. Hodgson, L Goodell, and S. Loiselle, "Indoor Concentrations and Emission Rates of Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds", Indoor Air Vol 4, pp 497-512 (1992). F.J. Offennann, S. A. Loiselle, R.G. Sextro, "Performance of Air Cleaners installed in a Residential Forced Air System," ASH/7A14 Journal pp 51-57, July, 1992. F.J. Olfcrmann and S. A. Loiscllc, "Performance of an Air -Cleaning System in an Archival Hook Storage Facility," 1,4'92 ASHRAF., Atlanta, GA, 1992. S.S. Hayward, K.S. Liu, L.E. Alevantis, K. Shah, S. Loiselle, F.J. Offermann, Y.L. Chang, L Webber, "Effcetiveness of Ventilation and Other Controls in Reducing Exposure to ETS in Office Buildings," Indoor Air '93, Helshilu, Finland, July 4-9, 1993. 75C-63 F.J. Oftennann, S. A. Loiselle, G. Ander, H. Lau, "Indoor Contaminant Emission Rates Before avid After a Building Bake -out," L4Q 93, Operating and Maintaining Buildings for Health, Comfort, and Productivity, pp 157.163, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1993. L.E. Mevantis, Hayward, S.B., Shah, S.B., Loiselle, S., and Offermann, F.J. "Tracer Gas Techniques for Determination of the Effectiveness of Pollutant Removal From Local Sources," L40 '93, Operating and Maintaining Buildings for Health, Comfort, and Productivity, pp 119-129, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1993, L.E. Alevantis, Liu, L.E., Hayward, S.B., Offermann, F.J., Shah, S.B., Leiserson, K. Tsao, E., and Huang, Y., "Effectiveness of Ventilation in 23 Designated Smoking Areas in California Buildings," L40 Engineering Indoor Environments, pp 167-181, ASHRAK Allarna. GA. 1994. L_k:_ Alevanti.s, Offermamr, F 7, Loiselle, 9-, and Mather, 3 M., "Pressure and Ventilation Requirements of Hospital Isolation Rooms for Tuberculosis (TB) Patients: KXisling Guidelines in the United States and a Method for Pleasuring Room Leakage", Ventilation and Indoor air quality hi Hospitals, M, Maroni, editor, Kluwer Academic publishers, Netherlands, 1996. F.J. Oberman, M. A. Waz, A.T. Hodgson, and H.M. Amman, "Chemical Emissions from a Hospital Operating Room Air Filter," IA '96 Paths to Better Building Envirnnments, pp 95.99, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1996. F.J. Offenrarm, "Professional Malpractice and the Sick Building Investigator," IAQ'96, Paths to Better Building Environments, pp 132,136, ASHRAF, Atlanta, GA, 1996_ F.J. Offennamt, "Standard Method of Measuring Air Change Effectiveness," Indoor Air Vol I, pp.206-211, 1999. F_ J_ Ofre mann, A_ T. Ilodgson, and L R Rohcrtson_ "Comaminanl Emission Rates From PVC Backed Carpel7'iles on Damp Concrete", Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August 2000. K.S. Liu, L.E. Alevantis, and F.J. Offermann, "A Survey of Environmental Tobacco Smoke Controls in California Office Buildings", lndorm Air, Vol 11, pp. 26-34, 2001. F.J. Offermann, R. Colfer, P. Radzinski, and T Robertson, "Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke in an Automobilc", hrdoor Air 2002, Monterrey, California, July 2002. V J_ Offemran, J_P. Robertson, and T_ Webster, "'Hie Impact of Tracer (m% Mixing on Airflow Rate Measurements in Large Commercial Fart Systems", Indoor Air 2002, Monterey, California, July 2001 M. J. Mendell, T. Brennan, 1,Hathon, J.D. Odom, F-J_Offermann, B.H. "Turk K-M, Wallingford, R.C. Diamond, W.J. Fisk, "Causes mid prevention of Symptom Complaints 75C-64 in Office Buildings: Distilling the Experience of Indoor Environmental Investigators", submitted to Indoor Air 2005, Beijing, China, September 4-9, 2005. F.J. Offermann, "Ventilation and IAQ in New Homes With and Without Mechanical Outdoor Air Systems", Healthy Buildings 2009, Syracuse, CA, September 14, 2009.. F.J. Offermann, "ASHRAE 62.2 Intermittent Residential Ventilation: What's It Good For, Intermittently Poor IAQ'°, IAQVEC 2010, Syracuse, CA, April 21, 2010- F.J. Offermann and A.T. Hodgson, "Emission Rates of Volatile Organic Compounds in New homes", Indoor Air 2011, Austin, TX, June, 201 L P. Jenkins, R. Johnson, T. Phillips, and F. Offemnann, Chemical Concentrations in New California Homes and Garages", Indoor Air 2011, Austin, TX, June, 2011. W. J. Mills, B. J. Grigg, F. J. Offermann, B. E. Oustin, and N. E. Spingann, "Toluene and Methyl Ethyl ketone Expos -um From a Commercially Available Contact Adhesive", Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 9_D95-DI02 May, 2012. F. J. Offennann, R. Maddalena, J. C. Offermann, B. C. Singer, and H, Wilhelm, "The Impact of Ventilation on the Emission Rates of Volatile Organic Cornpounrls in Residences", HB 2012, Brisbane., AU, July, 2012. F. J. Oftermann, A. T. Hodgson, P. L. Jenkins, R. D. Johnson. and T. J. Phillips, "Attached Garages as a Source of Volatile Organic Compounds in New Homes", 1I13 2012, Rrisbanc, CA, July, 2012 R. Maddalena, N. Li, F. Offermann, and B. Singer, "Maximizing Information from Residential Meastirementa of Volatile Organic Compounds", HB 2012, Brisbane, AU, July, 2012. W. Chen, A. Persily, A. Hodgson, F. Offennann, U. Poppendieak, and K. Kumagai, "Area -Specific Airflow Rates for Evaluating the Impacts of VOC emissions in U.S. Single -Family Homes", Building and Environment, Vol. 71, 204-211, February, 2014. F. J. Offermann, A. Eagan A. C. Offermann, and L. J. Radonovich, "Infectious Discase Aerosol Exposures With and Without Surge Control Ventilation System Modifications", Indoor Air 2014, Hong Kong, July, 2014. F. J. Offermarm, "Chemical Emissions from E-Cigarettes: Direct and Indirect Passive Exposures", Building and Environment, Vol- 93, Part 1, 101-105, November, 2015. F. J. Offermann, "Formaldehyde Emission Rates From Lumber Liquidators Laminate Flooring Manufactured in China", Indoor Air 2016, Belgium, Ghent, July, 2016. F. J. Offermamn_ "Formaldehyde mid Acetaldehyde Emission Rates for E-Cigarettes", Indoor Air 2016, Belgium, Ghent, July, 2016. 75C-65 .'�51liiB .i itAZaT711�'7. '' W.J.Fisk, P.G.Cleary, and F.J.Gffermann, "Energy Saving Ventilation with Residential Heat Exchangers," a Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory brochure distributed by the Bonneville Power Administration, 1981. F.JOffennann, J.R: Girman, and CD. Hollowell, "Midway House Tightening Project A Study of Indoor Air Quality," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report 1..13I r 12777, 1981. F.J.Ol%rmarm, J,B.Dickinson, W.J.Fisk, D.T,Grimsrud, C.D.Hollowell, D.L.Kruddc, and G.D.Rosetne, "Residential Air -Leakage and Indoor Air Quality in Rochester, New York," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-13100, 1982. F.J.OITermann, W.J.Fisk, B.Pedersen, and K.L.Revzan, Residential Air -to -Air Heal Exchangers_ A Study or the Ventilation Eficioncies of Wall- or Window- Mounted Units," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LHt. 14358, 1982, F.J.Offermatm, W.J.Fisk, W.W.Nazaroff, and R.G.Sextno, "A Review of Portable Air Cleaners for Controlling Indoor Concentrations of Particulates and Radou Progeny," An interim report for the Bonneville Power Administration, 1983. W.J.Fisk, K.M.Archer, R.E.Chant, D.Hekmat, F.J.Offermarn, and B.S. Pedersen, "Freezing in Residential Air -to -Air Beat Exchangers: An Experimental Study," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report 1„BI-16783, 1983_ R.G.Sextro, W.W.Nazaroff, F.I.Offermann, and K.L.Revzam "Measurements of Indoor Aerosol Properties and Their Effect on Radon Progeny," Proceedings of the American Association of Aerosol Research Annual. Meeting, April, 1983. T.J.Oflermann, R.Q.Sentro, W_-Fisk, W.W. Nazarofl, A.V.Nero, K-I,.Revzan, and J.Yalcr, "Control of Respirable Particles and Radon Progeny with Portable Air Cleatim," lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-16659, 1984_ W.J.Fisk, R.K.Spencer, D.'F.Grimsmd, F.LOffermann, B.Pederson, and R.G.Sextro, "Indoor Air Quality Control 'techniques: A Critical Review," Lawrence Herkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-16493, 1984. F.J.Otfennann. J.R.Gimtan, and R.G.Sexlro, "Controlling Indoor Air Pollution from Tobacco Smoke: Models and MtlasUrements,", Indoor Air, Proceedings of the 3rd Intemational Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Vol 1, pp 257.264, Swedish Council for Building Research, Stockholm (1984), Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL17603, 1984. l0 75C-66 R.Otto, J.Gimran, F.Offermann, and R.Sextro,"A New Method for the Collection and Comparison of Respirable Particles in the Indoor Environment," Lawrence Befkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Special Director Fund's Study, 1984. A.T.Hodgson and F.JO ermann, "Examination of a Sick Office Building," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, an informal field study, 1984. R.G_Sextro, FJ Offcnnann, W.W.Nazaroff, and A.V.Nero, "Effects of Acrogol Concentrations on Radon Progeny," Aerosols, Science, & Technology, and Industrial Applications of Airborne Particles, editors BNALLiu, D.Y.H.Pui, and 11.1Fissan, p525, Elsevier, 1984. K.Sexton, S.Hayward, F.Offernoun, R.Sextro, and L.Weber, "Characterization of Particulate and Organic Emissions from Major Indoor Sources, Proceedings of the Third IntelnatiOnal Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Stockholm, Sweden, August 20.24, 1984, F.Wffonnann, °Tmcor Gas Measurements of I aboratory Fume Entrainmcat at a Semi - Conductor Manufacturing Plant," an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1986. F.J.Offermann, "Tracer Gas Measurements of Ventilation Rates in a Large Office Building," an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1986. R.T.Offemrarm, "Measurements of Volatile Organic Compounds in a New Large Office Building with Adhesive Fastened Carpeting," an Indoor Environmental Cngincering R&D Report, 1986. FJ.Clffernann, "Designing and Operating Healthy Buildings", an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1986. F.J.OIf"emrann, "Nljeasurements and Mitigation of Indoor Spray-Applicaled Pesticides", an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1988. F.J.Offermann and S. Loiselle, "Measurements and Mitigation of Indoor Mold Contamination in a Residence", an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1989. F.J.OLTermann and S. Loiselle, "Perfannance Measurements of an Air Cleaning System in a Large Archival Library Storage Facility", an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1989. F.J. Offennann, J.M. Daisey, L.A. Gundel, and A.T. Hodgson, S. A. Loiselle, "Sampling, Analysis, and Data Validation of Indoor Concentrations of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons", Final Report, Contract No. A732-106, California Air Resources Board, March, 1990. 11 75C-67 L.A. Gundel, J.M. Daisey, and F.J. Offermann, "A Sampling and Analytical Method for Gas Phase Polycychc Aromatic Hydrocarbons", Proceedings of the 5111 International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Indoor Air'90, July 29-August 1990. A.T. Hodgson, J.M. Daisey, and F.J. O fermann "Development of an Indoor Sampling and Anaytical Method for Particulate Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons", Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Indoor Air'90, July 29-August, 1990, F.J. OfTennann, J.O. Sateri, "Tracer Gas Measurements in Large Mu1ti•Room Buildings", Indoor Air'93, Helsinki, Finland, July 4-9, 1993. F.J.Offemumn, M. T. O'Flaherty, and M. A. Waa "Validation of ASHRAE 129 - Standard Method of Measuring Air Change Effectiveness", Final Report of ASHRAE Research Project 291, December S, 1997 S.E. Guffey, F.J_ OfTermann at, af, "Proceedings of the Workshop on. Ventilation Eogiuecring Controls for Environmental -Tobacco smoke in the Hospitality Industry", U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration and ACGIH, 1998. F.J. OfTermann, R.J. Fiskum, D. Kosar, and D. Mudami, "A Practical Guide to Ventilation Practices & Systems for Existing Buildings", HeadmIlliying/Air Conditioning Engineering supplement to April/May 1999 issue. F_I OfTermann, P- Pasancn, "Workshop IS Criteria for Cleaning of Air Handling Systems", Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August 2000. F.J. OlTermann, Session Summaries: Building Investigations, and Design & Construction,. Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August 2000. F.J. Offemtann, "The IAQ Top 10", Engineered Systems, November, 2008. L. Kincaid and F J_ 0lfermann, "Unintended Consequences: Formaldehyde Exposures in Green IIomes, All -IA Synergist, February, 2010. F.J. Offermann, " IAQ in Air Tight Homes", ASHRAE Journal, November, 2010. F.J. Offeunann, "'flit Hazards of E-Cigarettes", ASHRAE Journal, lime, 2014. PRESENTATIONS "Low -Infiltration Housing in Rochester, New York: A Study of Air Exchange Rates and Indoor Air Quality," Presented at the International Symposium on Indoor Air Pollution, Health and Energy Conservation, Amherst, MA, October 13-16,1981. 12 75C-68 "Ventilation Efficiencies of Wall- or Window -Mounted Residential Air -to -Air Heat Exchangers," Presented at the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers Summer Meeting, Washington, DC, June, 19,83. "Controlling Indoor Aix Pollution, from Tobacco Smoke: Models and Measurements," Presented at the Third International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Stockholm, Sweden, August 20-24, 1984. "Indoor Air Pollution: An Emerging Enviroumental Problem", Presentcd to the Association of Environmental Professionals, Bar Area/Coastal Region I, Berkeley, CA, May 29, 1986. "Ventilation Measurement Techniques," Presented at the Workshop on Sampling and Analytical Techniques, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, September 26, 1986 and September 75, 1987. "Buildings 'that Make You Sick- Indoor Air Pollution", Presented to the Sacramento Association of Professional Energy Managers, Sacramento, CA, November 18, 1986. "Ventilation Effectiveness and Indoor Air Quality", Presented to the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers Norther Nevada Chapter, Reno, NV, February 18, 1987, Golden Gate Chapter, San Francisco, CA, October 1, 1987, and the San Jose Chapter, San Jose, CA, June 9, 1987. "Tracer Gas Techniques for Studying Ventilation," Presented at the indoor Air Quality Symposium, Georgia Tech Research Institute, Atlanta, CA, September 22224, 1987 "hndoor Air Quality Control: What Works, What Doesn't," Presented to the Sacramento Association of Professional Energy Managers, Sacramento, CA, November 17, 1987. "Ventilation Effectiveness and ADPI Measurements of a forced Air I -testing System," Presented at the American Society or Healing, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers Winter Meeting, Dallas, Tcxas, January 31, 1988. "Indoor Air Quality, Ventilation, and Energy in Commercial Buildings", Presented at the Building Owners &Managers Association of Sacramento, Sacramento, CA, July 2I, 1988. "Controlling Indoor Air Quality: The New ASHRAE Ventilation Standards and How to Evaluate Indoor Air Quality", Presented at a conference "Improving Energy Efficiency and Indoor Air Quality in Commercial Buildings," National Energy Management Institute, Reno, Nevada, November 4, 1988. "A Study of Diesel Fume Entrainment Into an ice Building," Presented at Indoor Air '89: The Human Equation: Health and Comfort, American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers, San Diego, CA, April 17-20, 1989, 13 75C-69 "Indoor Air Quality in Commercial ice Buildings," Presented at the Renewable Energy Technologies Symposium and International Exposition, Santa Clara, CA June 20, 1989. "Building Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality", Presented to the San Joaquin Chapter of the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers, September7, 1989. "How to Meet New Ventilation Standards: Indoor Air Quality and Energy Efficiency," a workshop presented by the Association of Energy Engineers; Chicago, 11., March 20-21, 1989; Atlanta, CA, May 25-26, 1989; San Francisco, CA, October 19-20, 1989; Orlando, FL, December 11-12. 1989; Houston- TX, January 29-30, 1990; Washington D.C., February 26-27, 1990; Anchorage, Alaska, March 23, 1990, Las Vegas, NV, April 23-24, 1990; Atlantic City, NJ, September 27-28, 1991; Anaheim, CA, November 19-20, 1991; Orlando, F1- February 28 - March 1, 1991; Washington, DC, March 20-21, 1991; Chicago, It,, May 16.17, 1991; lake l ahoe, NV, August 15-16, 1991; Atlantic City, NJ, November 18-19, 1991; San Jose, CAL, March 23-24, 1992_ "Indoor Air Quality," a seminar presented by the Anchorage, Alaska Chapter of the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers, March 23, 1990. "Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality", Presented at the 1990 HVAC & Building Systems Congress, Santa, Clara, CA, March 29, 1990. "Ventilation Standards for Office Buildm&s", Presented to the South Bay Property Managers Association, Santa Clara, May 9, 1990. "Indoor Air Quality", Presented at the Responsive Energy Technologies Symposium & International Exposition (RETSIE), Santa Clara, CA, June 20, 1990. "Indoor Air Quality - Management and Control Strategies", Presented at the Association of Energy L•ngincers, San Francisco Bay Area Chapter Meeting, Berkeley, CA, September25, 1990. "Diagnosing Indoor .Air Contaminant and Odor Problems", Presented at the ASHRAE Annual Meeting, New York City, NY, January 23, 1991. "Diagnosing and'freating the Sick Building Syndrome", Presented at the Energy 2001, Oklahoma, OK, March 19, 1991. "Diagnosing and Mitigating Indoor Air Quality Problems" a workshop presented by the Association of Energy Engineers, Chicago, IL, October 29-30, 1990; New York, NY, January 24-25, 1991; Anaheim, April 25-26, 1991; Boston, MA, June 10-11, 1991; Atlanta, CA, October 24-25, 1991; Chicago, IL, October 3-4, 1991; Las Vegas, NV, December 16.17, 1991; Anaheim, CA, January 30-31, 1992; Atlurta, CA, March 5-6, 1992; Washington, DC, May 7-8, 1992; Chicago, IL, August 19-20, 1992; Las Vegas, 14 75C-70 NV, October 1-2, 1992; New York City, NY, October 26-27, 1992, Las Vegas, NV, March 15-19, 1993; Lake Tahoe, CA, July 14-15, 1994; Las Vegas, NV, April 3-4, 1995; Lake Tahoe, CA, July 11-12, 1996; Miami, Fl, December 9-10, 1996. "Sick Building Syndrome and the Ventilation Engineer", Presented to the San Jose Engineers Club, May, 21., 1991. "Duct Cleaning. Who Needs It'? How Is It Done ? What Are The Costs T' What Are the Risks ?, Moderator of Foram at the ASHRAE Annual Meeting, Indianapolis ID, June 23, 1991. "Operating healthy Buildings", Association of Plant Engincors, Oakland, CA, November 14, 1991. "Duct Cleaning Perspectives", Moderatot of Seminar at the ASHRAE: Semi -Annual Meeting, Indianapolis., IN, .tune 24, 1991. "Duct Cleaning_'llrc Role of the Environmental Hygienist," ASHRAE Annual Meeting, Anaheim, CA, January 29, 1992. "Emerging IAQ Issues", Fifth National Conference on Indoor Air Pollutions University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK, April 13-14, 1992. "International Symposium on Room Air Convection and Ventilation Effectiveness", Member of Scientific Advisory Hoard, University of Tokyo, July 22-24, 1992. "Guidelines for Contaminant Control During Construction and Renovation Projects in Office Buildings," Seminar paper at the ASHRAE Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL, January 26, 1993. "Outside Air Economizers: IAQ Friend or Foe", Moderator of Forum at the ASHRAE Annual Meeting, Cbicago, IL, January 26, 1993. "Orientation to Indoor Air Quality," an EPA two and one half day comprehensive indoor air quality introductory workshop for public officials and building property managers; Sacramento, September 29-30, 1992; San Francisco. February 23-24, 1993; Los Angeles, March 16-18, 1993; Burbank June 23, 1993; Hawaii, August 24.25, 1993; Las Vegas, August 30, 1993; San Diego, September 13-14, 1993; Phoenix, October 18-19, 1993; Reno, November 14-16, 1995, Fullerton, December 3-4, 1996; Fresno, May 13-14, 1997. "Huilding Air Quality A Guide for Building Owners and Facility Managers," an EPA one half day indoor air quality introductory workshop for building owners and facility managers. Presented throughout Region IX 1993-1995. "Techniques for Airborne Disease Control", EPRI Healthcare Initiative Symposium, San Francisco, CA; June 7, 1994. 15 75C-71 "Diagnosing and Mitigating Indoor Air Quality Problems", CIHC Conference; San Francisco, September29, 1994. "Indoor Air Quality: Tools for Schools," an EPA one day air quality management workshop for school officials, teachers, and maintenance personnel; San Francisco, October 18-20, 1994; Cerritos, December 5, 1996; Fresno, February 26, 1997; San Jose, March 27, 1997; Riverside, March 5, 1997; San Diego, March 6, 1997; Fullerton, November 13, 1997; Santa Rosa, February 1998; Cerritos, February 26, 1999; Santa Rosa, March 2, 1998. ASHRAE 62 Standard "Ventilation for Acceptable IAQ", ASCR Convention, San Francisco, CA, March 16, 1995. "New Developments in Indoor Air Quality: Protocol for Diagnosing IAQ Problems", AIHA-NC; March 25, 1995, "Experimental Validation of ASHRAE SPC 129, Standard Method of Measuring Air Change Effectiveness", l6th AIVC Conference_, Palm Springs, USA, September 19-22, 1995. "Diagnostic Protocols for Building lAQ Assessment", Amaric-an Society of Safety Engineers Seminar: `Indoor Air Quality — The Next Door'; San Jose Chapter, September 27, 1995; Oakland Chapter, 9, 1997. "Diagnostic Protocols for Building IAQ Assessment", Local 39; Oakland, CA, October 3, 1995. "Diagnostic Protocols for Solving IAQ Problems", CSU-PPD Conference; October 24, 1995. "Demrmstrating Compliance with ASHRAE 62-1989 Ventilation Requirements", AIHA; October 25, 1995, "IAQ Diagnostics Hands on Assessment of Building Ventilation and Pollutant Transport", EPA Region IX; Phoenix, AZ, March 12, 1996, San Francisco, CA, April 9, 1996; Burbank, CA, April 12, I996. "Experimental Validation of ASHRAE 129P: Standard Method of Measuring Air Change Ef ectivencss", Room Vent `96 / International Symposium on Room Air Convection and Ventilation Effectiveness"; Yokohama, Japan, July 16.19, 1996. "IAQ Diagnostic Methodologies and RFP Development", CCEHSA 1996.Annual Conference, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, August 2, 1996. "The Practical Side of Indoor Air Quality Assessments", California Industrial Hygiene Conference `96, San Diego, CA, September 2, 1996. 16 75C-72 "ASHRAE Standard 62: Improving Indoor Environments", Pacific Gas and Electric Energy Center, San Francisco, CA, October 29, 1996. "Operating and Maintaining Healthy Buildings", April 3-4, 1996, San Jose, CA; July 30, 1997, Monterey, CA. "IAQ Primer", Local 39, April 16, 1997; Amdahl Corporation., June 9, 1997, State Compensation Insurance Fund's Safety dt health Services Department, November 21, 1996. "Tracer Gas Techniques for Measuring Building Air Flow Rates", ASHRAE, Philadelphia, PA, January 26, 1997. "How to Diagnose and Mitigate Indoor Air Quality Problems"; Women in Waste; March 19, 1997. "Environmental Engineer: What Is It?", Monte Vista High School Career Day; April 10, 1997. "Indoor Environment Controls: What's Hot and What's Not", Shaklee Corporation; San Francisco, CA, July 15, 1997. "Measurement of Ventilation System Performance Parameters in the US EPA BASE Study", healthy Buildings/IAQ'97, Washington, DC, September 29, 1997. "Operations and Maintenance for Healthy and Comfortable Indoor Environments", PASMA; October 7, 1997- "Designing for Healthy and Comfortable Indoor Environments", Construction Speeihcation Institute, Santa Rosa, CA, November 6, 1997 "Ventilation System Design for Good IAQ", University of Tulsa 10`a Annual Conference, San Francisco, CA, February 25, 1998. "The Huilding Shell", Tools For Building Orem Conference and Trade Show, Alameda County Waste Management. Authority and Recycling Board, Oakland, CA, February 28, 1998. "Identifying Fungal Contamination Problems In Buildings", The City of Oakland Municipal Employees, Oakland, CA, March 26, I998. "Managing Indoor Air Quality in Schools: Staying Out of Trouble", CASBO, Sacramento, CA, April 20, 1998. "Indoor Air Quality", CSOOC Spring Conference, Visalia, CA, April 30, 1998. "Particulate and Gas Phase Air Filtration", ACGIHJOSHA, Ft. Mitchell, KY, June 1998 17 75C-73 "Building Air Quality Facts and Myths", The City of Oakland / Alameda County Safety Seminar, Oakland, CA, June 12, 1998. "Building Engineering and Moisture", Building Contamination Workshop, University of California Berkeley, Continuing Education in Engineering and Environmental Management, San Francisco, CA, October 21-22, 1999. "Identifying and Mitigating Mold Contamination in Buildings", Western Construction Consultants Association, Oakland, CA, March 15, 2W0; AIG Construction Defect Seminar, Walnut Creek, CA, May 2, 2001; City of Oakland Public Works Agency, Oakland, CA, July 24, 2001; Executive Council of Homeowners, Alamo, C.1 August 3, 2001. "Using the EPA BASE Study for IAQ Investigation / Communieation", Joint Professional Symposium 2000, American Industrial Hygiene Association, Orange County & Southern California Sections, Long Beach, October 19, 2000. "Ventilation," Indoor Air Quality: Risk Reduction in the 214 Century Symposium, sponsored by the California Environmental Protection Agency/Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA, May 3-4, 2000. "Workshop 18: Criteria for Cleaning of Air Handling Systems", Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August 2000. "Closing Session Summary: `Building Investigations' and `Building Design & Construction', Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August 2000. "Managing Building Air Quality and Energy Efficiency, Meeting the Standard of Care", BOMA, MidAtlantic Environmental Hygiene Resource Center, Seattle, WA, May 23`a, 20D0, San Antonio, TX, September 26-27, 2000 "Diagnostics & Mitigation in Sick Buildings: When Good Buildings Go Bad," University of California Berkeley, September 18, 2001. "Mold Contamination: Recognition and What To Do and Not Do", Redwood Empire Remodelers Association; Santa Rosa, CA, April 16, 2002, "Investigative Tools of the IAQ Trade", Healthy Indoor Environments 2002, Austin, TX, April 22, 2002. "Finding Hidden Mold: Case Studies in IAQ Investigations", AIHA Norther California Professionals Symposium; Oakland, CA, May 8, 2002.. "Assessing and Mitigating Fungal Contamination in Buildings", Cal/OSHA Training; Oakland, CA, February 14, 2003 and West Covina, CA, February 20-21, 2003. 18 75C-74 "Use of External Containments During Fungal Mitigation", Invited Speaker, ACGIH Mold Remcdiation Symposium, Orlando, FL, November 3-5, 2003. Building Operator Certification (BOC), 106-IAQ Training Workshops, Northwest Energy Efficiency Council; Siocktolx, CA, December 3, 2003; San Francisco, CA, December 9, 2003; Irvine, CA, January 13, 2004; San Diego, January 14, 2004; Irwindale, CA, January 27, 2004; Downey, CA, January 28, 2004; Santa Monica, CA, March 16, 2004; Ontario, CA, March 17, 2004; Ontario, CA, November 9, 2004, San Diego, CA, November 10, 2004; San Francisco, CA, Novembers 17, 2004; San Jose, CA, November 18, 2004; Sacramento, CA, March 15, 2005. ":Mold Remediation: The National QUEST for Uniformity Symposium", Invited Speaker, Orlando, Florida, November 3-5, 2003. "Mold and MOMUTe Control", Indoor Air Qaalily workshop for The Collaborative for High Performance Schools (CHPS), San Francisco, December 11, 2003. "Advanced perspectives In Mold Prevention & Couttol Sympositen", Invited Speaker, Las Vegas, Nevada, November 7-9, 2004. "Building Sciences: Understanding and Controlling Moisture in Buildings" American Industrial Hygiene Association, San Francisco, CA, February 14-16, 2005. "Indoor Air Quality Diagnostics and Healthy Building Design", University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, March 2, 2005. "Improving IAQ = Reduced Tenant Complaints", Northern California Facilities Exposition, Santa Clara, CA, September 27, 2007. "Defining Safe Building Air", Criteria for Safe Air and Water in Buildings, ASHRAE Winter Meeting, Chicago, IT, January 27, 2008. "Update on USGBC LEED and Air Filtration", Invited Speaker, NAFA 2008 Convention, San Francisco, CA, September 19, 2008. "Ventilation and Indoor air Quality in New California Homes", National Center of Healthy Housing, October 20, 2008. "Indoor Air Quality in New Homes", California Energy and Air Quality Conference, October 29, 2008. ,,Mechanical. Outdoor air Ventilation Systems and IAQ in New Homes", ACI Home Perfoemance Conference, Kansas City, MO, April 29, 2009. "Ventilation and IAQ in New Homes with and without Mechanical Outdoor Air Systems", Healthy Buildings 2009, Syracuse, CA, September 14, 2009. 19 75C-75 "Ten Ways to Improve Your Air Quality", Northern California Facilities Exposition, Santa Clara, CA, September 30, 2009. "New Developments in Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in Residential Buildings", Westcon meeting, Alameda, CA, March 17, 2010. "latermittent Residential Mechanical Outdoor Air Ventilation Systems and IAQ", ASHRAE SSPC 622 Meeting, Austin, `EX, April 19, 2010. "Measured IAQ in Homes", ACI Home Performance Conference, Austin, TX, April 21, 2010. "Respiration: IEQ and Ventilation", Aliice 2010, How IH Can LEED in Green buildings, Denver, CO, May 23, 2010. "IAQ Considerations for Net Zero Energy Buildings (NZEB)", Northern California Facilities Exposition, Santa Clara, CA, September 22, 2010. "Energy Conservation and Health in Buildings", Berkeley High SchoolOreen Career Week, Berkeley, CA, April 12, 20I1. "What Pollutants are Really There ?", ACI Home Performance Conference, San Francisco, CA, March 30, 2011. "Energy Conservation and Health in Residences Workshop", Indoor Air 2011, Austin, 'IN, June 6, 2011. "Assessing IAQ and Improving Health in Residences", US EPA Weatherization Plus Health, September 7, 2011. "Ventilation What a Long Strange Trip It's Been", Westcon, May 21, 2014_ "Chemical Emissions from E-Cigarettes: Direct and Indirect Passive Exposures", Indoor Air 2014, Hong Kong, July, 2014 "Infectious Disease Aerosol Exposures With and Without Surge Control Ventilation System Modifications", Indoor Air 2014, Hong Kong, July, 2014. "Chemical Emissions from E-Cigarettes", IMF Health and Welfare Fair, Washington, DC, February 18, 2015. "Chemical Emissions and Health Hazards Associated with E-Cigarettes", Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, August 15, 2014. "Formaldehyde Indoor Concentrations, Material Emission Rates, and the CARB ATCM", Harris Martum's Lmnber Liquidators Flooring Litigation Conference, WQ Minneapolis Hotel, Mav 27, 2015, 20 75C-76 "Chemical Emissions from E-Cigarettes: Direct and Indirect Passive Exposure", FDA Public Workshop: Electronic Cigarettes and the Public Health, Hyattsville, MD June 2, 2015, "Creating IIealthy Homes, Schools, and Workplaces", Chautauqua Institution, Athenaeum Hotel, August 24, 2015. "Diagnosing IAQ Problems and Designing Healthy Buildings", University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, October 6, 2015. "Diagnosing )ventilation and IAQ Problems in Commercial Buildings", BEST Center Annual Institute, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, January 6, 2016. "A Review of Studies of Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality m New Homes and Impacts of Environmental Factors on Formaldehyde Emission Rates rrom Composite Wood Products", AIHce2016, May, 21-26, 2016. "Admissibility of Scientific Testimony", Science in the Court, Proposition 65 Clearinghouse Annual Conference, Oakland, CA, September 15, 2016. "Indoor Air Quality and Ventilation", ASHRAF. Redwood Empire, Napa, CA., December 1, 20 M. 75C-77 EXHIBIT B 75C-78 SMITH ENGINFP.RING & MANAGEMENT 6 May 5, 2020 Ms. Rebecca Davis Lozeau Drury 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150 Oakland, CA 94612 Subject: The Bowery Project, Santa Ana (SCH # 2019080011) P20008 Dear Ms. Davis: At your request, I have reviewed the Final Environmental Impact Report (the "FEIR" for The Bowery Mixed Use Project (the "Project ") in the City of Santa Ana (the "City"). I have also reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (the "DEIR") for the Project and the Appendices supporting both documents. My review is specific to Traffic and Circulation. My qualifications to perform this review include registration as a Civil and Traffic Engineer in California and over 50 years professional consulting engineering practice in the traffic and transportation industry. I have both prepared and performed adequacy reviews of numerous transportation and circulation sections of environmental impact reports prepared under the California Environmental Quality Act. My professional resume is attached. Findings of my review are summarized below. Excessive Deduction Of Traffic Credit For Prior Use of Project Site Trip credits taken for prior use of the site are excessive from several perspectives. First, the traffic analysis takes trip credit for the entire 212,121 square feet of building area at full occupancy in an industrial park use. However. by 2017, well before the time of circulation of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) and the time the existing condition traffic counts were taken, the industrial park lIZ,IIIt' 'I t'.NC P J Y. T i 1111 dCLM1I11il- 5311 IHoad. I ,ion C¢e. (A94N8/ td::,10.4SIJ.9477 (.te: i10.4NJ,•:478 27 75C-79 Ms. Rebecca Davis May 5, 2020 Page 2 use had terminated, a considerable portion of the site was vacant and the non - vacant portions were mostly occupied by uses that generate trips at considerably lower trip rates than industrial park use. Table 1 —Trip Rates Based on Prior Land Use Land Use Category Use Size Daily AM PM Peak* (sq. ft. Trips* Peak* Warehouse 119,121 279 27 31 Research & 5,000 56 2 2 Development Homeless Shelter 30,000 negligible 0 0 Vacant Space 53,000 0 0 0 Total trips from 207,121* 335 29 33 existing uses EIR Baseline based on 212,121 1,326 159 159 Industrial Park Use Percent increase when 395% 540% 481% EIR baseline is compared to Existing Use baseline 27 The DEIR lists the existing uses of the site as 119,121 square foot of warehouse and distribution (Trip Generation,101h Edition Land Use Category 150), 5,000 square feet of Research and Development (Trip Generation,l0fh Edition Land Use Category 760), 53,000 square feet vacant and 30,000 square feet in use as a temporary homeless shelter. The 119,121 square feet of warehouse would generate 1.74 trips per thousand square feet daily, .17 trips per thousand in the AM peak hour, and .19 trips per thousand in the PM peak hour. This would be 207 trips daily, 20 trips in the AM Peak and 23 trips in the PM peak, or, adjusting for passenger car equivalences (PCEs) for heavy truck percentages at this use per the Fontana Truck Study or SCAOMD, 279 daily, 27 AM peak and 31 PM peak passenger car equivalent trips, The 5,000 square feet of Research and Development facility would generate 11.26 trips per thousand square feet daily, 0.42 trips per thousand in the AM peak and 0.49 trips per thousand in the pm peak. This would amount to 56 trips daily, 2 trips in the am peak and 2 trips in the PM peak. The served population at the homeless shelter generally do not generate any vehicle trips and the staff generally has shifts involving commutes outside of commute peak hours, so they do not generate any peak hour trips and an unknown but negligible number of daily trips. The vacant space generates essentially zero vehicle trips. So the maximum trip generation of the existing use at the time of the NOP and the when the existing traffic baseline data was collected (not the long term prior use that was previously vacated) is about 29 lIZ,IIIt' 'I t'.NC P J Y. T i 1111 dCLNI11il- 5311 IHood. I ,ioc Cay. (A94N8/ td::,10.4SIJ.9477 (.te: i10.4NJ,•:478 75C-80 Ms. Rebecca Davis May 5, 2020 Page 3 trips in PCEs in the AM peak hour and 33 PCE trips in the PM peak hour. This is less than 21 percent of the 159 PC trip deduction for traffic of existing use allowed from the Project trip generation per DEIR Table 5.14-5. The allowance of an undeserved extra 126 trip deduction amounts to an understatement of almost 21 percent from the net PM peak trip generation of 604 trips for the Project assumed in the analysis. This flaw alone is sufficient to significantly alter findings of impact and mitigation requirements. The 18,000 Square Feet of Unspecified Retail in the Project Is Not a Shopping Center The DEIR estimates the trip generation of the 18,000 square feet of unspecified retail in the Project at average rates for Land Use Category 820, Shopping Center per Trip Generation,10l^ Edition. However, 18,000 square feet of retail is not a shopping center. Shopping centers only generate trips at the average rates employed in the subject analysis when they reach a size of about 400,000 square feet of floor area. Small footprint retail normally generates trips at much higher peak and daily rates per thousand square feet than the shopping center average. The 18,000 square feet of retail in the Project is about the typical size of a boutique grocery like a TraderJoe's or a Walgreens Pharmacy. A Supermarket (Land Use Category 850) generates trips at rates of 106.78 trips per thousand square feet daily, 3.82 per thousand in the AM peak hour and 9.24 per thousand in the PM peak hour. A Pharmacy with no drive -up window (Land Use Category 880) generates trips at rates of 90.08 trips per thousand square feet daily, 2.94 per thousand in the AM peak and 8.51 per thousand in the PM peak. This starkly contrasts with the Shopping center rates of 37.75 trips per thousand square feet daily, 0.94 per thousand in the AM peak and 3.81 per thousand in the PM peak. Table 2 —Trip Rates Per 1,000 Square Feet Based on Land Use Category Land Use Category Dail AM Peak PM Peak Supermarket 106.78 3.82 9.24 Phan-nacy 90.08 2.94 8.51 Shopping Center 37.75 0.94 3.81 If the DEIR had analyzed the 18,000 square feet of retail as a supermarket, it would generate 1922 gross trips daily, 69 gross AM peak trips and 166 gross PM peak trips. Analyzed as a Category 880 Pharmacy, the same floor area of retail generates 1621 gross daily trips, 53 in the AM peak and 153 in the PM peak. These are significantly higher than the 680 daily, 17 AM peak and 69 PM peak gross trips the DEIR predicts for this floor area as a so called shopping center. lIZ,IIIt •'1't NC P JY. T I IU]" "In NCLN1-N! 5311 1 Hood. I ,ioc Cay.(A 9458J td::,10.4SJ19477 r.te: 510.4N) 9178 27 28 75C-81 Ms. Rebecca Davis May 5, 2020 Page 4 Table 3.— Trip Rates for 18,000 Square Feet of Retail Based on Land Use Category Land Use Category Dail AM Peak PM Peak Supermarket 1,922 69 166 Pharmacy 1,622 53 153 Shopping Center 680 17 69 With the same percentage of internal and attracted passerby trips the DEIR assumes for the shopping center use category, the boutique supermarket generates 882 more net daily, 28 more net AM peak and 28 more net PM peak trips than the improperly applied shopping center category. With the same percentage of internal and attracted passerby trips the DEIR assumes for the shopping center use category, the pharmacy generates 1668 more net daily, 15 more net AM peak and 13 more net PM peak trips than the improperly applied shopping center category. While these differences, particularly in the peak hours, may seem small, when added to adjustment of the improper credit for the prior use, take on cumulative significance. Excessive Assumptions of Trip Reductions Due To Internalization and Passer-by Attraction The DEIR assumes that internal trips and attracted passers-by will account for 31.5 percent of the Project's gross trip generation in the AM traffic peak hour and 42 percent of the Project's gross trip generation in the PM traffic peak hour. Coupled with the improper deductions taken forthe abandoned prior use of the site, deductions eliminate 47.2 percent of the gross AM peak trip generation and 54 percent of the gross PM peak trip generation. The analysis appears to have assumed internalization and attracted passer-by rates at maximum percentages of the ranges observed in Trip Generation Handbook, V Edition. Making a series of assumptions, all the most favorable to the Project possible, is not consistent with the good faith effort to disclose impact that CEQA demands. The analysis should be recompiled with more moderate percentage assumptions for internalization and passer-by attraction. Consequences of Improper Descriptions of Roadway Cross Sections Is Not Analyzed fm 29 In a comment now labeled A6-5 in the FEIR response, the Orange County 30 Transportation Agency identifies several roadways where the DEIR's description of the roadway cross section is in error. In response, the FEIR corrects the text of the relevant table but fails to analyze whether the changes have any consequential impact on the outcomes of impact analysis. It would seem that lIZ,IIIt' 'I t'.NC P J Y. T i 1111 dCLM1I11il- 5311IHood.I ,ioc Cay.(A 94MJ td::,10.4SIJ.9477 (.te: i10.4N) 9178 75C-82 Ms. Rebecca Davis May 5, 2020 Page 5 overstating the number of lanes on several roadways could have consequences for impact and mitigation needs. 30 Conclusion This concludes my comments on the Bowery Mixed Use Project FEIR. Because the DEIR improperly deducted trips for a prior use of the Project site that was not present when the NOP was circulated nor when baseline traffic counts for the analysis were taken, because it unreasonably treats 18,000 square feet of unspecified retail commercial as a "shopping center' rather than a logical specific use or range of uses that would occupy a retail floor area of this size and because the analysis consistently makes assumptions most favorable to the Project with regard to trip internalization and passer-by attraction, the FEIR should not be certified, the traffic analysis should be redone and the environmental document should be recirculated in "draft" status. Sincerely, Smith Engineering & Management A California Corporation ,Qw�� 9;� 5.O No. 0938 A: %,ST RAF.\�;AaF, Daniel T. Smith Jr., P.E. President Attachment 1 Resume of Daniel T. Smith Jr., P.E. JIZ,lrlt •'1't N`V'JR. TI 110B - "nI N LNI-N! 5311 1 Hoad. I ,ioc Cay.(A 9458J td::i 10.48919477 (.te: 51 0dN)9178 Ril 75C-83 Ms. Rebecca Davis May 5, 2020 Page 6 ',I'I II I: N 6 I N:: CJi I NC L MAN 1C EMF. KT ➢ANIEL T. SMrM Jr. President rDUfdilU[d 3(tMLo sSu,T Fol m -d tb Sfmm YabImv®t%l9b'1 Masco(Scieoc4'hrmPmb�Da�'E�Uuoa94K[k4f®ia.Dabelei Im cibmb Na. 319E3(csq Newda N.' (aA WmkVmNn W33'1(Cianl) C No.938 [rm w A N. ]2dll P4I Ss0 hMuago� 1991 mpmma. Pemidma DSS Assodaea. 979 m 1493. Fow3¢. V'ae Pit Amtlpil ]tmspxmva �gbeei Iklaw.f@slChmpmS. l9fi6 m19"9. Smwe'IsmlmmeoaPbhs. Pss®at sptlmtles mG Pfapeca exFg, [¢ce mc➢We liti,l cumulus, a ,h. and expea or>mmc immoe= m L�?tr^trY dengq trmvlbvyvuft h,mC,d Imfla�pulud'Ip&a�d�.biumiuwlYVE hamo" ausfu EM, uadmm mvoha� daRLomY dezlg¢ m ¢aNw �[ ]md u:e aM de'elormm meta: imetvbg Yfffi Ad mm W amfim ImpY.6: P� Ad OtEH h�1[ aOd 6RfipmB11®0 VAS. UaYa CbayarSYdeYAreavtian AeY3ss. PrbriplmrhmefW Smk Awm(SA)IP.t Faaalxliry xmdya )SmktreeraTatigomeID sobyumL of S®mb. I�pyryl�m 1-2Y0lmsemee'hamta CMG[ A�+m Sass Pma®. aAAiR6 fa r^e�oeon Ni-291. �otiem of 8mbmdav T .9. mbseea liEh� rzd and (C H'� Paley AmeNal'mmmPe SR 238 c®dm ymrRi'+ mR.9 dxrp¢meamrm'avI smdr. Hnrad aH) Para smy ]emWwtrmdP o Po[I-91N IYe¢'IFmnal Sbil. r N — M, le ltefbx fk RmPa� eT yfn NV140 namger fir * ur s S. s a d Whodval C 'dm LAT. Iknee, Mshipu Dimnd saR w I -SO Nau y sme®c C d, 1Smii 14 c.. i�a� W US 101-S�e 4e opmauom i h % 91 4a a9 of dy T smd9. IiBC Leevaf Whom mT. � S a p 9mde1. Sa¢am® CfD ]i MW m>ems adY. T. c®dee ]xr AA.'ms, ¢aammr.w.m sP� enrcr mmam plm� sRe mv9 r�mY baoaooB mbr-ma eamma Rw*+r ISR v31 d®m.mdf Aw Itauporhtim Plw. pioay4iadw� fu aa¢PmmLoo elemm or my of i Augela 0 moo Fnmesali eLnm mhohs h�Re3 otq to dr.Wee and 2151 ems. Ywlem m 1m de ¢mewlmm. elmm of 3Maae w� 8ry deeeLgmmt m dowmxn Sm Pcmo.®. Mssbe HaRq q imdae; i m8im gf a1L[tim�erxl:aue. fi:UU mveNogv�. md�bDonnc. ']idmlmShdhm Gneae�!¢➢sde Id9mm ore®�� au ,�� emo.wo o� la*a-mean I.x3;.®Io-meab aaa� � emu. wwmw and md�.1 bw:femmal c`a q:ane mxelnaeN hrerva}: aeparmmeby�aeeepzandelndaad mlf mNsry w�L uv W X w�uue;un ud ld LI m imnoa: feW Leek, Leewry mmlm� u. red re\.1ve> and 9 cmcryt plms La G,Uf4 aumad pad 5 ryas. RbvpLL-iodmRe fiv mcvlamn F'mm w xcawodae 9 ®Itlm g[o(amca came aPY 9di. deambml3eaevue lW. A. PIDttlpal+m-0+mv to *%aae'mLhm m of S mmptes mf YMI: tlpcma b Sm lox hammtmsl Ampm[ Ages mameec ba tmmrammn elmw or Saosmenio 1C1roroapl1ib] Aan Pdm W tk mae lea®nl rnueplee, and (m ➢owmowo Sa®m dam R�ein,%o?vec+Plm®Pm�P b WaM1v Cri, mm dwmowe m¢ziom ar. NanW Smma m 111Wm P�MmmaPkw((-". whv¢e m[9Ntirmavd sazn\' pkwf Cilibovb ouc �Dav,PlmbsBrdNWxN.ad6Salem Gaga i 111 .. eY..!i. LLi.c 111 !oe e..!i lli l4-7 1_.: alma': I R,lII'II • T iP. V- PO K r A II J N- 11dNaCFMLNI- 51I l Lowre Road. Union (m. [.A 94,187 1.ye 11041 0478 75C-84 Ms. Rebecca Davis May 5, 2020 Page 7 Transportation Canters. Project manager for Dal}City Intemrodal Stir which developed a $7 nrllliov araftee bus icrminal, traffic access, parking and peccabian eiranlmicm improvements at tha Daly Citr BART statienphis development of functional plans for a oew BARI' station at Colma. Project manager for design of multi -modal terminal (commuter mil, light fail, has) ai Mission Bay, San N-anciaco, In Santa Chants Long Range'I'ratrsn Development Program, r,sponsible for plan to adoeate o at;.', exiting timed -to nsfcr bun and dcvclopmeat of three sate]ite transfer hubs- Performed airport ground transportation system evaluations for San Irancisco hrtemational, Oakland Inmrna enal, Sea-Tac International, Oakland Lnamational, Los Angeles International, and San Diego Lindberg. Campos Timnap.runion_ Cimp.. transportation planning assignments for UC. Davit, UC Berkeley, IiC Santa Cmz and UC San Francisco Medical Center campuses; San Irancisco State Univcrity, Untvertty of San Inancisco, and the Ihawri,ity of Alaska and etlurs. Also developed master plans for institutional computes including medical centers, headquarters complexes and research @ development facilities. Special Everrl Facithiea. Ev0.don, and design And es for foo tballPoascbxll stadiums, indoor spurts arcrtas, hens and motor racing faci l ibe,. theme parks, fat TmUrill and convention center, ski complexes and doation ar resrms throughout western United States Parking. Parking programs and facilities for large area plans and individual sites including down Awns, special event facilities, univcrity and inaClutional campuses and olhcr Iarge ails daNCIOpmena5 numcrouS Ferleig feasibility and opotations studies for parkhrg structures aad amface facilities. also, .icsidcnt prefer : rtud parking Tmnepor ntinn Spatam Management Br Traffic Restraint Project manager on FHWA program To develop teelndques and guidelines for neighborhoaf street belie limitation. Prcjeer, manager for Berkeley, ('Calif.), Neighborhood Traffic Study, pioncered application of traffic n atiount techniques it, the U.S. Developed residential traffic plans for Menlo Park, Santa Monica, Santa Cruz Mill Valley, Oakland, Palo Alto, Piedmont, San Mateo Gannet, Pasadena Santa Ara and others. Participated in development efphotoimdar speed enforcement device and experimentedcol la speal humps_ Cnxmhnr of lnsututc of Tmisportation Engineers reference puhliecalan on ncighbomced traffic control. Bicycle Facilities. Proicet manager to develop an FHWA manual fee bicycle facihty design and planning, on bikeway plans fof D6 Mar, (Calif), the UC Mara are the City of Davis- Consultant to bikeway plans for Eugene, Oregon, Washingmn, I7 C., Buffalo. New York. and Skokie, I7inoia Consultant n U S_ Bureau of Reclamation Poe developmcnl of hydrauhcahy efficient, bicycle safe dminea. Ullts. Consulanl en FHWA mscamh on affective retrofits of undercrosamg; and overcrossing structures for bicyclists, peciescrams, and handicapped. MEMBERSHIPS Insntu a of Transportation Engineers Transportation Research Board PUBLICATIONS AND AWARDS Residenuor( Streel Design m d Traffic Control, unit W_ Homburger et at. Prentice Hall, 1989. Co -recipient, Progressive Architecture Citation, Mission Nay Master Plan, wdtl; LM. Pei W N'I' Associated, 19M, Residential Trafc Management, State of the Art Report, U.S. Departnevl of Transpora4oq 1979. improving Ple, Residenfial StreetEo,h omnem, with Donald AI)plcvard of at, U.S. Dapmtiocnt of Tranaporlauion, L979. Saargia'rsa pts in Reedeanot Neghlnrhoad Traffic Condol, International Svrrposinm on I rif'fic Control .Systems, Nerkeley, California, 19i9. Plonnia t and Desjga ofBleock Faoi oxv Pitfalls bnd New Dlreotlovs, Trunaporlalion Resemolr Beard, Research Recent 570, 1976. Co-rccipienl, Prvgessive ttchiwature Award, Gvrrble Urban Streeis, Scow Famcisco &YArev and London, with Donald Applevrod, 1979. I R,111'I l[.-rt;.VSI'Jlir II I J N- Dt AN n C C M'_ N I" 5CI Lawrc Rod. Union G t,, ( A94,187 the 1104n)9478 75C-85 EXHIBIT C 75C-86 S�aeA �C Technical Consultai Data Analysis and 7*A G LltigaGon Support for the Ennironci 2656 29" Street, Suite 201 Santa Monica, CA 90405 Matt Hagemann, P.G, CA& (949) 987-9013 mhmmannaswaoe.com May 11, 2020 Rebecca Davis Lozeau I Drury LLP 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150 Oakland, CA 94618 Subject Comments on the Final Impact Report for the Bowery Mixed Use Project Dear Ms. Davis: I have reviewed the May 2020 Final Impact Report for the Bowery Mixed Use Project ("ProjecC'j in Santa Ana, California for impacts related to Hazards and Hazardous Waste. Prior to Project approval, the applicant needs to engage California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC? in a voluntary cleanup agreement to ensure adequate contaminated soil cleanup at the Project site. The Project site contains approximately 900 cubic yards of TPH contaminated soils above residential screening levels that will require excavation and disposal (FEIR, p. 2-7). Past land uses at the Project site, according a Phase 1 and two Phase It environmental site assessments, include Ricoh thermal paper processing and toner manufacturing operations. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 requires a soil management plan to be used during construction to guide the removal and disposal of the areas of TPH-impacted soil. On its own, a soil management plan is insufficient Toensure the adequacyand the health -protectiveness of the cleanup, engagementof the DTSC is necessary. DTSC engagement should be formalized through a voluntary cleanup agreement and the cleanup of the Projectsite should follow an assessment and cleanup program directed by DTSC. DTSC itself, in commenting on the Project DEIR, said: "Please note that all environmental investigations, sampling and/or remediation for the project Site should he conducted under a workplan approved and overseen by a regulatory agency that has jurisdiction to oversee hazardous substance cleanup. Clarify in this section that a Removal Action Workplan (RAW) or Remedial Action Plan (RAP) would be prepared and specify the oversight agency to review and approve the RAW or RAP" "Please note that land use covenant may be required for the Project Site if both soil and groundwater cannot be remediated to meet cleanup goals for residential use." (Final EIR, p. 2- 3). 32 75C-87 In the response to this comment, the FEIRstates (p. 2-8): Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 requires approval of a Soil Management Plan (SMP) to ensure that the contaminated soils would be excavated and removed during Project excavation and grading activities pursuant to the regulations of DTSC, California integrated Waste Management Board, RWQCB, MA, and the Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA). The SMP required by Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would meet the same intent and requirements as the Removal Action Workplan or Remedial Action Plan mentioned in this comment. A soil management plan is not an instrument that is used by DISC or any other regulatory agency in assessing the need for cleanups or in planning for cleanups to be health protective. The soil management plan, as described in Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, is to include • A certified hazardous waste hauler to remove all potentially hazardous sods • Lxcavation and removal of contaminated soils • Sampling ofsoil during excavation to ensure that all contaminated soils are removed, and that residential Environmental Screening Levels (ESts) for residential uses are not exceeded. • Subsurface materials exposed during construction activities that appear suspect of contamination, either from visual staining or suspect odors, shall require immediate cessation of excavation activities and soils suspected of contamination shall be tested. • If contamination is found to he present per the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (OTSC) or Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) ESLs for residential uses, it shall be transported and disposed of per California Hazardous Waste Regulations • Preparation of a Health and Safety Plan. This is in noway would "meet the same intent and requirements as the Removal Action Workplan or a Remedial Action Plan" as asserted in the FEIR in response to the DTSC as cited above. For example, a removal action work plan, as recommended by DTSC in their DEIR response as cited above, shall-' • Identify the nature and the extent of contaminants • Describe the health effects of the contaminants • Perform a health risk evaluation • Identify cleanup goals • Perform an engineering evaluation and cost analysis • Compare remedial alternatives • Describe the selected remedy • Allow for public participation • Provide dust control • Conduct confirmatory sampling. Given the complex history of the Project site, we recommend entry into a voluntary cleanup program with DTSC.' DISC oversight will ensure the implementation of the step -wise approach of a remedial httna!/dnr. FORM RAW TcmrtUte ndf ' ht[osWd[sa35-0O6-uo.odf 32 75C-88 action workplan, to include a health risk assessment, a critical step for implementation of a remedy that is protective of the health of future Project residents, Regulatory review of the cleanup at the Project site is essentially required under the terms of the site closure issued by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQC ) who, in their August 13, 2010 No Further Action Letter, stated: "if land use changes at the site, a review of the corrective actions maybe warranted if on site excavation or construction expose contaminated soil or if changes in land use indicates that the residua Icon ta mination at the site poses a risk to site occupants."' The Project will change the land use from commercial/industrial to residential and the Project will involve excavation of contaminated soils; therefore, according to the No Further Action Letter, the SARW QCB may need to review the plan for removal of the 900 cubic yards of TPH'-contaminated soil outlined in the FEIR. No record of notification of the SARWQCB of the intent to clean up contaminated soils for a change to residential land use was provided in the DEIR or the FEIR. Engagement of DTSC, rather than the SARWQCB, is recommended to provide for proper oversight of a health risk assessment DISC has professionals on staff capable of the review of human health risk assessments. Finally, the issue of encountering contaminated groundwater during Project excavation must he considered. The FEIR states (p. 2-8): "it is described on page 5.5-5 in Section 5.5, Geology and Soils, of the Draft E I R that based on onsite borings the depth of groundwater is in the range of 24 to 33 feet below ground surface (bgs). This depth of groundwater would not impact persons onsite during operation of the proposed mixed -uses. Also, the Draft FIR page 3-19, Section 3.0, Project Description, describes that excavation and grading during project construction would be a minimum of 5 feet below the bottom of the build in foundations. As the depth of groundwater currently ranges between 24 to 33 feet, project excavation of approximately 5 feet below building foundations would not result in encountering groundwater. Thus, construction workers would also not he in contact with, and therefore impacted by, contaminated groundwater. Therefore, the potential risk to future receptors associated with groundwater contamination would be less than significant" The assertion in the DFIR that groundwater is in the range of 24 to 33 feet deep contradicts with the case closure summary attached to the SARWQCB No Further Action letter for the Project site which states groundwater is 5.67 to 13 feet deep:' 3https�//documents.geotracker waterhaards ca my/regulators/deliverable documentQ2435468375/NEA Ricoh El ec MedranoPedro,act, p.4 4httnc(/dncumenh eantracker waterhnard, ra mvlmei ela[nrs/delivnmhle dncumcnts/14AWXA75/1MEA RirnhFl ec MedranoPedro,Of, p. 2 32 33 75C-89 III. Release and Site Cause and type of inseam: Unkncen Site charactersancn Modentete ktw coacentrmon of cm approved by agency cotnaete? peholeum hydrocaNana wen de0edled in tlu mil and 9sauMwaterro In. southand auulhwest of Me UST. The alkaed mil and groundwater wee nut ddW b na"enies Mpneddi wells Yee Numnv 11 Roper screen Yee Installed? interval? Deepest GW dean 131est Shalbwest GW depol 567H if Project excavation is "a minimum of S feet below the bottom of building foundations" (FEIR, p. 2-8), groundwater is likely to be encountered if found at depths as shallow as 5.67 feet as stated by the SARWQCB in the table above. The FEIR needs to plan for protection of construction workers who may encounter contaminated groundwater when excavation is conducted. The FEIR also needs to state how the Project would comply with the Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges to Land with a Low Threat to Water Quality (Order No. 2003-0003-DWQ) or the De Minimis Waste Discharge Requirements for the Santa Ana Region (Order No. R82O15-0004, NPDES No. CAG998OO1). SWAPE has received limited documentation regarding this project. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties, Sincerely, Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg. 33 75C-90 ncnnimJUnsmmtion, Gala Malyvfr and w6winn sucudn for iM Envionmdnt Mathew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSI), QSP 1640 5d, St.., Suite 204 Santa Santa Monica, California 904f17 Tel'. (949) 887-9013 Email mha8emnnnfmcm-apccom Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization Industrial Stomtwater Compliance InvcsSgatiaan and RcmcdiA. Sfrafegirs Litigation Fuppnrt and TcsGfying Expert CEQA Review Ilducation: M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Las Angeles, CA, 19ta4. 6.A. Degree, Geology, Huml:�ldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982. I'mfcssimsal Ccrtifirationx: California ProfcvSiunx] Grsdegist California Certified Hydrogeologist Qualified SW PPP Developer and Practitioner Professional Experience: Matt has 25 years of experience in environmental policy, assessment and remedialion. He spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and .served as P,PA's Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he Ldenttfied emerging threais to groundwater from perchlorate and MT66. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous mforcernent actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) while also working with permit holden to improve hydrogeclogc characterization and water quality monitoring. Matt has worked closely with U.5. EPA legal munsel and the technical staff of several states in the application and enforcement of RCRA, safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act regulations. Matt has trained the techniml staff in the Slates of California, Hawaii, Nevada, Arizona and the Territory of Guam in the conduct of investigations, groundwater fundamentals, and sampling techniques. Pmfinns MAu ha%held inchrdq • Pounding Partner, Soil!WaterlAir Protection Enterprise (SWAPS)(2003-present); • Geology hrstrudor, Golden West College, 2010-2014; • Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H20 Science, Inc. (20W -- 2003); 75C-91 • Executive Director, Change Coast Watch (2001-2004); • Senior Science Policy Adviser and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Frotetctfon Agency (1989- 1998); • Hydmgeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998-2000); • Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (199,9- 1998); • Instructor,College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 - 1995); • Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986-1998); and • Geologist, Dames& Moore (1984-1966)_ Senior Remulato" mid Litigation Suoporl Analyst With SWAPf4, Mat['s resixmsibilities have included- • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 100 environmental impact reports smoe 20W under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, Valley Fever, gnvnhouse gas emissiens, and geologic hazards. Make recommendations for additional nuti&nhon measures to lead agencies at the local and county level to includ, additional characterization of health risks and implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from toxins and Valley Fever. • Skrmwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at mdustrial facilities. Manager of a project to provide technical assistance to a community adjacent to a former Naval shipyard under a grant from the U.S. EIIA. • Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion coacems. • Lead analy5tand testifynhgexpert in the review of envimnmcntal issues in haters" a pplimtcras for large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission. + Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S. • Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perehlorate contamination in Southem California drinking water wells. + Manager and designated expert far litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas Statics thrxwjhnut California. • Expert wimesson two rases involving MTaE litigation. • Expert Mines* and Inigrionsupport on the impact of air toxins and hazards at a school. • Expert witness in litigation at a former plywood plant. With Korn" H2O Science Inc, Marrs duties included the following • Senior author of a report on the extnmt of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel. • Senior researcther, in the devAopmentof a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of MTBB use, research, mid regulation. • Senior researdncr m the developmenntof a comprehensive, electionicaky interactive duonology of perchlorate use, research, and regulation • Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE rerrediation and drinking water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies. • Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBP in California and New York. 75C-92 + Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production. related contamination in Mississippi. + Lead author for a multi -volume remedial investigation report form operating school in Los Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines. 75C-93 • Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with clients and regulators. Executive Director. As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the d€scharge of wastewater- In reporting to a Hoard of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the development of countywide water quality permits for the :,ntrol of urban runoff and permits for the discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business institutions including the Change County Business Council. Ilvdrogeology. As a Senior I lydrngeologist with the U.5- F.:n vironmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to diararterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Maze Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows, • Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and groundwater. • Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at military bases. • identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund Gvoundwater'I'echnical Fomm and the federal Facilities Fomm. At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and County of Maui. As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water cmntaminapon- Spedfie activities included the following • Received an F11A Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for the profit:, tiun of drinking water. • Managed the Sole Source Aqui for I'm6ram and protected the drinking water of two mmrnunities through drsgrhabon under the Safe prinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports, conducted public hearings, and responded to public commenta from residenw who were very concerned about the impact of designation. 75C-94 + Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities mine reclamation, and water transfer_ Matt served as a hydrogeologtst with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were a5 follows • Supervised the hydrogeologicinvesugation of hazardous waste sites to detemvne compliance with Subtitle C requirements. • Reviewed and wrote "part B" permits for the disposal of hazardous waste. • Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.5. EPA legal counsel. • Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor's investigations of waste sites. With the National Park Service, Matt directed service -wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent degradationof water quality, including the following tasks: • Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRI3A, and the Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants. • Conducted watershed -scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and Olympic National Park. • Identified high -levels of Perchlorate in soil adjacerit to anational park in New Mexico and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA. • Served as a Park Service representative on the interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a national workgroup. • Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of ail National Parks while serving on a national workgroup. • Co-authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation= wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks. • Contributed to the Federal Multi-AgencySource Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action Plan. !olie . Served sensor management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U_5_ Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9. Activities included the following. • Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential for the gasoline additive MT13F and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking water supplies. • Shaped EPA's national response to these threats by serving on woxkgroups and by contributing to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water. Critical Information and Research Needs • Improved the technical training of EPA's scientific and engineering staff, • Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representingthe region's MO scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific principles into the pnliry-making process. • Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents. 75C-95 eolo With the U.S. Forest Service, Mott led invesii lions to detrrrmnc higslope stability of areas proposed for himber harvest m the central Oregon CCoabt Range. Specific activities were as follows: • Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability. • Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource protection. + Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the city of Medford. Oregon. As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later listed on the Superhxnd NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. Duties included the following • Supervised year -long effort fox soil and groundwater sampling, • Conducted aquifer tests, Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal. -leachint; From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels: At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination. • Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students. • Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin. Matt taught physical geology (lecture and lab and introductory geology at Colden West College in liunengtm Beach, California from 21110 to 2014. Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presenlations: Hagcmann. M.F., 2008Presentation to the Public Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon. Hagemann, M.F., 2008, Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California. Hage staun, M.E., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Enviror mental Regulation, Policy Malting and Public Participation Brownftelds2005,Denver,Coloradao. Hagcmann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Nevada and the Southwestem U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the Arnerican Groundwater Trust, Las Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee). Hagcmann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at schools in Southern California, Los Angeles. 75C-96 Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 200C An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the kcsrdting impact to Drinking Water Wells Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater Association. flagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and impacts to Drinking Water in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix„ AZ (served on conference orgarii zing oemmittee)- Ilagemann, M.F., 20W. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in tine 3outhwestem US- Invited pesentation to a special Nmmi lie, meetingof ihr National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA. liagemann, M.F., 20M. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation Loa tribal EPA meeting Pechanga, CA. lagemann, M-F-, 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a. mcrting of Tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ Ilagmann, M.F, 20M- Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies. Invited presentation to the inter -Tribal Meeting. Tortes Martinez Tribe. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant Invited prca•ntahon to the U S EPA Region 9_ ffagrmann, M.F-, 2003- A Deductive Approach to the Asges,mcnt of Perchlomie, Contamination- Invited prnscn lotion to the California Assembly Natural Resources Commuive- Ilagemann, M.F.,2003. Perchlorate: A Cold Wan Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meetingof the National Groundwater Assocation. Ilagern nn, M.F., 2002. From "lank to Tap. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a meetingof fine National Groundwatrr Assodation- Hagenimn, M.F'., 2002, A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists. Ilagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater (and who will Pay)_ Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association - Hagemann, M.F., 2002, An Fstimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meetirig of the U.S. EPA and State Underground Storage Tank Program managers. Hagemana, M.F., 20M. From Tarik to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report 75C-97 Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Dunking water. Unpublished report. Hagemann, M.F., 2001, Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. Unpublished report. Hagemann, M.F., and VatiMauwerik, M., 1999. Potential Water Quality Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report. VariMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft Usage- Watch Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Repom Flagemann, M.F-, 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National ParksB The George Wright Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina. Ilagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting Las Vegas, Nevada- Hagemann, M.F-, and Gill, M., 1996, impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt lake City. Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminants nn the Island of Maui, Hawaii- Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting Maui, Qctober 1996_ Ilagemann, M. F-, Fukanaga, G- L-, 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu, Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environrnental Resources Management, Air and Waste Managernenh Association Publication VIP-61. Ragman", W. 1994- Groundwater characterization and Cleanup at Closing Military Bases in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. Hagi,r , M.F. and Sabot, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA m the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater. Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL• contanun ited Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. 75C-98 Magetnann,. M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prrventinn... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35. Other ENVetienee. Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist li r smg examination, 2009- 2011. 75C-99 EXHIBIT D 75C-100 .C1 California Regional Water Quality Control Board \` /_ v Santa Ana Region 3737 Main Snia, Sun¢ 500, Rry aitlq Cali%mia 92501-3349 Linde S. Adams Plw-(951)7824130•FAX (951) 7814288• TDD(951) 782-3221 Sx rrary/o xrw.walvbovde.<e.goviaupmne G.vmmeNol Pm7e[ann August 13, 2010 Pedro Medrano Ricoh Electronics 1100 Valencia Avenue Tustin, Ca 92780 SUBJECT: NoFurther Action Ricoh Electronics Facility 2320 Redhill, Santa Ana LUSTIS Case Number 083000552T Dear Mr. Medrano: (a Arnold Jcbweaenaggcr G�um+ This letter confirms the completion of site investigation and remedial action for the underground storage tanks formerly located at the above described location. Enclosed is the Case Closure Summary for the referenced site for your records. Based on the available information, including the current land use, and with the provision that the information provided to this agency was accurate and representative of site conditions, no further action related to the underground storage tank release is required. This notice is issued pursuant to a regulation contained in Title 23, California Code of Regulations, Division 3, Chapter 16, Section 2721(e). Please telephone Carl Bernhardt of our Underground Storage Tank Section at 951-782-4495 or by electronic mail at cbernardt(&�waterboards.ca,eov if you have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, °�k/;� Kurt V. Berchtold Executive Officer Enclosures: Case Closure Summary Addressee: Pedro Medrano, Ricoh Pedro_A_Medrano@rei.ricoh.com cc with enclosures: Diana Plotkin, Kerney Property Mgmt: Diana Plotkin@karney.net Mark Gilmartin, Law Offices: mbgilmartin@earthlink.net Ann Suzuki, Ricoh Electronics: Anri_Suzuki@rei.ricoh.com Jay Neuhaus, Mactec: jrneuhaus@mactec.com David Rice, SWRCB: drice@waterboards.ca.gov Diana Conkle, SWRCB: dconkle@waterboards.ca.gov Eric Floyd, Wayne Perry, Inc: efloyd@wpi.com CAB/ ricoh closure letter CallJomia Environmental Protection Agency %j He111d F111 75C-101 CASE CLOSURE SUMMARY Leaking Underground Fuel Tank Program 1. Agency Information Agency Name California Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region Staff Carl A. Bernhardt Address 3737 Main St. Suite 500 Title Engineering Geologist City/State) Zip Riverside CA 92501-3348 Phone (951) 782-4495, Main* 782-4130 II. Case Information Site Name Ricoh Electronics, Inc. Location 2320 Redhill Avenue, Santa Ana Regional Board Case # 083000552T Local Agency Case # Responsible Parties Address Phone Number Ricoh Electronics Contact: Mr. Jeff Simko 1100Valencia Avenue Tustin, CA 92780 Tank No. Size in Gallons Contents Closed in place) Removed Date 1 30,000 Isoparaffin aliphatic hydrocarbons Removed September 1998 2 50,000 Isoparaffrn aliphatic hydrocarbons Removed July 1998 3 50,000 Isoparaffin aliphatic hydrocarbons Removed September 1998 5 40,000 Isoparaffin aliphatic hydrocarbons Removed October 2005 III. Release and Site Characterization Information Cause and type of release: Unknown Site characterization Moderate to low concentration of Date approved by agency complete? petroleum hydrocarbons were detected in the soil and groundwater to the south and southwest of the UST. The affected soil and groundwater was not defined to non -detect. Monitoring wells Yes Number I 11 Proper screen I Yes installed? interval? Deepest GW depth 13 feet Shallowest GW depth 5.67 feet Groundwater, most sensitive current use: Municipal Are drinking water wells affected? No Aquifer name Orange County Groundwater Management Zone Is surface water affected? No Nearest SW name San Diego Creek Off -site beneficial use Impacts (addressestlocations): None Report(s) on file? Yes Where islare report(s) filed? SARWQCB, 3737 Main Street, Suite 500 Riverside, CA 92501 75C-102 Case Closure Summary Site Name: Ricoh Electronics Case # 033000552T TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL OF AFFECTED MATERIAL Material Amount Action (treatment, disposal)/ Destination Date Soil Unknown Excavated and disposed off -site July —Sept. 1998 Soil Unknown Excavated and disposed off -site Sept. 2006 Groundwater 2, 160,000 gallons Extracted and treated using GAC Aug. 1988—May 1999 Isopar 4,371 gallons Extracted and disposed off -site Feb, 1988—May 1992 Excavation Water 100,000 gallons Extracted and treated using GAC July —Sept. 1998 J Ill. Release and Site Characterization Information (Continued) Maximum Documented Contaminant Concentration -Before and After Cleanup Contaminant Soil (mg/kg) Groundwater(ug/l) 1986 1998 2006 2008 Nov. 1986 March 1997 Feb. 2003 April 2005 Sept. 2009 TPH 1,000 4,000 360 (C13-28) 860 (C29-40) 490 (VFH) N/A 95,000 2,100 400 190 (VFH) 660 (El Free product N/A' N/A N/A NO 6' ND' NO NO NO Benzene NIA N/A N/A 0.0023 N/A NIA <2,0 N/A NO Toluene NIA N/A N/A 0.003 N/A N/A 5.1 N/A ND Ethyl Benzene NIA N!A N!A ND N/A NIA <0.2 N/A NO Xylene NIA N/A NIA NO N/A NIA <2.0 N/A NO MTBE NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA <5 N/A NO TBA NIA WA N/A NIA N/A NIA <5. NIA 7.9 Comments regarding investigation and remediation In July 1986, leakage was detected from piping associated with three USTs. The USTs stored ISOPAR G (C10-C11) and H (Cl1-C12), which was used in the manufacture of toner. Based on the results of a soil gas survey, four soil borings were advanced at the site. TPH (C6-C8) were detected at a concentration ranging from 50 to 1000 ppm. Six groundwater monitoring wells and twenty groundwater well points were installed to characterize the groundwater. N/A —Not Analyzed s ND — Not Detected 75C-103 Case Closure Summary Site Name: Ricoh Electronics Case # 083000552T Comments regarding investigation and remediation - continued Groundwater was encountered at approximately 10 feet bgs and was found to flow to the south_ Free product was detected up to 5.9 ft. In February 1988, FP recovery was initiated. On July 8, 1988 the Board issued Cleanup and Abatement Order CAD No. 88-78, requiring Ricoh to implement corrective measures and to establish waste discharge limits. In August 1988, Ricoh implemented groundwater extraction and treatment. Up to 14,000 gallons per day were discharged to the local storm drain which discharged into San Diego Creek. In September 1992, Ricoh requested cessation of groundwater remedial because free product was no longer detected in the lsoparfgroundwater recovery system. In a letter dated December 15, 1992, Regional Board staff denied the request due to the continued presence of free product in some groundwater monitoring wells and the lack of consistent groundwater monitoring. The recovery system reportedly operated until July 1998, when the three USTs were removed and replaced. In July through September 1998, the three USTs were removed and replaced by one 40,000-gallor Isopar UST. The UST area was reportedly excavated to a depth of 16 feet, approximately 100,ODO gallons of groundwater from the excavation were treated and discharged, and ORC was placed in the backfill. Due to the continued detection of elevated concentration of TPH in the groundwater, a subsurface investigation was conducted in December 2000. Five soil borings were advanced to 17 to 20 feet and three grab groundwater samples were collected. TPH was detected at a concentration of up to 1.9 mglkg in the soil samples and up to 8,000,D00 ug/I TPH was detected In the groundwater. In January 2003, two confirmatory wells were installed at the site. TPH was detected at a concentration of up to 2,100 ug/l in the groundwater. In February 2003, a 24-hour two phase extraction test was conducted. Vapor influent concentrations peaked at 1,D60 ppmv after 18 hours of operation. Approximately 13.5 Ill (2.1 gallons) of petroleum hydrocarbons were recovered. In April 2005, the TPH concentrations in the groundwater monitoring wells have reduced to 400 ug/I. As a result, Ricoh requested site closure. Final consideration of closure of the site was delayed due to the pending removal of the one remaining UST. In September 2006, the 40,000-gallon UST was removed. Two soil samples were collected each from under the UST and the dispenser. TPH (C13-C28) and TPH (C29-C40) were detected at concentrations up to 360 ppm and 86D ppm, respectively. TPH (C13-C28) and TPH (C29-C40) were detected in groundwater samples collected from the excavation at concentrations up to 530 ug/I and not detected, respectively. In July 2008, six soil borings were advanced on the Ricoh and adjacent Jaydee property to depths ranging from 17 to 45 feet bgs. The results indicated TPH at a concentration of 300 and 490 ppm in soil sampled from boring B-5 at depths of 10 and 15 feet bgs, respectively. Groundwater was sampled from two of the borings at depths ranging from 35 to 45 feet bgs. No TPH or VOCs were detected in the groundwater samples. In September 2009, two groundwater monitoring wells were installed or the adjacent Jaydee property next to boring locations B-5 and M. Groundwater was found at approximately 13 feet bgs and groundwater flow was to the south to southwest TPH-g and TPH-d were detected at a concentration of 190 ug/I and 660 ug/l, respectively. On May 11, 2010, Board staff notified the legal counsel and property manger representing the fee holder of the adjacent property of the pending site closure. Board staff has not received any comments in response to the May 11, 2010 letter. Based on this data, Ricoh's consultant asserts the following: • In June 2006, volatile fuel petroleum hydrocarbons were detected at a maximum concentration of 490 mg/kg in soil samples collected from the Jaydee property indicating that the concentrations are decreasing laterally from the former UST. 75C-104 Case Closure Summary Site Name: Ricoh Electronics Case # 083000552T • Groundwater samples collected on the Jaycee property indicate petroleum fuel concentrations are not at a concentration of concern and are stable. No further action should be required because the low levels of petroleum hydrocarbons in the sal and groundwater do not pose a health risk. Board staff is recommending site closure for the following reasons: • The USTs have been removed from the site. • A significant volume of the source petroleum hydrocarbons in the soil has been removed • The residual petroleum hydrocarbons in the soil and groundwater appear not to pose a significant enough risk to groundwater quality or the underlying groundwater's beneficial uses to warrant the expense of further remediallon. • It is anticipated that the concentration and mass of residual petroleum hydrocarbons would continue to decline. due to biodegration and natural attenuation. • The SARWQCB has not established TPH cleanup levels for soil for protection of human health and, at this time, no statewide TPH cleanup levels have been established. However, the residual concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons detected in the soil borings do not exceed the environmental screening levels (ESLs) established by the San Francisco RWQCB for direct exposure for commercial workers (450 ppm for soils <3 m deep and 4200 ppm for soils >3 m deep for gasoline and diesel and 3700 ppm for residual fuels with a carbon chain > 24) and the Gross Contamination Ceiling Levels (for odors, etc.) for shallow soils (500 ppm for gasoline and diesel and 2500 ppm for residual fuels). Furthermore, according to Mullin, at at (199% isoparaffinic hydrocarbon compounds "have a very low order of acute toxicity, being practically non -toxic by oral, dermal and inhalation routes. However, aspiration of liquid isopariffins into the lungs during oral ingestion could result in severe pulmonary injury' and non -evaporative dermal exposure by liquid isopariffins "have produced slight to moderate irritation". Given that no free product isopar is currently being detected at the site, it appears that there is a low likelihood that commercial workers would be exposed to liquid matter Based on these criteria, Board staff is not requiring a quantitative risk assessment of the residual petroleum hydrocarbons or vapor intrusion studies to determine if the residual petroleum hydrocarbons pose any risk to the nearby building occupants in the soil at this time. On August 6, 2010, five groundwater monitoring wells and two groundwater extraction wells were abandoned on the Ricoh and adjacent Jaycee Enterprises properties. If land use changes at the site, a review of the corrective actions may be warranted if on -site excavation or construction activities expose contaminated soil or if changes in land use indicates that the residual contamination at the site poses a 75C-105 Case Closure Summary Site Name: Ricoh Electronics IV. Closure Case # 083000552T Does completed corrective action protect existing beneficial uses per Regional Board Basin Yes Plan? Does completed corrective action protect potential beneficial uses per the Regional Board Basin Yes Plan? Does collective action protect public health for current land Yes use? Site Management requirements? None Should corrective action be reviewed if land use See above discussions. changes? Monitoring/Extraction wells 11 Number 11 Number 0 decommissioned decommissioned retained List enforcement actions taken CAO, 88-78, Site Specific NPDES Permit -Order 89-11 List enforcement actions Order 89-11 was superseded by General Groundwater Treatment Permit 91-83. rescinded Order 88-78 rescinded on February 2, 2007 V. Regional Board Representative Data Name Kennet R. Will Title Supervisor, Pollutant Investigation Section Signature Date 1 O1/1 7l�/ VII. References Linda S. Mullin, Allan W. Ader, Wayne C Daughtrey, Debra Z. Frost, Michael R, Greenwood , 1990, Toxicology update isoparaffinic hydrocarbons. A summary of physical properties, toxicity studies and human exposure data, Journal of Applied Toxicology, Volume 10, Issue 2, Pages 135-142, This page intentionally left blank. 75C-106 Response to Lozeau Drury LLP Comment Letter dated May 11, 2020 Comment 1: This comment provides an introductory statement to the letter from Lozeau Drury LLP. The introductory statement notes the comments on the Final EIR are submitted on behalf of the Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility, and its members living in and near Santa Ana. The comment also provides generalized assertions and states that the EIR fails to comply with CEQA and fails to adequately analyze and mitigate the Project's impacts and should be recirculated prior to approval. The letter also states that the letter includes comments from technical reviewers related to air quality, traffic, and hazardous materials. Response 1: This comment is general in nature and does not provide any examples or citations of where analysis within the EIR is flawed, where additional information is needed, or what feasible mitigation is recommended. In accordance with CEQA, the City of Santa Ana prepared a Draft and Final EIR for the proposed Project for the purpose of informing City decision makers, governmental agencies, and the public about the potential significant environmental effects of the proposed Project, identifying the ways that environmental impacts can be avoided or significantly reduced, and implementing mitigation to reduce and prevent impacts to the environment. The EIR adequately analyzes the environmental effects of the proposed Project, and the conclusions in the EIR are supported by substantial evidence in the record. None of the requirements for recirculation listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, have been triggered, and recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required. Comment 2: This comment summarizes the proposed Project, including the proposed discretionary actions. Response 2: This comment is an introduction and summary of the Project and does not include comment about the environmental analysis in the EIR and, therefore, does not require an additional response. Comment 3: This comment provides a summary of CEQA requirements through references to case law and statutes. The comment asserts that the Final EIR fails to meet CEQA's legal standards and includes conclusory statements that lack any factual support or analysis. Response 3: This comment is general in nature and does not identify any specific alleged deficiency with the analysis in the EIR, or any other alleged noncompliance with CEQA. To the extent such argument is asserted, the EIR thoroughly and appropriately evaluated the Project's potential environmental impacts, and the conclusions of the EIR are supported by substantial evidence, including expert opinion. Comment 4: This comment provides an introduction to Francis Offermann, PE, CIP and describes that Mr. Offermann explains that many composite wood products typically used in modern home construction contain formaldehyde -based glues which off -gas formaldehyde. The comment asserts that there is a fair argument that residents of the Project will be exposed to a cancer risk from formaldehyde of approximately 112 per million, which is above the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk of 10 per million. The comment further asserts that these indoor emissions could be exacerbated by roadway emissions near the Project and provides mitigation measures. Response 4: The comment does not describe how the asserted formaldehyde related cancer risk of 1 12 per million would occur and does not identify any Project -specific conditions (other than the fact that the Project's construction may use wood building materials) that would lead to impacts. Current federal and state regulations exist, which limit the potential formaldehyde emissions from building materials. On June 1, 2018, the U. S. Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Title VI was implemented, which requires composite wood products sold, supplied, offered for sale, manufactured, or imported in the United States are 75C-107 required to meet new emission standards for formaldehyde from composite wood products in order to reduce exposures to formaldehyde and avoid adverse health effects. Typical composite wood products include hardwood plywood, medium -density fiberboard, and particleboard, as well as household and other finished goods containing these products. The new emission limits include the following: • Hardwood Plywood: 0.05 parts per million (ppm) • Particleboard: 0.09 ppm • Medium -density fibreboard: 0.1 1 ppm • Thin Medium -density fibreboard: 0.13 ppm These emission levels were determined to be incompliance with and result in less exposure (e.g., daily intake) than the California Proposition 65 safe harbor level for formaldehyde (40 µg/day), which is based on Proposition 65's risk criterion of 1 in 100,000. Thus, products manufactured to TSCA Title VI and California Proposition 65 safe harbor standards, which is now required by the U.S. EPA for all products manufactured or imported into the United States, would not generate formaldehyde emissions that would exceed the SCAQMD significance threshold of 10 per million. CARB identifies that these standards are projected to lead to a reduction in statewide formaldehyde emissions of 500 tons per year. Reduced risk of cancer from formaldehyde exposure is also a resulting benefit, and implementation of these standards is estimated to reduce excess cancer cases per million people from formaldehyde exposure by about 40 percent (https://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/compwood/implementation/faq.htm#G). The CalGreen Building Code also includes similar formaldehyde limits for building products. The Project would be implemented pursuant to these formaldehyde requirements, as all products manufactured or imported in the United States would be required to meet these regulations. This would limit the potential of human health and cancer risks to a less than significant level pursuant to the SCAQMD significance threshold of 10 per million. Thus, building material manufacturer compliance with existing regulations would avoid potentially significant impacts related to formaldehyde. Thereby, the Project would also result in less than significant impacts. Comment 5: This comment states that the City has the duty to investigate potential environmental impacts related to formaldehyde emissions to reduce the cancer risk below the SCAQMD threshold. The comment provides references to case law and statutes related to assessing potential health impacts and asserts that the Project would generate substantial formaldehyde emissions. The comment further states that the information provided establishes a fair argument that the Project will have a significant adverse environmental impact and a revised EIR is required. Response 5: As described above in Response 4, the Project would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for formaldehyde, and health risks or other substantial adverse effects on human beings related to formaldehyde would not occur from the Project. Thus, mitigation measures would not be required. In addition, the comment does not constitute substantial evidence of a fair argument of a significant environmental impact. Comment 6: This comment states that attached comments of traffic engineer Dan Smith indicate that the Project will have significant impacts on traffic and that the EIR relies on a hypothetical traffic baseline rather than conditions that exist at the time environmental analysis begins. The comment provides references to case law and statutes related to baseline conditions and states that rather than relying on 75C-108 the traffic generated from the partially vacant building space, the traffic analysis assumed that the site was fully occupied. The comment asserts that this resulted in understatement of project traffic impacts. Response 6: The baseline used for the traffic study was calculated using existing traffic counts taken at the project study intersections. The traffic counts were collected in April and May 2019 and were used to calculate the existing and opening year traffic conditions. The existing counts were also used as the base for post -processing OCTAM model data. As a result, the baseline is not hypothetical, as the commenter asserts. Rather, the baseline is based on actual observed conditions within the project study area within one year of the circulation of the EIR. The commenter is incorrect in the assertion that the traffic analysis does not rely on the baseline traffic conditions at the time of the NOP. Credit for existing land uses was taken in the project trip generation, which provides a more realistic analysis of the project impacts, as the existing uses are present on -site and could be re -operated without any discretionary action by the City. The vacancy at the project site has occurred only around a year prior to the NOP in response to the expectation of selling the property for the existing project. Therefore, it is appropriate to consider the existing use at full capacity. With no project, it would be expected that the existing use would reoccupy the space to the maximum entitlement of the site. The comment also asserts that the trip generation prepared for the existing land uses is too high based on the existing use of the site. However, as stated previously, the credit for existing land uses is based on the previous use of the site, not on the existing site operation. The credit for existing land uses was reviewed and approved by the Cities of Santa Ana, Tustin and Irvine prior to preparation of the technical analysis. None of the Cities raised any significant concern about the methodology and no comments to this regard were received during the public comment period. Comment 7: This comment states that The EIR improperly classifies 18,000 square feet of retail in the Project as a shopping center; that 18,000 square feet does not constitute a shopping center, and further asserts that by using the shopping center land use traffic generation rate, the EIR underestimates that traffic that would be generated by the proposed Project. Response 7:. In the FEIR, the square feet of retail increased from 18,000 square feet of retail to 31,000 square feet of retail. The specific retail use is not known at the time of preparing the EIR, so shopping center was used. This is common with multi -family and mixed -use projects and is consistent with other previously approved projects in the City such as the nearby Heritage project located at 2001 E. Dyer Road. Therefore, it is appropriate for the project to use shopping center for the retail portion of the project. Furthermore, the commenter asserts that the size of the shopping center is consistent with a boutique grocery store or pharmacy. However, both grocery and pharmacy uses would require one larger retail space. The project proposes a number of smaller retail spaces, which is consistent with the description of "Shopping Center" as provided in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation, 1 Oth Edition. That description states "A shopping center is an integrated group of commercial establishments that is planned, developed, owned, and managed as a unit". ITE provides separate rates for grocery and pharmacy, neither of which are applicable to the project. Furthermore, the ITE database for land use 820 — Shopping Center includes 21 studies of shopping centers that are 31,000 square feet or smaller. There is sufficient data to establish a trip generation rate for smaller shopping centers. In addition, a Study by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Trip -Generation Rates for Urban Infill Land Uses in California (2009) discusses appropriate trip rates for infill mixed -use development projects. One of those rates for retail is shopping center, which can range from shopping centers less than 190,000 square feet to individual businesses within buildings. The Bowery comfortably falls within that range, making the use of shopping center appropriate. Finally, the comment states that ITE's Shopping Center category is meant for structures of 400,000 square feet of retail or more. This statement is not supported by the description provided in Trip Generation, or by 75C-109 a critical examination of the data which supports the trip rates, which includes samples from sites with 2,000 square feet to more than 2,000,000 square feet. Comment 8: This comment asserts that the EIR makes excessive assumptions of trip reductions from internalization and passer-by attraction, which when combined with improper deductions from existing land uses, makes a series of assumptions that are favorable to the Project. The comment further states that CEQA requires a lead agency to disclose the full scope of potential impacts and asserts that by relying on the most favorable assumptions, the EIR fails as an informational document. Response 8: The project appropriately uses the internal trip capture rate and passer-by attraction rates provided by the ITE Trip Generation Handbook 3'd Edition. These rates come from multiple studies taken throughout the country and are the most current rates provided by the ITE. Once again, these rates are also consistent with previously approved projects in the City such as the Heritage Project. Therefore, it is appropriate for the project to take credit for internal capture and pass -by trips to analyze a more realistic impact. It is not required in CEQA to overestimate and mitigate unrealistic projects impacts. CEQA requires a good faith analysis of realistic project impacts. Utilizing these rates provide a realistic analysis of the projects impacts due to the nature of a mixed -use project. This comment also states that the internal trip capture and pass -by reductions were the maximum end of the range provided in the Trip Generation Handbook, 31d Edition. This statement is incorrect. The pass -by reductions were taken from the average pass -by reductions shown in the Trip Generation Handbook, 31d Edition. Additionally, the internal trip capture was calculated using the NCHRP Report 684 spreadsheet which is consistent with the Trip Generation Handbook methodology. This method does not provide a range of internal trip capture reductions, but rather calculates the internal and external trips based on project characteristics and trip generation. Comment 9: This comment states that the EIR fails to adequately respond to comments on traffic by the Orange County Transportation Agency. The comment asserts that the correction of text related to roadway cross sections in the Final EIR failed to analyze whether the changes have any consequential impact on the outcomes of impact analysis. The comment further asserts that overstating the number of lanes on several roadways could have significant consequences on the Project's traffic impacts and that the EIR should be revised to address the impact of these changes on the traffic analysis. Response 9: The response to Orange County Transportation Agency's (OCTA) comments provided in the FEIR adequately respond to OCTA's comments. Many of the text changes did not correspond to the study intersections analysis and would not have any impact on the results. The text changes that did correspond to study intersections were updated in both the text and analysis, so any impact on the analysis was accounted for and shown in the FEIR. Comment 10: This comment asserts that as a result of numerous deficiencies, the EIR's traffic analysis violates CEQA. Response 10: As described in the previous responses, the EIR's traffic analysis adequately analyses the projects transportation impacts and honors the intent of CEQA. All of the assumptions and reductions made are in accordance with widely accepted rates from ITE and consistent with previously approved projects in the City such as the Heritage project. It is not required to overanalyze and mitigate unrealistic impacts under CEQA. The intent of CEQA is to accurately analyze a project's impacts and mitigate reasonable and foreseeable impacts. The scope of the Traffic Impact Analysis as well as the final analysis was reviewed 75C-110 and approved by the Cities of Santa Ana, Irvine and Tustin and conform to accepted traffic engineering methods. The traffic section of the EIR as well as the supporting Traffic Impact Analysis appropriately analyses the foreseeable impacts and provides reasonable mitigation measures and is therefore consistent with the intent and standards of CEQA. Comment 11: This comment asserts that the Project will have a significant impact on population and housing by displacing 200 homeless people. The comment states that although the City is working on various homeless shelter solutions that are anticipated to be available for the existing persons on the Project site prior to construction of the proposed Project, the EIR does not provide substantial evidence to support the conclusion that the Project would not have a significant impact; and thus, violates CEQA. Response 11: Mercy House Living Centers, Inc., has a two-year contract with the City of Santa Ana to operate an Interim Emergency Homeless Shelter at the Project site, which is set to expire in October 2020, with an optional one-year extension. The current zoning, Light Industrial (M-1), does not permit permanent residential uses and the temporary emergency facility is an interim use which will be relocated prior to the construction of the proposed Project. Independent of the proposed Project, the City has been taking the required steps to identify a new location for the Interim Emergency Homeless Shelter, given the temporary nature of the facility described earlier. The City of Santa Ana Community Development Agency is taking steps to identify a new location for City Council consideration, tentatively within the next 30 days. Comment 12- This comment asserts that the EIR fails to disclose that the Project site is contaminated with hazardous materials and is on the Cortese List, and provides the Draft EIR discussion related to impacts related to sites on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. The comment also asserts that the Final EIR includes a statement that "Sites where response actions have been completed and no operation and maintenance activities are required are not included on the list." Response 12: As detailed in the EIR, the Project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Section 65962.5(a)(4) requires that DTSC shall compile and update as appropriate, a list of hazardous substance release sites subject to a response action. The DTSC's list of sites are published in the DTSC "Envirostor" database at the following weblink: https://www.envi rostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search.asp?cmd=sea rch&reporttype=CORTESE&site_type=CS I TES,OP EN,FU DS,CLOS E&status=ACT,BKLG,COM&reporttitle=HAZARDOUS+WASTE+AND+SUBSTANCES +SITE+LIST. In addition, Cortese List sites are mapped on the DTSC website: https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov. The Project site is not on the DTSC list or mapping. In addition, the EIR does not include the statement that "Sites where response actions have been completed and no operation and maintenance activities are required are not included on the list" However, that language is provided on the CaIEPA website related to the Cortese List: https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/section-65962-5a/ Comment 13- This comment asserts that the DTSC has indicated that the site is on the Cortese List. The comment also states that closure of an underground storage tank case does not take a site off the Cortese List because residual contamination may remain at levels that would not be safe for residential development. The comment further asserts that the site would be put on the Cortese List for remedial contamination. Response 13: As described in Response 12, the Project site is not on the Cortese List. As detailed in the Final EIR, the DTSC did not state that the Project is on the Cortese List. The DTSC comment requested additional information be provided from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) 75C-111 GeoTracker database, and to describe the site remediation. The GeoTracker database is the State Water Resources Control Board's management system for sites that impact, or have the potential to impact, water quality in California, with emphasis on groundwater. The database contains both current and historic records of spill and cleanup sites and is not the Cortese List compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (the link to which is provided in Response 12). The Geotracker database identifies that the site had leakage from underground piping in 1986 and went through remediation until cleanup was determined by the RWQCB to be "Completed" and the RWQCB case was "Closed" in 2010. In addition, the site would not be put on the Cortese List for remedial contamination. As described in Section 5.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Draft EIR, the Project site has undergone extensive testing related to hazardous substances through preparation of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in 2018, a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment in 2018, and a Limited Phase II Subsurface Investigation Report in 2019, which are provided as Appendix F of the Draft EIR. These investigations determined that the Project site contains approximately 900 cubic yards of contaminated soil that would require excavation and disposal as part of excavation and grading activities. This includes approximately, 850 cubic yards of TPH contaminated soils (above residential screening levels) and 80 cubic yards of TPH-(diesel) contaminated soils. These contaminated soils are part of the existing condition and would be remediated during Project excavation and grading activities as required by DTSC, California Integrated Waste Management Board, RWQCB, OCFA, and the Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA) for residential uses. Thus, with compliance with existing regulations as implemented through the City's permitting process and Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, the Project would safely remove the existing hazardous materials and improve the environment of the Project site. These cleanup activities that would occur as part of the Project would not result in the site being included on the Cortese List. Comment 14: This comment states that the EIR fails to disclose material information about the Project site, and that the public and decision makers are required to dig the appendices of the EIR in order to find out basic information about the Project, and asserts that this is a violation of CEQA. The comment further asserts that the Draft EIR: • Does not disclose that the Project site is contaminated with hazardous materials at levels that exceed residential human health screening levels. • Does not disclose the impact the existing contamination could have on human health of construction workers or future residents of the Property. • Does not mention or describe previous hazardous materials remediation efforts at the Project site. • Does not disclose that the Project will need to re -open its formerly closed case in order to further remediate existing contamination such that the site would meet residential contamination standards. Response 14: This comment is inaccurate. The Draft and Final EIRs describe the various subsurface investigations that were conducted on the site to identify potential areas of contamination. As described in Section 5.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Draft EIR, the Project site has undergone extensive testing related to hazardous substances through preparation of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, and a Limited Phase II Subsurface Investigation that are summarized on page 5.7-9 of the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR describes the location of the former underground storage tanks (USTs) and the estimated volume of existing soil that is contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) above residential screening levels. In addition, the Draft EIR describes that 75C-112 there are no detectable levels of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) in soil gas, and the levels of VOC in soil do not exceed residential use standards (Draft EIR page 5.7-9). As described in Response 13, hazardous substances would be remediated during Project excavation and grading activities as required by DTSC, California Integrated Waste Management Board, RWQCB, OCFA, and the OCHCA for residential uses. Thus, with compliance with existing regulations as implemented through the City's permitting process and Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, the Project would safely remove the existing hazardous materials and improve the environment of the Project site. The Soil Management Plan (SMP) required by Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would detail hazardous materials excavation and disposal methods and requirements pursuant to the regulation of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations (CaIOSHA) and DTSC regulations for the removal, transportation, and disposal of hazardous waste that are designed to protect human health and the environment, including construction workers on the site. In addition, as describe on Draft EIR page 5.7-2, the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act Safety and Health Regulations for Construction (29 CFR Part 1926.65 Appendix C) contains requirements for construction activities, which include occupational health and environmental controls to protect worker health and safety. The guidelines describe the health and safety plan(s) that must be developed and implemented during construction, including associated training, protective equipment, evacuation plans, chains of command, and emergency response procedures. In addition, CalOSHA requires preparation of an Injury and Illness Prevention Program (IIPP). Compliance with OSHA and CalOSHA regulations would maintain worker safety related to the removal and disposal of contaminated soils. Adherence to Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would implement a site specific a SMP that includes hazard -specific OSHA and Cal/OSHA regulations. Thus, adequate mitigation measures are identified that would protect both the environment and construction workers. As required by CEQA, the Section 5.7.3, Environmental Setting, provides a description of the former uses on the Project site and the potentially existing hazardous materials that are on the Project site. The Draft EIR further evaluates the potential of the Project to result in environmental impacts related to this existing condition. Previous remediation activities on the site are described in Appendix F of the Draft EIR. In addition, as described in Response to Comment 12, the Project site is not on the Cortese List and the Project would not result in the site being included on the Cortese List. Conversely, the Project would safely remove the existing hazardous materials and meet residential standards pursuant to existing regulations that would be ensured through Project permitting. Commenf IS: This comment asserts that the EIR fails to provide a good faith reasoned response to comments from DTSC and provides a summary of CEQA requirements related to response to comments through references to case law and statutes. The comment further asserts that the response to the DTSC request for GeoTracker information is inadequate, that the site should be identified as on the Cortese list and that it should be described if the Project site was remediated to meet the residential land use cleanup goals. Response 15: As described previously in Responses to Comments 12 and 13, the Project site is not on the Cortese List and the DTSC did not state that the Project is on the Cortese List. The DTSC comment requested additional information be provided from the RWQCB GeoTracker database, which was provided in response. In addition, as described previously in Responses the Project would safely remove the existing hazardous materials and meet residential standards pursuant to existing regulations that would be ensured through Project permitting. 75C-113 Comment 16: This comment asserts that the EIR states that Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 is insufficient to ensure mitigation of impacted soils and that engagement of the DTSC is necessary. The comment further states that a soil mitigation plan is not an instrument that is used by DTSC. The comment provides suggested mitigation language and provides activities that asserts are from the DTSC comment letter. Response 16: As described in the Final EIR and page 5.7-22 of the Draft EIR, contaminated soils would be excavated and removed during Project excavation and grading activities pursuant to the regulations of DTSC, California Integrated Waste Management Board, RWQCB, OCFA, and the OCHCA. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 requires approval of a Soil Management Plan (SMP) to ensure that excavation of contaminated soils be completed pursuant to existing DTSC and RWQCB requirements. The SMP would detail hazardous materials excavation and disposal methods and requirements pursuant to the regulation of Title 8 of the CaIOSHA regulations and DTSC requirements for the removal, transportation, and disposal of hazardous waste to protect human health and the environment. Therefore, the mitigation related to removal of the contaminated soils includes engagement of the DTSC, as necessary. In addition, contrary to the comment, the DTSC comment letter (included in the Final EIR) does not include a list of requirements for a removal action work plan. Comment 17: This comment asserts that the Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 constitutes deferred mitigation, and that this is a deferral of mitigation that is not allowed by CEQA. The comment also provides a summary of CEQA requirements related to deferral of mitigation through references of court decisions and statutes. In addition, the comment states that the deferred mitigation removes the CEQA decision -making body from its decision -making role and that the EIR may not rely on programs to be developed and implemented later without approval by the City. The comment further states that without valid mitigation, the Project's significant hazardous materials impact remains significant. Response 17: Refer to Response 16. As described, the EIR ensures compliance with all the applicable hazardous materials regulations through the proposed mitigation. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would implement a site specific a SMP that would ensure specific existing regulations, procedures, and standards for removal, handling, and disposal of contaminated soils to protect human health and the environment would occur. The SMP would be based on the specific construction activities within the areas that contain the contaminated soils. The proposed mitigation does not constitute deferral because measurable performance standards that are set by existing regulations are required to be conducted. Use of existing regulations and their related performance standards that reduce environmental impacts are allowed pursuant to CEQA. Furthermore, the EIR and mitigation provides full disclosure and informed decision making by detailing the environmental issues of concern and methods for reducing the impact to a less than significant level. Comment 18: This comment states that the EIR must be revised to correct its inconsistent statements about the likelihood of encountering contaminated groundwater during Project construction. The comment states that the Draft EIR page 5.5-5 in Section 5.5, Geology and Soils, states that based on onsite borings (completed in May 2019) the depth of groundwater is in the range of 24 to 33 feet below ground surface (bgs), which is not consistent with the RWQCB No Further Action letter for the Project site, which states that groundwater is at depths of 5.67 to 13 feet deep. In addition, the comment states that The EIR needs to plan for protection of construction workers who may encounter contaminated groundwater when excavation is conducted. Furthermore, the comment requests the City to require preparation of a revised EIR. Response IS: The City recognizes that RWQCB No Further Action letter for the Project site (as provided by the comment) describes the history of groundwater sampling and monitoring at the site, which shows that groundwater levels fluctuate and ranged in depths from 5.67 to 13 feet bgs between 1986 and 75C-114 2009. Likewise, the onsite borings (completed in May 2019) show that the depth to groundwater was in the range of 24 to 33 feet. The boring records are provided in Appendix C of the Draft EIR. However, in the case that groundwater is encountered during Project construction, it would be treated and discharged, similar to the previous clean up activity detailed in the RWQCB No Further Action letter. As described in Responses 14 and 16, the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act Safety and Health Regulations for Construction contains requirements for construction activities, including health and safety plan(s). In addition, the CalOSHA required Injury and Illness Prevention Program (IIPP) would maintain worker safety related to potentially contaminated groundwater. Thus, implementation of construction pursuant to existing regulations as ensured through the permitting process would reduce potential impacts related to construction workers who may encounter contaminated groundwater when excavation is conducted to a less than significant level. The comment has not identified a potentially new impact not described in the EIR. Thus, none of the requirements for recirculation, as listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, have been triggered, and recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required. Comment 19: This comment provides background information related to indoor air quality that is general in nature. The comment refers to the California New Home Study completed in 2009 by Mr. Offermann (the commenter) in which many of the homes exceeded No Significant Risk Levels of formaldehyde. The comment asserts that based on findings from the previous study, the proposed Project would expose future residents to a significant airborne cancer risk of 180 per million, which is above the threshold of 10 per million. Response 19: The circumstances of the 2009 study referenced by this comment and the residences evaluated in the 2009 study are different than and not applicable to the proposed Project. The residences surveyed were built between 2002 and 2004 and 64 percent of the ventilation systems in the homes did not meet 2008 Building Efficiency Standards. The proposed Project would be developed pursuant to the most recent building standards at the time of development (the 2019 standards took effect on January 1, 2020 and were adopted by the City), which would far exceed the function of the older systems evaluated in the study. The study found that formaldehyde concentrations were significantly higher in residences with non -mechanically ventilated and ducted outdoor air units. However, all Project buildings would be fully ventilated with air filtration systems with efficiencies that meet or exceed the California Building Code standards at the time of permitting. Thus, the lack of filtered ventilation that occurred during the study referenced by this comment, would not occur by the proposed Project. In addition, page 7 of the study states that "the research team was not able to determine the extent to which formaldehyde -based resins were used in the composite wood identified in the homes". Therefore, the assertion in this comment that the levels of formaldehyde identified in the 2009 study were from wood composite products that would be used in the proposed Project is unfounded. It should be noted that the recommendations of the 2009 study are consistent with the Project. The study recommends that mechanical air ventilation systems that provide a dependable and continuous flow of air should be included in residences, which would occur with the proposed Project. The recommendations of the 2009 study also include regulating emissions of formaldehyde from wood products, which has been done by the U.S EPA and became effective in 2018. The proposed Project would be required through federal product standards to utilize products that have to be manufactured or imported pursuant to TSCA Title VI and California Proposition 65 safe harbor standards, which would not exceed the SCAQMD significance threshold of 10 per million and the Project would result in less than significant impacts related to formaldehyde and no mitigation is required. Comment 20: This comment states that formaldehyde can be an eye and respiratory irritant and that many of the residences in the 2009 study exceeded non -cancer reference levels. The comment also states 75C-115 that the primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea - formaldehyde resins, and that the CARB standards adopted in 2009 have reduced emissions from composite wood products sold in California, but they do not preclude that homes built with composite wood products meeting the CARB ATCM will have indoor formaldehyde concentrations that are below cancer and non -cancer exposure guidelines. Response 20: Refer to Response 19. The U.S. EPA requires all products manufactured or imported into the United States to meet TSCA Title VI and California Proposition 65 safe harbor standards that include regulations related to composite wood products manufactured with urea -formaldehyde resins, would preclude the Project from resulting in indoor formaldehyde emissions that would exceed the SCAQMD significance threshold of 10 per million. Thus, impacts would be less than significant. Comment 21: This comment asserts that a follow up study to the California New Home Study conducted in 2016-2018 found that the 2009 CARB requirements reduced indoor formaldehyde emissions by 38 percent, the median lifetime cancer risk is still 112 per million for homes built with CARB compliant composite wood products which is more than 11 times the 10 in a million threshold. The comment also states that employees on the site would have a cancer risk of 16.4 per million, which exceeds the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million and that the EIR should impose mitigation measures to reduce this impact. Response 21: This comment is inaccurate. The follow up study referred to by this comment concluded that the residences developed in compliance to the 2009 CARB requirements showed good compliance with installed mechanical ventilation requirements; however, because the ventilation systems were not operating, the formaldehyde concentrations were similar to the previous study. Furthermore, the results of the follow up study found that adequate ventilation reduces formaldehyde to below the SCAQMD threshold. (Accessible: https://cloudfront.escholarship.org/dist/prd/content/gt2xg7s5nv/gt2xg7s5nv.pdf?t=pamtn8) As described previously, the Project would utilize TSCA Title VI products that meet California Proposition 65 safe harbor standards and operate air filtration systems with efficiencies equal to or exceeding California Building Code regulations. Thus, the lack of ventilation that occurred during the studies referenced by this comment would not occur in the proposed Project. Thus, the levels of indoor formaldehyde described by the comment would not occur, and as detailed in previous responses, would be less than the SCAQMD threshold and no mitigation measures would be required. Comment 22. This comment states that a formaldehyde emissions assessment should be used in the environmental review under CEQA to assess the indoor formaldehyde concentrations from the proposed loading of building materials/furnishings and minimum air ventilation rates. The comment also provides specific methodology to determine formaldehyde concentrations, and states that the methodology ensures that the materials and furnishings would have acceptable cancer risks related to formaldehyde off gassing. Response 22: Refer to Response to Comment 19. The U.S. EPA requires all products manufactured or imported into the United States to meet TSCA Title VI and California Proposition 65 safe harbor standards that include regulations related to composite wood products manufactured with urea -formaldehyde resins, would preclude the Project from resulting in indoor formaldehyde emissions that would exceed the SCAQMD significance threshold of 10 per million. Thus, impacts would be less than significant, and the formaldehyde emissions assessment described by the comment is not required. Comment 23: This comment describes the findings of the previously discussed New Home Studies and states that outdoor air ventilation is a very important factor influencing the indoor concentrations of air contaminants and that 32 percent of the residences did not use their windows during the test day, and 15 75C-116 percent of the residences did not use their windows during the entire preceding week. The comment asserts that because the Project is located near high traffic roadways that generate noise, the Project will require mechanical supply of outdoor air ventilation air to allow for a habitable interior environment with closed windows and doors. Response 23: Refer to Response to Comment 21. Based on this comment a majority (68 percent) of residences opened windows the day of the testing and 85 percent opened their windows during the week of the testing. Thus, the study indicates that a majority of study residences had open windows at least part of the time. In addition, as described by previous responses, building ventilation with air filtration systems that equal to or exceed California Building Code requirements would be installed. Thus, the proposed Project includes a mechanical supply of filtered outdoor air ventilation air for all of the residences. Comment 24: This comment states that traffic associated with the Project would result in increased outdoor concentrations of PM2.5 and that the Project is within a non -attainment area for PM2.5, and that an air quality analysis should be conducted to determine concentrations of PM2.5 and consider cumulative impacts. The comment further states that if outdoor concentrations exceed state and national standards, a mechanical air filtration system for PM2.5 concentrations should be used. Response 24: As described in Draft EIR Section 5.2, Air Quality, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) maintains monitoring stations that monitor air quality and compliance with associated ambient standards. The Project site is located within the monitoring boundary of the Central Orange County monitoring station (SRA 17), which is 10.2 miles northwest of the Project site. As detailed on Draft EIR page 5.2-9, in 2018 the concentrations of PM2.5 exceeded standards for 3 days. Thus, the level of PM2.5 in the Project area is limited. In addition, as shown in Draft EIR Tables 5.2-7 through 5.2-9, implementation of the Project would not result in exceedances of PM2.5 thresholds. Thus, impacts related to PM2.5 emissions would not occur from the Project. Also, as described in Response 19, the proposed Project includes building ventilation with air filtration systems that equal to or exceed the California Building code. Comment 25: This comment provides recommended mitigation measures to reduce indoor formaldehyde concentrations, which includes: 1) use of only composite wood materials that are CARB approved no - added formaldehyde (NAF) resins or ultralow emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins, or complete the previously provided emissions assessment to determine formaldehyde concentrations; 2) provide all habitable rooms with a continuous mechanical supply of outdoor air that meets or exceeds the California 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards; and 3) install air filtration with a minimum efficiency of MERV 13 to filter the outdoor air entering the mechanical outdoor air supply system. Response 25: As described in Responses to Comments 19, 21, and 22, the levels of indoor formaldehyde within Project buildings would not exceed the SCAQMD significance threshold of 10 per million and the Project would result in less than significant impacts related to formaldehyde. Therefore, no mitigation is required. However, as required by the U.S. EPA and CARE, the proposed Project would utilize products that have to be manufactured or imported pursuant to TSCA Title VI and California Proposition 65 safe harbor standards. In addition, the Project includes air filtration systems with efficiencies equal to or exceeding the California Building Code requirements. Comment 26: This comment provides a discussion regarding CARB ATCM regulations related to formaldehyde and states that it does not regulate the formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products. The comment also states that if CARB Phase 2 compliant composite wood products are utilized in construction, then emissions assessment to determine formaldehyde concentrations should be completed or 75C-117 that the Project only use composite wood materials that are CARB approved no -added formaldehyde (NAF) resins or ultralow emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins. Response 26: This comment is not Project specific and is general in nature. The comment does not provide any examples or citations of where analysis within the EIR is flawed. As described in Responses 19, 21, 22, and 25, pursuant to the Project would utilize products that have to be manufactured or imported pursuant to TSCA Title VI and California Proposition 65 safe harbor standards. As a result, formaldehyde within Project buildings would not exceed the SCAQMD significance threshold of 10 per million and Project impacts would be less than significant. Comment 27: This comment is an attachment from Smith Engineering and Management, which states that in response to the requested, the EIR traffic analysis has been reviewed. The review asserts that the Project will have significant impacts on traffic and that the EIR relies on a hypothetical traffic baseline rather than conditions that exist at the time environmental analysis begins. The comment asserts that this resulted in understatement of Project traffic impacts. Response 27: As stated in Response to Comment 6 above, the baseline used for the traffic study was calculated using counts taken at the project study intersections, which is not hypothetical. The credit taken was in the project trip generation, which provides a more realistic analysis of the projects impacts without double counting trips. The vacancy at the project site has occurred only around a year prior to the NOP in response to the expectation of selling the property for the existing project. Therefore, it is appropriate to consider the existing use at full capacity. With no project, it would be expected that the existing use would reoccupy the space to the maximum entitlement of the site. Comment 28: This comment states that The EIR improperly classifies 18,000 square feet of retail in the Project as a shopping center; that 18,000 square feet does not constitute a shopping center, and further asserts that by using the shopping center land use traffic generation rate, the EIR underestimates that traffic that would be generated by the proposed Project. Response 28: As stated in Response to Comment 7 above, the FEIR had an increase in the square feet of retail, from 18,000 square feet of retail to 31,000 square feet of retail. The specific retail use is not known at the time of preparing the EIR, so shopping center was used. This is common with multiple and mixed -use projects and is consistent with other previously approved projects in the City such as the Heritage project. Therefore, it is appropriate for the project to use shopping center for the retail portion of the project. In addition, a Study by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Trip -Generation Rates for Urban Infill Land Uses in California (2009) discusses appropriate trip rates for infill mixed -use development projects. One of those rates for retail is shopping center, which can range from shopping centers less than 190,000 square feet to individual businesses within buildings. The Bowery comfortably falls within that range, making the use of shopping center appropriate. Comment 29: This comment asserts that the EIR makes excessive assumptions of trip reductions from internalization and passer-by attraction, which when combined with improper deductions from existing land uses, makes a series of assumptions that are favorable to the Project. Response 29: As stated in response 8, the project appropriately uses the internal trip capture rate and passer-by attraction rates provided by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Handbook 3rd Edition. These rates come from multiple studies taken throughout the country and are the most current rates provided by the ITE. Once again, these rates are also consistent with previously 75C-118 approved projects in the City such as the Heritage Project. Therefore, it is appropriate for the project to take credit for internal capture and pass -by trips to analyze a more realistic impact. It is not required in CEQA to overestimate and mitigate unrealistic projects impacts. CEQA requires a good faith analysis of realistic project impacts. Utilizing these rates provide a realistic analysis of the projects impacts due to the nature of a mixed -use project. In the State of California, and ITE, there is a push to encourage more mixed -use projects because of the reduction of travel. To not utilized the approved and accepted rates would defeat the purpose of constructing a mixed use project. Comment 30: This comment states that the EIR fails to adequately respond to comments on traffic by the Orange County Transportation Agency. The comment asserts that the correction of text related to roadway cross sections in the Final EIR failed to analyze whether the changes have any consequential impact on the outcomes of impact analysis. The comment further asserts that overstating the number of lanes on several roadways could have significant consequences on the Project's traffic impacts. Response 30: As stated in response 9, the response to Orange County Transportation Agency's (OCTA) comments provided in the FEIR do adequately respond to OCTA's comments. Many of the text changes did not correspond to the study intersections analysis and would not have any impact on the results. The text changes that did correspond to study intersections were updated in both the text and analysis, so any impact on the analysis was accounted for and shown in the FEIR. Comment 31: This comment asserts that as a result of numerous deficiencies, the EIR's traffic analysis violates CEQA. Response 31: As described in the previous responses, as well as in response 10, the EIR's traffic analysis adequately analyses the projects transportation impacts and honors the intent of CEQA. All of the assumptions and reductions made are in accordance with widely accepted rates from ITE and consistent with previously approved projects such as the Heritage project. It is not required to overanalyze and mitigate unrealistic impacts under CEQA. The intent of CEQA is to accurately analyze a project's impacts and mitigate reasonable and foreseeable impacts. The traffic section of the EIR, as well as the supporting Traffic Impact Analysis, appropriately analyses the foreseeable impacts and provides reasonable mitigation measures and is therefore consistent with the intent and standards of CEQA. Comment 32: This comment is from a letter prepared by Smith Engineering and Management, which summarizes the existence of contaminated soils onsite and states that on its own, Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 is insufficient to ensure mitigation of impacted soils and that engagement of the DTSC is necessary. The comment further states that a soil mitigation plan is not an instrument that is used by DTSC. The comment provides suggested mitigation language and provides activities that asserts are from the DTSC comment letter. In addition, the comment describes the oversight authority of the RWQCB. Response 32: As described previously In Response 16, contaminated soils would be excavated and removed during Project excavation and grading activities pursuant to the regulations of DTSC, California Integrated Waste Management Board, RWQCB, OCFA, and the OCHCA. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 requires approval of a Soil Management Plan (SMP) to ensure that excavation of contaminated soils be completed pursuant to existing DTSC and RWQCB requirements. Therefore, the mitigation related to removal of the contaminated soils includes engagement of the DTSC, as necessary. In addition, contrary to the comment, the DTSC comment letter (included in the Final EIR) does not include this list of requirements for a removal action work plan. 75C-119 Comment 33: This comment is also from a letter prepared by Smith Engineering and Management, and states that encountering contaminated groundwater during Project excavation must be considered. The comment states that the Draft EIR describes that the depth of groundwater is in the range of 24 to 33 feet below ground surface (bgs), which is not consistent with the RWQCB No Further Action letter for the Project site, which states that groundwater is at depths of 5.67 to 13 feet deep. In addition, the comment states that The EIR needs to plan for protection of construction workers who may encounter contaminated groundwater when excavation is conducted. Furthermore, the comment states that the letter was prepared based on limited documentation regarding the Project. Response 33: As described previously In Response 18, groundwater levels on the site have fluctuated between 1986 and 2019. However, in the case that groundwater is encountered during Project construction, it would be treated and discharged pursuant to RWQCB requirements. Also, as described in Responses 14 and 16, the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act Safety and Health Regulations for Construction contains requirements for construction activities, including health and safety plan(s). In addition, the CalOSHA required Injury and Illness Prevention Program (IIPP) would maintain worker safety related to potentially contaminated groundwater. Thus, implementation of construction pursuant to existing regulations as ensured through the permitting process would reduce potential impacts related to construction workers who may encounter contaminated groundwater when excavation is conducted to a less than significant level. 75C-120 Letter PC2: Mitchell M. Tsai Comment Letter dated May 11, 2020 (70 pages and Attachment 1) P: (626) 381-9248 ® 155 South El Molino Avenue F: (626) 389-5414 Mitchell M. Tsai Suite 104 E: mitch@,mitchmailaw.com Atcotney At Lam Pasadena, California 91101 VIA U.S. MAIL & E-MAIL May 11, 2020 Sarah Bernal, Recording Secretary CITE' OF SANTA ANA 20 Civic Center Plaza - M20 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Em: ecomments@santa-mia.org Jerry- C. Guevara —Assistant Planner I CITY OF SANTA .ANA, PLANNTNG & BUIT.DING AGENCY PO Box 1988 (M-20) Santa Ana, CA 92702 Em: jguevara@sama-ana.org RE: City Planning Commission May 11, 2020 Meeting Agenda Item No. 3: 'I he Bowery Mixed -Use Project Final ElR Dear Chairman McLoughlin, Ms. Bernal and Mr. Guevara: On behalf of Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters ("Commenter" or "Southwest Carpenters'), my Office is submitting these comments on the City of Santa Ana's ('City" or "Lead Agency") Final Environmental Impact Report (" FEIR") (SCI I No. 2019080011) for The Bowery Mixed -Use Project ("Project"). The Southwest Carpenters is a labor union representing 50,000 union carpenters in six states, including in southern California, and has a strong interest in well -ordered land use planning and addressing the environmental impacts of development projects. Commenters expressly reserve the right to supplement these comments at or prior to hearings on the Project, and at any later hearings and proceedings related to this Project. (Gov. Code § 65009(b); Pub. Resources Code � 21177(a); Bakersfield Citi,-ensfor IAcal Controi P. Bakersfiield (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 1184,1199-1203; see Galante Vineyards er Monterey Water Du[ (1997) 60 Cal. App_ 4th 1109, 1121_) Commenters incorporate by reference all comments raising issues regarding the DEIR or the final Enviroimiental Impact Report ("EIR") subnutted prior to certification of 75C-121 City of swu Ana -The Bowery Nuy 11, 2020 pagn 2 of 26 the LJR for the Project. (Gd2ens for Clean Enerpy P Cry of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal. App. 4th 173, 191 [fording that any party who has objected to the Project's environmental documentation may assert any issue timely raised by other parties].) Moreover, Commenters request that the Lead Agency provide notice for any mud all notices referring or related to the Project 155ned under the Califomia Environmental Quality Act ('CEQA" , Pub. Resources Code 4 21000 et seq, and the California Planning and Zoning Law ("Planning and Zoning Lava✓'), Gov. Code �§ 65000- 65010. Pub. Resources Code % 21092.2, and 21167(f) and Gov. Code § 65092 require agencies to mail such notices Io any person who has filed a written request for them with the clerk of the agency's governing body. The City must seriously consider proposing that the Applicant provide additional community benefits such as requiring local hire and paying prevailing wages to benefit the City. Moreover, i1would be beneficial for the Cily to require the Applicant Io hire workers: (1) who have graduated from a Joint Labor Management apprenticeship trainvag program approved by the State of California, or have at least as many hours of on-the-job experience in the applicable craft which would be required to graduale from such a state approved apprenticeship training program and; (2) who are registered apprentices in an apprenticeship training program approved by the State of California. I. EXPERTS This comment letter includes comments train air quality and greenhouse gas Capons Matt Hagemann, P.G., GHg. and Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. concerning the HEIR. Their comments, attachments, and Curriculum Vitae (" CV'J are attached hereto and are iucogpormed herein by reference. Mau I lagcmann, P.G., C,Hg- ("Mr. Hagemann') has over 30 years of experience in environmental policy, contaminant assessment and remediation, stormwater compliance, and CEQA review. IIe spent nine years with the U.S, EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA's Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from Perchlorate and M7113E. \41zile with EPA, Mr. Hagemann also served as Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessmentof seven major military facilities undergoing base closer. He led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RC:RA) and directed efforts to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring. 75C-122 City of Sane Ana -The Bowery May 11, 2020 Page 3 of 2a For the past 15 years, Mr. Hagemann has worked as a founding partner with SWAPI (Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise). At SWAPS, Mx. Hagemann has developed extensive client relationships and has managed complex projects that include consultation as an expert witness and a regulatory specialist, and a manager of projects ranging from industrial stormwater compliance to CVQ)A review of impacts from hazardous waste, air quality, and greenhouse gas emissions. Mr. I lagemann has a Bachelor of Arts degree in geology from Humboldt State University in California and a Masters in Science degree from California State University Los Angelus in California. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. ("Dr. Rosenfeld' is a principal environmental chemist at SWAPS. Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years' experience conducting environmental investigations and risk assessments for evaluating impacts on human health, property, And ecological receptors. Ilis expertise focuses on the fate and transport of environmental contaminants, human health risks, exposure assessment, and ecological restoration. Dr. Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from unconventional oil drilling Operations, oil spills, landfills, boilers and incinerators, process stacks, storage tanks, confined animal feeding operations, and many other industrial and agricultural sources. His project experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources to evaluating impacts of pollution on workers at industrial facilities and residents in surrounding communities_ Dr. Rosenfeld bas investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria, particular matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, pesticides, radioactive waste, dioxins and furam, semi- and volatile organic compounds, PCBs, PAHs, Perchlorate, asbestos, per and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFOA/PFOS), unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates (NITBF.), among other pollutants, ter_ Rosenfeld also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from various projects and is an expert on the assessment of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as the evaluation of odor nuisance impacts and technologies for abatement of odorous emissions. As a principal scientist at SWAPE, Dr. Rosenfeld directs air dispersion modeling and exposure assessments. He has served as an expert witness and testified about pollution sources causing nuisance and/or personal injury at dozens of sites and has testified as an expert witness on more than ten cases involving exposure to au conlaminants from lndus'I.rial sources_ 75C-123 City of Sams Ana -The Bowery May 11, 2020 Pup 4 of 28 Dr. Rosenfeld has a PhD. in soil chemistry from the University of Washington, M.S. in environmental science from U.C. Berkeley, and B.A. in environmental studies from U.C. Santa Barbara, II. THE PROJECT WOULD BE APPROVED IN VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVI [ION MliNTAL QUALITY ACI' A. Background Concerning the California Environmcutal Quality Act CEQA has two basic purposes. First, CEQA is designed to inform decision makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of a project. (14 California Code of Regulations ("CCR" or "CEQA Guidelines' § 15002(a)(1).) "Its purpose is to inform the public and its responsible officials of the en.vironmcnial consequences of their decisions lvfore they are made. Thus, the EIR `protects not only the environment but also informed self-government' [Citation.]" (04i !lens of Goleta Vally v. Board of Supenwon (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 553, 564.) The EIR has been described as I'm environmental `alarm bell' whose purpose it is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological paints of no return " (Berkelg ]Ceep Jet Qverthe Bay v. Bd afPW Comm'sx (2001) 91 Cal- App. 4th 1344, 1354 (`Berkeley jets'); County oflnyo P. Yen (1973) 32 Cal. App. 3d 795, 810.) Second, CEQA directs public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage when possible by requiring alternatives or mitigation measures. (CEQA Guidelines g 15002(a)(2) and (3); see also, Berkeley Jet, 91 Cal. App. 4th 1344, 1354; Citaxns of Goleta Valley u. Board ofSupevitors (1990) 52 Cal, 3d 553; Laurel Heights JVrommentAss'n v. Relents of the Umvetsity of California (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 376, 400.) The EIR serves to provide public agencies and the public in general with information about the effect that a proposed project is likely to have on the environment and to `identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced." (CEQA Guidelines 5 15002(a)(2).) If the project has a significant effect on the environment, the agency may approve the project only upon finding that it has "eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible" and that any unavoidable significant effects on the environment are "acceptable due to overriding concerns" specified in CEQA section 21081, (CEQA Guidelines g 15092(b)(2)(A—B).) VvgiAe the courts review an EIR using an "abuse of discretion" standard, "the reviewing court is not to `uncritically rely on every study or analysis presented by a 75C-124 City of swu Ana -The Bowery MAY 11, 2020 Page S of 28 project proponent in support of its position.' A `clearly inadequate or unsupported study is entitled to no judicial deference."' (Berkeley Jets, supra, 91 Cal. App. 4th 1344, 1355 [emphasis added, quoting Laurel Heights, 47 Cal. 3d at 391, 409 fn. 121. Drawing this line and determining whether the EIR complies with CEQA's information disclosure requirements presents a question of law subject to independent review by the courts. (Sierra Club v. Cniy. of Fresno (2018) G Cal. 5th 502, 515; Madem Ovenl;ht Coakfion, Im v- County ofMadom (2011) 199 Cal App 4h 49, 102, 131.) As the court, stated in Berkeley]ets, supra, 91 Cal. App. 4th at 1355: A prejudicial abuse of discretion occurs "if the failure to include relevant information precludes informed decision -making and infonuaed public participation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR process. "flic preparation and circulation of an EIR is more than a set of technical hurdles for Agencies and developers to overcome. The FIR's function is to ensure that government officials who decide to build or approve a project do so with a full understanding of the eavn:onmental consequences and, equally important, that the public is assured those consequences have been considered. For the EIR to serve these goals it must present information so that the foreseeable impacts of pursuing the project can be understood and weighed, and the public must be given an adequate opportunity to comment on that presentation before the decision to go forward is made. (Gommnaz ties for a Better Fnvmwment v_ RAmond (2010) 184 Cal_ App. 4th 70, 80 [quoting VineyardAna Oti.� w forRe.rponsible Growth, In. P. City ofF{ancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal. 4th 412, 449-450].) B. The EIR Pails to Maintain a Stable and Consistent Pmject Descnptioa "[A]n accurate, stable and finite project description is [lie sine qua non of an mfoamative and legally sufficient" environmental document. (County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal. App. 3d 185, 200) "A curtailed or distorted project description may stultify the objectives of the reporting process" as an accurate, stable and finite project description is necessary to allow "affected outsiders and public decision -makers balance the pxoposal's benefit against its environmental cost, consider mitigation measures, assess the advantage of terminating the proposal (i.e., the "no project" alternative) and weigh other alternatives in the balance. (ld. at 192 — 93) Courts detemaue de nova whether an agmncy proceeded "in a manner required by law" in maintaining a. stable and consistent project description. (Id. at 200.) 75C-125 City of sane Ana -The Bowery May 11, 2020 Pup 6 of 28 The FEIR makes numerous modifications to the described Project including changes to the layout of the Project, the uses of the commercial space, landscapvig and the ratio of required parking spaces that the Project will require 2 parking spaces per residential unit. (FEIR at 3-3) The Project's environmental review process is deficient since it fails to maintain a C. The FEIR's Modifications to the Proiec€ Description, Environmental Baseline. Hazards and Traffic I Transportation Analysis Require aid Recirculation Section 21092.1 of the California Public Resources Code requires that "[w]hen significant new information is added to an environmental impact report after notice has been given pursuant to Section 21092 ... but poor to certification, the public agency shall give notice again pursuant to Section 21092, and consultagain pursuant to Sections 21104 and 21153 before certifying the environmental impact report" in order to give the public a chance to review and comment upon the information (CEQA Guidelines � 15088.5.) Significant new information includes "changes In the project or environmental setting as well as additional data or other information" that "deprives the public of a meaningful Opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project altemative)_" (( fFQA Guidelines h 15088.5(a)) Kxamples of significant new information requiring recirculation include "new significant environmental impacts from the project or tram a new mitigation measure," "substantial increase m the seventy of an etnvironmental unpact,.. `.feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed" as well as when "the draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded." (Id.) An agency has an obligation to recirculate an environmental impact report for public notice and comment due to "significant new information" regardless of whether the agency opts to include it in a project's environmental impact report. (Gu t Land Co. P. Aas'1 Cyeie (2000) 83 Cal.AppAth 74, 95 [finding that in light of a new expert report disclosing potentially significant impacts io groundwater supply "the FIR should have been revised and recirculated for purposes of informing the public and governmental agencies of the volume of groundwater at risk and to allow the public 75C-126 City of Sams Ana -The Bowery May 11, 2020 Page 7 of 28 and governmental agencies to respond to such information." J.) If significant new information was brought to the attention of an agency prior to certification, an agency is required to revise and recirculate that inforination as part of the environmental impact report. Recirculation is Required to Give the Public as 012purlunity to Review and Comment Upon Changes to the Project's Transportation Analysis CEQA requires that an environments] document identify and discuss the significant effects of a Project, alternatives and how those significant effects can be mitigated or avoided. (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.2; PRC S1'Q 21100(b)(1), 21002.1(a).) A Court "[w]hen reviewing whether a discussion is sufficient to satisfy CEQA, ... the EIR (1) includes sufficient detail to enable those who did not participate in its preparation to understand and to consider meaningfully the issues the proposed project raises [citation omitted], and (2) makes a reasonable effort to substantively connect a project's air quality impacts to likely health consequences." (Sierm Club V. Couny of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal. 5th 502, 510 [citing LaunlHthts IvitrommentAssn. v. Regents of Unive 6, of Caisfornia (1988) 47 Ca1.3d 376, 405.]; tee also PRC % 21002.1(e), 21003(b).) The Court may determine whether a f:H'.QA environmental document sufficiently discloses information required by CEQA de Moto as "noncompliance with the information disclosure provisions" of (,EQA 1s a f9dure to proceed in a mariner required by law, (PRC § 21005(a); see also Sierra Club tic Comnly oft-mrno (2019) 6 Cal. 5th 502, 515.) Failure to include all required information in a Draft EIR requires revision and recirculation of the Draft MR. The FEIR requires revision and recirculation since the Projeces transportation analysis was entirely redone to perform both VMT analysis as well as revised LOS analysis based upon modifications to the Project. Since VMT analysis and transportation analysis are required under CEQA, the failure of the DEIR to include this information was an unlawful omission of information that requires revision and recirculation since the DEIR was fundamentally and basically inadequate. 75C-127 City of swu Ana -The Bowery May 11, 2020 Page 8 of 28 2. Recirculation is Required to Give the Public an Oppartunily to Review and Comment Upon Siguificant New Information Concerning On -Site Qnilamination The FEIR acknowledges that the DEIR falsely claimed that the Project Site is listed as a hazardous material site. (FEIR at 2-3) The FFJR also acknowledges that the DEIR failed to discuss the fact that "the Project Site may be located within a groundwater basin that is impacted by volatile organic compounds." (FEIR at 2-4) The DEIR fails to disclose "OCHA investigation data and potential risk to future receptors associated with groundwater contamination" at the Project Site. (FFiIR at 2-4) The failure of the DEIR to include this information was an unlawful omission of information that requires revision and recirculation since the DEIR was fundamentally and basically inadequate. The City Failed 10 C.OnSnll With the California DeParlmeni of'I'oxic SnbSIAIICC5 Cbnlrol as a Responsible Agency, Rendering the Project's CEQA Process Lntirety Defective and Requiring Revision and Recirculation of the Pro ores Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 21080.4(a) of the Cal. Public Resources Code requires that a lead agency upon determining that a CEQA environmental impact report is necessary for a project, notify all responsible agencies, the Office of Planning and Research ("OPR") and trustee agencies. Within 30 days of receiving notice, a responsible or trustee agency is expected to provide "environmental information related to the responsible or trustee agency's area of statutory responsibility that must be iuc►uded in the draft EIR" (Guidelines Section 15082(b) (emphasis added). see also Guidelines Section 15096(b)(2).) However, not only did the City not consult the California Department of Toxic Substances Control ("DTSC' concerning tie FEIR, but the City failed to consult my responsible agencies whatsoever_ The FRI R concedes that DTSC as %ell as the Califomia Integrated Waste Management Board, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, Orange County Fire Authority and the Orange County I icalth Care Agency are all responsible agencies for the Project pursuant to Mitigation Measure HA9-F and should have heen consulted prior to release of the environnmmenta] impact report. (FEIR at 2-8) 75C-128 City of swu Ana -The Bowery May 11, 2020 Pup 9 of 28 3. Recirculation is Acquired to Give the Public an 0121201-l.un4to Review and Comment Upon Changes to the Environmental Settin€- / Baseline for the Pnject. 'the WEIR makes a number of modifications to the project's environmental setting or baseline, requiring revision and recirculation. In particular, the DEIR originally required additional mitigation for noise impacts due to aviation operations near the Project Site requiring that "all prospective residents of the Project site shall be notified of airport related noise." (DEIR at 1-17, tbl. 1-2; FEIR at 3-1.)This was due to the DEIR indicating that the Project Site was located with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan Area ("AELUP Area'] for John Wayne Airport. (DEIR at 5.7-10; FEIR at 3-5.) However, the FEIR subsequently determined that. the Project Site is not within the AELUP Area for John Wayne Airport. This change is significant new information requiting revision and ,recirculation since it is both a change in environmental setting and indicates that the DEIR is fundamentally and basically inadequate. 4. Recirculation is Required to Give the Public an Opportunity to Review and Comment Upon the Project's Aesthetic Impacts due to Modifications to the Project's Height and Size The FEIR also indicates changes to the Project that will have new, significant and previously undisclosed aesthetic impacts_ In particular, the FEIR discloses that the Project will have Iwo parking structures, one 70 feel in height and fie other 70 feet in height The aesthetic impact of the height and size of these parking structures were not disclosed or otherwise analyzed in the DEIR, and therefore is significant new information requiring revision and recirculation, as they show a previously undisclosed environmental impact and that the DEIR was fundamentally and basically inadequate. 5. Recirculation is Required to Give the Public an Opportunity to Review and Comment Upon Revised Construction KneTa and Air Quality Impacts The FEIR also indicates changes to the Project that will have new, significant undisclosed energy mil air quality impacts. The FEIR discloses that rather than having a 24 month construction period as originally discussed, the FEIR will be under construction for 27 months. (DEIR 5.4-5, FEIR 3-4.) 10 75C-129 City of Sams Ana -The Bowery May 11, 2020 Urge 10 of 2s D. 'Ibc IiI It Pails to Disclose SiWufican 1. and Umniligatcd Iinvimnmuival Impacts Relating to Air Quality As stated alinve, an FIR must disclose, evaluate, and ultimately provide feasible mitigation measures for significant environmental impacts. Here, the FIR fails to disclose sifmi(icanL impacL$ relating to Construction and operational health risks. According to Mr. Hagemann and Dr. Rosenfeld, the DFIR finds a less than significant impact "without conducting a quantified construction or health risk assessment" which the DRIR incorrectly justified. Mt. Hagemann and Dr. Rosenfeld make the following three points on the DEIR Air Quality analysis: the use of the LST method to determine the Projects health risk impacts on nearby, existing sensitive receptors is incorrect, While the LST method assesses the impact of pollutants at a local level, it only evaluates impacts from criteria air pollutants. According to the Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology document prepared by the SCAQMD, the LST analysis is only applicable to NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions, which are collectively referred to as criteria air pollutants. Because the LST method can onlybe applied to criteria air pollutants, this method cannot be used to determine whether emissions from DPM, a known human carcinogen, will result in a sibmifrcant health risk impact to nearby sensitive receptors_ As a result, health impacts from exposure to toxic air contaminants (PACs), such as diesel particulate matter (DPM), were not analyzed, thus leaving a gap within the DEIR's analysis. I.he omission of a quantified IIRA is inconsistent with the most recent guidance published by the Office of I?nvironmenlal I lealth IIazaxd Assessment (CIr1111A), the organization responsible for providing guidance on conductingHRAs in California. In Ecbruan of 2015, ORHITA released its most recent Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. This guidance document describes the types of projects that warrant the preparation of an ITR_A. Construction of the Project will produce emissions of DPM, a human carcinogen, through the exhaust stacks of construction equipment over a 75C-130 City of Santa Ana -The Bowery May 11, 2020 nxge 11 of 2s construction period of approximately 26 months (Appendix B, pp. 24 ). The OEHHA document recommends that all short -tern projects lasting at least two months be evaluated for cancer risks to nearby sensitive receptors. Therefore, per OEHIdA guidelines, we recommend that health risk impacts from. Project construction be evaluated by the DEIR. Furthermore, once construction of the Project is complete, the Project will operate for a long period of time. As previously stated, Project operation will generate approximately 11,546 daily vehicle trips, which will generate additional exhaust emissions and continue to expose nearby sensitive receptors to DPM emissions (p. 5.14-11, Table 5.14-5). The OEHHA document recommends that exposure from projects lasting more than 6 months be evaluated for the duration of the project, and recommends that an exposure duration of 30 years be used to estimate individual cancer risk for the maximally exposed individual resident (MEIR). Even though we were not provided with the expected lifetime of the Project, we can reasonably assume that the Project will operate for at least 30 years, if not more. Therefore, we recommend that health risks from Project operation also be evaluated, as a 30-year exposure duration vastly exceeds the 2-month and 6-month requirements set forth by OEIIIIA. This guidance reflects the most recent health risk policy, and as such, we recommend that an updated assessment of health risks to nearby sensitive receptors from Project construction and operation be included in a revised CEQA evaluation for the Project. claiming a less than significant impact without conducting a quantified I IRA to nearby, existing sensitive receptors as a result of Project construction, the DEIR fails to compare the excess health risk to the SCAQ:14CYs specific numeric threshold of 10 in one million. Thus, the DFJR cannot conclude less Ihan sigmificant health risk impacts resulting from Project construction without quantifying emissions to compare to the proper threshold. (Hagemann at 8-10.) 75C-131 City of sane Ana -The Bowery Nlsy 11, 2020 Page 12 of 2s Furthennore, when Mr. Hagemann and Dr. Rosenfeld prepared a simple screening - level HRA, the results demonstrated and provided substantial evidence there may be a Significant environmental impact. (Id at 10-13.) Specifically, "[t]he excess cancer risk posed to adults, children, infants, and during the third trimester of pregnancy at the closest receptor... [is] approximately 68 in one million." (Id. at 13) As Mr. Hagentann and Dr. RosenEld point out, this figure is well north of SCAQMD's threshold one in ten million_ 1lnic DF IR should be amended and include an accurate analysis that analyzes the Pmject's health risks relating to air quality. E. "file Cit.v's Final F.nvironmental Impact Report Does Not Adequately Describe the protect Generally, an adequate EIR must be "prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide dccisionmakers with information which eriables themn to make a decision which inlellilently takes account of environmental consequences." (DtyCreek 01tvtu Coaltion v. County of Tulare (1999) 70 Cal. App. 4th 20, 26) And while a project's description can account for needed flexibility to respond to changing project conditions, the description, in any event, needs to be accurate and specific enough to make a reasonable assessment of its sufficiency. (See Ghi vns fora Sustainable Treasure Island v City & County of San Franasm (2014) 227 Cal, App. 4th 1036, 1053) A project description that omits integral components of the project may result in an EIR that fails to disclose all of the impacts of the project. (San#ap County lFaterDist P. County of Orange (1981) 118 Cal. App. 3d 818, 829 [project description for sand and gravel mine omitted water pipelines serving project].) As part of the CEQA. Guidelines provisions governing the environmental setting, the Guidelines require an EIR to discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed project and applicable general plans, specific plans, and regional plans. (CEQA Guidelines 4 15125(d)) An "applicable" plan is a plan that has already been adopted and thus legally applies to a project; draft plans need not be evaluated. (Chaparral Greens v. City of Chmia Vista (1996) 50 Cal.. App. 4th I134, 1145 fn_ 2) Ilut purpose of the required analysis is to identify inconsistencies that the lead agency should address. The Project site has an existing General Plan land use designation of Profcvsional and Administrative Office (PAO), and a zoning designation of Light Industrial Project seeks to change these designations through amendments to District Center (DC) and Specific Development (SD), respectively, to allow for a primarily residential mixed -use development. 12 75C-132 City of swu Ana -The Bowery May 11, 2020 Page 13 of 2a If there is an inconsistency with the applicable land use plans that will not be amended, as of now, them is no way for anyone to make that detemaination. (See, generally, The Highway 68 Coakilon v. County ofMonieny (2017) 14 Cal. App. 5th 883, 896 [consistency of development permit and development plan with general plan]; Clover Valley Foxnd v. City of Rockkn (2011) 197 Cal. App. 4th 200, 239 [consistency of development project with general plan]; No Oil, Inc. P. City of LosAivgeles (1987) 196 Cal. App. 3d 223 lconsisicncy of Toning ordinance with general plan[; Makb4p.. County of Orange (1985) 165 Cal. App. 3d 1185 [consistency of specificplan with general plan].) The DEIR's project description states that it is requesting to change the site's land use designations, but fails to specifically identify whatprovisions those new designations may include and what will change from the existing land use regime. Importantly, the request for a zoning amendment to SD is vague and lacks detail sufficient to allow for any real comparison to the site's underlying and applicable land use designations. The SD for the site should outline all standards for buildings, height, setbacks, lot coverage, minimum unit sizes, landscaping, parking, signs, fences, or other features. This information cannot be found in the 1)FIR which merely requests the change to a Sly from M-1 zoning without any commitment to details. For example: • states the setbacks from Warner Avenue will be 12. feet and 204,eet from Red Hill Avenue, with "courtyard and landscape areas [providing] additional setbacks..." • "I lie proposed setbacks along N_ Main Street and P,dgewood Rood wouldbe greater than the minimum setbacks required in the M-1 zone." (DEIR at 5.9-40.) Whatare the remaining setback requirements? What are the landscaping requirements% How will parking rcgwrcments be determined or will it be consistent with other DC mixed -use developments? None of these important and required specifications are provided in the DEIR For all these reasons, the Project's description is inadequate and should be revised with additional detail_ 12 F. The Final E1Rlmpermissiblp Defers the Development of Environmental Mitigation Measures 13 CEQA mitigation measures proposed and adopted into an environmental impact report are required to describe what actions that will be taken to reduce or avoid an 75C-133 City of Sams Ana -The Bowery May 11, 2020 Page 14 of 28 environmental impact. (CEQA Guidelines � 15126.4(a)(1)(B) [providing "If]ormulation of mitigation measures should not be deferred until some future time."J.) While the same Guidelines section 15126.5(a)(1)(B) acknowledges an exception to the rule against deferrals, but such exception is narrowly proscribed to situations where "measures may specify performance standards which would mitigate the significant effect of the project and which may be accomplished in more than one specified way." (Id) (1)nTtS have also recognized a similar exception to tlic general rule against deferral Of mitigation measures where the performance criteria for each mitigation measure is identified and described in the EIR. (Sacramento Old CatyAss'n v. CityCwvdl (1991) 229 Cal. App. M 1011.) Impermissible deferral can occur when an EIR calls for mitigation measures to be created based on future studies or describes mitigation measures in general terms but the agency fails to commit itself to specific performance standafds. (Preserve ViR Santee P. City of Santee (2012) 210 Cal. App. 4th 260, 281 [city improperly deferred mitigation to butterfly habitat by failing to provide standards or guidelines for its management]; San Joaqudn Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Mened (2007) 149 Cal. App. 4th 645, 671 [EIR failed to provide and commit to specific criteria or standard of performance for mitigating impacts to biological habitats]; see also Cleveland Nat'l Forest Found. v San Diego Assn ofGov'ts (2017) 17 Cal. App. 5th 413, 442 [genexalized air quality measures in the EIR failed to set performance standards]; California Clean Enemy Comm. v Caty of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal. App. 4th 173, 195 [agency could not rely on a future report. on urban decay with no standards for deterrtlinicg whether mitigation Te9uirrd]; 1'(?,v'I', LL('v. State Air Resourres Bd. (2013) 218 Cal. App. 4th 681, 740 [agency could not rely on future mlemaking to establish specifications to ensure emissions of nitrogen oxide would not increase because it did not establish objective performance criteria for measuring whether that goal would be achieved]; Gray a County of Madera (2008) 167 Cal, App. 4th 1099, 1119 [rejecting initigation measure requiring replacement water to be provided to neighboring landowners because it: identified a general goal for mitigation rather than specific performance standard]; L:nclangemd Habitats League, Inc. v. County of Orange (2005) 131 CaL App. 4th 777, 794 [requiring report without established standards is impermissible delay].) 13 75C-134 City of Santa Ana -The Bowery May 11, 2020 Page 15 of 28 The DEIR Defers DeselopmentofHailardous Materials Mitigation Measures 'l he DF Vs I IA'/A mitigation measure is impermissibly deferred'because the proposed mitigation is to develop a Soil Management Plan in the future which "would detail hazardoue materials excavation and disposal methods and requirements pursuant to [the applicable codes] that regulates the removal, transportation, and disposal of hazardous waste..." (DEIR at 5.7-22; DEIR at 5.7-30 (no specification for how contaminated soil will be removed); 5.9-25-26.) 'lbe DEIR fails to provide a specific plan or how compliance with any applicable code will aufficientlymitigate a known hazard on the utc.'fhe Project site "contains 900 cubic yards of contamnated suit that would require excavation and disposal." (Id) The mitigation measures for HAZ-2 are similarly deferred due to the same reliance on a Soil Management Plan to remove contaminants that has not been formulated. 'I he DIi,1R needs to specify the removal plan and how code compliance will ensure safe removal of contaminants. 2. The TJF-IR Tmpermisnbly Deferr Development of Noise Mtigabon Measures The Project is located near low -density residential housing and other nearby sensitive receptors which would be directly impacted by construction noise. The DEIR, in MM N0I-1 proposes a construction noise mitigation program that would include noise barriers, noise -reduction devices on construction equipment, distanced placement of noise -generating devices, and notice to nearby residents regarding noise at new construction phases. All of these proposed items are impermissibly deferred for specific formulation at a later date. (See DEIR at 4.9-14-15.) First, the noise barriers that are proposed "could consist of materials such as'/4-inch thick plywood." There is no way to evaluate the sufficiency of the It artier with this description. The Project calls for, generally, "feasible noise -reduction devices" but does not specify what these devices will be. It calls for stationary noise sources to "be located as far away from noise -sensitive land uses as feasible" without detailing how that would or could be determined, or how placement will be decided for effectiveness. Second, MM NO 1-2 calls for the applicant to retain a specialist to review the project plans and incorporate specific measures to mitigate noise that generally will reduce noise levels below specific levels, but fails to provide any specific of such a plan in the 13 14 75C-135 City of swu Ana -The Bowery May 11, 2020 7xga 16 of 2s DEIR that could be evaluated for adequacy. All of these measures should provide 114 additional details so that thev may be evaluated and were impermissibly defczrcd. 'the ID3IR Fails to Support Its findings; with Substantial F.vidClICC When new information is brought to light showing that an impact previously discussed in the DEIR but found to be insignificant with or without mitigation in the DEIWs analysis has the potential for a significant environmental impact supported by substantial evidence, the EIR must consider and resolve the conflict in the evidence. (See Visaka HetaiZ LP v. Ct'ty ofVua5a (2018) 20 Cal. App- 51h 1, 13, 17; see also Pmteet the Historic Amador Waterways a Amador lWaterAgency (2004) 116 Cal. App. 4th 1099, 1109.) While a lead agency has discretion to formulate standards for determining significance and the need for mitigation measures --the choice of any standards or thresholds of significance must be "based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data and an exercise of reasoned judgment based on substantial evidence. (CEQA Guidelines § 15064(b) Cleveland Nat'l Forest Found P. San Daego Assn of Cov'& (2017) 3 Cal. App. 5th 497, 515; M.ifsim BayAlkance n Oflice ofC'ommunaty Inv. & Cnfrastwaare (2016) 6 Cal. App. 5ih 160, 206.) And when there is evidence that an impact could be significant, an EIR cannot adopt a contrary finding without providing an adequate explanation along with supporting evidence. (East Sacmmenta Partnenhipfor a Livable Gs v v. Gy offacmmento (2016) 5 Cal. App. 5th 281, 302.) In addition, a determination that regulatory compliance will be snffmcient to prevent significant adverse impacts must be based on a project -specific analysis of potential impacts and the effect of regulatory compliance. In (:; sforxwxs forAlterna&es to Taxies v. Department o%Food &w4grG (2005) 136 Cal. App. 4th 1, the court set aside an EIR for a statewide crop disease control plan because it did not include an evaluation of the risks to the env ronment and human health from the proposed program but simply presumed that no adverse impacts would occur from use of pesticides in accordance with the registration and labeling program of the California Department of Pesticide Regulation.- (See also Fhhetts Pass Forest Watch v Department of Pnnstry & Fare Pmtedlon (2008) 43 Cal. App. 4th 916, 956 (fact that Department of Pesticide Regulation had assessed environmental effects of certain herbicides in general did not excuse failure to assess effects of their use for specific timber harvesting project).) 15 75C-136 City of s=u Ana -The tina,i7' May 11, 2020 Page 17 of 23 The DF.IR's Non , JVactAa#sis it Not Su. pporled by Substantual Evidence The 17FIR incorrectly concludes, without substantial evidence, that the proposed Project will not have a substantial impact relating to noise on its Riture residents or worker} in the area. The Project Applicant and City conducted no on -site study to determine aircraft noise levels from John Wayne Airport at the site and rely solely on the fact that the Project is located outside the 60 decibel or higher contour zone for the airport to conclude there will be no significant noise impact. This analysis fails because it needs to include sitc-specific facts and application relating to the actual aircraft noise levels and their effects.' A more detailed analysis of this issue can be found below under section III of this comment letter. 2. The DEIA Finding That the I'ra}'ect Conflict nntb theJohn Wayne Aa'rpart Envlanns Land Use Plan 01;-2) and that the Pavject Would Not Racult in Ex sssive No se for a Pnject Subyect to an Aatporl hand Use Plan (IIA7. 5) iu Mitegakd to Less Than Szgnrficavt Levels is Not Supported by Substantial Evidence The Project has the potential to expose residents of the Project to significant aviation noise conflicts with the John Wayne Airport rmrvirores band Use Plan Policies 3.2.1 and 3.2.4; as well as a conflict with the City of Santa Ana's General Plan Goals 1, Policy L3 (DF.IR at 5.7-26, 59-22) The Project site is 2 miles fmtn John Wayne Airport and within that airport's flight path. Although the EIR theorises without supporting evidence that impacts may be insignificant because the site is outside the 60 CNEL contour for excessive noise, it nevertheless also proposes that the Project will comply with Title 24 of the California Code on interior noise levels, which could (again theoretically) ensure a less than significant impact with mitigation. This mitigation measure is impermissibly deferred because there is no project -specific analysis relating to how compliance with the noise code sections will sufficiently mitigate potential noise impacts on residents The IDEIR needs to specify bow code compliance will ensure safe and insignificant noise levels for residents and works on the site. 5 3. The DEIA'sAntheiicsAnal4&isNot Supported bvSubstantial Evddence 116 See The Bowery, Noise Impact Analysis, Dec. 3, 2019. Available at httns: (/ceganetagcca.eov 120190800d 1 /31Attxhment/jsSTi--. 75C-137 City of Sams Ana -The Bowery May 11, 2020 P.P to of 2s The DEIR concludes that would not have a significant aesthetic impact as to emitting substantial light or glare based upon stated future compliance with the Santa Ana Municipal Code that provides for building lighting specifications. However, the Project fails to analyze how compliance with the Code will adequately mitigate the substantial new source of light: the Project will create. The DEIR states that Santa Ana Municipal Code sections 41-611.1 and 41-1304 "provides specifications for shielding lighting away from Adjacent uses and intensily of security lighting " But how will this mitigate the significant impact on aesthetics for the Project? And just because the Project will comply with the City's lighting regulations does not mean that the amount of light. created for a project of this magnitude, in a currently non-residential area, will be adequately mitigated. California law requires a project -specific application and analysis, and the Project fails to provide a project -specific analysis of how code compliance translates to sufficient mitigation 4. The DEIR's At'r Qsrak'tyAna#sit isNot SA9 ppwed by Substantial Eridevee According to iVlr_ Hagcanann and I)r. Rosenfeld, the DEIR's air quality analysis is fundamentally flawed because the input parameters used with Call FM. od provided in Appendix B to the DHJR "were not consistent with information disclosed in the DEIR." (Hagemana at 2.) As a result, "the project's construction and operational emissions are underestimated" and a new FIR should be prepared. (Id) Unsubstantiated changes were made to vehicle emissions factors The first flaw in the input parameters, according to Mr. Hagemarm and Dr. Rosenfeld, is that "vehicle emissions factors used to estimate the pmposed Ptol cfs operational emissions were changed from the CaIEEMod default values without proper justification." (Id) Unverified and manually inputted values were used in the model which cannot be relied upon. (Id..) ii. Pass -by tap percentages utilized in the model are inconsistent with the Tial&c Impact.Analy-sis Second, "the Project's CalEEMod output files j... ] are inconsistent with the pass -by trip percentages indicaled by theTraffic Impact Aredysis..." (Id) According to the information provided by Mr. Hagemaun and Dr. Rosenfeld, and because the infonnaliou provided is inconsistent, "the model may undereslimate the Projcct's 16 17 18 75C-138 City of swu Ana -The Bowery May 11, 2020 page l4 42s mobile -related operational emissions and should not be relied upon to determine I 18 Project significance." (Id. at 3.) iii. Saturday and Sunday trip rates are incorrect. Third, Mr. Hagemann and Dr. Rosenfeld's review of the Project's DEIR also revealed that "the total daily trips calculated for Saturday and Sunday were underestimated for 9 each of the proposed land uses." (Id at 3-4.) The DEIR actually indicates that the number of vehicle trips is higher than the input. parameter figures used in CAEEMod and thus [be trip estimates are incorrect and cannot be relied upon_ (Id at 5) iv. Commercial -work trip length inputs are unjustified Fourth, "the commercial -work (C-W) trip length was manually increased in 20 [Ca]EEModl..." and the DEIR fails to provide any justification for this increase. (Id at 5_) Because no rationale or justification was provided —the model cannot be relied upon. V. Pass -by and diverted trip percentages are unjustified Lastly, the DEIR's "pass -by and diverted trip percentages used in [CAEEMod] were manually altered" and so the DEIR "underestimates the Project's operational emissions." (Id at 5; additional detail on p. 6.) According to Mr. Hagemann and Dr. Rosenfeld, it is clear that "the model overestimates the existing land use's mobile -related operational emissions and should not be relied upon to determine project sipiiGcance." (Id) The new values provided in the DEI R were not, adequately justified either because the reduction in pass -by and diverted trips is not substantiated. (Id at 6) For all of the above reasons, the ❑ 1 A R's air quality analysis is flawed because it is not supported by substantial evidence. The EIR should be amended to adequately reflect the true input parameters so that a reasonably accurate estimate of air quality impacts can be analyzed and mitigated. H. The City Failed to Include All Relevant Projects in. its Cumulative Impacts Transportation/Traffic Analysis An EIR's discussion of cumulative impacts is required by CEQ.A G uidebries 515130(a). The determination of whether there are cumulative impacts in any issue area should be determined based on an assessment of the project's incremental effects "viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current 21 22 75C-139 Ciryof Sa wMa-The Bowery May 11, 2020 Page 24) of 28 projects, and the effects of probable future projects." (CEQA Guidelines �15065(a)(3); Banning Ranch Conservacg a City afNeavpotaBeach (2012) 211 Cal. App. 4th 1209, 1228; see also CEQA Guidelines 515355(b).) A cumulative impacts analysis must include all "past, present, and probably fimirc projects producing related or cumulative impacts" or "[al summary of projections contained in an adopted local, regional or statewide plan, or related planning document." (CEQA Guidelines 15130(b)(1-2)). A probable future project should be considered once the environmental review for the project is underway. (San Franciscans far Reasonable Growth v. City & County of San fr andsco (1984) 151 Cal. App. 3d 61.) The City identified elevenprojects in Santa Ana, eight in Irvine, five m Tustin, and two in Newport Beach when calculating the cumulative impacts for its transportation analysis. While a list approach is acceptable under CEQA, the list must include all past, present, and probably future projects that could contribute to the Project's impacts. This cumulative impact analysis is flawed and should be updated to include, at least, the potential impacts of the Congregate Care Facility and Staybridge hotel in Irvine? T'he Congregate Care Facility is a 424,113 square foot facility located just two miles south of the Project site; and the 200+ room Staybridge Hotel will be located just one mile west of the Project site The Congregate Care Facility project has already been approved by the City of Irvine, and the Staybridge Motel is currently under construction. Both projects should be considered in the City's CEQA analysis. I. "Ibe QFIR Pails to Describe or AdopL Feasible Mitigation Measures A fundamental purpose of an EIR is to identify ways in which a proposed project's significant environmental impacts can be mitigated or avoided. (Pub. Resources Code %21002.1(9), 21061.) To implement this statutory purpose, an EIR must describe feasible mitigation measures that can minimize the project's significant environmental effects. (CEQA Guidelines 4415121(a), 15126.4(a).) "A gloomy forecast of environmental degradation is of little or no value without pragmatic, concrete means to minimize the impacts and restore ecological ' The location and development stage of these projects may be found at hops) 4ityofimuie maps a rcpis_min /ahps YGpTo� vl indeshtmllapped-04�665850 ec4dcab5ba58%a497f42s, 22 23 75C-140 City of hams Ana -The Bowery May 11, 2020 Page 21428 equilibrium." (Environmental Council of Sacramento v. Gty of Sacramento (2006) 142 Cal. App. 4th 1018,1039.) The Project Is Required to AdoptAddataonal FearabA Maiaga3aon Measures to MitsgaPian Construe#on Emissions According to Mr. Hagemann and Dr. Rosenfeld, the following feasible mitigation measures should also be considered and implemented to alleviate the significant impact of construction -related emissions for the Project: • Diesel Control Measures recommended by the Northeast Diesel Collaborative (NEDC); • Repowering or replacing older construction equipment engines; • Installation of retrofit devices on existing construction equipment; • Use of electric and hybrid construction equipment; • Implementation of a construction vehicle tracking system; and • Use of spray equipment with greater transfer efficiencies. (Hagemann at 14-19) 2. The Project is Required to Adopt Feasible Additional Mitsgation Measures to Mitigate QperationalEvm..rsions Second, the Project DI�,IR estimated the annual GHG emissions to be 9,861.60 megatons per year (MT CO2e/year), which far exceeds the S(:AQK,11) "Tier 3 mixed - use threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year. (llagemann at 14.) in order to mitigate this impact, the Project merely proposes implementing sustainable design features under Title 24/CalG== standards but much more can and should be considered for the Project. following mitigation measures for GHG emissions are feasible but were not considered or implemented for the Project, including: Integrate affordable and below market rate housing; 16iergry-related mitigation_ Install programmable thcnnostal. timers;. Establish ousite renewable cnergy systems, including solar power and wind power; 23 24 75C-141 City of sanu Ana -The Bowery May 11, 2020 Cage 22 of 2a Limit outdoor lighting requirements; Reduce unnecessary outdoor lighting by utilizing design features such as limiting the hours of operation of outdoor lighting; Provide education on energy efficiency to residents, customers, and/or tenants; Provide information on energy management services for large energy users; Meet "mach" goals for building energy efficiency and renewable energy use; Limit the use of outdoor lighting to only that needed for safety and security purposes; Require use of electric or alternatively fueled sweepers with HEPA filters; Include energy storage where appropriate to optimize renewable energy generation systems and avoid peak energy use; and Prohibit gas powered landscape equipment and implement electric yard equipment compatibility. • Transportation -related miligation_ Provide EV parking; Require residential area parking permits; Implement ride -sharing, vanpool, shuttle, bike -sharing programs; Provide bike parking near transit; Provide local shuttle$, Implement area or cordon pricing, and Install a park -and -ride lot. + Water -related mitigation: Install an infiltration basin to provide an opportunity for 1000/6 of the stogy water to infiltrate on -site; 24 75C-142 City of Sane Ana -The Bowery May 11, 2020 Page 23 of 2s Install a system to reutilize gray water, Use locally -sourced water supply; and Plant native and drought -resistant trees and vegetation. • Develop and follow a "green streets guide" that requires Cse of minimal amounts of concrete and asphalt; and Use of groundcovers rather than pavement to reduce heat reflection. • Implement project design features such as! Shade H V AC equipment from direct sunlight; Install high-albedo white thermoplastic polyolefin roof membrane; Install formaldehyde -free insulation; Use recycled -content gypsum board; and Require all buildings to become "H i l Sll" and "WELL" certified. • Plant low-VOC emitting shade trees, e.g., in parking lots to reduce evaporative emissions from parked vehicles; • Increase in insulation such that heat transfer and thermal bridging is minimized; • Limit au leakage through the structure and/or within the heating and cooling distribution system; • Installation of dual -paned or other energy efficient windows; and • Installation of automatic devices to turn off lights where they are not needed. (Llagemann at 1419.) All of the above measures are feasible to reduce the significant impacts to air quality and GHG emissions; and the DEIR's failure to consider or implement any of illc above measures if a violation of CEQA Guidelines %15121(a), 15126.4(a). The DEIR needs to be amended as a result. 24 75C-143 City of Sams Ana -The Bowery May 11, 2020 Ng,, 24 of 28 III. THE PROJECT VIOLATES THE STATE PI.ANNINGAND ZONING LAW AS W ELL AS THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN A_ Background Regarding the Slate Planing and Zoning Law Each California city and county must adopt a comprehensive, long -temp general plan governing development. (Napa Cali ins forHonesd Gov. v. Napa Count , Bd. of Supenison (2001) 91 Cal. App.4th 342, 352, citing Gov. Code §§ 65030, 65300.) The general plan sits at the top of the land use planning hierarchy (See DeVita P. County of Napa (1995) 9 Cal. App- 4th 763, 773), and serves as a "constitution" or "charter" for all future development. (L.esherCommunications, Inc. P. City of 1VafnutCnek (1990) 52 Cal. App. 3d 531, 540.) General plan consistency is "the linchpin of California's land use and development laws; it is the principle which infused the concept of planned growth with the force of law." (See Dobvitari v. Norco Uey Counts! (1985) 171 Cal. App. 3d 1204, 1213.) State law mandates two levels of consistency_ First, a general plan mast be internally or "horizontally" consistent: its elements must "comprise an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of policies for the adopting agency." (See Gov. Code § 65300.5; Sierra Club v. Bd of Supervisors (1981) 126 Cal. App. 3d 698, 704) A general plan amendment thus may not be internally inconsistent, nor may it cause the general plan as a whole to become internally inconsistent. (See DeT/ita, 9 Cal. App. 4th at 796 fn. 12.) Second, state law requires "vertical" consistency, meaning that zoning ordinances and other land use decisions also must be consistent with the general plan_ (See Gov. Code § 65860(a)(2) [land uses authorized by zoning ordmance must be "compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the [general] plan."]; see also Neiobborhood_4ctaon Croup P. County ofCalavaras (1984) 156 Cal. App. 3d 1176, 1184.) A zoning ordinance that conflicts with the general plan or impedes achievement of its policies is invalid and cannot be given effect. (See Lesher, 52 CO. App. 3d at 544.) State law requires that all subordinate land use decisions, including conditional use permits, be consistent with the general plan. (See Gov. Code § 65860(a)(2); Ngbborhood Aefion Gmup, 156 Cal. App. 3d at 1184.) A project cannot be found consistent with a general plan if it conflicts with a general plan policy that is "fundamcmmlal, mandatory, and clear," regardless of whether it is 25 75C-144 Ciry of Sa ru Ma -The lsowq May 11, 2020 Page 25428 consistent with other general plan policies. (See Endangered Flabitats lxagsre a County of Orange (2005) 131 Cal. App. 4th 777, 782-83; Families Unafraid to Uphold RxmlEl Dorado Coumy v. Bd. of Sztpen4sors (1998) 62 Cal. App. 4th 1332, 1341-42 ["FU'I'Uf1E"].) Moreover, even in the absence of such a direct conflict, an ordinance or development project may not be approved if it interferes with or frustrates the general plan's policies and objectives. (See Napa Q iZens, 91 Cal. App. 4th at 378-79; see also Lesher, 52 Cal. App 3d at 544 [zoning ordinance xeslncting development conflicted with growth - oriented policies of general plan].) A. Changing the Project Site's General Plan Designation to a District Ccnter conflict with the City's General Plan Here, the Project proposes a General Plan Land Use Amendment that would change the land use designation From PAO for professional or administrative offices to District Center (DC) to allow for a mixed -use residential development. The Project's nixed -use, primarily residential, development plans for the construction of a multi -building project with approximately 80 residential units on each acre of the site The maximum allowable units for a DC zone is 90 units per acne. A DC Land use designation, according to the City of Santa Ana's General Plan — Land Use Element, is: (1) reserved for "majoracdvityamas in the City"; (2) designed to "serve as anchors to the City's commercial corridors... "; and (3) "are to be developed with an urban character that includes a mixture of highnse office, commercial, and resirlmligl uses which provide shopping, business, cultural education, recrealion, entertaimnenl, and housing opportunities.i' The proposed change is inconsistent with the General Plan's guidance on designation of DCs because the Project site area (and the entire Surrounding area within the City), off Reel I hll Avenue and east of SR 55, is exclusively designated for light industrial and commercial use and is not connected to any of the City's existing commercial corridors, and is not a major activity area in the City relating to urban life in any respect a (DEER at 3-5, Figure 3-2_) The Project site area is surrounded by open spaces and office parks, and would not be consistent with the character of any existing DC in the City of Santa Ana. DCs are reserved fox mixed -use developments that seek to be ' City of Santa Ana, General Plan — Land Use Flernent, p. 60. Available at hMs://www.sants ana.cra/sites/default/files/pb/general-okan/LandUse.odf. ' M at A-25, F,xh,ba A-5_ This exli6it of Cite Cay, , Geneed Plan maps the existing D,sfirer_t Centers of Santa Ana. 25 75C-145 Ciry of Sww Ma -The 6o"q May 11, 2020 page 2e of zs integrated within the fabric of existing Santa Ana urban life —,not an the outskirLs of the City within an office park zone that is disconnected from major activity centers. The fact that the proposed Project will be located adjacent to the City of'17ustin's Legacy Specific Plan area does not save the proposed change in land use designation either. This area is current massively underdeveloped, and as llie Applicant points out, will only meet the current character of the site's existing land use designation for commercial use. (DEIR at 5.9-13) And in any event, any result of the building up of the Legacy Area in the future will not connect the project to any of the Ul 7s major acdvity auras. the Applicant cannot depend on contingent plans in other cities to support its proposed change. TTae proposed change to a DC is not consistent with the language or intent of the City's General Plan and should be revised. B. The DEIWs proposed Zoning Change to a Specific Development District Conflicts with the City's General Plan. The Applicant also seeks to amend the site's zoning designation from M1-Light Industrial to a Specific Development. District (SD). This zoning change would conflict with the City�s General Plan because the Project site is not appropriate for a General Plan amendment to a DC and thus the underlying zoning change would also be inappropriate. SDs am designed to facilitate certain types of development within suitable DCO C. Tlrc Proposed Land Use Amendments Conflict witli Change Countv's Land Use Plan far John Wayne Airport. California requires every county with an airport that includes use by a scheduled airline, or where the airport is operaled for die benefit of the general public, to establish an airport land use commission (ALI It)_'Ihe purpose of the ALLICis to provide for orderly development and expansion of airports and adoption of "land use measures that minimi>.e the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses." (Cal. P.U.C. 921670(a)) ALUCs cannot exempt a city or countv's specific plan (i.e., the portion of the locality's general plan affecting land in the vicinil r of an airport) from compliance with the AI.LC's more stringent compatibility 5 Cay of Santa Ana, General Plan - HousingElement, p. 57. Availahte at https;'- ana.erc/ sire s / de Eau kt /files /Hai s i n �'/a 20 Lletn s n t �df. 25 26 75C-146 City of sans Ana -The 13na,i7' May 11, 2020 Page 27 of 28 standards for land use and development density. (87 Ceps. Cal. Atty. Gen. 102 (2004)) However, Cal. P.U.C. §21676 provides a procedure for resolving such conflicts. All general or specific plans, zoning ordinances, building regulations, or modifications that purport to affect land within the planning boundaries of an ALUC must be submitted by the city, county, or regional authority proposing the action to review by the ALUC If the ALUC finds that there is an inconsistency between its ALUCP and the proposed regulation, tlsu ALUC; must notify the local agency of its delennination.'Me local agency must then hold a public hearing on the matter and may override the determination of the ALUC only by a two-thirds vote of its legislative body and after specified findings are made. (Gov. Code g65302.3; Cal. P.U.C. §21676.) The proposed Project is a mere 2.2 miles southwest of John Wayne Airport QWA) and within its planning area boundaries. If any part of the Project conflicts with JWA's Airport Environs Land Use Plan (ALLUP; hereafter `JWA AELUP"), the City shall seek review to obtain approval- Here, the proposed change in land use is inconsistent with the JWA AELUP. The record does not contain substantial evidence that future residents would not be adversely affected by aircraft noise_ (DF"Ili at 5 9-22.) Policy 3.21 under the JWA AELUP finds an inconsistency with scary proposed land use that will put residents in a position "so that they are affected adversely by aircraft noise."b An adverse noise impact under the JWA AF,I.tJP is defined under a "reasonable person" standard found in the Noise Standards for California Airports. The DEIR concludes that there would be no adverse impact as a result of aircraft noise, but not as a result of any field study the Applicant or City performed on the site. This conclusion is based solely on ilmc fact that the site is `located outside the airport's 60 CNEL contours." (DEIR at 5.7-26; Noise Impact Analysis at 1.) As the DF.IR admits, residential land uses are only "normally consistent" with areas just beyond 60 CNEL contours. The Orange County Airport Land Use Commission also strongly recommended in its NOP comments that no residential units should be built on the proposed Project site, or at least a significantly reduced number to adequately mitigate the noise impacts. (DEIR at 5.9 3.) This indicates further information is needed to assess the actual decibel level on -site and whether that meets a reasonable person standard as defined in the Noise Standards for California Airports. 'JWA AELUP, p_ 21, available at htia:/Jwu^w.ccair.cam�commissions/slur /dots 7jwa aelup-apul-17200%Fddf. 26 75C-147 City of Sams Ana - The Bowery Msy 11, 2020 Page 28 of 28 IV. CONCLUSION Commenters request that the City revise and recirculate the Project's environmental 27 impact report to address the aforementioned concerns. If the City has any questions or concerns, feel free to contact mg Office. Sincerely, Mitchell M. Tsai Attorneys for Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters ATTACHED - Air Quality and GHG Expert, Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg. — C.V. (Exhibit A); Air Quality and GHG Expert, Paul Rosenfeld, P.G., C.Ng. -- C.V. (Exhibit B); Letter and attachments from Hagemann to MitchellM. Tsai re Comments on The Bowery Mixed -Use Project (Exhibit C); California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) Report; Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures (Exhibit D). 75C-148 75C-149 SWAPSTechnical Consultation, Data Analysis and Uligation Support for the Environment Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., Q SD, QSP 2656 29' Street, Suite 201 Santa Monica, CA 90405 Matt Hagemann, P.G, CHg. (949)887-9013 mhagcmannLWswape.rum Geologic and Ilydrogeologic Characterizatimt Investigation and Remediation Strategies Litigation Support and'Testifying Expert Industrial StnrmwafcrComplianrr CFQA Review Lducation: M.S. f)egrcr., Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984. B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State Univetsity, Arcata, CA, 1982. professional Certifications: California professional Geologist Calif .rnia Certified I lydnrgeul pgist Qualified SW PPP Developer and Practitioner Professional Five i.ace: Matt has 30 years of experience in environmental policy, contaminant assessment and remediation, stormwater compliance, and CEQA review. He spent nine years with the U.S EPA in the RCRA and Supeifund programs and served as EFA's Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Westem Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from percHorate and M'TBE. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military lac'bties undergoing base dosure. He led numerous entorcernent actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and. directed efforts to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring. For the past 15 years, as a founding parkrer with SWAFE, Matt has developed extensive client relationships and has marvaged complex projects that include consultation as an expert witness and a regulatory specialist, and a manager of projects ranging from industrial stnrmwater compliance to CEQA review of impacts from hazardous waste, air quality and gtecnhouat gac cm9aionu. Positions Matt has held include: • Foundmg Parhier,4)i]/Water(Alr Protection F-rttetpnse(SWAPE)(2003--pre5ent); (a�nlnYy 4n truot,r,C:olden tNestCnllege, 2010-2104, 2017; • Senior 6arvirmamUr4l Analyst, KOmeAll2Q `hence, Inc. 000 ••2QW); 75C-150 • Executive Duacter, Orange Coast Wateh(2001-2004); • Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologisl, U.S. Envinumerital Protection Agency(1989- 1998); • HydrogeDlogist National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 2000); • Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco$inte University,DepartrnmtofCeushacnhxxs(1993- 1998); • Instnzcror, College of Merin, Departmentof Sdence UM- 19i5); + Ceologisy LLS. Forest Service [1986 - 1996}; and • Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 - 1986). Senior ltegulatory mid Litigation Su000rt AnahiC With S W AI T, MaL£s responSibiGnes have induderl_ • Lead analyst and testifying expert in thc. r(•vicw of over 300 environmental impact reports and negative declarations since 2003 finder CE(1A that identify significant issues with regard to lie t:vdous wa.str, ater quality, air quality, greenbouse gas aniuWnus, and geologic hazards. Make recontmendanons for additional mitigationmeasurestolead agcnoesat the local and county level to include additional ebaracterization of health risks and implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from toxins mid Valley Fever. • 516rmwaicranalysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at , iban 150 industrial facilities. • £xpr•.rt witnesson numnrouscases indudin&for example, perFluorooctanoic acid(PFQA) contamination of groundwater, MTBE litigation, air toxins at hazards at a school, CERCLA compliance in assessment and remedtation, and industrial stormwater contamination. • Technical assistance nid litigation support for vapor intrusion mncrems. • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of m,uonmental vi;, es in license applications for large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission. • Manager of a project toevaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western G.S. • Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of Perchlorate contamination in. Southern California drinking water wells. • Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas stations throughout California. With Komex H2O Science Inc., Maths duties included [hefollowing. • Senior author of a report on the extent of Perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel. • Senior researcher in the developmentof a comprehensive, elecnonirally interactive chronology of MTBE use, research, and regulation. • Seniorreseardrer in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of pert lorate use, research, and regulation. • Senior researcher in a study that esttrnates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies. • Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in California and New York, 2 75C-151 Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production -related contamination in Mississippi. Lead author fora multi priatingsch of in LAB Angles thatmet 4tri& regulatray req,ucruauq and rigorous deadlines - Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with dientsand regulators. Executive Dihevkou As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts ro restore water quality at Orange County beaches from multiple sources of contanunation including urban runoff and the discharge of wastewater- In reporting to a Board of Directors that included represtrrtatives from leading Orange County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively partiapated in the development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including Surfrider, Nalural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business insti W tions incuding the Ot angc Co. oty Ru slncSs Couneil- I Ivdn.neolog�r'. As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental protection Agency, Mall led investigations to dharacterim and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett field, Mather Army Airfield. and Sacramento Army Depot Specific activities wereas fnl lows • Led efforts to model groundwater flow andcontammn'ut trllosForr, ensured adequacy of monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup al lerna t vcs for contaminated sediment, soil, and groundwater. • fnitiatedarcg,onal program for evaluation of groundwater sampi ing practices and laboratory analysis at military bases. • [dentifiedemcrgingissues, wrotetidmiral guidance, andassisted in policy and regulation development through work ou four national U.S. EPA workgroup% including the Superfund GroundwatcrTechniral Durum and the Federal Fadlities Pomm. At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to wntatrunation on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and Countyof Maui. As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA in prevent drinking water contamination- Specific activities included the following: • Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of drinking water. • Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities thraugli designation under the Safe Drinking water Act. He prepared geologic reports, conducted 75C-152 public hearings, and responded to public commenti: from residents who were very concerned about theimpactof designation. • Reviewed anumber of llnvinanmental Impact Statements for planned majordevelopmenis, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer. Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA idavaxdous Waste program- Dudes were as follows • Supervised thchydrogeeologicinvestigation of hazardous waste sites to detennineaampliance with Subtitle• C ruquIcements • Reviewed and wrote "part D' permits lot the disposal eif hazardous waste. • Conducted RCRA Cnrnrtivc Action investigations of wastesitns and led inspectionsthattormed the basic For signifinm I enforcement actions that were developM in .:lose eoorlinntion with US EPAIcgal cuuns'el. • Wrote.4,,t specifications and supetvisedmndactor's investigations of waste sites. With the National Park Service, Matt directed service -wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks: • Applied pertinent laws aid regulations including CFRCLA, PCPA, NEPA, NRDA, andthe Clean water Act to control military, mining, and tandfill contaminants. • Conducted watershed -wale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and Olympic National Park. Identified high -levels of perchlorate in sail adjacent to a national park in New Mexico and advised park supi,mittendent on appropriate response actions under CE2CLA. Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorale Steering Commitree, a national workgroup. • Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance auditsof all National Parks while serving on a national workgroup. • Co-authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal watercraftand snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nabori- wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks. • Contributed to the Federal Multi -Agency Source Water AgreemeritUnder the Clean Water Action Plan. Policy.: Soned senior manarlcment as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U-S- Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, Activities included the following • Advised the Regional Adrninistralorand senior ntinagemenL on emergingissuessuch as the potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perdilorate to contaminate drinking watersupplies. • Shaped EPA's national response to these threats by servingon workgmvpsand bycontributing to guidance, including the Office of Res=ch and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water. Critical Information and Research Needs. • Improved the technical training EPA's scenfificanderipmenngstaff. • Earned an EPA Sronze Medal for reprascmtingthcrcgions 300s.icntisuand engineers in negotiations with the Adminisl ialor and senior manabemenl to biller integrate sr:ientifie 75C-153 principlesinto the policy-makingproc ' + Established national protocol for the prrr review of scientific documents. aeo 0 With the U.5. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows: + Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability. • Coordinated his research with communitymembers who were conoemed with natural resource protection. + Characterized thegeclogy of an aquifer that serves," the solesou(c of grin ling water for the city of Medford, Oregon. As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. Du ties included the following • Supervised yeas -long effort for soil and groundwater sampling. • Conducted aquifer tests. • Investigated active faults beneath sites proposrdfor haziardouswaste disposal - Tea hi From 1990 to 199d, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels: • At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses environmental geology, nreanography {lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination. • Served as a committee member for, graduate and undergraduate students. • Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanographyat the College of Mann. Matt iscur"flya part time geology instructor atGolden West College in Hundngtnn Beach, Califomia wheat he taughtfrnm 2D1 D to 2014 arni in 2017, Invited Tesfimony, Reports, Papers and Presenlafiune: Hagemann, M.F., 2006. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon. Hagen n M.F., 200&. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S. EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California. Hagetnann, M.F., 2005. Use of Flectronic Databases in Environruental Regulation, Policy Making and Public Partidpation. firownfields 2005, Denver, Caloradao. Hagentann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to prinking Water in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater'1'rust, Las Vegas, NV (served on conference organizingcvmmittee). 75C-154 Hagemann, M.l., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate mmnuttee hearing on air toxins at schools in SouthernCalifornia, Los Angeles. brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A, axed Hagemann, M., 2004, An Estimate of Costs to Address MTUE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to i7nnkmg Water Wells. Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental taw Conference, National Graundwater Association. Hagernann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Arizona and the Soudiwestem U.S. Presentation to meetingof the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee). Ilagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in the Snuthwestem U.5- Invited presentation toa speeia9 committee meetingoF the National Academy of 5ciences, Irvine, CA. Hagemaitn, M.F, 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a tribal EPA meeting. Pechanga, CA. Hagemann, M.F., MOO. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ Hagernann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies. Invited presentation b the InterTribal Meeting. Torres Martinez Tribe. Hagemann, M.F., MS. The Emergence of Perddorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant. Invited presentation to Ire U.S, EPA Region 9. Hagemarm,M.F.,2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee. Hagemanry M.F., 20IXi. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a rneeCngof Cie National Groundwater Association. Hagemamn, M.F, 2002. From Tank to Tap. A Chronology of MME in Groundwater. Presentation to a meetingof the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann,M.F.,2002. AChronology of MTBEin Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address Impacts to Groundwater- Presentation to the annual meetingof the Society of Environments Joumalisls. 11agemann, M.F., 20M An Estimate of the Cost to Address M'I BE. Contamination in Groundwater (and Who Will Pay)- presentation to ameetingof the National Groundwater Association - IIagemann, M.F., 2UU2. An Estimate of Costs to Address Ml'5Z Ieleases from Underground Strage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meetingof the U.S. EPA and State Underground Storage Tank Program managers. 75C-155 Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished rapnrt llagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water. Unpublished report. Hagemann, M-F., 2001. Estimated Casts to Address MT13E Releases from Leaking Underground storage Tanks. Unpublished report. Hagemanry M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 19N Potential Water Quality Concems Related to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report. VanMouwer€k, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report. Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Harks? The George Wright Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina. Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Super fund Groundwater Techrucai Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada. Hagemartn, M-F., and QIL M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City. Hagemar.n, M.F., Fukunaga, G-L, 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminantson the lsland of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui, October 1996. Hagemann, M. P., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerabilityin Central Oahu, Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air and Waste Management Association Publication VIP-61- Ilagrinarin, M-F., 1994- Groundwater Ch ar acre ri rati on and Cl can up at Closing Military Bases in Califomia. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resuuur es Association Meeting. Hagmnann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater. Hagemano, M.F., 1993. US. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL- mntaninated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resourees Association Meeting. 7 75C-156 Hagemann, M.F., 1992, Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater, An Ounce of Prevention... Proceedings, Associatm of Engineering Geologists Annual Meettng. v. 35. Other F.xpeeienre-' Selected as subject matter expert for the Califomia Professional Geologist licensing examinations, 2009-2011. 75C-157 IDAW'■IfC IT': 75C-158 SWAPETeohnie.l C.... Haw, Cal. Analysis anti Litigation Support for the Environment Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Princlpal Nwroironmenlal Chemivl Education SOLI. WATER 265629d Sou., Sana201 Santa Monim, 0alifomia 90405 Ann: Paul l2maaofed, Ph D. Mobil: (3_(1)795-2335 Of ,, (I OZ2-5555 Pcv: (3.0)45 .nin Email. nroennfeldto•.cwanecom Chemical Fate and Transport & Arc Dispersion Modeling Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist PhD. Soil Chemistiv; IJniversip' of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on volatile organic compound Filtration. M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics. B.A Em�romuernal Studi as, U.C. Soma Barbara, 1991. 1'basis ou wastewater treatment. Professional Experience Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years' experience conducting environmental investigations mid risk assessments for evaluating impacts to human health, property, and ecological receptors. His expertise focuses on the fate and transport of eavimmneri al contanrinants, hunrarr heahh risk, exposure assessment, mid ecological restoration. Dr. Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from unconventional oil drilling operations, oil spills, landfills, boilers and incinerators, process stacks, storage larks, confined animal leading operations, and many other industrial ald agricrdtural sources. His piq uel experience Large& from nrunittautg and modeling of pollutioL i0urW5 to evaluating impacts of pollution on wwrkors at industrial facilities acid residents in surrounding communities. Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites containing lead, heaev metals.. mold,. bacteria, particulate matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, pesticides, radioactive waste, dioxins and ftrrms; sera- and volatile organic. compounds, PCBs. PAHs, perohlorate, asbestos, per- and poly-0uoroalkyl substances (PPOAfPFOS), unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates (MTRE), among other pollutants. Dr. Rosenfeld also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from variousprojects and is anexperton the assessment of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as the evaluation of odor nwsance impacts and technologies for abatement of odorous emissions. As a principal scientist at SWAPE, Dr. Rosenfeld directs air dispersion modeling and exposure assessments. He has served as an expert witness and testified about pollution sources causing nwsance and/or personal injury at dozens of sites and has testified as an expert witness on more than ten cases involving exposure to air contaminants from industrial sources. Patti E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 1 of 10 June 2019 75C-159 Professional Historv: Sail Water An Proleetinn Enterpvse (SWAPS); 2003 to present'- Principal and Founding Partner UCLA Schad of Puhlic 11ealth, 2001 to 7A11; LeCR er (Assistant 1ZCaearOher) UCLA Schaal of Public Health, 2003 to 2006; Adjunct la cfcssor UCLA Environmental Soon. and Engineering Program; 2001 Doctoral Intern Qwminatar UCLA lnstimte of the Lnvimnment, 2001-2W2, Research Associate Konsi HaO Science, 2001 [02003; Senior Remediation Scientist National Croundwater Association, 201 Lecturer San Diego State University,1999-2001; Adjunct Professor Amnon Corp., San Diego, 2MO-2001; Remediation Project Manager Ogden (now Amer), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999 — 2000; Risk Assessor King County, Seattle, 1996— 1999; Scientist James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96, Scientist Big Crcak Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995, Scientist Flames C; rp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist Peace Corps and Wald Wildlife Fund, St, Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist Publications: Remy, I, I.., Clay T. Byers, V., Rosenfeld P. F (2019) Hospital, Health, and Community Burden After Oil Refinery Fuea, Richmond, California 2007 and 2012. Emminowenml Heali 18:45 Simons, RA., Soo, Y. Rosenfeld, P., (2015) Modeling the Effect of Refinery Emission On Residential Property Value. Journal of Real Estate Research. 27(3):321-342 Chem J. A. Zapata A R., Sutherland A. J., Mohnen D.k, Chow, 13. S„ Wu, L. E., Rosenfeld, P. E., liesm R, C., (2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To ACommuriny In Texas City Texas Evaluated Using Aermod and Empirical Data. Amencan Journal of Emironmenlal Science, 8(6), 622-632. Rosenfeld, P.E. B: Fang, L. (2011). rho Risks ufliazardoos Waste. Amsterdam' Elsevier Publishing_ Cherem isuroll, N.P., & Roaenfeld, P.E. (2011). flane0�aok ofPotfmiion Prevenian and Clearrer Production: Best Practices in the 4rochemicallndrsiry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing_ Gonrrlez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, A, Rosenfeld, P. (2010), PC3s and DioxinsTurans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL. Pracedia Emironmen/a1 Scienerr. 113-125. Feng, L., Wu, C_, Tam, L., Sutherland, A J., Clark, J d, Ro nfeld, P.E. (2010)_ Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and Attic Dust CMICCntnations in Rpulations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States- Jow-sal ofl? ironmenislllealdt. 73(6), 34-46_ C heremisinoff,. N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. {3010). handbook of.Poliutuns Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Wood and Paperindusnier. Amsterdam: ELscvier Publishing CheremismoR, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2,01)9). handbook ofPoliuiicn Prevention and Cleatrer Production: Best Practices in the Peb-olamn Industry. Amsterdam Elsevier Publishing. Witt, C., Tam, L., Clark, 1., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and forma blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WM' Transactions on Ecology and the EMironment, Air PolftOon N3 (17), 319-327_ Paid E. Rosenfeld, Ph D. Page 2 of LO hum 2019 75C-160 Tam L. K.., Wu C. D_, Clark l: lead Rosenfeld, P.E. (2005). A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Drat And Blood Lipid Concentrations Of Tctrachlom-P-Dlbc roodiooxa CTCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two Populations Near Wnod Treatment racdities. Orgonahatogen Compounds, 70, 002252-P02255. Tam L. K... Wu C. D., Clark S. 1. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). Methods For Colloel Samples For Assessing Dioxins And Other Environments] Contaminants In Attic Etter: A Review. Organohalogen Compoatrds, 70, OW527- 000530. Hensley, A R_ A. Scott, 11 J. Clark, Rosenfeld, F.E. (2007), Attie Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near a Fomrer Wood Treatment Facility, Fnvironmenial Research. 105,194-197. Rosenfeld, P.E., ). 1. 1. Clark, A k. Hensley, M Suffer. (2007). The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for Evaluation of Human Health Fisk CnLcaa for Compost Facilities. Water Science&Technotogy55(5),345.357_ Roaenfeld, F. E., M Suffer. (2U07). The Anatomy Of Odour Wheels For Odoum Of Thinking Water, Wastewater, Compost And The Urban Environment. Water Science& Technology 55(5), 335.344. Sullivan, P. 1. Clark, 171, Agardy, F. J , Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Sjwhelic Toxins in the Food Water, andRirinAmencan Cities. Boston Maasachuaatts- Elsc,,cTPubhshing Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffer 1.14_ (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash. Water Science and Technology. 49(9),171-178- Rosenfeld P. E., J.J. Clark, I.E. (Mel) Suffet (2004). The Value of An. Odor -Quality -Wheel Classification Scheme For The Urban Environment. Water Environment Federab'on i Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEF7HQ 2004. New Orleans, October 2,6, 2004. Rosenfeld, PX, and Suffe; I.H. (2004). Understanding Odorants Associated With Compost, Biomass Facilities, and the Land Application of Biosolids. Water Science and 7chnology. 49(9), 193-199. Rosenfeld, IU, and Suffel 1.1-1. (2W l). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science and Technology, 49(9), 171-178. Rosenfeld, P. E, Grey, M_ A, Sellew, P- (2004)_ Measurement of Riosohds Odor and Odorant Fmissions From Windrows, Static Pipe and Kofiker. Water Environment Research. 76(4), 310-315_ Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and SuffoS M 0002), Compost Demonstration Project,. Sacramento Califorrux Using High -Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Integrated Waste Management BuardPWilic A,tfafrsO ice, Publications Clearinghouse(MS4),Sacramento, CAPublication N442-02-W& Rosenfeld, F.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids_ Water Soil andA,rP&'&h0n. 127(1-4), 173.191. Rosenfeld, P.E., and Hcmy C- L., (2000). Wood ash control of odor tmasiom from biosolids application Journal csfFnvGnn ,W,10U.hty_ 39, 1662-1668_ Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett (20DI). Wastewater dewatenrng purancr affect on biosolids odor emissions and microbial activity. Water FnvlreontentResearch. 73(4), 363-367- Rosenfeld, F.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and Biosehds Odorants WaterEnvirdrtmentResearch, 73, 788.393. Rosenfeld, P.D., and Henry C. L., (20D1). High carton wood ash effect on biosoads microbial acivity and odor. Water $mironrrtenl Research. 131(1-4), 2q7-262. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph D. Page 3 of LO JIM 2019 75C-161 Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. (1998), Compost Amendment. 14andbook For Landscaping_ Prepared for and diatiolmted by the City of Redmond, Wa9funIidon State. Rosenfeld, P. E (1992). 'The Mount Limnuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of st Kitts, 3(2). Rosenfeld, P. E (1993). High School Riogm Project to Prevent Deforestation On St. Kitts. Biomass Users Nenvir&, 7(1), Rosenfeld, P. E. (1993) Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions From Biesolids Application To Forest Soil, Dmicurt Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources. Rosenfeld, P. E (1094), Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees on Sierra County Public Land_ Masters thssis repruilcd by the Siena County Economic C..C,l Sierra County, California. Rosenfeld, P. E (1991), Flow to Build. a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third World. Bachelors Thesis. University of California. Presentations Rosenfeld, P.E, Sutherland, A; Hesse, P ; Zapata, A. (October 3.6, 2013). Air dispersion modeling of volatile organic emissions from multiple nateral gas wells in Decatur, TX. 441h Western Regional Meeting, American Chemical Society. Lecture conducted from Santa Clam, CA. Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Ganaalez, J.; Sutherland, AJ; Wisdom -Stack, 7.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, RC.; Rosenfeld, PM (June Xi-23, 2010). AtrazineA Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water. Urban F,nvrronmentul Pol[uton. Lecture conducted from Boston. MA. Feng, L.; Gonzalez T7 Sok, I4_L.; Sutherland, A.% Waller. C.C.; Wisdom -Stack T_; Sahai, R.K.; La, M, Resse, R.C; Rusenfeld, P.E. (Jima 20-23, 2010), Bringing F.mTironmental Justice to East SL Lotus, Illinois. Urban Lrn=ironmentalPollarion. Lecture conducted from I3o5ton, MA. Rosenfeld, P-E (ApRI 14-23, 2009) Perflacroctanoio Acid (PFOA) and Per4luoroactane Sulformte (PFCS) Contamination m Chinking Water From the Use of Agoemoc T'ilri Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Cround Plater Summit and 2004 Ground Water Protection Cozened Spring Meeting, Lecture conducted from Tuscort AZ. Rosenfeld, PM (April 19.23, 2009). Cost to Filter Atmzinc Contamination from Drinking Water in the United States' Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 (imnnd Walar Summit and 2000 Ground Waler Pmtcohon CQmmd Spring Meeting Lecture conducted from Tascon, AZ Wu, C_, Tam, L., Clark, 1., Rosenfeld, P (20.22 July, 2009). Dioxin and fumn blood lipid concentrations in populations living near foci wood treatment facilities in the United Stotes Brebbia. C.A. end Popov, V., eds., Air Pollution Xk7l: Pioceecdngs of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modeling. Monrionng and Management ofAir PoAutron. Lecture conducted from Tallinn, Estonia. Rosenfeld,P. E (October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community lixposure To Contaminants From A Releasing Facility, The 23'a Annual Intemaaonal Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University oC Masmchusetts, Amherst MA. Rosenfeld, P. E (October 15-18, 2W7). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium -Contaminated Water Into A Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant The 23' Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA. Paul H. Rosenfeld, Ph D. Page 4 of LO JIM 2019 75C-162 Rosenfeld, P. K(October 15-19, 200/)_ Somerville Comm unity Exposure To Contaminants From WoodTreatment Facility Emissions The 23' Armual International Co*rences on Soils Sea4mont and Water Lecture conducted from Theversity of NfasaachusetU, Amherst MA, Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Production, Chcunical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of Trichloropropane(TCP). The Anticiananfor Environmental Health and Snences(AEHS) Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA_ Rosenfeld P. K (March 2007), Blood and Attic Sampling for DioxiwFuran, FAH, and Metal Exposure in Florets, Alabama. The AFUSAn naalMeeting. Lecture amducted from San Diego, CA. Hensley A K, Scott, A, Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J_].1_ (1lugust 21 25, 2006) Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood $amplcs Cpllco3cd Ncer 9 Former Wpod Treatment Facility. 7Vpe ,261h In1errmdonal $mposi run on Hufogenated Persistent Organic Polhnpntc — OIOXIN2006, Lecture conducted from Redisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo Norway. Hensley AR,, Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.JS. (November 4.8, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Bust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. APHA 134 Annual Meeting & Fsposidon Lectureconductcd from Boston Massachusctts. Paul Rosenfeld PIU) (October 24-25, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals, Mcalcy'5 C8,PFOA. Science, Risk & Litigation Confirnnce. Lecture conducted from The Yittonbonse Hotel, Philadelphia, PA_ Paul Rosenfeld PhD. (September 19, 2005). Brommated Flame Retardants in Groundwater Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology andRetnediabon PEM4 Emerging Contaminant Cot ference. Lecture conducted. from Hilton Notch Irvine California. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,Z3-TCP. PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D _ (September 26-27, 2005). Fate, Transport and persistence of PDBEs. Mealey's Grataidwa i, Crmferenre. Locenre conducted from Ritz Calton Hotel, Marina Tel Ray, California Paul Rosenfeld PhD. (June 7-8, 2005). Fate, Trampert and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals. International Society of $nvimrunenta[ Forensics: Focus On Fmegmee Coolamananrs. Lecture conducted from Sheraton Oceanf ml T1ctol,, Virginia Roach, Virginia. Paul Rosenfeld PhD. (July 21-22, 2005). Fate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related Pernucrochemicals. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Toner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland_ Paul Rosenfeld Ph.A. (Judy 21-22, 2005). Bromirxated Flame Retardants in Groundwater. Pathways to Human Ingestion- T,,m,vlogy and Remediatipn. 2005 Naannal Groundwaler Aveo..hd n Ground Water and Environmental i aw Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Behimord Inner Oarhor, Baltimore Mery6nd Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D- and lames Clad: Ph 1) and Rob Hc5,. RG. (1v1ay 5-6, 20U4) Tcrl-butyl Alcoh,d Liability and Tpxicpl p(y+y, !{ Natlpnel Pmhletn and UllGuarai5ed Liability- A/atl0na7 GmuydwpterArcpciaR9n Envmnnrervtpl Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Congress Plaza Holt, Chicago Illinois. Peal Rosenfeld, PhD. (March 2OG4). Pcrohlorsle Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona. Hogemam,M:F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.). and Rob Hesse(2004). Peennerale Contamination of the Colorado River. Meeting of tribal representatives Lecture conducted from Parker, AZ. Paul H. Rosenfeld, Ph D. Page S of LO June 2019 75C-163 Paul Rosenfeld, PhM. (April 7, 2004). A National Damage Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners. Dryrleone.Syruposium. California Ground walerAssocfu7roa. Leclure conducted from Radisou Hotel, Sacramento, Calircnnm Rosenfeld,, P. E., Grey, M.. (7unc 2003) Two stage bioliber for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh International In Situ And On Site Broremed'ation Symposium Battelle Conferencx• Orlando, FL. Paul Rosenfeld, 1%.D. and Samcs Clark Ph_D. {February 20,21, 2003) Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National GroundwaterAssocia ion Southwest Focus Conference. WatarSupply and Fmergu;g Conaumnanls. Lecture conducted from Hyria Regency Pbueni : Arizona. Paul Rosenfeld, Phd). (February 6-7, 2W3). Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remedimion. CaLfomia CUPA Forum. Lecture conducted from Marriott Hotel, Anaheim California. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (October 23, 2002) Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation EPA Underground Sdor ge Tank Roundtable. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California. Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffey M. (October 7- 10, 20M)_ Understanding Odor Gom Compost, Wastewater and lndwonal Praessex San Annual Smpomum On Of Flavors in the Aquatic Ea ironment Indemaaonal Wader Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain Rosenfeld, P.E. and 3uffet. M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compact Odor. S+xlh Amoral Spnposium On Off Ravors in tl+e AquaAc Envreonment laternali u,,I Water Ass oaon. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A (September 22-24, 2002). Biocycle Composting For Coastal Sage Restoration. Norihwert Mowhair ManagementAssocladon. Lecture conducted from Vancouver Washington, Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A (November 11-14, 2002). Using High -Carbon Wocd Ash to Conhcl Odor Eta Green Materials Composting Facility. Sort Science Society Annual Conference. Lcotureconduotod5rom Indianapolis, Maryland. Rosenfeld. P.E. (September 16, 2000). Two stage biofiltar for biosollds composting odor control, Water revironment p'adararron. Leanne conducted from Anaheim California.. Rosenfeld. P-E (October 16, 2000). Wood ash and biotiller control of compost odor. Bwfest Lecture conducted Fine Ocean Shores, Cxlitocnia, Rosenfeld, P.E. (2WO). Woremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. Catrfornla Resource Recovery Association. Lecture conducted from Sacramento Califorrva, Rosenfeld, P.E., CL. Henry, R Harrison. (1998)- Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Salfur Emissions Following Siosolids Incorporation With High -Carbon Wood --Ash. Water Em+iranment Federation 12m Annual Readaals and Biosoltds Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellcvuc Washington. Rosenfeld, P.E, and C.L. Henry.. (1999). An evaluation cf ash incorporation with biosolids fox Odor ieducUVn. Soil $ctienca Society oJAmersca, Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah - Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R Harrison (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from Three Different Biosolids Applied w Forest Soil Brown and Catdwall Lecture conducted from Seaule Wastungton Rosenfeld, RE, C.L. Hemy. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Conhol of Odor F,missions Imm Biosalids Application To Forest Soil Bwfest Lecture conducted Gam Lake Chefnn, Woshungum Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph D. Page 6 of LO htne 2019 75C-164 Raaenfedd, P.& CL. Henry, R Harrison_ (1995)_ Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitmgm and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With high -Carbon Wood -Ash. Water F.nvuonAnent Federation 12th Annex] Residuals and BiosoWs Management Conference Pnv:eedinga Lecture conducted from Bellevue W ashngton. Rosenfeld P.E., C.L. Henry, R. B. Harrisom, and R Dills. (1997). Comparison of Odor Emissions From Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil Soil Science Society of Amedca, Lecture conducted from Anaheim CaliFomio,. Teaching Experience: UCLA Department ol: Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 20010) Taught Favvaamental Health Science 100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. Course focused on the health effects of environmental contaminants_ National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediution Technologies- Custom Course in Sanle Fe, New Mexico_ May 21, 2002_ Focused on fate andtransport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage malk9- National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Barrel s. April 1, 2002. Focused on rate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfast. and RCRA sites. Caliticans Integrated Waste Management Board, April and May, 2001, Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San Diego, Values, and San Francisco. Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design. UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5, 20M Seminar on Successful Remed iation Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remedurtion. University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for several courses including- Soil Chemistry, Organic Soil Amendments, and Soil Stability. It Berkeley, Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant For Environmental Sonswe 10 Academic Grants Awarded: California Integrated Waste Management Roard_ $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Envirunment Goal: To investigate effect of l l carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost 2001. 5ynagro Technologies, Corona Cali forma_ $10,000gtynt awarded in Sen Diego State University. Goal. investigate effect of bosolids for restoration and rentediation of degraded coastal sage soils. 2000. King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State. $100,000 grant awarded to University of Washington: Goal To investigate odor emissions from bicsolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on VOCemissimus. 1998, Northwest Biosolicis Management Association, Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate effect of polymers and ash on VOG emissions from biosolids. 1997- James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered Poplar toes with msoti m cc to rotund -up.. IM. United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fee ecology of the Tahoe National Forest. 1995. Kellogg Foundation. Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts in West Indies, 1993 Fiat E. Rosenfeld, Fh D. Page 7 of 10 June 2019 75C-165 Deposition and/or Trial Testimony: In the United States District Court For The District of New jersey Duane el al, Plaintiffs, vs. Cdaed States Metals Refining Company er al. fiafemdsnL CaseNo_ 2:17-cv-01624-ES-SCM Rosenleld Deposition 6-7-2019 In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division M,T Carla Moersk Flom!+ fx vs, Conti. 168" Schitfahrta-CrMBH 8c Co. Sulker KO M$ "Conti Perdido" Defendant. Case No. 3:15-CV-00106 consolidated with 3:15-CV-00237 Rosenfeld Deprsition. 5-9-2019 In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los.Angeles -Santa Monica Carole-Taddao-Rates el al., vs. Tfrn Khan etal., Defendants Case N. No. 13C615636 Rosenfeld Deposition, 1-26-2019 In The Superior Court of the State of Celiforma.In And For The County Met Angeles - Santa Monica The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al. vs El Adobe Apts. Inc. et al., Defendants Case No.: No. BC646857 Rosenfeld Deposition, 10.6.2018; Trial 3.7-19 In United States District Court For The District of Colorado Bells et al. Plaintiff vs_ The 3M Company at al., Defendants Case: No I : 16-cv-0253 1 -RBJ Rosenfeld Deposition, 3-15 2018 and 4-3-2019 In The Di strict Cowl Of Regan County, Tema. 112' Judicial District Phillip Bales et al., Plaintiff vs. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, et al., Defendants Causc No 1923 Rosenfeld Deposition, 1 I-l7_2017 In The Superior Court of Ilia State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa Simons et al., Plaintiffs vs. Chevron Corporation, el al., Defendants Cause No C12-01481 Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-20-2M 7 In The Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, I Ilinois lvfadha Curter d ¢l., Plaintiff vs- Cerro Flow Produces, Inc.,. Defendanss Case No.: No. Oi9-L-2295 Rosenfeld Deposition, 9-23-2617 In The Superior Court of the State of California, For The County of Los Angeles Warm Gilbert and Penny Gilbor, Plaintiff vs. 13MW of North America LLC Case No.: LC102019(c/w BC582154) Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-16-2017, Trail &28-2018 In the Northem Distinct Court of Miws,ippi, Greenville Div i6i n Brenda J. Cooper, et al.. Pb,r of _ vs. Meritor Inc., et al., Dafandunts Case Number: 4.16-ev-52-l)2,AB-J VM Rosenfeld Depcwhon: Iuly 2017 Fmil B. Rosenfeld, Ph D. Page 8 of LO hose 2019 75C-166 In The Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish Michael Doves and Julie Davis et al Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting lnc-Defendants Case No-: No, 13-203987-5 Rosenfeld Deposition, February 2017 Trial, Match 2017 In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda Charles Spain, Plai.6If vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, at al., Defendants Case NoRG14711115 Rosenfeld Deposition, September 2,015 In The lows District Court In And For Poweshiek County Russell D, Winbwn, et al„ Plaurtiffs vs. Doug $oksbergen- et al., Vofendants Case No.: I-ALAOC2187 Rosenfeld Deposition, Augusl2015 In The Iowa District Coup For Wapello County Jerry Dovico, et al, Plaintiffsys. Valley View Sine LLC, et al, Defendants Law No,: LALA105144 - Division A Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015 In The Iowa District Court For Wapello County Doug Paull, et al,„ at al., Plaintiffs vs, Richard Women or al., Defendants Law No,: LALA105144 - Division A Rosenfeld Deposition, Auguaa 2015 In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia Robert Andrews, et al. v. Antero, or al. Civil. Action NO. 14-G30000 Rosenfeld Deposition, June 2015 In The Thud Judicial District County of Dona Ana, New Meeaco Betty Gonzalez, et al. Plaintiffs vs. Del Oro Dairy, Dal Oro Real Estate LLC, Jerry Settles and Deward DeRuytar, Defendants Rosenfeld Depositiorr July 2015 In The Iowa District Coud For htns'catine Comrty Laurie Freeman et, al. Plaintiffs vs, Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant Case No 4980 Rosenfeld Deposition: May 2015 In the Cirouit Court of the 17"Judicial Circuit, in and For Browaol County, Florida Walter Hinton, et al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant. Co. Number CACE07030358 (2k) Rosenfeld Deposition. ])e mnaber2014 1n the Lrruted States District Cc art Wcstcrn Distnct of Oklahoma Tommy McCarty, et al., Plaintiffs, v_ Oklahoma, City I.sndfill, LLC dfh/a Southeast Oklahoma City Landfill, et al. Defendants. Can No. 5 :1 2-cv-0 1 152-C Rosenfeld DepositionIcily 2014 Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph D. 1'e :n.'i In JIM 2019 75C-167 In the County Court of Dallas County Texas Giea Parr of al, Plame5l}: vs. Atuba of al, Defendant Case Number ce-11-01650-F Rosenfeld Deposition: Ntarch and September 2013 Rosenfeld Trial: April 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscamwas County Olio John Michael Abicht, sit al., Phsustffx vs. Republic Services, Inc, et al., D¢fandants Case Number: 2003 CT 100741 (Cons, w/ 2009 CV 10 0987) Rosenfeld Deposition. October 2012 In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division Kyk Cannon, Eugene Donovan, Genuo Ram ircz, Cuol Sasslu, and Haevey Walton, each lndivid welly and on behalf ofthose slmitmly situated, MarnnJ:s vs. SP Produ NoNt America, Inc., i)efenduM Case 3.10-cv-00622 Rosenfeld Deposition: February 2012 Rosenfeld Trial: Apn12013 In the Circuit Court OfBalturim County Maryland Philip G. Cvach, II et al-, Pluintif vs- Two Farms, IM dlbla Royal Farms, De fendanO, Case Number: 03-C-12-012487 OT Rosenfeld Deposition: September 2013 Paul B. Rosenfeld, PhD. Paao taut In Jane 2019 75C-168 EXHIBIT C 75C-169 S�aeA �C Technical Consultation, Data Analrein and 7*A G Litigation support for the Ennironci 26Sfi 29" Street, Suite 201 Santa Monica, CA 90405 Matt Hagemann, P.G, CA& (949) 987-9013 mha¢emannaswaoe.com Papl E. Rosenfeld, PhD (310) 795-2335 prr, a feldrrr2swape.mm May 11, 2020 Mitchell M. Tsai 155 South El Molina Avenue Suite 104 Pasadena, CA 91101 Subject: Commetns on the Bowery Mixed -Use Project (SCH No. 20190901 Dea r Mr. Tsai, We have reviewed the January 2020 Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") for the Bowery Mixed - Use Project ("Project") located in the City of Santa Ana ("City"). The Project proposes to demolish three existing buildings totaling 212,121-square feet in order to construct 1,150 multi -family residential units and 90,000-square feet ofcomrnercial retail/restaurant space, including an 18,00o-square foot retail shopping center, 5,000-square foot fast casual restaurant, 25,000-square foot qua lity restaurant, 25,000-square foot high turnover sit down restaurant, 5,0004square foot fast food restaurant, and 2,000-square foot coffee/donut shop. The Project also proposes to construct 183,3G3-square feet of open space and recreation amenities and 2,355 parking spaces on the 14,58-acre site. Our review concludes that the Ei fads to adequately evaluate the Project's Air Quality, Health Risk, and Greenhouse Gas impacts. As a result, emissions and health risk impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project are underestimated and inadequately addressed. An updated FIR should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential air quality and health risk impacts that the project may have on the surrounding environment. Air Quality Unsubstantiated Input Parameters Used to Estimate Projcc;t Emissio Lis The DFIR's air quality analysis relies on emissions calculated with CaIEEMod2O16.3.2.f Ca IEEMod provides recommended default values based on site -specific information, such as land use type, LAPfri& (Nrne i 2017) CaIFEMpu Ilsrr't guide, httn /lwww anmd envldrx�/darault- source/caleenrod/01 user-39-s-nuide2016-3-2 LSnov rnaer2017.ndVsivrsni 28 75C-170 Cal EEMod separates the operational trip purposes into three categories: primary, diverted, and pass -by trips. According to Appendix A of the CalEEMod User's Guide, the primary trips utilize the complete trip lengths associated with each trip type category. Diverted trips are assumed to take a slightly different path than a primary trip and are assumed to he 2S%of the primary trip lengths. Pass -by trips are assumed to be 0.1 miles in length and area result of no diversion from the primary routes Review of the Project's Cal EEMod output files demonstrates that the trip purpose percentages are inconsistent with the trip purpose percentages indicated by the DEIR (see excerpt below( (Appendix B, pp. 330, 391). AY9ec TWN mn rw9w9• wow wwacw wsacc noMUN+ �wacw I Vs Hoac+M' Hwnary uwlka P ANNOPIRSMtlFYB Pr 30 490 d10 FOR 141� Ctt. PS 11 3 Ezpsea F'v'p9 rmm Elnav _ vd60 Hoo .........mow dm _. 1. O.w .. AN OLS B ._- .. 0 .. d ..............•.......� FrstFa4 Faa®maMwro Ortwf i +9.6P , 9A0 H90 +9_.--------i... AC Bt 9 11 � 18.. B.. H90 2A 19ID 31 Y H9 .........n............ ........•..... ... [.. M. P ............... a w6M BW .....e OW 6W -- R50 ....... +9W - - p ... ]p tdtlnr 40latt 6uYm. = i6q'J &d0 6.SY • Y.W d... HOtl 0 a 0 Q We1W AHN.Wlptes 1 1896 HW ......3.�....�—iSttO � ON �..�m 4M . 0® ... .......... 0 O tt ..... ....... ...... 0`sW;aa•,4nnA....w IHfA�i9&Po' e4i 19L] 1.=...........Q ii Rev. YSIwwq CwM t +OW &40 R50 16]0 I 0}.90 ; 10.W al 0 rP As you can see in the excerpt above, the model assumes a 3% pass -by percentage for the apartment land use, 17%for the fast food restaurant without drive -through, 69% for the fast food with drive - through, 79%for the high turnover (sit down restaurant(, 76%for quality restaurant, and 760/for regional shopping center. However, these values are inconsistent with the pass -by trips indicated by the DEIR. Based on the DEIR's Proposed Project Trip Generation table, the apartment and parking land uses are not expected to generate any pass -by trips, the fast food restaurant without drive through is expected to generate 17%, the fast food restaurant with drive -through is expected to generate 31%, the high turnover (sitdown) restaurant is expected to generate 21%, the quality restaurant is expected to generate 22%, and the regional shopping center/retail land use is expected to generate 24% (5.14-11, Table 5.14-5). By including primary trip percentages that are inconsistent with information provided in the DER, the model may underestimate the Project's mobile -related operational emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Use of Incorrect Saturday and Sunday Trip Rates Review of the Project's CaIEEMod output files demonstrates that the Saturday and Sunday trip rates inputted into the model are incorrect The number of daily trips, including pass -by trips, are indicated in the DER (see excerpt below) (p. 5.14-11, Table 5.14-5). • the apartment land use is estimated to generate 6,092 daily trips; • the high -turnover sit down restaurant is expected to generate 2,740 daily trips; • the retail land use is expected to generate 636 daily trips; • the quality restaurant is expected to generate 2,067 daily trips; • the fast casual restaurant is expected to generate 1,564 daily trips; ' "GIFFMnd usah r:uide, pnpandix pfalcnUtinn f)cta ils frn GIFFMnd " SfAryNO, nvnifnhfv rtY h[tn:!/wxw.aamd.ew/dac.Ydefaul[:ourselcaleemodlcaleemod-aooendixa.odf?;ivrsn-2. p.20 30 31 75C-171 • thefast-food restaurant without drive -through window isexpected to generate 1,693daily trips; and • thecoffee/donut shopwithout drive- through window isexpected to generate 1,607trips. Table 5.14-5 Proposed Proper Trip Generation A-M. Peoki P.M.Peak 11— rasa esu units 1 In 1 OW 1 Total In 1 Dvi 1 rated I Dail, Furoree:e dpmlme. Trip Gererrace Re-1 009 OD 036 OD 017 04 544 T,p Geiererm 1.150W 109 306 414 309 197 W6 6.256 ka,rd Tnpa " (6) 163) (69) (56) IS]) (95) 1.1,Tri f. 10� 'Jd'k '!d3 'Jfil IM dll fiO9'1 l i,,4Tu—W Dawn Raarvwnl Trip C9nerWlm Reici,' 547 447 294 606 371 9.T 11216 Trip Cxrerufim 25 NO TSF IS] 112 249 151 94 245 2,aim Inlenml Tnpi 127) (3) (29) I15) (M) (36) (65) Exlemal Tnq I10 109 2;u 136 74 209 2740 pi Tnps 0 0 0 150) (32) (W) lobl W Me G—rofian 110 109 2W /< 42 119 2161 li Trip Ce-i Kir-I 038 036 094 183 198 3.01 3775 Trip CErerellm 10 WO TSF 10 J 17 33 36 69 680 IMemol Trlpas (3) (2) 15) A (19) (39) for Fzli T., J 5 12 13 17 30 636 i Trip° 2i )11 (1) )4) )r') 00 To.a aT,, va—, 3 4 9 9 II W 483 Trip(-.ercrei RWers 037 037 OJ3 523 25J 7 0O 03.04 Trip Gnarram 25 NO T5F 9 9 10 131 64 195 2,096 Iir-- Lipa'< (2) (0) 12) 113) p4) (27) (29) Ea.r. TO, J 9 16 110 50 168 2A67 Perri Tnpa 0 0 0 (52) (22) (74) Iok)N lr Fmeral— / 9 16 66 A 94 1,6)2 Post (a —I Re.—e 7r, fcn ei Rmera 139 DAR 207 71 636 1412 31517 TripC rei 5000 TSF J 3 1D 39 32 ]I 1S 6 M ra Tnpa 11) (0) 11} (4) (J) (11) (12) Fslmm�l 3 9 l5 95 1,S6d 1 Pm+RYTnPr1, 0 0 0 15) (11) (2626 ) Tn' Cmwoliw 6 6 ] 4 SO 14 ]A PoAFnntl Res wi1FeW OnvnThrnugM1 ft. Wntlew Rai To,reer ellm Reiev' 1506 151 2126 171] 1417 2IA2 34623 Ccrvreruliur SOW TSF 75 51 126 J1 JI 142 138) We Mlemol (1) 1D (J 54 119 (38) Fneeml T., 60 60 50 0 Ild 64 56 Il9 1,643 I fl, pmrwreT 24) (19) 43) 126) (22) (48) Tomeei Tn Ga,wi 37 30 67 38 33 72 CeFee/Denul gFepvilFeW Dmo-TFmuyF Window Trip Cererpi Reterm 491 4361 8178 2169 2'A 487 2038 Trip Ce^arulim 2.OW TSF 91 6] I]8 43 44 9J Ip41 1641 IWemm Tri PR) (9) (2D) W P^) (14) (11)Fx1emM Tnprpes J3 85 158 39 34 J3 1AW i By Tripe (61) 1]1) (131) 132) (-) (61) Tom, wr Tr,W—Iree 12 14 27 J 6 12 1273 However, review of the Project's CalEEMod output files reveals that the total daily trips calculated for Saturday and Sunday were underestimated for each of the proposed land uses(see excerpt below) (Appendix R, pp 3)9, 390)_ 31 75C-172 4.2 Trip Summary Information Ave e Daly T- Rale Landow W�Aay S Uisey Sunday :padmi M5.. W RSe 6.095 5A97.0 4577W 0 .......... --_�___ Enclosed Partying wAn Elevatq 000 coo ..•. ••.............................. Fart Feetl F2eslwraM wb nnva Tluu 1. 1606.76 . 17,M 17176 ...........•.............61....•.... Fast FaOd Restaurant w '17re 1 N • 3 257.00 4.996.40 499 40 B100 Tunwver 150 Ovm1 ReslauraN) • 2 M M 2M900 345a2F .............................. 4f •"""-"`--- 000 Oyler Asphalt Surta®s • 000 . 000 ................................•... ---- 000 rtkal-ASQhaM SurFxe:........ 000 ----------- ON •. •.0 i_._ ., 1]71.25 .. owIl......l.. • _ 2_067 _00___ 2.2i9]5 w_ 11 RepomalShapOup Cancer 6 58 77B, 2 35514 Total 46,40086 I W.650.43 15.357.M As you can see in the excerpt above, the total number of vehicle trips for Saturday and Sunday are lower than those indicated bythe DEIR for the apartments, fast food restaurantwith and without drive through, high turnover (sit down) restaurant, quality restaurant, and regional shopping center. Thus, the trip rates inputted into the model for these land uses are underestimated and as a result, the model incorrectly estimates the Project's operational mobile -source emissions. Un3tbstuntiatvdRrsfuction in Cum in erciul-Work Trip Length in Existing Model Review of the Project's CaIEEMod output files demonstrates that the commercial -work (C-W) trip length was manually Increased in the model without adequate justification. Asa result, the model may underestimate the Project's operational emissions. Review of the Project's CaIEEMod output files demonstrates that the Project's C-W trip length was manually increased from the default value of 16.60 miles to 40 miles (see excerpt below) (Appendix B, pp. 562, 620). As previously stated, the CalFEMod User Guide requires that any non -default values inputted most be justified.' However, review of the "User Entered Comments & Non -Default Data" table demonstrates that this change was not justified or even addressed. The DEIR and associated appendices also fail to address this reduction. Asa result, we cannot verify that this trip length is accurate and, as a result, the model should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. 31 32 Use oflncorrect Trip Purpose Percentages in Existhkq Model Review of the Project's CaIEEMod output files demonstrates that the pass -by and diverted trip percentages used in the model were manually altered without sufficient justification. As a result, the 33 model underestimates the Project's operational emissions. 'Supra, In 1, p. 7, 13. 75C-173 Cal EEMod separates the operational trip purposes into three categories: primary, diverted, and pass -by trips. According to Appendix A of the CaIEEMod User's Guide, the primary trips utilize the complete trip lengths associated with each trip type category. Diverted trips are assumed to take a slightly different path than a primary trip and are assumed to he 2S%of the primary trip tengths. Pass -fay trips are assumed to be 0.1 miles in length and area result of no diversion from the primary route.' Review of the Project's Cal EEMod output files demonstrates that all of the trips were assumed to be primary, with pass -by and diverted trips artificially reduced to zero (see excerpt below) )Appendix B, pp. 446, 504, 562, 620). InVEMCkSPf ............W...Y.m.'.� i94 111 ........... ....-....-.-... ... ............ o.W __________ K�F ----------- sw -- ______' ___am ________- As you can see in the excerpt above, the diverted and pass -by trips were manually reduced to zero, while the primary trips wereincreased to 100 percent in the model. As previously stated, the CaIEEMod User's Guide requires that any non -default values inputted into the model must be justified.' According to the "User Entered Comments & Non -Default Data" table, the justification provided for these changes is: "Trip Rates based on information provided in the Trip Generation" (Appendix B, pp. 401, 459, 517, 57S). However, the trip generation indicated in the DEIR €ails to substantiate the reduction of pass -by or diverted trips in the existing model. Thus, the model overestimates the existing land use's mobile- miated operational emissions and should not he relied upon to determine Project significance. Failure to Implenient All Feasible Mitigation to Reduuc Emissions The DEIR determines that the ProjecCs operational VOC emissions would exceed the applicable SCAQMD threshold (see excerpt below) (p. 5.2-17, Table 5.2-8). "CalEEMod. User's Guide, Appendix A: Calculation Details for CalEEMod."SCAQMO, avoilabfe at: httn //vnvw anmrl errvlhnrs/r♦afaiilf-SourceJralaemM/ralrvPmnrl-anr�rnrliva. nAfNf ..m-l_ p. 70 ' Supra, fn 1, p. 7, 13. 33 as 75C-174 Table 5.2-8: Summary of Operational Emissions Operational Activities Emissions (lbs/day) VOC I NO. I CO SO. PM,. I PMI, Summer Scenario Area Source 3519 2017. 10339 0_13 2 07 207 Energy Source 0.86 765 505 0_05 060 060 Mobile Source 38.31 6U 113 280./0 U./S /3.61 2013. Total Pm-ect Daily Emissions 74.36 96.65 389.14 0.93 76.27 22.80 ExhMq Emhs888 i 1.14 143-55 48.79 OAS 18.81 6.63 Met Emissions Project - Existin 63.23 -052 -0.42 -3.12e-03 -0.04 -0.04 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? I Yes No No No No No Winter Scenario Area Source 35.19 20.17 103.39 0.13 2.07 2.07 Energy Srxirre, Does 7A5 505 0D.5 06n 0A0 Mobile Source 40.17 70.98 27852 073 7360 2013. Total Project Daily Emissions 76.23 98.80 386.96 0.90 76.26 22.80 Emlmg Emhsinru 10.90 146.09 39.59 OAS 18.74 6.6; Net Emissions Pra'ect- Existin 6533 -052 -042 000 -004 -004 SCAOMD Regional Threshold Threshold Exceeded? 55 55 No 550 No 150 No 150 No 55 No Yes vmon �ronraoos, rV I Y. the DEIR goes on to cl aim, 34 "As shown, emissions from operation ofthe proposed Project would exceed the threshold of signitican ce for VOCs. The majority of VOC emissions would he derived tram consumer products and mobile activity. Consumer products Include cleaning supplies, kitchen aerosols, cosmetics and toiletries, the use of which cannot be controlled by the City. Likewise, vehicular emissions cannot ha rnntrnlled by either the Prnjecr applicant nr the tiny_ Thera are nn feacihle mitigation measures that would reduce VOC emissions to below the SCAQMD threshold. Therefore, operational emissions would be significant and unavoidable" (p. 5.2-26). However, while we agree that the Project would result in a significant VOC impact, the DEIR's conclusion that these impacts are" signifcant and unavoidable" is incorrect. According to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEOA), " CEQA requires Lead Agencies to mitigate or avoid significant envi ron mental impacts associated with discretionary projects. Environmental documents for projects that have any significant environmental impacts must identify all feasible mitigation measures or alternatives to reduce the impacts below a level of significance. If after the identification of all feasible mitigation measures, a project is still deemed to have significant environmental impacts, the Lead Agency can approve a project, but must adopt a Statement of Overriding Consideration to explain why 75C-175 further mitigation measures are not feasible and why approval of a project with significant unavoidable impacts is warranted." Y As you can see, an impact can only be labeled as significant and unavoidable after all available, feasible mitigation is considered. However, as previously stated, the DEIR determines that `[tlhere are no feasible mitigation measures that would reduce VOC emissions to below the SCAQM D threshold" (p. 5.2-16). However, this is incorrect, and as result, mitigation measures should be identified and incorporated, such as thosesuggested in the section of this letter titled "Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Operational Emissions,o1° in order to reduce the Projeces air quality impacts to the maximum extent possible. Until all feasible mitigation is reviewed and incorporated into the Project, impacts from operational VOC cannot be considered significant and unavoidable. Diesel Particulate Matter Health Risk Emissions Inadequately Evaluated The DEIR concludes that the Projeces construction and operational health risk impacts would be less than sign!ificant without conducting a quantified construction or operational health risk assessment IHRA). More specifically, the DEIR attempts to justify this claim by stating; "Aceording to SCAQMD L5T methodology, LSTs would apply to the operational phase of proposed project, if the project includes stationary sources, or attracts mobile sources that may spend long periods queuing and idling at the site (e.g., transfer facilities and warehouse buildings). The proposed project does not include such uses, and thus, due to the lack of significant stationary source emissions, no long-term localized significance threshold analysis is needed" (Appendix R, pp. 49). The DEIR goes on to state, "Results of the LST analysis indicate that, with application of mitigation, the Project will not exceed the SCAQMD localized significance thresholds during construction. Therefore, sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial criteria pollutant concentration during Project construction. Results of the LST analysis indicate that the Project will not exceed the SCAQMD localized significance thresholds during operational a ctivity...Therefore, sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations as the result of Project operations" (Appendix R, pp. 54). However, these justifications and subsequent less than significant impact finding are incorrect [Of several reasons. First, the use of the LST method to determine the Projects health risk impacts on nearby, existing sensitive receptors is incorrect. While the L.ST method assesses the impact of pollutants at a local level, it onlyevaluates impacts from criteria air pollutants. According to the Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology document prepared by the SCAQMD, the LST analysis is only applicable to NO„ s hup,tYwww.vallevair.omhransoorution/GAMAQI 3-19-15.odf. P. 115 of 125 °"5aa sMinn tidad "Faatihl> Mitigation M>asures gvaiUhle Pn Rath ma ❑porn Hnnal Emissions" on p 19 of Yhis comment letter. These measures would effectively reduce operational VQG emissions. 34 35 75C-176 CO, Five, and PMb. remissions, which are collectively referred to as criteria air pollutants,° Because the LST method can only be applied to criteria air pollutants, this method cannot be used to determine whether emissions from DPM, a known human carcinogen, will result in a significant health risk impact to nearby sensitive receptors. Asa result, hea It impacts from exposure to toxic air contaminants (TACs), such as diesel particulate matter (DPM), were not analyzed, thus leaving gap within the DEIR's analysis. Second, the omission of a quantified HRA is inconsistent with the most recent guidance published by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), the organization responsible for providing guidance on conducting HRAs in California. In February of 2015, OEHHA released its most recent Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manua! for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments." This guidance document describes the types of projects that warrant the preparation of an HRA. Construction of the Project will produce emissions of DPM, a human carcinogen, through the exhaust stacks of construction equipment over construction period of approximately 26 months (Appendix B, pp. 247). The OEHHA document recommends that all short-term projects lasting at least two months he evaluated for cancer risks to nearby sensitive receptors." Therefore, per OEH"AS t idelines, we recommend that health risk impacts from Project construction be evaluated by the DEIR. Furthermore, once construction of the Project is complete, the Project will operate for along period of time. As previously stated, Project operation will generate approximately 11,546 daily vehicle trips, which will generate additional l exhaust emissions and continue to expose nearby sensitive receptors to DPM emissions (p. 5.14-11, Table 5.14- 5). The OEHHA do cum ent recommends that exposure from projects lasting more than 6months be evaluated for the duration of the project, and recommends that an exposure duration of 30 years be used to estimate individual cancer risk for the maximally exposed individual resident (MEIR).1q Even though we were not provided with the expected lifetime of the Project, we can reasonably assume that the Project will operate for at least 30 years, if not more. Therefore, we recommend that health risks from Project operation also be evaluated, as a 30-year exposure duration vastly exceeds the 2-month and frmonth requirements set forth by OEHHA. This guidance reflects the most recent health risk policy, and as such, we recommend that an updated assessment of health risks to nearby sensitive receptors from Pmject construction and operation be included in a revised CEQA evaluation for the Project. Third, by claiming a less than significant impact without conducting a quantified H HA to nearby, existing sensitive receptors as a result of Project construction, the DEIR fails to compare the excess health risk to 31 "Final Localized Significance Threshold Method dogy." KAUMD, Revised July 2008, am liable at.- httc;/fw w.agmd.am/dots/defa uIt-source/ceaaNirldbookAacalized-significance-thresholds/final-Ist- methodology document. pdf. 11 "Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments " OEHHA, February 2015,availabk or: htip;/Icehha.w.gwlafr/hot soots/hotsocts2015.1ttml to "Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments." OEHHA, February 2015, available at: hup Vcehha.ca..gcw/afrlhot sootsl2015/2015GuidanceManuai.vdf. p. 8-18 to "Rick Assasvmpat Ci Moline, Guidance Mani al for Prppa ration of Health Risk Assessments"OFHHA, F6hn inry 2013, available at: hua Vo hha.ca.cov/afrfhot soots/2015/2015GuidanceManua9.pdf. p. ", 8-15 35 75l77 the SCAQMD's specific no me ricthres hold of 10 in one miIlion," Thus, the DE I Rcannotconclude less than significant health risk impacts resulting from Project construction without quantifying emissions to 35 compare to the proper threshold. Screenin.-Level Assessment Indicates Sigtuficant linpact In an effort to demonstrate the potential risk posed by Project construction and all Project operation to nearby sensitive receptors, we prepared a simple screening -level HRA. The results of our assessment, as described below, provide substantial evidence that the Project's construction and operational DPM emissions may result in a potentially significant health risk impact not previously identified by the DEIR. In order to conduct our screening level risk assessment, we relied upon AERSCREEN, which is a screening level air quality dispersion model. 16Them odel replaced SCREEN3, and AERSCREEN is included in the OEHHA" and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Associated (CAPCOA)" guidance as the appropriate air dispersion model for Level 2 health risk screening assessments ("H RSAs"j. A Level HRSA utilizes a limited amount of site -specific information to generate maximum reasonable downwind concentrations of air contaminants to which nearby sensitive receptors may be exposed. If an unacceptable air quality hazard is determined to be possible using AERSCREEN, a more refined modeling approach is required prior to approval of the Project. We prepared a preliminary HRA of the Projects construction and operational health -related impact to residential sensitive receptors using the annual PM, exhaust estimates from CalEEMOd. For the Project's construction emissions, we used the CalFFMod output files provided in the DEIR. For the Project's operational emissions, we used SWAPr's updated operational Cal EEMod output files and subtracted SWAPE's updated existing (passenger cars) and updated existing (trucks) CalEEMod output files. According to the DEIR, the closest sensitive receptor is located approximately 440 meters south of the Project site {p. 5.2-11). Consistent with recommendations set forth by OEHHA, we assumed exposure begins during the third trimester stage of life. The Project's construction Cal EEMod output files indicate that construction activities will generate approximately 507 pounds of diesel particulate matter (DPM) over the 795-day construction period. The AERSCREEN model relies on a continuous average emission rate to simulate maximum downward concentrations from point, area, and volume emission sources. To account for the variability in equipment usage and truck trips over Project construction, we calculated an average DPM emission rate by the following equation: I5 "South Ceast ADM D Air 4uaI Ity Significance Thneshods " SCAQMD, April 2019, awiloble at: httn://wmw.aamd.eovldocs/defa uIt�curce/ceaa/handbook/scaamd-air-dual itv-sienificance- threshol ds.pdf?sfvmn= 2 ""A[ RSCR FEN Releaned as the EPA Recommended Screening Model," USEPA, Apr[ 111, 2011, ovaffabie at htmWwww.era,aov/ttn/scram/auidancelclarlti atEon/20110411 AERSCREEN Release Memo.pdt n "Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Prepa ration of Health Risk Assessments." OEHH A, February 2015, available or: hops://cehha.ca.aovlmedia/downloads/crnr/2015au[dancema nual.odi ""Health Risk Assessments for Proposed I and r sc Projert[,"BAP✓ 0A Ili y 7nn9 nvnrinh lr nr- h[://www.caowa.orvJwucontent/uolmds2012103/CAPCOA HRA LU Guidelines 8i-09,udf 10 36 75C-178 (;grams 506.0lbs 453.6grams lday lhour Emission Race �secondl 795 days x Ibs x 24 hours x 3'600 seconds-0.003346 y/s' Using this equation, we estimated a construction emission rate of 0.003346 grams per second (g/s). Subtractingthe 795-day construction duration from the total residential duration of 30 years, we assumed that after Project construction, the sensitive receptor would be exposed to the Projects operational DPM for an additional 27.82 years, approximately. The Project's operational CalEEMod emissions, calculated by subtracting the existing emissions from the proposed Project, indicate that operational activities will generate approximately 530 pounds of OPM per year throughout operation. Applying the same equation used to estimate the construction OPM rate, we estimated the following emission rate for Project operation: grams _ 530.2 Abs 453.6gram.s 1 day 1 hour Emission Raee x x x - 0-007626g/s second -' 365 days It24 hou3-s 3,600 seconds Using this equation, we estimated an operational emission rate of 0.007626 g/s. Construction and operational activity was simulated as a -acre rectangular area source in AERSCREEN with dimensions of 254.4 meters by 232 meters. A release height of three meters was selected to represent the height of exhaust stacks on operational equipment and other heavy-duty vehicles, and an initial vertical dimension of one and a half meters was used to simulate instantaneous plume dispersion upon release. An urba in meteorological setting was selected with model -default inputs for wind speed and direction distribution. The AERSCREEN model generates maximum reasonable estimates of single -hour DPM concentrations from the Project site. EPA guidance suggests that in screening procedures, the annualized average concentration of an air pollutant be estimated by multiplying the single -hour concentration by 10%." AS previously stated, there are residential sensitive receptors located approximately 440 meters from the Project site. The single —hour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN for Project construction is approximately 0.5355 µg/m3 DPM at approximately 450 meters downwind. Multiplying this single -hour concentration by 101Y., we get an annualized average concentration 0.05355 µg/m' for Project construction at the nearest sensitive receptor. For Project operation,the single -hour concentration is estimated by AERSCREEN is approximately 1.220 µg/m' at approximately 450 meters downwind. Multiplying this single- hour concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of 0.122 µg/m' for Project operation at the nearest sensitive receptor. We calculated the excess cancer risk to the closest sensitive receptor using applicable H RA methodologies prescribed by OEHHA and the SCAQMD. Consistent with the construction schedule included in the DEIR, the annualized average concentration for construction was used for the entire third trimester of pregnancy (0.25 years) and the first 1.93 years of the infantile stage of life (0- 2 19 "Screening Procedures for Estimating the Air Quality Impact of Stationary Sources Revised"EPA, 1992, available at: hup,llwww.epa.govRm/scram/guidance/guide/CPA-454R-92-019 OCR.adf see also "Risk Assessment Ci ddelines CLJidanre Manual for Prnparatinn of HaNITh Rivk A5[e,1 nO,N' OFHHA, Fahnrary 2015, nvailnhfe of htms://oehha.m.r /media/downloadslcmr12015cuidancemanual.pdf, p. 4-36 11 36 75C-179 years). The annualized average concentration for operation was used for the remainder of the 30-year exposure period, which makes up the remainder of the infantile stage of life (0 - 2 years), child stages of life (2 -16 years) and adult stages of life (16 - 30 years). Consistent with OEH HA, SCAQMD, BAAQMD, and SIVAPCD guidance, we used Age Sensitivity Factors (ASFs) to account for the heightened susceptibility of young children to the carcinogenic toxicity of air poll uti on. 20, n, 24 zs According to this guidance, the quantified cancer risk should be multiplied by a factor of ten during the third trimester of pregnancy and during the first two years of life (infant) as well as multiplied by a factor of three during the child stage of life (2 to 16 years). We also included the quantified cancer risk without adjusting for the heightened susceptibility of young children to the carcinogenic toxicity of air pollution in accordance with older OEH HA guidance from 2003. This guidance utilizes a less health protective scenario than what is currently recommended by SCAQMD, the air quality district responsible for the City, and several other air districts in the state. Furthermore, in accordance with guidance set forth by O€HHA, we used the 9V percentile breathing rates for infants." Finally, according to SCAQMD guidance, we used a Fraction of Time At Home (FAH) Value of 1 for the 3rd trimester and infant receptors." We used a cancer potency factor of 11 mg/kg-day]-' and an averaging time of 25,550 days. The results of our calculations are shown below. The Closest Exposed Individual at an Existing Residential Receptor Duration Concentration Breathing Cancer Risk Cancer Activity (years) (ug/m3J Rate(L/kg- without ASF Riskwith ri—A acc.+ 4cc.. Construction 0.25 0.05355 361 7.3E-09 10 7.3E-07 e' "Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments." QEHHA, February 2015, available ot: hnps://cehha.ca.gm/media/downloadsfcrnr/2Cl5guidancema nual.pdf. "Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) far the Proposed Thal nge (SCH No 2018071058) " SCAQMD, March 2019, available ot-. huo://www.ag md.gov/dots/default�ource/ceoa/comment- letters/2019/march/RVC190115-03 pdfNNrsn=8, p_ 4_ ""California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines," BAAQMD, May 2017, available ac http.//www.baagmd.gw/-'/mediaffilesiRlanning-and-research/cega/cega guidelines may2017-pdf.pdf7la=en p. 56; we also "Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards." BAAQMD, May 2011, pvalloble at. htto,//www.baaamd gw/-lmedia/Files/Planning%20and%2OResearchlCEOA/BAAQMD%2DModeling%20Auproac h.a�hx p, 65, 86. ""Update to District's Risk Management Policy to Address OEHHA's Revised Risk Assessment Guidance Document."SIVAPCD, May 2015,availableat:https://www.vallevair.orpbusind/pm/staff-report-5-23-15.p ff, p. 8, 20, 24. �""Supplemental Guidelines for Preparing Risk Assessments for the Air Toxics Mot Spots' Information and Assessment Act," June 5, 2015, available at: hHp:t/www.aqmd.gov/dots/defaultsource/plannindrfsk p_ 19. "Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments." OEHHA, February 2015, uvailable at hur s J ochha ca_ew/media/downloads/crnrl2015guidancema nual.pdi ""Risk Assessment Procedures for Rules 1401, 1401.1. and 212." SCAQMD. Augul ovalkabfeat: ,try /lwww anmd arrvldnrs/dafanh-sn, pre/n,lc-hnnklPrnnnced- Rules/1401/riskassessmentprocedures 2017 080717.odf. p.7. 12 36 75C-180 3rd 3rd Trimester 0.25 7.3E-08 Trimester 7.3E-07 Duration Exposure Construction 1.93 fl'mri5 1090 1.7E-06 10 1.7E-05 Operation 0.07 0.122 1090 1.4E-07 10 1.4E-06 Infant Exposure infant 2.OD ].BE-06 I.8E-05 Duration Exposure Operation 14,00 0.122 572 1.5E-05 3 4.4E-05 Child Exposure Child Durutian I'Loo 1.5E-05 Exposure 4.4E-05 Operation 14.00 0.122 261 4.9E-06 1 4.9E-06 Adult Exposure Adak 74.00 4.9E-06 4.9E-06 Duration Exposure Lifetime Exposure Lifetime 30.00 2.2E-03 6.8E-05 Duration Exposure Y we, aleng with C R& and XAQMo, recommend uxlngrne mare upe Mae one nearch prh of 2015 oENNA gumanca, which Includes Asa. The excess cancer risk posed to adults, children, infants, and during the third trimester of pregnancy at the closest receptor, located approximately 450 meters away, over the course of Project construction and operation, utilizing age sensitivity factors, are approximately4.9, 44,180, and 0.73 in one million, respectively. The excess cancer risk over the worse of a residential lifetime (30 years) at the closest receptor, with age sensitivity factors, is approximately 68 in one million. The infant, child, and lifetime cancer risks, using age sensitivity factors, all exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million, thus resulting in a potentially significant impact not previously addressed or identified by the DEIR. Results without age sensitivity factors are presented in the table above, although we do not recommend utilizing these values for health risk analysis, as they are less conservative and health -protective according to the most recent guidance. Regardless., the excess cancer risk over the course of a residential lifetime (30 years) at the closest receptor, without age sensitivity factors, is approximately 22 in one million. Thus, the Project may result in a significant impact regardless of the use of age sensitivity factors. Ana gency must include an analysis of health risks that connects the Project's a iremissions with the health risk posed by those emissions. Our analysis represents a screening -level HRA, which is known to be conservative and tends to err on the side of health protection. The purpose of the screening -level construction HRA shown above is to demonstrate the link between the proposed Project's emissions and the potential health risk. Our screening -level HRA demonstrates that construction of the Project could result in a potentially signifieanthealth risk impact, when correct exposureassumptions and up- to-date, applicable guidance are used. Therefore, since our screening -level construction HRA indicates a potentially significant impact, an updated CEQA analysis should include a reasonable effort to connect the Project's air qua Iityemissions and the potential health risks posed to nearby receptors. Thus, an updated CEQA analysis should include a quantified air pollution model as well as an updated, quantified 13 36 75C-181 refined health risk assessment which adequately and accurately evaluates health risk impacts associated I 36 with both Project construction and operation, Greenhouse Gas Failure to linplement All Feasible Mitigation The DEIR concludes that the proposed Project would result in 9,861.60 megatons of CO, equivalents per year (MT COe/year), which would exceed the SCAQMD Tier 3 mixed -use screening threshold of 3,000 MT CO,e/year (p. 5.6-22). Asa result, the DEIR concludes that the Project's GIG impact would be potentially significznt fp. 5.6-22). In an attempt to mitigate this impact, the DEIR states: "The Project would include sustainable design features and comply with Title 24/calGreen standards; however, approximately 60 percent of the GHG emissions would be generated by vehicle trips. Neither the Project Applicant nor the Lead Agency (City of Santa Ana) can substantively or materially reduce the vehicular -source GHG em ssione (p. 5.6-22). Despite complying with Title 24 and CalGreen standards, the DEIR states that the Projeces GHG impact would be significant and unavoidable (p. 5.6-22). However, while we agree that the Project's GHG impact would be significant, the DEIR's assertion that the Proje:es GHG impact would be unavoidable and cannot be mitigated further is incorrect. According to CEQA Guidelines § 15096(g)(2), "When an FIR has been prepared for a project, the Responsible Agency shall not approve the project as proposed if the agency finds any feasible alternative or feasible mitigation measures within its powers that would substantially lessen or avoid any significant effect the project would have on the environment" As you can see, an impact can only be labeled as significant and unavoidable after all available, feasible mitigation is considered." Review of the Project's proposed mitigation measures, however, demonstrates that the DEIR fails to implement all feasible mitigation. Therefore, the DEIR's conclusion that impacts are significant and unavoidable is unsubstantiated. As a result, additional mitigation measures should be identified and incorporated in an updated FIR in arderto reduce the Project'sair quality impacts to the maximum extent possible. Until all feasible mitigation is reviewed and incorporated into the Project's design, impacts from GHG emissions should not be considered significant and unavoidable, Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Construction Emissions Our analysis demonstrates that, when Project activities are modeled correctly, construction emissions would result in potentially significa nt impacts. Therefore, additional mitigation measures m ust be identified and incorporated in a DEIR to reduce these emissions to a less than significant level. d0 "Final Draft Guidanrc rnr Aavrtdne.arxi M rrtiEoting Air Qualify Imparm " WI I) APM, Fphn rary 2015, amfinhlP nt hmw,/f ww.vallevair.ore/transoortatlon/GAMAQI-2615/FINAL-DRAFT-GAMAQI.PDF. P. 115, 14 37 75C-182 Additional mitigation measures can be found in CAPCOA's Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures, which attempt to reduce GHG levels, as well as reduce criteria air pollutants such as particulate matter and NOi DPM and NOx area byproduct of diesel fuel combustion and are emitted 37 by on -mad vehicles and by off road construction equipment. Mitigation for criteria pollutantemissions should include consideration of the following measures in an effort to reduce construction emissions." Require implementation of Diesel Control Measures The Northeast Diesel Collaborative (NEDC) is a regionally coordinated initiative to reduce diesel emissions, improve public health, and promote clean diesel technology. The NEDC recommends that contracts for all construction projects require the fullowingdieseI control measures: " • All diesel generators on site for more than 10 total days must be equipped with emission control technology verified by EPA or CARR to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of gs percent. • All diesel vehicles, construction equipment, and generators on site shall be fueled with ultra -low sulfur diesel fuel (ULSD) or a biadiesel blend" approved by the original engine manufacturer with sulfur content of 15 parts per million (ppm) or less. . -<4nn [quipment lingines The NEDC recognizes that availandity of equipment that meets the EPA's newer standards is limited." Due to this limitation, the NEDC proposes actions that can betaken to reduce emissions from existing equipment in the Best Practices for Clean Diesel Construction report.il These actions include but are not limited to: • Repowering equipment (i.e, replacing olderengines with newer, cleaner enginesand leaving the body of the equipment intact). Engine repower may be cost-effective emissions reduction strategy when a vehicle or machine has a long useful life and the cost of the engine does hot approach the cost of the entire vehicle or machine. Examples of good potential replacement candidates include marine vessels, locomotives, and large construction machioes.n Older diesel vehiclesor machines can be repowered with newer diesel engines or in some cases with engines that operate on alternative fuels. The original engine is taken out of service and a new engine with reduced emission characteristics is installed.. Significant emission 'rhUp,l/www capeoa ors/wocontent/uploadsl2o10111lCAPCOA-Quantification-Report-9-14final pdf 's For measures to reduce operational DPM emissions, see section titled "Additional Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Operational Emissions" on p. 25 of this letter. These measures would effectively reduce operational VOC and NOx emissions, DPM emissions, as well as GHG emissions. 29 Diesel Emission Controls in Construction Projects, amiloble at:http://www2, a pa.eov/sites/p rod action/Files/2015-C9/documentslnedc.model Kontra ct-sepcification.pd f 3 Siodiesel lends are only to be used in conjumtion with the technologies which have been verified for use with bindiesel blends and are subject to the following ri quirementg- http:/fw.arb.m.gm/dieseIMerdev/repjbfodieselmmpIfance.pdf 31hul //northeastdiesel oreJpdf/RestProctims4CleanDieselConstruaionAue2012.pdf hup,liwrtheastdiesel.orsJvdf/BestPraalms4CleanDieselConstruafonAug2012.pdf 33 Rapair, Rehr i ld, Intl Repnwer, EPA, dvnrlghlr at ht tmc //www ena rn+/verified-diasel-ferh JleTrn-a hrn u-varif rd- technolociescleandieselttrepair is 38 39 75C-183 reductions can be achieved, depending on the newer engine and the vehicle or ma china's ability to accept a more modern engine and emission control system. It should be noted, however, that newer engines or higher tier engines are nut necessarily cleaner engines, so it is important that the Project Applicant check the actual emission standard level of the current (existing) and new engines to ensure the repower product is reducing emissions for DPMY Replacement of older equipment with equipment meeting the latest emission standards. Engine replacement can include substituting cleaner highway engine for anon road engine. Diesel equipment may a€so be replaced with other technologies or fuels. Examples include hybrid switcher locomotives, electric cranes, LNG, CNG, LPG or propane yard tractors, forklifts or loaders. Replacements using natural gas may require changes to fueling infrastructure.'' Replacementsoften require some re -engineering work due to differences in size and configuration. Typically, there are benefits in fuel efficiency, reliability, warranty, and maintenance costs.'' 39 insrall Retrofit Devices on Gisnnp constructinn Fgldjnnent PM emissions from alternatively -fueled construction equipment can be further reduced by installing retrofit devices on existing and/or new equipment. The most common retrofit technologies are retrofit 40 devices for engine exhaust after -treatment. These devices are installed in the exhaust system to reduce emissions and should not impact engine or vehicle operation. " It should be noted that actual emissions reductions and costs will depend on specific manufacturers, technologies and applications. Use Electric and IIrcivid construct✓on 6qu1pmcnt CAPCOA's Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Wlitigation Measures'a report also proposes the use of electric and/or hybrid construction equipment as a way to mitigate DPM emissions. When construction equipment is powered by grid electricity rather than fossil fuel, direct emissions from fuel combustion are replaced with indirect emissions associated with the electricity used to power the equipment. Furthermore, when construction equipment is powered by hybrid -electric drives, emissions from fuel combustion are also greatly reduced. Electric oonstruction equipment is available commercially from companies such as Peterson Pacific Corporation,"which specialize in the mechanica I processing equipment like grinders and shredders. Construction equipment powered by hybrid -electric drives is also commercially available from companies such as Caterpillar-" For example, Caterpillar reports that "Diesel Emissions Reduction Program (DERA): Technologies, Fleets and Projects Information, available a Lfitta://www2.eoa.ewlsites/omductian/files/2015-09/documents/420o 11001.odf "Alternative Fuel Conversion, EPA, available at: h ttcs:i/www3.e ❑a.goylote a /consume r/fuels/al tfue Isla I due Is.h or kfact w Cleaner Fuels, EPA, available at:https://www.epa.gov/verified-diesel-tachAea rn-about-verified-technologies- cle and ie se I lic I ea n er 3' Retrofit Technologies, EPA, amplableat:https://www.epa.poy/yerified-dieseI tochylearn-abaut verified conteriLluploads/yetersort electric grindersl.edf ^ Flecfrir. Pnwpr Prrx1 urr ,, n niiahle nthffm/lwww cat rem/an I) Vnrrxlurrs/ncw/nnwer-wsfPmv/electrir. nnwer- zeneratlon.html 16 41 75C-184 during an 8-hour shift, its WE hybriddozer bums 19.5 percent fewer gallons of fuel than a conventional dozer while achieving a 10.3 percent increase in productivity. The WE model burns 6.2 gallons per hour compared to a conventional dozer which burns 7.7 gallons per hour.' Fuel usage and savings are 41 dependent on the make and model of the construction equipment used. The Project Applicant should calculate projectspecificsavings and provide manufacturer specifications indicating fuel burned per hour. Implement a Construction Vehicle Inventory Trockigg System CAPCOA's Quantifying Greenhouse Gas h tigarion Misissams;42 report recommends that the Project Applicant provide a detailed plan that discusses a construction vehicle inventory tracking system to ensure compliances with construction mitigation measures. The system should include strategies such as requiring engine run time meters on equipment, documenting the serial number, horsepower, manufacture age, fuel, etc. of all onsite equipment and daily logging of the operating hours of the equipment. Specifically, for each on -road construction vehicle, norrroad construction equipment, or generator, the contractor should submit to the developer's representative a report prior to bringing said equipment on site that includes:°} • Equipment type, equipment manufacturer, equipment serial number, engine manufacturer, engine model year, engine certification (Tier rating), horsepower, and engine serial number. • The type of emission control technology installed, serial number, make, model, manufacturer, and EPA/CARB verification number/level. • The Certification Statement`1 signed and printed on the contractor's letterhead. Furthermore, the contractor should spun it to the developer's representative a monthly report that, for each on -road construction vehicle, nonroad construction equipment, or generator onsite, includes: as • Hour -meter readings on arrival on -site, the first and last day of every month, and on off -site date. • Any problems with the equipment or emission controls. • Certified copies of fuel deliveries for the time period that identify: o Source of supply o Quantityoffuel o Quality of fuel, including sulfur content j percent by weight) 43 Diesel Emission Controls in Construction Projects, avoila ble otfltgs,/Jwww2a pa-dov/sites/production/fil2sJ2015-09Jdocume ntsinedc-model ro ntra ct-Sapd fication-pd f '° Diesel Emission Controls in Construction Projects, ova(labfe at:httm/Jwww2. era -goo}sites/production/fiIles/2015-09Jdocuments/nedc-model-contract-scpcificau.nn pit The NEDC Model Certification Statement can be found in Appendix A. ^s Dio lFmlvalrnnC nhnly in Contni[nnn Pmjecty, nvo(MhW arhtto.//www2.ane.cov/site./production/riles/2015-09/documenz/nedc-model ontmotseocification.odf 17 42 75C-185 In addition to these measures, we also recommend that the Project implement the foibowing mitigation measures, called "Enhanced Exhaust Control Practices;`"` that are recommended by the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD): 1. The project representative shall submit to the lead agency a comprehensive inventory of all off - road construction equipment, equal to or greater than SO horsepower, that will be used an aggregate of 40 or more hours during any portion of the construction project. • The inventory shall include the horsepower rating, engine model year, and projected hours of use for each piece of equipment. • The project representative shall provide the anticipated construction timeline including start date, and name and phone number of the project manager and on -site foreman. • This information shall be submitted at least 4 business days prior to the use of subject heavy-duty off -road equipment. • The inventory shall be updated and submitted monthly throughout the duration of the project, except that an inventory shall not be required for any 30-day period in which no construction activity occurs. 2. The project representative shall provide a plan for approval by the lead agency demonstrating that the heavy-duty off -road vehicles (SO horsepower or more) to be used in the construction project, including owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles, will achieve a project wide fleet - average 20% NOX reduction and 45% particulate reduction compared to the most recent California Air Resources Board (ARB) Heetaverage. • This plan shall be submitted to conjunction with the equipment inventory. • Acceptable options for reducing emissions may include use of late model engines, low - emission diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after -treatment products, and/or other options as they become available. • The DistricPs Construction Mitigation Calculator can be used to identify an equipment fleet that achieves this reduction. 3. The project representative shall ensure that emissions from all offroaddiesel-powered equipment used on the project site do not exceed 40% opacity for more than three minutes in any one hour. • Any equipment found to exceed 40 percent opacity (or Ringelmann 2.0) shall be repaired immediately. Non -compliant equipment will be documented and a summary provided to the lead agency monthly. • A visual survey of ail in -operation equipment shall be made at least weekly. • A monthly summary of the visual survey results shall be submitted throughout the duration of the project, except that the monthly summary shall not be required for any 30-day period in which no construction activity occurs. The monthly summary shall include the quantity and type of vehicles surveyed as well as the dates of each survey. "6huo,llwww.ai mua Iltv:orcloea a/Ch3 E nha ncedExhaus iControl 10-2013:odf 1S 42 75C-186 4. The District and/or other officials may conduct periodic site inspections to determine I 42 compliance. Nothing in this mitigation shall supersede other District, state or federal rules or regulations. Use of:4pray Equipment with Greater Trunsfer Firm lencies Various coaBngs and adhesives are required to be applied by specified methods such as electrostatic spray, high -volume, low-pressure )HVLP) spray, roll water, flow water, dip coa ter, etc. in order to maximize the transfer efficiency. Transfer efficiency is typically defined as the ratio of the weight of coating solids adhering to an object to the total weight of mating solids used in the application process, expressed as a percentage. When it comes to spray applications, the rules typically require the use of either electrostatic spray equipment or HVLP spray equipment. The SCAQM D is now able to certify H VLP spray applicators and other application technologies at efficiency rates of 65 percent or greater.41 These measures offer a cost-effective, feasible way to incorporate lower -emitting equipment into the Project's mnstruction fleet, which subsequently reduces construction emissions. A revised FIR must be prepared to include additional mitigation measures, as well as include an updated air quality assessment to ensure that the necessary mitigation measures are implemented to reduce construction emissions. Furthermore, the updated FIR needs to demonstrate commitment to the implementation of these measures prior to Project approval to ensure that the Project's construction -related emissions are reduced to the maximum extent possible. Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Operational Emissions Our analysis demonstrates that the Projects air quality and G HG emissions may result in a potentially significant Impact. In an effort to reduce the Projects operational emissions, we identified several mitigation measures that are applicable to the Project Feasible mitigation measures can be found in CAPCOA's Quantifying Greenhouse Gas fWitigadon Measures, which attempt to reduce GHG levels, as well as reduce criteria air pollutants, such as particulate matter emissions." Therefore, to reduce the Project's operational emissions, consideration of the following measures should be made. • Integrate affordable and below market rate housing • Energy -related mitigation: c Install programmable thermostat timers o Establish onsite renewable energy systems, including solar power and wind power o Limit outdoor lighting requirements o Reduce unnecessary outdoor lighting by utilizing design features such as limiting the hours of operation of outdoor lighting. a Provide education on energy efficiency to residents, customers, and/or tenants. Provide information on energy management services for large energy users. o Meet "reach" goals for building energy efficiency and renewable energy use. o Limit the use of outdoor lighting to only that needed for safety and security purposes. htti, //www nnmH mWlhnmclnarmiis/vnrnv�ni�inmant-tmncfnrRHiricnry 9° htto:llwww.coocoe.ore/wvcontentluoloads/2010/11/CAPCOA-0uantif[cation-Reuon-9-11-Final.odf 19 43 44 75C-187 a Require use of electric or a lternativelyfueled sweepers with HE PA filters. o Include energy storage where appropriate to optimize renewable energy generation systems and avoid peak energy use. o Prohibit gas powered landscapeequipment and implement electric yard equipment compatibility • Transportation -related mitigation: o Provide EV parking o Require residential area parking permits o Implement nde-sharin& vanpool, shuttle, bike -sharing programs o Provide bike parking near transit o Provide local shuttles o Implement area or cordon pricing o Install a park -and -ride lot • Water -related mitigation: o Install an infiltration basin to provide an opportunity for 100%of the storm water to infiltrate on -site. o Install a system to reutilize gray water o Use locally -sourced water supply o Plant native and drought- resistant trees and vegetation • Develop and follow "green streets guide" that requires: o Use of minimal amounts of concrete and asphalt; o Use of groundcovers rather than pavement to reduce heat reflection."t • Implement Project design features such as: o Shade HVAC equipment from direct sunlight; o Install high-albedo white thermoplastic polyolefin roof membrane; o Install formaldehyde -free insulation; and o Use recycled -content gypsum board. o Require all buildings to become "LEER' and "WELL" certified. • Plant low-VOC emitting shade trees, e.g., in parking lots to reduce evaporative emissions from parked vehicles. Finally, the Kimball Business Park Project Final Environmental Impact Report includes various feasible mitigation measures that would reduce on -site area emissions that are applicable to the proposed Project's retail land use, and include, but are notlimited to:5' • Increase in insulation such that heat ransfer and thermal bridging is minimized. • limit air leakage through the structure and/or within the heating and cooling distribution system. ° Cod Houston Plan: httn /lwww hnrrrPsmrch nrekitcs/do( nit/filxldreumantc/nrrnPras/r-nnlHnu¢tnnPUn n ndf SPMitigation Monitoring Plan for the Kimball Business Park Project Final Environmental Impact Report, July 2016. 20 44 75C-188 • Installation of dual -paned or other energy efficient windows. • Installation of automatic devices to turnoff lights wherethey are not needed_ These measures offer cost-effective, feasible way to incorporate lower -emitting design features into the proposed Project, which subsequently, reduces emissions released during Project operation. An updated EIH should be prepared to include add itionaI mitigation measures, as well as include an updated air quality analysis to ensure that the necessary mitigation measures are implemented to reduce emissions to below thresholds. The Up. also needs to demonstrate commitment to the implementation of these measures prior to Projectapproval, to ensure that the Project's significant emissions are reduced to the maximum extent possible. SWAPS has received limited discovery regardingthis project. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental can sultarics practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due tot he unavai lability a runcertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties. Sincerely, - Matt Hagemann, P.G., CHg. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. zt 44 45 75C-189 Technical Attachments to Comment Letter PC2 Exhibit C are provided is Attachment 1 herein. Please note Exhibit D to Comment Letter PC2 is an EIR in San Diego and appears to be a mistake as it is unrelated to this comment letter. As such, it is excluded form this response. 75C-190 Response to Mitchell M. Tsai Comment Letter dated May 11, 2020 Comment 1: The comment provides an introductory statement and notes the comments on the Final EIR are submitted on behalf of the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters that is a labor union representing 50,000 carpenters. The comment also provides generalized information about the provision of comments under CEQA, and requests future notices about the Project. In addition, the comment states that the city must consider proposing that the Applicant provide additional community benefits such as requiring local hire and paying prevailing wages to benefit the City. Response 1: The comment is general in nature. This comment from an attorney for the Southwest Carpenters Union provides an introduction to comments and includes background information on the Southwest Carpenters and CEQA and associated regulations. The comment requests additional community benefits but does not provide any substantive comments or questions about the content of the EIR. Therefore, no further response is required. However, the City acknowledges that the commenter will receive future CEQA notices regarding the project. Comment 2: The comment states that the letter includes comments related to air quality and greenhouse gas from Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg. and Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. concerning the Draft EIR. The comment asserts they are technical experts, and their Curriculum Vitae (CV) is attached to the letter. Response 2: The comment provides background information related to the commenters, is general in nature, and does not provide any substantive comments or questions about the content of the EIR. Therefore, no further response is required. Comment 3: The comment provides a summary of CEQA requirements through references to case law and statutes. The comment states that CEQA directs public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage when possible by requiring alternatives or mitigation measures, and that the EIR's function is to provide a full understanding of the environmental consequences of projects. Response 3: The comment is general in nature and does not identify any specific alleged deficiency with the analysis in the EIR. Therefore, no further response is required. Comment 4: The comment asserts that the EIR does not maintain a stable and consistent project description because the Final EIR identifies modifications to the Project that include changes to the commercial space, landscaping, and the ratio of required parking spaces that the Project would provide per residential unit. Response 4: Since publication of the Notice of Preparation, the Project description has remained stable and proposes to redevelop the Project site with up to 80,000 square feet of retail and restaurant commercial space and 1,150 multi -family residential units. As detailed in the Final EIR, minor details to the Project site plan have been revised in response to the City's detailed review of the proposal, applicant revisions in response to the City's review, and comments received on the Draft EIR. These revisions include: 1) clarification of the types of retail and restaurants that would be within the 80,000 square feet of proposed commercial space; 2) an increase in residential parking from 1.7 spaces per unit to 2.0 spaces per unit to be consistent with similar developments within the City; and 3)(in response to SCAQMD comments) requiring the Project to provide information to commercial tenants about the availability of electric landscaping equipment through SCAQMD's Commercial Electric Lawn and Garden Equipment Incentive and Exchange Program. The CEQA process provides for revisions to environmental analysis in response to response to comments and/or any other information added by the Lead Agency (CEQA Guidelines Section 15132(e)). 75C-191 Additionally, these minor revisions to the Project would not result in any new significant impacts. The clarification of the types of retail and restaurants that would be within the 80,000 square feet of proposed commercial space are evaluated in the Final EIR Traffic Impact Analysis and revised EIR traffic Section, which is provided in Chapter 3 of the Final EIR, and details that no new impacts would occur. Also, the change to the residential parking spaces was initiated to provide consistency with other similar developments in the City and to meet the anticipated parking need of the Project. The addition of 0.3 parking spaces per residential unit within the same development area would provide additional parking flexibility for Project residents and their guests and would not result in new impacts. Also, the addition of PDF AQ-1 that would provide information about SCAQMD's Commercial Electric Lawn and Garden Equipment Incentive and Exchange Program was provided in response to the SCAQMD comment letter that was received. The intent of the measure is to encourage the use of electric landscaping equipment instead of gas -powered equipment, which generates larger volumes of air pollutants. Implementation of the measure is intended to reduce onsite emissions; and therefore, would not result in new impacts. Comment 5: The comment asserts that modifications to the Project require recirculation of the EIR because the Project's transportation analysis was revised based upon modifications to the Project. The comment states that because VMT analysis and transportation analysis are required under CEQA, the failure of the Draft EIR to include this information was an unlawful omission of information that requires revision and recirculation and the Draft EIR was fundamentally and basically inadequate. Response 5: CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 sets forth the circumstances under which a lead agency must recirculate an EIR. A lead agency is required to recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the Draft EIR but before certification of the Final EIR has occurred. Such information can include changes in the project or environmental setting as well as additional data or other information. New information added to an EIR is not considered "significant" unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project's proponents have declined to implement. As defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a), significant new information requiring recirculation is that which shows any of the following: 1. A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented. 2. A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. 3. A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project, but the project's proponents decline to adopt it. 4. The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. The Draft EIR adequately analyzes the environmental effects of the proposed Project, and the conclusions in the Draft EIR are supported by substantial evidence in the record. None of the conditions requiring recirculation listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 have been triggered, and recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required. The minor clarifications, Project modifications, and editorial corrections made to the Draft EIR are shown in Chapter 3 of the Final EIR. None of the revisions that have been made to the Project or Draft EIR indicate new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact identified in the Draft EIR; and, none of the revisions identify a feasible project alternative or mitigation measure that is considerably different from those set forth in the Draft EIR and 75C-192 which will lessen the environmental impacts of the Project. Furthermore, no new information brought forward indicates that the Draft EIR is so fundamentally flawed that it precludes meaningful public review. As none of the CEQA criteria for recirculation have been met, recirculation of the EIR is not warranted. As stated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(b), "recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR." As described in Response 4, the Final EIR evaluates revisions to the types of retail and restaurants that would be within the 80,000 square feet of proposed commercial space, which was evaluated in the Final EIR Traffic Impact Analysis and revised EIR traffic section, which is provided in Chapter 3 of the Final EIR, and details that no new impacts would occur. In addition, both the VMT analysis within the Draft EIR and Final EIR detail that significant impacts related to VMT would not occur from the Project. Therefore, all impacts have been adequately disclosed, and because no new information has been presented identifying new or different environmental impacts as a result of implementing the proposed Project, recirculation of the EIR is not warranted. Comment 6: The comment asserts that Draft EIR falsely claimed that the Project site is listed as a hazardous material site and failed to discuss the fact that the site may be located within a groundwater basin that is impacted by volatile organic compounds. The comment also asserts that the Draft EIR fails to disclose OCHA investigation data and potential risk to future receptors associated with groundwater contamination at the Project site. The comment further states that this requires revision and recirculation since the Draft EIR. Response 6: The comment is an inaccurate assertion. Section 5.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Draft EIR (page 5.7-25), describes that the Project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Section 65962.5(a)(4) requires that DTSC shall compile and update as appropriate, a list of hazardous substance release sites subject to a response action. The DTSC's list of sites are published in the DTSC "Envirostor" database at the following weblink: httr)s://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.ciov/public/search.asp?cmd=search&reporttvpe=CORTESE&site type=CSI TES.O P EN.FU DS.CLOS E&status=ACT.BKLG.COM&reporttitle=HAZARDOUS+WASTE+AND+SUBSTANCES +SITE+LIST. In addition, the sites are mapped on the DTSC website: https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov. The Project site is not on the DTSC list or mapping. Regarding groundwater contamination, the history of onsite groundwater testing is provided in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in 2018, a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment in 2018, and a Limited Phase II Subsurface Investigation Report in 2019, which are provided as Appendix F of the Draft EIR. In addition, information is provided in Draft EIR Section 5.8, Hydrology and Water Quality. Specifically, areas of existing groundwater contamination are detailed on pages 5.8-6 through 5.8-9. As detailed on page 5.5-5 of the Draft EIR, the onsite borings conducted for the Project found groundwater between 24 to 33 feet below ground surface (bgs), but the historic high groundwater is approximately 10 feet below the existing grade. Due to the depth of groundwater, operation of the proposed residential and commercial uses would not result in contact with groundwater. Likewise, construction of the project is not anticipated to encounter groundwater. However, in the case that groundwater is encountered during Project construction, existing regulations require it to be treated and discharged. The federal Occupational Safety and Health Act Safety and Health Regulations for Construction contains requirements for construction activities, including health and safety plan(s). In addition, the CalOSHA required Injury and Illness Prevention Program (IIPP) would maintain worker safety related to potentially contaminated groundwater. Thus, implementation of construction pursuant to existing regulations as ensured through the permitting process would reduce potential impacts related to construction workers who may encounter contaminated groundwater when 75C-193 excavation is conducted to a less than significant level. The comment has not identified a potentially new impact not described in the EIR. Thus, none of the requirements for recirculation, as listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, have been triggered, and recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required. Comment 7: The comment asserts that the City did not consult the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) concerning the EIR, and that the City failed to consult any responsible agencies whatsoever. Response 7: This comment is an inaccurate assertion. The City consulted with DTSC and all other responsible agencies during preparation of the EIR. As provided in the State Clearinghouse website (https://ceganet.opr.ca.gov/Project/201908001 1) the following responsible agencies were notified about the EIR Notice of Preparation and the Draft EIR: California Air Resources Board, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, South Coast Region 5, California Department of Housing and Community Development, California Department of Parks and Recreation, California Department of Water Resources, California Governor's Office of Emergency Services, California Highway Patrol, California Native American Heritage Commission, California Natural Resources Agency, California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Santa Ana Region 8, State Water Resources Control Board Division of Drinking Water, Department of Toxic Substances Control, California Department of Transportation, District 12. In addition, as identified in Chapter 2 of the Final EIR, the City also consulted with the surrounding Cities of Tustin and Irvine. Furthermore, DTSC provided a comment to the Draft EIR, which was responded to in the Final EIR that was sent to DTSC in response. Thus, the City consulted with the DTSC, in addition to the other responsible agencies. Comment 8: The comment asserts that Draft EIR included mitigation requiring that "all prospective residents of the Project site shall be notified of airport related noise because the site was identified as being within the Airport Environs Land Use Planning (AELUP) area for John Wayne Airport (JWA). However, the Final EIR determined that the Project Site is not within the Planning Area for JWA. The comment asserts that the change is significant new information requiring revision and recirculation. Response 8: As described in the Final EIR, the project was determined to not be located within the airport's 55 dBA CNEL aircraft noise level contour boundaries of JWA, and that the residential land use is consistent with JWA aircraft noise exposure exterior noise level compatibility thresholds. Also, the airport related noise at the Project site does not exceed the City's municipal code permissible noise levels for multi -family residential uses. Thus, based on the criteria from the JWA AELUP, Mitigation Measure LU-1, is not applicable to the Project and is no longer required, however will be added as an applicable standard conditions or Plan, Program, Policy (PPP) and will be included in the MMRP. Likewise, potentially significant impacts related to residential land uses and JWA operations would not occur, and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, no new impacts would occur; and because no new information has been presented identifying new or increased environmental impacts as a result of implementing the proposed Project, recirculation of the Draft EIR is not warranted. Comment 9: The comment asserts that the Project that will have new, significant and previously undisclosed aesthetic impacts related to two parking structures, one 76 feet in height and the other 70 feet in height. The comment asserts that the aesthetic impact of the height and size of these parking structures were not disclosed or otherwise analyzed in the Draft EIR, and therefore is significant new information requiring revision and recirculation. Response 9: This comment is an inaccurate assertion. The Draft EIR Section 3.0, Project Description (page 3- 10), describes the height of the proposed structures. Specifically, it states that the Project would develop 3 mixed use buildings that would be 6-stories in height and one residential building that would be 5-stories 75C-194 in height. Each building of these buildings would have an adjacent parking structure. Two parking structures would provide 7-levels of above ground parking and two would provide 6 levels of above ground parking. The tallest point of the Project would be approximately 94 feet from the ground level, which would be at the top of the architectural trim of the 6- story buildings. The height and size of the proposed structures are also shown in the Draft EIR Figure 3-4, Proposed Site Plan and Figures 5.1-9 through 5.1-11. The tallest building structures are featured on Draft EIR Figures 5.1-10 and 5.1-1 1. The height and size of the proposed structures (including the parking structures) are evaluated on Draft EIR pages 5.1-24 through 5.1-32, which determined that the Project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings and would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. As the information discussed by this comment is included in the EIR, and the analysis has determined that impacts would be less than significant, recirculation of the Draft EIR is not warranted. Comment 10: The comment asserts that the changes to the Project that will have new, significant undisclosed energy and air quality impacts. The comment states that the Final EIR discloses that rather than having a 24-month construction period as originally discussed, the Final EIR states that the Project will be under construction for 27 months. Response 10: The Project has always assumed a 27-month construction period, as detailed in Section 3.0, Project Description (page 3-19), of the Draft EIR. The comment refers to a typographical error on page 5.4-5 in the Draft EIR, which has been corrected in the Final EIR. In addition, the energy discussion includes other references to the 27-month construction period, which was evaluated in the air quality modeling, and is included as Appendix B of the EIR. Overall, the EIR discloses the air quality emissions and energy usage of the project, which were determined to be less than significant. No new or additional impacts related to air quality and energy would occur. Comment 11: The comment asserts that the Draft EIR fails to conduct a quantified HRA as a result of diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions that would be emitted during project activities for nearby existing sensitive receptors. The comment asserts that the construction and operational health risk impacts posed to nearby existing sensitive receptors resulting from the proposed project need to be quantified and compared to applicable thresholds. The comment states that because the LST method can only be applied to criteria air pollutants, this method cannot be used to determine whether emissions from DPM, will result in a significant health risk impact to nearby sensitive receptors. The comment further states that the EIR should compare emissions from the project to the SCAQMD DPM emissions cancer risk threshold of 10 in one million; and has attached a screening level analysis that asserts that the Project would exceed the threshold. Response 11: The project does not propose significant operational sources of DPM emissions or other toxic air contaminants (TACs), such as freeways and high -traffic roads, commercial distribution centers, rail yards, ports, refineries, chrome platers, dry cleaners, or gasoline stations. Only diesel delivery trucks would be considered a TAC source, of which the mixed -use Project would generate a limited amount that would not result in a health risk at the nearby residential receptors. Additionally, the air quality analysis for the proposed project (Appendix B of the Draft EIR and Section 5.2, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR) evaluates both construction and operational emissions that would be generated by the proposed Project and could affect nearby existing sensitive receptors. SCAQMD does not state that construction based HRAs are required. However, as directed by SCAQMD, the local significance thresholds (LSTs) are used to evaluate potential impacts from particulate matter emissions to sensitive receptors in the project's vicinity from project construction. As shown in Table 5.2-9 of the Draft EIR, local construction related emissions would not exceed SCAQMD LST thresholds. 75C-195 In addition, page 5.2-18 of the Draft EIR describes that the highest trips on a segment of road with the Project traffic is 9,378 vehicles per hour on Jamboree Road and Barranca Parkway. This is much lower than 44,000 vehicles per hour and is not high enough to generate a CO "hot spot" per SCAQMD. Therefore, impacts related to CO "hot spots" that could affect health from operation of the proposed Project would be less than significant. A HRA analyzing the project's construction emissions of diesel particulate matter is not warranted. The primary purpose of an HRA is to determine long-term health risks, such as cancer risks over, for example, a 30-year residency or 70-year lifetime. As discussed in the EIR, construction of the project would take 27 months. Exposure of such duration would not create long-term health effects to adjacent receptors. Additionally, the City follows SCAQMD guidance for air quality analysis. SCAQMD's HRA procedures recommend evaluating risk from extended exposures measured across several years and not for short term construction exposures or for infrequent operational exposure to diesel truck deliveries or trash hauling. I Urban Crossroads, Inc. has also reviewed the referenced OEHHA Guidance Manua12 to determine applicability of the use of early life exposure adjustments to diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions resulting from construction activity. Specifically, the OEHHA Guidance states "Due to the uncertainty in assessing cancer risk from very short- term exposures, we do not recommend assessing cancer risk for projects lasting less than two months at the MEIR. We recommend that exposure from projects longer than 2 months but less than 6 months be assumed to last 6 months (e.g., a 2-month project would be evaluated as if it lasted 6 months)." (2015 Guidance Manual p. 8-18 [emphasis added].) As such, the determination of whether a construction HRA is warranted is dependent on whether or not early life exposure adjustments apply to DPM emissions resulting from construction activity. The following discussion outlines the substantial evidence to support why early life exposure adjustments are not applicable to construction DPM and therefore a construction health risk assessment is not required due to the short-term duration of construction activity (long-term exposure e.g. 9 or 30 years of activity are typically used to generate a risk estimates). For risk assessments conducted under the auspices of The Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Information and Assessment Act of 1987 (AB 2588), OEHHA applies specific adjustment factors to all carcinogens regardless of purported mechanism of action. Notwithstanding, applicability of AB 2588 is limited to commercial and industrial operations. There are two broad classes of facilities subject to the AB 2588 Program: 1) Core facilities and 2) facilities identified within discrete industry -wide source categories. Core facilities subject to AB 2588 compliance are sources whose criteria pollutant emissions (particulate matter, oxides of sulfur, oxides of nitrogen and volatile organic compounds) are 25 tons per year or more as well as those facilities whose criteria pollutant emissions are 10 tons per year or more but less than 25 tons per year. Industry- wide source facilities are classified as smaller operations with relatively similar emission profiles (e.g., auto body shops, gas stations and dry cleaners using perchloroethylene). The emissions generated from off - road mobile sources are not classified in AB 2588 as core operations nor subject to industry -wide source evaluation. In comments presented to the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Governing Board (Meeting Date: June 5, 2015, Agenda No. 28) relating to toxic air contaminant exposures under Rules 1401, 1401.1, 1402 and 212 revisions, use of the OEHHA Guidelines specifically related to the SCAQMD. 2015. Risk Assessment (RA) Procedures for Rules IAOI and 212. Accessed July 2017 at http://www.agmd.gov/home/permits/risk- assessment; SCAQMD. 2016. AB2588 Supplemental Guidelines. Accessed July 2017 at http://www.agmd.gov/home/regulations/co mp li once/toxic-hot-spots-ob-2588/health-risk-assessment ' http://oehho.co.gov/air/hot_Spots/hotspots20l 5.html 75C-196 applicability and use of early -life exposure adjustments for projects subject to CEQA, it was reported that3: "The Proposed Amended Rules are separate from the CEQA significance thresholds. The SCAQMD staff is currently evaluating how to implement the Revised OEHHA Guidelines under CEQA. The SCAQMD staff will evaluate a variety of options on how to evaluate health risks under the Revised OEHHA Guidelines under CEQA. The SCAQMD staff will conduct public workshops to gather input before bringing recommendations to the Governing Board. In the interim, staff will continue to use the previous guidelines for CEQA determinations." To date, the SCAQMD, as a commenting agency, has not conducted public workshops nor developed policy relating to the application of early -life exposure adjustments utilizing the OEHHA Guidance Manual for projects prepared by other public/lead agencies subject to CEQA. As a result, it is our recommendation that health risk assessments rely upon U.S. EPA documentation when evaluating the use of early life exposure adjustment factors (Supplemental Guidance for Assessing Susceptibility from Early -Life Exposure to Carcinogens, EPA/630/R-003F) wherein adjustment factors are only considered when carcinogens act "through the mutagenic mode of action." A mutagen is a physical or chemical agent that changes genetic material, such as DNA, increasing the frequency of mutations to produce carcinogenic effects. The use of adjustment factors is recommended to account for the susceptibility of producing adverse health effects during early life stages from exposure to these mutagenic compounds. In 2006, U.S. EPA published a memorandum which provides guidance regarding the preparation of health risk assessments should carcinogenic compounds elicit a mutagenic mode of action (USEPA, 20064). As presented in the technical memorandum, numerous compounds were identified as having a mutagenic mode of action. For diesel particulates, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and their derivatives, which are known to exhibit a mutagenic mode of action, comprise < 1 % of the exhaust particulate mass. To date, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reports that whole diesel engine exhaust has not been shown to elicit a mutagenic mode of action (USEPA, 20185). Additionally, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) which is charged with protecting individuals and the environment from the effects of toxic substances and responsible for assessing, investigating and evaluating sensitive receptor populations to ensure that properties are free of contamination or that health protective remediation levels are achieved has adopted the U.S. EPA's policy in the application of early -life exposure adjustments which is consistent with the methodology considered herein. As such, incorporation of early -life exposure adjustments for exposures to DPM emissions in the quantification of carcinogenic risk for construction of the proposed project is not warranted. Given that there is no available guidance that has been adopted by SCAQMD for CEQA purposes and the fact that the Project does not emit any pollutants that elicit a primary mutagenic mode of action, the use of the OEHHA guidelines to determine potential construction health risks would not be appropriate and therefore is not recommended by the City at this time. The EIR correctly evaluates potential impacts and no further evaluation is technically required. 9 See Response to Comment #1 3, Page A-7 and A-8 of the June 5, 2015 board meeting Agenda No. 28. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defoult. source/Agendas/Governing-Board/2015/2015-lun1-028 ° United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2006. Memorandum — Implementation of the Cancer Guidelines and Accompanying Supplemental Guidance - Science Policy Council Cancer Guidelines Implementation Workgroup Communication II: Performing Risk Assessments that include Carcinogens Described in the Supplemental Guidance as having a Mutagenic Mode of Action. 5 United States Environmental Protection Agency, National Center for Environmental Assessment, 2018. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). Diesel Engine Exhaust. 75C-197 Comment 12: The comment asserts that the Final EIR does not adequately describe the Project. The comment states that the Draft EIR fails to specifically identify what provisions of the new designations may include and what will change from the existing land use regime. The comment states that the request for a zoning amendment to SD is vague and lacks detail sufficient to allow for comparison to the site's applicable land use designations. The comment further states that the SD for the site should outline all standards for buildings, height, setbacks, lot coverage, minimum unit sizes, landscaping, parking, signs, fences, or other features. Response 12: Chapter 3 Project Description, Section 5.2 Aesthetics, and Section 5.9 Land Use and Planning of the Draft EIR provide thorough descriptions of the Project, including building heights, minimum setbacks, lot coverage, residential unit sizes, landscaping, parking, and other features. Pursuant to Section 15125 of the CEQA Guidelines, the baseline for the impact analysis in the EIR is the existing environmental setting, rather than approved development standards. The SD zone does not include rigid standards to be met by development projects. As described in the City's zoning code (and Draft EIR page 5.9-40), the purpose of the SD zone is to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare by the use of good design principles, maintaining an orderly and harmonious appearance, and encouraging excellence of property development. When development projects are proposed within the SD zone, they are required (per Zoning Code Section 41-593.4) to submit development plans for architectural review to ensure that buildings, structures, and grounds would be in keeping with the neighborhood and would not be detrimental to the harmonious development of the City or impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood. The relevant details of the Project's height, setbacks, open space, landscaping under the proposed SD zone are discussed in the applicable chapters of the Draft EIR including, but not limited to, in the impact analyses on aesthetics, land use, and parks and recreation. Thus, the Draft EIR details what will change from the existing land use to the proposed Project and determined that impacts related to the change in site zoning would not result in a significant environmental impact. Comment 13: The comment provides references to case law and statutes related to deferral of mitigation. The comment also asserts that the EIR defers the development of mitigation measures related to hazards. The comment states that the EIR mitigation does not provide a specific plan or how compliance with any applicable code will sufficiently mitigate a known hazard on the site, and that the EIR needs to specify the removal plan and how code compliance will ensure safe removal of contaminants. Response 13: As described in the Final EIR and page 5.7-22 of the Draft EIR, contaminated soils would be excavated and removed during Project excavation and grading activities pursuant to the regulations of DTSC, California Integrated Waste Management Board, RWQCB, OCFA, and the OCHCA. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 requires approval of a Soil Management Plan (SMP) to ensure that excavation of contaminated soils be completed pursuant to existing DTSC and RWQCB requirements. The SMP would detail hazardous materials excavation and disposal methods and requirements pursuant to the regulation of Title 8 of the CaIOSHA regulations and DTSC requirements for the removal, transportation, and disposal of hazardous waste to protect human health and the environment. The SMP would ensure specific existing regulations, procedures, and standards for removal, handling, and disposal of contaminated soils to protect human health and the environment would occur. The SMP would be based on the specific construction activities within the areas that contain the contaminated soils. The proposed mitigation does not constitute deferral because measurable performance standards that are set by existing regulations are required to be conducted. Use of existing regulations and their related performance standards that reduce environmental impacts are allowed pursuant to CEQA and does not constitute deferred mitigation. 75C-198 Comment 14: The comment states that the Project is located near low -density residential housing and other nearby sensitive receptors which would be directly impacted by construction noise and refers to two mitigation measures asserted to be in the Draft EIR, and then states that they constitute deferred mitigation. Response 14: This comment is an inaccurate assertion. Section 5.10, Noise, (page 5.10-9) of the Draft EIR states that the Project site is not surrounded by sensitive receptors (including low -density residential housing). Only non -sensitive receptors that are in the vicinity of the Project site include office and business park uses. In addition, Section 5.10, Noise, of the Draft EIR describes that the Project would result in less than significant noise impacts and no mitigation measures are required. Thus, the comment is irrelevant to this Project. The comment appears to be leftover from a comment letter prepared for a different project. Comment 15: The comment provides references to case law and statutes related to provision of substantial evidence. The comment also asserts that the EIR incorrectly concludes, without substantial evidence, that the proposed Project will not have a substantial impact relating to noise on its future residents or workers in the area. The comment states that an onsite noise analysis was not conducted and that the EIR relies solely on the fact that the Project is located outside the 60 decibel or higher contour zone. The comment further states that the EIR needs to include site -specific facts relating to actual noise levels and how code compliance will ensure safe and insignificant noise levels for residents and workers on the site. Response 15: As detailed on page 5.10-6 of the Draft EIR 24-hour ambient noise level measurements were taken as part of preparation of the EIR, which determined that the existing exterior noise levels onsite range between 58.9 and 65.1 dBA CNEL, which is generally a result of traffic noise. As shown on Figure 5.10-2, the Project site is located outside the 55 dBA CNEL aircraft noise level contour boundaries of JWA. The Draft EIR also provides site specific facts showing the location of the airport's actual (2018) noise contours is provided Figure 5.7-2. In addition, the EIR describes that airport overflight noise does not occur on the site after 11:00 p.m. or before 7:00 a.m. Thus, site -specific facts relating to actual overflight noise levels and the times that they occur are provided in the Draft EIR. As described on page 5.10-27 of the Draft EIR, according to the AELUP, the Project residential and commercial land use is considered normally consistent with JWA aircraft noise exposure exterior noise level compatibility thresholds of less than 60 dBA CNEL. Also, the airport related noise at the Project site does not exceed the City's Noise Element exterior noise standards of 65 dBA CNEL or municipal code permissible noise levels for multi -family residential uses of 65 L2 dBA (Draft EIR page 5.10-5). Therefore, because the airport overflight noise on the site is within the consistency criteria of the AELUP and would not exceed the City's municipal code requirements. Additionally, the Draft EIR anticipates that the traffic along the roadways near the Project site would generate greater noise than aircraft overflight. Interior noise levels were evaluated based on the exterior noise level at each floor of the building fagade and the attenuation of building construction and windows. Draft EIR Tables 5.10-12 through 5.10-15 (pages 5.10-20 through 5.10-25) show that based on a "windows closed" condition and standard windows with a minimum Sound Transmission Class (STC) of 27, the interior noise levels of the residential units would be below the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard. With this information, the EIR provides substantial evidence that the Project would not have a substantial impact to residents and workers on the site related to airport overflight and/or interior noise levels. Comment 16: The comment asserts that the Draft EIR evaluation related to light or glare fails to analyze how compliance with the Municipal Code will adequately mitigate the substantial new source of light the Project will create. The comment asks how the municipal code would mitigate the amount of light created 75C-199 by the Project, in a currently non-residential area. The comment further states that California law requires a project -specific application and analysis, and the Project fails to provide a project -specific analysis of how code compliance translates to sufficient mitigation. Response 16: The Draft EIR describes on page 5.1-19 that nighttime lighting associated with the existing urban development is present both onsite and within the surrounding area, and includes streetlights along Red Hill Avenue and Warner Avenue, parking lot and building fagade lighting, interior illumination passing through windows, and illumination from vehicle headlights. Also, page 5.1-33 describes that all of the Project's outdoor lighting would be hooded, appropriately angled away from adjacent land uses. It also describes that the Project would be required to comply with the City's lighting regulations that would be verified by the City's Planning and Building Agency during the permitting process. Because lighting exists on the Project site area, the increase in light that would be generated by the Project would not be substantial. As the lighting standards are part of the City's development standards and would be imposed in the same manner as the rest of the development standards related to the Project, pursuant to the municipal code. The City's standard development review and permitting process involves verification that all of the development standards applicable to the Project, including lighting, are implemented, which would ensure that impacts related to lighting would be less than significant. Comment 17: The comment asserts that the air quality analysis is flawed because the input parameters used with CaIEEMod were not consistent with information disclosed in the Draft EIR and that vehicle emissions factors used to estimate the proposed Project's operational emissions were changed from the CaIEEMod default values without proper justification. The comment further contends that as a result, the Project's construction and operational emissions are underestimated and a new EIR should be prepared. Response 17: The comment asserts that unsubstantiated changes were made to the CaIEEMod default values for operational emissions. The California Air Resources Board (CARE) released EMFAC2017 as its latest emissions inventory model. It should be noted that the air districts recommended California Emissions Estimator Model (CaIEEMod) v 2016.3.2 does not yet incorporate EMFAC2017 when calculating emissions. As such, post -processing of EMFAC2017 emissions data for import into CaIEEMod was completed in the modeling, as noted in the model output data sheets that are included in the Draft EIR for review. Comment 18: The comment asserts that the pass -by trip percentages utilized in the air quality model are inconsistent with the Traffic Impact Analysis and as a result the model may underestimate the Project's mobile -related operational emissions. Response 18: The default pass -by and vehicle percentages were adjusted to reflect the internal capture identified in the trip generation data provided to Urban Crossroads, Inc. at the time the AQIA was prepared. It should be noted that CaIEEMod does not include an option to account for internal capture — and in fact, use of the pass -by model option is likely a conservative representation since the pass -by category assigns a trip length of 0.1 miles to every trip, per CaIEEMod guidance. Notwithstanding, as noted in the Draft EIR and as summarized by the commenter in subsequent comments, the total trips identified in the final traffic study include 12,872 daily vehicle trips after accounting for pass -by and internal capture. As the commenter summarizes in their comments and as presented in the Draft EIR, the AQIA and underlying associated technical analysis is based on 16,400 daily trips which is higher than the final trip generation in the traffic study. As such, the AQIA likely overstates rather than understates any potential impacts from vehicular activity. Comment 19: The comment asserts that the Saturday and Sunday trip rates are incorrect and that the number of vehicle trips is higher than the input parameter figures used in CaIEEMod and thus the trip estimates are incorrect and cannot be relied upon. 75C-200 Response 19: The commenter is incorrect. The Draft EIR references to number of daily trips (from the traffic section) is associated with the average weekday trip rates. The traffic section, nor the traffic impact analysis include or evaluate Saturday or Sunday daily rates. As such, the air quality modeling utilized Saturday and Sunday trip rates based on ITE and CaIEEMod defaults which is appropriate and supported by substantial evidence and not in conflict with the traffic section of the Draft EIR. Comment 20: The comment states that the commercial -work trip length was manually increased in CaIEEMod and the Draft EIR fails to provide any justification for this increase. The comment further asserts that the model cannot be relied upon. Response 20: The commenter is misstates and misquotes the data presented in the EIR. The section where the commercial -work trip length was increased is related to the trucks accessing the existing industrial park land use. A 40-mile trip length for trucks is justified and recommended as a truck trip length by SCAQMD for industrial projects generating truck trips, the 40-mile trip length is derived from regional data published by SCAG. Comment 21: The comment asserts that the pass -by and diverted trip percentages are unjustified and states that the model overestimates the existing land use's mobile -related operational emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. The comment also states that the new values provided in the Draft EIR were not adequately justified either because the reduction in pass -by and diverted trips is not substantiated. The comment further states that for these reasons the air quality analysis is flawed and the EIR should be amended. Response 21: See Response to Comment 18 above. Comment 22: The comment asserts that the City failed to include all relevant projects in its cumulative Traffic impacts analysis and states that the analysis should be updated to include, the Congregate Care Facility (two miles south of the Project site) and Staybridge Hotel in Irvine (one mile west of the Project site). Response 22: Cumulative Projects that are foreseeable at the date of the NOP are required to be analyzed. A cumulative list was requested from the City of Irvine concurrent with release of the NOP. The Cumulative projects list was provided by the City of Irvine Planning department and was dated 8/2/2019, with the NOP being dated 8/5/2019. The list provided by the City of Irvine did not include the Congregate Care Facility, and only included a sign management plan for the Staybridge Hotel, which would not create any traffic. Therefore, the City did its due diligence to include cumulative projects expected to impact the opening year volumes. For the 2040 build out scenario, all cumulative projects were included in the OCTAM model, therefore, the trips generated by cumulative projects are included in the 2040 build out volumes. Comment 23: The comment asserts that the Draft EIR fails to adopt feasible mitigation measures related to construction air quality emissions and provides a list of measures to alleviate the significant impact of construction -related emissions. Response 23: As described in Section 5.2, Air Qualify, of the Draft EIR the Project would not result in a significant impact related to construction emissions. As detailed in Tables 5.2-7 and 5.2-9 emissions from construction activities would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required. 75C-201 Comment 24: The comment asserts that the Draft EIR fails to adopt feasible mitigation measures related to greenhouse gas emissions and provides a list of measures to alleviate the significant impact of the Project. Response 24: As described in Section 5.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Draft EIR the Project incorporates various sustainable design features that would reduce GHG emissions and would be developed pursuant to the 2019 Title 24/CalGreen standards. However, there are no feasible Project measures that would reduce vehicular emissions, and approximately 60 percent of the GHG emissions would be generated by Project mobile sources (vehicle trips) (Draft EIR page 5.6-14). Thus, neither the Project Applicant nor the City of Santa Ana can substantively or materially affect reductions in Project mobile -source emissions. The commenter has not demonstrated how additional mitigation, would quantifiably reduce mobile source missions or how a local shuttle program would be feasible for this type of Project. Therefore, even with the implementation of all reasonable measures, the GHG emissions still exceed thresholds and the impact is considered significant and unavoidable. Comment 25: The comment provides a summary of CEQA requirements related to General Plan and zoning consistency through references to case law and asserts that the proposed DC land use designation is reserved for major activity areas in the City that serve as anchors to the City's commercial corridors and are developed with an urban character that includes a mixture of high rise office, commercial, and residential uses. The comment states that the proposed change is inconsistent with the General Plan's guidance on designation of DCs because the Project site area is designated for light industrial and commercial use and is not connected to any of the City's existing commercial corridors, and is not a major activity area in the City. In addition, the comment states that although the Project is adjacent to the City of Tustin's Legacy Specific Plan area, it is largely vacant and would not connect to any of the City's major activity centers. Response 25: The comment is inaccurate. The General Plan Land Use Element does not indicate that the DC land use designation is reserved for major activity areas in the City that serve as anchors connected to the City's commercial corridors. Page A-22 of the General Plan Land Use Element describes various existing District Centers in the City that are developed with a mix of housing and commercial uses. Specifically, the Land Use Element states that the Heritage District (designated DC and located 0.25 mile from the Project site on Red Hill Avenue), "allows for mixed -use development with higher density residential and supportive commercial and office uses within proximity to surrounding employment centers". Similarly, the proposed Project provides mixed -use development with higher density residential and supportive commercial retail uses within proximity to surrounding employment centers. The Land Use Element also states that District Centers are considered to be the City's "major development areas:' The most intense development in the City is targeted to these areas. As described in Section 5.9, Land Use and Planning, of the Draft EIR, the Project site is located within an urban area that is either fully developed, under development, or planned for urban development and is within a major activity center that includes employment, retail, commercial, hotel, and high density residential development (under construction at the Heritage Project in the City of Santa Ana (approximately 1,400 feet from the Project site) and other cumulative projects listed in Table 5-1 and shown in Figure 5-1 of the Draft EIR. Also, as described in the Draft EIR the Tustin Legacy Land Use Plan, which is across Red Hill Avenue from the Project site is being implemented to become a new mixed -use urban center providing: single-family residential, multi -family residential, mixed -use, commercial retail, office, schools, parks, and other public facilities. As the proposed Project under the DC designation would provide multi -family residential and commercial retail uses it would be consistent with the Tustin Legacy Land Use Plan, as further detailed in 75C-202 Section 5.9, Land Use and Planning, of the Draft EIR. Overall, the proposed change is consistent with the General Plan's guidance on designation of District Centers, and impacts would not occur. Comment 26: The comment asserts that the proposed project conflicts with the JWA AELUP and that the EIR does not contain substantial evidence that future residents would not be adversely affected by aircraft noise. The comment states that an onsite noise analysis was not conducted and that the EIR relies solely on the fact that the Project is located outside the 60 decibel or higher contour zone, and that the EIR needs to include site -specific facts relating to actual noise levels Response 26: This is a reiteration of a previous comment. Refer to Responses 8 and 15. Comment 27: The comment states that commenters request that the City revise and recirculate the Project's EIR to address the aforementioned concerns. Response 27: As described previous responses, the EIR has evaluated and disclosed potential environmental impacts pursuant to the requirements of CEQA. None of the issues raised by this comment letter would result in a significant new or increased environmental impact not previously disclosed in the EIR, or any of the other circumstances requiring recirculation described in Section 15088.5. Thus, recirculation of the EIR is not warranted. Comment 28: The comment asserts that emissions and health risk impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project are underestimated and inadequately addressed, and that an updated EIR should be prepared. The comment also states that the air quality analysis is flawed because the input parameters used with CaIEEMod were not consistent with information disclosed in the Draft EIR and that vehicle emissions factors used to estimate the proposed Project's operational emissions were changed from the CaIEEMod default values without proper justification. The comment further contends that as a result, the Project's construction and operational emissions are underestimated and a new EIR should be prepared. Response 28: See Response to Comment 11 above. Comment 29: The comment asserts that the vehicle emission factors used to estimate the proposed Project's operational emissions were changed from the CaIEEMod default values without proper justification. Response 29: See Response to Comment 17. Comment 30: The comment asserts that the pass -by trip percentages utilized in the air quality model are inconsistent with the Traffic Impact Analysis and as a result the model may underestimate the Project's mobile -related operational emissions. Response 30: See Response to Comment 18 above. Comment 31: The comment asserts that the Saturday and Sunday trip rates are incorrect and that the number of vehicle trips is higher than the input parameter figures used in CaIEEMod and thus the trip estimates are incorrect and cannot be relied upon. Response 31: See Response to Comment 19 above. Comment 32: The comment states that the commercial -work trip length was manually increased in CaIEEMod and the Draft EIR fails to provide any justification for this increase. The comment further asserts that the model cannot be relied upon. 75C-203 Response 32: See Response to Comment 20 above. Comment 33: The comment asserts that the pass -by trip percentages utilized in the air quality model are altered without justification. Response 33: See Response to Comment 18 above. Comment 34: The comment asserts that the Draft EIR fails to adopt feasible mitigation measures related to construction air quality emissions and provides a list of measures to alleviate the significant impact of construction -related emissions that the commenter assumes to occur based on the commenters modeling of emissions. Response 34: As described in Section 5.2, Air Qualify, of the Draft EIR emissions from operation of the proposed Project would exceed the threshold of significance for VOCs. The majority of VOC emissions would be derived from consumer products and mobile activity. Consumer products include cleaning supplies, kitchen aerosols, cosmetics and toiletries, the use of which cannot be controlled by the City. Likewise, vehicular emissions cannot be controlled by either the Project applicant or the City. There are no feasible mitigation measures that would reduce VOC emissions to below the SCAQMD threshold. Therefore, operational emissions would be significant and unavoidable. The commenter suggests various mitigation measures are available to reduce operational emissions in comment 44, however, none of the suggested measures are quantifiable or enforceable, and none would ha Comment 35: The comment assert that DPM emissions and health risk emissions are inadequately evaluated. Response 35: See Response to Comment 11. Comment 36: The comment provides a screening level assessment of DPM emissions and cancer risks from the Project. Response 36: See Response to Comment 11. Comment 37: The comment asserts that the Draft EIR fails to adopt feasible mitigation measures related to greenhouse gas emissions and provides a list of measures to alleviate the significant impact of the Project. Response 37: As described in Section 5.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Draft EIR the Project incorporates various sustainable design features that would reduce GHG emissions and would be developed pursuant to the 2019 Title 24/CalGreen standards. However, there are no feasible Project measures that would reduce vehicular emissions, and approximately 60 percent of the GHG emissions would be generated by Project mobile sources (vehicle trips) (Draft EIR page 5.6-14). Thus, neither the Project Applicant nor the City of Santa Ana can substantively or materially affect reductions in Project mobile -source emissions. The measures recommended by this comment would not meaningfully reduce GHG emissions substantively, nor has the commenter provided any evidence how these measures would reduce GHG emissions associated with this project. Comment 38: The comment states that mitigation measures requiring the implementation of diesel control measures to further reduce construction emissions should be implemented. 75C-204 Response 38: As described in Section 5.2, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR would not result in a significant impact related to construction emissions. As detailed in Tables 5.2-7 and 5.2-9 emissions from construction activities would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required. Comment 39: The comment states that mitigation measures requiring the Project to repower or replace older construction equipment engines to further reduce construction emissions should be implemented. Response 39: As described in Section 5.2, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR would not result in a significant impact related to construction emissions. As detailed in Tables 5.2-7 and 5.2-9 emissions from construction activities would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required. Comment 40: The comment states that mitigation measures requiring the installation of retrofit devices on existing construction equipment to further reduce construction emissions should be implemented. Response 40: As described in Section 5.2, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR would not result in a significant impact related to construction emissions. As detailed in Tables 5.2-7 and 5.2-9 emissions from construction activities would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required. Comment 41: The comment states that mitigation measures requiring the use of electric and hybrid construction to further reduce construction emissions should be implemented. Response 41: As described in Section 5.2, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR would not result in a significant impact related to construction emissions. As detailed in Tables 5.2-7 and 5.2-9 emissions from construction activities would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required. Comment 42: The comment states that mitigation measures requiring the implementation of a construction vehicle inventory tracking system and that an updated air quality assessment to ensure that the necessary mitigation measures are implemented to reduce construction emissions. Response 42: As described in Section 5.2, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR would not result in a significant impact related to construction emissions. As detailed in Tables 5.2-7 and 5.2-9 emissions from construction activities would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required. Comment 43: This comment states that mitigation measures requiring the use of spray equipment with greater transfer efficiencies is and that an updated air quality assessment to ensure that the necessary mitigation measures are implemented to reduce construction emissions. Response 43: As described in Section 5.2, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR would not result in a significant impact related to construction emissions. As detailed in Tables 5.2-7 and 5.2-9 emissions from construction activities would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required. No revisions to the EIR are required. Comment 44: The comment identifies several mitigation measures which attempt to reduce GHG levels, criteria air pollutants, such as particulate matter emissions, and requests consideration of the measures to mitigate that Project's operational emissions. The comment claims that an updated EIR should be prepared 75C-205 to include these additional mitigation measures, as well as to include on updated air quality analysis to ensure that the necessary mitigation measures are implemented to reduce emissions to below thresholds. Response 44: The list of mitigation measures outlined by the comment are not quantifiable and thus the EIR properly concluded that additional mitigation measures are not feasible because it cannot be shown that their implementation would reduce emissions to below thresholds. No substantial evidence is presented to demonstrate the effectiveness and enforceability of the suggested measures. Comment 45: This comment is a set of concluding remarks and a disclaimer as to the accuracy of the comments. Response 45: These comments are not related to the adequacy of the EIR and responses are unnecessary. 75C-206 ATTACHMENT 1: Technical Attachments to Comment Letter PC2 Exhibit C. 75C-207 This page intentionally left blank. 75C-208 AERSCREEN 16216 / AERMOD 19191 TITLE: Bowery_Construction 02/07/20 18:20:58 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ****************************** AREA PARAMETERS **************************** ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- SOURCE EMISSION RATE AREA EMISSION RATE: AREA HEIGHT: AREA SOURCE LONG SIDE: AREA SOURCE SHORT SIDE: INITIAL VERTICAL DIMENSION RURAL OR URBAN: POPULATION: INITIAL PROBE DISTANCE = 0.335E-02 g/s 0.567E-07 g/(s-m2) 3.00 meters 254.40 meters 232.00 meters 1.50 meters URBAN 334136 5000. meters 0.266E-01 lb/hr 0.450E-06 lb/(hr-m2) 9.84 feet 834.65 feet 761.15 feet 4.92 feet 16404. feet ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- *********************** BUILDING DOWNWASH PARAMETERS ********************** ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- BUILDING DOWNWASH NOT USED FOR NON -POINT SOURCES ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ************************** FLOW SECTOR ANALYSIS *************************** 25 meter receptor spacing: 1. meters - 5000. meters ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- MAXIMUM IMPACT RECEPTOR Zo SURFACE 1-HR CONC RADIAL DIST TEMPORAL SECTOR ROUGHNESS (ug/m3) (deg) (m) PERIOD ----------------------------------------------------- 1* 1.000 2.245 35 150.0 WIN * = worst case diagonal 75C-209 ********************** MAKEMET METEOROLOGY PARAMETERS ********************* ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- MIN/MAX TEMPERATURE: MINIMUM WIND SPEED ANEMOMETER HEIGHT 250.0 / 310.0 (K) 0.5 m/s 10.000 meters SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS INPUT: AERMET SEASONAL TABLES DOMINANT SURFACE PROFILE DOMINANT CLIMATE TYPE: DOMINANT SEASON: ALBEDO: BOWEN RATIO: ROUGHNESS LENGTH Urban Average Moisture Winter 0.35 1.50 1.000 (meters) SURFACE FRICTION VELOCITY (U*) NOT ADUSTED METEOROLOGY CONDITIONS USED TO PREDICT OVERALL MAXIMUM IMPACT ------------------------------------------------------------- YR MO DY JOY HR 10 01 10 10 01 HO U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M-0 LEN ZO BOWEN ALBEDO REF WS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 HT REF TA HT 10.0 310.0 2.0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ************************ AERSCREEN AUTOMATED DISTANCES ********************** OVERALL MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS BY DISTANCE ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- MAXIMUM DIST 1-HR CONC (m) (ug/m3) --------------------- 1.00 1.685 MAXIMUM DIST 1-HR CONC (m) (ug/m3) --------------------- 2525.00 0.6112E-01 75C-210 25.00 1.795 2550.00 0.6032E-01 50.00 1.899 2575.00 0.5954E-01 75.00 1.989 2600.00 0.5878E-01 100.00 2.079 2625.00 0.5803E-01 125.00 2.164 2650.00 0.5729E-01 150.00 2.245 2675.00 0.5657E-01 175.00 2.058 2700.00 0.5587E-01 200.00 1.521 2725.00 0.5518E-01 225.00 1.305 2750.00 0.5450E-01 250.00 1.113 2775.00 0.5385E-01 275.00 0.9759 2800.01 0.5320E-01 300.00 0.8716 2825.00 0.5257E-01 325.00 0.7888 2850.00 0.5196E-01 350.01 0.7210 2875.00 0.5136E-01 375.01 0.6638 2900.00 0.5076E-01 400.00 0.6150 2925.00 0.5019E-01 425.00 0.5727 2950.00 0.4962E-01 450.00 0.5355 2975.00 0.4906E-01 475.00 0.5028 3000.00 0.4851E-01 500.00 0.4735 3025.00 0.4797E-01 525.00 0.4470 3050.00 0.4744E-01 550.00 0.4232 3075.00 0.4692E-01 575.00 0.4014 3100.00 0.4641E-01 600.00 0.3818 3125.00 0.4591E-01 625.00 0.3635 3150.00 0.4542E-01 650.00 0.3469 3174.99 0.4494E-01 675.00 0.3315 3199.99 0.4447E-01 699.99 0.3173 3225.00 0.4401E-01 725.00 0.3041 3250.00 0.4355E-01 749.99 0.2918 3275.00 0.4310E-01 775.00 0.2804 3300.00 0.4266E-01 800.00 0.2698 3325.00 0.4223E-01 825.00 0.2597 3350.00 0.4181E-01 850.00 0.2504 3375.00 0.4139E-01 875.00 0.2416 3400.00 0.4098E-01 900.00 0.2332 3425.00 0.4058E-01 925.00 0.2254 3450.00 0.4019E-01 950.01 0.2181 3475.00 0.3980E-01 975.00 0.2110 3500.00 0.3942E-01 1000.00 0.2044 3525.00 0.3904E-01 1025.00 0.1982 3550.00 0.3867E-01 1050.00 0.1922 3575.00 0.3831E-01 1075.00 0.1866 3600.00 0.3795E-01 1100.00 0.1812 3625.00 0.3760E-01 1125.00 0.1761 3650.00 0.3726E-01 1150.00 0.1712 3675.00 0.3692E-01 1175.00 0.1666 3700.00 0.3658E-01 1200.00 0.1621 3725.00 0.3625E-01 1225.00 0.1579 3750.00 0.3593E-01 1250.00 0.1539 3775.00 0.3561E-01 75C-211 1275.00 0.1500 3800.00 0.3530E-01 1300.00 0.1463 3825.00 0.3498E-01 1325.00 0.1427 3850.00 0.3468E-01 1350.00 0.1394 3875.00 0.3438E-01 1375.00 0.1361 3900.00 0.3408E-01 1400.00 0.1329 3925.00 0.3379E-01 1425.00 0.1299 3950.00 0.3350E-01 1450.00 0.1270 3975.00 0.3321E-01 1475.00 0.1242 4000.00 0.3339E-01 1500.00 0.1216 4025.00 0.3311E-01 1525.00 0.1189 4050.00 0.3283E-01 1550.00 0.1164 4075.00 0.3255E-01 1575.00 0.1140 4100.00 0.3228E-01 1600.00 0.1117 4125.00 0.3201E-01 1625.00 0.1095 4150.00 0.3175E-01 1650.00 0.1073 4175.00 0.3149E-01 1675.00 0.1052 4200.00 0.3123E-01 1700.00 0.1032 4225.00 0.3098E-01 1725.00 0.1012 4250.00 0.3073E-01 1750.00 0.9933E-01 4275.00 0.3049E-01 1775.00 0.9750E-01 4300.00 0.3024E-01 1800.00 0.9572E-01 4325.00 0.3001E-01 1825.00 0.9400E-01 4350.00 0.2977E-01 1850.00 0.9233E-01 4375.00 0.2954E-01 1875.00 0.9071E-01 4400.00 0.2931E-01 1900.00 0.8914E-01 4425.00 0.2908E-01 1925.00 0.8762E-01 4450.00 0.2886E-01 1950.00 0.8612E-01 4475.00 0.2864E-01 1975.00 0.8468E-01 4500.00 0.2842E-01 2000.01 0.8328E-01 4525.00 0.2821E-01 2025.00 0.8193E-01 4550.00 0.2799E-01 2050.00 0.8061E-01 4575.00 0.2779E-01 2075.00 0.7933E-01 4600.00 0.2758E-01 2100.00 0.7808E-01 4625.00 0.2738E-01 2125.00 0.7686E-01 4650.00 0.2717E-01 2150.00 0.7568E-01 4675.00 0.2698E-01 2175.00 0.7453E-01 4700.00 0.2678E-01 2200.00 0.7340E-01 4725.00 0.2659E-01 2225.00 0.7230E-01 4750.00 0.2639E-01 2250.00 0.7123E-01 4775.00 0.2621E-01 2275.00 0.7019E-01 4800.00 0.2602E-01 2300.00 0.6918E-01 4825.00 0.2584E-01 2325.00 0.6819E-01 4850.00 0.2565E-01 2350.00 0.6723E-01 4875.00 0.2547E-01 2375.00 0.6630E-01 4900.00 0.2530E-01 2400.00 0.6539E-01 4925.00 0.2512E-01 2425.00 0.6450E-01 4950.00 0.2495E-01 2450.00 0.6363E-01 4975.00 0.2478E-01 2475.00 0.6277E-01 5000.00 0.2461E-01 2500.00 0.6194E-01 75C-212 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ********************** AERSCREEN MAXIMUM IMPACT SUMMARY ********************* ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3-hour, 8-hour, and 24-hour scaled concentrations are equal to the 1-hour concentration as referenced in SCREENING PROCEDURES FOR ESTIMATING THE AIR QUALITY IMPACT OF STATIONARY SOURCES, REVISED (Section 4.5.4) Report number EPA-454/R-92-019 http://www.epa.gov/scramOOl/guidance_permit.htm under Screening Guidance MAXIMUM SCALED SCALED SCALED SCALED 1-HOUR 3-HOUR 8-HOUR 24-HOUR ANNUAL CALCULATION CONC CONC CONC CONC CONC PROCEDURE (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) --------------- FLAT TERRAIN ---------- 2.254 ---------- 2.254 ---------- 2.254 ---------- 2.254 ---------- N/A DISTANCE FROM SOURCE 153.00 meters IMPACT AT THE AMBIENT BOUNDARY 1.685 1.685 1.685 1.685 N/A DISTANCE FROM SOURCE 1.00 meters 75C-213 Concentration Distance Elevation Diag Season/Month Zo sector Date HO U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M-0 LEN ZO BOWEN ALBEDO REF WS HT REF TA HT 0.16851E+01 1.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17950E+01 25.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18994E+01 50.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19887E+01 75.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20788E+01 100.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.21636E+01 125.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.22446E+01 150.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 * 0.22540E+01 153.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20581E+01 175.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15215E+01 200.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13053E+01 225.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11131E+01 250.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.97588E+00 275.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.87164E+00 300.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.78880E+00 325.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.72099E+00 350.01 0.00 40.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 75C-214 310.0 2.0 0.66377E+00 375.01 0.00 40.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.61503E+00 400.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.57271E+00 425.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.53552E+00 450.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.50281E+00 475.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.47351E+00 500.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.44705E+00 525.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.42320E+00 550.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.40144E+00 575.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.38175E+00 600.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.36355E+00 625.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.34690E+00 650.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.33152E+00 675.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.31729E+00 699.99 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.30407E+00 725.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.29181E+00 749.99 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.28040E+00 775.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 75C-215 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.26977E+00 800.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.25969E+00 825.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.25037E+00 850.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.24161E+00 875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.23319E+00 900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.22542E+00 925.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.21806E+00 950.01 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.21101E+00 975.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20440E+00 1000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19817E+00 1025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19222E+00 1050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18656E+00 1075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18117E+00 1100.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17608E+00 1125.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17122E+00 1150.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16657E+00 1175.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 75C-216 0.16215E+00 1200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15793E+00 1225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15386E+00 1250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14999E+00 1275.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14628E+00 1300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14275E+00 1325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13936E+00 1350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13607E+00 1375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13293E+00 1400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12991E+00 1425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12702E+00 1450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12424E+00 1475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12155E+00 1500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11894E+00 1525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11644E+00 1550.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11404E+00 1575.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11172E+00 1600.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 75C-217 310.0 2.0 0.10946E+00 1625.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10729E+00 1650.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10519E+00 1675.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10316E+00 1700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10121E+00 1725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.99327E-01 1750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.97501E-01 1775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.95719E-01 1800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.93995E-01 1825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.92326E-01 1850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.90709E-01 1875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.89143E-01 1900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.87616E-01 1925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.86124E-01 1950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.84676E-01 1975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.83279E-01 2000.01 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.81927E-01 2025.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 75C-218 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.80611E-01 2050.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.79327E-01 2075.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.78078E-01 2100.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.76864E-01 2125.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.75683E-01 2150.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.74527E-01 2175.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.73398E-01 2200.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.72298E-01 2225.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.71233E-01 2250.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.70193E-01 2275.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.69179E-01 2300.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.68192E-01 2325.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.67232E-01 2350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.66297E-01 2375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.65385E-01 2400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.64496E-01 2425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 75C-219 0.63627E-01 2450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.62774E-01 2475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.61938E-01 2500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.61121E-01 2525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.60323E-01 2550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.59544E-01 2575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.58781E-01 2600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.58030E-01 2625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.57294E-01 2650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.56573E-01 2675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.55868E-01 2700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.55179E-01 2725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.54504E-01 2750.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.53848E-01 2775.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.53203E-01 2800.01 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.52575E-01 2825.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.51959E-01 2850.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 75C-220 310.0 2.0 0.51356E-01 2875.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.50765E-01 2900.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.50185E-01 2925.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.49615E-01 2950.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.49055E-01 2975.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.48507E-01 3000.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.47969E-01 3025.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.47442E-01 3050.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.46923E-01 3075.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.46413E-01 3100.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.45913E-01 3125.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.45423E-01 3150.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.44942E-01 3174.99 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.44470E-01 3199.99 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.44006E-01 3225.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.43551E-01 3250.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.43102E-01 3275.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 75C-221 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.42662E-01 3300.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.42229E-01 3325.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.41806E-01 3350.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.41391E-01 3375.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.40983E-01 3400.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.40582E-01 3425.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.40186E-01 3450.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.39798E-01 3475.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.39416E-01 3500.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.39040E-01 3525.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.38671E-01 3550.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.38308E-01 3575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.37952E-01 3600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.37601E-01 3625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.37257E-01 3650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.36917E-01 3675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 75C-222 0.36583E-01 3700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.36255E-01 3725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.35931E-01 3750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.35611E-01 3775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.35295E-01 3800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.34985E-01 3825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.34679E-01 3850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.34378E-01 3875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.34081E-01 3900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.33786E-01 3925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.33497E-01 3950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.33211E-01 3975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.33390E-01 4000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.33107E-01 4025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.32828E-01 4050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.32552E-01 4075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.32281E-01 4100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 75C-223 310.0 2.0 0.32014E-01 4125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.31750E-01 4150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.31490E-01 4175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.31234E-01 4200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.30982E-01 4225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.30733E-01 4250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.30487E-01 4275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.30245E-01 4300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.30006E-01 4325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.29770E-01 4350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.29538E-01 4375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.29308E-01 4400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.29082E-01 4425.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.28859E-01 4450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.28638E-01 4475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.28421E-01 4500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.28206E-01 4525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 75C-224 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.27995E-01 4550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.27786E-01 4575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.27579E-01 4600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.27376E-01 4625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.27174E-01 4650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.26976E-01 4675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.26780E-01 4700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.26586E-01 4725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.26395E-01 4750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.26206E-01 4775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.26019E-01 4800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.25835E-01 4825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.25653E-01 4850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.25473E-01 4875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.25296E-01 4900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.25120E-01 4925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 75C-225 0.24947E-01 4950.00 0.00 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21 310.0 2.0 0.24776E-01 4975.00 0.00 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21 310.0 2.0 0.24606E-01 5000.00 0.00 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21 310.0 2.0 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 75C-226 AERSCREEN 16216 / AERMOD 19191 TITLE: Bowery_Operation 02/07/20 15:21:36 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ****************************** AREA PARAMETERS **************************** ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- SOURCE EMISSION RATE: AREA EMISSION RATE: AREA HEIGHT: AREA SOURCE LONG SIDE: AREA SOURCE SHORT SIDE: INITIAL VERTICAL DIMENSION RURAL OR URBAN: POPULATION: INITIAL PROBE DISTANCE = 0.763E-02 g/s 0.129E-06 g/(s-m2) 3.00 meters 254.40 meters 232.00 meters 1.50 meters URBAN 334136 5000. meters 0.605E-01 lb/hr 0.103E-05 lb/(hr-m2) 9.84 feet 834.65 feet 761.15 feet 4.92 feet 16404. feet ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- *********************** BUILDING DOWNWASH PARAMETERS ********************** ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- BUILDING DOWNWASH NOT USED FOR NON -POINT SOURCES ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ************************** FLOW SECTOR ANALYSIS *************************** 25 meter receptor spacing: 1. meters - 5000. meters ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- MAXIMUM IMPACT RECEPTOR Zo SURFACE 1-HR CONC RADIAL DIST TEMPORAL SECTOR ROUGHNESS (ug/m3) (deg) (m) PERIOD ----------------------------------------------------- 1* 1.000 5.116 35 150.0 WIN * = worst case diagonal 75C-227 ********************** MAKEMET METEOROLOGY PARAMETERS ********************* ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- MIN/MAX TEMPERATURE: MINIMUM WIND SPEED ANEMOMETER HEIGHT 250.0 / 310.0 (K) 0.5 m/s 10.000 meters SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS INPUT: AERMET SEASONAL TABLES DOMINANT SURFACE PROFILE: Urban DOMINANT CLIMATE TYPE: Average Moisture DOMINANT SEASON: Winter ALBEDO: 0.35 BOWEN RATIO: 1.50 ROUGHNESS LENGTH: 1.000 (meters) SURFACE FRICTION VELOCITY (U*) NOT ADUSTED METEOROLOGY CONDITIONS USED TO PREDICT OVERALL MAXIMUM IMPACT ------------------------------------------------------------- YR MO DY JOY HR 10 01 10 10 01 HO U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M-0 LEN ZO BOWEN ALBEDO REF WS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 HT REF TA HT 10.0 310.0 2.0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ************************ AERSCREEN AUTOMATED DISTANCES ********************** OVERALL MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS BY DISTANCE ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- MAXIMUM DIST 1-HR CONC (m) --------------------- (ug/m3) 1.00 3.840 MAXIMUM DIST 1-HR CONC (m) --------------------- (ug/m3) 2525.00 0.1393 75C-228 25.00 4.091 2550.00 0.1375 50.00 4.329 2575.00 0.1357 75.00 4.532 2600.00 0.1340 100.00 4.738 2625.00 0.1323 125.00 4.931 2650.00 0.1306 150.00 5.116 2675.00 0.1289 175.00 4.691 2700.00 0.1273 200.00 3.468 2725.00 0.1258 225.00 2.975 2750.00 0.1242 250.00 2.537 2775.00 0.1227 275.00 2.224 2800.01 0.1213 300.00 1.987 2825.00 0.1198 325.00 1.798 2850.00 0.1184 350.01 1.643 2875.00 0.1170 375.01 1.513 2900.00 0.1157 400.00 1.402 2925.00 0.1144 425.00 1.305 2950.00 0.1131 450.00 1.220 2975.00 0.1118 475.00 1.146 3000.00 0.1106 500.00 1.079 3025.00 0.1093 525.00 1.019 3050.00 0.1081 550.00 0.9645 3075.00 0.1069 575.00 0.9149 3100.00 0.1058 600.00 0.8700 3125.00 0.1046 625.00 0.8285 3150.00 0.1035 650.00 0.7906 3174.99 0.1024 675.00 0.7556 3199.99 0.1013 699.99 0.7231 3225.00 0.1003 725.00 0.6930 3250.00 0.9925E-01 749.99 0.6651 3275.00 0.9823E-01 775.00 0.6391 3300.00 0.9723E-01 800.00 0.6148 3325.00 0.9624E-01 825.00 0.5919 3350.00 0.9528E-01 850.00 0.5706 3375.00 0.9433E-01 875.00 0.5506 3400.00 0.9340E-01 900.00 0.5315 3425.00 0.9249E-01 925.00 0.5137 3450.00 0.9159E-01 950.01 0.4970 3475.00 0.9070E-01 975.00 0.4809 3500.00 0.8983E-01 1000.00 0.4658 3525.00 0.8898E-01 1025.00 0.4517 3550.00 0.8813E-01 1050.00 0.4381 3575.00 0.8731E-01 1075.00 0.4252 3600.00 0.8649E-01 1100.00 0.4129 3625.00 0.8570E-01 1125.00 0.4013 3650.00 0.8491E-01 1150.00 0.3902 3675.00 0.8414E-01 1175.00 0.3796 3700.00 0.8338E-01 1200.00 0.3695 3725.00 0.8263E-01 1225.00 0.3599 3750.00 0.8189E-01 1250.00 0.3507 3775.00 0.8116E-01 75C-229 1275.00 0.3418 3800.00 0.8044E-01 1300.00 0.3334 3825.00 0.7973E-01 1325.00 0.3253 3850.00 0.7904E-01 1350.00 0.3176 3875.00 0.7835E-01 1375.00 0.3101 3900.00 0.7767E-01 1400.00 0.3029 3925.00 0.7700E-01 1425.00 0.2961 3950.00 0.7634E-01 1450.00 0.2895 3975.00 0.7569E-01 1475.00 0.2831 4000.00 0.7610E-01 1500.00 0.2770 4025.00 0.7545E-01 1525.00 0.2711 4050.00 0.7482E-01 1550.00 0.2654 4075.00 0.7419E-01 1575.00 0.2599 4100.00 0.7357E-01 1600.00 0.2546 4125.00 0.7296E-01 1625.00 0.2495 4150.00 0.7236E-01 1650.00 0.2445 4175.00 0.7177E-01 1675.00 0.2397 4200.00 0.7118E-01 1700.00 0.2351 4225.00 0.7061E-01 1725.00 0.2307 4250.00 0.7004E-01 1750.00 0.2264 4275.00 0.6948E-01 1775.00 0.2222 4300.00 0.6893E-01 1800.00 0.2182 4325.00 0.6839E-01 1825.00 0.2142 4350.00 0.6785E-01 1850.00 0.2104 4375.00 0.6732E-01 1875.00 0.2067 4400.00 0.6680E-01 1900.00 0.2032 4425.00 0.6628E-01 1925.00 0.1997 4450.00 0.6577E-01 1950.00 0.1963 4475.00 0.6527E-01 1975.00 0.1930 4500.00 0.6477E-01 2000.01 0.1898 4525.00 0.6428E-01 2025.00 0.1867 4550.00 0.6380E-01 2050.00 0.1837 4575.00 0.6333E-01 2075.00 0.1808 4600.00 0.6285E-01 2100.00 0.1779 4625.00 0.6239E-01 2125.00 0.1752 4650.00 0.6193E-01 2150.00 0.1725 4675.00 0.6148E-01 2175.00 0.1699 4700.00 0.6103E-01 2200.00 0.1673 4725.00 0.6059E-01 2225.00 0.1648 4750.00 0.6016E-01 2250.00 0.1623 4775.00 0.5972E-01 2275.00 0.1600 4800.00 0.5930E-01 2300.00 0.1577 4825.00 0.5888E-01 2325.00 0.1554 4850.00 0.5847E-01 2350.00 0.1532 4875.00 0.5806E-01 2375.00 0.1511 4900.00 0.5765E-01 2400.00 0.1490 4925.00 0.5725E-01 2425.00 0.1470 4950.00 0.5686E-01 2450.00 0.1450 4975.00 0.5647E-01 2475.00 0.1431 5000.00 0.5608E-01 2500.00 0.1412 75C-230 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ********************** AERSCREEN MAXIMUM IMPACT SUMMARY ********************* ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3-hour, 8-hour, and 24-hour scaled concentrations are equal to the 1-hour concentration as referenced in SCREENING PROCEDURES FOR ESTIMATING THE AIR QUALITY IMPACT OF STATIONARY SOURCES, REVISED (Section 4.5.4) Report number EPA-454/R-92-019 http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance_permit.htm under Screening Guidance MAXIMUM SCALED SCALED SCALED SCALED 1-HOUR 3-HOUR 8-HOUR 24-HOUR ANNUAL CALCULATION CONC CONC CONC CONC CONC PROCEDURE (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) --------------- FLAT TERRAIN ---------- 5.137 ---------- 5.137 ---------- 5.137 ---------- 5.137 ---------- N/A DISTANCE FROM SOURCE 153.00 meters IMPACT AT THE AMBIENT BOUNDARY 3.840 3.840 3.840 3.840 N/A DISTANCE FROM SOURCE 1.00 meters 75C-231 Concentration Distance Elevation Diag Season/Month Zo sector Date HO U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M-0 LEN ZO BOWEN ALBEDO REF WS HT REF TA HT 0.38404E+01 1.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.40910E+01 25.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.43288E+01 50.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.45324E+01 75.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.47377E+01 100.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.49309E+01 125.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.51156E+01 150.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 * 0.51370E+01 153.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.46906E+01 175.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.34676E+01 200.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.29748E+01 225.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.25368E+01 250.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.22241E+01 275.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19865E+01 300.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17977E+01 325.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16432E+01 350.01 0.00 40.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 75C-232 0.15128E+01 375.01 0.00 40.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14017E+01 400.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13052E+01 425.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12205E+01 450.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11459E+01 475.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10792E+01 500.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10188E+01 525.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.96449E+00 550.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.91490E+00 575.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.87004E+00 600.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.82855E+00 625.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.79061E+00 650.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.75556E+00 675.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.72312E+00 699.99 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.69300E+00 725.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.66506E+00 749.99 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.63905E+00 775.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 75C-233 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.61482E+00 800.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.59186E+00 825.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.57062E+00 850.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.55064E+00 875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.53146E+00 900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.51374E+00 925.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.49696E+00 950.01 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.48089E+00 975.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.46585E+00 1000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.45165E+00 1025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.43807E+00 1050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.42518E+00 1075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.41289E+00 1100.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.40130E+00 1125.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.39022E+00 1150.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.37962E+00 1175.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 75C-234 0.36955E+00 1200.00 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999 310.0 2.0 0.35992E+00 1225.00 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999 310.0 2.0 0.35066E+00 1250.00 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999 310.0 2.0 0.34184E+00 1275.00 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999 310.0 2.0 0.33339E+00 1300.00 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999 310.0 2.0 0.32533E+00 1325.00 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999 310.0 2.0 0.31760E+00 1350.00 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999 310.0 2.0 0.31012E+00 1375.00 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999 310.0 2.0 0.30295E+00 1400.00 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999 310.0 2.0 0.29607E+00 1425.00 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999 310.0 2.0 0.28948E+00 1450.00 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999 310.0 2.0 0.28314E+00 1475.00 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999 310.0 2.0 0.27703E+00 1500.00 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999 310.0 2.0 0.27107E+00 1525.00 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999 310.0 2.0 0.26537E+00 1550.00 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999 310.0 2.0 0.25990E+00 1575.00 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999 310.0 2.0 0.25462E+00 1600.00 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999 0.00 0.0 Winter 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.00 0.0 Winter 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.00 0.0 Winter 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.00 5.0 Winter 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.00 0.0 Winter 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.00 0.0 Winter 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.00 0.0 Winter 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.00 0.0 Winter 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.00 0.0 Winter 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.00 0.0 Winter 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.00 0.0 Winter 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.00 0.0 Winter 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.00 0.0 Winter 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.00 0.0 Winter 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.00 5.0 Winter 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.00 5.0 Winter 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.00 5.0 Winter 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0-360 10011001 0.35 0.50 10.0 0-360 10011001 0.35 0.50 10.0 0-360 10011001 0.35 0.50 10.0 0-360 10011001 0.35 0.50 10.0 0-360 10011001 0.35 0.50 10.0 0-360 10011001 0.35 0.50 10.0 0-360 10011001 0.35 0.50 10.0 0-360 10011001 0.35 0.50 10.0 0-360 10011001 0.35 0.50 10.0 0-360 10011001 0.35 0.50 10.0 0-360 10011001 0.35 0.50 10.0 0-360 10011001 0.35 0.50 10.0 0-360 10011001 0.35 0.50 10.0 0-360 10011001 0.35 0.50 10.0 0-360 10011001 0.35 0.50 10.0 0-360 10011001 0.35 0.50 10.0 75C-235 0.24948E+00 1625.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.24453E+00 1650.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.23974E+00 1675.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.23511E+00 1700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.23066E+00 1725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.22637E+00 1750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.22221E+00 1775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.21815E+00 1800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.21422E+00 1825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.21042E+00 1850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20673E+00 1875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20316E+00 1900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19968E+00 1925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19628E+00 1950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19298E+00 1975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18980E+00 2000.01 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18672E+00 2025.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 75C-236 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18372E+00 2050.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18079E+00 2075.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17795E+00 2100.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17518E+00 2125.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17249E+00 2150.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16985E+00 2175.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16728E+00 2200.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16477E+00 2225.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16234E+00 2250.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15997E+00 2275.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15766E+00 2300.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15541E+00 2325.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15323E+00 2350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15110E+00 2375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14902E+00 2400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14699E+00 2425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 75C-237 0.14501E+00 2450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14307E+00 2475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14116E+00 2500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13930E+00 2525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13748E+00 2550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13570E+00 2575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13397E+00 2600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13226E+00 2625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13058E+00 2650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12893E+00 2675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12733E+00 2700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12576E+00 2725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12422E+00 2750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12272E+00 2775.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12125E+00 2800.01 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11982E+00 2825.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11842E+00 2850.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 75C-238 0.11704E+00 2875.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11570E+00 2900.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11438E+00 2925.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11308E+00 2950.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11180E+00 2975.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11055E+00 3000.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10932E+00 3025.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10812E+00 3050.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10694E+00 3075.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10578E+00 3100.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10464E+00 3125.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10352E+00 3150.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10243E+00 3174.99 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10135E+00 3199.99 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10029E+00 3225.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.99254E-01 3250.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.98232E-01 3275.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 75C-239 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.97228E-01 3300.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.96243E-01 3325.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.95278E-01 3350.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.94332E-01 3375.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.93402E-01 3400.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.92488E-01 3425.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.91587E-01 3450.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.90702E-01 3475.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.89832E-01 3500.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.88976E-01 3525.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.88134E-01 3550.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.87306E-01 3575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.86494E-01 3600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.85696E-01 3625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.84910E-01 3650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.84137E-01 3675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 75C-240 0.83376E-01 3700.00 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999 310.0 2.0 0.82627E-01 3725.00 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999 310.0 2.0 0.81889E-01 3750.00 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999 310.0 2.0 0.81159E-01 3775.00 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999 310.0 2.0 0.80440E-01 3800.00 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999 310.0 2.0 0.79732E-01 3825.00 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999 310.0 2.0 0.79035E-01 3850.00 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999 310.0 2.0 0.78349E-01 3875.00 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999 310.0 2.0 0.77672E-01 3900.00 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999 310.0 2.0 0.77001E-01 3925.00 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999 310.0 2.0 0.76341E-01 3950.00 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999 310.0 2.0 0.75690E-01 3975.00 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999 310.0 2.0 0.76099E-01 4000.00 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999 310.0 2.0 0.75453E-01 4025.00 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999 310.0 2.0 0.74816E-01 4050.00 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999 310.0 2.0 0.74189E-01 4075.00 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999 310.0 2.0 0.73571E-01 4100.00 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999 0.00 0.0 Winter 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.00 0.0 Winter 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.00 0.0 Winter 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.00 0.0 Winter 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.00 0.0 Winter 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.00 0.0 Winter 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.00 0.0 Winter 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.00 0.0 Winter 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.00 0.0 Winter 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.00 0.0 Winter 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.00 0.0 Winter 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.00 0.0 Winter 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.00 0.0 Winter 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.00 0.0 Winter 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.00 0.0 Winter 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.00 0.0 Winter 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.00 0.0 Winter 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0-360 10011001 0.35 0.50 10.0 0-360 10011001 0.35 0.50 10.0 0-360 10011001 0.35 0.50 10.0 0-360 10011001 0.35 0.50 10.0 0-360 10011001 0.35 0.50 10.0 0-360 10011001 0.35 0.50 10.0 0-360 10011001 0.35 0.50 10.0 0-360 10011001 0.35 0.50 10.0 0-360 10011001 0.35 0.50 10.0 0-360 10011001 0.35 0.50 10.0 0-360 10011001 0.35 0.50 10.0 0-360 10011001 0.35 0.50 10.0 0-360 10011001 0.35 0.50 10.0 0-360 10011001 0.35 0.50 10.0 0-360 10011001 0.35 0.50 10.0 0-360 10011001 0.35 0.50 10.0 75C-241 310.0 2.0 0.72962E-01 4125.00 0.00 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21 310.0 2.0 0.72361E-01 4150.00 0.00 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21 310.0 2.0 0.71769E-01 4175.00 0.00 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21 310.0 2.0 0.71185E-01 4200.00 0.00 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21 310.0 2.0 0.70609E-01 4225.00 0.00 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21 310.0 2.0 0.70042E-01 4250.00 0.00 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21 310.0 2.0 0.69482E-01 4275.00 0.00 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21 310.0 2.0 0.68930E-01 4300.00 0.00 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21 310.0 2.0 0.68385E-01 4325.00 0.00 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21 310.0 2.0 0.67848E-01 4350.00 0.00 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21 310.0 2.0 0.67318E-01 4375.00 0.00 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21 310.0 2.0 0.66795E-01 4400.00 0.00 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21 310.0 2.0 0.66280E-01 4425.00 0.00 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21 310.0 2.0 0.65771E-01 4450.00 0.00 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21 310.0 2.0 0.65269E-01 4475.00 0.00 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21 310.0 2.0 0.64773E-01 4500.00 0.00 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21 310.0 2.0 0.64284E-01 4525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.0 Winter 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.0 Winter 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.0 Winter 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.0 Winter 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.0 Winter 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.0 Winter 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.0 Winter 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.0 Winter 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.0 Winter 6.0 1.000 1.50 5.0 Winter 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.0 Winter 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.0 Winter 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.0 Winter 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.0 Winter 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.0 Winter 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 0.35 0.50 10.0 0-360 10011001 0.35 0.50 10.0 0-360 10011001 0.35 0.50 10.0 0-360 10011001 0.35 0.50 10.0 0-360 10011001 0.35 0.50 10.0 0-360 10011001 0.35 0.50 10.0 0-360 10011001 0.35 0.50 10.0 0-360 10011001 0.35 0.50 10.0 0-360 10011001 0.35 0.50 10.0 0-360 10011001 0.35 0.50 10.0 0-360 10011001 0.35 0.50 10.0 0-360 10011001 0.35 0.50 10.0 75C-242 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999 310.0 2.0 0.63801E-01 4550.00 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999 310.0 2.0 0.63325E-01 4575.00 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999 310.0 2.0 0.62855E-01 4600.00 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999 310.0 2.0 0.62390E-01 4625.00 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999 310.0 2.0 0.61932E-01 4650.00 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999 310.0 2.0 0.61479E-01 4675.00 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999 310.0 2.0 0.61032E-01 4700.00 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999 310.0 2.0 0.60591E-01 4725.00 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999 310.0 2.0 0.60155E-01 4750.00 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999 310.0 2.0 0.59725E-01 4775.00 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999 310.0 2.0 0.59300E-01 4800.00 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999 310.0 2.0 0.58880E-01 4825.00 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999 310.0 2.0 0.58465E-01 4850.00 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999 310.0 2.0 0.58055E-01 4875.00 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999 310.0 2.0 0.57651E-01 4900.00 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999 310.0 2.0 0.57251E-01 4925.00 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999 310.0 2.0 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.00 0.0 Winter 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.00 0.0 Winter 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.00 0.0 Winter 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.00 0.0 Winter 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.00 0.0 Winter 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.00 0.0 Winter 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.00 0.0 Winter 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.00 0.0 Winter 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.00 5.0 Winter 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.00 0.0 Winter 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.00 5.0 Winter 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.00 0.0 Winter 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.00 5.0 Winter 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.00 0.0 Winter 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.00 5.0 Winter 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.00 0.0 Winter 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0-360 10011001 0.35 0.50 10.0 0-360 10011001 0.35 0.50 10.0 0-360 10011001 0.35 0.50 10.0 0-360 10011001 0.35 0.50 10.0 0-360 10011001 0.35 0.50 10.0 0-360 10011001 0.35 0.50 10.0 0-360 10011001 0.35 0.50 10.0 0-360 10011001 0.35 0.50 10.0 0-360 10011001 0.35 0.50 10.0 0-360 10011001 0.35 0.50 10.0 0-360 10011001 0.35 0.50 10.0 0-360 10011001 0.35 0.50 10.0 0-360 10011001 0.35 0.50 10.0 0-360 10011001 0.35 0.50 10.0 0-360 10011001 0.35 0.50 10.0 0-360 10011001 0.35 0.50 10.0 75C-243 0.56856E-01 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 310.0 2.0 0.56465E-01 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 310.0 2.0 0.56079E-01 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 310.0 2.0 r• 00 0 00' o0 1 5.0 Winter 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.0 Winter 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 75C-244 mo C C Q T N � C 0 O 0 U � m O O V C O Q O O a T O N 'o Q) U N o) U a. rn o K c a L o O x 3 X O m � N L ~ O m L F N M O N O 2 W w co U c O N a� O 2 w W m U i ¢ O ip io i i i i io I I I to to to 14 to a o to to to to to to to to � O I� I� I� 10 to l0 10 10 � � Im I� Io to to to to to I I Ip 10 10 10 Im 10 (q cn I� la I Ip I� I� Im 10 a O I� a I I I I I I I I LL � V Im 10 10 IN I,n lin IV IV Q o a IQ IQ IQ ItT IQ ItT I ItT � I ✓+ l y I w I ✓+ I w I �+ I m I ✓+ m m Ip 10 Ip Ip Ip 10 Ic Ip � t� io io io io io io i 3 io I I I I I I ID I N m a � rn �mo y s y¢ m m Z a '= �E 'a TO n a -245 N N O O M N O 0 i. m 0 c a � L Y T � a L u `a 02 m o Na a O z- N c a a+ W U1 m L � y a L U m t U c m a L v v � a f.7 IU o IL T N L y c T y i m N O y^ O m N a = N2 0a U ? co N O N N 0 (0 a N M co 0 N 0 O 2 W W co U c O .N > O 2 W W (0 U E z r N 3 3 W N N N 0 0 E It W 0 3 E2 E O O LL L w N C O O U F E E N > W W p a N N N co U O N N O > > �: F a ca ;o o g ;o a g s ;o Z N I I I I I I I I I I N O = -- .� �6 �4 .M .N .M .N 'O .M .N .M jN p I I I I I I I I O O O m '2 ;;;� Z O ;;r o V 5.E.E.EEp•L. m� r a O O E m E m m m o O Z .Z L :z .J .J .a � � � � � U E' W W' W ' N ' N Z O O O .......b ...b ...b ...b ...b ...b ...b ...b ...b ...b ...b ...b ... b ...I m m m E 'a ' a 'a Z � n n n '� '9 '9 '� '� '9 W W W N 2 (Cp (gyp (Cp (Cp (Cp (gyp L L .LL .J .J .J .J .J .J .Q .O m o ;a ;a H U ;O ;O ;O +2 N O Cl) N m (0 a N fM co O N 0 O 2 W W m U c O .N N O 2 W W co U . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O 'M 'O 'M 'M 'O 'M NN 'O '� '� 'O 'N 'O ''o . . . . 'M 'N 'N 'N . . . .^ .^ .^ . '� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 'M �'m'w�� 'O 'm 'N ....................11 ...11 ...11 ...11 ...11 ...11 ...11 ...11 ...11 ...11 ...11 ...11 ...11 ...11 ...11 ...11 ...11 ... 11 . 'a 'a 'a 'a 'a 'a 'a 'a 'a 'G� 'G� 'G� '(if '(if 'cy 'a 'X 'w '(If '(If '(If 0 'm 'm 'M 'd 'd 'd 'd 'd 'CL 'd 'd 'd 'd 'd 'N 'y '(n 'N 'N 'y 'Q) 'v) 'v) '(n '(n 'v) ..y.......b...b...b...b...b...b...b...b...b...b...b...b...b...b...b...b...b...b...b...b...b...b...b...b.. a n n a n a n a a a a a n a n a a a a a a a a a n a a a - m� -2447 N O V N m d N M O N O 2 W W co U c O N a) O 2 W W m U "� Sri Zvi poi C,� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I lin 'm 'N I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I U_ U �S Z ;z ..........b ...b ...b ...b ... b .. 4 m o m m o m m m y y u a a 0 ' 0 E E 7 cn N C O .y fA E W O N 75C-248 N M O N O W W co U c O N a� 0 LU W W co U o 0 ° O O N O O O U o 0 0 0 p o 0 Z 0 O 0 O O 0 O 0 V I O o O 0 ~ N U o 0 0 0 m o 0 0 0 0 r N O O O U o 0 b o 0 m o 0 z N p O O U o 0 ° 0 o 0 0 m 75 r o 0 0 0 � O O N O O � O O a o 0 ya N O O W d O O LL d O O O O 0 0 Ho _ O O L d w O O mo 0 0 _ o 0 a o 0 O O N p O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 pU 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 px o 0 0 0 z o 0 0 0 p o 0 � o 0 0 0 E � � E m � � K m C O .0 y C 0 U U d cc i5C-249 o 0 ° O O N O O O U o 0 0 0 O o 0 N Z O O O O O 0 O 0 V � O o O 0 ~ N U o 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 r N O O O U o 0 b o 0 N p O O U lz o 0 ° 0 o 0 0 m r o 0 0 0 � O O N O O � O O a O O wa o 0 LL d O O O O O 6 O O _ F O O a o 0 0 0 Ho _ O O L d O O w mo 0 0 0 0 a o 0 O O N p O O O O N O O 0 0 0 0 pU 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 px o 0 0 0 z o 0 0 0 p o 0 � a o a o E � � E m > o % m P co N O O) (0 a N M D O N 0 O 2 W W m U C O .N a) cO G W W co N 7 O <o ,� ,N nM ^ ,M ,fp ,� AM N �L6 n �M IN in to In O m N�C� Z O 1 N IM , 1 1 ,11I lonl Ir � v v Ir In �� 1� UNo 161 l0 1C O irn ,rn ,w iC� m L g -------------- O o io U � ,rom iN N� ipN im o VI m 1� to CIO V o Im m M f N rI-I p 'N i- a N p U o 10 Iv, ,N 10 ,<Opm O 10 IN M v1M o h Iph ,gin io 1� oy m m 10 10 Z N ------------------------ I 'lI 'r 'O i N In ,O ,O ;N ,� N �_ o to im Iv to to in a g 0 o In Im l0 in 0 a� o in iv �o in vi 1 1 q o 'N Irn n '� n to m L� O I� 'O In M 1 , 1 1 c N a 'v v 1 10 , 1 1 'M 10 10 M o 5 O o too M o mo 1� �n io t m 1 , 1 1 Ho o to to 'N to m m Im 16 'o 'p O to 10 O 16 M Wd 5 , y 0 1 1 , 1 1 'N 1 N mo i �n i n ply 1 , VI 1 m oa 1 ,r 1 n 1 1 , 1 1 1 Ooo loo 'm 1 � If0 1 N Im ' O , 1 O 1 1 , 1 1 1 N n m p p o m N N 10 ,O 1 Iy 1 , 1 1 O% M N n M Z IM ,m 1 1' 1 N � - r ,N q 2, d d N 0 75C 250 co N co c a N M co 0 N cO G w W m U c N N cO G W w co U N N U p p p : cq m ln+I �2 , N r ,O]CI o ,lc� 1 Z O O N OCI ICJ �O 'O IW f0 ZO , 1 ________ r r r r N ICI ,VI 1� In � Q 2 U O O O Q Q Ir In 1� �� UNo 1O1 Io 1� F 1 ' r r r r Q O U_ ,O_O] �N 'Wm f00 Iy Nm F 1lI N 1 L 1� I�r Q 10 MO ~ N____I'_n___r, N _`___'N____'rN____ r r 12 1M IA M. < M U � O O O Is N U O 1 , 1 O 1 � IpN ,fOm 'p 'W (Q Z pNjM o <o o <o m n 'L6 < N Z O_ N ' ' 0 0 7o IQ l0 7o Im to a a� � N uI Im to O '7 Im 10 i0 M O NN N a I I I , I o Lf d p p O N I(I O 10 10 10 �N « WK N :m ti o o o m wa r r r r rni p c N d 1 ,p 1 1 d LL1 1 , 1 1 O q O p O 10 N Im Im O 10 � « 1 I r r r r ? O L p O NO O 10 110 �N W p� L� iO Im 'O '� O , oa 1 In 1 r LL 1 i 1 N U m O O oo 'oo Im ' p (/J ' 0d ' If0 1 1 , O cN N W 1 Is II I r____r ____r ____r ____ U U p p 1 1 � IN In 1 m O o Im Iry 1 N Ip 10 1 ' r ____r1 1 -_ _r _ _ _ _�_1 ____ r 1 1 Iy O K Q Z O O n Q m 0 N n M M N a M Z O N 1` 1r____ M ---- r---- r---- r---- U N IW �p o 10 K U n iN i M ---- C m d ,� .d. m Q H u a U �W u arc :75C-25 O 2 N O W a) O) co a. N M O N 0 2 w W co U C Q N N 0 2 W W U co N w O W co a N fM co O N 0 O 2 w w co U C O N N i O 2 w w co U Co N O N G O O E m N M o 0 m O O N p O O U o O 0 O p O O N O O O O O O p o 0 0 0 N O U o 0 0 0 0 H 0 0 N pU O o 0 0 0 0 0 m o 0 2 N p O O p o 0 0 0 o 0 0 m o 0 H h o o O 0 0 O N O O a o 0 N � N O O wa o 0 N� IL a 0 0 2 o $ S a F" o 0 O O O Wa o 0 Z C N O � > N� a IL O O N p O O O O N O O O 0 O 0 U o 0 U o 0 0 0 0 0 o0 0 Z o 0 0 0 0 0 0 p o 0 � o 0 0 0 o o r U O i5C-2 N p O O O O 1 O 0 O O p N O O O O Z 1 O 10 �O O U O IO 'O O ~ I 1 N p U o Io Io 0 m o Io Io 0 N p Io 'o p o 0 Z N p ---.r------- I I m f o o 0 N 0 0 In I. 0 O 10 10 O a I 1 o In :O o jN O O O O 'O O xd O O O O > :o o 0 0 LN m� O O O IO O 'O O O O 0 In O O A O Io ,o 0 y 100 I00 C y0 O 10 O O O ,O O 'O O W a o 0 0 O 0 y C O r r - 1 'O O ____1____ ____ 1 O 10 �O O Np O O O O O O O O N 1 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0 U o Io 'o 0 1 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z C7 0 0 in 0 r m ,o 1- o 0 m O O N p O O U o O 0 O p O O O O N O O O O p o 0 0 0 N O U o 0 0 0 0 H 0 0 N pU O o 0 0 0 0 0 m o 0 2 N p O O p o 0 0 0 o 0 0 m o 0 o o O S 0 O C� N O O a o 0 C� � N O O O O x wa o 0 N� LLa - 0 0 2 o $ S a F" o 0 0 0 0 Wa o 0 Z O ma LL O O N p O O O O N O O O 0 O 0 O o0 00 U o 0 0 0 0 0 o0 0 Z o 0 0 0 0 0 0 p o 0 � o 0 0 0 o m m � o r U O i5C-2 N p O O O O , O 0 O O p N O O O O Z 1 O 10 �O O U ~ I 1 N p U o Io 'o 0 m o Io �o 0 N p Z N p --- ---. .r---- I I m ig Ig o S N 0 0 I. 0 O 10 ,O O a I , o In :O o jN O O O O 'O O xd O O O O , m� O O O LLa o 6 �o ;o 0 0 0 In O O A O Io ,o 0 o 0 0 0 y0 O 0 O O o ,o 10 0 0 W a o o O ' O 0 Z y O in 1 LLd O �O 'O O ____1____ ____ 1 O 10 �O O Np O O O O O O O O N , 0 0 0 0 O , 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z C7 a o 0 0 U d N fM co O N O 2 w W m U C M \N O 2 W W co U N m 0 0 o 'm N VCI 'p CI 0 0 Z O 10 O 10 I� U r In O i0 n n I O U 6ro IOW ca on Ilpn F 1� U <b m I O W o �n I�pn Z o �o y • I I m Im N r N t+I I CI I A N M M wa o to I O 52E LLd ;o V ;V o 75 m 1 0 ar n In I NO N IN W d O 10 I a n Ir I o to n 'n n In O o to o to z ' O 1� m q ,y I M • i ,N m - a E U � -25R- � O) � , ,M N, w ,In, .:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:. . y.y.y.•F.•F .4 y.y. poi ,o, C Q H > I I I I I I I I O'OI IWO�'' 6:OIOI 110�1 1010''tn W T "O 7 O" l(pinlglpIOInI O p N M 011 IO Ilf11Ml I I(DI� 0101�INIrl O OIM ry � (n �pl I�ICllryl I Irylp O [Q I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I >` O OI 101010, 101 �I I'�10llfl, ' IO ;OJ � M � N Inla l�olnlrn,o�oln lu' Ol I I O 161 I M, 10 I Ifl o O V >N 010101 MINI N' h,ON ;Ol o;� t01 -II p > �•L•O•L•�.J.M.J.W �. O. C. C. .�.y.6 y•C. 2.0.76. ?. N. ll�.O O f- J • �•�•�•�. V: m• QT: N �•d•0•N• •Q•C• Z• J•CO •d:'op N .'O .'OE•L M V' 10 Ty Ia a a c y.Y..Y..Y..Y..Y..Y..Y..Y. O a H m a` Z _ o I I I U = I I I I I I I I I I U O to I100 IN 1100 10 10 10 �M py j07 ,(V IW N't2 Z 6 O' o' O' O' o' O' O' o' O r 'rn 'rn 'rn 'rn 'rn 'rn 'rn 'rn 0 of ;co ;6 ;co ;co ;cd ;c6 ;6 ;co U m U ;a ;a ;a ;v _ O V 't0 't0 't0 't0 'tp 'tp 'tp 'tp .C . > ) m m•p O.t rn •w Omj�O m -a •�-c�.i0:m:m:f .m .'9 J:d .d':K :jl.¢:omm Z 6 • 9 •'O ' F- • • • O • C • op OO •L .L .� .0 x d d LL RA 'o 'o 'o 'o 'o ---i-- ----� ;S ;a 10 to I I to 10 �o t0 I0 70 10 Ib 10 Iap Ib ,t0 N IN �N IN IN IN IN IN ,N rn Im �m Im Im 10) Im Im m U ,O ,O 10 ,O ,O 16 _ N IN �N INy IN �N IN IN ,N r 1n �n In rn �n 1n 1n ,n V la �a la IV la 1a la ,a rn r 1n ,n In In In 1n 10 U o ,o o ,o ,o 10io ,o to ,o ,o �o � Itn �N ILA ILn IN Itn Itn ,- - IN �N IN IN IN IN IN N I O 10 ;O �O �O 10 10 10 �O rn Im Im Im ,m N IN �N IN IN IN IN IN N p ro IW M I W I W I W IM lob �a0 ,O ,O 10 ,O ,O 16 rn Im �m IO) IO1 Im Im Im rn N r In n In In In In In �r ,0 ,0 l0 ,O 10 16 I ' W W G I _ G 10 110 110 110 110 110 +10 ,O O � o io ;o i� io i� io io i0 M IM 7M IM IM n �M IM IM ,M n In ,n In In IIn In ,n la la ,a J N IN 'N :N :N �N �N o ,o ;o ,o ,o I I I I _ 9 It ;1 i1 A i1 It In N M jM 'M jM jM iM !MN jM 1M I I I I I I '6 lfl O '''O '. 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 O '''O .Y. .Y............. ... .Y. .Y..i y � W N ;d E 0 'Z y ;orn '� ;'N 0 K 'LL II on N LM co N 0 O 2 w w m U c 0 .N a`) 0 2 w w co 0 �n In n n p�v 'nv 'orn 'orn v V 1 , 1 I 1 v I c� IM �m jrn n ,n rn m o to U a 1 Nrn ,Nrn ,mrn ITm m Ip 'N IV V 1 N 'N :R W O U o N c` n n 'm lm m O 10 '1lI IN _L N 0 0 0 0 o o o b W y 1 I 1'rn Im m � O 10 10 ,O ' a I 1 1 N , o ,o rn m I Wa o �o 'o to 1 , I 1 0 0 to to jo o �F oo ioo io ,o 1 mo o to �o jo o ,o rn rn WLL o �o 'o io y 0 1 � 1 I o LL LL 1 I , 1 N I ' ' 1 'O� IO Op 1 :r I W 1 I 1 �N IN 1 1 : 1 I O Z 1 � cci I cci 1 I� 1 I 1 W ; O _L _ U WW Z■ V� 257 N N M M LO O N L w l6 O 2 1 W W In co U D � o M m J a > G LU t � W m W E U N a L(i 7 O Q 'O m O m N O �O 'O :N �Oj ` �m m m' m r 1 N O ry iOQ Iry IOIy try 1�1y 'O 1 ry ry �O 'Oly 'ON 0 p O i0 O O O ZO �O i�0 INO ICCi CCi 1O0 O 1 iln IN 1w 10 10 Iw IV 1____ . 1 i ____I____1____ O r I 1 ____1____ t • 1 1 ____ ____ ' . . 1 Q M io 7$'Q i�'m ism Ioo io '�'M :8 m Im00 I� 1� Imn Ipn I ; O' 1 O' (O 1 O O' r 1 . i I(1 O cV r 1 (O t • 1 (O 1 Q . . p U O] N to if0 Im 10 1'n Im o 10 to 'O In 'm m O � iOp 10 iN I O] IM VI �CQj 10 1 10 VI �� O �NI 1� m m 1____I____I`____t 10 1____ ____ Im ____ ____1____ N O n $ 1 to �� Im In io 1 to Im In O N 10 10 In Im Im IM IN Im o 'O to 10 In 'm 'N m m 10 iN 10 10 10 'O Z _ 1 _ _____I'__ -m ____ _ 1 _ ICQj _____ _ N p H o to 'gym IIsm IN Q 10 o 10 to :N Q I cTQ O m '� 0 7o imo Imo 'o l0 70 to loo �M o LL O I 1 10 ry �O ry �O 1 IN 10 I 1 10 , °'10 N ' w a o ion Im io io io Io Im o 1 I I 1 I 1 N 10 I y N d 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 p LL 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 I 1 1 I 1 o o �0 7$'C.� ism iv Ioo io Ip �� o m g Q ao F" 1 I I I 1 I 1 Ism i�,y �y 'o �o 'a 'aQ 'm L� QO 100 ICO,I� ISO 1� I� IQ �� 100 O Irn imo io io is �o Imo 0 Z m ' '` I ___t____I I I I� 1 I I NO L O 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 �LL 1 1 1 LL i ? 1 I 1 I I I I 1 I NQ O� 10 100 'O� Ip Ip 'O� IOC O� (n �O i0 I100 I(000 ,m0 10' 10 Im0 100 m0 c'I I r 1 10 iQ I Im 1 10 10 1 10 IO I� N p U N, m 1 h 10 'O I �p iN in I� lO 1 I lO I 1� 'OQ a x p � O <o, 'o to IN 'm 'o 'o 'm p'Oj i 1 I I 1 I 1 (D o 0 to 10 N IOm Io IQ to IVI io O '0 to l0 �o N 'm i� Q 'oo m n p K r 0 10 0 loo 'oo 7N I� Io Im o 'o 10 o 'o 'rnoo o io Io io Io is Io I o D I o i m 1 'moo I I I x I IN I I I I Z 1 ' 2. R OO C LO rn U , z .- C U y LLm g� , H g c� cos y� .2 �_ CY �Kn w` N N M M CID O N L w l6 O 2 1 W W In co U D � o M m J a > M CO G T t W m c W 9 U N '• Lf) � O Q 'O m O m N O �O 'O N �Oj ` �m m m' m r 1 N O ry iOQ Iry IOIy try 1�1y 'O 1 ry ry �O 'Oly 'ON 0 p O i0 O O O ZO �O i�0 INO ICCi CCi 1O0 O 1 iln IN 1w 10 10 Iw IV 1____ . 1 i ____I____1____ O r I 1 ____1____ t • 1 1 ____ ____ ' . . 1 Q M io 7$'Q i�'m ism Ioo io '�'M :8 m Im00 I� 1� Imn Ipn i I ' O' (O 1 O O' r 1 . I(1 O cV r 1 (O t • 1 (O 1 Q . . p U O] N to if0 Im 10 1'n Im o 10 to 'O In 'm m O � in 10 iN I O] IM VI �CQj 10 1 10 VI �� O �NI 1� m m 1____I____I`____t 10 1____ ____ Im ____ ____1____ N O n $ 1 to �� Im In io 1 to Im In O N 10 10 In Im Im IM IN Im o 'O to 10 In 'm 'N m m 10 iN 10 10 10 'O z _ 1 _ _____I'__ -m ____ _ 1 _ ICQj _____ _ N p H o to 'gym IIsm IN Q 10 o 10 to :N Q I cTQ O m '� 0 7o imo Imo 'o l0 70 to loo �M o LL O I 1 10 ry �O ry �O 1 IN 10 I 1 10 , °'10 N ' w a o ion Im io io io Io Im o 1 I I 1 I 1 N 10 I y N d 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 p LL 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 I 1 I o o �0 7$'C.� ism iv Ioo io Ip �A o m g Q ao F" 1 I I I 1 I 1 Ism i�,y �y 'o �o 'a 'aQ 'm L� QO 100 ICO,I� ISO 1� I� IQ �� 100 O Irn imo io io is �o Imo 0 Z I___t____I I I 1 I I NO L O 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 �LL 1 1 1 LL I i ? 1 I 1 I I I I 1 I NQ O� 10 100 'O� Ip Ip 'O� IOC O� (n �O i0 I100 I(000 ,m0 10' 10 Im0 100 m0 c'I I r 1 10 iQ I Im 1 10 10 1 10 IO I� N p U N, m 1 h 10 'O I �p iN in I� lO 1 I lO I 1� 'OQ a x p � O <o, 'o to IN 'm 'o 'o 'm p'Oj i 1 I I 1 I 1 (D o 0 to 10 N IOm Io IQ to IVI io O '0 to lnn �o N 'm i� Q 'oo m n p K r 0 10 0 loo 'oo 7N I� Io Im o 'o 10 o 'o 'rnoo o io Io io Io is Io I o D °' I o i m 1 'moo I I I x I IN I I I I Z a 2 o : t 1 in : In R L' O C t' 'Oi i.0 d U rn , O j z aT. In ._ C U 9 g Otis LLm' gx N ~ E� 3 y�' � pQ cy �Ka n 'w` :2 y N a fM w (p U �L N U N 0 O �J w W W_ N In co 7 U M o N J N G L (Q LU W m W L6 7 1In Fcq 00IooiM Cto iN IOi IN o�Coroo F- � 1� 1 '____r____1 I� 1 1� IN 1 1 'YI 1 y O IV N N IOy 10 10 �O IN N IO,y r U o l0 �,] IN 70o ioo to io to �o 'boo m o �0 7m Ip �o W 1� I (p I In 'f0 �M �� 'Q 1 �n IOO '� 'O a N O� 2 �� IC�'I 10 iN IN IVI BOO BOO 'VI �� N NCI I� iN IN 10 10 ,N I<O 1 I ". I m lII0II No- O+ a L-_L C : t : (/J C L ,MO1 L� ---- Lt ad. t' C t' 1 R p �' O LLB; , rn z aT. .— C y g c� cos y� g� CY :Kn H 'w` M L(i 2 1In Fcq 00IooiM Cto IOi o�Coroo F- � 1� iN IN I� 1� IN 'YI 1 ---- ----I 1 1 1 1 y O IV N N 10 IOy 10 �O �N N IOIy r �,] IN i0� �O� 1� 1� 1� �� '�� t0 O �O �m Ip �O ;OO �O 'O �N O 1 I I ---t----1 1 - 1 I �� 2 iN IN IVI BOO BOO 'VI �� NCI I7 Ld F 1�. iN IN 10 10 �N I<O ........... • Im I I "o I I I I I 10]O IV IN l0 Im I� 10 iN IN y V IBC+ Ih IM rn I I I I 10 to IN W -L q -L S -L -IL -L 2. N -Lry ._ R � 74 d U 3 'W ���'L 11�u�O a" N M o 0 N 0 0 2 w W_ co U C 0 .N a) O 2 W W co U m n ,n N u n n r r m 'm N ,N O 1 1 oo loo Z (Op o I o 1 LAi i0 1 N N �N 1 U o Ip o to A YI ' IlI 1 H N IN ho s s O VI ' IlI jp Z m I m N IN • ..... O I s r ,O N m O] 1 m O Ip O 10 1 N IN 1 N,O N N� W LL O 10 O 10 1 L N Old 1 1 LL LL 1 O_«p o �o N IN O a� O 10 o to yp o �o 1 t0� WLL o to o to 1 I I ;p m� LL LL I I N I I O N 00 1O0 �O I'OO I� N IN � IO o b o N IN_ O% n jn N 10 n n Z M IM O 10 I Z h ih -L ,d � 'n n N -------------- I , N o to to u OZ oo io .op �0 00 1 , 1 1 1 M U oo to Imo �o 0 O ip �h ip o r U o to ,'n ly o 0 o u N r , 1 1 N U o o a n 1 0 o m m m io N N Z ............... ..- •• 75 o o to Irn I� m '� 0 70 to to 0 N O �O i0 i0 O a I I I 1 m� o to �M In o N O 1 0 , m IlI N , 1 1 j � 1 N 1 LL , 1 1 , 1 p {p o o M 1n _ , 1 1 qp o to �M In p Z y 1 , 1 m� 1 LL 1 LL 1 , 1 1 N QM F.M O ITV t/J 1 ,VryfO IMO FO 1 p N 1 , 1 1 Q 1 ,Q Ip U 1 Irn o 1 , 1 1 m n N O% M n -L N M ----1. ____ ,. 1 ____ ____ O C'I ro 10 Im ,m n 'N 10 IN N u Q N IN 'O fD 'RI 1` a. V O 10 IVI 'O �O M N 1 N A N a 1EIjF- U m Q ,J N M CID N 0 O 2 W W_ co U C 0 N O LU W W co U 'n n ,N N 1 O 2 oo io goo �0 00 . 1 . O 0 rn N S O 10 10 CT '00 1� ,rno to N U O o �o �o 0 0 IN , U o to ,'n ly o 0 o a o 106 N F- 1. ____ 1 o to , . 1 ____ ____ �n to 0 N O m o 'n m Z to -- N m H o to Irn I� h O in o 0 0 N O �O i0 i0 0 N I(I O 10 ,(+I In N O 10 ,rn N Vl 1 , 1 d � 1 c N 1 � d 1 1 1 , 1 o to �m In o 1 , 1 o to �m In 0 o r y p 1 1 , 1 rn ' �g 1 oa 1 LL . 1 , . 1 N a1+! O 1 ,.M IQV n ENO inn Ci �O '- N . 1 1 , . 1 , IlI 1 W O Q 0 O 1 Irn o 1 1 , 1 Ox N ^ Z N m 1 , 1 0 rn 0 N 0 Q N IN 'N f0 n O IIII 'O �O N n m m y o d y o U � u �c2 ,7 h/q� n ¢` N M 0 N 0 0 2 w w_ co U C O .N N cO G w w co 0 N OU N N O O O 'O n ,r n In o to I v U ci I �i N U U 0 0 y I� rn Im I F N IN ,C d 'd r _m 75C-264 N fM co O N 0 cO G W W U j O 41 16 J � > U 0 O L N w W co co U N r >_ f� 7 O 1 �0 I 1 1 7�y ism ism 'o io :8 m O i00 INOO 'O 10 m '000 O ZIQ 10' �VOI� iCI V 1w 10 'NOO O 1 � V I (V 1 (p ;O 1 1� O Z 1 N 1 O I 1 1 Ir- I OI I VI Ifp 1 0 1 0 �fp O] r _ l0 101 IOI 10] O 'O l0 O] 'V M 'V U (O � O 10 V 10 IN 'O in O 10 'N 'O ____ roi �o ____I____ ________ 1 ____ ' ____11 r t �m 0 'O] O' p O �O iN Ip O r IC'p'I 10 I 10 RCN] 1� ----L _._._._.f_._...............i �n ----`-------- L------------------------ -- .'_._._._.4 I �r0 �aln 1a(Np I I Ian 5 ry 1���.'_._._._. aa(N(pp n �iz mq OOI IWW to '00 IQ O] . Imm cm IMF cc np I I � NV I 'oo ilyo ono I I I iNV Ino I1d I712 p;> IS H n cc� cost0o> yig'tea 3 ��� O¢ Q 'w` ,0 too fq N fM co O N 0 O 2 W W_ co U C 0 N N 0 Co G w W m U NO O r �h �VOO �V �fp ti �O �V gyp. �� �O �O �� �� 0• 1 �0 I 1 1 7�y ism ism 'o io 'gym Ism m a p o IQ Io 0 0 INFO 10 10 10� O Z Q �OQ :Ip- iCI 1� :N�p T V (V 1 (p ;O 10 1 1- O 1 N to � to I 1 1 --- I Irn IN 1<0 io to :o im Irn Iq 10 0 to m m r v U V, 10 i0 IO IN 'O 10 �N 'O 1 I ___t____I 1 1 0 '0 10 'V N W o 10 IV Ip O IC] 'O p] O q I iN Ip F IC'p'I 10 10 �C'p'I 1� N _._._._.f_._.��a L -... ..--'---- �----L ____L____L ----� ---- ...........i — Np I I Ian « p to '�W 10 10 (Np IWV Ic�]� O� 0 0 � NN m n Io I�In+I IWV �nm lalm Imm to �00 to Imm IMF �� np I I L____L_L____L____ O� NV I .L, ilyo ono I 2' I I iNV 1110 L____L____ IMO Imo E Ka H J Q 0`s ;f1 w72 11 1U 07 CD {6 O 06 N fM 0 N 0 0 2 w w_ co U c O .N a) 71 o r 2 w `o w m a U � U N �N N O 0 0 p Ip Z O 10 o to I 2 n In I� U N IN I� o 'm U q rn N �N Ip p I H N IN 75C-267 N fM co O N 0 co G w W y co O_ C N J N % T 2 O y 71 LU U) W W , co U N OD6 7 N m 'O �fmp �ONI �cN'I N I 1 N p o o 1 l0 to 70 to to io �o to to o 1 to to �o io 0 0 0 0 O 1 Z O 6 � 6 i10 �O �O 6 � 'O �O O T I 1 I 1 1 to .a Im Im io to �m in v <o to 10 Sao I� Im o 1'(I 'O to 10 m ao 'N „^I n O U tp+l iN IC? 'N ' 1 N p N N 10 im I'A Im 10 10 N IIII N m t"I o 10 In I 'O IM l0 O 1 'Iq 'M I N m K �O I� Im iV IN 0 �o m �p d FO If00 10 10 IN N I 1 I Im Iln I I I I � Im m n O N I 10 I I'n IOnI 10 I 10 I iN 10 1N 'N I� IN I I IN I� _ _ _L__ ; � _ I _L____ ___ 1 _L__ o L _N_C _L__ vl __ L__ otT�a ''°U ` aW t'o ayy �LLE�'li@� gd ¢e zN 1p5 iOg' o E E Ems" �'^� `��Tcy 'w` 10 Ia N fM co O N cO G w W_ co U C O N N 0 O 2i LU W co U ry ym CI �O 'O �tm0 �m �cN'I N I 1 N p o o 1 l0 to 7o Io to io �o to to o 'O 1 to to �o io 0 0 'O 'O 0 0 N Z O O 10 O i0 10 10 1 10 O O 16 6 i O 'O O ' O Z I 1 1 I 1 1 to .a Im Im io to �m in V <O 1 O 10IU( tp I w 1 W O 1 O CI N 'N „^I n O Utp+l IM 'N ____I ____i ____I____t____I ____II N N 10 im I'A Im 10 10 �N IIII N m N O t"I o In I 10 0 'Iq IM N o O iV IN 'p 10 If00 10 10 1� N ---------`----..---- �cc_'----------icc_'----- c I 1 I I I m n o uNi 10 'N Ih �l0 10 I(V Im N 'I� IN C o ____I 3F jNdm o;jE-i'Sw �nZt �LL O _ LL q n g� :CY 0a 7 p/y O 3 N O co N N m co d N co O N O W W co U C O LU O LU L co 0 C m T � m T F C N N 0 E W E V d d 0 Q W r_ C W 0 `� / O ML W � 5C-270 E E U) fA _T C C 0 O U i m o. m O O 71 d E O 7 0 In 46 75 a T N G7 c a N 7 U a y o x_ c a. L � O Jl � a 3 x O g m � d 3 H O m L F N M O N O 2 W w co U c O N a� O 2 w W m U i ¢ o I io io i i i i i0 I I to to to 14 to a o to to to to to to to to � O I� I� I� 10 to l0 10 10 � � Im I� Io to to to to to I I 10 10 10 10 Im 10 (q cn I� la I IO I� I� Im 10 a O I� a I I I I I I I I LL � V Im 10 10 IN I,n lin IV IV o a IQ IQ IQ ItT IQ ItT I ItT m jo jo jo jo jo jo j c jo N m a � rn �mo y s y¢ m m Z a '= �E 'a TO n a -27:1 N N O O M N O 0 i. S a � L Y T O d L `a 02 o Na a O z- N c a a+ W U1 m L � y a L U m t U c m a L v v � a f.7 IU o T d c y i m N O y^ O m N a = N2 0a U ? 7 0 N ri 0 N 0 O 2 W W co U c O .N > 0 2 W W (0 U E z r N 3 3 W N N 0 0 E It W 0 3 E2 E O O LL L w N C O O U F E E N > W W p a N N N co U O N N O > > �: F ,O Z I I N O ,O 10 'n ,�7 N ^ � WOMON a N Or j� 'M � I I I I 0 0 0 E E E E � E � E Z N ;L ill 7>> p p � ,p p p ,r ,r EE ,a ,o ( co N ,p ,p ,3 ,E ,E ,E p Z M N E N N N O O p d d d 'p ,p 0 ,Z ;E > > 7 ,p' ,Z ,9 ,9 ,9 ,J ,J ,W 'W W .......b ...b ...b ...b ...b ...b ...b ...b ...b ...b ...b ...b ... b ...I m E E a E m w a N O ' ' ' ' ' ' , , , , N , 5 W W W u u N 2 d ,LL ,LL ,LL 1° o .a .a .a '9 'a 'a 'a 'a H U ;O ;O ;O +2 w N M O N 0 O 2 W W m U c O .N N O 2 W W co 0 O 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O 'M 'O 'M 'M 'O 'M NN 'O '� '� 'O 'N 'O ''o . . . . 'M 'N 'N 'N . . . .^ .^ .^ . '� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 'M �'m'w�� 'O 'm 'N ....................11 ...11 ...11 ...11 ...11 ...11 ...11 ...11 ...11 ...11 ...11 ...11 ...11 ...11 ...11 ...11 ...11 ... 11 . 'a 'a 'a 'a 'a 'a 'a 'a 'a 'G� 'G� 'G� '(if '(if 'c 'a 'X 'w '(If '(If '(If 0 'm 'm 'M 'd '(L 'd 'd 'd 'CL 'd 'd 'd 'd 'd 'v) 'y '(n 'N 'N 'y 'Q) 'v) 'v) '(n '(n 'v) ..y.......b...b...b...b...b...b...b...b...b...b...b...b...b...b...b...b...b...b...b...b...b...b...b...b.. a n n a n a a a a a a a n a n a a a a a a a a a n a a a - m� -273 w I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I c0 I COI �r �� IN I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ..........b ...b ...b ...b ... b .. 4 a a a a a a m m N 41 T L E E N tn r_ O in W 0 N 75C-274 E E U) O W m N M O N O W W co U c O N a� 0 LU W coLU U o 0 � O O N O O O U o 0 0 0 p o 0 N O O Z O O O 0 O 0 = o 0 0 0 p o 0 T O O N U o 0 0 0 � 0 o 0 0 0 r N O O O U o 0 0 0 0 pj o 0 2 U o 0 � 0 o 0 0 m 0 0 N « g o O 0 O 0 ar o o 0 0 i N o 0 Wa 0 0 -N Olg O O LL LL O O _ O O g O O O 0 0 O _ O O L g xa O O W o 0 �T a - 0 0 rng o 0 LL O O NO O O O O N O O O 0 O 0 pU 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 px o 0 0 0 Z o 0 0 0 � S o p o 0 � o 0 0 0 o E N % C O .0 y C 0 U U d cc i5C-276 o 0 � O O N O O O U o 0 0 0 p o 0 N O O Z O O O 0 O 0 V 2 O 0 O 0 p o 0 T O O a d N U o 0 0 0 m o 0 p o 0 r N O O O U o 0 0 0 0 pj o 0 Z _ _ Qo O U o 0 � 0 o 0 0 m a 0 r o 0 N O O g o 0 a � N Wa o 0 C N LL d O O O O _ O O O O ar o 0 0 0 mo _ O O O g sLL O O W T o 0 a_ >o 0 0 a LL o O 0 O NO O O O O N O O O 0 O 0 pU 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 px o 0 0 0 Z o 0 0 0 � o 0 p o 0 � o 0 0 0 � E d O m P 7 0 NOcn rm ,vio ;mmm N 'm -h -1 1 O N m O N Q m Z , 1 , 1 = M to o a d Ir Q N O m N O NN ImQ N � I Nm N IQ • • m r N Q N O M d O NONI INQ ,NQ NN Q O Z N Im O Q O U o 0 0 0 � 0 o 0 0 m m-------- H m 7n IV I. N !h !O N N iO N N a mN m Ir o N 1 xW� IN O N n M d N O O M • • N j «N 1 'm O lia 1 ,N N ,M ca N IN N 1 , NO N IN O Q m r o N 10� o 'vO1i WLL r N �o 'o ri m a a_ ' ' 1 'M M p� 1 ,M M O 1 ,m m LL ,m m • • W IN Q Q NO N r N Q 'O m N N 'q N O �O mp N O r IN M v n U cn O m O N m V m N • • y N N M N -m O Q N Z N I , 1 y Q 6 q M O z ,N G CI 10 ,N N • 1 • i T 0 ,N m ,a ¢ g U W 75 -2 76 NO U ,y cs 1 O 1 Q rNi �o to a T O • • O M IN 1 N hONI INQ INQ NN 0 f N ;m O O 'O O INQ INQ NN ,N(Im 11 a 1� N V Z Im N 0 O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m N__.r....... 1 v• N N O O I VmI i O ISO LL~ N O N 1N , 1 NN N IN IQ m N ' ____I ____ 1 N cN Im m pLL Ifp 0 LL IN N 1 ----I r N N M N go o 'vmi 'o r a� N o Io im 1 Lg o IN 1� CQ WLL T N �o �o ri a 1 >o to 0 LL Im m m IN Q Q NO p r N ' Q m m N N 'O i0 N ' ' N 1M N O r o m �N 1 p IN IN M N ° O Q M N Z N �r Im y � IQ IOI m M O 0 m Q IN ti N cq N I M 10 IN m N i 0 0 P ,N � m a O Q W � e �- U , a� E E n U) O r a� m a N M 0 N 0 2 w LI m U C O N N 0 2 LI w co U c d W cc 0 O O N LL a m 0 J M I� IN a I I 3 � I a I I I I a I I S I I I I I o to to m o to to aw Im Iro � I I O I S I I � I I I I � I I � I I � I I I I o to ;o I I I I I � I � I a I I I I I I _ I I I I � I I a I I F I I w I I m 3 I I � I N � � I I m o W m o I Ia 0 m i a I O I > I m U Iw Iae m E Z N a E E E 7 It co O N O N N co 0 w O W d m ld a N M O N 0 O 2 W W co U C O N i 0 O 2i W LU U O N O N C O :N O E am 0 N M m N O U o O O o 0 o o O 0 O O c 0 0 0 O O N = U pT O d o0 00 N O U m o o O 0 0 O N °U 0 zo 2 0 0 0 N O U a m r o O 0 O N N g a O o o o 0 0 O O o O O 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 O tg wa N wg LL LL g o On ng W LL pT O a jo rng LLLL " 0 o 0 o 0 0 o o 0 0 o o o 0 o o o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 NO y O U Ox Z U O � 5C '278 O O O N O O 1 O N 1 1 1 1 o to �o 0 U d_ N O O 10 10 O U o 0 0 0 0 N ° Z N ° U 0 m I 1 N � O 10 10 O g o o o 0 a~ o I o 10 to 0 I 1 1 1 c N � LL � o I 0 0 o g o 00 0 0 0 a o :o 0 0 O 10 �O O j Lg O in O W LL T O O O O O O O a_ ____I ____�____ I I >o 'o 0 0 0 rng o o ' o 0 iLL o o 'o 1 p o 0 0 0 1 U o o 'o 0 o �o 'o 0 1 O 10 �O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 r 1 m ,6 � 7 It O co O N O N N co 0 O N O N G E N O N M o 0 y O O N O O O U o 0 O Z 0 0 = o 0 p o 0 O O pT O a_ N O O O U o 0 0 0 � 0 o 0 0 0 H N pU O o 0 0 0 0 0 m o 0 2 N p o 0 p o 0 0 0 o 0 0 m o 0 H o O 0 O N O O a o 0 c� � N O O wa o 0 m� IL a 0 0 o 0 00 a F" o 0 O O O Wa T o 0 a �o m� LLa O O N p O O O O N O O O 0 O 0 O o0 00 U o 0 0 0 0 0 o0 0 Z o 0 0 0 U o 0 p o 0 � o 0 0 0 0 10 o m m � o ~ U O i5C-2 N O O O O O 1 O 1 � 2 1 1 1 1 o to �o 0 U d N O - O 10 10 O N O O 10 O O U o ,o 0 0 0 0 0 :o 'o 0 p jp o o :o 'o 0 0 Z N O U 0 m I 1 ca r o o to 0 N 0 0 I. 0 O 10 10 O a I 1 o In :o 0 jN O O O O O 0 O O X� d O O O O > :o o 0 0 N O O O O O ---- O 0 In O o A o 0 0 0 g g S y0 O 10 in O O m 9 a_ 1 >o 0 0 'o 0 w� o to 0 0 ----- ----- ____ 1 O 10 �O O Np O O O O O O O O N 1 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0 1 o ,o 0 0 px o 0 0 0 0 o �o 0 O Z o 'o 0 C7 0 0 in 0 i ;� 3 U d m 0 d R C O m d Q Sl 0 N M 0 N 0 2 w W m U c M O 2 W W co U N N N N ,N N O mm ,mm I O N I ' Z � v �v a m --hm-- o _ M IM U I'DN I�N N V 1 N V m --h�,-- M IM N Q U ' p N V 1 N V m O 10 Z ' N O m y • I N N r mb N �N � N I I wa o to I u? W I O] 52E N IN Ila N 'N I o� lijs ar o ,o m Im m ,w --Fo- m o o O ,O W d N O 0 ' a h� >o r n G a O 0 N 'N lia m im 1 ' O N O 10 1` O W 1] N IN c n U ci 1 ci O 10 N IN O ' M z roi ' m 'm • i ,N m - a E U C O E 0 c cE C O. '28Q a m 7 IN6,O,N,tNO,106,0 M ,Lo a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a. N, (6.(0. ,In, . y.y.y.•F.•F .4 y.y. M,p,p,O,M V O pp � C 7 Q T OI I(OIOIOI I 101 OR T lAlp l(pinlglp 101n I p N .�- ml IO Il61Ml I I(DI� OIp nIpIpIOIM ry I(01 NI � (n (pl I�ICllryl I IryIO (9 I I I I I I I I N Q � N tnlp l(Olhlm,p�pinl� ml 101161M, 101� O O N (1010pl 1 V::MII N' ,1(y W ;`o;h;IL-•m• ; ; �•L•O•L•�.J.M.J.W O. C. C. r J �•�•�•�•fV��•Q•�: c �•d•�•N• •Q•C• Z• J•CO •d:'op N .'O .'OE•L Q.C. 8•IL•r•O.O• .� M V' WE 0 a a a y.Y..Y..Y..Y..Y..Y..Y..Y. O a H Z m >a` Z O _ o n I I I I I I I I o 10 io '0 10 io �o io ;o U ci = I I I I I I I I I I U M O 10 I100 IN I100 10 10 10 y 16 1 ci co 70 1:6 1N 't0 1 Z n' rnrn' rn' rn' rn' rn' 0 w' w of ; co ; c6 ; co ; cd ; c6 ; c6 ; co . U m m U O ui 106 'W 'W 106 'W '00 1m 'OJ _ n 10 :co :m 1m .m �0 fro �m O V '6 't0 '6 't0 'tp 'tp 'tp 'tp . 2 O.t Omj�O J E . K: K E 1. ¢' o' m m L .t ¢.LL .LL ._ 0 :.Oc :O RA ---i-- ----� I o 10 S 16 ;a ; a 10 0 ,0 ;o 10 ,0 10 ,o ,0 10 1 t0 I0 �0 10 1b 10 Iap Ib ,t0 N IN N IN IN IN IN IN N } rn Im m Im Im 10) Im Im 10 U to 10 10 10 10 10 1 _I _ N IN N INy IN �N IN IN ,N 10 m o 10 'o �o �o 10 10 10 10 10 ,o 10 10 1 r 1n n 1n rn �n 1n 1n ,n V la a la 1V la la la ,a O r 1n ,n 1n 1n 1n 1n 1n �n `o �o 'o 'o 'o 'o �o �0 10 O ,0 ,o ,o ,o ,o 10 0 ,o ;o ,o ,0 10 ,o ,o 16 1 A M M IN Itn Itn ,� M IN 1N 1N IN IN N I 10 10 10 l0 10 10 I 1 rn Im m 1O) 1O1 1m Im N IN N 1N 1N 1N IN IN N p ro IW M 1 W 1 W 1 W IM lob 1a0 O 10 'O �O �O 10 10 10 10 10 ,O ,O 10 -------------- 0 ;O ,0 ,0 10 ,O 10 10 _-------------- 0 1 W W 10 110 10 1 Ln 1 Ln 110 I to I to +10 J O 10 'O :0 :0 ,O 10 10 10 O ,;O ,O ,O 10 ,O ,O 10 I i m 10 1 M IM M 1M 1M IM IM IM ,M n In ,n 1n 1n 1n In In ,n la la ,a J N 1N 'N N IN 0 10 ;0 10 ,0 10 ,0 10 10 Iv v 1v 1v 1v ro IW ;M iM iM �M IM Ia0 �M N � M 1M 'M jM jM iM 1M 1M 1M p V ,V ;g ,V ,V 1a I� I� 10 J O 10 10 10 10 10 I O ,O �O ,O ,O 10 ,O ,O 10 I 1 1 1 I I W Y 00 YW T00 TW TW YW .Y GO .LW O 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O N :NF-'ml-O E ;d m CY ;O 'LL N N W II on Sl 0 N M O N 0 cO G w w_ U c 0 .N a`) 0 2 w w m 0 N v �V U rn jm n n Z I� o Io v n jr o 0 x U a m iro o io N hN :o o U m V E V N N N r - m 17— O- U ma �oiv m V IV z rn Im N U 0 m y I I n In N O r O 10 H� I n In IN W LL O 10 � � I I c N ply I I LL d I O _ 0 N N rn m a� 1(I o to Ho 1 n ,n sLL W � a - o to , , mo m� 1 LL LL 1 , N 1 n n N o to o to 0U m io n r io o N IN -h % 1 N0 Z 10 0 n In (D 1 W W O 1p o (Dd ,cD� U Zg 'zD 75C-282 7 0 N N M M O L N w M O 2 1 W W N In m � U � M o m J CU LLJ W C m W E U N C L6 7 �N QOCI 'O] 'N f0 'Nw VIO �O �O V 1 W I N 1 N 1 G U i . � r t • 1 ' . . 'Ci U O o I 'O o �- W T 10 i(+I j0 10 10 10 1N R d — (+I 1 i Q O 10 i0] W IN IV 11(I 10 10 1 VI 10 O I�j r N b N U 'O� 10 IOp If0 IW 1� O IrnN I� 10 Ip ,� rnN 10 I(O WQ ____ ____i ____ O 10 i0] W ____ IN I �N ____ ____ 10 10 'N ____ ____1 ____ 1 1 1lI 10 O I�j W r N 'G N U O 1 O 'O If0 il� Q If0 O 'mN I� 1 O Ip ,f0 ImN 1 O Ito HQ m tN+I` N 'O if0 IVI IN 10 �O 'O 'O Q N U 0 m H W i0 10 IN 'N 10 i0 IN 10 N N, i0 10 10 10 i0 I7 1cl �n N o LL M I ' to .ro I Irn IN ' 1 IM io O I 1 to I Im I 'OQ r "'In jN � 100 10 IN 10 N N I 1 I 1 I 1 N cn . d p LL I 1 1 I I 1 1 C'I 10 if0 Irn ICI 10 ____I ____I ____ 10 ICI N O� a�" o '0 1 7o j0 7�cl 10 10 10 'O Ir in O 1 � 1 C] 10 fo '---t----I I Irn 1 IN 10 1 I I 1 10 :N '�2 '� 'O 10 '00 :cl Vrnj 0 m � I ' I ___t____I 1 I I . 5 1 I 1 1 LL I 1 I 1 � � _� r I 1 r r I r 1 r N N I 10 I I8 I IO I 'IlI 10 I 10 1 IVI I I N r O'O IOQ CI IO 10 10 10_ I�'0 O 100 It Imo ly Ic 10 10 10 100 0 o to I 1 l0 o i� --- 7o i____' I I� Ih ,o io I 1 Ir io to I 1 to to 1 �r I16 I i� m O Ir 1 I 1 l0 7m m 'rn I IN Ito 1 IM io o I 1 to �m i� M W x U to 1� to m 1 1� 1 I� Iq 1 1 m l0 7aI ___t____I I Ito 1 Iro io 1 I I 1 to .ro �� U '•rn I U, �� F O 10 IN Ig IfrO i0 �O IfrO �t0 x I L ____L ____ _________ L ____L I I� L____ Irn L____ 00 C t' O �' R LL'm m Ex Otis �� m>'g�¢� �N •Om : mn 'w` 7 0 U) m L 7 m Z N N v C J m d W ON C � N L6 2 �N QOCI 'O] 'Nf0 'Nf0fo VIO �O �O V 1 W N I 1 N 1 G O . i � r t • ' . . 1 U o I 'Ci o •- T O 10 i(+I j0 10 10 10 'O 1N W R - I m 1 O 10 W i Q i0] I ____t____I 11(I IN 10 IV ____I ----------- 1 VI 10 10 O I�j r N b U 10 IOp If0 1� IW IrnN O I� 10 Ip �� rnN 10 I(O WQ ____ ____i ____ ____ ____ 'N ____ ____ ____1 ____ W C�N O W 10 i0] IN 10 I 10 1 10 1 1lI O I�j r N 'G U O 1 O 'O If0 il� Q If0 'mN O I� 1 O Ip �fo ImN 1 O Ito HQ m tN+I` N 'O if0 IVI IN 10 �O 'O 'O Q N U 0 m H W i0 10 IN 'N 10 i0 IN 10 N N, i0 10 10 10 i0 I7 1cl N �n o LL M � I ' to 100 .ro 10 ' I 1 Irn IM IN IN io O I 1 to 10 I Im N I 'OQ r "'In jN N 1 I I 1 1 I N cn . d p LL I 1 1 I I 1 1 C'I 10 if0 Irn ICI ____I ____I 10 10 ICI ____ N O� a�" o '0 7�cl in 1 7o IO 10 10 10 'O Ir O 1 1 M to � ro '---t----I I 1 Irn IM 1 I 1 io to �N '�2 cT IO '� 'O 10 '00 :cl Vrnj 0 m � I ' I ___t____I 1 I I . 5 1 I 1 1 LL I 1 I 1 � _� � r I 1 r r I r 1 r N N I 10 I I8 I 'IlI IOCI I 10 I 10 1 IVI I I N r O 10 'O IOQ 100 IO 10 10 10_ I�VI 0 O o to Q i� Imo Ic ly Io 10 io 10 to 10 to 106. I� o o I 1 l0 o --- 7o Ir i____' I 1 I� Ir Ih I io I 1 to 1 1 �r I i� m O 1 l0 m to I 7m 'rn I 1 IN IM Ito 1� 1 io to �m o to I i� m M W x CI 10 'm I(rnp 'n '0 10 'n '�O IQO � m '0 1 7o jo I� 1 m l0 7aI ___t____I Ito Iro 1 I io to .ro I �c O - I (7-........... �J J O 10 IN 10 1(r0 10 10 't0 Im m M I I- Z I 1 I I L- to j � d> oct oct i ' a 0 -LNry U 9C H H O �- Ip EX 'NL ryN �'� H Q 0.3 ��n o w`lob ����ZOrn PIE 0 N ri O N 0 0 2 w w m U c 0 .N a) O 2 w w co 0 O n r N 'N O ,^pn ;gin N 'N -f � IN m ,O o 'o 1 M 'M 1 o 'o 1 U_ >N IpN �m INm O p y -h N U b >N IpN �m INm m Z N LN ' - o ,o m I N N 1 N 0 p cp O a� IN N N N N� 1 1 O 10 ,L6 N 'N -r O � 1 1 N p1� 1 1 LL LL 1 -r _ N N a F O cti NN � yo L N 1N 1 0 0 XO- W � N IN I jo Olg I I oa LL I , m O 10 n �n I O M IM U io_ o I � Ip N ,N I� Ur O O 10 m Im_ �In K Z In M �M • h Id � IIR Q 1. O O O m m N 'mom 'm nM1 1 1 1 I VI IQ N Q 1 1 I I 1 1 � W I IlI Q 1 f0 f0 M > I ry a_ 1 I I 1 Q p m N O O 1O Im 1W IO • • 1 IV Ip m N O m W M O ''O� 1 IQ. NpNI N Z - - �O O O 'o ,o 0 m • r o 70 �Q �m O i O N VI I I M � O i O I VQI I IN(I O N 2 1 _ N In O ----1• ____ I• 1 ____ ____ 1 j h 1 c N FM 2 LL 1 I 1 ----• 1 O] N �O N I ---- I • p 1p �Q IO] WLL T O 10 10 m a_ 1 _ 1 oa 1 LL 1 I 1 ---- •, 1 m M cT I` (/i ICm'f0 O I I 1 I I 1 x p Z O C N 1 I 1 1 'N U' I100 IIO 'M OOj _ h m m n N N N N IN IN M L= I NA N O Boa ,ry ,N 12 Ig f- f%1 ,J it 0 n y In N O 1 �N N h N O p v Z 1 1 1 , 1 T 1 � a 1 V p m N O - o to U 1n �(VN VN O A ;p 'M Nm p ip N F- 'O • , 1 • V p m N O U I'O� 1 Ip Nm Z 1 O O Q U ' IO o o 0 ,o 0 IN N O O 0 iin i0 IN o N IIN VpI p Ip ` o a N( O 1 O , V :m c L2 1 , 1 d 1 c N 1 m� d 1 1 , 1 O 10 ,V 10] N 'In �6 O N 1 , 1 j� O O 10 10 ,V 10] N VI N W WLL T O �O �O ' N C a • 1 • ry .52 1 oa 1 LL 1 , 1 O 1 ,O] 1a1 m 0 0 ( O ____1____ • 1 , 1 ____ ____ • O n r 1 I 1 i im n O% o Z o o N , 1 • �N (7 iupi „ii m O h h m m N N ;N ;N N i p m'd.N 'ta n m m o o U y d y hR a u0c2 � rn ¢` ■7 5E� .75C V `o E E 7 U) N co O N O W W co U c O N N O W W co U L d O m C d E n ~ ~ C m m E W E Q a Q y o > d O 7 � 5C-287 T N � C � O U �p L m O N d C L co a a O N C O � 7 N o) U a. a) y C x O Q) x 3 X O m L � O m L F N M O N O 2 W w co U c O N a� O 2 w W m U i Q p I ip ip i i i i i0 I I to to to 14 to a o to to to to to to to to � O I� I� I� 10 to l0 10 10 � � Im I� Io to to to to to I I Ip 10 10 10 Im 10 (q cn I� la I Ip I� I� Im 10 a O I� a I I I I I I I I LL � V Im 10 10 IN I,n lin IV IV Q o a IQ IQ IQ ItT IQ ItT I ItT � I ✓+ l y I w I ✓+ I w I �+ I m I ✓+ m m Ip IO Ip Ip Ip IO Ic Ip � t� io io io io io io i 3 io I I I I I I ID I N m a � rn �mo y 'a TO n a -288 N N O O M N O 0 i. m 0 c a � L Y T � a L u `a 02 m o Na a O z- N c a a+ W U1 m y a L U t U c m a L v v � a f.7 a o IL T N L y c T a i m N O y^ O m N a = N� 0a N M co 0 N 0 O 2 W W co U c O .N > O 2 W W (0 U E z r N 3 3 W N N 0 0 E It W 0 3 E2 E O O LL L w N C O O U F E E N > W W p a N N N co U O N N O > > �: F a ;o ca o g ;o a g s ,ri ;o Z I I I I I I I I I I N O .M .O 10 O M �= '- .� �6 �4 .M .N .M .N .O .M .N m .M jN I I I I I I I I E E 00 lea 0E E a o ;( ;m ;N 0 0 3 E E E O Z ;Z .a .> '7 ;J ;J L ;E ;z '.� .9 .9 W 'W 'W Z 0 .......b ...b ...b ...b ...b ...b ...b ...b ...b ...b ...b ...b ... b ...I m E E E m w Z � n n n '� '9 '9 '� '� '9 W W W u u N 2 (Cp (gyp (Cp (Cp (Cp (gyp t t .y O p �N N 1° oH U ;O ;O ;O +2 46 co N m co a N fM co O N 0 O 2 W W m U c O .N N O 2 W W co 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O 'M 'O 'M 'M 'O 'M 'O '� 'N� '� 'O 'N 'O 'N 'o . . . . 'M 'N 'N 'N . . . .^ .^ .^ . '� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 'M �'m'w�� 'O 'm 'N ....................11 ...11 ...11 ...11 ...11 ...11 ...11 ...11 ...11 ...11 ...11 ...11 ...11 ...11 ...11 ...11 ...11 ... 11 . 'a 'a 'a 'a 'a 'a 'a 'a 'a 'G� 'G� 'G� '(if '(if 'c 'a 'X 'w '(If '(If '(If p 'm 'm 'M 'd '(L 'd 'd 'd 'CL 'd 'd 'd 'd 'd 'v) 'y '(n 'N 'N 'y 'Q) 'v) 'v) '(n '(n 'v) ..y.......b...b...b...b...b...b...b...b...b...b...b...b...b...b...b...b...b...b...b...b...b...b...b...b.. a n n a n a a a n a n a n a n a a a a a a a a a n a a a -290 WE O V N m d N M O N 0 O 2 W W co U c O N a) O 2 W W m U "� Sri Zvi poi C,� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I lin m ''N 'Ir 'm V '�r lin I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I U_ U �S Z ;z ..........b ...b ...b ...b ... b .. 4 E E 7 cn N C O .y fA E W O N 75C-291 E O W m N M O N 0 O W W co U c O N a� 0 LU W coLU U o 0 � O O N O O O U o 0 0 0 p o 0 Z 0 O 0 O O 0 O 0 V Z O o O 0 p o 0 T O O N U o 0 0 0 � o 0 O o 0 N O O O U o 0 0 0 0 m o 0 2 _ p o 0 U o 0 0 0 0 0 0 m h o o 0 0 N O O O O a o 0 i N o 0 Wa 0 0 -N O1� O O LL LL O O _ O O O O O 0 0 O _ O O xa W o 0 �T a - 0 0 rni o 0 LL O O NO O O O O N O O O 0 O 0 pU 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 px o 0 0 0 Z o 0 0 0 � S o p o 0 � o 0 0 0 o E N % C O .0 y C 0 U U d cc i5C-222 o 0 � O O N O O O U o 0 0 0 p o 0 N O O Z O O O 0 O 0 = o 0 0 0 p o 0 T O O a a N p o 0 0 0 � o 0 0 0 0 r N O O O U o 0 0 0 0 Z _ � o 0 U o 0 0 0 0 0 0 m a 0 r o 0 N O O O O a � N Wa o 0 C N LL d O O O O _ O O O O ar o 0 0 0 mo _ O O sLL W T o 0 a_ >o 0 0 a LL o O 0 O NO O O O O N O O O 0 O 0 pU 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 px o 0 0 0 Z o 0 0 0 � o 0 p o 0 � o 0 0 0 � E d O m P N fM co O N 0 0 2 w W W A U O c O c w O N m al > O 0 m a cO C w w . O co U N >_ N ImOm Nm N C'lm 'VIO 'VI Q n^ fO <O 'm 'ujm ml` QjN U y Iv Io M N 'm -h -1 1 m Q O O N V W Z 0 • • N ,m W = M m v m ' O 10 �Q m pT O d_ m IN N N O M N N m N hm 'NQ 'MWQ 2 mIN N N O U M 6 im mQ �W O_ YNI_°j iNQCjeQ- m O N Z m 0 o 0 U o 0 0 0 ° m 0 o 0 0 .T-••-•inn m N IN I m O iV O m N N !O N N a I 1 N� NO IN N 1 m V XW� O N 'n M d N O O M • Ir---- I Im m IN N lia N 1 ,N m N QO ca N IN ° N 'umi 'o o ,m I y0 N IN Im N M In M WLL r N �o 'o ri m a ' ' I IM M �d I I W m LL Im W • • m 1N n NO N n m O o y 'N N O �O O m o 0 o v m N I 'N • • M p g x O Q m h < Z m o °I N Ir Im � 1 I Im Q N 00 N m M z 1M IN IG M 10 IN m • 1 • i I- 75 -2 N N �N S N M m m (On 'm 'ujm OjN U y Iv Io M N 'm 1 O N Z Q ____I ____ N F Im m ' Q ' i0 U <O V N T O �O IQ m ___1 ___ N N O U M IN ° VN I(q ImQ y Qm h°f 'NQ IMW MQ N f N �m 1 N O M N m Im O_ IN(I °f INQ �VMj-W W- O N O O 0 O 0 ° m 0 o 0 0 nVml N O O I i O tm0 LL~ N O lN N iN 1 N ' ____I 1 1� m c N m I m ro �� IN N pLL I I 0 LL IN N N b N IN 1�? ' O n o ,m 1 IM m Xg WLL T N�o ryO :M M > Io 0 Ei IM M 7a 1W m LL Im m m IN NO O r 0 O 0 m i0 N O n m m o o v n m N I M p g % O Q m < Z h I o �� Im ': N Ir Im b iQ lu°3 0 O m i m 1N M M 0 IN N i • 1 O �- N M 0 N 0 2 w LI m U C O N a� 0 2 LI w co U A, L V Y_ t L Q_ O L Q c Y a a 0 O O 'O 7 O A 71 U N C5 C O Z 0 O O U C 71 N 71 C O Z O O a O O � L a o O _ O 71 Lp L L o. a o L � N a cca� a ra L to N p U7 Uv L c c c O �0 a E m > 9 (7 (7 a f0 y w 0 0 0 a s cc 71 y 71 -O O Q75$C-2 V o N Cl) D O N 0 O 2 W W co U C O N i 0 O 2i W W U c O U 7 N C O U u7 d 3 O Im N IC O a)N C O O O :N 6 O rn E � 0 N M M m N O U o O O o O O o O 0 O O c O O 0 O O Z = U T o0 00 N U m o o O 0 0 O N OU 0 zo 2 0 6 0 N O U m � S S N a O O O o o 0 0 o 0 o O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O � N tg wa N W� LL LL g o a� ng W LL pT O a jo Pa LL U - O O O O O 0 o o 0 0 o 0 o 0 0 o o 0 o ° 15CI O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NO N O U Ox Z (7 O � '295 1 1 1 Z 1 1 O 10 �O O U a_ N Q O 10 10 O 0 0 0 0 , N O 10 ,O O Z L_ N O U 0 m I 1 � ig o g � � S N O 0 10 O O 10 10 O a I 1 1 1 I 1 c N � o d ---- o to to o� � o p to to 0 1 O 10 ,O O WLL T O �O 'O O a_ I I >o 'o 0 0 0 rn? o o ' o0 0 iLL o 0 ---- 1---- I ____ 1 O 10 ,O 10 N O 'O O 1 U o o 'o o �o 'o 0 0 1 O 10 ;O O z o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 o O 0 r m ;o o 0 m O O N p O O U o 0 O z O O p o 0 T O O N O U o 0 0 0 � 0 o 0 0 0 H N pU O o 0 0 0 0 0 m o 0 2 N p o 0 p o 0 0 0 o 0 0 m o 0 H o O 0 O N O O a o 0 C� � N O O O O x wa o 0 m� LLa 0 0 0 0 Wa T o 0 a �o m� LLa O O N p O O O O N O O O 0 O 0 O o0 00 U o 0 0 0 0 0 o0 0 Z o 0 0 0 U o 0 p o 0 � o 0 0 0 0 o m m � o r U O i5C-2 N p O O O O 1 O 1 � Z 1 1 O 10 �O O U 9 d_ N p O 10 10 O U o to �o 0 m o to �o 0 N p Z---------------- 0 U 0 m I 1 � f o to �o 0 N I 1 o to to 0 O 10 10 O a I 1 1 jN O ,O O O 1 > o 0 0 0 OO LLa o �o 'o 0 ---- I 1 O 0 0 O A o t o 0 0 � � o to �o 0 1 y0 O 10 �O O m 9 1 � 1 O 10 �O O Np O O O O O O O O N O 1 0 0 0 0 O 1 0 0 0 0 px o 0 0 0 0 o 0 O Z o 0 0 0 0 1 l 1 C7 O 0 O O U d rig N M co o m N — w w N W c U N O y 41 Q > O O w 2 W - W co U V m cl N o ,o 'Inm �nm O �O I O N I I Z � V m jrn r In U ? ly 0 v �V U my my NW Imm N 0 0 to F 1� O U my my o mm mm ow lujm m o Io N O to y • I N N O 10 N r mb N �N m rn I � N wa o to I u? W I O] aN m Im Ila N IN 1 Or IOr O � m IW a� m Im m Iw N� C] 1 M m Im W d N a O 10 1 � --h�- ; O 0 m Im lia m im N r jn m Im O 10 1` O 1� � Im Lq U N In N IN 1 Z m 10 m Im m(I U O N IM � 1� N IN i ,N m a E U � -29Z a m 7 IN6�O,N.(NO.106�0 M �Lo �Ifl .:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:. O� �R:��n� �0����� . y.y•y.•F.•F .4 y.y. po. Lq. �a�W .o� � � . tn,0,(p 1 .0, 0,1"L p O,(OM.pp (O. V O,M(O � C Q r T I I I I I I I I OI I(OIOIOI I 101 O101nl�l�10101�llO � T "O L6 l(pinl6 101nI O p N IO IIOIMI I I(O I10 Olp p M ry l(01 Nlrl C: � (n (pl I�ICllryl I IryIO O I I I I I I I I N Q � N (OIp I(Olnlm�p�pinl� 011 101161M� 101� O O N 0101(OINn�0�010;� (6. -I MIIN' IN ( • 2. 2 : c mo �•L•O•L•�.J.M.J.W M. 2.0.76. O-. N • O O J �•S•�•�•fV��•Q•�: �•d•�•m• •Q•C•_ a.w.x.K,o, N,Z•J•0 •C) N .'O .'O `•t Q.C. 8•IL•~•0 .O. •K M V' O m CL a a a c y.Y..Y..Y..Y..Y..Y..Y..Y. O a H Z E E >a` Z �ci :6 O2 _ o o- I I I I I I I I o IO io �o 1O iO U U 'C N 10 1� 1� I� 10 'O I�'n = I I I I I I I I I I U 0 0 10 I100 IN 1100 10 10 1�M py j07 ,(V �W 10 ,0 IN 't0 Z 6 O' O' O' O' o' O' O' O' O r 'rn 'rn 'rn 'rn 'rn 'rn 'rn 'rn 0 ro ;o ;o ;ro ;o ;o ;ro ;6 ;co U m U O Ifl IW 'W 'W IOW 'W 'a0 Im 'OJ _ n 1O :6't0 '6 V :6:w O.t rn .w OmjcO m !.�- � ' 3 AVOS J E M .d':�:�1A K A m 6 •9•'O•F • •Z •O•c y pp OO •s . .s .d . W . ,i LL . x d d LL RA '0 'o 'o '0 '0 ---i-- ----� :00 ;a 10 to 10 Io 10 �0 1 t0 I0 70 10 1b 10 Ia0 Ib ,t0 N IN �N IN IN IN IN IN ,N rn Im �m Im Im 10) Im Im m U ,O ,O 10 ,O ,O 16 _ N IN �N INy IN �N IN IN ,N r 1n �n In rn �n 1n 1n ,n V la �a la IV la 1a la ,a rn r 1n ,n In In In 1n 10 o o ,o o ,o ,o ,Oio ,0 Io ,o ,o �o Itn �N ILA ILn N M I IN �N IN IN IN N IN N I O 10 ;O �O �O 10 10 10 �O rn Im �m IO) IO1 Im Im Im ,m N IN �N IN IN IN IN IN N � ro IW M I W I W I W IM lob �a0 O 10 ;O 10 ,O 10 ,O ,O 16 G Itn Z ILA rn Im �m IO) IO1 Im Im Im rn N r In n In In In In In �r �O �O 1O to ,O 10 ,O ,O 16 _ 1 __ 1 W W 10 110 10 I Ln I Ln 110 I to I to +10 O ,O ;O ,O ,O 10 ,O ,O O 1 M IM 7M IM IM �M IM IM ,M n In ,n In In In In In ,n lA la ,a J N IN 'N N �N �N �N �N IN 0 ,O ;0 ,0 ,0 10 10 10 10 I 1 1 1 _ I _ I _ 9 It ;1 i1 A i1 It In q N � � M jM 'M jM jM iM jM jM 1M J � 10 l0 l0 1� 10 I .............. W J lA 'O '''O '.6 Ifl .6 .6 .6 Ifl .6 .6 O '''O .Y. ......i...i...i. .Y. .Y. .Y ..i . N E n ;� ;o �p 'I- 0 'Z ;orn �L ' N 'LL II on d W N L U) N l6 N 0 0 l6 COI C Lei N fM co O N 0 cO G w w_ co U c 0 .N a`) 0 2 w w m 0 N v �V U rn jm I o Io U a N hN o V E V N N N r - m 17— O- U ma �oiv m V IV z rn Im N u O m y I I n In N O r a m Im O 10 H� O� I n In IN W LL O 10 � � I I c N ply I I LLa I O _ t0 N N cG O a� N 1 1(I o to Ho 1 n n sLL I iLq W a o 0 , m� 1 LL LL 1 , N 1 n n N o to o to 0U i� n r io o N IN -h % 1 N0 Z 0 n In (D 1 W W O 1p `- R 9 p d O C7 m G m : U `- Zg 'zD 75C-299 N N m M co O N lL6 � w m O 2 1 W W y m U � o m m J m LUU LU W C m W E U N C L(i 7 �N QOCI 'O] 'N f0 'Nw VIO �O �O V 1 W I N 1 N 1 G U i . � 1 r I t • 1 ' 1 1 ry 10 'O U O O 10 'O00 o I 'O 10 'O 'O 'o C i .. W T 10 i(+I j0 10 10 10 1N R d — (+I 1 i Q O 10 i0] W I IN IV 11(I 10 10 1 VI 10 O It� M N b N U b� 10 IOp ,f0 IW 1� O IrnN I� 10 Ip ,� rnN 10 Itp WQ O IIII M 10 'O• 10• ,O '� V H ____i `---- O 10 i0] IW1_N___11____,N IN 10 10 r- 10 O I�j W N U W 1 O ,f0 I Q If0 O 1 O ,f0 1 O 'G O 'O il� 'mN I� Ip ImN Ito HQ m tN+I` N 'O if0 IVI IN 1N Z > IW -N -- W N U 0 m ._._.-.i .....� ........... H W i0 10 IN 'N IO i0 IN IO N I7 IOo W g N, o i0 ;o 10 to IO to IO 'o�n i0 I Icl N o LL C'I I 10 ifo Irn IN 10 O I 10 I ININ IOQ 1� �I(I j 10 N I 1 I 1 I 1 N In 1 I 1 1 . N jd 1 I I 1 1 LL 1 1 1 i . � C'I 10 if0 r Irn t • ICI 10 . ' . 1 10 ICI N O� ' aF" o l0 1 7o Io j0 7�cl 10 10 10 'O Ir in O 1 � 1 M to ro I ___t____I I Irn 1 IM io 1 I I 1 to �N CT 'N'N '00 Vrnj m � a I ' 1 I ___t____I I 1 1 I I 1 L 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 �LL LL 1 1 1 1 � _ I ____ r 1 1 I N N 10 ,CT I IO I ' 10 IlI 10 IVI I NVI r O 10 'O ,OQ CI IO 10 ,O 10_ ICT O � I 100 Q Imo I� 10 10 10 100 I 1 o ---- i_-------- I Ih I 1 N I 1 1 I �sT I O ,r , I 1 l0 7m I IN 1 IM io I 1 to �m i� M to to ,n I� o Q zIn m l0 1 76 jo ' 1� 1 I� 'rn Iq u n I 1 C'I l0 iC) I---- I Ito t---- I 1 Ito 10 1 I I 1 10 �(o �C Q U m,I �o0 7o Io ,rn 'o goo �rn 't000 ro '•rn I U, m 2� y I ;� iq I I 1w Io �� F O 10 IN Ig Ifn() i0 �O IfnO �fo m L ____L ____ _________ L ____ L ____ L____ L____ 1 i.0 d U 2,12 � � R C U y m c�•Om � mn � Q 30111- ��Q 'O w` :t N (M co N O 2 W W co U c O N N O LU W W co U N L(i �N QOCI � 'O] 'Nf0 'Nw VIO U <° '°� 'o V 1 W N I 1 N 1 G ° Z O I C O O �N . 1 i � r t I 1 • ' 1 1 ry U O o I 'O Ci o W T 10 i(+I j0 10 10 10 IN R d - (+I 1 O 10 W i Q i0] I 11(I IN 10 IV 1 VI 10 10 O INj M N N ° U 10 IOp ,f0 1� IW IrnN O I� 10 Ip �� rnN 10 I(O WQ m N 1 O1- �O IIII IN IM 10. 10. IN I� a H ____i `____IW________1 1N ____ 1____ IN r W ° O 10 i0] IN 10 10 10 O INj 1. N U O W I O 'O ,f0 il� I Q If0 'mN O IN 1 O Ip �fo ImN 1 O Ito 'G HQ m tN+I` N 'O if0 IVI IN 1N Z > IW -N -- W N ° U 0 m i0 1 I IN 'CN'I 10 iN II+NI CT, N � ~ (0() N, i0 Im 10 10 10 i0 I� 1cl Orl N a o ;o 16 to 'o ' �o ;o �o �n o M N I i____E____1____ 10 I00 if0 ,O ' 11 I IN IM IN IN 10 O I r_; 10 IO IM N '�2 ry IOQ 1� �N jN '� 1 I I 1 1 I N Cn . jd 1 I 1 I 1 LL 1 1 1 I C'I 10 i if0 r t 1 Irn ICI . I. 10 10 ICI 1 N O� aF" o Io Io�cl in 1 7o IO 10 10 10 'O Ir O 1 C] 10 � fo I ___t____I I Irn ICI 1 I 10 10 :N '�2 I CT L� N. 10 i0 10 Im '00 irn(1 m � a I 1 ' I ___t____I I 1 1 I 1 I L 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 �LL 1 1 1 LL , 1 I 1 1i I 1 ___-- 1 I N N 10 ,C I 'IlI IOCI 10 10 1 IVI I I N r O 10 'O ,OQ IO 10 ,O IO_ I�VI O 100 Q Imo IC 10 10 10 100 o m I 1 lO _i_ ;n -------- I 1 iN IN�sT I I 1 1 1 ,� I I O 1 l0 m Io I 7m 'rn I 1 IN IM Ito 1� 1 io to �m o Io I i� m M W x ° C'IIfrnO In 'o IN 'n IR Z M Io 1 ;o jo I 1� ;OO Io 1 I� Iq r I 1 m l0 7aI I---- t---- I 1 Ito Iro I 1 I 1 io to .ro I �C ° Coi �N o Io Im 'o �o ;m 'moo m 1 --No'- I (7 CI" I �J J O 'O IN 10 1(n0 10 10 't0 ItNO ____L____L____L____ I L- to j d> o c t o c t i a IL m U H' 'LL�������g� H g E°'w E 'ate �N "� ° d mn (/ppyq V�VO�'rn .R d 0 (6 d Q 0 6 N ai co O N 0 0 2 W W co U c 0 .N a) O 2 W W co U O r r N 'N N O N 'N YI -FYI O m 10 O 10 -h V 1 CN] � cNI m a o to _ ' m --h�-- N O U A pN IpN Nm INm -h CI � CI N O U o pN IpN Nm INm m Z N 'N -L o ,o m • m IN s r i0 m Ifp 1 NO IN 1 H� N N Wd O 0 N �N 1 L N m� 1 1 LL LL 1 -h N �N d F O nj ry � Np t0� 1 W 'W 1 Wd o to N a_ �N I I io m� a LL I I N O m fp fp I o to n In I O lm+I I IO.I U io_ o I Z I� o to N IN I� Ur O O 10 m Im_ I K Z vi vi M �M • h �d � y 'I 1. "R N O 'mom v vi u U 1 Z 1 , 1 • • 1 U 1 O Oa o Io U oo ,'NN Nm io ip N • • 1 IV Ip m N O m W M m v Ir a N Z -- �p ,o 0 m • 75 F p 0 �V �O] O i O N VI I I M � O i O I VpI I IN(I O N 2 1 N O 1 O N 'lI N N� O 'O 'VpI 'VNI O WLL O �O �O N 1 � 1 N 1 LL , 1 1 I 1 ----• 1 'O 'VpI 'YNI O , I 1 qp p Ip �V 10] O 1 O N VI M WLL a O �O �O O o____•____•____•---- a_ 1 I1 1 _ 1 m� 1 a 1 LL 1 • , ----1 •, 1 O m cT m O M n o N LAi , I 1 U 1 IN M , I 1 o o Z N 1 , 1 1 'M m h O. In N N ,N IN M 1 a 1EIjf- U m Q ,J n y n N 1 'N N 0 1 Ip > 1 1 1 , I 1 Im IN N U 1 d ----I• I.I I____ V p m N O - o to Im Im m 'M N • 1 I 1 • IV Ip m N O Im m m U I'O� 1 Ip Nm Z 1 O O N U In n o o O ,o Io 0 0 N_ 0 7o Iv Im N Ip O i0 IN ILn g o 0 7o Ivpi IN o N( O 1 O I V :m c L2 O 10 'VpI 'N O 1 I I d 1 c N 1 m� d 1 1 I 1 O 10 IV 10] N 'In �6 O N 1 I I j� O O 10 10 IV 10] N VI N W L� O 10 'VpI 'N O WLL T O �O I� �O ' N p C a • 1 • SYp — 1 .52 1 oa 1 LL • 1 I• 1 O W a O 0 (/J O ----1• ____ 1 I• 1 ____ ____ 1 In I� n 1 I I i im n O% o Z 0 0 0 N I 1 • I IN (7 iupi ih m O h h m m 11� N N N IN ;N m i p n m m o o U w c2 I m I y I - u0 U BULL IS rna ¢` . ■ 5E� O O N M O N 0 O 2 W W co U c O N N O 2 W W co U L d O m C d E n ~ ~ C m E E W E Q N Q y W C W � 0 i d O 7 � 5C-304 Q rn 0 O N O N e N co 7 t0 C Q L T V c ` O � U C o� y m y O � a c y O C U O w N Gi jp w G a co C C co C Q y T O % 7 O m W U d O a V C w 0 O x d W d U y a> O a d N x N x_ � O N � m M O d p 0 L 0 ~ N F 0 O 2 W W co U c O N N 0 2 w W co U I O a O a m m Q o m o U O N O LL � m rn o 0 m N h N N (p V W O � O O J y u •L U lC y d a+ a y J a i a � v `m � O a � m m c -- d L 02 Z a T u a T c w 10 r a o a m N O y L N w U =� c � ITSC 05 0 E V 0 W W 0 � 3 3 C C O O w U U U N Q) N co E Q U a m O L w U w 2 0 U N -O V) O i �C,0ttL a J U 0 E47 N M tp O N 0 O 2 W W m U C O .N a) O 2 W W m U N 'O ;o �O N z I i i i i i i i i i Div +- N 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O I O �N �� :� �N �' �N O �O �� �O �N �O �o �� �� �O �0 �� �p �M NN �O 10 75 I I I ;a Z N N N Z'NN:N=CC Dnj m Z(0 J p '7 ;o• ;o' o' 'U U W W 'W J Q p 0 0 0 ....... b... b... b... b... b... b... b... b... b... b... b... b... b... b... b... b... b... b... b... b... b... b.. a m ' c c c m . m m m s :E :E :E ; ; x ; ; x ; x ; x mo'gx 'gx Z .0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N '� W W WV 'O ;0 ;0 F- U ;O ;O ;O E E 7 N O N to E W C N N cri c6 O N 0 O 2 W W_ co U c O .N N c0 G W W co U n n y N M N O o 0 U o 0 0 0 p o 0 N O O Z O O O 0 O 0 = o 0 0 0 p o 0 0 0 Z N U N n M n � d o o 0 0 r N O <o u U n n 0 0 0 m o 0 2 U o0 00 0 0 0 0 0 m . n H o N 0 N 1(I O O O O N O O O O � N N a o 0 i N wLL o N 00O 0 O d � > N C LL LL N N O O O N �o 00 00 LLr o 0 m- 0 ai 0 O _ O O WLL o 0 r NO d d d > O IlI O N o0 00 ma O o O o O 0 O N O O O lb O v O o0 00 U �o yo N m N a X O O N O O O N O O Z O O N m N ti Ci ON ON O O O O O K O O O O M. M E m E_ N X i i5C-3(17 n n a N M N O o 0 U o 0 0 0 O o 0 N O O Z O O O 0 O 0 e 2 o 0 0 0 p o 0 0 0 r g N O o u U N n M n � o 0 p o 0 r N O <o n U � n 0 0 0 pj o 0 Z U loo o 0 0 o 0 0 . m r o � 0 N VI 00 00 N O O O O N N a a N � O O W d O O LL a N- N O N N y O N O75 g� o00 0$ LLr o 0 m- 0 wi 0 O _ O O Z 0 Od 00 00 0 0 O o O 0 O N O O O m O u O o0 00 U �o No N N N d 00 O O O O N m N O O O O O K O O O O � m � � E ry d f 00 W O m 0 a N M c6 O N O 2 W W_ co U C O .N a) cO G W w co N 7 O NO IN �� IN 'O Npm U IO '� O N Ib IN N O 1CT IO 10 1'lI m Z 1 m to �o 1 I 1 Iv Im U o r g 1 m im Im 1 iN io � O U �o �im 'o iM �o rm 75 NO P 'm ICI 1� O 0 i(I 1 1 CI I I (p I 1 Ip m �o loim Io 'o IIn In mr 0 Z O O O -- N OU O IO IO 'ONIm N � O IO IO m 'm In FYI m m •-•-.T-.-•-•-•� nnn.�• •-•-.T •-•-• _ O � N oIn 'gym to p I rn O I o i0 to n o � Ir 10 10 �O O a ------------------------ 1 I I 1 N� 7N d Ig 'Om I� 'Om 10 'O 10 'O m O L� OI(I 00 'O i0 O Wa INO Ir If00 10 10 O 1 I I I 1 m� 1 I I I I 1 1 m oo 1� 'oa .a Io to r 0 Ir 1 1 1 I I 1 1 Np d �N 8 1 IOm Iom O 10 � LQ ' w O IN � Ir 1 1 IC �h 1 1 1 O d0 a 1 1 I 1 I 1 0 1� �� 1 N o O o Iro m No n o 0 1h 1 d 1m Iro I �m I 1 I 1 1 1 r N 10 m to I �0 1 I 1 1 N Z 00 lO m 1 O �O. � I ' OmI 1 � 1 1 I 1 O iN(1 o O A 10 21 'O Id I� 1 ' Id O d i N� Hr 75C 308 00 W O U) d 0) cc a N M c6 0 N O 2 W W m U c O N N O 2 W w co U u N U O O � rn N m vI rn0 'NCI 'N 'N 'O 1 1 Z O O 1� �O 10 IVI Vl ZO lOp 'O 'O 10 O � 1 ____1____ ____ ____1____ i � • � � �o �Q Q 2 U O O o Q m to IW rnN 1� �M IlI ,(O t0 � � �O N r O O U 16NI IN 10 O F - 1 -- 1VI 1N IM 'C) Ilp m io W C j N O Im � IW jp N m �O m Z i(I Irn_' 'VmI 10 N O o �o Fo ci ;v2 m u N o m a� o � 7� Irn to to to n ovI loM Irn to Orn I� 10 i0 � N ENO 10 10 �O O NN IA I I %a O NVIno IOrn O W N N 1 M M I O O O INO 'O 10 O L� 00 O O IN I19;O 10 WLL In Im O d d O jVI 1 IM I1 M LL rnE 1 � 1 _1' 1 ' O N � a F O O o Orn Iq O O M d l-` INrn 'O �O �O O IA 1 1 ____I ____ 1 1 ?O x il ka O O �� IrnM EOM O 1 � rnN 'O i0 O XLL w Orn INrn Arno io � io 2, 0 Irn Ir 'ci 1 1 ,a 0 ry oa 1 �0 1 O LL � , 1 1 I 1 1 N O O 13 8 N � IrnQ �rnM 1 loo , OM y o 'mo , Ino �Qo 1 o0 o o Irro I r 1 - I 1 1 0 o 0 I� ' O o M 1 1 m N 10 1 1 K Z m o 0 0 Z rn0 N ,O O M 1 1 r - r 1 r 1 1 1 C7 uI o m in O • _____ C LLm'/ V3O 0 N w s a c 0 ca L Ia O. d a d N rn C I� V w Q N d U 2 a g W U O � O L U O L Q N_ e O N f0 U ? L Q t0 C C a >_ T Y L a o U d N a 0 o w L O coO U � 0 0 C N �p - J1 In � d . U cod O O O m � O m 47 Z co a.0 O 0) L O O N X w U N � O � O a. N N d N Z X O O N 3 O M m O m o 0 O t a a w w_ C a co U ra O L O L _ C O aC) G V y ' c f0 m (7 a I w w ° ° a c m N N O •- O a a a'V 0 ro cc O r c a N cri c6 0 N 0 cO G w W_ co U c O N Q 2i w w m U 0 N G W .O E m O N M o 0 y O O N O O U o O 0 O Q O O O O N O 0 O 0 = o 0 U o 0 0 0 i N O U o 0 0 0 0 r 0 0 N O O O 0 0 0 m o 0 2 N Q O O U o 0 0 0 o 0 0 m o 0 r O O O O O O Cn N O O a o 0 N � N O O o 0 x wa o 0 « N ma IL - _ O O O O O a F" o 0 O O WLL o 0 C j O O ma LL 0 0 N Q O O O O N O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O O O O O O Z O O 0 0 0 0 0 Q O O O O 0 0 d � o r U O i5C-3 N O O M M 1 O 0 O O Q O O 10 10 O 'O O O Z 1 v o o to to �o 0 0 0 U o to 'o 0 T � , N O I O If0 IO U o 0 to o IM n M n � o to 0 r to N U O o 1 O to :fp M 10 M to 'o p o 0 Z N Q O O O O o 0 m :o :o a O O l0 1 r O 10 10'lI O'fi O O 0 LL IN N I 1 N 0 0 :O o jN O 0 O O 00 IO S wa o po 'o 0 1 1 O 1 O VI N LLLL O 0 N N I 0 I o 1 d dr p Ip Im �o 1� m I 1 NO O 10 in O O 10 O O X� LL O o O 0 O 0 O 0 C O r r 1 O LL 10 �W q ____I O 0 :O O N O 0 O O O O O O 'O O N O O O O � 'O O O ---- 1 O 0 0 00 IOO :On O pp U oo i o,00 i N ,00 N ____I I 1 O O $ 0 000 O Z 1� �00 IN N 1 O 0 ry O y O O Q i� SON ON O 0 M M r m ,6 F ro w O W a) 0) ld a N cri c6 0 N 0 cO G w W_ co U c O N 0 C� G w LU m U 0 N G E O N M o 0 y O O N O O U o O 0 O Q O O N O O O 0 O 0 = o 0 U o 0 0 0 i N O U o 0 0 0 0 H 0 0 N O O O 0 0 0 m o 0 2 N Q O O U o 0 0 0 o 0 0 m o 0 � O O O O N O O a o 0 C� � O O o 0 x wa o 0 « N ma IL - _ O O O O O O O WLL o 0 C j O O ma LL 0 0 N Q O O O O N O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O O O O O O Z O O 0 0 0 0 0 Q O O O O O O O d � O ~ U O i5C-3 N O O M M 1 O 0 O O Q O 10 O O N Z O 0 O O 1 o to �o 0 a o to 0 0 U Z N O I O If0 IO U o Io In n m Io to o 0 N O 1 O �f0 10 U o to M M p o to 'o 0 Z N Q --- I --- i --- O ~ O 10 1 O'O 'A O 10 10'O Op O 10 IOp O O 0 N IN N LL I 1 o In :O o jN O 0 O O o ,o 0 x o po 0 0 m 1 o O o O 1 VI N LLLL O 0 N N I O2 0 O I o IO 1 d 100 ,0 �N 00 aF o Io I loo Im m NO O 10 O O �� O O 10 0 O O O O W LL o o ' o 0 C O r r 1 O LL 10 �W q O 0 :O O NO O 0 O O N O O O 0 O O O O O ---- 1 O 0 'oo 0 O o o 0 U oo i oo ;N N ,�o N ____I 1 O O $ 0 000 O Z 1� �00 IN N O 0 O O O Q i� SON ON O 10 �M M �O �O U d N fM c6 0 N 0 0 2 w W co U c O N a) cO G w w co U N n ,n m ,m o ,h 0 0 Z O 10 O 10 o jo U o io o Io 0 I O 1� 0 r ,lI 1 N O I`O I m ,(I I IlI N o �o m ___ .... I I m Im 2 r I AN O� IOC OO ICO W ° In i ci I LLa o to d~ D I O o In xa mo ,mo W M IM I I N I oo Imo � Ip O IO U m IW o ;o o Io I ' O o Io ;m N , m N m E U � c 0 E O c IQ E E 7 LQ r c O lC E O c N Q T L� r M V 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W, s a m N ro w 0 _o d m 0 a N cri 6 0 N 0 cO G W W m U C O .N N O 2 W W O U 0 ui ii R U o m o 0 m 'm om iom Qom jom p Z oo ioo Imo Imo m IW ,, U oo io Imo Imo , Im ,O 10 I� Om U rNi Imi 'S H N ,III ,Cl m r- r- m Im in to '<o I� U rNi �INn I O m h VI 'n m Im io Z N p O O O O o o o 'o '' U y... o Io I I o O Inn Inn O 0 ,NO INO o I o I IN`. , IN`� , LL I , o ,o �N O 10 'OQ Inpo O 10 'NO INO wLL o im I I j N I c N omg I I I LL a I i ____F_ O I O In I� m in ,om lom O 10 ,NO O aF O IQ INO iN0 ,r n I , NO_ O 10 ry N O O 'Om Iom 1 N� 'O 10 O 10 'Np INp W 2• � , I� ,� , I I , , LL , I 1 1 _ F N , I � I '00 100 1 In ,n , I r- ----F I ° , m m o Io o ,o I I m m O Z o to to 16 , I , 0 0 Iq O 0 � i n 1 in ,o 'o io Z. y.a �Z.m Ic � nmd m m m m m 2V. m"- rvE M2 E ;me :z =314,Z= 00 W a) m (0 (L N M co O N 0 O 2 W W co U C O N N LU W W co U m m N O O eo eo U 0 0 0 o0 00 Z m o m o o U mo Z E o 0 NO U z e u e � ci ri p o 0 H NO o 0 U � u a e o m ri m o 0 Z _ N p O O U o 0 0 0 o o m o 0 6 H o 1(I O O O O N N O N O g r n a o 6 O N N O O O O t� NO NO x > Lo . N 52 LL LL N N LL O N O H O n lb n v L NO O X LL N, N >o 0 5a LL N N N O O O O O N m N m O m n U o 0 0 0 0 0 Ux N m N m Z o 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 � o 0 0 � mo Z N � a � m « g o n � J i5C-31 m m OO O U o 0 o � o0 00 Z mo yo o = U mo mo Z o 0 NO U � e u a m ci wi p o 0 N O O O m b a e o m ri z o 0 Z _ N Q O O U o 0 0 0 0 0 0 m o 0 a o m yy N O O O O N N O N O g � � a N p H O i 'o L N O)� LL a N y p N O H O n ry O O x% p. N N N N io 0 LL m a N O O O O O N O N m U m m U o 0 0 0 0 0 OX N m N m Z o 0 0 0 G o 0 0 o 0 0 0 (7 m 6. m m j m o >> r Mo Z � a � m g o m � J r. w O N N m co d N M O N 0 cO G W W co U C O N N O LU W W co U m m m � NO m m m m m m O aM om Z p p p 4 m � 2 0 m 0 m = r� m U o 0 0 0 O ° N U � n � N � m m of 3 mo W N a 7 76 g - o n � J i5C-31 m m m e m m 0 O U y v m m m m 0 0 � po 00 0 m 0 m = U m o m 0 0 0 N N N U � n � N O r V m C m « r W N N a J 75 g - o m � J ro w O M N m ld a N LM c6 O N O 2 w W_ co U C 0 .N N O 2 W W co 0 N A A� �p ;gip N ,N _F O O O O O N Z O O In _F S N ' I 'oo U oo oo 'oo I . � 0 O Q U po ,po NO 'NO ° � N IL'A1 -f o I ,00 N Q U Oo 'Oo 'mo mo Z N, IN N N _L O o O o ,o m IN ON IO,n _ � N p0 I00 N 00 ISO g , Wa oo ioo I� 'N I c.N pI� I I LL LL I _F ry � IO I a� '01 o o r F � I p0 'p0 xa op ioo ° I I jo G,� I I oa LL , , -F op p ,p p y o to p Ip m ' O I oo loo U np IN N -F N ' -L p0 'p0 I M IM -F 0 o N N ' o :o _L ,9 rn m rn N O , IlI m _F _t Q O O 0 O O O O O = o 'o ioo 00 I N Q U o o 'oo 00 �Np NO ° H O O N O ,O m N O O O 'O O O �fNpO b0 p Z N ___ _ O O m O QO co I INN �In N O 0 Ioo OQ g O io io 0 .- a �o y� o O ,p Ioo Oo WLL o 'o c N FM 2 �a LL p �O a� o 'o 'oo 00 O O i > p m� �a LL IO p 'o O m NO 0 ;o o0 0 00 O U ono no 'N N X O Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 QQ N $1 6mI ' N ' p p0 1'00 d o n Ip O 'O m O Iry � EU oLL W w 0 c R a N cri c6 0 N 0 cO G W W co U c 0 N O LU W W co U N O O ,O ,Np Np , IlI m 1 1 1 , U 00 goo goo 00 r F- ____ir---- r____ O o io a U o 'oo �o 00 F O 1O 1 I LAi m N O o o a 'o°o 1 , 1(I N Z o to o A m N 0 O O O i0 ;. 00 0 00 O 0 O O i wa o io 1 1 1 '40 , 00 d c N m� 1 d LLI 1 O 10 O 10 , , ---- ry 'ON y ON O 00 1 0 0 'nn oo , r- 0 'o 0 xa � i� goo 00 y p 1 1 1 , O oLL LL 1 . 1 , . :O m NO N o 'o 'O 0 0 m 1 1 1 1 , , Qom om p . 1 ,N . n N N N 0 1 M V 0 0 ,00 ,m .,____ 0 0 00 pp o n m O Imo O 0 ,O I m m w y o n jE 2 ;oa ,g r 20 U ;7 C- ro w 0 Ln a) m m a N M c6 O N 0 co G w w_ co U C O .N a) 7 cO G w w a) U N o ,o O O O N �N rn rn M IM Z o l0 o to U I� I O o to U q n n o to rn I o H Irn N N ;c �N d OI M o 0 N O O O U n n N N N m p N m M m M Z o 0 � v m m m m � m m U N O O O U n 0 n 0 � ai of 0 H N N in o m a a 70 C F J N 9 r. w O a� m m d N M O N 0 cO G W W co U C O N i O LU W W_ co U O S r � m m N O O O O p U � � N N N N p m m Z o 0 0 0 Z m m O O N O O O U n o r O ry ai ai � N N O O rn N o °o 9° a `m y a O m m g o n � J i5C N N N � � O o jo 0 0 o �o i ci � ri -F � O U m iN � m i rmi m o� ;E r. N M O N 0 cO G W W co U rm O a� O LU W W_ co U N C 00 7 N � N � N O Cl p in o m O p o O 0 O N Z O O O O Z i V � N U ri ri N N N m m m� m N O C m n ON o 0 y a 76 g - o n � J i5C-3211 N � � N N N p N fV p m o m O p o O O O N Z O O O O Z i y � N 2 � � U wi wi N N N m m � m m o m m 9 d N O 3o N oy a O ca g - o m � J — ro w 0 _w a) m m a N fM c6 O N 0 O 2 W W m U c 0 a� a C� G w w m U c m m E d a o. � O c c c O E E W E a o. a Q Q as Q y w w C w `O) L 0 > CD 0 7ExC- Q N O O N O N e N E E � L U T V c L U C o� y m y O a w y m C U O m L L a E co O E M a N C O y � o m lL O coa) U a O v rn O) A L N O O x a w y y U N � O '6 d % N y x d 3 N N m M Od 0 O N N F 0 O 2 W W co U c O N N O 2 W w co U a rn m N V O J h W � o N i. 0 m 0 N (p O O O Q a � '2 C O C ^ a L N s Z a Or a a Na o a O zTl � o 0 N O N � (A N £ T N � ^ a as N =� � =a � U O E a a 0 L ' L L c c � O O U U . w w c co E Q U a c 0 p L W U w Co U �C,0 a J U 0 i N fM tp O N 0 O 2 W w m U C O .N a) O 2 w w m U m 'o ;o �O m z I i i i i i i i i i Div +- N I N 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O I O �N �� :� �N �' �N O �O �� �O �N �O �o �� �� �O �0 �� �p �M NN �O 10 75 I I I 'o .0 .0 E E . E ;LL ;5 ;S ;5 ;a Z N E �x J 'O '0 .x .x �� �� �� �� 'm 'm �m co EE EE 6 V��� j Z J �J J J �O �co �J m �._ �._ �._ U 'Z �U �(n U '� 'W 'W 'W U D 0 0 0 ....... b... b... b... b... b... b... b... b... b... b... b... b... b... b... b... b... b... b... b... b... b... b.. a m ' c c c m . m m m .IOc E E E ; x ; x :.x ; x x x N a m '''Z) ua a ; ; Q ; Q ;; m.c ;;mc ;;mc ;;mc ; Z N N N '�W w wV 'O ;0 ;0 m o .aaaaaaaaaaaaa F— U ;O ;O ;O E E 7 N O .N to E W C N O co c a- a N fM c6 O N 0 O 2 W W co U c O .N N c0 G W W co U m m N O O O <o o m 0 O 0 0 N O O Z O O O O 6 o _ U Q V pT C NO U m m ry � ai o <o u F- Oo O U N N m m 0 of ai m m o Z O O O U o0 00 0 0 0 0 0 m N O O O O a d a Vi R N O O O O -N mE O O LL LL O O 2 d m a O O W �pT a rni n � n LL N N N O O m O O O O O O M M U N N 0 0 x O o 0 Z o 0 0 m 0 m O O o 0 � o 0 0 0 m � N x i i5C-326 m m a O O O U m m <o o u 0 O 0 0 N O O Z O O O m O Q OM gm S O O O O T V Q 2 NO U m m o m o F NO o 0 U N N m m o c6 m m m o Z _ NO O U o 0 0 0 0 0 m a f � N � O O N O O a a N � N N O O O O � o0 00 Wa C N LL d O O co g o a� o m w N o N o x a W T a_ >o n n a LL o N c d N O t+I O m O O O O O O M M U �n in 0 0 x O o 0 Z o 0 o m 0 m O O o 0 � o °2 E X N N fM co O N 0 c0 G w W_ co U c O N \W cO G w W_ co U p IN IN m Im Iv 1 < 1'A N O 1� Z10 O �O O 1 m to �m w op to 'o U W O m W N a rn �n O Ieo m Q m F Irm 'Q e m O Q 0 N v i� n uo O m O N N m z 1O ' V Q N O U 0 m • • ' m.T-••-•inn O N i(p �rn m r ON iw VI m 00 i0 10 � N I a I NIO ON 'N N O Im N O O xa o 0 0 W j IO 1 � « N 1 CN'I M a 1 IL 1 •---- p ca O IN N o pn � ar op ro Im wo � Ito m Ip� On 'w'I 'N po 'co 0 w 0 %a W m' 1O 'O O pT O a_ • • 1 1 Oa LL 1 Ip d • • 1 O Q m N 00 pM N m I 1 rn IQ IY"I N In O � ly IO N � 10 IN N 11 I ____ ____ d Im IN N x O oy 10 m r z 'p � N Ip I 1 U m Im IQ o In m N m 'O y 10 m I- 75 -3 IQ In N OOI ' N O p IN IN O Im Iv 1 e 1 VI 1 N O � 1 N IQ 1 r0 1 1 m to Im w T O a • • Irn Im Q N U m 1m n a �rn 1�1� NO N O p N O V 0 IN ro U v If n �m Ian uo O O y' CI N ' Z D -- Q N O U 0 m o m Im 7w m r O N rn ilA N N QO 10 i0 � a I I - a N O n rn IN N oo 'o 0 0 xa 0 IN >'lI c N 'I IN+I rni 'CO O LL 1' 1 1 p ca p V N go 'o 'o 00 0 I 1 on OQ 'M N pp 'p w H o 0 a 1 m - Irn w >o to 0 LLLL �v v 1 O 1 N IQ O O I Cy 0 O I rn iQ I� N M Q Ip 10 N 1� 1 N Im IN N x oQ o Im n O oo �vNi 'rn a z p ----I 1 m Im IQ O (7 o In Im m V �O 10 O 0 IO �- y O a� m a N M 0 N 0 2 w LI m U I_ O N N 0 2 LI w co U d W cc 0 O N ai c6 O N 0 O 2 W W co U C O N i 0 O 2 W LU m U 0 N C O :N O E am 0 N M d N O U O O O o 0 o o O O O O c 0 0 0 O O Z = U pT O d o0 00 N U m 0 H o 0 O 0 0 O N OU 0 pj 2 0 o 0 0 N O U 0 m f O O N a T O O o o 0 0 o O O O 0 0 0 0 0 O tg wa N W� LL LL ng W LL a jo rn� LLLL o U 0 o 0 o 0 0 0 o 0 O O 0 o 0 o o o 0 o ° A5CI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O y OU Ox Z U O � •328 ,m m 1 1 O 1 2 � i 1 , 1 p U T O , 10 ,Q �O Q d_ IF---- I0 O N O O 0 U o o m m 'S � io rp o io m I m O 'o 0 o 4 0 :N � m m p o o 'ro m -------------- N O U 0 m I 1 � 1 I � N O 0 � IlI � N O O O 10 0 10 10 O a I 1 1 Wa � 10 ,off Om , io c N o v a m� O 10 'O O LL , o I t o m m o 0 m m ,o oo , m o a o in in m om 1,o xa W T o 10 a_ I. ---- >o in 'n o �fO n 'rni o to , 1 to oo io Imo mo 1 , o ,o O o o M M U o o In In o in 'o 0 , O 10 m p o ��o 'a a , O o0 100 im m r 1 m ,6 � N fM co O N 0 O 2 w W_ co U c O N N i 0 O 2 W LU m U 0 N G E N O N M O O d O O N O O O U o 0 O Z 0 0 = o 0 p o 0 O O pT 9 a_ N O O O U o 0 0 0 � 0 o 0 0 0 r N OU O o 0 0 0 0 0 m o 0 2 N p o 0 p o 0 0 0 o 0 0 m o 0 r O O O O N O O a o 0 c� � N O O wa o 0 m� IL a O o o 0 00 a F" o 0 O O Wa T o 0 a �o m� LLa O O N p O O O O N O O O 0 O 0 O 0 o0 0 00 0 O 0 O p O O O O Z O O O O U o 0 p o 0 � o 0 0 0 0 10 o m jiU m � o r O i5C ,m O O p O O ' of ei 1 O 1 N 1 Z 1 1 1 1 U T O 1 ;- C �_ r- I 10 O N O O 10 1, U o o rn m 0 4 0 Io �o o �10 w r I ____ in 'O O N OU 10 'm N 0 o 4 0 'ro ro M o in o u Z N O U 0 m I 1 co IO r O I N N o to 0 0 O IO 10 O a I 1 O O N Wd O in i0 �O O 100 'y LN 1 m� O O 10 Q 'O O LLd O in ---- o Io W m in y0 O O 0 1 ry OM nM 10 xa W T O 1O 0 O O 9 a_ 1 I >o o Io n n w� 0 10 LLd O �O 'O O ---- 1---- ____ O 10 m p O in 0 0 0 0 0 N 1n �f00 1O0 0 10 O o M M o o o 'o 0 O 10 N p% O O 0 O O Q O Q Z O 0 O O O 1 l p, 00 100 �M O p o �o 0 10 'o 0 1 U d r 0 00 a) IT W a N fM co O N 0 O 2 w W co U c O N N O 2 W W a7 U (1) p v� 'vim N �N V �V I O I I z ' i v U M m I o to o io --hN- � M IM � --h�- m ;cq N o U 'ten �n m N IN N O U 0 m y I I N N of IO] �N r 'n N IN O 10 wa o to g� a o to v is tog T m a o to I m� o to Np I N ;N N O 10 o 'o I � Ih O m Im N IN_ -h N ;N m Z Irn o 'o L7 I m ' ro ' O o 'o ;m N OI E U � C O E O C 16 E E 7 IZ -33Q M C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 114, N E E 7 N fM co 0 N 0 0 2 W W co U C O .N N O 2 W W m U 0 ui II R N O m o U m m � tNp Z O 10 O 10 I U T o to O Ip � ' m 'rn U 1 r O 10 � --h�- o to o U m 'rn 1 N O U 0 m y I I m Im N — g M IM o to a� o to y� M IM ,pN L� O 10 wa o to � � I I N m� I I LLa I t0� m rn 1 wLL T o to O 'p ply 1 1 oa LL 1 � 0 1 00 'moo M IM o 1 1 IM U v, ly o 'o -h Z h IN O 'O 1 1 ' O o 'o a 'yW ?_2 Im y N M O N 0 c G W L m U c 0 m a� 0 2 w W co U � N N N O O 0 m U N N O b N O N Z O O 0 0 0 0 U o 0 T O O O d N U m m p N N r � e N O O U m m 0 6 m � � Z N U 0 m H m m � O m m O N o 0 g a .o 0 wa o 0 > Lo . N rn2 LL LL m m � g m o m 0 a o 0 .o 0 W LL T O O a �o 52 LLLL m u N ors om O o0 00 vi ri O � m 0 m 0 m Ox o N 0 N Z � N O O Q � N O O O O z d a 776 B g - o n r J i5C-331 � N N O U °J N m N (O N n O N Z O O 0 0 0 0 U o 0 T O O O d_ N O O O U m m � N N F N 10 N O o U m m o y v m N Z (9 N N O U 0 m H h m M O m m O N o 0 g a .o 0 N W d O O m � « N m� LL a O O O ar o 0 m m a a_ - �o m� LLa m u N O o� o0 oM 00 vi of O M m 0 m 0 m � o 0 N Z N N O O Q � N � O O O O z d a J 75 g - o m r J E E 7 In N LM co O N 0 O 2 W W m U C 0 .N N O 2 W W co 0 I O ' ' N Z � e m ' ' 'oo x U oo 10 'Mo T I . ILA a e iv m o I O U ° o io F- L -f o iy N O 0 m 0 2 N O U 0 m IN N 00 100 N 00 ISO N ' xa w oo ioo m 10 'N I c.N mi I I LL LL I _F ry N 0 I ar o to r '0 � I 00 '00 o0o xa ioo a_ jo I GIB I I oLL LL I � —F O �O N O 10 O 10 I m �m U o to o to m ' x °z oe 'fie go loo N IN —F ' o ¢ n In e iv ,9 rn m rn °I 75CC313 O Z e U T N o a Ci I . M a N H N 'o o N O U o m 0 I INN �h � O 10 IOo OQ g LL Nh N a� .w o I o ' of ai c N m� �a LL o �o of m O O xa W T O O I W W N a_ jo rn� �a LL IO O NO O 'O O O �O im 'o O m 0 OU �o 0 a �o O aao $O 'N N O n I O I N m o Iom m o O �e Iry' V ry c E 9 U BOLL � N uU �m Q U Im y O N W m co a. N M O N O 2 LU LU co U c 0 N \W 0 2 LU LU co U 3 1 O i 2 1 i 1 � 1 Q 1 �QQ QQ U1 'oo 00 T Ir� d . . 1 N U o 1 0 <o 0 'o 0 o Io 0 U 1 0 0 1 Z N U 0 m 0 0 0 h 70 10 o O i0 100 O i0 �O �o a W Vi'� o Io 'o 0 L� O i0 �Qp Op 1 d 1 c N 1 m� 1 d 1 . . O Ip O 1 O O� N C yl oo co a� Io 'moo Ir0 1 I 1 o Io 'o 0 xa � i� goo 00 a 1 . . 1 oLL I LL . . 1 NO 1 O O 1 :m m 1 1 l df K 1 V �Q Z 11.60 0 0 1 N 1 � r- 1 (i r O N W 10 �aM W C O IQ �N Q 1 � m E E� `_' o U a �-o o o U od r a ,� C- N fM c6 O N O 2 W W m U C O .N N cO G W W co U d O m N E Z c dC C 6 H c m � O W E � d W d` a Q w � D C CD 0 / d O. 7 � 75C-335 Q O N O O N O N e N t0 C L T V c ` U � C m N O m a (n y m C U O o) IC L d O C O O �' C O y O x O m a W U m a a O v 0) L wn 0 O X a w U y O � d � c � O N � m co O G) p 00 L O r N F 0 O 2 W W co U c O N N O 2 W w co U a rn m N V J h W � o N 0 m 0 N (p O O O c a � '2 c O c d L s3 s Z a 02 U a Na o a O zc � o 0 N O N � � N £ r N 'p .N d � ^ a as N =� c = a � U O E V 0 [if [if W W 0 � ' L L c c � O O U U . w w c co E Q U a c 0 p L W U w co U �C,0 a J U 0 i E47 N M tp O N 0 O 2 W w m U C O .N a) O 2 w w m U ;o 'OO > Z N . +- N I N 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O I O �N �� :� �N �' �N O �O �� �O �N �O �o �� �� �O �0 �� �p �M NN �O 10 75 I I I 'o ; p ; 'o E E E ;LL z a ; _ _ Z N �N �N �N�F Ali ;m ; a ; n ; n V� ;� ;h� ;x� ;>O j�(0 �J m �._ �._ �.]U 'Z U '� 'W 'W 'W U D J 'K 0 0 0 m ' c c c m . m m m .IOc E E E ;wwmww w ; ; ; ; x ; x ; x m'gx 'ix 'gx W w wV N ` �d A2 A2 A2 d A2 A2 A2 d A2 Z .t .s .t .t .t :IL'O 'O maaaaaaaaaaaaa 'a '� '� '2 'Z '2 '2 '2 'Z F- U ;O ;O ;O E E 7 N O N to E W C N O co c a- a N co O N 0 O 2 W W co U c O .N N c0 G W W co U N N N w m O N o N 0 O 0 0 Z 0 O 0 O O m O a Q OC] OM S U O O mo O O mo M Nf pT C a N U m m � ai ai p N N N O � m o] m o pi ai m N N Z o O U o 0 0 0 0 m N � O n O O O a m a Vi R N O O O O WLL oo N Oo N j N -N mE O O LL LL O O m 2 p O m a O O W �pT a rni n � n LL N d N O O M O O O O O O m m 0 0 x O a a z o 0 0 C7 m m O p m � o 0 0 0 m � N x i i5C-338 N N a NO m m m m U N o N 0 O 0 0 N O O Z O O O m O S O O O O U mo yo T CI M N d_ - N O <p m U <p m m m a pi ai p N N r N O � W b m o pi ei z N N Z O U o 0 � 0 o 0 0 m a r ,Nn n � O O N O O a a N � N N O O O O � o0 00 Wa C N LL d O M O m co g o ar o m w N o N o x a W T a_ >o n n a LL o a c a N O M O M O O O O O WSO O m m 0 0 x O v e z o 0 o 0 C7 m m O p m � o 0 0 0 m E E a 1 N A f N M co O N O 2 W W co U c O N \W cO G w W_ co 0 T ,v n •- N U po 'm 'nm uw O 'N 1 1'A N O 1� Z10 O �O O 1 , m to �rn o op to 'o U d_ • • Irn 'N N O V 10 rn d M N O U <o V jrn „n ON O y p M p] O N �O b Z _ -o_ ,_V____ e N O U 0 m • • ' m.T-••-•inn O N i(p �rn 10 r pN irn VI N Op i0 0 N M i0 I� I a I NO ON 'N N IOOI O N xa o 0 0 W , N 1 M « a 1 IL 1 , •---- O ,N N o � oo 'M n ar ro , Im wo � 10 M op 'o IN 0 xa W O' 1O 'O O pT O a_ • • 1 1 LL , • ry IN IM+I , 61 'a 'o 0 O 1 §2 N N o �o 1 m W ;a a x oy 10 m o O 'O Z �p iVNI O N N 10 , 1 m M o o n m n 0 � 'O y 10 N 0 0 ¢ U W 75 -3 ,y n 'N 'cM'I O N O OOI po 'ro 'nm un U o �N �o u 1 1 VI 1 N O � 1 N IQ 1 r0 1 1 m Io Irn o O V 1 T O � • • Irn I�j M N U � v o irn N O 10+1 O 0 1 -II o I, ON m N O b O Z -- - 0 N O U 0 m o m I<p 7m u r O ,A rn i'A N N QO 10 i0 � a N O'nrn IN N ' oo o 0 0 xa 0 IN >'lI M c N rni 'M O O LL 1' 1 p V N o ca go 00 'o 'o 0 I 1 ryo OQ 'M 'N Op 'p 'o w xa 0 a 1 m >o - Irn to o 0 LLLL �v v N O 1 N IN ISM 10 M M � O I 0 O rn iv io O � 110 N WN 1 x N IW IV oy o Irn V o O O O ' 1 O Z VNI OO ;O 1 N N 1` U' m IM to o In Irn n V �O 10 O 0 ,o �- y O a� m a N M O N O 2 w LI m U I_ O N N O 2 LI w co U d W cc 0 O N co O N 0 O 2 W W co U C O N i 0 O 2 W LU m U 0 N C O :N O E am 0 N M d N O U O O O o 0 o o O O O O c 0 0 0 O O Z = U pT O d_ O o0 O 00 N O U m o O 0 O N OO a zO Z o O 0 O N O U 0 m f O O O O N N a T O O o o 0 0 o O O O 0 0 0 0 0 O tg wa N m� LL LL ng W LL a jo rn� LLLL o U 0 o 0 o 0 0 o o 0 0 o 0 o 0 o o o 0 o ° A5CJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NO y O U Ox Z U O � •341 O m O O 1 O 1 2 � i 1 1 0 0 2 00 ,o �yo Qo U 1 Imo mo T O 1 O � CI Nf d_ N O N O a 4 to 'oi ai Z , N O U 0 m I 1 � N I O O O 10 0 10 10 O a I 1 1 io 'a c N � a LL � o I I o W m o 0 m m ,o oo a o in in ol 0 0 a o o , m om 4 W T o 10 a_ I. ---- >o in '1 o n rni o to '� 1 0 0 a o 0 aao p 00 to oo io Imo mo 1 o ,o .a e O o o rn m U o O o �o 'o 0 O o 10 ,o p a 'a 0 p o o z o 0 0 0 0 o i rn I,p o in r 1 m ,6 � N M CD O N 0 O 2 W W co U c O N N i 0 O 2 W LU m U T 0 N G O E N O N M O O d O O N O O O U o 0 O 2 0 0 = o 0 p o 0 O O pT 9 a_ N O O O U o 0 0 0 � O o O 0 O N p O O 0 0 0 O O z Z N p o 0 p o 0 0 0 o 0 0 m o 0 H o O 0 O N o 0 � a o 0 N � N O O wa o 0 m� IL a O o O o 00 a F" o 0 O O Wa T o 0 a �o m� LLa O O N p O O O O N O O O 0 O 0 O o0 00 U o 0 0 0 0 0 o0 0 Z o 0 0 0 U o 0 p o 0 � o 0 0 0 0 10 o m m � o ~ U O i5C O O N O p ' of ei 1 O 1 2 � i 1 o to .a S oo ,o ,yo Qo U 1 Imo mo T O , O , CI I+i 9 d N O Ip O 10 1� Im m O � O 10 N IN N O U O 10 p O 0 o 4 o 0 m 0 m 0 M O in N N Z -------------- , O U 0 m N_ p O O I 10 0 ,N N N N g 46 o to to 0 d~ o to to 0 I 1 1 O O N Wd O i0 �O O lo 'y LN m� O O inO 0 y O O � ---- o to ImR m in 1 y0 O l0 ry � xa W T O 10 1 O O 9 a_ 1 � >o o 'n n in ---- 1---- ____ O 10 p O O 0 0 0 0 N 1� �f00 IOO 1 o ,o .a pU O O N W o �o 'o 0 o ,o 0 0 O o 0 o o a a e e Z o 0 0 0 0 1 l C7 o 0 ,o ,o n m 'N r m p o ,o u U d N C i r 6 0 a) IT W a N M CD O N 0 0 2 W W co U c O N N O 2 W W a7 U (1) n n m 'm v �V I O I I z I i v m m I U T p o to o io m , IlI N U mrn vim � o to r v ly � --hN- o U o m m m o 0 I N O U 6 m y I I N N m Im �N r n N IN O 0 wa o 0 >� M ICNI g� a o to v is og a a T m a o 0 I m� o to NO o 0 N O 10 o to I o to p U m Im I� x I z o 0 C7 I m t w t O o to ;m N OI E U � c O a E O C 16 E E 7 IZ -343- M C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 114, c i N M CD 0 N 0 0 2 W W co U C O .N N 0 2 W W m U N 0 T G1 C W 0 ui II R N m � tNp Z O 10 O 10 I U T o to O Ip � ' m 'rn U 1 r O 10 � --h�- O o o U m rn o y 'y Z N O U 0 m y I I m Im 2 F O 10 NN �N O 10 M IM O 10 wa o to j N I I c N qg I I LLa I t0� m rn 1 wLL T o to O 'p ply 1 1 oa LL 1 � 0 1 00 'moo M IM o 1 1 IM U v, ly o 'o -h Z h IN O 'O 1 1 ' O o 'o a ?_2 y N M O N 0 cQ G W W m U c 0 m a� 0 LU W W co U � N N N O O 0 m U N N O b N O N Z O O 0 0 0 0 U o 0 T O O O d N U m m p N N r � e N O O U m m 0 6 m Z (NO ,NG N O U 0 m H N m m O m m O N o 0 g a m o wa o 0 > Lo . N rn2 LL LL m m � g m o m 0 a o 0 <o 0 W LL T O O a �o 52 LLLL m u N om om O o0 00 ri O M m 0 m 0 m Ox o N 0 N Z � N O O U n n O O O O z d a 7 76 g - o n r J i5C-34 � N N O U m N m N (O N m O N Z O O 0 0 0 0 U o 0 T O O d_ N O O O U m m � N N F N 10 N O O O U m m 0 6 > m N N O U 0 m a H h m m O m m O N o 0 g a .o 0 N W d O O m � « N m� LL a O O O ar o 0 m m a a_ - �o m� LLa m u N O om o0 om 00 vi of O M m 0 m 0 m � o 0 N Z N N O O � O O O O z d a J 75 g - o m r J d C i r O a) m ld a N M CD O N 0 O 2 W W m U C 0 .N N O 2 W W co 0 I O ' ' N Z � e m ' ' 'oo x U oo CO 'Mo T I . ILA a e iv m o I O U ° o io F- L -f o iy N O 0 m 0 2 N O U 0 m IN N 00 100 N 00 ISO N ' xa w oo ioo m 10 'N I c.N mi I I LL LL I _F ry N 0 I ar o to r '0 � I 00 '00 o0o xa ioo a_ jo I GIB I I oLL LL I � -F O �O N O 10 O 10 I m �m U o to o to m ' x °z oe 'fie go loo N IN -F ' o ¢ n In e iv ,9 rn m rn °I 75CC316 O Z e U T N o a Ci I . M a N H N 'o o N O U 0 m 0 I INN �h � O 10 IOo OQ g LL Nh N a� .w o I o ' of ai i c N m� �a LL o �o of m O O xa W T O O I W W N a_ jo rn� �a LL IO O NO O 'O O O �O im 'o O m 0 OU �o 0 a �o O aao $O 'N N O n I O I N m o Iom m o O �e Iry' V ry c E 9 U BOLL � N uU �m Q U y O N W m co a. N M O N O 2 LU LU co U c 0 N \W 0 2 LU LU co U 3 1 O i 2 1 i 1 � 1 Q 1 �QQ QQ U1 'oo 00 T d . r- 1 N U o 1 0 <o 0 'o 0 o Io 0 U 1 0 0 1 Z N U 0 m 0 0 0 h 70 10 o O i0 100 �O O i0 �O a W Vi'� o Io 'o 0 L� O i0 �Qp Op 1 d 1 c N 1 m� 1 d 1 . . O Ip O 1 O O� N C yl oo co a� Io 'moo Ir0 1 I 1 o Io 'o 0 xa � i� goo 00 a . . 1 1 oLL I LL . . 1 NO 1 O O 1 :m m 1 1 l :� d K 1 1. V QQ Z 1 0 0 0 0 1 N 1 � r- 1 (i r O N W 10 �aM W C O IQ �N Q 1 � m '7 E� o U a �-o �U od a C- E47 N M O N O 2 W W m U C O .N N cO G W W co U T H EE a W d O m c dC C 6 H c m � O W E � d W d` a Q w � D C CD 0 / d O. 7 � 75C-348 I � o n O a m o d U o � N O N O LL d m rn m o 0 N N N V h W (p O � O O O J m 0 o- d � O jp N O d L U ` d 02 c y o o a a O zc � o m 0 N O N d � � N � r d � ^ a ds N =� c = a � U c y a No C7 a+ W y U1 m w d a y - U mo m c � G s t c r v U m a D o 7 d 'C c d m > `O 0 C 0 B E� t N O c a J O N_ d U =3 c jp o N 9C 492 N ri c6 O N 0 O 2 w w m U C O .N m > 0 2 W W (0 U m 0 E w w 0 L .3 c a) Mn N c O U u R. n L .3 C al w .N c 0 A d a 0 E w w 0 L .3 c m Mn N c O U E2 a1 LL c O �N W d U L 0 16 W LL c o ' m �m > W 'o a m U N N = > F 75C-350 m 46 co cc m a N tD O N 0 O 2 W w m U C O .N a) O 2 w w m U N 'O o m o 'o 'o 'o 'rn 'o 'o 'o 'o 'n 'o 'o 'o 'o 'o 'o 'o 'o ,o m z I i i i i i i i i i Div I i I I N �' �N O �O �� �O �N �O �o �� �� �O �0 �� �p �M ,N 'N� �� �N �O 10 I I I i I I 'o ; 'o ; 'o E E E a ; a _; ;a Z m N N N N N r H E �x 'J 'O '0 .x .x �� �� ;� �� �m 'm ;m d ; E ; E ; n ,V� U '� 'W 'W 'W U J p p mp O 'O 'O m ' c c c m , m m m .IOc 'E E E ;wwmwww ;xg x ;;;x ;x ;x m o' i ' g ' g .2 ' .2 ' g o; Q ; Q ; m ; m ; m ; m ; m ; m Z .0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N '� W w w V V V V — N N t L s t t Z d AIL AIL AIL AIL AIL AIL AIL AIL AIL AIL AIL AIL AIL �J 'o 'O F- U ;O ;O ;O E E 7 N C O N to E W C N az O V W m N M O N 0 O W W co U c O N a� 0 LU W W co U o O � O O N O O O U o 0 0 0 p o 0 N O O Z O O O o O O = o o O O p o 0 0 0 N U o 0 0 0 � 0 o 0 0 0 r N O o 0 U o 0 0 0 0 zo 0 Z O U o 0 � 0 o 0 0 m h o o 0 0 N O O O O a o 0 i C N x o 0 0 0 -N o 0 O1� O O LL LL O O 0 0 i o 0 0 0 0 O _ O O x O O WLL o 0 r c _ 0 0 0 rng o 0 LL O O Np O O O O N O O O o O O pU 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 px o 0 0 0 Z o O 0 0 � S o p o 0 � o 0 0 0 � m � � E N x C O .0 y C 0 U U d cc i5C-352 o O � O O N O O O U o 0 0 0 p o 0 N O O Z O O O o O O V 2 O o O O p o O 0 0 g N O o O U o 0 O 0 m o O p o 0 r N O o O U o 0 0 o O pj o 0 Z _ _ � o 0 U o 0 � 0 o 0 0 m a 0 r o 0 N O O O O a � N Wa o 0 C N LL d O o O O _ o t0 g 0 o 0 O ar o 0 0 0 mo _ O O O O u1 LL o 0 y `o _ >o 0 0 a o 0 ii O O N p O O O O N O O O o O O OU o O o 0 0 0 0 0 Ox o 0 0 0 z o O 0 0 p o 0 � o 0 0 0 m o N P N M c6 O N 0 O 2 W W_ co U C O .N a) cO G W W co N 7 N O 00 'Nm 'C� �� �N Op 'O N 1 1 O O 1CT �O 10 1'lI N Z o im 'o �o �o 0 m Ip o�n 1� �Q 1 IQ Im h Im m e Q U o g C m im C �o • C iN io Im• O 75 o m ' 'm �Cm'I n jO m 10M N,O IQ IC] 1� Q -- I M oiy ' CI m p IN -- p e N I? :m 'llln 'O 0 �O IWM 'rn 'o IVI rm m o N Q 'O 'O ci e ----r----`----r----r---- 'CI IN Q "0 m oiO 7M o jm to ip Ip 7p to o m � ° 00 'NO IN 10 i0 tNV 1 I I 1 C 1 C O • C 1 O c N ° N N 1 1 o d 1s �Q Ip Ip m df OO p INO In 'O �O 'O 1 O 1 1 1 1 Np Od N CT 1 M �m N l0 O to 10 Ol Ol Na wa q it „ 0 1 1 �m 1 1 dp a 1 1 1 1 O 0 po 1� ion Im �o I 1 i a o N In0 h 1 ____ i ____•____•____•____ m Im oo 'rn I �m 1 1 1 1 p a n O U Mp 'O N 0 M M N OON IN 1 � op to Z OO Ip' M 1 1 I 1 1 1 o m 'M � a N m O 10 'O 1 75C 353 2 O w m N M O N O 2 W W m U C O N N O 2 W W co u N O o O O 1 1 Z O 2 i� 6 � Sri �� ui I I 1____I____ (J O U 'irir � �o �MM irmi. io nor N '� NO IQ �Q IM Im p F 1 rM 1� IN : 1 IM �M m o io e` N O O O O' N O U Im �Im OM Im o to '�nr '0 « o Z �o IMM 1'n rm N ----------------- 'M 'a m •• N 7m 70 a� o o � m �m jo o o�n �oM Io Io Io m IN IO i0 N NN N 00 iN0 ;r 10 IO �O O LL I I I I ___I_i ________ �r____r____ �o ioo - %a o o Vi1° N ova i�M io0 m w O O 00 INO i0 'O 'O O XLL W O Ir O 10 10 O jN = LL O O jh -N 1 _1 1 O N LL r O o 0,5 m Id �v io to ooa IOM co o to 0 M N 1 � 1 1 Ip� O NO d Id �(O 10 10 m w L� 00 IONO 'O 'O 'O o 0 O xa 0 1 1 =a o o ry LL ' ' r r . r 1 1 N O N O O oo ion �o i c (n 1 O rn0 �O 1 O 1 1 O o 0 m IW �m 1 e 'M 1 M N 10 ' 1 % Z O O d l0 �f 1 rM o0 10 �m 1 0 Z O 10 �N 1 M M 1 I 1 1 O 10 'O 1 • ' _____ ' C w u 75C-35 �a O d to A L a C O •L C Q L a a fq rn C v IL^ V 0 y L El a W N O O N O N C N w co 0 � C C a T C O U a� O) c O dl N M O N 0 2 W W co U C O N N 0 2 W W U y m oU a c m N U > L N t N N yU IN I I I m c m O W a) 0) cc a N M c6 O N 0 O 2 W W co U c O N N O 2i w w m U T 0 N G O O E m O N M o 0 m O O N p O O U o O 0 O p O O O O N O O O O p o 0 0 0 N O U o 0 0 0 0 H 0 - 0 N pU o 0 0 0 0 0 0 m o 0 2 N p O O p o 0 0 0 o 0 0 m o 0 H h o o O 0 0 O N O O a o 0 N � N O O o 0 x W N� IL a 0 0 2 o $ S a F" o 0 o 0 ' 0 0 0 Wa o 0 Z C - �o O m� LLa 0 0 N p O O O O N O O O 0 O 0 U o 0 U o 0 0 0 0 0 o0 0 Z o 0 0 0 0 0 p 0 o 0 � o 0 0 0 o d � o U O i5C N p O O O O 1 O 0 O O p N O O O O Z 1 O 10 �O O U ~ I 1 N p O 0 0 O U o to �o 0 m o to �o 0 N p O 10 :O O z o o 'o 0 _____ N p I 1 R f o to �o 0 N o I to 1 to 0 O 10 10 O a I 1 1 m� o 0 >N O O O O r� o o 'o 0 xa o 0 0 0 I > : o o 0 0 N O O O O O O ---- O 0 In O A O to ,o 0 o 0 0 0 yo O ,o 0 0 0 0 o O W a o 0 O 0 O 0 y O 1 >O O O O O 0 ---- 1---- ____ O 0 :O O Np O O O O 10 O O O O N O 'O O 1 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0 1 o ,o 0 0 O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z o �o 'o 0 ---- C7 O 0 in O r m ,o F N M c6 O N 0 O 2 W W co U c O N N i 0 O 2i W LU co U T CN N C E N N M o 0 m O O N p O O U o O 0 O p O O N O O O O O O p o 0 0 0 N O U o 0 0 0 0 H 0 - 0 N pU o 0 0 0 0 0 0 m o 0 2 N p O O p o 0 0 0 o 0 0 m o 0 H o o O 0 0 O C� N O O a o 0 C� � N O O o 0 x W N� IL a 0 0 2 o $ S a F" o 0 o 0 ' 0 0 0 Wa o 0 Z C - �o O m� LLa 0 0 N p O O O O N O O O 0 O 0 O o0 00 U o 0 0 0 0 0 o0 0 Z o 0 0 0 0 0 0 p o 0 � o 0 0 0 0 o m m � o r U O i5C N p O O O O 1 O 0 O O p N O O O O Z 1 O 10 �O O U ~ I 1 N p O 0 0 O U o to �o 0 m o to �o 0 N p O 10 :O O z o o 'o 0 _____ N p I 1 R f o to �o 0 I 1 N o to to 0 O 10 10 O a I 1 1 m� o 0 >N O O ;O O r� o o 'o 0 xa o 0 0 0 I > : o o 0 0 N O O O O O O ---- O 0 In O A O to ,o 0 o 0 0 0 yo O ,o 0 0 0 0 o O W a o 0 O 0 O 0 y O 1 >O O O O O 0 ---- 1---- ____ O 0 :O O Np O O O O 10 O O O O N O 'O O 1 0 0 0 0 O 1 o ,o 0 0 O o 0 0 0 0 o 0 O Z o �o 'o 0 1 l C7 O 0 in O U d m 0 d R C lC d Q rig N c6 O N 0 O 2 W W_ co U c O N a) cO G W W co U N N u cnV 'M V O O U ri ci 0 0 Z O 10 O 10 V I� N N o io '6 U 'vi n m 'rn 0 to 0 r ci I ci � --hm- 0 ;o N 0 U inn 'uin I Z 'M O O o N Q U o �o n 0 co 0 n y I I O 10 N �00 I N a~ o to I O 10 wa o to I T� N N ,la O 10 I a �a a� o to mo m io N ,N W d O 10 I I lia o to I m �m O 10 O 10 O m �rn <o 0 � ri I ci I Cr] ICn] O Z m m N IN_ -h I ' O a. CO] ICO] o to ;m N � m N m E U � C O R E O c E 7 LQ r C O m E O N Q T L� r M V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 Y a m N N 0 T G1 c W 0 ii R o m o 0 U m 'm 1 , om iom Qom jom p 2 0o ioo Arno Imo m to I, 1 , O 0 U 1 'OImo 10 Imo oo io I� 1 I I I U rNi INn to � H m Im I� I 1 I M in In Qt+I U rNi �INn I� I� Iy N N �V m m Im ''o io Z N 0 0 0 0 o ,o ,o ,o b m o to to to W � y���• o Io lO lam in 0 0 to loo lo nN O 10 Ic! IN O a~ O Im 1t Ir -------- I----f '65O 10 AN L� O 10 'OQ Ipo O 10 'NO INO 1 , N I I I I 1 I --- I 1 , o l0 1� O Im IOm lom O 0 O aF NO O O lQ INO iN0 Il n I I NO_ I O 0 ry N O O IOam N� LLL O ,O O 10 'Np INp In IN W 2 y 0 IN In r I I 1 I , LL I I 1 N , an � I '00 100 In Ih N 1 I 1 im m 1 OI OI O O ,O 1 IO ,O I I N N O Z O o O i0 1 I 1 O o 0 O 1 'o io 2, 2.a �2.m Inc �md m m m ni me V ,z ,z= �WV N c6 O N 0 O 2 W W co U C O N N 2i W W co U U) m 0 m 7 w l6 Z N N C 16 J >. T IWNu'i m m N O O eo U o 0 0 0 o0 00 Z m o m o o U E o 0 NO U � v u v � ci ri 0 0 r NO o 0 U � u v V o m ri z o 0 Z _ N p o 0 U o 0 0 0 o � o m o 0 00 O�y d O N O N O n r N O O O O 1=0 x > Lo a N °12 LL a m m g M a o o ry o n lb n v d > p ° LL N N N O O O O O i(I m N m O m n U o 0 0 0 0 0 O% m N m Z o 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 � o 0 0 2 mo D mo Z N � a � m « g o n r J i5C-36 m m OO O U o 0 o � o0 00 Z mo yo o = U mo mo o 0 NO U � a u a ci wi r O N O O m b a e O m ri z o 0 Z _ N O o 0 U o 0 0 0 0 0 0 m o 0 o m yy r O�y O�y 0 0 0 N N O N N O g n n a N p H O L N m� LL a m p N O H O n ry O O x a N N N N > p ° LL m a N O O O O O �(I m m m O m m U o 0 0 0 0 0 OX m m Z o 0 0 0 (7 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 (7 m 5. m•• m j m o Z � a � m g o m r J .L w O M N O) O d N M O N 0 cO G W W co U C O N N O LU W W co U m m m � NO m m m m m i O aM om Z p p p 4 � � 2 0 m 0 m = U r� o m 0 0 0 O ° N U � n � N � m m of 3 mo W N a 776A g - o n � J 16 i5C-361 m m m e m m 0 O U y v m m m i 0 0 � po 00 0 m 0 m = m m U o 0 0 0 N N N U � n � N O r V m C m « r W N N a J 75 g - o m � J N LD O N O 2 w W_ co U C 0 .N N O 2 W W co 0 N A A� �p ;gip N , IlI _F O O ' N Z O 10 O i0 _F N ' I 'p0 S U p0 oo 'po o ,p O 'O U Oo ,po I9 NO 'NO ' FO Lo ILA -f o I I ,00 N U U Oo m Z h IN o ,p m IN N p0 100 N 00 ISO g , m ' Wa oo ioo I� 'N I c.N T� I I LL LL I O 10 I I� r Np F � I p,(I p 'op'Onp xa op ioo I jo GIB I I oa LL , , -F p ,p y o to p Ip I m ' O I oo loo U np inp N ,N -F N ' L p0 Ip0 I M IM -F o ' o �o _L ,9 rn m rn 75C04 c2 N O O ,O ,Np Np , IlI m _F _t O O ,O 10 O O O O O U N U o o 'oo 00 ;NO NO O H O O ,(1 m N O O 'O ;fN°O b0 Z 1Ci m m , I INN �h � O 10 IOo OQ g o io io 0 .- a pop y� oo ry mm wLLIOp 0 0 c N O� �a LL p �O a� o 'o 'oo 00 1O 1, p o p p 01 O L° o 0 ° m �o rn� �a LL 0 o 'o O 0 NO 0 n o ;o 0 0 00 O U 'oo ;np no 'N '00 N X O Z 100 00 00 $1 p p0 1'00 O 'O O Iry BOLL � uU �g N c6 O N 0 cO G W W co U c 0 N O LU W W co U m o o 8 N O O ,O ,Np Np , IlI m 1 . . a U 00 goo goo 00 U o 'oo �o 00 F O 1O 1 I LAi m N 00 to 'mo 1Oo 0 1 , 1(I N Z m , o to o A m N 0 O O o i0 10 00 0 00 0 0 O O i wa o io 1 1 1 '40 , 00 d � c N m� 1 � d 1 1 O 10 O 10 1, ry 'ON y pN O inn 00 1 1 0 0 , 0 'o m xa � O i� goo 00 W y Cp 10 1 1 1 , O 1 oa LL 1 . 1 , . ,O O O y , o ' o 'o 0 0 0 � 1 1 1 'o , Qom 0 om p . 1 ,N . N N N z . 1 M V 0 0 ,C . 0 0 pp o n m O Imo O 0 O ,O o I ry G c > > U .7 51C_ J N M c6 O N 0 co G w w_ co U C O .N N 7 cO G w w co U N M �M o ,o p O O N �N rn rn z o io o �o U � i U m n n o �o rn � o H I� (V I N ;c �N m ;m d OI U g ;? N U) C 16 J T i m 75C-N 64 M o 0 N O O Q U n n N N N m p N m M m M Z o 0 0 0 r � v m m m m � m m U N O O O U n 0 n 0 m a o 0 H N N in o m a � a 0 N 9_ C F J N 9 .L w O r N O) O d N M O N 0 cO G W W co U C O N N i O LU W W_ co U O S r � m m N O o O 0 O U � � N N N N p m m m m N Z O O O O Z m m O O N O O O U r 0 r 0 ry of ai � N N OO rn �o °o 9° O `m y a O m m g o n � J i5C �N m �M O o jo O O o �o i of � ri -F � O U m iN i too, - ;E .L O W N m co d N co O N 0 cO G W W co U rm O a� O LU W W_ co U N C 00 7 N � N � N O Cl p in o m O p o 0 N O O Z O O O O Z i V � N U ri ri N N N m m m� m N O C m n ON o 0 y a 76 g - o n � J i5C-36 N � � N N N p N fV p m o m O p o O O O N Z O O O O Z i y � N 2 � � U wi wi N N N m m � m m o m m 9 d N O 3o N oy a O ca g - o m � J — N c6 O N 0 cO G w W_ co U c 0 a� a C� G w w m U 4 N N C N a a C � O c c c O E E W E a o. a Q Q N Q N w w w `O) L 0 > CD 0 7ExC- 7 I � o a O a m Q o d U o � N O N O LL d m rn m o 0 N N N V h W (p O � O O O J N m 0 o- d � O N C ^ � O � d L U u `d 02 o a N a a O zc � o m 0 N O N d � N (A T d C ^ a ds N =� =n � U c N a �� C7 a+ W y U1 m w d a y c � G s t c £ v m U m o �.n 0 7 S d m L d > •O i N a J O N_ d U =3 C jp 8 N cri c6 O N 0 O 2 w w m U C O .N N > 0 2 W W (0 U N c O N D_ 0 m C Mn U N O a` a� a ro x d 3 0 m a� L m 0 0 E w w 0 L .3 c N Mn N c O U u R. n L .3 C N w .N c 0 A d a 0 E w w 0 L .3 c N N to c O U E2 N a c O N W N U L 75C-369 m 'o ;o ,o > m z I i i i i i i i i i Div I I I I I I I N I I 5 6 �O �O �O�O�O �M �M �M �N �M ,N 'N � I ;L ;V ;N 'N I I I I I I I o O o E E E a ; a _ _; ;a Z N �N �N �N �N �N I- =��rIF, ;m ; nco D ; a ; n ,U� ;� ;h� U '� 'W 'W 'W U J p OO o ;0 1 ;; 'O 'O 'O ...Y ...Y ...Y ...Y ...Y ...Y ...Y ...Y ...Y ...Y ...Y ...Y ...Y ...Y ...Y ...Y ...Y ...Y ...Y ...Y ...Y ...Y ...Y .. • N y . s ' E E E w w m w w w m a x x x x x x xg x 'i x 'gx x x x m z '� 'm 'm 'm 'm 'm 'm 'm 'm 'm 'm 'm 'm 'm "o w w w 'O 'O 'O F- U ;O ;O ;O 7.0 E E 7 N to O N to W O N O V m N co O N 0 O W W co U c O N a� 0 LU W W co U o 0 � O O N O O O U o 0 0 0 p o 0 N O O Z O O O 0 O 0 = o 0 0 0 p o 0 T O O N U o 0 0 0 � 0 o 0 0 0 r N O O O U o 0 p o 0 zO O Z O U o 0 0 0 0 0 0 m N o O 0 O N O O � o 0 a o 0 i N L 2 O O x o 0 -N O1� O O LL LL O O 0 0 i o 0 0 0 0 O _ O O L xa O O W o 0 � a - 0 0 rni o 0 LL O O NO O O O O N O O O 0 O 0 pU 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 px o 0 0 0 z o 0 0 0 � S o p o 0 � o 0 0 0 � m � � E N x C O .0 y C 0 U U d cc i5C-3711 o 0 � O O N O O O U o 0 0 0 p o 0 N O O Z O O O 0 O 0 V 2 O 0 O 0 p o 0 � O O a d N U o 0 0 0 m o 0 p o 0 r N O O O U o 0 � O O p] O O Z � o 0 U o 0 0 0 0 0 0 m a 0 r o 0 N O O � o 0 a N O O x W LL O O > C N o 0 LL d O O O O o 75 o 0 ar o 0 0 0 mo _ O O sLL W o 0 � a >o 0 0 a LL o O 0 O NO O O O O N O O O 0 O 0 pU 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 px o 0 0 0 z o 0 0 0 (D o 0 p o 0 � o 0 0 0 m o N P N (M c6 O N 0 O 2 W W_ co U c O N Q cO G w W_ co 0 m M N p p H M Q p '� 'r W M r U O 'N 1 A N O 1� Z10 O �O O 1 m Io ;lo r op Io N Q N ----------- 0 V 10 NW O ON O N H N Ir W M N W N O V 10 IW r O�IQW a r NW p1 O IN � N N Q U 0 m .T-••-•inn m O N iN W r pN W O I� O Op i0 IVWI IMO N I a I mIn o 'm ei N p VI 1 ;M 10 'M M • • 1 « N N IL a 1 1 d I1 IN W � g0 Op 10 'W W IW wo m 10 W 1°g Op 10 'CN'I M rLL W o Iro 0 a_ Iro 1 I j p M M rng 1 :m m �d LL 1 Ip d 1 1m 0 1, o QeW- N I 6 V Q r W U IM O ly N W p 1 p 16I p1 i d W K V 1 0 m ZO� II(I IO 10 O Ip 16I W N Ir r 1 I 1 (7 o n m e 0 V 10 �N r • 1 • i I- 75 -3 72 W H N O O 'N �10 'N 1 tNY Q V � 1 O e- N 1 m Io IN n op 'o N Q T N O a • • IW IM W N U I OJ M p ri W ; W O V W M W Vp V j N N M O N O V 10 IM r U � im IoiM riW b iom o a r d NW Z -- --I I N N Q U 0 m O N I10 �N W 0 1 0 i 111 IR N g 0 o to a 1 N I(l 1 O ' M OOI Cr'I 1 c N Olg ' N N LL 1' 1 O cE go 00 'o W W 1 1 fp 1 W W ryO 6. 'm 'N 'O w XLL0 M p M W O a_ I jpI IM M rng 'o 0 LLLL �v < 1 p 1 N 1 OI G 0 O I 0 O I O V 1CM] N Q 1M W U O 'y IN O o �o Ioi m N IW 1� 00 IN W O Op IN 0 W Z O IpI W ;O N Ir r 1 (7 o in m 0 r a 0 V �O IN M i • 1 0 �O u O a� m a N co 0 N 0 2 w LI m U I_ O N N 0 2 LI w co U d W cc 0 O M _O O N O N C N cc 0 N cri c6 O N 0 O 2 W W co U C O N i 0 O 2i W LU mo 0 N c O :N O E am 0 N M m N O U o O O o 0 o o O 0 O O c 0 0 0 O O Z = U pT O d o0 00 N O U m o o O 0 0 O N °U p z Z o O 0 O N O U 0 m r o O 0 O N N � a O o _ o o 0 0 O 0 o O O 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 O tg wa N W� LL LL g o on ng W LL pT O a jo rn� LLLL " 0 0 0 o 0 0 o o 0 0 o o o 0 o o o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 y O U Ox Z U O � 5C •374 O O O N O O 1 O 1 Z i 1 1 o to �o 0 U 'O O d_ ____I____ N O O 0 In O U o 0 0 0 o �o �o 0 N O O 10 in O U o 0 0 0 0 0 0 'O 0 p p O O O O 'O O O Z N O U 0 m I 1 � N O � 10 � 10 O o o In 0 a I 1 1 1 l 1 c N � LL � 1 o I to 1 to o� � o p to Io 0 O 0 O O L� O O W LL T O O 0 O O O O O a_ ____I ____�____ I I >o In in o 0 rn? o o 'o 0 iLL o 0 0 I 1 O 10 �O O 0 o g o 0 1 U o o 'o 0 o �o 'o 0 1 O 10 �O O 1 r m ,6 � r O W a) 0) cc a N fM c6 O N 0 O 2 W W co U c O N N i 0 O 2i W LU m U T 0 N G E N O N M o 0 a O O N O O O U o 0 O 2 0 0 = o 0 p o 0 O O pT O d N O U o 0 0 0 0 H 0 0 N OU O o 0 0 0 0 0 m o 0 Z N p o 0 p o 0 0 0 o 0 0 m o 0 H o O 0 O N o 0 � a - o 0 C� � N O O O O x wa o 0 m� IL a 0 0 2 o $ S a o 0 O O 0 0 0 a �o m� LLa O o N p O O O O N O O O 0 O 0 O o0 00 U o 0 0 o 0 O 0 o 0 O 0 Z o 0 0 0 0 0 p 0 o 0 � o 0 0 0 0 10 o m m � o ~ U O i5C-3 N O O O O O 1 O 1 2 � i 1 1 o to �o 0 U d_ N O O 10 10 O U o to �o 0 m o to �o 0 N p Z N O U 0 m I 1 ca f o o to 0 N 0 0 I. 0 o to to 0 a I 1 o In :o 0 jN O O O O 'O O W d O O O O > In o 0 :O 0 N O O O O O id O O O O ---- O 0 In O A o to ,o 0 o 0 0 0 y0 O 10 in O 0 Wa m 9 a_ 1 >o o to 'o 0 w� o In 'o 0 'O O ____1____ I____ I O 0 :O O Np O O O O O 'O 10 O O N O 'O O 1 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z 1 l C7 O 0 in O U d m 0 d R C O m d Q N fM c6 O N 0 O 2 W W co U c O N a) cO G W W co U N n r N O MO 'm0 U N �N I O N ' Z ' I v x m im r r m im U a N �N m m N O �O) Ism m hm m ,m N O o �m Ism m Z N 'N -L N O U 6 m y I I N O h m I a7 n AN r jr 2 I�2 wa o to I tT� LLd N IN I� mo m �rn r ,r O Ip ILa a m a N m im O m ,� o 'o I M m O U m N, ,N m Irn I o I'$ 0 Z 0 0 I m Iw r ,r I � m 'm 0 O d m N C, (V ;m N m E U � 7S O E E 7 LQ r C O m E O C N Q T L� r M V 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 s a m N 0 M 0 N C N m 0 N fM c6 0 N 0 O 2 W W co U C O .N N O 2 W W m U 0 vi II R N O U m 'm m � tNp Z O 10 O 10 I U T o to O a Ip o 0 � ' m 'rn O U O N 'N r N IN h� o to o U m rn o N N Z N O U 0 m y I I m Im 2 F N CI I CI NN �N N IN M IM wa o to j N I I c N qg I LLa I 1 N IN yp N �N m rn 1 t0� o to wLL T O 'p ply 1 1 oa LL 1 � 0 1 00 'moo 1� M IM o 1 IM U v, ly o 'o -h X O O Z h IN O 'O 1 1 n ' 0 O o 'o ----I• ---- a M. O m m d N co O N cO G W L m U c O N a� 0 2 w W co U � N N N O O 0 m U N N O b N O N Z O O 0 0 0 0 U o 0 T O O O d N U m m p N N r � e N O O O U m m 0 6 m � � Z N O U 0 m H N m m O m m O N o 0 g a .o 0 wa o 0 > Lo . N m2 LL LL m m � g m o m 0 a o 0 .o 0 W LL T O O a mo _ rni LLLL m u N om om O o0 00 vi ri O � m 0 m 0 m Ox o N 0 N Z � N O O Q � N O O O O z d a 776 B g - o n r J i5C-37 � N N O U m N m N (O N m O N Z O O 0 0 0 0 U o 0 T O O O d_ N O O O U m m � N N F N 10 N O O O U m m o y v m N Z (9 N N O U 0 m H h m m O m m O N o 0 g a .o 0 N Wa o 0 m � « N m� LL a O O O ar o 0 o m a a_ - �o m� LLa m u N O om o0 om 00 vi of O M m 0 m 0 m � o 0 N Z N N O O Q � N � O O O O z d a J 75 g - o m r J N LM LO O N 0 O 2 W W m U C 0 .N N O 2 W W co 0 I O ' N Z � e m ' ' 'oo x U oo CO 'Mo T I . ILA a e iv m to O U ° o io F- L -f o iy N O p m o 2 ' N O U 0 m IN _ N 00 100 N 00 ISO N ' xa w oo ioo m 10 'N I c.N mi I I LL LL I _F ry N 0 I ar o to O I OJ r 'm 'CTN oo 'Oo o0o xa ioo w � co I of a_ jo I GIB I I oLL LL I � -F o O �O y o to O Ip I m �m U o to o to m ' x z oe 'ne In oo 'oo N IN -F O O ' o 0 ¢ n In e iv i i ,9 rn m rn 75CC 9 o o m m N O O Z e U T N o a ;Ci I . Ma N O - o in iv e H N O �e a 'o o N O U 0 m I INN �h � O 10 IOo OQ LL WLL o ,o 'oi m c N m� �a LL o �o O O xa w o Iro 'a o a_ jo rn� �a LL 10 O NO O 'o O 0 ;o im o 0 m 0 OU ;o 0 a �o ao O z ;oo $O N N O m o om o O ;V Iry' ------------- V BOLL � uU �g \. O W m co N co O N O 2 LU LU co U c 0 N \W 0 2 LU LU co U 3 1 O i 2 1 i 1 � 1 Q 1 �QQ QQ U1 'oo 00 T d . r- 1 N U o 1 0 <o 0 'o 0 0 to 0 O U 1 0 0 1 Z N 0 U 0 m 0 0 0 h 70 10 o O i0 100 �O a Vi'� o to 'o 0 L� O i0 �Qp Op 1 d 1 c N 1 m� 1 d I O Ip O 1 O O� N C yl oo co a� to 'moo lr0 1 l o to 'o 0 xa i� Ioo O O 00 W T a 1 I of . . 1 N .52 1 oLL LL . . 1 NO 1 O O 1 1 1 l d K V Q Z 0 0 0 0 1 �o,o 00 N 1 � r- 1 r O N W 0 aM W C 0 � O IQ �N Q � m E� '7 o U a �-o �U od a 51C_ wo §ME a u O V N O) m d N (h O N O W W co U C O N N O 2 W W m U I N E J Z L d O m C dC E 6 H N C W E � 71 a Q '• � C 0 w d O 7 � 75C-381 I O a O a m m o m o U J N O N LL � m rn o 0 m N h N N (p V W O � O O O J u O N m d T N co O N 0 O 2 W W co U c O N a� O 2 W w m 0 N cri O N 0 O 2 w w m U C O .N N > 0 2 W W (0 U m 0 0 E w 0 L .3 C N Mn N c O U u R. n L .3 C N w .N c 0 A 0 16 (0 LL C o ' m �m > W 'o N co U N N = > F 75C-383 O co cc m a N fM tp O N 0 O 2 W W m U C O .N a) O 2 W W m 0 Z N . +- N I N 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O I O �N �� :� �N �' �N O �O �� �O �N �O �o �� �� �O �0 �� �p �M ,NN �O 10 75 I I I 'o ; 'o ; 'o E E E a ; _ _ ; ;� ;�;a Z N ;a �N �N �N = ZJ,(0 �J m �._ �._ �._ ,U 'Z U '� 'W 'W 'W U J p p mp 'O 'O 'O m ' c c c m , m m m .IOc 'E E E ; gx ;'ix :.x ; x ; x ; x m Z .0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N '� W W WV V V V V V 'O 'O 'O maaaaaaaaaaaaa 'a '� '� '2 '2 '2 '2 '2 '2 F- U ;O ;O ;O E E 7 N O .N to E W C N u O V W m co N M O N 0 O W W co U c O N a� 0 LU W W co U o 0 � O O N O O O U o 0 0 0 p o 0 Z 0 O 0 O O 0 O 0 V Z O o O 0 p o 0 T O O N U o 0 0 0 � o 0 p o 0 N O o 0 U o 0 0 0 0 m o 0 Z U o 0 0 0 0 0 0 m . n N o O 0 O N O O O O a o 0 i N o 0 Wa 0 0 -N O1� O O LL LL O O 0 0 i o 0 0 0 0 O _ O O xa W o 0 � a - _ o 0 rni o 0 LL O O Np O O O O N O O O 0 O 0 OU 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 Ox o 0 0 0 z o 0 0 0 � S o p o 0 � o 0 0 0 � m � � E N x C O .0 y C 0 U U d cc i5C-396 o 0 � O O N O O O U o 0 0 0 p o 0 N O O Z O O O 0 O 0 V 2 O 0 O 0 p o 0 � O O a d N U o 0 0 0 m o 0 p o 0 r _ N O o 0 U o 0 0 0 0 pj o 0 Z � o 0 U o 0 0 0 0 0 0 m . � r O O d O o O 0 iO Wa o 0 C N LL d O o O 0 _ o t0 0 0 ar o 0 0 0 mo _ O O sLL W o 0 � >o 0 0 a LL o O 0 O NO O O O O N O O O 0 O 0 OU 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 Ox o 0 0 0 z o 0 0 0 � o 0 p o 0 � o 0 0 0 m o N P N fM O N 0 c0 G w W_ co U c O N W cO G w W_ co 0 T Omi ' N ' N IA �m �w NI O p fp0 NO O 'N 1 A m O 1� Z10 O �O O 1 m to �w o Op 'O N N N O '(V N O U m 1� ,row ri m O 'N ,Nw mm 'N H - - • p O N m N O V 10 �� M U v 'rn 'cmi� ua 0 Ip �`w o mm O N O � Z N N N O U 0 m • • ' m.T-••-•inn O N i(p �O M1 � ovl Iw Iw m Op i0 IVwI 1M0 N a I 1 N p'lI 1 w 1 « N 1 LLa p ca oo 'M 'vmi m g o op to 'w m wo m Im m 'mom oo 'M 'M 'M n 'O M O O a_ • • 1 dp 1 ,M M rng ' �m m JCL LL 1 �p d • O 1� IN M N IpM 'ONI O m 1 �w 6 V O n w U ��M o ly m o p Ip 'o ,N N 1 d m y O X V 1 O ZO� IN M1 N O Ip �w O N ,M1 m 1 - C7 0 'n o m O n o M y O N M1 i r T ,N m . ¢ 0 e0 U �w �g 75 -3 �m �w O p fp0 NO O 'N 1 V m O � 1 N 1 Q 1 •O 1 1 m to Iw o T O a • • Iw to m N O - a to la M m V Ip o M m iNw mm - f N O W 1+ b p IN m o 'N 'mow mm (fl Z m - - N N O 0 m n nn..r •- -.T-. •- O N <p iO Iw M1 � pin Iw m NQ O I O i IlI m g o to a 1 q� N Im IVI N >� 'n c N n Olg ' N N LL 1' 1 pa go 00 'o 'w w M2 OQ 'M 'cm'I M1 XLL W T m 0 O O D a • IM M rng 'm m LLLL �v < ----1•____ O N IN IN 'On 'm M Q O 'NO '� w O O w a a e O U o iy Im o IN N N Im 1� O 00- IN N M Z A 00 N N IM1 m ----1 1 7 0 :n 'o 'm O n o m V O N M i • 1 0 ,o u O a� m a N M 0 N 0 2 w LU m U I_ O N N 0 2 LU w co U d LU cc 0 O O N LL a m 0 J M I� IN d I I I a I a I I I a I I S I I I I I O l0 10 m o to to aw Im Iro � I I O I S I I � I I I I � I I � I I � I I I I o to ;o I I I I I � I � I a I I Q � I I I I I _ I I I I � I I a I I F I I I I w m 3 I I w I la m o I I o 0 m I a I O I > I m U Iw I� N Z N r a E E E M _O O N O N C N cc 0 N cri O N 0 O 2 W W co U C O N i 0 O 2i W LU mo 0 N c O :N O E am 0 N M m N O U o O O o 0 o o O 0 O O c 0 0 0 O O z = U pT O d o0 00 N O U m o o O 0 0 O N OU 0 zo z 0 _ 0 0 N O U 0 m O 0 o o 0 0 0 o O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O tg wa N wg LL LL g o ng W LL pT O a rng LLLL U 0 0 0 o 0 0 o o 0 0 o 0 o 0 o o o 0 o ° A5CJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 y O U Ox z U O � O O O N O O 1 O 1 z i 1 1 o to �o 0 U 'O O d_ ____I____ N O O 10 10 O U o 0 �o 0 �o 0 o 0 N O z N O 0 m I I I 1 N g o O o 0 o 10 I O O o a~ o I to to 0 I 1 1 0 Io c N o 0 0 m� O 10 'O O LL � ---- o to to o� o ,o ,o 0 g o 00 to �o 0 O 0 :O O Lg 0 0 W LL T O O O O O ' O O O a_ >o In in o 0 rng o o 'o 0 iLL o 0 0 I 1 O 10 �O 0 o g o 0 1 U o o 'o 0 o �o 'o 0 1 O 10 �O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 r m ,6 � O W Q) m co a. N M O N 0 O 2 W W co U c O N N i O 2 W W co U o 0 m O O N O O O U o 0 O Z O O p o 0 T O O N U o 0 0 0 0 H 0 - 0 N OU o 0 0 0 0 0 0 m o 0 z _ N p o 0 p o 0 0 0 o 0 0 m o 0 H o O 0 O N O O a wa o 0 N� IL a 0 0 o 0 0 a F" o 0 O O O a_ �o m� LLa O O N p O O O O N O O O 0 O 0 O o 0 U o 0 0 0 0 0 Ox o 0 0 0 Z o 0 0 0 p o 0 � o 0 0 0 � o m m � o r U O i5C 1 O 1 1 Z 1 1 O 10 �O O V_ O 10 O O 10 'O U O O O O 10 10 O U o to to 0 m o to to 0 1 N O U o to �o o to 0 0 0 p o to 'o 0 Z ---------------- N O U 0 m ---.r---.�--- I 1 ca f o to to 0 N I 1 o to to 0 N O 10 10 O � I 1 a I 1 N O 10 O O > o 0 0 10 'O 0 LN O O O LLd O �O 'O O ____I ____ ____ o to l0 0 o A o 0 0 0 0 NO O 10 �O O O 10 O O m 9 a_ 1 I 1 >o 0 0 0 1 0 _ 0 LLd O �O 'O O ---- 1---- ____ 1 O 10 �O O Np O 10 O O N O 10 'O O 1 o to �o 0 O o to 'o 0 U o to 'o 0 1 0 0 0 0 Ox o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z 1 l C7 O 10 �O 0 to 0 'o O 0 p o to 0 'o o to 0 1 � m ,s d N 0 0 0 U NO 'NO N 'N I O N I Z I I I� U a N, IN o 0 N O NO) ,N OI F N IN p hp V �V N O O INm co N_O Z N N -L N U 6 m y I I m Im N r h m I a7 p N N N t+I I M wa o to I T� LLd N N I� a v is , , wa T m a o ,o N , N N � O o ,o , O U M iM ° m o ,o N ,N $ o ;$ r �n , O N �N ;m N m E U E E 7 LQ r -39Q C O m E L N Q a L� r M V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 Y a m N 0 M 0 N C N m 0 N fM 0 N 0 0 2 W W co U C O .N N O 2 W W m U N 0 T G1 C W 0 ui II R N O m � tNp Z O 10 O 10 I U T o to O a Ip o 0 � ' m 'rn O U O N 'N r N IN h� o 0 o U m 'rn o N y Z N O U 6 m y I I m Im 2 F N CI I CI O 10 NN �N N IN M IM O 10 wa o to j N I I c N qg I I LLa I I p @ N N Cp'I 'CO'I t0� m rn 1 wLL T o to O 'p ply 1 1 oa LL 1 � 0 1 00 'moo M IM o 1 IM U v, ly o 'o -h X O O Z h IN O 'O 1 1 n ' 0 O o 'o a 'yW ?3 W 1 M. w O m m d N M O N 0 cO G W L m U c O N a� 0 2 w W co U � N N N O O 0 m U N N O b N O N Z O O 0 0 0 0 U o 0 T O O O d N U m m p N N r � e N O O O U m m 0 6 m -L (NO - ,NG N O U 0 m H N m m O m m O N o 0 g a m o ry N M .mr. wa o 0 > Lo . N m2 LL LL m m m m a o 0 <o 0 W LL T O O a �o rni LLLL m u N om om O o0 00 ri O M m 0 m 0 m Ox o N 0 N Z � N O O U n n O O O O z d a 7 76 g - o n r J i5C-32i � N N O U m N m N (O N m O N Z O O 0 0 0 0 U o 0 T O O d_ N O O O U m m � N N F N 10 N O O O U m m 0 6 > m N N O U 0 m a H h m m O m m O N o 0 g a .o 0 N Wa o 0 m � « N m� LL a O O O ar o 0 m m m a_ �o m� LLa m u N O om o0 om 00 vi of O M m 0 m 0 m � o 0 N Z N N O M O CD n O m � O O O O z d a J 75 g - o m r J N fM O O N 0 O 2 W W m U C 0 .N N O 2 W W co 0 I O ' N Z � e m ' ' 'oo x U oo CO 'Mo T I . ILA a e iv m o I O U ° O i0 H L -f o iy N O 63 o 2 ' N O U 0 m IN _ N 00 100 N 00 ISO N ' xa w oo ioo m 10 'N I c.N mi I LL LL I _F I ry � 10 r NO '0 � I O �N 00 '00 xa oo ioo w o Io a_ jo I GIB I I oLL LL , , -F o o ,o y o to O Ip I m ,m U o to o to m ' x oe 'fie z oo 'oo N ,N -F 0 O O O ¢ n In e iv ,9 rn m rn 75C�3 o o m m N O O Z e U T N o a Ci I . M a N O - o in iv e N O e a 'o o N O U 0 m I ICI° �h � O 10 IOo OQ a WLL o 'o 'oi m c N m� �a LL o �o of m ...o o in O O xa a_ jo rn� �a LL 0 O NO o 0 'o a w ;o im 'o 0 a 0 m 0 OU �o 0 a �o ao O z ;oo $o N N O m o om o O e IN V ry c E 9 U 20 BOLL � N uU �g Q U \. O W m N M O N O 2 W W co U c 0 N \W 0 2 W W co U 3 1 O i 2 1 i 1 � 1 Q 1 �QQ QQ U1 'oo 00 T d . r- 1 N U o 1 0 <o 0 'o 0 0 to 1 l 0 U 1 0 0 1 Z N U 0 m 0 0 0 h 70 10 o O i0 100 �O a Vi'� N N Xm O i0 �Qp O p wa 1 d IN 1 c N 1 m� 1 d . . O Ip O 1 O O� i C yl oo co a� to 'moo -r0 1 r - 1 o to 'o 0 xa � i� goo 00 a . . 1 1 oLL 1 LL . . 1 1 1 1 l d K V Q Z 0 0 0 0 1 �o,o 00 N 1 � r- 1 r O N W 0 aM W C 0 � O IQ �N Q � m E� '7 o U a �-o �U od a 51C_ wo §ME a u O V N O) O d N (h O N O W W co U C O N O 2 W W co U P N E E J Z L d O m C d E T F C N W E r+ w 71 Q � C W d O 7 � 75C-395 EXHIBIT 2 75C-396 REQUEST FOR Planning Commission Action PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: MAY 11, 2020 TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING — FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 2020-01, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2020-02, AND AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO. 2020-01 TO FACILITATE CONSTRUCTION OF A MIXED - USE DEVELOPMENT AT 2300, 2310, AND 2320 SOUTH REDHILL AVENUE (STRATEGIC PLAN NOS. 3, 2; 5,3) Jerry C. Guevara and Prepared by Ali Pezeshkpour, AICP PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY APPROVED ❑ As Recommended ❑ As Amended ❑ Set Public Hearing For DENIED ❑ Applicant's Request ❑ Staff Recommendation CONTINUED TO xecutive Director PlathingyaKager RECOMMENDED ACTION It is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council take the following actions: 1. Adopt a resolution certifying Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2020-01 (SCH No. 2019080011), including adoption of environmental findings of fact pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; 2. Adopt a resolution approving General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 2020-02; and 3. Adopt an ordinance approving Amendment Application (AA) No. 2020-01 to establish Specific Development No. 96. Executive Summary Jeremy Ogulnick, representing Arrimus Capital, is requesting approval of a general plan amendment and amendment application (zone change) to facilitate the construction of a mixed -use development known as The Bowery. The development would consist of four primary buildings and two freestanding commercial pads that would contain a total of 1,100 residential units and 80,000 square feet of leasable commercial area at 2300, 2310, and 2320 South Redhill Avenue. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed development requires certification of an environmental impact report, adoption of environmental findings of fact and a statement of overriding considerations, and adoption of a mitigation monitoring and reporting program. It is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request, as the project demonstrates high -quality site planning, design, and amenities; contains a mixture of land uses that promotes sustainable living integrated with commercial development and the site is close to jobs - rich employment centers; and contributes to the City's housing stock through both production of onsite units and payment of in -lieu affordable housing funds. 75C-397 Table 1: Proiect and Location Information Item Information Project Address 2300, 2310, and 2320 South Redhill Avenue Nearest Intersection Red Hill Avenue and Warner Avenue General Plan Designation Professional and Administration Office (PAO) Zoning Designation Light Industrial (M-1) Surrounding Land Uses North Industrial/Office in the City of Tustin East Commercial/Business in the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan South Industrial West Industrial/Office Site Size 14.58 gross acres 14.37 acres after dedications Existing Site Development The site is currently developed with three industrial buildings, one of which contains a temporary homeless shelter, and associated parking lots and landscaping Applicable Zoning Code Sections Existing: SAMC Chapter41, Article III, Division 18 (Light Industrial / M-1) Proposed: SAMC Chapter41, Article III, Division 26 (Specific Development / SD Entitlements SAMC Chapter41, Article V, Division II Amendments and Chan a to District Boundaries Proposed Density Units perAcre 77 Proposed Floor Area Ratio FAR 2.06 Proiect Description The project includes demolition and removal of three existing industrial buildings on the site as well as existing parking and landscape areas. Once the site is cleared, the applicant is seeking approval of several entitlements to facilitate construction of a mixed -use commercial and residential community that would contain 1,100 residential units, 80,000 square feet of leasable commercial area, landscaping, onsite amenities for the public and the community's residents, and parking. Site Planning City staff, the developer, and the architects worked closely to ensure the latest principles in site planning were successfully incorporated into the project. The project site is broken up by onsite lanes, paseos, and plazas, which results in a village of multiple buildings that are pedestrian in scale and easy to access by foot from any point on the project site. The project's defining features are the commercial plaza adjacent to the two freestanding commercial pad buildings, and the pedestrian paseo that leads from this commercial area between Buildings A and B to Building D. The commercial plaza is designed to provide an area for the developments residents, commercial patrons, and visitors that is furnished with seating and passive recreation features and is sheltered from the nearby Redhill and Warner intersection. Moreover, the site plan has been designed to accommodate future connections to the adjacent property to the southwest. Two of the project site's private lanes can be reconfigured to connect to the adjacent property, further enhancing the proposed village concept. In the interim, however, these two private lanes will be landscaped and will not allow vehicle access; neither of these 75C-398 landscaped lanes is included in the project's onsite open space calculations to ensure long-term accuracy of open space figures, should those private lanes ultimately become paved. Residential Components The residential component of the proposed project will be contained within four large buildings, each wrapping its own parking structure. Of the four buildings, three (Buildings A, B, and C) will be mixed -use with commercial components facing Redhill and Warner avenues, while the fourth building (Building D), toward the rear of the project site, will contain only residential units. Each structure will contain five levels of residential units. The three mixed -use structures will contain seven levels total, with the first two ground -floor levels occupied by commercial uses. Building heights will range between 56 and 94 feet. A description and breakdown of unit types is provided in Table 2: Total Units by Type below. Table 2: Total Units by Tvoe Unit Type and Size Range Quantity Percent of Overall Project Studio 634-760 s . ft. 228 21 % One -Bedroom 634-833 s . ft. 574 52% Two -Bedroom 907-1,096 s . ft. 283 26% Three -Bedroom 1,362 s . ft. 15 1% Total 1,100 100 Commercial Areas The project's commercial components will be contained in three of the project's mixed -use structures (Buildings A, B, and C), as well as two freestanding retail pads fronting Redhill Avenue. The commercial areas in Buildings A, B, and C will be designed to accommodate a range of uses common within mixed -use structures, such as cafes, small to mid -size retail, neighborhood markets, and service uses. The two freestanding retail pads will be designed to accommodate medium -intensity uses, such as large -format restaurants, food halls, fast -casual dining, and/or larger retail. Table 3 below provides a breakdown of the project's commercial component per building. Table 3: Commercial Square Footage Distribution Building Commercial Square Footage A 12,000 B 24,000 C 20,000 Freestanding Pad 1 20,000 Freestanding Pad 2 4,000 Total 80,000 Of the commercial areas within the mixed -use buildings, the Building B commercial area has been designed with double -volume capabilities, meaning that a two-story tenant could occupy the space, which is common at large -format restaurants and gymnasiums. All commercial components will be available to both residents and the general public wishing to patronize the 75C-399 businesses. To ensure the commercial component of the project is constructed, the applicant has agreed to execute a Mutual Declaration of Acknowledgment and Acceptance of Approval Conditions. Onsite Parkinq Onsite parking is proposed in a combination of large, secured parking structures, a small surface parking lot, and in parallel spaces on the project's private lanes. The small surface parking lot will be located on Redhill Avenue and will contain 28 parking spaces. This lot will provide quick, convenient parking to passerby traffic near the project site. In the event the parking lot fills, additional parking will be available in the project site's multiple onsite parking structures. The project site will contain four large, multi -level parking structures wrapped by the project's four primary mixed-use/residential structures (Buildings A, B, C, and D). These structures will contain parking for both residents, residential visitors, and customers and employees of the commercial components. The project will provide 2.0 parking spaces per residential unit and 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross commercial area for a total of 2,600 parking spaces. Additional parking details are provided in Table 3: Onsite Parking below. Of the total parking spaces provided, the project will construct 2,388 onsite parking spaces, which will be comprised of 1,988 residential stalls and 351 commercial stalls. Through mandatory onsite valet service, the 351 commercial stalls will be configured to allow up to an additional 49 valet stalls, achieving the commercial parking ratio of 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet (1 per 200 sq. ft.). The 1,988 residential stalls will be retrofit in select areas to contain 212 parking lifts, which will result in a residential parking ratio of 2.0 spaces per unit. The parking structures will be designed and engineered to incorporate installation of these vehicular lifts. Table 3: Initial Onsite Parking Building/Area Quantity Parking Spaces and Ratio A 280 residential units 505 stalls and 55 lifts 560 spaces total); 2.0 per unit B 244 residential units 441 stalls and 47 lifts 488 spaces total); 2.0 per unit C 322 residential units 580 stalls and 64 lifts 644 spaces total); 2.0 per unit D 254 residential units 462 stalls and 46 lifts 508 spaces total); 2.0 per unit Commercial and Surface Parking Areas (Buildings A, B, and C, and two freestanding ads 80,000 square feet 400, comprised of physical and valet spaces (1 space per 200 square feet) Total Initial Onsite Parking 2,388 spaces The applicant has prepared a parking management plan (PMP) (Exhibit 10) that contains details for managing the onsite commercial valet parking and installation of vehicular lifts. The PMP also details how valet services will meet the commercial component's customer and employee needs for onsite parking, for example when the project site's surface parking area reaches full capacity. 75C-400 Architecture. Open Space. & Amenities The project's six buildings are designed in a cohesive manner with unifying materials, floor heights, and articulation using contemporary architecture in an "industrial tech" style. High -quality building materials will ensure long-term durability and maintaining high value of the project, including metal trim, awnings, railing, slats, and cladding; brick veneers and high -quality light sand finish stucco; glass railing; and poured concrete forms. Onsite furniture and details, such as lighting, waste receptacles, benches, tables, and open space areas, have been designed to complement the site's contemporary architecture. High ground -floor window and ceiling heights will contribute to the high -quality commercial component of the project site, which has been designed to create a dynamic, commercial and residential village. These finishes and designs are consistent with the development standards and design guidelines found in the City's mixed - use zoning areas such as the Transit Zoning Code and Metro East Mixed Use (MEMU) Overlay Zone, as well as the Citywide Design Guidelines. Open space and amenities will be provided on the site in a variety of means, including private unit balconies and patios, amenity decks atop parking structures, ground -level courtyards, the central paseo, and the central plaza. The residential open space areas will contain pools, courtyards, exercise areas, relief areas for pets, and other amenities typical to high -quality mixed -use developments found in Santa Ana and in Orange County. Based on a standard of two (2) acres of public park and/or recreational area per 1,000 residents (SAMC Sec. 35-108), the proposed project would require 4.2 acres of parkland to serve the new residents. The onsite total proposed open space is 183,363 square feet (4.21 acres), which is consistent with the SAMC standard and with other mixed -use projects that provide their own onsite public and private open space areas. Housing Opportunity Ordinance Compliance The City's inclusionary housing ordinance, known as the Housing Opportunity Ordinance (SAMC Sec. 41-1900 et seq.) applies to housing projects proposing five or more units that are also requesting an increase in allowable density or are located in certain sections of the City that were "up -zoned" to allow additional residential development pursuant to an overlay zone or after November 28, 2011. As the proposed project is located in a section of the City that does not presently allow construction of housing, the applicant's request is subject to the Housing Opportunity Ordinance (HOO) requirements of production of affordable housing or payment of in - lieu fees. Pursuant to SAMC Sec. 41-1904, the applicant has selected the option to pay in -lieu fees. Based on available figures for the project, the project will contribute an estimated $12,965,565 in in -lieu fees, which must be spent on production of affordable housing in the City of Santa Ana. Table 4 below illustrates the calculation methodology. Table 4: HOO In -Lieu Fee Calculation Estimated habitable square feet In -lieu fee per habitable square foot Final estimated total (habitable square feet multiplied by in -lieu fee 864,371 SF $15 $12,965,565 75C-401 Project and Site Background The subject site was developed with the three existing industrial buildings containing a total of 212,121 square feet between 1979 and 1985. The buildings served as a campus for Ricoh Company, Ltd., a multinational electronics and imaging corporation, which vacated the site in 2018. Following Ricoh's departure from the site, a variety of uses subsequently began occupying individual buildings on the project site. These include a warehouse/assembly use at 2310 South Redhill Avenue, and a temporary homeless shelter operated by Mercy House at 2320 South Redhill Avenue. Should the applicant's request be approved, all buildings on the subject property would be demolished in order to facilitate construction of the mixed -use development. Analysis of the Issues The applicant's request requires approval of several discretionary action applications, certification of an environmental impact report, and adoption of a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) to facilitate construction of the mixed -use development. In analyzing the applicant's request, staff reviewed the project's site plan, mixture of land uses, onsite parking, the general plan amendment application, and the amendment application to establish a specific development zone. Additional analyses are provided in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Economic Development sections of this staff report. Site Plan The project's site plan has been designed to integrate the project site into the surrounding community. The development's primary access points will be from a right -in, right -out driveway on Redhill Avenue, and from a signalized intersection on Warner Avenue. These access points have been designed to ensure the safety of residents and visitors of the project site, as well as commuters, employees, and residents of the surrounding community. Onsite circulation has been designed to ensure a high -quality pedestrian experience, with wide sidewalks, a central paseo, and plazas and courtyards that buffer or separate pedestrians from onsite vehicular traffic. Moreover, the project has been broken into four primary buildings and two freestanding commercial pads, which reduces the overall massing of the project and creates a more pedestrian -scale village of buildings onsite. The two future roadway connections on the project site will allow the development to become integrated with the adjacent site to the southwest, should an application for redevelopment be approved. As of this writing, no application for redevelopment of the adjacent site to the southwest has been submitted for the City's consideration. Mixture of Land Uses The proposed development contains a large commercial component of 80,000 square feet of leasable retail, service, and restaurant area. This volume of commercial space complements the residents, visitors, and employees working and living on and around the project site. The 80,000 square feet of leasable commercial area is among the largest commercial components proposed in recent mixed -use developments. For comparison, the Elan project (1660 East First 75C-402 Street) approved in 2018 contains 603 residential units and 20,000 square feet of commercial space; the First American redevelopment (114 East Fifth Street) approved in 2019 contains 220 residential units and 12,350 square feet of commercial space, and The Heritage (2001 East Dyer Road), which is under construction nearby, contains 1,221 residential units and 18,400 square feet of net new commercial square footage. The mixture of land uses on the project site, including residential, commercial, and open space, will contribute to the formation a dynamic mixed -use village. The commercial and open space components will serve both residents and visitors of the project site, as well as the large daytime employee population working in the project site's immediate vicinity. Onsite Parking Parking will be provided at the rate of 2.0 spaces per residential unit, inclusive of guest parking, and 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet for the commercial component. To maximize onsite parking, the applicant will utilize valet and vehicular lifts detailed in the PMP. The applicant proposes to construct parking at the rate of 2.0 parking spaces per residential unit and to achieve the 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of commercial area rate (400 commercial parking spaces) through the use of self -parking and valet services. The SD zoning document drafted for the project requires that the project continually provide valet services to achieve the 400 parking space requirement for commercial areas and the 212 vehicular lifts to achieve the 2.0 parking space per unit requirement for the residential components. The 2.0 parking spaces per residential unit ratio, which includes guest parking, is consistent with other mixed -use areas of the City, including the Harbor Boulevard Mixed -Use Transit Corridor Specific Plan (Harbor Plan) and the MEMU Overlay Zone. A comparison of parking standards in the City's various mixed -use zones is provided in Table 5 below. The proposed onsite parking ratios are expected to sufficiently address the mixed -use project site's needs. Because of the mixed -use nature of the project site, opportunities for shared parking exist as the residents are more likely to walk or bicycle to the neighborhood -serving uses on the project site, such as the commercial components and the open space areas. Moreover, the PMP's strategies of maximizing the built onsite parking through valet services will ensure every constructed parking space on site is utilized, and vehicular lifts will ensure the residential parking ratio of 2.0 spaces per residential unit is consistent with other code areas in the City and is sufficient for resident needs. Table 5: Mixed -Use Zoning District Parking Space Requirements Zoning District Residential Requirement, Commercial Requirement Including Guest Transit Zoning Code SD-84 Varies; 2.15 to 2.25 per unit Varies; 1 per 200 sq. ft. to 1 per 400 sq. ft. Harbor Plan Varies; 1.50 to 1.75 per unit 1 per 400 sq. ft. MEMO Overlay Zone Varies; 2.0 to 2.25 per unit Varies; 3 per 1,000 sq. ft. for office uses. Mixed -use developments with 10 percent or less of the gross floor area of the buildings dedicated to commercial uses need not provide extra commercial parking spaces. The Bowery (Proposed Project) 2.0 per unit 5 per 1,000 sq. ft. (SAMC general retail/service parking rate) 75C-403 General Plan Amendment To facilitate the applicant's request, a general plan amendment application and an amendment application are required to change the subject site's general plan land use and zoning district designations. The applicant's requests are consistent with the changes required for similar projects that were on properties not previous zoned for such developments, such as The Heritage at 2001 East Dyer Road and Elan at 1660 East First Street. The general plan amendment is required to change the subject site's current land use designation in the Santa Ana General Plan from Professional and Administration Office (PAO) to District Center (DC). The PAO designation allows high -quality professional and administrative office uses, as well as supportive limited commercial uses. Examples include office buildings, medical and dental practices, pharmacies, and cafes. Conversely, the proposed DC land use designation would be consistent with the proposed development. The DC land use designation allows medium- to high - intensity mixed -use developments such as the proposed project, and areas designated DC are typically located on the City's major thoroughfares. Residential development within these areas are allowed at a density of up to 90 dwelling units per acre. The subject site's location at the intersection of Redhill and Warner avenues, near the Costa Mesa (SR-55) Freeway, renders the DC designation appropriate for the proposed mixed -use development. Moreover, the subject site is in the vicinity of The Heritage, which was entitled in 2016, and the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan, a large master -planned community across Redhill Avenue in the City of Tustin that allows a mixture of land uses that are compatible with and complement the proposed development. If approved, the project would support several goals and policies of the Housing Element. First, the project would be consistent with Goal 2, which encourages diversity of quality housing, affordability levels, and living experiences that accommodate Santa Ana's residents and workforce of all household types, income levels and age groups to foster an inclusive community. Second, the project would support Goal 4, to provide adequate rental and ownership housing opportunities and supportive services. Further, the project would be consistent with Policy HE- 2.2 to create District Centers with high intensity, mixed -use urban villages and pedestrian oriented experiences. Finally, the project would be consistent with Policy HE-2.4 to facilitate diverse types, prices and sizes of housing. The project would also be consistent with goals of the Land Use Element, including Goal 1 to promote a balance of land uses to address basic community needs, and Goal 6 to reduce residential overcrowding to promote public health and safety. The proposed project will provide additional market rate housing in the City, thereby assisting in addressing the shortage of available housing within the region. The project will also provide additional housing options for those seeking housing within the jobs rich southeastern area of the City adjacent to the Irvine Business Complex. The development will also support Urban Design Element Goal 1 to improve the physical appearance of the City through development of a district that projects a sense of place, positive community image, and quality environment. In addition, the request for the proposed general plan amendment is consistent with the City's comprehensive General Plan update currently underway. The City has recently initiated the 75C-404 process to update its General Plan, which is the blueprint for future development. A key component of the update is to focus new growth and development along major corridors reducing the pressure for growth in low -density neighborhoods and to identify areas for future development, including but not limited to higher density residential development. As part of the update, the City has evaluated new land use designations for the General Plan and development opportunities in the area surrounding the project site known as the 55 Freeway/Dyer Road Focus Area. Identified goals for this area include protecting the industrial and employment base, attracting economic activity into the area, providing complementary housing, and maintaining hotel and commercial uses. The proposed general plan amendment and mixed -use development are consistent with the goals of the broader 55 Freeway/Dyer Road Focus Area considered in the comprehensive General Plan update and would provide complementary housing, contribute to the employment base, attract economic activity, and provide complementary commercial uses. Amendment Application (Zone Change) The applicant's request to change the existing zoning of Light Industrial (M-1) to Specific Development (SD) will facilitate construction of the proposed development. The SD is the appropriate zoning designation for the subject site as the M-1 zoning allows primarily industrial activities with ancillary, supportive commercial uses such as restaurants. Residential uses and a full spectrum of commercial uses are prohibited by the M-1 zoning district. Alternatively, the SD zoning district allows flexibility for developments that are master -planned and often mixed -use in nature, such as the proposed project. The SD is established for the purpose of protecting and promoting the public health, safety and general welfare of the City and its residents. This new zoning designation for the site is crafted to be consistent with the proposed project. The project's draft SD zoning designation, if approved, would contain allowable uses, development standards, parking requirements, landscaping standards, and signage regulations that address the specific needs of the development. The SD document will be of a format consistent with recently -approved SD documents for similar projects such as The Heritage and Legacy Sunflower at 651 West Sunflower Avenue. In addition, the proposed SD to allow the use of the site for residential development is supported as the location has elements to make the site a viable mixed -use commercial and residential development. The elements include having regional access to freeway and transportation systems and being within proximity to employment centers and nearby retail and commercial shopping opportunities. The applicant's request for a zone change will also establish consistency with the proposed General Plan land use designation, and will assist with implementing the General Plan through the appropriate zoning designation. The zone change is also consistent with the goals identified in the 55 Freeway/Dyer Road Focus Area considered in the comprehensive General Plan update. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) The applicant submitted a development proposal that requires the approval of several discretionary applications. Given the size and location of the project, as well as the proposed zoning and general plan modifications, extensive environmental review was needed. After completion of the Initial 75C-405 Study for the project, it was determined that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) required the preparation and certification of an environmental impact report (EIR) for this project. The purpose of an EIR is to identify the significant effects on the environment of a project, to identify alternatives to the project, and to indicate the way those significant effects can be mitigated or avoided. To determine what potential effects would be caused by the project, the Draft EIR analyzes issues related to Aesthetics; Air Quality; Cultural Resources; Energy; Geology and Soils; Greenhouse Gas Emissions; Hazardous Materials; Hydrology and Water Quality; Land Use and Planning; Noise; Population and Housing; Public Services and Recreation; Transportation; Tribal Cultural Resources; Utilities and Service Systems; and Project Alternatives. The Draft EIR analyzes the direct and indirect impacts resulting from construction and operation of the proposed project. On July 26, 2019, the Notice of Availability was released to solicit comments regarding the scope and content of the Draft EIR (DEIR). A scoping meeting was held on August 15, 2019 with one (1) person in attendance and 10 written comment letters received at the conclusion of the 30-day public comment period. The comments were reviewed and addressed as required by CEQA. The comments are included as part of the Final EIR. Three project alternatives were also analyzed within the document. These included a no build alternative, where the existing buildings would remain on site as is and be reoccupied by an office/industrial use (Alternative 1); a reduced multi -family project consisting of a 30 percent reduction in residential density and commercial square footages (Alternative 2); and build out of the site under the existing Professional zoning district development standards, which could result in an approximately 317,552-square foot light industrial office/industrial building (Alternative 3). The Draft EIR determined that the proposed project would require mitigation related to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, hazardous materials, construction noise and vibration, interior noise, transportation, and tribal resources. On January 3, 2020, the Draft EIR was circulated for review and comment to public, City Council, Planning Commission, local, regional and state agencies, and interested parties for a 45-day public comment review period that ended February 18, 2020. In addition, a Planning Commission work-study session was held on February 10, 2020 where staff presented proposed project and described the Draft EIR. The City has evaluated the comments received from persons and agencies on the Draft EIR and completed detailed Response to Comments, revisions to the Draft EIR including clarifications and/or corrections to typographical errors, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). The MMRP contains mitigation measures to address impacts to Air Quality, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Transportation, and Tribal Cultural Resources. The response to comments, MMRP and Final EIR were published on April 27, 2020 for public review. The Draft EIR, responses to comments document, revisions to the Draft EIR, and the MMRP constitute the Final EIR for the project. The EIR identifies five significant and unavoidable impact associated with this project, which pertain to Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Transportation. Air Quality impacts stem from emissions from operation of the project exceeding SCAQMD's threshold for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that would be derived from consumer products and vehicular activity that 75C-406 neither the applicant nor the City have the ability to reduce. Greenhouse Gas Emissions impacts stem from approximately 60 percent of the GHG emissions being generated by vehicle trips. Neither the applicant nor the City can substantively or materially reduce the vehicular -source GHG emissions. Lastly, Transportation impacts stem from the project's requirement to pay fair share funds to improve right -turn overlap phasing at the intersections of Grand and Warner avenues and Redhill and Alton avenues, calculated at 5.93 and 8.57 percent, respectively, and to construct or fully fund right -turn overlap phasing at the intersection of Redhill Avenue and Barranca Parkway. As a result of these impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level, adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required prior to approving the project. A Statement of Overriding Considerations is the process through which decision makers balance the economic, legal, social, and technological or other benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable environmental impacts. Economic Development The City utilized the services of AECOM to prepare an economic and fiscal analysis of the proposed project and to compare its impacts again those of an industrial prototype that could be built pursuant to the M-1 zoning district standards on the project site. The analysis reviewed key areas including residential, industrial, and retail market assessments; development feasibility; and economic and fiscal impacts of the project. AECOM's analysis reveals positive economic and fiscal impacts from either the proposed development or the industrial prototype due to the project site's location in a high -value, jobs -rich area surrounded by employment centers and commercial developments. The report's conclusions about the proposed project and the industrial prototype are illustrated in Table 6. Table 6: Kev Findings of the Proposed Project and Industrial Prototype Comparison of Impacts Topic Proposed Project Industrial Prototype Residential Market The proposed quantity of residential units N/A — Residential not permitted by current M- Assessment could be absorbed with low vacancy and 1 zoning designation high rents Industrial Market N/A —The proposed project does not contain The industrial prototype (up to 320,000- Assessment industrial buildings or uses square foot light industrial office/industrial building) could be absorbed into the broader market, as the expected incremental demand for new industrial square footage by 2026 is 2.2 millionsquare feet Retail Market The proposed 80,000 square feet of leasable N/A —The industrial prototype does not Assessment commercial square footage could be contain a significant commercial component absorbed by the market area due to the as commercial uses are limited by the M-1 buildout anticipated within a two-mile market zoning designation area Development $65 million ($100/square foot of land) $17 million ($26/square foot of land) Feasibility/Residual Land Value RLV Economic Impact $498 million in one-time construction $76 million in one-time construction impacts, impacts, $58 million in annual economic $153 million in annual economic impacts, 75C-407 Topic Proposed Project Industrial Prototype impacts, and 1,200 jobs, of which 349 would and 1,400 jobs, of which 638 would be in the be in the City City Fiscal Impact Annual net fiscal surplus of $1 million ($2.5 Annual net fiscal surplus of $525,000 million revenue but $1.5 million ($710,000 revenue but $185,000 expenditures), a 40 percent positive ratio expenditures), a 74 percent positive ratio Public Notification and Strategic Plan Alignment In conformance with all applicable SAMC requirements and City policies, a Sunshine Ordinance community meeting was held for the project on April 15, 2019 from 6:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. Notices were sent to property owners and tenants within 500 feet of all edges of the subject property. Attendees included the project applicant and architects, City staff, and two members of the public representing nearby properties and businesses. Questions posed by the two members of the public centered on the development's characteristics and timing. A Planning Commission work-study session was held on February 10, 2020 where staff presented proposed project and described the Draft EIR. Members of the Planning Commission provided feedback and posed questions on the overall development, mixture of land uses, options to satisfy affordable housing requirements, onsite parking, and a parking management plan. Following the work-study session, the applicant revised the project to increase the number of onsite parking spaces and prepared the parking management plan. Notification of the May 11, 2020 Planning Commission public hearing was mailed to all property owners, occupants, and other interested parties within 500 feet of the project site in accordance with SAMC requirements. Newspaper posting was published in the Orange County Register in accordance with SAMC requirements. Strategic Plan Alignment Approval of this item supports the City's efforts to meet Goal No. 3 Economic Development, Objective No. 2 (create new opportunities for business/job growth and encourage private development through new General Plan and Zoning Ordinance policies), and Goal No. 5 Community Health, Livability, Engagement & Sustainability, Objective No. 3 (facilitate diverse housing opportunities and support efforts to preserve and improve the livability of Santa Ana neighborhoods). Conclusion Based on the analysis provided within this report, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt: a resolution certifying Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2020-01 (SCH No. 2019080011), including adoption of environmental findings of fact pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; a resolution approving General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 2020-02; and an ordinance approving Amendment Application (AA) No. 2020-01 to establish Specific Development No. 96. 75C-408 EIR No. 2020-01, May 11, 2020 Page 13 GPA No. 2020-02, & AA No. 2020-01 — The Bowery Mixed -Use Development Ali Pezeshkpour, AICP Senior Planner AP/JG:sb SAPIanning Commission\2020\05-11-20\The Bowery\GPA-2020-2 AA-2020-1 EIR-2020-1 The Bowery 05112020.pc Exhibits: 1. EIR Resolution, including Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, MMRP, and Final EIR Link 2. General Plan Amendment Resolution & Exhibits 3. Amendment Application (Zone Change) Ordinance & Exhibits, Including Specific Development Zone Document (SD-96) 4. Vicinity Map 5. Site Photos 6. Final EIR Link 7. Overall Site/Conceptual Landscape Plan 8. Project Views (Renderings) 9. Sunshine Ordinance Community Meeting Materials 10. Parking Study and Management Plan 11. Economic and Fiscal Analysis 75C-409 EXHIBIT 1 75C-410 LS 5.11.20 RESOLUTION NO. 2020-xx A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA (1) ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, (2) CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2019080011), (3) ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND (4) APPROVING THE PROPOSED MIXED -USE COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS THE BOWERY LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AT 2300, 2310, AND 2320 SOUTH REDHILL AVENUE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines and declares as follows: WHEREAS, Jeremy Ogulnick, representing Arrimus Capital ("Applicant"), seeks to develop The Bowery Mixed -Use Commercial and Residential Project ("proposed Project"), on a 14.69-acre site at 2300, 2310, and 2320 South Redhill Avenue in Santa Ana, California ("Project Site"); and WHEREAS, during the City's entitlement and environmental review process, and in response to comments and concerns raised by the City and public, the Applicant has proposed the subject mixed -use Project; and WHEREAS, the Project as currently proposed entails, among other things, (1) demolition of the existing three (3) structures on the Project Site; (2) redevelopment of the Project Site with a commercial and residential mixed -use development consisting of up to 80,000 square feet leasable commercial area, 1,100 residential units, 2,600 onsite parking spaces, and onsite landscaping and amenities; (3) approval of General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 2020-02, which would change the Project Site's existing land use designation of Professional & Administration Office (PAO) to District Center (DC); and (4) approval of Amendment Application (AA) No. 2020-01, which would change the zoning of the Project Site from Light Industrial (M-1) to Specific Development No. 96 (SD-96) designation; and WHEREAS, the proposed Project has been submitted and requires review and certification of an Environmental Impact Report (the "EIR") (State Clearinghouse/SCH No. 2019080011) (Environmental Impact Report No. 2020-01) and the GPA and AA applications listed above; and Resolution No. 2020-xx 75C-411 Page 1 WHEREAS, the Project Site is located at the southwest corner of Redhill and Warner Avenue, at a gateway intersection into the City of Santa Ana and a location across major mixed -use development planning areas in the cities of Tustin and Irvine; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 21067 of the Public Resources Code, and Section 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, § 15000 et seq.), the City of Santa Ana is the lead agency for the proposed Project; and WHEREAS, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(a), the City as Lead Agency determined that an EIR was clearly required for the project, and therefore did not prepare an Initial Study; and WHEREAS, the City determined that an EIR should be prepared to evaluate the proposed Project's potential to have a significant effect on the environment in all of the following areas as required by Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines Appendices: Aesthetics; Air Quality; Cultural Resources; Energy; Geology and Soils; Greenhouse Gas Emissions; Hazardous Materials; Hydrology and Water Quality; Land Use and Planning; Noise; Population and Housing; Public Services and Recreation; Transportation; Tribal Cultural Resources; Utilities and Service Systems; and Project Alternatives; and WHEREAS, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, on July 26, 2019, the City sent to the Office of Planning and Research and each responsible and trustee agency a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") - which was also published in the Orange County Register, a newspaper of general circulation - stating that an Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2019080011) would be prepared; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.9 and State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15082(c) and 15083, the City held a duly noticed Scoping Meeting on August 15, 2019, to solicit comments on the scope of the environmental review of the proposed Project; and WHEREAS, ten (10) comment letters were received in response to the NOP; and WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR") was prepared for the proposed Project, addressing comments received in response to the NOP and evaluating the proposed Project's potentially significant environmental impacts; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR identifies five significant and unavoidable impact associated with this project, which pertain to Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Transportation. Air Quality impacts stem from emissions from operation of the project exceeding SCAQMD's threshold for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that would be derived from consumer products and vehicular activity that neither the Applicant nor the City have the ability to reduce. Greenhouse Gas Emissions impacts stem from approximately 60 percent of the GHG emissions being generated by vehicle trips. Neither the Applicant nor the City can substantively or materially reduce the vehicular -source GHG emissions. Lastly, Transportation impacts stem from the Resolution No. 2020-xx 75C-412 Page 2 project's requirement to pay fair share funds to improve right -turn overlap phasing at the intersections of Grand and Warner Avenues and Redhill Avenue and Alton Parkway, and to construct right -turn overlap phasing and prohibit southbound U-turns at the intersection of Redhill Avenue and Barranca Parkway; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR further determines that mitigation measures are required to address impacts to Air Quality, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Transportation, and Tribal Cultural Resources; and WHEREAS, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15085, a Notice of Completion was prepared and filed with the Office of Planning and Research on January 3, 2020; and WHEREAS, as required by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15087(a), the City provided a Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR to the public - and published the Notice of Availability in the Orange County Register - at the same time that the City sent a Notice of Completion to the Office of Planning and Research on January 3, 2020; and WHEREAS, during the public comment period, copies of the Draft EIR and technical appendices were available for review and inspection at City Hall (20 Civic Center Plaza), on the City's website, and at the Santa Ana Public Library (26 Civic Center Plaza); and WHEREAS, during the public comment period, a Planning Commission work- study session was held on February 10, 2020 where staff presented proposed project and described the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15087(e), the Draft EIR was circulated for a 45-day review period, from January 3, 2020 to February 18, 2020; and WHEREAS, during the 45-day public comment period, the City consulted with and requested comments from all responsible and trustee agencies, other regulatory agencies, and others pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15086; and WHEREAS, the City has complied with CEQA environmental review requirements; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, on April 27, 2020, the City provided copies of its responses to commenting public agencies and interested organizations and parties more than ten (10) days prior to the City's consideration of the Final EIR; and WHEREAS, on April 27, 2020, the City released the Final EIR ("Final EIR"), attached hereto as Exhibit "C", which consists of the Draft EIR, all technical appendices prepared in support of the Draft EIR, all written comment letters received on the Draft EIR, written responses to all written comment letters received and verbal comments Resolution No. 2020-xx 75C-413 Page 3 received on the Draft EIR, revisions to the Draft EIR and technical appendices, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and WHEREAS, on May 11, 2020, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the EIR and the GPA, and AA applications described above. After hearing all relevant testimony from staff, the public and the City's consultant team, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council certify the EIR and adopt the findings, the statement of overriding considerations and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program and approve the Project; and WHEREAS, on May 21, 2020, the City gave public notice of a City Council public hearing for consideration of Environmental Impact Report No. 2020-01 (State Clearinghouse No. 2019080011) by advertising in the Orange County Register, a newspaper of general circulation, and by mailing to owners of property and residents within 500 feet of the Project; and WHEREAS, on June 2, 2020, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the EIR, General Plan Amendment No. 2020-02, and Amendment Application No. 2020-01 and at which hearing members of the public were afforded an opportunity to comment upon Environmental Impact Report No. 2020-01. After hearing all relevant testimony from staff, the public and the City's consultant team, the City Council voted to certify the EIR, adopt the findings, the statement of overriding considerations and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program and approve the Project; and WHEREAS, the "EIR" consists of the Final EIR, and all attachments and appendices to the Final EIR, as well as the Draft EIR and its attachments and appendices (as modified by the Final EIR); and WHEREAS, all potentially significant adverse environmental impacts were sufficiently analyzed in the EIR; and WHEREAS, as contained herein, the City Council has endeavored in good faith to set forth the basis for its decision and recommendations on the Project; and WHEREAS, all of the requirements of the Public Resources Code and the State CEQA Guidelines have been satisfied by the City in connection with the preparation of the EIR, which is sufficiently detailed so that all of the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project have been adequately evaluated; and WHEREAS, all of the findings and conclusions made by the City Council pursuant to this Resolution are based upon the oral and written evidence presented to it as a whole and the entirety of the administrative record for the Project, which are incorporated herein by this reference, and not based solely on the information provided in this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Project's significant environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level even with incorporation Resolution No. 2020-xx 75C-414 Page 4 of all feasible mitigation measures, as identified in the EIR, and described in Section 4 of the CEQA Findings of Fact, attached hereto as Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Project's environmental impacts that are less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation measures, as identified in the EIR, are described in Section 3 of the Findings of Fact, attached hereto as Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that environmental impacts that are identified in the EIR as less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Section 2 of the Findings of Fact, attached hereto as Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, the cumulative impacts of the Project identified in the EIR are described in Section 5 of the Findings of Fact, attached hereto as Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, the potential significant and irreversible environmental changes that would result from the proposed Project identified in the EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section 5 of the Findings of Fact, attached hereto as "Exhibit A"; and WHEREAS, the existence of any growth -inducing impacts resulting from the proposed Project identified in the EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section 5 of the Findings of Fact, attached hereto as Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, alternatives to the proposed Project that might further reduce the proposed Project's environmental impacts are described in Section 5 of the Findings of Fact, attached hereto as Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the City Council has heard, been presented with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record, including but not limited to the EIR, and all oral and written evidence presented to it during all meetings and hearings; and WHEREAS, the EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council and is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Project; and WHEREAS, no comments made in the public hearing conducted by the City Council and no additional information submitted to the City have produced substantial new information requiring recirculation of the EIR or additional environmental review of the Project under Public Resources Code section 21092.1 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5; and WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred; and NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE, FIND, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: 1. The City Council hereby finds that it has been presented with the EIR, which it has reviewed and considered, and further finds that the EIR is an accurate Resolution No. 2020-xx 75C-415 Page 5 and objective statement that has been completed in full compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, and that the EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City. 2. The City Council declares that no evidence of new significant impacts or any new information of "substantial importance", as defined by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, has been received by the City after circulation of the Draft EIR that would require recirculation of the EIR. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL HEREBY: 1. Certifies the EIR based on the entirety of the record of proceedings. 2. Adopts the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A", after balancing the significant and unavoidable aesthetic impacts of the Project against the benefits of the Project 3. Adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "B", consistent with Public Resources Code section 21081.6; makes implementation of the Mitigation Measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program a condition of approval of the Project; and find that in the event of any inconsistencies between the Mitigation Measures set forth herein and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program shall control. 4. Directs City staff to cause a Notice of Determination to be filed and posted with the County of Orange Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk and the State Clearinghouse within five (5) working days of the City Council's final Project approval. Section 2. INDEMNIFICATION. The Applicant has agreed to and shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, authorized volunteers, and instrumentalities thereof, harmless from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other proceedings (whether legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute resolution procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and such other procedures), judgments, orders, and decisions (collectively "Actions"), brought against the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or annul, any action of, or any permit or approval issued by the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City) for or concerning the Project, whether such Actions are brought under the Ralph M. Brown Act, California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning and Zoning Law, the Subdivision Map Act, Code of Civil Procedure sections Resolution No. 2020-xx 75C-416 Page 6 1085 or 1094.5, or any other federal, state or local constitution, statute, law, ordinance, charter, rule, regulation, or any decision of a court of competent jurisdiction. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld, the legal counsel providing the City's defense, and that Applicant shall reimburse the City for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the course of the defense. City shall promptly notify the Applicant of any Action brought and City shall cooperate with Applicant in the defense of the Action. Section 3. EXECUTION OF RESOLUTION. The Mayor shall sign this Resolution and the Clerk of the Council shall attest and certify to the adoption thereof. ADOPTED this _ day of APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sonia R. Carvalho City Attorney By: Lisa Storck Assistant City Attorney AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: NOT PRESENT Councilmembers Councilmembers Councilmembers Councilmembers 2020. Miguel A. Pulido Mayor 75C-417 Resolution No. 2020-xx Page 7 CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, DAISY GOMEZ, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2020-xx to be the original resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on 12020. Date: Daisy Gomez Clerk of the Council City of Santa Ana Resolution No. 2020-xx 75C-418 Page 8 The Bowery Mixed -Use Proied CEQA Findinqs of Fad CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT FOR THE BOWERY MIXED -USE PROJECT SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2019080011 CITY OF SANTA ANA DP NO. 2019-06 Public Resources Code section 21002 states that "public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]" Section 21002 further states that the procedures required by CEQA "are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which would avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects." Agencies demonstrate compliance with section 21002's mandate by adopting findings before approving projects for which EIRs are required. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (a); State CEQA Guidelines § 15091, subd. (a).) The approving agency must make written findings for each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a proposed project and must reach at least one of three permissible conclusions. • The first possible finding is that "[c]hanges or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR." (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091, subd. (a)(1 ).) • The second permissible finding is that "[s]uch changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding" and that "[s]uch changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency." (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091, subd. (a)(2).) • The third potential conclusion is that "[s]pecific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR." (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091, subd. (a)(3).) Agencies must not adopt a project with significant environmental impacts if feasible alternatives or mitigation measures would substantially lessen the significant impacts. Public Resources Code section 21061.1 defines "feasible" to mean "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological factors." State CEQA Guidelines section 15364 adds "legal" considerations as another indicium of feasibility (See also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 565). Project objectives also inform the determination of "feasibility." (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 401, 417.) Further, "'feasibility' under CEQA encompasses `desirability' to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors." (Id.; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715.) An agency need not, however, adopt infeasible mitigation measures or alternatives (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091, subds. (a), (b)). Further, environmental impacts that are less than significant do not require the imposition of mitigation measures (Leonoff v. Monterey County Board of Supervisors (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1337, 1347). City of Santa Ana May 2020 75C-419 The Bowery Mixed -Use Proied CEQA Findinqs of Fad Notably, section 21002 requires an agency to "substantially lessen or avoid" significant adverse environmental impacts. Thus, mitigation measures that "substantially lessen" significant environmental impacts, even if not completely avoided, satisfy section 21002's mandate. (Laurel Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 521 ("CEQA does not mandate the choice of the environmentally best feasible project if through the imposition of feasible mitigation measures alone the appropriate public agency has reduced environmental damage from a project to an acceptable level"); Las Virgenes Homeowners Federation, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 300, 309 ("[t]here is no requirement that adverse impacts of a project be avoided completely or reduced to a level of insignificance ... if such would render the Project unfeasible"). CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible, to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur. Project modification or alternatives are not required, however, where such changes are infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying the Project lies with some other agency. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091, subds. (a), (b). The California Supreme Court has stated, "[t]he wisdom of approving ... any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced." (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 576). The City of Santa Ana has determined that based on all the evidence presented, including, but not limited to, the Final EIR, written and oral testimony given at meetings and hearings on the Project, and submission of testimony from the public, organizations and regulatory agencies, the following environmental impacts associated with the Project are: (1) less than significant and do not require mitigation; (2) potentially significant and each of these impacts would be avoided or reduced to a level of insignificance through the identified mitigation measures; or (3) significant and cannot be fully mitigated to a level of less than significant but will be substantially lessened to the extent feasible by the identified mitigation measures. City of Santa Ana 2 May 2020 75C-420 The Bowery Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fad SECTION I ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The Final EIR includes the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) dated January 2020, written comments on the Draft EIR that were received during the public review period, written responses to those comments and changes to the Draft EIR, and the Final EIR Errata making minor corrections and revisions to the Final EIR. In conformance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Santa Ana conducted an extensive environmental review of the Bowery Mixed -Use Project: • The City of Santa Ana concluded that an EIR should be prepared, and the Notice of Preparation (NOP) was released for a 30-day public review period from July 26, 2019 (Modified on August 5, 2019), through August 29, 2019. The NOP was posted at the Orange County Clerk's Office on July 26, 2019 and August 5, 2019. The notice was published in the Orange County Reporter, a newspaper of general circulation. Under CEQA, a Lead Agency may proceed directly with preparation of the EIR without preparation of an Initial Study if it is clear that an EIR will be required (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15060[d]). The City of Santa Ana has made such a determination for this Project and has not prepared an Initial Study. • Completion of a scoping process, in which the public was invited by the City of Santa Ana to participate. The scoping meeting for the EIR was held on August 15, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. at the Embassy Suites located at 1325 East Dyer Road in Santa Ana. The notice of a public scoping meeting was included in the NOP distributed on July 26, 2019 and August 5, 2019. • Preparation of a Draft EIR by the City of Santa Ana, which was made available for a 46- day public review period (January 3, 2020 through February 18, 2020). The Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft EIR was sent to all persons, agencies and organizations on the interest list interested persons, sent to the State Clearinghouse in Sacramento for distribution to public agencies, and published in the January 3, 2020 Orange County Reporter. The NOA was posted at the Orange County Clerk's Office on January 3, 2020. Copies of the Draft EIR were made available for public review at the City of Santa Ana, Planning Division Counter, located at 20 Civic Center Plaza, M-20, Santa Ana, CA 92701, and the City of Santa Ana Public Library, located at 26 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701. The Draft EIR was also available for review and download via the following City website location: https://www.santa-ana.org/pb/planning-division/major-planning- pro jects-and-documents/bowery. • The Final EIR contains comments on the Draft EIR, responses to those comments, revisions to the Draft EIR, if any, and appended documents. The Final EIR was released for a 10-day agency review period prior to certification of the Final EIR. • After considering the EIR and in conjunction with making these findings, the City of Santa Ana hereby finds that pursuant to Section 15092 of the CEQA Guidelines that approval of the Project will result in significant effects on the environment, however, the significant effects will be eliminated or substantially lessened where feasible, and has determined that remaining significant effects are found to be acceptable under Section 15093. • The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is hereby adopted to ensure implementation of feasible mitigation measures identified in the EIR. The City of Santa Ana City of Santa Ana 3 May 2020 75C-421 The Bowery Mixed -Use Proied CEQA Findinqs of Fad finds that these mitigation measures are fully enforceable conditions on the Project and shall be binding upon the City and affected parties. • The City of Santa Ana finds that the Project is in the public interest and is necessary for the public health, safety, and welfare. • The City of Santa Ana hereby certifies the Final EIR in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. • Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15095, staff is directed as follows: a) copy of the Final EIR and CEQA Findings of Fact shall be retained in the Project files; b) copy of the Final EIR and CEQA Findings of Fact shall be provided to the Project applicant who is responsible for providing copy of same to all CEQA "responsible" agencies. City of Santa Ana 4 May 2020 75C-422 The Bowery Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fad SECTION II RESOLUTION REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT REQUIRING MITIGATION Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines does not require specific findings to address environmental effects that an EIR identifies as "less than significant" where no mitigation is required. These findings will nevertheless fully account for all such effects identified in the Draft EIR in this Section II. Thus, the City hereby finds that the following potential environmental impacts of the Project are less than significant and do not require the imposition of mitigation measures: A. Aesthetics Impact Finding: The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista (Draft EIR at p. 5.1 -23). Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site and surrounding areas are either urbanized or planned for urbanization and do not contain any sensitive scenic vistas. The General Plan Scenic Corridors Element does not identify any scenic resources or vistas at or adjacent to the Project site. The nearest feature identified by the General Plan is Edinger Avenue, a "Secondary Street Corridor", which is approximately 1 mile north of the site. Due to the flat topography and distance, Edinger Avenue it is not visible from the Project site. Because there are no scenic vistas within the viewshed of the Project site, no impacts related to the scenic vistas would occur from implementation of the proposed Project. Impact Finding: The Project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway (Draft EIR at p. 5.1 -23). Facts in Support of Findings: There are no officially designated state scenic highways in the vicinity of the proposed Project (Caltrans 2019). The only officially designated scenic highway within Orange County is a portion of SR-91 that is located between SR-55 to east of the Anaheim city limit (Caltrans 2019), which is not in the vicinity of the Project site. Likewise, there are no County - designated scenic highways that run through the City of Santa Ana. Further, the proposed Project site is flat and surrounded by an urban built environment, and there are no other scenic resources, including trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings within the viewshed of the Project. Therefore, no impacts related to scenic resources within a state scenic highway would occur. Impact Finding: The Project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings and would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality (Draft EIR at p. 5.1-24). Facts in Support of Findings: Construction Construction of the proposed Project is anticipated to last approximately 27-months. Views of demolition and construction activities would exist from adjacent public view locations along Red Hill Avenue and Warner Avenue. During Project demolition and construction, various activities would alter the character of the Project site and its surroundings. Graded surfaces, demolition and construction debris, construction equipment, and truck traffic would be visible. Soil would also be stockpiled and equipment for grading activities would be staged at various locations throughout the site. Construction -related visual impacts would not be constant over the 27-month construction City of Santa Ana 5 May 2020 75C-423 The Bowery Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findinqs of Fact period (as different construction phases would involve varying activities occurring at different times). Upon completion of construction, these short-term visual impacts would cease. Because the views of construction activities would be temporary and changing as construction progresses, impacts related to the visual degradation of the existing character or quality of the site would be temporary and less than significant. Onerations Implementation of the Project would result in a strong visual contrast from existing conditions but would not degrade the character or quality of the site, which currently has limited visual character or interest. The character of the site would change from setback urban views of industrial uses to a residential, urban mixed -use village that would have a unifying urban modern architectural theme. While implementation of the Project would alter the visual character of the site and surroundings, it is not anticipated that a substantial degradation of the visual character or quality would occur. In addition, the proposed Project would be visually compatible with the existing and future built environment in the Project area that includes various high -density, urban -style boxy large buildings and ornamental landscaping. The areas in the viewshed of the Project site include urban structures such as, Naval Air Station airplane hangars, two and four-story office structures, and a 5-story hotel. The undeveloped chained linked areas across from the Project site in the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan are planned for employment buildings that would likely be modern in architecture and are permitted to be 6-stories and 70-feet in height with a 40-foot setback from Red Hill Avenue. Although the 94 foot high structure would be 24-feet higher than development within the Tustin Legacy, and four stories taller than adjacent structures on Red Hill and across Warner Avenue from the site, the modern urban and dense character of the proposed Project would be similar to the existing and planned uses, which generate similar views. As a result, the proposed Project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character of the site or surrounding area, and impacts would be less than significant. Regarding a potential conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality, the Project includes a zone change that would change the existing zoning designation change from M-1 (Light Industrial) to a Specific Development (SD) to implement the proposed mixed -use Project. As described in the City's Zoning Code Section 41-593.1, the purpose of the SD zone is to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare by the use of good design principles, maintaining an orderly and harmonious appearance, and encouraging excellence of property development. When development projects are proposed within the SD zone, they are required (per Zoning Code Section 41-593.4) to submit development plans for architectural review to ensure that buildings, structures, and grounds would be in keeping with the neighborhood and would not be detrimental to the harmonious development of the City or impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood. The proposed Project would create an attractive, cohesive mixed -use community through the use of contemporary architectural materials and landscaping throughout the Project site. As required by the Zoning Code, the proposed Project's development plans would be reviewed by the City to ensure consistency with development standards. Thus, the proposed Project would not conflict with applicable zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality. Overall, impacts would be less than significant. Impact Finding: The Project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area (Draft EIR at p. 5.1-4). City of Santa Ana 6 May 2020 75C-424 The Bowery Mixed -Use Proied CEQA Findinqs of Fad Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed Project would include the provision of nighttime lighting for security purposes around all of the buildings and parking structures. Implementation of the proposed Project would result in a higher intensity development on the site than currently exists, which would contribute additional sources to the overall ambient nighttime lighting conditions. However, all outdoor lighting would be hooded, appropriately angled away from adjacent land uses, and would comply with the Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41-611.1 and Section 41-1304 that provides specifications for shielding lighting away from adjacent uses and intensity of security lighting. Because the Project area is within an urban area with various sources of existing nighttime lighting, and the Project would be required to comply with the City's lighting regulations that would be verified by the City's Planning and Building Agency during the permitting process, the lighting increase in light that would be generated by the Project would not adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Overall, lighting impacts would be less than significant. Reflective light (glare) can be caused by sunlight or artificial light reflecting from finished surfaces such as window glass or other reflective materials. Generally, darker or mirrored glass would have a higher visible light reflectance than clear glass. Buildings constructed of highly reflective materials from which the sun reflects at a low angle can cause adverse glare. However, the proposed Project would not use highly reflective surfaces, or glass sided buildings. Although the residential and commercial buildings would contain windows, the windows would be separated by stucco and architectural treatments, which would limit the potential of glare. In addition, as described previously, onsite lighting would be angled down and shielded, which would avoid the potential on onsite lighting to generate glare. In addition, the majority of vehicle parking would be located within parking structures and the Project does not contain large surface parking lots that could generate glare from numerous windshields aligned in one area. Therefore, the Project would not generate substantial sources of glare, and impacts would be less than significant. B. Air Quality Impact Finding: Construction of the Project would not 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 (Draft EIR at p. 5.2-15). Facts in Support of Findings: Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would result in short-term and temporary emissions of CO, VOCs, NOx, SOx, PMio, and PM2.5 lasting approximately 27- months. The maximum daily construction emissions were estimated using CaIEEMod; and the modeling includes compliance with SCAQMD Rules 403, 431.2, 1 1 13, and 1 186 / 1 186.1, which are requirements that would reduce air contaminants during construction. The Draft EIR Table 5.2-7, on page 5.2-16, provides the maximum daily emissions of criteria air pollutants from construction of the proposed Project and shows that SCAQMD thresholds would not be exceeded. Thus, impacts related to construction emissions would be less than significant with implementation of required SCAQMD Rules listed below. Plans, Program and Policies: PPP AQ-1: Rule 403. The following measures shall be incorporated into construction plans and specifications as implementation of Rule 403: o All clearing, grading, earth -moving, or excavation activities shall cease when winds exceed 25 mph per SCAQMD guidelines in order to limit fugitive dust emissions. o The contractor shall ensure that all disturbed unpaved roads and disturbed areas within the Project are watered at least three (3) times daily during dry weather. City of Santa Ana 7 May 2020 75C-425 The Bowery Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact Watering, with complete coverage of disturbed areas, shall occur at least three times a day, preferably in the mid -morning, afternoon, and after work is done for the day. o The contractor shall ensure that traffic speeds on unpaved roads and Project site areas are reduced to 15 miles per hour or less. PPP ACI-2: Rule 1113. The following measure shall be incorporated into construction plans and specifications as implementation of Rule 1113. The Project shall only use "Low -Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)" paints (no more than 50 gram/liter of VOC) consistent with SCAQMD Rule 1113. PPP AQ-3: Rule 445. The following measure shall be incorporated into construction plans and specifications as implementation of Rule 445. Wood burning stoves and fireplaces shall not be included or used in the new development. Impact Finding: The Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations (Draft EIR at p. 5.2.17). Facts in Support of Findings: Localized Construction Air Quality. As shown in the Draft EIR in Table 5.2-9, on page 5.2-17, emissions during peak construction activity of the Project would not exceed the SCAQMD's localized significance threshold for any of the pollutants. Therefore, impacts related to localized significant emissions from construction activity would be less than significant. CO Hotspots. An adverse CO concentration, known as a "hot spot", can occur if an exceedance of the state one -hour standard of 20 ppm or the eight -hour standard of 9 ppm were to occur. With operations of the proposed Project and cumulative projects, the traffic volume (described in Draft EIR at Table 5.2-10, on page 5.2-18) would not be high enough to generate a CO "hot spot" per the 2003 AQMP hot spot study. Therefore, impacts related to CO "hot spots" from operation of the proposed Project would be less than significant. Impact Finding: The Project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people (Draft EIR at p. 5.2.18). Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed Project would not emit other emissions, such as those generating objectionable odors, that would affect a substantial number of people. The type of facilities that are considered to result in other emissions, such as objectionable odors, include wastewater treatments plants, compost facilities, landfills, solid waste transfer stations, fiberglass manufacturing facilities, paint/coating operations (e.g., auto body shops), dairy farms, petroleum refineries, asphalt batch plants, chemical manufacturing, and food manufacturing facilities. The proposed Project would implement retail and restaurant commercial and residential development within the Project area. These land uses do not involve the types of uses that would emit objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. During construction, emissions from construction equipment, architectural coatings, and paving activities may generate odors. However, these odors would be temporary, intermittent in nature, and would not affect a substantial number of people. The noxious odors would be confined to the immediate vicinity of the construction equipment. Also, the short-term construction -related odors would cease upon the drying or hardening of the odor -producing materials. City of Santa Ana 8 May 2020 75C-426 The Bowery Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findinqs of Fact In addition, all Project -generated solid waste would be stored in covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance with solid waste regulations and would not generate objectionable odors. Therefore, impacts associated with other operation- and construction - generated emissions, such as odors, would be less than significant. C. Cultural Resources Impact Finding: The Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 (Draft EIR at p. 5.3-7). Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site does not contain any historic resources. As described in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment that was prepared for the Project site (Phase 1 201 8) (Appendix D of the Draft EIR), aerial photographs between 1938 and 1977 show the site being used for agriculture or being vacant. The existing industrial buildings was constructed in the early 1980s, which are not more than 39 years old and are not historic resources. The industrial buildings were previously used by Ricoh Electronics Inc. for imaging and electronics manufacturing. No historically important activities previously occurred within the existing buildings. Overall, the site does not include any historic resources and implementation of the proposed Project would not impact a historic resource. In addition, the Project site is not adjacent to any historic structures. Areas surrounding the site consist of modern office buildings, business park buildings, modern public service facilities, and vacant land that is proposed for new development. Therefore, redevelopment of the Project site would not result in an indirect effect to any off -site historic resources. Overall, no impacts related to historic resources would occur from implementation of the proposed Project. Impact Finding: The Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. (Draft EIR at p. 5.3-7). Facts in Support of Findings: The site has a long history of ground disturbance from previous agricultural uses and development, as detailed in the Geotechnical Report (Appendix C of the Draft EIR) describes that artificial fill was observed in field explorations up to 7.5 feet below existing grade and previous excavation and recompaction ranged from 5 feet to 13 feet for development of the existing buildings and removal of underground storage tanks. It is likely that the site disturbance included the undeveloped portion of the site at the corner of Red Hill and Warner Avenue. The extensive previous excavation, recompaction, and fill soils onsite have limited the potential of the site to contain archaeological resources. Also, as described in the Draft EIR Section 3.0, Project Description, the proposed Project would excavate onsite soils to a minimum of 5 feet below the bottom of the building foundations and 5 feet beyond the building perimeters. The soils would be reconditioned and recompacted as engineered fill to support the proposed building structures. The depth of the excavation is within the previously disturbed soil depths, which further reduces the potential of the Project to result in impacts related to archaeological resources. Overall, due to the extent and depth of previous ground disturbances throughout the site, the potential for archaeological resources is limited. Therefore, the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resources; and impacts would be less than significant. City of Santa Ana 9 May 2020 75C-427 The Bowery Mixed -Use Proied CEQA Findinqs of Fad Impact Finding: The Project would not disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries (Draft EIR at p. 5.3-8). Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site has been extensively disturbed and has not been previously used as a cemetery. Thus, impacts related to human remains are less than significant. In the unanticipated event that human remains are found during project construction activities compliance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 would ensure that human remains are treated with dignity and as specified by law. As specified by California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, if human remains are found on the Project site, the County Coroner's office shall be immediately notified and no further excavation or disturbance of the discovery or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains shall occur until the Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code 5097.98. If the Coroner recognizes the remains to be Native American, he or she shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours. The NAHC will make a determination as to the Most Likely Descendent. Compliance with the existing California Health and Safety Code regulations, would ensure impacts related to potential disturbance of human remains are less than significant. D. Enerav Impact Finding: The Project would not result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation (Draft EIR at p. 5.4-5). Facts in Support of Findings: Construction During construction of the proposed Project, energy would be consumed in three general forms, petroleum -based fuels, electricity, and energy used in the production of construction materials. Construction activities related to the proposed mixed -use Project would not be expected to result in demand for fuel greater on a per -unit -of -development basis than other development projects in Southern California. Construction would occur over a 27-month period and the demand for construction -related electricity and fuels would be limited to those time frames. Draft EIR pages 5.4-6 through 5.4-7 detail that construction of the proposed Project is estimated to result in the need for 1,674,604 kWh of electricity, approximately 123,957 gallons of diesel fuel. Construction workers would use approximately 291,025 gallons of fuel to travel to and from the Project area. Approximately 25,976 gallons of fuel would be used by medium high duty and 160,174 gallons of fuel would be used for hauling by heavy-duty trucks during construction of the proposed Project. Construction contractors are required to demonstrate compliance with applicable California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulations and compliance with existing CARB idling restrictions and the use of newer engines and equipment would reduce fuel combustion and energy consumption on the Project site. Overall, construction activities would require limited energy consumption and would comply with all existing regulations. Thus, impacts related to construction energy usage would be less than significant. City of Santa Ana 10 May 2020 75C-428 The Bowery Mixed -Use Proied CEQA Findinqs of Fad Oaeration Once operational, the mixed -use Project would generate demand for electricity, natural gas, as well as gasoline for motor vehicle trips. Operational use of energy includes the heating, cooling, and lighting of buildings, water heating, operation of electrical systems and plug-in appliances within buildings, parking lot and outdoor lighting, and the transport of electricity, natural gas, and water to the areas where they would be consumed. Draft EIR pages 5.4-8 and 5.4-9 detail that operation of the proposed Project is estimated to result in the annual use of 1,236,920 gallons of fuel. In addition, the proposed Project would use approximately 29,255,440 thousand British thermal units (kBTU) per year of natural gas, and approximately 12,721,140 kilowatt-hour (kWh) per year of electricity. The proposed mixed -use development would be required to meet the current Title 24 energy efficiency standards. The City's administration of the Title 24 requirements and the City's Climate Action Plan includes review of design components and energy conservation measures that occurs during the permitting process, which ensures that all requirements are met. Typical Title 24 measures include insulation; use of energy -efficient heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment (HVAC); solar -reflective roofing materials; energy -efficient indoor and outdoor lighting systems; reclamation of heat rejection from refrigeration equipment to generate hot water; and incorporation of skylights, etc. In complying with the Title 24 standards, impacts to peak energy usage periods would be minimized, and impacts on statewide and regional energy needs would be reduced. All development is required to comply with the adopted California Energy Code (Code of Regulations, Title 24 Part 6). The Project would consist of an urban infill redevelopment that would provide mixed residential and commercial (retail/restaurant) uses. Since it would be undertaken on a currently developed and underutilized site, and would be located near existing off -site employment, commercial, residential, and retail destinations and in proximity to existing public bus stops and freeways, which would result in reduced vehicle trips and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) in comparison to a Project of similar size and land without close access to employment, service, and retail, destinations; in addition to public transit and freeways. In addition, the Project site is within an area where existing infrastructure would provide for efficient delivery of electricity and natural gas to the Project and the Project would not inhibit the development of other alternative energy sources. Furthermore, other existing and future regulations are likely to result in more efficient use of all types of energy, and reduction in reliance on non- renewable sources of energy. These include the federal Energy Independence and Security Act, the state Long Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan, SB 350 and AB 1007, which are designed to reduce reliance on non-renewable energy resources and reduce demand by providing federal tax credits for purchasing fuel -efficient items and improving the renewable fuel, appliance, and lighting standards. Thus, operation of the proposed Project would not use large amounts of energy or fuel in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary manner, and impacts would be less than significant. Impact Finding: The Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed Project would be required to meet the CCR Title 24 energy efficiency standards in effect during permitting of the Project. The City's administration of the CCR Title 24 requirements includes review of design components and energy conservation City of Santa Ana 1 1 May 2020 75C-429 The Bowery Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact measures that occurs during the permitting process, which ensures that all requirements are met. In addition, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct opportunities to use renewable energy, such as solar energy. Redevelopment of the site would not result in obstruction of opportunities for use of renewable energy. Thus, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and impacts would not occur. E. Geology and Soils Impact Finding: The Project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault. (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 4) (Draft EIR at p. 5.5-7). Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and no active faults are known to cross the site. The closest known active faults are associated with the San Joaquin Hills Fault, located approximately 1.5 miles from the site; the Newport -Inglewood Fault Zone, approximately 8.4 miles southwest of the site; and the Elsinore Fault Zone, approximately 13.2 miles northeast of the site. Because no known faults exist on the site, the proposed Project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects from rupture of a known earthquake fault that is delineated on an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map or other evidence of a fault, and impacts would not occur. Impact Finding: The Project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking (Draft EIR at p. 5.5-7). Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site is within a seismically active region, with numerous faults capable of producing significant ground motions. The closest known active faults are associated with the San Joaquin Hills Fault, located approximately 1.5 miles from the site; the Newport -Inglewood Fault Zone, approximately 8.4 miles southwest of the site; and the Elsinore Fault Zone, approximately 13.2 miles northeast of the site (GEO 2019). Therefore, Project implementation could subject people and structures to hazards from ground shaking. However, seismic shaking is a risk throughout southern California, and the Project site is not at greater risk of seismic activity or impacts as compared to other areas within the region. The CBC includes provisions to reduce impacts caused by major structural failures or loss of life resulting from earthquakes or other geologic hazards. For example, Chapter 16 of the CBC contains requirements for design and construction of structures to resist loads, including earthquake loads. The CBC provides procedures for earthquake resistant structural design that include considerations for onsite soil conditions, occupancy, and the configuration of the structure including the structural system and height. The City of Santa Ana has adopted the CBC as part of the Municipal Code Chapter 8, Article 2, Division 1, which regulates all building and construction projects within the City and implements a minimum standard for building design and construction that includes specific requirements for seismic safety, excavation, foundations, retaining walls and site demolition. Structures built in the City are required to be built in compliance with the CBC. The Project would be required to adhere to the provisions of the CBC as part of the building plan check and development review process. City of Santa Ana 12 May 2020 75C-430 The Bowery Mixed -Use Proied CEQA Findinqs of Fad Compliance with the requirements of the CBC for structural safety would reduce hazards from strong seismic ground shaking. Because the proposed Project would be required to be constructed in compliance with the CBC and the City's Municipal Code, which would be verified through the City's plan check and permitting process and is included as PPP GEO-1, the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact related to strong seismic ground shaking. Plans, Program and Policies: PPP GEO-1: CBC Compliance. The Project is required to comply with the California Building Standards Code (CBC) as included in the City's Municipal Code as Chapter 8, Article 2, Division 1, to preclude significant adverse effects associated with seismic and soils hazards. As part of CBC compliance, CBC related and geologist and/or civil engineer specifications for the proposed Project shall be incorporated into grading plans and building specifications as a condition of construction permit approval. Impact Finding: The Project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction (Draft EIR at p. 5.5-8). Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site is located within a liquefaction hazard area. In addition, the Geotechnical Report identified that onsite soils include relatively isolated loose to medium dense sand layers, generally located approximately 40 to 50 feet below existing grade that are considered susceptible to liquefaction; and the depth of groundwater is in the range of 24 to 33 feet below ground surface (bgs), but the historic high groundwater is approximately 10 feet below the existing grade. Based on these onsite soils and groundwater conditions, the Geotechnical Report determined that the seismic settlement potential is estimated to be 2 inches or less; and differential seismic settlement is estimated as 1-inch over a horizontal span of about 40 feet. However, structures built in the City are required to be built in compliance with the CBC, as included in the City's Municipal Code as Chapter 8, Article 2, Division 1 (and in the Draft EIR as PPP GEO- 1), which regulates all building and construction projects within the City and implements a minimum standard for building design and construction that includes specific requirements for seismic safety, excavation, foundations, retaining walls and site demolition. The Geotechnical Report (Geo 2019) prepared for the Project site provides CBC seismic design criteria that are specific to the onsite soils and the potential liquefaction and settlement. Compliance with the CBC, as included as PPP GEO-1, would require proper construction of building footings and foundations so that it would withstand the effects of potential ground movement, including liquefaction and settlement. The CBC, as currently adopted in the City's Municipal Code Chapter 8, Article 2, Division 1, includes provisions to reduce impacts caused by potential major structural failures or loss of life resulting from geologic hazards. The City requires the Project specific engineering design recommendations be incorporated into grading plans and building specifications as a condition of construction permit approval. Therefore, the development of the proposed Project would be required to conform to the seismic design parameters of the CBC, as included as PPP GEO-1, would reduce hazards from seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction and settlement to a less than significant level. Plans, Program and Policies: PPP GEO-1: CBC Compliance. As listed previously. City of Santa Ana 13 May 2020 75C-431 The Bowery Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fad Impact Finding: The Project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides (Draft EIR at p. 5.5-9). Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site ranges from approximately 57 to 65 feet msl and that the site is not located within a mapped area considered potentially susceptible to seismically induced slope instability. In addition, the Project site is not adjacent to any hills or slopes that could be subject to a landslide. Thus, the Project site is not located within or adjacent to an earthquake - induced landslide area, and the Project would not expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects involving landslides, and impacts related to landslides would not occur. Impact Finding: The Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil (Draft EIR at p. 5.5-9). Facts in Support of Findings: The City's Municipal Code Chapter 18-156, Control of Urban Runoff implements the requirements of the Orange County Municipal NDPES Storm Water Permit (Order No. R8-2016-0001). All projects in the City are required to conform to the permit requirements, which includes installation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) in compliance with the NPDES permit, which establishes minimum stormwater management requirements and controls that are required to be implemented for the proposed Project. To reduce the potential for soil erosion and the loss of topsoil, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulations to be developed by a QSD (Qualified SWPPP Developer). The SWPPP is required to address site -specific conditions related to specific grading and construction activities. The SWPPP is required to identify potential sources of erosion and sedimentation loss of topsoil during construction, identify erosion control BMPs to reduce or eliminate the erosion and loss of topsoil, such as use of silt fencing, fiber rolls, or gravel bags, stabilized construction entrance/exit, hydroseeding. With compliance with the City's Municipal Code, RWQCB requirements, and the BMPs in the SWPPP that is required to be prepared to implement the Project, construction impacts related to erosion and loss of topsoil would be less than significant. In addition, the proposed Project includes installation of landscaping, such that during operation of the Project substantial areas of loose topsoil that could erode would not exist. Also, the onsite drainage features that would be installed by the Project have been designed to slow, filter, and slowly discharge stormwater into the offsite drainage system, which would also reduce the potential for stormwater to erode topsoil during Project operations. Furthermore, implementation of the Project requires City approval of a site specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), which would ensure that the City's Municipal Code, RWQCB requirements, and appropriate operational BMPs would be implemented to minimize or eliminate the potential for soil erosion or loss of topsoil to occur. As a result, potential impacts related to substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil would be less than significant. Impact Finding: The Project would not 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 (Draft EIR at p. 5.5-10). Facts in Support of Findings: The elevation of the site ranges from approximately 57 to 65 feet msl and the site is not located on or adjacent to a hillside or slope. Based on the relatively flat topography of the site, lack of a free face nearby and general lack of potentially liquefiable layers in the upper 40 feet, the Geotechnical Report determined that the potential for lateral City of Santa Ana 14 May 2020 75C-432 The Bowery Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findinqs of Fact spreading on the site is low. Thus, impacts related to lateral spreading would be less than significant. Also, as described previously, impacts related to landslides would not occur. The Geotechnical Report identified that seismic inducted settlement onsite could be 2 inches or less; and differential seismic settlement is estimated as 1-inch over a horizontal span of about 40 feet The Geotechnical Report prepared for the Project site provides CBC seismic structural design criteria that are specific to the onsite soils, including the soils settlement and minor ground subsidence conditions that could occur. The Project includes excavation and recompaction of soils, and development of foundation systems in compliance with the CBC, as included as PPP GEO-1, which would require proper construction of building foundations to reduce impacts related to settlement and subsidence would not occur onsite. Also, the CBC, as currently adopted in the City's Municipal Code Chapter 8, Article 2, Division 1, requires that a California Certified Engineering Geologist or California -licensed civil engineer provide site -specific engineering data for the proposed structures, which are reviewed by the City for appropriate inclusion as part of the building plan check and development review process. Compliance with the requirements of the CBC and City's municipal code for structural safety through implementation of as included as PPP GEO-1 would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. Plans, Program and Policies: PPP GEO-1: CBC Compliance. As listed previously. Impact Finding: The Project would not be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property (Draft EIR at 5.5- 10). Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site contains medium stiff to hard clays with variable sand content, as well as loose to medium dense, moist to wet clayey and silty sands. Due to the clay content in the onsite soils, the site has the potential for expansion. However, as described in the Draft EIR Section 3.0, Project Description, the soils onsite would be excavated to a minimum of 5 feet below the bottom of the building foundations and 5 feet beyond the building perimeters, reconditioned, and recompacted as engineered fill to support the proposed building structures. As part of reconditioning the compacted engineered fill, the soils would be moisture conditioned, as required by the CBC for expansive soils. Furthermore, prior to approval of construction, an engineering level design geotechnical report is required to be prepared and submitted to the City that details the project designs that have been included to address potential geotechnical and soil conditions pursuant to the CBC requirements, that are included in the City's Municipal Code Chapter 8, Article 2, Division 1, and implemented by PPP GEO-1. Compliance with the CBC, through design level geotechnical specifications that would be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer, per PPP GEO-1 would ensure that potential impacts related to expansive soils would be less than significant. Plans, Program and Policies: PPP GEO-1: CBC Compliance. As listed previously. City of Santa Ana 15 May 2020 75C-433 The Bowery Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findinqs of Fact Impact Finding: The Project would not 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 (Draft EIR at 5.5-1 1 ). Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site is currently connected to the City's sewer system, and the proposed Project would install onsite sewer lines that would connect to the existing sewer lines adjacent to the site. The Project would not use septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. As a result, impacts related to septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would not occur from implementation of the proposed Project. Impact Finding: The Project would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature (Draft EIR at 5.5-11 ). Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site is underlain by Quaternary aged young alluvial fan deposits and older artificial fill. Quaternary alluvial materials in Orange County are assigned a low paleontological resource sensitivity due to their relatively recent age. Likewise, the Orange County General Plan Figure VI-9 shows that the Project site is not located within an area of paleontological sensitivity. In addition, the Project site has been previously disturbed from agricultural and development activity. Artificial fill was observed in the field explorations up to 7.5 feet below existing grade and previous excavation and recompaction ranged from 5 feet to 13 feet for development of the existing buildings. The extensive previous excavation, recompaction, and fill soils onsite have further reduced the potential of the site to contain paleontological resources. Because the Project site is within an area of low paleontological resource sensitivity, has been previously disturbed, and the depth of Project excavated is within the previously disturbed soil depths, potential impacts related to paleontological resources would be less than significant. F. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact Finding: The Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials (Draft EIR at p. 5.7-21 ). Facts in Support of Findings: Operation Operation of the proposed Project includes activities related to retail commercial, restaurant, and multi -family residential development, which generally uses common hazardous materials, including: solvents, cleaning agents, paints, pesticides, batteries, and aerosol cans. Although the Project would utilize common types of hazardous materials, normal routine use of these products pursuant to existing regulations would not result in a significant hazard to the environment, residents, or workers in the vicinity of the Project. Therefore, operational impacts related to routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials during operation of the Project would be less than significant. Impact Finding: The Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment (Draft EIR at p. 5.7-23). City of Santa Ana 16 May 2020 75C-434 The Bowery Mixed -Use Proied CEQA Findinqs of Fad Facts in Support of Findings: Construction: Accidental Releases. While the routine use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials in accordance with applicable regulations during demolition, excavation, grading, and construction activities would not pose health risks or result in significant impacts; improper use, storage, transportation and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes could result in accidental spills or releases, posing health risks to workers, the public, and the environment. The use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) during construction implemented as part of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as required by the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System General Construction Permit (and included as PPP WQ-1) would minimize potential adverse effects to workers, the public, and the environment to a less than significant level. Asbestos Containing Materials. Buildings on the Project site were constructed in 1979 and 1981 when many structures were constructed with what are now recognized as hazardous building materials, such as lead and asbestos. Demolition of these structures could result in the release of hazardous materials. However, asbestos abatement contractors must follow state regulations contained in California Code of Regulations Sections 1529, and 341.6 through 341.14 as implemented by SCAQMD Rule 1403 to ensure that asbestos removed during demolition or redevelopment of the existing buildings is transported and disposed of at an appropriate facility. The contractor and hauler of the material are required to file a Hazardous Waste Manifest which details the hauling of the material from the site and the disposal of it. Section 19827.5 of the California Health and Safety Code requires that local agencies not issue demolition permit until an applicant has demonstrated compliance with notification requirements under applicable federal regulations regarding hazardous air pollutants, including asbestos. These requirements are included as PPP HAZ-1 to ensure that the Project applicant submits verification to the City that the appropriate activities related to asbestos have occurred, which would reduce the potential of impacts related to asbestos to a less than significant level. Lead Based Materials. Lead -based materials may also be located within existing structures on the Project site. The lead exposure guidelines provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development provide regulations related to the handling and disposal of lead -based products. Federal regulations to manage and control exposure to lead -based paint are described in Code of Federal Regulations Title 29, Section 1926.62, and state regulations related to lead are provided in the California Code of Regulations Title 8 Section 1532.1, as implemented by Cal - OSHA. These regulations cover the demolition, removal, cleanup, transportation, storage and disposal of lead -containing material. The regulations outline the permissible exposure limit, protective measures, monitoring and compliance to ensure the safety of construction workers exposed to lead -based materials. Cal/OSHA's Lead in Construction Standard requires project applicants to develop and implement a lead compliance plan when lead -based paint would be disturbed during construction or demolition activities. The plan must describe activities that could emit lead, methods for complying with the standard, safe work practices, and a plan to protect workers from exposure to lead during construction activities. In addition, Cal/OSHA requires 24- hour notification if more than 100 square feet of lead -based paint would be disturbed. These requirements are included as PPP HAZ-2 to ensure that the Project applicant submits verification to the City that the appropriate activities related to lead have occurred, which would reduce the potential of impacts related to lead -based materials to a less than significant level. City of Santa Ana 17 May 2020 75C-435 The Bowery Mixed -Use Proied CEQA Findinqs of Fad Plans, Program and Policies: PPP WO-1: NPDES/SWPPP. Prior to issuance of any grading or demolition permits, the applicant shall provide the City Building and Safety Division evidence of compliance with the NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) requirement to obtain a construction permit from the State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB). The permit requirement applies to grading and construction sites of one acre or larger. The Project applicant/proponent shall comply by submitting a Notice of Intent (NOI) and by developing and implementing a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and a monitoring program and reporting plan for the construction site. PPP HAZ-1: SCAQMD Rule 1403. Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the Project applicant shall submit verification to the City Building and Safety Division that an asbestos survey has been conducted at all existing buildings located on the Project site. If asbestos is found, the Project applicant shall follow all procedural requirements and regulations of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1403. Rule 1403 regulations require that the following actions be taken: notification of SCAQMD prior to construction activity, asbestos removal in accordance with prescribed procedures, placement of collected asbestos in leak -tight containers or wrapping, and proper disposal. PPP HAZ-2: Lead. Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the Project applicant shall submit verification to the City Building and Safety Division that a lead -based paint survey has been conducted at all existing buildings located on the Project site. If lead -based paint is found, the Project applicant shall follow all procedural requirements and regulations for proper removal and disposal of the lead -based paint. Cal -OSHA has established limits of exposure to lead contained in dusts and fumes. Specifically, CCR Title 8, Section 1532.1 provides for exposure limits, exposure monitoring, and respiratory protection, and mandates good working practices by workers exposed to lead. Ooeration Development under the proposed Project would involve multi -family, restaurant, and retail commercial uses that would use and store common hazardous materials such as paints, solvents, and cleaning products. Also, building mechanical systems and grounds and landscape maintenance could also use a variety of products formulated with hazardous materials, including fuels, cleaners, lubricants, adhesives, sealers, and pesticides/herbicides. Normal routine use of these products pursuant to existing regulations would not result in a significant hazard to the environment, residents, or workers in the vicinity of the Project. In addition, a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) is required to be implemented for the Project (included as PPP WQ-2). The WQMP would protect human health and the environment should any accidental spills or releases of hazardous materials occur during operation of the Project. As a result, operation of the proposed Project would not result in 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, and impacts would be less than significant. Plans, Program and Policies: PPP WO-2: WQMP. Prior to the approval of the Grading Plan and issuance of Grading Permits a completed Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be submitted to and approved by the City Building and Safety Division. The WQMP shall identify all Post -Construction, Site Design. Source City of Santa Ana 18 May 2020 75C-436 The Bowery Mixed -Use Praect CEQA Findinqs of Fad Control, and Treatment Control Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be incorporated into the development project in order to minimize the adverse effects on receiving waters. Impact Finding: The Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school (Draft EIR at p. 5.7-25). Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site is located 0.7 mile from the closest school, which is Heritage Elementary School, located at 15400 Landsdowne Road, Tustin. Thus, the proposed Project would not be within one -quarter mile of an existing school. Impact Finding: The Project would not be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the public or the environment (Draft EIR at p. 5.7-26). Facts in Support of Findings: The Phase I Environmental Site Assessments that was conducted database searches to determine if the Project area or any nearby properties are identified as currently having hazardous materials. The record searches determined that although the site has a history of various uses, and identified as previously generating hazardous wastes and clean-up activities, the Project site is not located on or near by a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Additionally, the Phase I ESA did not identify any nearby or surrounding area sites that are included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, and as a result, impacts related to hazards from being located on or adjacent to a hazardous materials site would not occur from implementation of the proposed Project. Impact Finding: The Project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area for a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such plan has not been adopted, be within 2 miles of a public airport use airport or public use airport (Draft EIR at p. 5.7-26). Facts in Support of Findings: John Wayne Airport (JWA) is located approximately 2.2 miles southwest of the Project site under the primary aircraft approach corridor. The Project site is not located within JWA's Airport Safety Zone, as shown in Draft EIR Figure 5.7-1) and is located outside of the airport's 55 CNEL contours (Draft EIR Figures 5.7-2 and 5.7-3). Table 1 of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport shows that residential land uses outside of the 60 CNEL contour are "normally consistent". Thus, development of residential units on the Project site would not result in excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area. Also, because the Project would not exceed the JWA FAR Part 77 Notification Area for JWA (100:1 imaginary surface slope extending outward for 20,000 feet) (Final EIR Figure 1), the Project site is not located within the AELUP Notification area for JWA, not within the JWA planning area boundary, FAA and ALUC notification of the proposed Project would not be required. The tallest point on the proposed structures would be approximately 94-feet from ground level. At 2.2 miles from JWA and at a maximum height of 94-feet, the Project would not create any imaginary surfaces with any of the specific slope characteristics within the imaginary surface area for the airport (shown on Figure 1 of the Final EIR). City of Santa Ana 19 May 2020 75C-437 The Bowery Mixed -Use Proied CEQA Findinqs of Fad In addition, the proposed Project would not result in hazards related to excessive glare, light, steam, smoke, dust, or electronic interference. As described in Draft EIR Section 5.1, Aesthetics, the proposed Project would not generate substantial light or glare. Exterior lighting fixtures and security lighting would be installed in accordance with Municipal Code Division 3, Building Security Regulations, which includes specifications for shielding and intensity of security lighting. In addition, the proposed Project would not use highly reflective surfaces, and does not include large areas of glass on the buildings. Therefore, the Project would not generate substantial sources of glare. As described in Draft EIR Section 5.2, Air Qualify, operation of the proposed residential and commercial uses would not generate substantial quantities of steam, smoke, or dust emissions. As described, dust emissions are regulated by AQMD requirements and construction related air quality emissions that could include steam, smoke, and dust emissions would be less than significant with implementation of the standard AQMD Rules listed in Section 5.2, Air Qualify. The proposed Project consists of residential and commercial uses that would include the use of typical electronics, such as computers, televisions, and other electronics with wireless capability. These types of electronics are currently being used by the existing industrial land uses on the site, and other uses in the vicinity of the site. The new residential and commercial uses on the site would use similar technology that does not cause electronic interference that could affect aircraft. Thus, impacts related to electronic interference with operations of the JWA would not occur. Overall, because the Project is not located within the JWA Airport Safety Zone, the Airport Impact Zone, outside of the JWA 55 CNEL noise contour; and would not penetrate the imaginary surfaces area or result in hazards related to excessive glare, light, steam, smoke, dust, or electronic interference, the proposed Project would not introduce a safety hazard associated with airport operations for people residing, working, and visiting the Project site. Thus, Project -related hazard and noise impacts associated with JWA operations would be less than significant. Impact Finding: The Project would not impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan (Draft EIR at p. 5.7-27). Facts in Support of Findings: Construction The proposed construction activities, including equipment and supply staging and storage, would occur within and adjacent to the Project site and would not restrict access of emergency vehicles to the Project site or adjacent areas. Full roadway closure and traffic detours are not expected to be necessary. Construction activities that may temporarily restrict vehicular traffic would be required to implement adequate measures to facilitate the safe passage of persons and vehicles through/around any required temporary road restrictions in accordance with Section 503 of the California Fire Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 9), which requires that prior to any activity that would encroach into a right-of-way, the area of encroachment be safeguarded through the installation of safety devices that would be specified by the City's Building and Safety Division during the construction permitting process to ensure that construction activities would not physically interfere with emergency access or evacuation. Therefore, implementation of the Project through the City's permitting process would reduce potential construction related physical interference impacts to emergency access to a less than significant level. City of Santa Ana 20 May 2020 75C-438 The Bowery Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fad Ooeration The Project would include vehicular access to the site from driveways on both Warner and Red Hill Avenues. As described in draft EIR Section 5.13, Transportation, these driveways would provide adequate and safe circulation to, from, and through the Project site and would provide a variety of routes for emergency responders to access the Project site and surrounding areas. During operation of the Project, residents and commercial building tenants would be required to maintain adequate emergency access for emergency vehicles as required and verified by the City and the OCFA. Because the Project is required to comply with all applicable City codes, as verified by the City and OCFA, potential impacts related to emergency evacuation or emergency response plans would be less than significant. Impact Finding: The Project would not expose people or structures either directly or indirectly to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires (Draft EIR at p. 5.7-28). Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site is located within an urban developed area and is not located within an identified wildland fire hazard area and is not an area where residences are intermixed with wildlands. In addition, implementation of the proposed Project would be required to adhere to the following chapters of the City's Municipal Code to reduce potential fire hazards: Chapter 8.2 Uniform Building Code, Chapter 8.4 Uniform Mechanical Code, Chapter 8.5 National Electric Code, and Chapter 14 City of Santa Ana Fire Code. Additionally, the Project would be in compliance with any further guidelines from OCFA related to fire prevention and is subject to approval by the City's Building Division. Therefore, the proposed Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death from wildfires. G. Hydrology and Water Quality Impact Finding: The Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade water quality (Draft EIR at p. 5.8-11 ). Facts in Support of Findings: Construction Pollutants of concern during construction activities generally include sediments, trash, petroleum products, concrete waste (dry and wet), sanitary waste, and chemicals. Each of these pollutants on its own or in combination with other pollutants can have a detrimental effect on water quality. In addition, chemicals, liquid products, petroleum products (such as paints, solvents, and fuels), and concrete -related waste may be spilled or leaked during construction, which would have the potential to be transported via storm runoff into nearby receiving waters and eventually may affect surface or groundwater quality. During construction activities, excavated soil would be exposed, thereby increasing the potential for soil erosion and sedimentation to occur compared to existing conditions. In addition, during construction, vehicles and equipment are prone to tracking soil and/or spoil from work areas to paved roadways, which is another form of erosion that could affect water quality. However, the use of BMPs during construction implemented as part of a SWPPP as required by the NPDES General Construction Permit and included as PPP WQ-1 would serve to ensure that Project impacts related to construction activities resulting in a degradation of water quality would be less than significant. City of Santa Ana 21 May 2020 75C-439 The Bowery Mixed -Use Proied CEQA Findinqs of Fad Ooeration The proposed Project includes operation of retail and restaurant commercial and multi -family residential uses. Potential pollutants associated with the proposed uses include various chemicals from cleaners, pathogens from pet wastes, nutrients from fertilizer, pesticides and sediment from landscaping, trash and debris, and oil and grease from vehicles. If these pollutants discharge into surface waters, it could result in degradation of water quality. As described previously, San Diego Creek Reach and the Upper Newport Bay, to which the Project site ultimately drains, are currently listed as impaired on the EPA's 303(d) list for various pollutants. However, operation of the proposed Project would be required to comply with the requirements of the Santa Ana Regional M54 Permit to develop of a project -specific WQMP (included as PPP WQ- 2) that would describe implementation of LID infrastructure and non-structural, structural, and source control and treatment control BMPs to protect surface water quality. The Project site is located within the Selenium Concentration Area and the South Basin Groundwater Protection Project area, and is adjacent to the Tustin Marine area, as shown in Draft EIR Figure 5.8- 1. Infiltration into the groundwater is prohibited by OCWD within these areas. As such, infiltration of water quality pollutants from the Project would not occur, which would reduce potential impacts to groundwater quality. In addition, the proposed Project would install Modular Wetland System units for water quality treatment, which have been sized to treat runoff from the Design Capture Storm (85th percentile, 24-hour) from the proposed Project. The Modular Wetland System units proposed for the Project consist of biotreatment systems that utilize multi -stage treatment processes including screening media filtration, settling, and biofiltration. The pre-treatment chamber contains a catch basin inlet filter to capture trash, debris, gross solids and sediments, a settling chamber for separating out larger solids, and a media filter cartridge for capturing fine silts, metals, nutrients, and bacteria. Runoff then flows through the wetland chamber where treatment of the water is done through a variety of physical, chemical, and biological processes. As storm water passes down through the planting soil, pollutants are filtered, adsorbed, biodegraded and sequestered by the soil and plants, functioning similar to bioretention systems. The discharge chamber at the end of the unit collects treated flows and discharges it into the existing storm drain in Red Hill Avenue. The WQMP is required to be approved prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit. The Project's WQMP would be reviewed and approved by the City to ensure it complies with the Santa Ana RWQCB MS4 Permit regulations. Overall, implementation of the WQMP pursuant to the existing regulations would ensure that operation of the proposed Project would not violate any water quality standards, waste discharge requirements, or otherwise degrade water quality; and impacts would be less than significant. Plans, Program and Policies: PPP WO-1: NPDES/SWPPP. Prior to issuance of any grading or demolition permits, the applicant shall provide the City Building and Safety Division evidence of compliance with the NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) requirement to obtain a construction permit from the State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB). The permit requirement applies to grading and construction sites of one acre or larger. The Project applicant/proponent shall comply by submitting a Notice of Intent (NOI) and by developing and implementing a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and a monitoring program and reporting plan for the construction site. City of Santa Ana 22 May 2020 75C-440 The Bowery Mixed -Use proied CEQA Findinqs of Fact PPP WO-2: WQMP. Prior to the approval of the Grading Plan and issuance of Grading Permits a completed Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be submitted to and approved by the City Building and Safety Division. The WQMP shall identify all Post -Construction, Site Design. Source Control, and Treatment Control Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be incorporated into the development project in order to minimize the adverse effects on receiving waters. Impact Finding: The Project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin (Draft EIR at p. 5.8-13). Facts in Support of Findings: As detailed in Draft EIR Section 5.16, Utilities and Service Systems, Table 5.8-2 the City's water supply would be sufficient during both normal years and multiple dry year conditions between 2020 and 2040 to meet all of the City's estimated needs, including the proposed Project. Therefore, the Project would not result in changes to the projected groundwater pumping that would decrease groundwater supplies. Thus, impacts related to groundwater supplies would be less than significant. In addition, the onsite soils have a low infiltration rate and do not currently provide onsite infiltration; and the Project site is located within an infiltration constraints area (Draft EIR Figure 5.8-1) and infiltration is prohibited due to existing pollutant plumes under or adjacent to the site. Therefore, impacts related to interference with groundwater recharge would be less than significant. Impact Finding: The Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off - site (Draft EIR at p. 5.8-14). Facts in Support of Findings: Construction The existing NPDES Construction General Permit and Orange County DAMP require preparation and implementation of a SWPPP by a Qualified SWPPP Developer for the proposed construction activities (included as PPP WQ-1). The SWPPP is required to address site -specific conditions related to potential sources of sedimentation and erosion and would list the required BMPs that are necessary to reduce or eliminate the potential of erosion or alteration of a drainage pattern during construction activities to a less than significant level. Operation The proposed Project would maintain the existing drainage pattern. The runoff from the Project area would be collected by roof drains, surface flow designed pavement, curbs, and area drains and conveyed Modular Wetland System units for treatment. The Modular Wetland System units contain catch basin inlet filters to capture trash, debris, gross solids and sediments, a settling chamber for separating out larger solids, and a media filter cartridge for capturing fine silts, metals, nutrients, and bacteria. The M54 permit and DAMP require new development projects to prepare a WQMP (included as PPP WQ-2) that is required to include BMPs to reduce the potential of erosion and/or sedimentation through site design and structural treatment control BMPs. The proposed drainage system and adherence to the existing regulations would ensure that Project impacts related to alteration of a drainage pattern and erosion/siltation from operational activities would be less than significant. City of Santa Ana 23 May 2020 75C-441 The Bowery Mixed -Use Proied CEQA Findinqs of Fad Plans, Program and Policies PPP WO-1: NPDES/SWPPP. As listed previously. PPP WO-2: WQMP. As listed previously. Impact Finding: The Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site (Draft EIR at p. 5.8-15). Facts in Support of Findings: Construction As described previously, implementation of the Project requires a SWPPP (included as PPP WQ-1) that would address site specific drainage issues related to construction of the Project and include BMPs to eliminate the potential of flooding or alteration of a drainage pattern during construction activities. This includes regular monitoring and visual inspections during construction activities. Compliance with the Construction General Permit and a SWPPP prepared by a QSD and implemented by a QSP (per PPP WQ-1) as verified by the City through the construction permitting process would prevent construction -related impacts related to potential alteration of a drainage pattern or flooding on or off -site from development activities. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Oaeration The Project would maintain the existing drainage pattern by collecting runoff in roof drains, curbs, and area drains and conveying it to one of four Modular Wetland System units for treatment. Treated runoff would be conveyed to the existing 84-inch drain located within Red Hill Avenue. Although the Project related runoff conditions (flow rates and durations) would increase from predevelopment conditions (shown in Draft EIR Table 5.8-1), the Project would manage the increased flow with Modular Wetland System units that have been designed to accommodate the increased volume pursuant to the M54 permit and DAMP requirements. The units would retain, filter, and slowly discharge runoff into the existing off -site drain. As part of the permitting approval process, the proposed drainage design and engineering plans would be reviewed by the City's Engineering Division to ensure that the proposed drainage would accommodate the appropriate design flows. Overall, the proposed drainage system and adherence to the existing MS4 permit and DAMP regulations would ensure that Project impacts related to alteration of a drainage pattern or flooding from operational activities would be less than significant. Plans, Program and Policies PPP WQ-1: NPDES/SWPPP. As listed previously. PPP WO-2: WQMP. As listed previously. Impact Finding: The Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would 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 (Draft EIR at p. 5.8-16). City of Santa Ana 24 May 2020 75C-442 The Bowery Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fad Facts in Support of Findings: Construction Implementation of the Project requires a SWPPP (included as PPP WQ-1) that would address site specific pollutant and drainage issues related to construction of the Project and include BMPs to eliminate the potential of polluted runoff and increased runoff during construction activities. This includes regular monitoring and visual inspections during construction activities. Compliance with the Construction General Permit and a SWPPP prepared by a QSD and implemented by a QSP (per PPP WQ-1) as verified by the City through the construction permitting process would prevent construction -related impacts related to increases in run-off and pollution from development activities. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Operation The Project would manage increased stormwater flow with Modular Wetland System units that have been designed to accommodate the increased volume pursuant to the M54 permit and DAMP requirements. The units would retain, filter, treat, and slowly discharge runoff into the existing off - site drain. Additionally, the City permitting process would ensure that the drainage system accommodate new flows and that specifications adhere to the existing MS4 permit and DAMP regulations, which would ensure that pollutants are removed prior to discharge. Overall, with compliance to the existing regulations as verified by the City's permitting process, Project impacts related to the capacity of the drainage system and polluted runoff would be less than significant. Plans, Program and Policies PPP WQ-1: NPDES/SWPPP. As listed previously. PPP WQ-2: WQMP. As listed previously. Impact Finding: The Project would substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would impede or redirect flood flows (Draft EIR at p. 5.8- 17). Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site does not include, and is not adjacent to, a stream or river. Implementation of the Project would not alter the course of a stream or river. In addition, according to the FEMA FIRM for the Project area (06059CO279J), the Project site is located within "Zone X," which is an area determined to be outside of the 0.2 percent annual chance flood. Therefore, there is a low potential for onsite flooding to occur. The Project would maintain the existing drainage pattern; and drainage would be accommodated by onsite by Modular Wetland System units that have been sized to accommodate the DAMP required design storm. Therefore, the Project would not result in impeding or redirecting flood flows by the addition of the impervious surfaces. As detailed previously, the City's permitting process would ensure that the drainage system specifications adhere to the existing M54 permit and DAMP regulations, and compliance with existing regulations would ensure that impacts would be less than significant. Plans, Program and Policies PPP WO-1: NPDES/SWPPP. As listed previously. PPP WO-2: WQMP. As listed previously. City of Santa Ana 25 May 2020 75C-443 The Bowery Mixed -Use Proied CEQA Findinqs of Fad Impact Finding: The Project would risk release of pollutants due to project inundation in a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, (Draft EIR at p. 5.8-18). Facts in Support of Findings: The FEMA FIRM for the Project area (06059CO279J) shows that the Project site is located within "Zone X," which is an area of minimal flood hazard potential outside of the 0.2 percent annual chance flood. Thus, the Project site is not located within a flood hazard area that could be inundated with flood flows and result in release of pollutants. Impacts related to flood hazards and pollutants would not occur from the Project. The Project site is over 8.5 miles from the Pacific Ocean, and outside of the Tsunami Hazard Zone identified by the California Department of Conservation. Thus, the Project site would not be inundated by a tsunami that could result in the release of pollutants, and impacts would not occur. Additionally, because the Project site is not within the vicinity of a water body, it is not at risk for seiche flood hazards. Therefore, the release of pollutants on the Project site resulting from a seiche inundation would not occur Impact Finding: The Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan (Draft EIR at p. 5.8-18). Facts in Support of Findings: Use of BMPs during construction implemented as part of a SWPPP as required by the NPDES Construction General Permit and PPP WQ-1 would serve to ensure that Project impacts related to construction activities resulting in a degradation of water quality would be less than significant. Thus, construction of the Project would not conflict or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan. Also, development projects are required to implement a WQMP (per the Regional MS4 Permit) that would comply with the Orange County DAMP. The WQMP and applicable BMPs are verified as part of the City's permitting approval process, and construction plans would be required to demonstrate compliance with these regulations. Therefore, operation of the proposed Project would not conflict of obstruct with a water quality control plan. In addition, as detailed previously, the OCWD manages basin water supply through the Basin Production Percentage (BPP), such that, the anticipated production of groundwater would remain steady from 2025 through 2040 (as shown in Draft EIR Table 5.8-1). As detailed in Draft EIR Section 5.16, Utilities and Service Systems, the City's supply of water listed in Draft EIR Table 5.8-1 would be sufficient during both normal years and multiple dry year conditions between 2020 and 2040 to meet all of the City's estimated needs, including the proposed Project. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with the groundwater management plan and would not conflict with or obstruct its implementation. Thus, impacts related to water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan would be less than significant. Plans, Program and Policies PPP WO-1: NPDES/SWPPP. As listed previously. PPP WO-2: WQMP. As listed previously. City of Santa Ana 26 May 2020 75C-444 The Bowery Mixed -Use Proied CEQA Findinqs of Fad H. Land Use and Planning Impact Finding: The Project would not physically divide an established community (Draft EIR at p. 5.9-20). Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site is surrounded by roadways on two sides and existing business park and industrial warehouse buildings on the other two sides. Areas across Warner Avenue, which is a 6-lane arterial roadway, include commercial office uses. The land directly across Redhill Avenue (also a 6-lane arterial roadway) from the Project site is undeveloped land within the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan area that is planned for employment uses, such as: professional office, business park, and commercial uses. Areas to the northeast of the site, across both Red Hill Avenue and Warner Avenue, are also within the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan area and are partially developed with public serving uses that include a US Armed Forces Reserve Center, Orange County Sheriff Training Academy, and an animal shelter. The proposed Project would redevelop the site to provide a mixed -use development that would provide residences, restaurant, and retail services near employment generating uses, which are complementary community uses. The change of the Project site from a partially underutilized light industrial site to a residential and commercial mixed -use site would not physically divide an established community. In addition, the Project would not change roadways or install any infrastructure that would result in a physical division. Thus, the proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts related to physical division of an established community. Impact Finding: The Project would not 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. (Draft EIR at p. 5.4-21 and Final EIR Chapters 2 and 3). Facts in Support of Findings: 2016 RTP/SCS. The 2016 RTP/SCS Goals that are relevant to the proposed Project focus largely on maximizing mobility, encouraging development patterns and densities that reduce infrastructure costs, and provide for efficiency. The proposed Project would be consistent with the applicable SCAG's 2016 RTP/SCS goals, as detailed in Draft EIR Table 5.9-1. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in conflict with RTP/SCS goals, and impacts would not occur. JWA Airport Environs Land Use Plan. JWA is located approximately 2.2 miles southwest of the Project site under the primary aircraft approach corridor, but not within the AELUP Notification area or JWA planning area. As detailed in the Final EIR, the Project site is 1 ) located outside of the JWA 60 CNEL contour (Draft EIR Figures 5.7-2 and 5.7-3); 2) not located within the airport safety zones (Draft EIR Figure 5.7-1); and 3) would not would not penetrate the FAR Part 77 100:1 Notification Area elevation (Final EIR Figure 1 ). As a result, the AELUP identifies the proposed mix -use residential land uses as normally consistent. Thus, pursuant to the AELUP for JWA, impacts related to land use compatibility would not occur. Land Use Consistency. Development of the site for multi -family residential and commercial (retail/restaurant) uses would integrate into the planned development of these adjacent and nearby areas. The site would provide housing for local employees working nearby in Santa Ana, Tustin, and Irvine. The site would also provide commercial retail services and restaurants for onsite City of Santa Ana 27 May 2020 75C-445 The Bowery Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findinqs of Fact residents and employees working nearby. The site would provide both vehicular and pedestrian access and would integrate into the land uses of the area. The Project would not result in a land use inconsistency. Rather, designating lands for mixed -uses, including multi -family residential, would provide locational efficiently as it allows people to work, live, and obtain services and restaurants within a small area, which has the potential to reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled in comparison to residential development that is farther from employment services and restaurants. Also, the proposed land use designation change from PAO to DC would not conflict with a policy or plan adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The PAO land use designation does not provide avoidance of an environmental effect and the DC land use designation provides for development flexibility to design a project that could avoid an environmental effect. Therefore, impacts related to land use inconsistency would be less than significant. General Plan Goals, Policies, and Objectives. A detailed analysis of the proposed Project's consistency with the applicable goals, policies, and objectives of the City's General Plan that serve to avoid or mitigate environmental impacts is provided in Draft EIR Table 5.9-3. As described in the Table, the proposed Project would be consistent with the relevant goals, policies, and objectives of the City's General Plan that avoid or mitigate environmental impacts, and impacts related to conflict with a General Plan policy related to an environmental effect would be less than significant. Zoning Code. A majority of the proposed development consists of development of 6 story mixed use structures and 7-levels of above ground parking that would be approximately 94-feet in height at the tallest point. The purpose of the proposed SD zone is to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare by the use of good design principles, maintaining an orderly and harmonious appearance, and encouraging excellence of property development. When development projects are proposed within the SD zone, they are required (per Zoning Code Section 41-593.4) to submit development plans for architectural review. The Project would create an attractive, cohesive mixed - use community through the use of contemporary architectural materials and landscaping throughout the Project site. As required by the Zoning Code, the proposed Project's development plans would be reviewed by the City to ensure consistency with development standards. Thus, impacts related to zoning would not occur from the proposed Project. I. Noise Impact Finding: The Project would not result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies (Draft EIR at p. 5.10-15). Facts in Support of Findings: Construction Per Section 1 8-314 (Special Provisions) of the City's Municipal Code noise sources associated with construction activities are exempt from the City's established noise standards as long as the activities do not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or any time on Sunday or a federal holiday. The proposed Project's construction activities would occur pursuant to these regulations. Thus, the proposed Project would be in compliance with the City's construction related noise standards. City of Santa Ana 28 May 2020 75C-446 The Bowery Mixed -Use Proied CEQA Findinqs of Fad As shown on Draft EIR Table 5.10-6, construction noise at the nearby receiver locations would range from 51.0 to 71.4 dBA Leq, which would not exceed the 85 dba Leq daytime construction noise level threshold (the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Criteria for Recommended Standard: Occupational Noise Exposure) at nearby non-residential non -sensitive receiver locations. Therefore, construction impacts would be less than significant. Also, the increase in temporary noise from Project construction, as detailed in Draft EIR Table 5.10- 7, would not exceed the 12 dBA Leq significance threshold (per Caltrans Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol). Therefore, impacts related to substantial increases in ambient noise related to construction activity would be less than significant. Oneration Onsite Operational Noise. Noise generated by the Project site would occur from stationary equipment such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units that would be installed for the new development, use of parking facilities, trash removal activity, and activity at outdoor gathering areas. Based on these typical noise levels, operation of the Project would not result in an exceedance of the City's Municipal Code Section 18-31 3 noise standards. Also, the City's building and plan check permitting process includes verification that the location of operational noise sources would not result in an exceedance of the municipal code standards. Thus, the City's standards development permitting process would ensure that the proposed Project would not generate on -site operational noise that would exceed noise standards. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Onsite Traffic Noise. The location and design of the multi -family residential outdoor common areas substantially limits the exposure to traffic noise. As shown on Draft EIR Table 5.10-8, the exterior noise levels at the multi -family residential outdoor common areas would range from 45.1 to 57.7 dBA CNEL, which is below the General Plan Noise Element 65 dBA CNEL exterior noise level standard for outdoor common areas. Therefore, the on -site traffic noise impacts at the multi -family residential outdoor common areas would be less than significant. Off site Traffic Noise. In the existing with Project conditions (Draft EIR Table 5.10-9) noise would range from 66.8 to 75.8 dBA CNEL. Implementation of the proposed Project A would generate a noise level increase of up to 0.5 dBA CNEL on the study area roadway segments, which is less than the 1.5 dBA CNEL threshold for areas above 65 dBA CNEL. Thus, off -site traffic noise impacts in the existing plus Project condition would be less than significant. In the opening year (2022) with Project conditions (Draft EIR Table 5.10-10) noise would range from 67.4 to 76.2 dBA CNEL. Implementation of the proposed Project would generate a noise level increase of up to 0.5 dBA CNEL on the study area roadway segments, which is less than the 1.5 dBA CNEL threshold for areas above 65 CNEL. Thus, off -site traffic noise impacts in the opening year plus Project condition would be less than significant. In 2040 with Project conditions (Draft EIR Table 5.10-1 1 ) noise would range from 69.7 to 76.6 dBA CNEL. Implementation of the proposed Project would generate a noise level increase of up to 0.4 dBA CNEL on the study area roadway segments, which is less than the 1.5 dBA CNEL threshold for areas above 65 CNEL. Thus, off -site traffic noise impacts in the 2040 plus Project condition would be less than significant. City of Santa Ana 29 May 2020 75C-447 The Bowery Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findinqs of Fact Interior Noise. The roadways near the Project site would generate noise. However, Draft EIR Tables 5.10-12 through 5.10-15 show that based with a "windows closed" condition with standard windows with a minimum Sound Transmission Class (STC) of 27, the interior noise levels of the residential units would be below the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard. Therefore, impacts related to interior noise would be less than significant. Impact Finding: The Project would not generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels (Draft EIR at p. 5.10-26). Facts in Support of Findings: Construction Demolition, excavation, and grading activities are required for the Project and can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and methods used, distance to the affected structures and soil type. Based on the reference vibration levels provided by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), a large bulldozer represents the peak source of vibration with a reference velocity of 0.089 in/sec PPV at 25 feet. At distances ranging from 85 to 667 feet from construction, vibration levels are anticipated to range from 0.001 to 0.014 in/sec PPV, as shown on Draft EIR Table 5.10-16. These vibration levels would not be sustained during the entire construction period but would occur only during the times that heavy construction equipment is operating in the vicinity of the sensitive receivers. This level of vibration would be below the Caltrans building damage threshold of 0.3 in/sec PPV and vibration standard of 0.04 in/sec PPV for human annoyance at all receiver locations. Therefore, vibration impacts would be less than significant. Operation Operation of the proposed commercial and multi -family uses would include heavy trucks for residents moving in and out of the rental units, product deliveries to retail and restaurant uses, and garbage trucks for solid waste disposal. Truck vibration levels are dependent on vehicle characteristics, load, speed, and pavement conditions. However, typical vibration levels for the heavy truck activity at normal traffic speeds would be approximately 0.006 in/sec PPV, based on the FTA Transit Noise Impact and Vibration Assessment. Truck movements on site would be travelling at very low speed, so it is expected that truck vibration at nearby sensitive receivers would be less than the vibration threshold of 0.08 in/sec PPV for fragile historic buildings and 0.04 in/sec PPV for human annoyance, and therefore, would be less than significant. Impact Finding: The Project would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive airport noise levels within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport (Draft EIR at p. 5.10-27). Facts in Support of Findings: The exterior noise thresholds outlined in the AELUP, multi -family residential development is considered normally consistent with exterior noise levels of less than 60 dBA CNEL, conditionally consistent with exterior noise levels between 60 and 65 dBA CNEL and normally inconsistent with exterior noise level above 65 dBA CNEL. For commercial retail land use, exterior noise levels are considered normally consistent with exterior noise levels of less than 65 dBA CNEL and conditionally consistent with exterior noise level above 65 dBA CNEL. As shown on Draft EIR Figure 5.10-2, the Project site is located outside the 55 dBA CNEL aircraft noise level contour boundaries of JWA. Therefore, according to the AELUP, the Project residential and commercial retail land use is considered normally consistent with JWA aircraft noise exposure exterior noise level compatibility thresholds. Also, the airport related noise at the Project site does not exceed the City's municipal code permissible noise levels. Additionally, the County's General Aviation Noise Ordinance that prohibits City of Santa Ana 30 May 2020 75C-448 The Bowery Mixed -Use Proied CEQA Findinqs of Fad commercial aircraft departures between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m, and arrivals between the hours of 1 1:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. These restrictions substantially limit the aircraft noise during the noise sensitive nighttime hours for residential use. Overall, the Project site would not be exposed to excessive noise levels from airport operations, and therefore, impacts would be less than significant. J. Population and Housing Impact Finding: The Project would not 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) (Draft EIR at p. 5.11 -9). Facts in Support of Findings: Draft EIR Table 5.11 -7 shows that at full occupancy the Project would house approximately 2,081 residents, which would constitute a 0.62 percent increase over the 2019 City of Santa Ana population of 337,716. In addition, the 1,150 new multi -family units would constitute a 1.5 percent increase in the total number of residential units in the City, and a 4.5 percent increase in the number of the multi -family residential units (5+ units) within the City. As SCAG projects that the City and County will experience a population increase of 7.4 percent by 2040, the population of the Project would be within the projected population growth. Similarly, SCAG anticipates the number of housing units throughout the County would increase by 10.2 percent by 2040. Thus, the 1,150 new multi -family units would also be within the SCAG projected growth. Additionally, the 320 employment opportunities that would be generated by the Project would be 0.27 percent of the existing jobs within 2-miles of the Project site; and therefore, would not result in induced unplanned employment growth. The existing jobs -housing ratio is 2.08 in Santa Ana and is projected to be 2.13 in 2040. The proposed Project would reduce the jobs -housing ratio slightly to 2.05; and to 2.10 in 2040, as shown in Draft EIR Table 5.11 -8. This would be a beneficial effect of providing multi -family housing on the Project site in a jobs -rich area, where employees can easily travel to nearby employment opportunities. Regarding infrastructure, the Project site is adjacent to existing roadways that would not be extended to serve the Project. Likewise, water and wastewater services would be provided by connections to the existing infrastructure within Red Hill Avenue and Warner Avenue, which would accommodate the proposed Project, as described in Draft EIR Section 5.15, Utilities and Service Systems. Provision of continued (but greater volumes) water and sewer services to the Project site would not result in the need to extend infrastructure. Therefore, indirect impacts related to the extension of infrastructure would not occur from implementation of the proposed Project. Overall, the Project would not result in inducement of population growth that would have the potential to create a significant physical change to the environment. As a result, impacts related to population growth are less than significant. Impact Finding: The Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere (Draft EIR at p. 5.1 1-1 1 ). Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site is currently developed with three industrial buildings, one of which is currently being used as a temporary 200-bed homeless shelter through a short-term lease for use of the site on an interim basis until redevelopment of the site commences. The City of City of Santa Ana 31 May 2020 75C-449 The Bowery Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findinqs of Fact Santa Ana is working on various homeless shelter solutions, including the purchase of a permanent homeless shelter site, that are anticipated to be available for the existing persons on the Project site prior to construction of the proposed Project. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in displacement of substantial numbers of people, such that construction of replacement housing elsewhere would be necessary. As a result, impacts would be less than significant. K. Public Services Fire Protection Impact Finding: The Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire service facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios and response times or other performance objectives for fire protection services (Draft EIR at p. 5.12-4). Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed Project is anticipated to result in 2,081 residents and 320 employees at full occupancy. This residential and employee population is expected to create the typical range of service calls to OCFA that are largely related to medical emergencies. However, fire protection equipment and staffing can be augmented by the City as needed (with assistance from revenue provided by the Project and the fire facilities fee required per Chapter 8- 46 of the Municipal Code) to expand fire protection and emergency medical staffing and equipment provided from existing stations and better accommodate simultaneous service calls. Because the Project site is within 3.5 miles of 6 existing fire stations and the Project site is within a developed area that is currently served by these stations, the Project would not result in the requirement to construct a new or physically altered fire station. Therefore, impacts related to fire protection services would be less than significant. Police Services Impact Finding: The Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered police service facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios and response times or other performance objectives for police services (Draft EIR at p. 5.12-7). Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed Project addresses typical residential security concerns by providing low -intensity security lighting, security cameras, electronic access to buildings, and 24- hour security personnel. Pursuant to the City's existing permitting process, the Police Department would review and approve the final site plans to ensure that crime prevention design measures are incorporated appropriately to provide a safe environment. The proposed Project would result in an incremental increase in demands on law enforcement services and would require two additional officers based on the Police Department's 2018 staffing of 1.07 officers per thousand population. The two additional officers could be located at the Southeast Substation that is 2.2 miles from the proposed Project. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in the need for, new or physically altered police protection facilities. Thus, substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or expanded facilities would not occur, and impacts are less than significant. City of Santa Ana 32 May 2020 75C-450 The Bowery Mixed -Use proied CEQA Findinqs of Fad School Services Impact Finding: The Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered school facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts (Draft EIR at p. 5.12-10). Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed Project would develop 1,150 residential units, which would provide housing for families that have school children. As detailed in Draft EIR Section 5.12.4.5, School Service Environmental Impacts, the proposed Project would result in 33A students at full occupancy. As shown in Draft EIR Table 5.12-2, the school facilities that would serve the Project have a remaining capacity for 1,589 students, which would be able to accommodate the student from the site and continue to have capacity to serve additional students. In addition, the need for additional school facilities is addressed through compliance with school impact fee assessment. The existing Santa Ana Unified School District development impact fee is $3.79 per square foot for all new residential development, and $0.61 per square foot for new commercial development. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65995 applicants shall pay developer fees to the appropriate school districts at the time building permits are issued; and payment of the adopted fees provides full and complete mitigation of school impacts. As a result, impacts related to school facilities would be less than significant. L. Park and Recreation Impact Finding: The Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered park facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts (Draft EIR at p. 5.1 3-5). Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed Project is anticipated to result in 2,081 residents at full occupancy and includes 174,555 square feet of exterior open space recreation area and approximately 8,008 square feet of interior amenities to total 183,363 square feet of recreational and open space onsite. These onsite amenities are anticipated to meet many of the park and recreation needs of Project residents. The new residential population is also anticipated to utilize existing off -site park and recreation facilities. As described listed in Draft EIR Table 5.13-1, there is currently 81.88 acres of Santa Ana parkland within 3-miles of the Project site. These existing City of Santa Ana parks provide a variety of facilities that include sports fields, exercise equipment, picnic areas, and playgrounds. In addition, there are 97.9 acres of parkland within the City of Tustin and 63.6 acres of parkland within the City of Irvine Park facilities (listed in Draft EIR Table 5.13-2 and the Final EIR Chapter 3) that are also within 3 miles of the Project site and are likely (due to location) to be used by residents of the proposed Project. This equals approximately 243.38 acres of existing parkland within three miles of the site, which equates to 5,094.49 acres of parkland per Project resident at full occupancy. Based on a standard of 2 acres of public park and/or recreational space per 1,000 residents (Municipal Code Section 35-108), the proposed Project would require 4.2 acres of parkland to serve the new residents. The Project includes a total of 4.2 acres (183,363 square feet) of park and recreation area. Therefore, the Project would include the Municipal Code required park and/or recreational space. City of Santa Ana 33 May 2020 75C-451 The Bowery Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findinqs of Fact Based on the existing amount of 243.38 acres of existing park and recreation facilities within 3 miles of the Project site, the recreation facilities that would be provided as part of the Project, and the number of residents at full capacity of the proposed Project, the Project is not anticipated to require the provision of new or physically altered park facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios. In addition, Municipal Code Sections 35-108, 35-110, and 35-111 require that residential development fees be paid for the acquisition, construction, and renovation of park and recreation facilities prior to the issuance of a building permit for any construction which adds net residential units. Thus, the proposed Project would be required to pay park and recreation fees to "preserve an appropriate balance between the demand by residents for use of park and recreational facilities", as stated in Municipal Code Section 35-110. Therefore, impacts related to park and recreation service facilities would be less than significant. Impact Finding: The Project would not result in increased use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated (Draft EIR at p. 5.13-6). Facts in Support of Findings: Based on the California State Parks information for the southern California Region, the anticipated number of Project residents at full occupancy (2,081 residents), the distance and type of recreational facilities near the Project site, it is anticipated that the Project would generate 348 additional park users two or more times per week, 287 additional park users about once per week, 429 additional park users once or twice per month, 508 additional park users several times a year, and 314 additional park users once or twice a year that would utilize the 245.38 acres of parks within 3 miles of the Project site. Based on the existing amount of park and recreation facilities in the vicinity of the Project site, the recreation facilities that would be provided as part of the Project, and the number of residents all full capacity of the proposed Project, the Project is not anticipated to increase the use of existing parks and recreation facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. In addition, as listed Park and Recreation Regulatory Setting Section, the Santa Ana Municipal Code, Section 35-108 requires that residential development fees be paid for the acquisition, construction, and renovation of park and recreation facilities. Also, Sections 35-108 and 35-11 1 requires that any person adding residential units shall pay the park and recreation fees prior to the issuance of a building permit. The Municipal Code describes that park and recreation fees are for the purpose of preserving an appropriate balance between the demand by residents for use of park and recreational facilities and the availability of such park and recreational facilities. Thus, by payment of the required park fees, the Project would provide funding to offset any increased usage at other park and recreation facilities within Santa Ana. In addition, use of sports fields is largely by sports leagues that pay fees to the City for use of the facilities, which is used to fund maintenance and improvements related to use of the facilities. Any additional residents that are involved in sports leagues would provide this funding to reduce impacts. Overall, the proposed Project would not result in substantial physical deterioration of park and recreation facilities, and impacts would be less than significant. City of Santa Ana 34 May 2020 75C-452 The Bowery Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findinqs of Fact Impact Finding: The Project would not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment (Draft EIR at p. 5.13-7). Facts in Support of Findings: The project includes recreational facilities. The impacts of development of the recreational amenities are considered part of the impacts of the proposed Project as a whole and are analyzed throughout the various sections of the EIR. For example, activities such as excavation, grading, and construction as required for the park and recreational components of this Project are analyzed in the Draft EIR Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise, and Transportation Sections. In addition, while the Project would contribute park development fees pursuant to Municipal Code Sections 35-108, 35-110, and 35-11 1 to be used towards the future expansion or maintenance parks and recreational facilities, these fees are standard with every residential development, and the proposed Project would not require the construction or expansion of other recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. As a result, impacts would be less than significant. M. Transportation Impact Finding: The Project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b) (Final EIR 5.14, Transportation, at p. 5.14-31). Facts in Support of Findings: As described in the Final EIR, a direct Project impact would occur if the Project generates a VMT/SP above 15 percent below the Countywide Average. The Project related VMT/SP is 5.14 and the Countywide Average VMT/SP is 14.71. Thus, the VMT/SP of the Project is 35 percent of the Countywide Average VMT/SP; and the Project would not generate VMT/SP above 15 percent below the Countywide Average. Thus, direct Project impacts related to VMT would be less than significant. In addition, the City's screening criteria for VMT cumulative impacts, include project consistency with the RTP/SCS or results in an increase in VMT within the City. As shown on Final EIR Transportation Section Table 4.14-13, the Project results in a net decrease in VMT. Also, Table 5.14-14 shows that the Project's VMT/SP is approximately 22 percent lower than the cumulative VMT/SP for the City. Therefore, the Project would not result in a negative effect on VMT/SP at the citywide level, and cumulative impacts would be less than significant. Impact Finding: The Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) (Draft EIR at p. 5.14- 23). Facts in Support of Findings: The Project includes development of mixed uses that include residential, retail/restaurant commercial, and open space recreation. The Project includes community type uses and does not include any incompatible uses, such as farm equipment. The proposed Project would be accessed from one driveway on Red Hill Avenue and two driveways on Warner Avenue that provide direct access to parking areas. City of Santa Ana 35 May 2020 75C-453 The Bowery Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findinqs of Fact The Project would also not increase any hazards related to a design feature. All of the proposed improvements would be required to be installed in conformance with City design standards. The City's construction permitting process includes review Project site plans to ensure that no potentially hazardous transportation design features would be introduced by the Project. For example, sight distance at each Project driveway would be reviewed for conformance with City of Santa Ana sight distance standards at the time of permitting approvals for grading, landscape, onsite circulation construction, and street improvement plans. As a result, impacts related to vehicular circulation design features would be less than significant. Impact Finding: The Project would not result in inadequate emergency access (Draft EIR at p. 5.14- 23). Facts in Support of Findings: Construction: The proposed construction activities, including equipment and supply staging and storage, would occur within and adjacent to the Project area and would not restrict access of emergency vehicles to the Project site or adjacent areas. The roadway improvements and installation of driveways that would be implemented during construction of the proposed Project could require the temporary closure of travel lanes, but full roadway closure and traffic detours are not expected to be necessary. However, construction activities may temporarily restrict vehicular traffic that could increase hazards. Therefore, the construction activities would be required to implement measures to facilitate the passage of persons and vehicles through/around any required temporary road restrictions, and ensure the safety of passage in accordance with Section 503 of the California Fire Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 9) and the City of Santa Ana Fire Code included as Municipal Code Chapter 14, which would be ensured through the City's permitting process. Thus, implementation of the Project through the City's permitting process would ensure existing regulations are adhered to and would reduce potential construction related emergency access impacts to a less than significant level. Operation the Project includes one driveway on Red Hill Avenue and two driveways on Warner Avenue that provide direct access to parking areas. As described previously, these driveways would provide adequate and safe circulation to and from the Project site and would provide a several routes for emergency responders to access different portions of the Project site and surrounding areas. Additionally, during operation of the Project, building tenants would be required to maintain adequate emergency access for emergency vehicles as required and verified by the City and the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) through operational permitting and inspections. Because the Project is required to comply with all applicable City codes, as verified by the City and OCFA potential impacts related to inadequate emergency access would be less than significant. N. Tribal Cultural Resources Impact Finding: The Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k) (Draft EIR at p. 5.15-5). City of Santa Ana 36 May 2020 75C-454 The Bowery Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findinqs of Fact Facts in Support of Findings: There are no sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either eligible or listed in the California Register of Historical Resources or local register of historical resources on the Project site. In accordance with SB 18 and AB 52, the City sent letters to 18 Native American representatives identified by NAHC, notifying them of the proposed Project. One California Native American tribe request for consultation, the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation. Mr. Andrew Salas provided oral information about the use of the Orange County area for Native American village sites and the City provided the history of uses and development of on the Project site, including the depth of previous and existing infrastructure and foundation systems on the site. Based on the consultation conducted, no TCRs were identified. The Project site includes three modern industrial buildings that were developed in the early 1980s and do not involve tribal cultural resources. The site has a long history of ground disturbance from previous agricultural uses and development. Artificial fill was observed in geotechnical field explorations up to 7.5 feet below existing grade and previous excavation and recompaction ranged from 5 feet to 13 feet for development of the existing buildings. It is likely that the site disturbance included the undeveloped portion of the site at the corner of Red Hill and Warner Avenue. The extensive previous excavation, recompaction, and fill soils onsite have limited the potential of the site to contain tribal cultural resources. Also, the proposed Project would excavate onsite soils to a minimum of 5 feet below the bottom of the building foundations and 5 feet beyond the building perimeters. The depth of the excavation is within the previously disturbed soil depths, which further reduces the potential of the Project to result in impacts related to tribal cultural resources. Overall, the Project site does not include resources that are listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or in a local register of historical resources; and due to the extent and depth of previous ground disturbances throughout the site, the potential for tribal cultural resources is limited. Therefore, Project impacts to tribal cultural resource that are listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or other register of historical resources would be less than significant. O. Utilities and Service Svstems Water Impact Finding: The Project would not require or result in the construction of new water facilities, or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects (Draft EIR at p. 5.16-6). Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed Project would install new water infrastructure on the Project site that would connect to the existing 12-inch water pipeline in Warner Avenue. The new onsite water system would convey water supplies to the proposed residences, commercial uses, and landscaping through plumbing/landscaping fixtures that are compliant with the CalGreen Plumbing Code for efficient use of water. The proposed Project would continue to receive water supplies through the existing 1 2-inch water line located within the Red Hill Avenue rights -of -way that has the capacity to provide the increased water supplies needed to serve the proposed Project, and no extensions or expansions to the water pipelines that convey water to the Project site would be required. Redevelopment of the existing City of Santa Ana 37 May 2020 75C-455 The Bowery Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findinqs of Fact onsite water distribution lines would only serve the proposed Project and would not provide water to any off -site areas. The construction activities related to the onsite water infrastructure that would be needed to serve the proposed multi -family residential and commercial uses is included as part of the proposed Project and would not result in any physical environmental effects beyond those identified throughout the Draft EIR. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in the construction of new water facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects, and impacts would be less than significant. Impact Finding: The City would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years (Draft EIR at p. 5.16-7). Facts in Support of Findings: As shown in Draft EIR Table 5.16-4, the proposed Project would result in a total demand of 269 AFY at full occupancy, which would be a 245.27 AFY increase in comparison to the water demand from the existing buildings that are included in the UWMP assumptions. This equates to an 8.1 percent of the anticipated increase in water demand between 2015 and 2040 of 3,028 AFY that is anticipated by the 2015 UWMP. Thus, the City would have water supplies available to serve the Project. In addition, as shown in Draft EIR Table 5.16-2, the City's available supply, including groundwater and imported water, will meet projected demand that includes the proposed Project during normal, single dry and multiple dry years. Therefore, impacts related to water supplies from the proposed Project would be less than significant. Wastewater Impact Finding: The Project would not require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects (Draft EIR at p. 5.16-11 ). Facts in Support of Findings: The Project includes replacing approximately 367 feet of the existing 8-inch City sewer line in Warner Avenue, between the Project site and the Orange County Sanitation sewer line in Red Hill Avenue, with a 10-inch sewer. In addition, the Project would install a new onsite sewer system that would connect to off -site City of Santa Ana sewer facilities. Approximately half the Project site would discharge wastewater directly into a City -owned manhole located at the intersection of Warner Avenue and Red Hill Avenue. The other half of the Project site would discharge wastewater into the improved 10-inch sewer in Warner Avenue to the existing 42-inch sewer in Red Hill Avenue. Based on results of the sewer flow monitoring and the City's Design Criteria for wastewater generation rates, the sewer lines that would serve the Project site would have a peak flow half full capacity of 0.65 cfs which would is adequate capacity to accommodate the additional wastewater flows from the proposed Project. The construction activities related to replacing 367 feet of 8-inch water line with 10-inch water line within the Warner Avenue right of way and installation of the onsite sewer infrastructure that would serve the proposed Project, is included as part of the proposed Project and would not result in any physical environmental effects beyond those identified throughout the Draft EIR. As the proposed Project includes facilities to serve the Project, it would not result in the need for construction of other City of Santa Ana 38 May 2020 75C-456 The Bowery Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact new wastewater facilities or expansions, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Impact Finding: The Project would not 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 (Draft EIR at p. 5.16-1 1 ). Facts in Support of Findings: The OCSD Reclamation Plant No. 1 has an additional capacity of 87 mgd, which would accommodate the increase in wastewater flow from full occupancy of the proposed Project that would generate 201,906 gpd. As a result, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in inadequate capacity of the wastewater treatment plant to serve the Project's demand in addition to existing service commitments, and impacts would be less than significant. Drainage Impact Finding: The Project would not require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects (Draft EIR at p. 5.16-13). Facts in Support of Findings: The runoff within the Project site would be collected by roof drains, surface flow designed pavement, curbs, and area drains and conveyed to Modular Wetland System units that would be installed as part of the Project to retain, filter, and slowly discharge drainage. The Modular Wetland System units have been sized to treat runoff from the Design Capture Storm (85th percentile, 24-hour). Treated runoff from the Modular Wetland System units would be discharged from the flow controlling Modular Wetland System units to the existing 84- inch drain located within Red Hill Avenue. From there, flows would travel southeast and be temporarily detained in an existing flood control basin before entering the Barranca Channel, which discharges into San Diego Creek Reach 1, then the Upper Newport Bay, Lower Newport Bay, and finally to the Pacific Ocean at Balboa Beach. Although the Project related runoff conditions (flow rates and durations) would increase from predevelopment conditions (shown in Draft EIR Table 5.15-5), the Project would manage the increased flow by the four Modular Wetland System units that have been designed to accommodate the increased volume. As a result, the proposed Project would not result in a need to expand or construct new off -site drainage systems and impacts to stormwater drainage systems would be less than significant. Solid Waste Impact Finding: The Project would not 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 (Draft EIR at p. 5.16-15). Facts in Support of Findings: Construction The Project is estimated to generate approximately 460 tons of waste during demolition and additional waste during construction, which would occur over a 27-month period. However, Section 5.408.1 of the 2016 California Green Building Standards Code requires demolition and construction activities to recycle or reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste. Thus, the demolition and construction solid waste that would be disposed of at the landfill would be approximately 35 percent of the waste generated. Therefore, demolition City of Santa Ana 39 May 2020 75C-457 The Bowery Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findinqs of Fact activities, which would generate the most solid waste would generate approximately 161 tons of solid waste. Demolition activities would occur over a 30 workday (6 week) period. This equates to approximately 5.4 tons of debris per day. The Frank Bowerman Sanitary Landfill is permitted to accept 11,500 tons per day of solid waste. In September 2019, the maximum tonnage received was 9,967 tons. Thus, the facility had additional capacity of 1,533 tons per day (Calrecycle 2019). Therefore, the Frank Bowerman Sanitary Landfill would be able to accommodate the addition of 5.4 tons of waste per week during construction of the proposed Project. Operation Operation of the Project at buildout would generate approximately 1,137 tons of solid waste per year, at least 75 percent of which is required by California law to be recycled, which would reduce the volume of landfilled solid waste to approximately 284.25 tons per year, or 5.47 tons per week, as shown on Draft El Table 5.16-6. As the Frank Bowerman Sanitary Landfill is permitted to accept 11,500 tons per day of solid waste, and in September 2019, the maximum tonnage received was 9,967 tons, the facility had additional capacity of 1,533 tons (Calrecycle 2019). Therefore, the Frank Bowerman Sanitary Landfill would be able to accommodate the addition of 5.47 tons of waste per week. Thus, the proposed Project would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Project's solid waste disposal needs and the Project would not impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. Impacts related to landfill capacity would be less than significant. Impact Finding: The Project would comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste (Draft EIR at p. 5.16-16). Facts in Support of Findings: All solid waste -generating activities within the City is subject to the requirements set forth in Section 5.408.1 of the 2016 California Green Building Standards Code that requires demolition and construction activities to recycle or reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste, and AB 341 that requires diversion of a minimum of 75 percent of operational solid waste. Implementation of the proposed Project would be consistent with all state regulations, as ensured through the City's development project permitting process. Therefore, the proposed Project would comply with all solid waste statute and regulations; and impacts would not occur. City of Santa Ana 40 May 2020 75C-458 The Bowery Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fad SECTION III IMPACTS MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT The City hereby finds that mitigation measures have been identified in the EIR that would avoid or substantially lessen the following potentially significant environmental impacts to a less than significant level. The potentially significant impacts and the mitigation measures that would reduce them to a less than significant level are detailed in the EIR and summarized below. A. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact Finding: The Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials (Draft EIR at p. 5.7-21 ). Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Draft EIR. Facts in Support of Findings: Construction: The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment determined that asbestos -containing materials and lead - based paint may exist due to the date of construction of the existing buildings. Therefore, asbestos surveys and abatement would be required prior to demolition or renovation of the existing building pursuant to the existing South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), Cal/OSHA, and the sections of the California Health and Safety Code, which are described above in the Regulatory Setting. These requirements were developed to protect human health and the environment from the hazards associated with exposure to lead based materials and airborne asbestos fibers. Compliance with these existing regulations, as ensured through the permitting process and included as PPP HAZ-1 and PPP HAZ-2, would reduce impacts related to routine transport and disposal of asbestos -containing materials and lead -based paint during construction activities to a less than significant level. In addition, the Project site contains approximately 900 cubic yards of contaminated soil that would require excavation and disposal as part of excavation and grading activities. This includes approximately, 850 cubic yards of TPH contaminated soils (above residential screening levels) and 80 cubic yards of TPH-(diesel) contaminated soils. These contaminated soils would need to be excavated and removed during Project excavation and grading activities as required by DTSC, California Integrated Waste Management Board, RWQCB, OCFA, and the Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA). Due to the existence of the contaminated soils and excavation activities that would occur during Project construction, implementation of the proposed Project has the potential to result in a hazard to the public or environment. As a result, Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would be implemented to reduce the potential risks related to accidental release and exposure of people and the environment to the contaminated soils. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 requires that a qualified consultant prepare a Soil Management Plan (SMP) to be used by construction workers to remove and dispose of the areas of TPH impacted soil. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 requires excavation of contaminated soils be completed pursuant to existing DTSC and RWQCB requirements, soils sampling ensure all contaminated soils are removed, and that a certified hazardous waste hauler remove and transport all TPH impacted soil and other potentially hazardous materials per California Hazardous Waste Regulations to a landfill permitted by the state to accept hazardous materials. Excavated soil containing hazardous City of Santa Ana 41 May 2020 75C-459 The Bowery Mixed -Use Proied CEQA Findinqs of Fad substances would be classified as a hazardous waste if they exhibit the characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity (CCR, Title 22, Division 4.5, Chapter 11, Article 3). The SMP would detail hazardous materials excavation and disposal methods and requirements pursuant to the regulation of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations (CaIOSHA) and Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) that regulates the removal, transportation, and disposal of hazardous waste to protect human health and the environment. With implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 impacts related to hazards from contaminated soils would be less than significant. Plans, Program and Policies: PPP HAZ-1: SCAQMD Rule 1403. Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the Project applicant shall submit verification to the City Building and Safety Division that an asbestos survey has been conducted at all existing buildings located on the Project site. If asbestos is found, the Project applicant shall follow all procedural requirements and regulations of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1403. Rule 1403 regulations require that the following actions be taken: notification of SCAQMD prior to construction activity, asbestos removal in accordance with prescribed procedures, placement of collected asbestos in leak -tight containers or wrapping, and proper disposal. PPP HAZ-2: Lead. Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the Project applicant shall submit verification to the City Building and Safety Division that a lead -based paint survey has been conducted at all existing buildings located on the Project site. If lead -based paint is found, the Project applicant shall follow all procedural requirements and regulations for proper removal and disposal of the lead -based paint. Cal -OSHA has established limits of exposure to lead contained in dusts and fumes. Specifically, CCR Title 8, Section 1532.1 provides for exposure limits, exposure monitoring, and respiratory protection, and mandates good working practices by workers exposed to lead. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a Soil Management Plan (SMP) shall be prepared by a qualified hazardous materials consultant and shall detail procedures and protocols for excavation and disposal of onsite hazardous materials, including: • A certified hazardous waste hauler shall remove all potentially hazardous soils. Excavation of contaminated soils shall be removed. In addition, sampling of soil shall be conducted during excavation to ensure that all contaminated soils are removed, and that residential Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) for residential uses are not exceeded. Excavated materials shall be transported per California Hazardous Waste Regulations to a landfill permitted by the state to accept hazardous materials. • Any subsurface materials exposed during construction activities that appear suspect of contamination, either from visual staining or suspect odors, shall require immediate cessation of excavation activities. Soils suspected of contamination shall be tested for potential contamination. If contamination is found to be present per the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) or Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) ESLs for residential uses, it shall be transported and disposed of per California Hazardous Waste Regulations to an appropriately permitted landfill. • A Health and Safety Plan (HSP) shall be prepared for each contractor that addresses potential safety and health hazards and includes the requirements and procedures for City of Santa Ana 42 May 2020 75C-460 The Bowery Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findinqs of Fact employee protection. The HSP shall also outline proper soil handling procedures and health and safety requirements to minimize worker and public exposure to hazardous materials during construction. • All SMP measures shall be printed on the construction documents, contracts, and project plans prior to issuance of grading permits. Impact Finding: The Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment (Draft EIR at p. 5.7-23). Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Draft EIR. Facts in Support of Findings: Construction: Contaminated Soils. As described previously, the Project site contains approximately 900 cubic yards of contaminated soil that would require excavation and disposal pursuant to the requirements of the DTSC, California Integrated Waste Management Board, RWQCB, OCFA, and the OCHCA. Due to the existence of the contaminated soils and excavation activities that would occur during Project construction, implementation of the proposed Project has the potential to result in upset or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. As a result, Mitigation Measure Haz-1 requires a Soil Management Plan (SMP) to be prepared and used by construction workers to remove and dispose of the areas of TPH impacted soil. Mitigation Measure Haz-1 requires excavation of contaminated soils be completed pursuant to existing DTSC and RWQCB requirements, soils sampling ensure all contaminated soils are removed, and that a certified hazardous waste hauler remove and transport all TPH impacted soil and other potentially hazardous materials per California Hazardous Waste Regulations to a landfill permitted by the state to accept hazardous materials. With implementation of Mitigation Measure Haz-1 impacts related to hazards from contaminated soils would be less than significant. Undocumented Hazardous Materials. The Project site has a long history of various uses that includes use and storage of hazardous materials. As a result, there is the potential for undocumented hazardous material to exist onsite. Excavated soil containing hazardous substances and hazardous building materials would be classified as a hazardous waste if they exhibit the characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity (CCR, Title 22, Division 4.5, Chapter 11, Article 3). State and federal laws require detailed planning to ensure that hazardous materials are properly handled, used, stored, and disposed of, and in the event that such materials are accidentally released, to prevent or to mitigate injury to health or the environment. These regulations are detailed previously and include, but are not limited to, the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act that is implemented by OSHA, and the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act. Additionally, the California Integrated Waste Management Board and the RWQCB specifically address management of hazardous materials and waste handling in their adopted regulations (CCR, Title 14 and CCR, Title 27). Furthermore, Mitigation Measure HAZ-1would reduce impacts related to other soil contamination, not identified previously. Thus, with implementation of existing regulations and Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, impacts related to upset or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment would be less than significant. City of Santa Ana 43 May 2020 75C-461 The Bowery Mixed -Use Proied CEQA Findinqs of Fad Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Soil Management Plan (SMP). As listed previously. B. Tribal Cultural Resources Impact Finding: The Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of 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, that considers the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe (Draft EIR at p. 5.15-6). Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Draft EIR. Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site has been heavily disturbed to substantial depths. The proposed Project involves excavation; however, no substantial evidence exists that TCRs are present in the Project site. Although, no TCRs have been identified, during the SB 1 8/AB 52 consultation, the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation stated that the Project lies within its ancestral tribal territory within a potentially sensitive area. Therefore, to avoid potential adverse effects to tribal cultural resources, Mitigation Measure TCR-1 has been included to provide for Native American resource sensitivity training, monitoring, and to prescribe activities should any inadvertent discoveries of tribal cultural resources be unearthed by Project construction activities. Additionally, California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5 requires that if human remains are discovered in the Project site, disturbance of the site shall halt and remain halted until the coroner has conducted an investigation. If the coroner determines that the remains are those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure TCR-1 and the existing regulations, impacts to TCRs would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure TCR-1: Native American Monitoring. Prior to the issuance of any permits for initial site clearing (such as pavement removal, grubbing, tree removals) or issuance of permits allowing ground -disturbing activities that cause excavation to depths greater than artificial fill (including as boring, grading, excavation, drilling, potholing or auguring, and trenching), the City of Santa Ana shall ensure that the project applicant/developer retain qualified Native American Monitor(s). The monitor(s) shall be approved by the tribal representatives of the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation and be present on -site during initial site clearing and construction that involves ground disturbing activities that cause excavation to depths greater than artificial fill identified herein. The monitor shall conduct a Native American Indian Sensitivity Training for construction personnel. The training session includes a handout and focus on how to identify Native American resources encountered during earthmoving activities and the procedures followed if resources are discovered. The Native American monitor(s) shall complete monitoring logs on a daily basis, providing descriptions of the daily activities, including construction activities, locations, soil, and any cultural materials identified. The on -site monitoring shall end when grading and excavation activities of native soil (i.e., previously undisturbed) are completed, or when the tribal representatives and monitor have indicated that the site has a low potential for tribal cultural resources, whichever occurs first. City of Santa Ana 44 May 2020 75C-462 The Bowery Mixed -Use Proied CEQA Findinqs of Fad In the event that tribal cultural resources are inadvertently discovered during ground -disturbing activities, work must be halted within 50 feet of the find until it can also be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist in cooperation with a Native American monitor to determine if the potential resource meet the CEQA definition of historical (State CEQA Guidelines 15064.5(a)) and/or unique resource (Public Resources Code 21083.2(g)). Construction activities could continue in other areas. If the find is considered an "archeological resource" the archaeologist, in cooperation with a Native American monitor shall pursue either protection in place or recovery, salvage and treatment of the deposits. Recovery, salvage and treatment protocols shall be developed in accordance with applicable provisions of Public Resource Code Section 21083.2 and State CEQA Guidelines 15064.5 and 15126.4. If unique a tribal cultural resource cannot be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state, recovery, salvage and treatment shall be required at the Project applicant's expense. All recovered and salvaged resources shall be prepared to the point of identification and permanent preservation in an established accredited professional repository. City of Santa Ana 45 May 2020 75C-463 The Bowery Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fad SECTION IV RESOLUTION REGARDING SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Public Resources Code section 21002 states that "it is the policy of the state that public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects. The Legislature further finds and declares that in the event specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof." Section 15364 of the State CEQA Guidelines defines "feasible" as "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors." The City Council hereby finds that, despite the incorporation of feasible measures outlined in the Final EIR, the following impacts cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level. Despite these significant and unavoidable impacts, the City nevertheless approves the Project because of the benefits described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations included herein. P. Air Quality Impact Finding: The Project would result in a conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan (Draft EIR at p. 5.2-14). Fads in Support of Findings: The SCAQMD's 2016 AQMP is the applicable air quality plan for the proposed Project. Pursuant to Consistency Criterion No. 1, projects that are consistent with the regional population, housing, and employment forecasts identified by SCAG are considered to be consistent with the AQMP growth projections, because the forecast assumptions by SCAG forms the basis of the land use and transportation control portions of the AQMP that result in air quality emissions. As detailed in Draft EIR Section 5.1 1, Population and Housing, the proposed 1,150 multi -family residential units at full occupancy would result in a population of approximately 2,081 residents and the proposed 80,000 square feet of commercial space would generate approximately 320 employees at full occupancy. This equates to a 1.5 percent increase in residential units within the City, and the estimated 2,081 residents at complete occupancy would be 0.62 percent of the City's population. Based on SCAG's 2016 Integrated Growth Forecast, a 7.4 percent increase in growth throughout the County is anticipated to occur through 2040. Hence, the cumulative growth with implementation of the proposed Project would be consistent with the SCAG growth forecasts and population base. Development of the proposed Project, in combination with other development projects in the vicinity would result in a cumulative increase in population. However, the Project's portion of the cumulative increase in residential units (1,150) is limited at 2.39 percent. Thus, the proposed multi -family units would be within the SCAG projected growth. The housing added by the Project would also help to meet housing demands from projected employment growth in the Project vicinity, while maintaining a healthy vacancy rate. The Project region is jobs -rich. The existing jobs -housing ratio is 2.06 in Santa Ana and is projected to be 2.13 in 2040. The proposed Project would reduce the jobs -housing ratio slightly to 2.05; and to 2.10 in 2040, as shown in the Draft EIR Table 5.11-8 in Section 5.11, Population and Housing. The balance of jobs and housing and the existing transit, bicycle, and pedestrian infrastructure adjacent to the Project site that is available for use would reduce vehicle miles traveled and the related air quality emissions, as employees City of Santa Ana 46 May 2020 75C-464 The Bowery Mixed -Use proied CEQA Findinqs of Fad could easily travel to employment opportunities within the vicinity of the Project site, including areas within the Cities of Santa Ana, Tustin, and Irvine. Thus, the proposed Project would support AQMP objectives to reduce trips, promote infill/redevelopment, and balance jobs and housing, and would not conflict with implementation of the AQMP. In addition, implementing redevelopment of the site, the Project would utilize existing infrastructure such as roadways, drainage, sewer and other infrastructure, and would be consistent with the SCAG objective to "Encourage patterns of urban development and land use that reduce costs in infrastructure construction and make better use of existing facilities." As a result, the proposed Project would comply with Consistency Criterion No. 1 listed above in the Methodology Section. Regarding Consistency Criterion No. 2, which evaluates the potential of the proposed Project to increase the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations; an impact would occur if the long-term emissions associated with the proposed Project would exceed SCAQMD's regional significance thresholds for operation -phase emissions. As detailed below in Impact AQ-2, operation of the proposed Project would exceed the threshold of significance for emissions of VOCs and there are no feasible mitigation measures that would reduce VOC emissions to below the SCAQMD threshold. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in an impact related to Consistency Criterion No. 2. As a result, impacts related to consistency with the AQMP would be significant and unavoidable. Impact Finding: Operation of the Project would 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 (Draft EIR at p. 5.2-16). Facts in Support of Findings: Implementation of the Project would result in long-term emissions of criteria air pollutants from area sources generated by the proposed commercial and residential uses, such as vehicular emissions, natural gas consumption, landscaping, applications of architectural coatings, and use of consumer products. The emissions from the proposed Project are primarily from vehicle trips. As described in Section 5.14, Transportation, the proposed Project is anticipated to generate 11,546 daily trips, with 534 a.m. peak hour trips and 604 p.m. peak hour trips. The operational emissions from the Project are provided in the Draft EIR Table 5.2-8, on page 5.2-17, which shows that emissions from operation of the proposed Project would exceed the threshold of significance for VOCs. The majority of VOC emissions would be derived from consumer products and mobile activity. Consumer products include cleaning supplies, kitchen aerosols, cosmetics and toiletries, the use of which cannot be controlled by the City. Likewise, vehicular emissions cannot be controlled by either the Project applicant or the City. There are no feasible mitigation measures that would reduce VOC emissions to below the SCAQMD threshold. Therefore, operational emissions of the Project would be significant and unavoidable. Q. Greenhouse Gases Impact Finding: The Project would generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, either directly or indirectly, that would have a significant impact on the environment (Draft EIR at p. 5.6-10). Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed Project would generate GHG emissions from vehicle trips, electricity and natural gas consumption, water and wastewater transport (the energy used to pump water), and solid waste generation. GHG emissions from electricity consumed by the City of Santa Ana 47 May 2020 75C-465 The Bowery Mixed -Use Proied CEQA Findinqs of Fact proposed Project would be generated off -site by fuel combustion at the electricity provider. GHG emissions from water transport are also indirect emissions resulting from the energy required to transport water from its source. GHG emissions from solid waste disposal is associated with the anaerobic breakdown of material. As shown in the Draft EIR Table 5.6-3, page 5.6-11, Section 5.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the estimated increase in GHG emissions that would be generated from implementation of the proposed Project is estimated to be 9,861.60 MTCO2e per year. This exceeds the SCAQMD Tier 3 screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e. Therefore, additional analysis is provided based upon the direction of SCAQMD's Tier 4 thresholds through use of the City's CAP emissions targets and projected service population, which as detailed in Draft EIR Section 5.6.5, Methodology, identified a threshold of 3.16 MTCO2e per service population in the Project opening year if 2022. The Draft EIR Section 5.11, Population and Housing, shows that the Project would result in 2,081 residents and 320 employees at full occupancy. This results in a service population of 2,401 (2,081 residents + 320 employees = 2,401 service population). The Project's net increase in GHG emissions of 9,861.60 MTCO2e per year divided by the service population of the Project would result in 4.10 MTCO2e annually per service population, which exceeds the threshold of 3.16 MTCO2e per service population. Approximately 60 percent of the GHG emissions would be generated by Project mobile sources (vehicle trips). Neither the Project Applicant nor the City of Santa Ana can substantively or materially affect reductions in Project mobile -source emissions. However, the Project is an urban infill redevelopment that would provide mixed residential and commercial (retail/restaurant) uses. The site located near existing off -site employment, commercial, residential, and retail destinations and in proximity to existing public bus stops and freeways, which would result in reduced vehicle trips and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) in comparison to a Project of similar size on land without close access to employment, service, and retail, destinations; in addition to public transit and freeways. The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) has provided guidance for mitigating or reducing transportation related VMT from land use development projects within its guidance document titled Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures (CAPCOA 2010). The land use characteristics of the Project are consistent with the CAPCOA guidance related to a reduction of VMT: • Area Density: CAPCOA identifies that increases in area density, measured in terms of persons, jobs, or dwelling units per unit area, reduces VMT associated with transportation, as it reduces the distance people travel for work or services and provides a foundation for the implementation of other strategies such as enhanced transit services (CAPCOA guidance measure LUT-1). According to CAPCOA, the reduction in VMT from increases in area density applies to urban and suburban settings for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed - use projects. The urban infill/redevelopment Project would provide residential, retail/restaurant, and employment uses and is located near other employment opportunities, services, and retail commercial uses. The proposed Project would provide an increase in area residential density and an improvement to the jobs -housing balance. As detailed in Section 5.1 1, Population and Housing, the Project region has an existing and projected future imbalance between the number of jobs and housing units. Thus, per CAPCOA guidance, the City of Santa Ana 48 May 2020 75C-466 The Bowery Mixed -Use Proied CEQA Findinqs of Fad addition of residential units within the area would reduce VMT and the VMT-related GHG emissions. • Location Efficiency: Location efficiency describes the location of a project relative to the type of urban landscape such as an urban area, compact infill, or suburban center. CAPCOA guidance measure LUT-2.22 describes that a reduction in VMT and the related GHG emissions occurs from development within urban areas that include residential, retail, office, industrial, mixed -uses, and transportation access. As described previously, the Project is located in an urban infill location and would provide residential units near employment, retail, and services. Additionally, the Project is located adjacent to the Orange County Transit Authority (OCTA) bus lines that runs along Red Hill Avenue and Warner Avenue that makes use of transit efficient. Thus, the location efficiently of the Project would provide for reduced VMT and the related GHG emissions. Also, according to the CAPCOA guidance, factors that contribute to VMT reductions include pedestrian connectivity between the project site and off -site destinations. The Project would include onsite sidewalks that would connect to the existing offsite sidewalks and bicycle lanes exist in the Project vicinity. Both walking and bicycling to onsite or nearby destinations would reduce transportation energy use and the related GHG emissions. Therefore, although the Project Applicant and City cannot reduce GHG vehicular emissions, the Project is consistent with the CAPCOA guidance for mitigating or reducing transportation related VMT from land use development projects. In addition, the Project incorporates various sustainable design features that would reduce GHG emissions, which include: • A minimum of 94 electric vehicle charging stations. • Installation of drought -tolerant plants for landscaping. • Installation of water -efficient irrigation systems, such as weather -based and soil -moisture - based irrigation controllers and sensors, for landscaping according to the California Department of Water Resources Model Efficient Landscape Ordinance. • Designing buildings to provide CALGreen Standards with Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design features for potential certification and would employ energy and water conservation measures in accordance with such standards. This includes design considerations related to the building envelope; heating, ventilating, and air conditioning; lighting; and power systems. • Installation of landscaping in surface parking lots to reduce heat island effect. Trees would be selected and placed to provide canopy and shade for the parking lots. • Implementation of a recycling program in order to meet a 75 percent minimum waste diversion goal. • Utilization of construction materials and interior finish products with zero or low emissions to improve indoor air quality. • Provision of adequate ventilation and high -efficiency in -duct filtration system. City of Santa Ana 49 May 2020 75C-467 The Bowery Mixed -Use proied CEQA Findinqs of Fad • Use of low volatile organic compound paints and wallpapers. Also, nonresidential buildings built with the 2019 Title 24/CalGreen standards are estimated to use approximately 30 percent less energy and residential buildings are estimated to use approximately 7 percent less energy compared to development under the 2016 standards. The reduction of energy use results in reduced GHG emissions. Compliance with Title 24 is enforced through the building permit process. The following Title 24 standards are applicable to the proposed Project and would reduce GHG emissions: • Short-term bicycle parking. If a commercial project is anticipated to generate visitor traffic, provide permanently anchored bicycle racks within 200 feet of the visitors' entrance, readily visible to passers-by, for 5 percent of visitor motorized vehicle parking capacity, with a minimum of one two -bike capacity rack. • Long-term bicycle parking. For new buildings with 10 or more tenant -occupants, provide secure bicycle parking for 5 percent of tenant -occupied motorized vehicle parking capacity, with a minimum of one space. • Designated parking. Provide designated parking in commercial projects for any combination of low -emitting, fuel -efficient and carpool/van pool vehicles. • Recycling by Occupants. Provide readily accessible areas that serve the entire building and are identified for the depositing, storage and collection of nonhazardous materials for recycling. • Construction waste. A minimum 65 percent diversion of construction and demolition waste from landfills. • Wastewater reduction. Each building shall reduce the generation of wastewater by either installing water -conserving fixtures or using non -potable water systems. • Water use savings. 20 percent mandatory reduction of indoor water use. • Water meters. Separate water meters for buildings in excess of 50,000 sf or buildings projected to consume more than 1,000 gallons per day. • Irrigation efficiency. Moisture -sensing irrigation systems for larger landscaped areas. • Materials pollution control. Utilize low pollutant emitting interior finish materials such as paints, carpet, vinyl flooring, and particleboard. • Building commissioning. Mandatory inspections of energy systems (i.e., heat furnace, air conditioner, mechanical equipment) for nonresidential buildings over 10,000 sf to ensure that all are working at their maximum capacity according to their design efficiencies. However, there are no feasible Project measures that would reduce vehicular emissions, and approximately 60 percent of the GHG emissions would be generated by Project mobile sources (vehicle trips). Thus, neither the Project Applicant nor the Lead Agency (City of Santa Ana) can substantively or materially affect reductions in Project mobile -source emissions. The Project would result in a net increase in GHG emissions of 9,861.60 MTCO2e per year, which would be 4.10 MTCO2e annually per service population. This would exceed the SCAQMD Tier 3 screening City of Santa Ana 50 May 2020 75C-468 The Bowery Mixed -Use Proied CEQA Findinqs of Fad threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e and exceed the SCAQMD Tier 4/City CAP threshold of 3.16 MTCO2e per service population. Therefore, impacts related to GHG emissions would be significant and unavoidable. Impact Finding: The Project would conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases (Draft EIR at p. 5.6-14). Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed Project consists of an infill redevelopment project that would help to meet housing demands from projected growth in the region while helping to improve the jobs to housing balance (detailed in Draft EIR Section 5.11, Population and Housing), which has the potential to reduce GHG emissions from the reduction of vehicle miles traveled. The proposed Project provides for pedestrian infrastructure, such as sidewalks that connect to off -site sidewalks to promote non -vehicular transportation and reduce the vehicle miles traveled and related GHG emissions. In addition, the Project site is adjacent to existing bus routes and bicycle lanes. Providing a mixed -use development in such a location is consistent with the intent of the AB 32 Scoping Plan and SB 375, which is focused on changing land use patterns and improving transportation alternatives. The proposed Project would be implemented pursuant to the 2019 CALGreen Building/Title 24 requirements, and provide new land uses in a sustainable manner. The City's administration of the Title 24 requirements includes review of proposed energy conservation measures during the permitting process, which ensures that all requirements are met. In complying with the 2019 Title 24 standards, the Project would be implementing regulations that reduce GHG emissions. Also, the CARB Scoping Plans recommend strategies for implementation at the statewide level to meet the goals of AB 32 and SB 32. The proposed Project would be consistent with the applicable measures established in the 2008 CARB Scoping Plan, as shown in Draft EIR Table 5.6-4, page 5.6- 14, Section 5.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The 2017 Scoping Plan Update reflects the 2030 target of a 40 percent reduction below 1990 levels, set by Executive Order B-30-15 and codified by SB 32. Draft EIR Table 5.6-5, page 5.6-15, Section 5.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions summarizes the Project's consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan, which shows that the Project would not conflict with any of the provisions of the 2017 Scoping Plan. The City of Santa Ana's CAP includes reduction measures that would help the City achieve its emissions reduction goal, which is consistent with the statewide goals identified. The proposed Project is consistent with City's CAP strategy of locating new mixed -use development within employment corridors to create a more optimal mix of land uses and reduce vehicle miles traveled. The proposed Project would be consistent with the relevant measures of the City's CAP as described in Draft EIR Table 5.6-6, page 5.6-19, Section 5.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. However, as described previously, the GHG emissions from the Project would exceed the SCAQMD Tier 3 screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e and exceed the SCAQMD Tier 4/City CAP threshold of 3.16 MTCO2e per service population. As described previously, approximately 60 percent of the GHG emissions would be generated by vehicle trips. Neither the Project Applicant nor the City of Santa Ana can substantively or materially reduce the vehicular -source GHG emissions. Thus, the Project would result in an exceedance of the CAP's emissions target and impacts would be significant and unavoidable. City of Santa Ana 51 May 2020 75C-469 The Bowery Mixed -Use proied CEQA Findinqs of Fad R. Transportation Impact Finding: The Project would conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities (Draft EIR at p. 5.14-10). Facts in Support of Findings: In the Year 2040 plus Project traffic conditions the Project would result in a significant cumulative impact at the following three intersections, as detailed in Final EIR Transportation Section Table 5.14-10: • Grand Avenue/Warner Avenue (#4) in the p.m. peak hour • Red Hill Avenue/Barranca Parkway (#30) in the p.m. peak hour • Red Hill Avenue/Alton Parkway (#32) in the p.m. peak hour Improvements for impacted intersections have been identified, which would reduce the impacts to a less than significant level. However, improvements at the intersections of Red Hill Avenue/ Barranca Parkway (#30) and Red Hill Avenue/Alton Parkway (#32) cannot be guaranteed because they require approval and/or implementation by the City of Tustin or the City of Irvine. In addition, the improvement at the Grand Avenue/Warner Avenue (#4) is required as a result of a is a cumulative impact, as the intersection operates with unsatisfactory LOS in the baseline 2040 condition. The Project would be responsible for a fair share of the improvement; however, there is no currently planned improvement at the location, and it is unknown if the Grand Avenue/Warner Avenue improvement would be implemented by 2040. Therefore, implementation of the Project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact under the Year 2040 Plus Project condition at these three intersections. City of Santa Ana 52 May 2020 75C-470 The Bowery Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fad SECTION V RESOLUTION REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES Section 15126.2(c) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR discuss "any significant irreversible environmental changes which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented." Generally, a project would result in significant irreversible environmental changes if one of the following scenarios is involved: • The Project would involve a large commitment of nonrenewable resources. • Irreversible damage can result from environmental accidents associated with the Project. • The proposed consumption of resources is not justified (e.g., the Project results in the wasteful use of energy). The Project would result in or contribute to the following irreversible environmental changes: • Lands in the Project area that are currently developed with light industrial uses would be committed to multi -family residential and commercial retail uses once the proposed buildings are constructed. Secondary effects associated with this irreversible commitment of land resources include: o Changes in views associated with construction of the new buildings and associated development (Draft EIR Section 5.1, Aesthetics). o Increased traffic on area roadways (Draft EIR Section 5.14, Transportation). o Emissions of air pollutants associated with Project construction and operation (Draft EIR Section 5.2, Air Quality). o Consumption of non-renewable energy associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project due to the use of automobiles, lighting, heating and cooling systems, appliances, and the like (Draft EIR Section 5.4, Energy). o Increased ambient noise associated with an increase in activities and traffic from the Project (Draft EIR Section 5.10, Noise). • Construction of the proposed Project as described in Draft EIR Section 3.0, Project Description, would require the use of energy produced from non-renewable resources and construction materials. In regard to energy usage from the proposed Project, as demonstrated in the analyses contained in Draft EIR Section 5.4, Energy, the proposed Project would not involve wasteful or unjustifiable use of non-renewable resources, and conservation efforts would be enforced during construction and operation of proposed development. The proposed development would incorporate energy - generating and conserving project design features, including those required by the California Building Code, California Energy Code Title 24, which specify green building standards for new developments. In addition, as listed in Draft EIR Sections 3.0, Project Description and 5.4, Energy, the proposed Project includes project design features that result in additional energy -efficiency. City of Santa Ana 53 May 2020 75C-471 The Bowery Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fad SECTION VI RESOLUTION REGARDING GROWTH -INDUCING IMPACTS AND COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES Section 15126.2(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires the EIR to address the growth -inducing impact of the Project. EIR Section 5.17 evaluates the potential for the proposed Project to affect economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Emolovment Related Growth The Project site has been used Ricoh Electronics Inc. for light industrial uses that provide employment since its development in 1979 and 1981. The site was vacated by Ricoh in 2018 and the buildings are partially re -occupied and used for storage, electronics recycling, and as temporary housing for the homeless. The proposed Project would redevelop the Project site to provide 1,150 multi -family residential units and 80,000 square feet of commercial retail space. As detailed in Section 5.11, Population and Housing, this is anticipated to generate approximately 320 employees at full occupancy, which would be 0.27 percent of the existing jobs within 2-miles of the Project site; and therefore, would not result in induced unplanned employment growth. Infrastructure Obstacles to Growth The proposed Project would redevelop the existing onsite infrastructure systems and provide an off -site sewer line improvement that would connect to the existing off -site systems that currently serve the Project site. The new infrastructure would not provide additional capacity beyond what is needed to serve the proposed Project. In addition, because the Project is within a developed area that is receiving services from existing infrastructure and would connect to the existing infrastructure, development of the proposed Project would not result in an expansion of overall capacity, extension of infrastructure, or provision of services in areas or an unserved area. Therefore, infrastructure improvements would not result in significant growth inducing impacts. Land Development Reaulation Obstacles to Growth The proposed Project includes amendments to the General Plan and to the zoning code to allow for the redevelopment of the site to provide the proposed mixed -use development as opposed to the existing light industrial building uses. The Project proposes a General Plan land use designation amendment from PAO (Professional and Administrative Office) to District Center, which would allow specific development requirements for the proposed mixed uses. In addition, the Project includes a proposed zoning change from M-1 (Light Industrial) to a Specific Development designation, which would also provide specific development regulations for the mixed -use Project. The proposed Project is redevelopment of an already developed area that has been used for urban uses since 1979 and is surrounded by urban development or areas planned for urban development. The proposed Project would involve a change to development regulations and would result in onsite residents and additional onsite employees. However, the zoning and land use changes are parcel specific and would not result in growth outside of the Project site, because the areas are either completely developed or within development land use plans. Changes to the Project site's land use and zoning designations would not result in removing an obstacle to growth within the Project vicinity. City of Santa Ana 54 May 2020 75C-472 The Bowery Mixed -Use Proied CEQA Findinqs of Fad In addition, SCAG policies concerning regional growth -inducement are included as part of Draft EIR Section 5.9, Land Use and Planning, and Draft EIR Section 5.11, Population and Housing. As described in those sections, the growth anticipated by SCAG's projections are consistent with the increases in population (2,081 residents) and employees (320 employees) anticipated at full capacity of the Project. Therefore, impacts related to growth from changes in existing regulations pertaining to land development would be less than significant. Public Service Obstacles to Growth The proposed Project is expected to incrementally increase the demand for fire protection and emergency response, police protection, and school services. However, as described in Draft EIR Section 5.12, Public Services, the proposed Project would not require development of additional facilities or expansion of existing facilities to maintain existing levels of service. Based on service ratios and build out projections, the proposed Project would not create a demand for services beyond the capacity of existing facilities. Therefore, an indirect growth inducing impact as a result of expanded or new public facilities that could support other development in addition to the proposed Project would not occur. The proposed Project would not have significant growth inducing consequences that would require the need to expand public services to maintain desired levels of service. Other Activities Related to Growth The proposed Project involves amendments to the City of Santa Ana General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, but those amendments are specific to the allowable land uses on the Project site itself. The proposed Project does not propose changes to any of the City's building safety standards (i.e., building, grading, plumbing, mechanical, electrical, or fire codes). The Project would comply with all applicable City plans, policies, and ordinances. In addition, Project features and mitigation measures have been identified within this EIR to ensure that the Project minimizes environmental impacts. The Project would not involve any precedent -setting action that could encourage and facilitate other activities that significantly affect the environment. Impacts of Growth All physical environmental effects from construction of development of the proposed Project has been analyzed in the Draft EIR. For example, activities such as excavation, grading, and construction as required for the proposed mixed uses were analyzed in the Draft EIR Sections 5.2, Air Quality, 5.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and 5.10, Noise. Therefore, construction of the proposed Project has been analyzed in the EIR and would be adequately mitigated either through implementation of existing regulations and/or mitigation measures. City of Santa Ana 55 May 2020 75C-473 The Bowery Mixed -Use Proied CEQA Findinqs of Fad SECTION VII RESOLUTION REGARDING ALTERNATIVES The City of Santa Ana hereby declares that it has considered and rejected as infeasible the alternatives identified in the EIR and described below. Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the Project, or to the location of the Project, which could feasibly achieve most of its basic objectives, but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects identified in the EIR analysis. An EIR is not required to consider every conceivable alternative to a proposed project. Rather, an EIR must consider a reasonable range of alternatives that are potentially feasible; an EIR is not required to consider alternatives that are infeasible. In addition, an EIR should evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. Therefore, this section sets forth the potential alternatives to the Project analyzed in the EIR and evaluates them in light of the objectives of the Project, as required by CEQA. Objectives The following objectives have been identified in order to aid decision makers in their review of the proposed Project and its associated environmental impacts. • Develop a mixed -use Project that constructs new multi -family residential units, which would help meet the region's demand for housing. • Transform an underutilized site with an economically viable development consistent with other regional redevelopment in the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan and Irvine Business Complex (IBC) and combines residential uses with community -serving retail near employment opportunities, freeway access, and transit. • Redevelop existing land uses that would utilize existing infrastructure, including: water, sewer, arterial roadways, transit, and freeways; and provide non -vehicular (pedestrian and bicycle) circulation. • Develop a mix of housing to assist the City in meeting its jobs/housing balance. • Provide onsite uses that reduce vehicular miles traveled (VMT) by providing an internal pedestrian circulation system that links residential uses, recreation areas, and retail/commercial areas onsite. • Implement the SCAG Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) Land Use Policies related to population and housing by providing additional housing near employment centers. Alternatives Key provisions of the State CEQA Guidelines relating to the alternatives analysis (Section 15126.6 et seq.) are summarized below: • The discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the Project or its location that are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the Project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the Project objectives or would be more -costly. City of Santa Ana 56 May 2020 75C-474 The Bowery Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findinqs of Fact • The "No Project" alternative shall be evaluated along with its impact. The "No Project" analysis shall discuss the existing conditions, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the Project is not approved. • The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a "rule of reason"; therefore, the EIR must evaluate only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Project. • For alternative locations, only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR. • An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effects cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative. Rationale for Selecting Potentially Feasible Alternatives The alternatives must include a no -project alternative and a range of reasonable alternatives to the Project if those reasonable alternatives would attain most of the Project objectives while substantially lessening the potentially significant project impacts. The range of alternatives discussed in an EIR is governed by a "rule of reason," which the State CEQA Guidelines Section 151 26.6(f)(3) defines as: ... set[ting] forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the ones that the lead agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Project. The range of feasible alternatives shall be selected and discussed in a manner to foster meaningful public participation and informed decision -making. Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives (as described in the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)([1]) are environmental impacts, site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the Project proponent could reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to an alternative site. An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effects could not be reasonably identified, and whose implementation is remote or speculative. For purposes of this analysis, the Project alternatives are evaluated to determine the extent to which they attain the basic Project objectives, while significantly lessening any significant effects of the Project. Alternatives Analysis The goal for evaluating any alternatives is to identify ways to avoid or lessen the significant environmental effects resulting from implementation of the proposed Project, while attaining most of the Project objectives. The City of Santa Ana has included the following 3 alternatives for consideration: • No Project/No Build Alternative • Reduced Project Alternative City of Santa Ana 57 May 2020 75C-475 The Bowery Mixed -Use Proied CEQA Findinqs of Fad • Build Out of the Existing Land Use and Zoning Alternative Alternatives Not Selected for Analysis Alternative Site: An alternative site was considered and eliminated from further consideration. CEQA specifies that the key question regarding alternative site consideration is "whether any of the significant effects of the Project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the Project at another location." In addition, an alternative site need not be considered when implementation is "remote and speculative," such as when the alternative site is beyond the control of a Project proponent. The Project Applicant is the owner of the Project site, and the Project site building is underutilized in the existing condition. The Project objectives are to redevelop an existing underutilized parcel and implement new multi -family housing near employment, provide development consistent with other regional redevelopment in the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan and IBC and utilize existing infrastructure, all of which are consistent with the opportunities provided by the Project site. In addition, due to the urban and built out nature of the City, development of 1,150 multi -family residential units and 80,000 square feet of commercial uses on another 14.58-acre site at a different location would likely require demolition of existing structures, require similar mitigation, and have similar impacts as the proposed Project. CEQA specifies that the key question regarding alternative site consideration is "whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project at another location." Given the size and nature of the proposed Project and the Project objectives, it would be infeasible to develop and operate the Project on an alternative site with fewer environmental impacts. Therefore, the Alternative Site Alternative was rejected from further consideration. Description of Alternatives Alternative 1: No Project/No Build Alternative Pursuant to Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, the EIR is required to "discuss the existing conditions at the time the notice of preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation is published, at the time the environmental analysis is commenced, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services." Therefore, under this alternative, no development would occur on the Project site and it would remain in its existing condition with three existing buildings with a total 212,121 square feet. The Project site is located within a completely developed and highly used urban area, near freeways and transit, and contains three existing useable structures. Therefore, it is not reasonable to assume that the Project site would remain underutilized in the long-term. Thus, in the No Project/No Build condition it is reasonably expected that all of the 212,121 square feet of industrial building space would be re -occupied. Hence, this alternative compares impacts of the proposed Project with re- occupation at full capacity of the three existing industrial buildings Alternative 2 — Reduced Project Alternative Under this alternative, a reduction in the number of residential units and commercial square footage would be built, which would result in increased setbacks and reduced building heights. Pursuant to discussion with City planning staff, it was determined that a reasonable decrease in developed on the Project site is 30 percent of each unit type and a 30 percent reduction in commercial retail City of Santa Ana 58 May 2020 75C-476 The Bowery Mixed -Use Proied CEQA Findinqs of Fad space resulting in 345 fewer residential units and 24,000 square feet less of commercial space. Like the proposed Project, 17 percent of the units would be studios, 52 percent would be one - bedroom units, and 29 percent would be 2-bedroom units. This alternative would develop and operate 805 multi -family residential units and 56,000 square feet of retail and restaurant commercial uses. Reducing these units from the proposed Project would eliminate 100 units from each of the three proposed mixed use buildings and 45 units from the residential only building, which would reduce the height of the three six -story mixed use buildings by two stories and reduce the height of the one five -story building by one story. Thus, each of the mixed -use and residential buildings would be four -stories in height under the Reduced Project Alternative. To support the reduced Project under this alternative parking spaces would be provided at the same rate as the proposed Project of 1.7 spaces per residential unit and 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of commercial space within a two four -level parking structures and two five -level parking structures, which would each be two levels lower than the proposed Project. The 24,000 square foot reduction in commercial space would occur from reducing the Phase 1 commercial square footage from 40,000 square feet to 20,000 square feet and from reducing the Phase 3 commercial square footage from 20,000 square feet to 16,000 square feet. Under the Reduced Project Alternative, the recreation amenities would also be reduced by 30 percent; thus, approximately 122,189 square feet of exterior open space recreation area and approximately 5,606 square feet of indoor amenities would be provided by this alternative. Like the proposed Project, this alternative would require a General Plan Amendment from the existing land use designation of PAO (Professional and Administrative Office) to District Center (DC), and a Zone change from M-1 (Light Industrial) to a Specific Development (SD) designation Alternative 3 — Build Out of the Existing Land Use and Zoning Alternative The Project site has a General Plan Land Use designation of Professional and Administrative Office (PAO) with a designated Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.5 and is zoned Light Industrial (M-1). Under this alternative, the Project site would be redeveloped for a new light industrial business park as allowed by the existing General Plan Land Use designation and the City's Zoning Code Sections 41 -472 through 41-483. The Project site has a zoning designation of Light Industrial (M-1), which permits uses such as: warehousing, distribution, manufacture, assembly, and storage. The M-1 zone allows buildings up to 3-stories or 35-feet in height. At the allowable 0.5 FAR, the 14.58-acre site would provide for approximately 317,552 square feet of light industrial building space and building heights of up to 35-feet. These buildings would require approximately 635 parking spaces (per Municipal Code Section 41-1390 requirement of 2 spaces per 1,000 square feet). The industrial buildings would be surrounded by drought tolerant ornamental landscaping. Under this alternative, the existing onsite development would be demolished, removed, and replaced to provide new building structures that would be developed pursuant to current building requirements, such as energy efficient power systems, drought tolerant landscaping, storm water filtration, and other Low Impact Development (LID) requirements. City of Santa Ana 59 May 2020 75C-477 The Bowery Mixed -Use Proied CEQA Findinqs of Fad Evaluation of Alternatives Alternative 1 — No Project/No Build Alternative The No Project/No Build Alternative would avoid the significant and unavoidable air quality, greenhouse gas, and transportation impacts that would occur from the Project and all of the potential construction impacts. Additionally, operational impacts would be reduced and mitigation measures would not be required, which include measures related to hazards and hazardous materials, transportation, and tribal cultural resources. However, the environmental benefits of the Project would also not be realized, such as improvements to storm water quality, removal of contaminated soils, improvements to the jobs/housing balance, and the potential to reduce vehicle miles traveled. The No Project/No Build Alternative would not install storm water filtration features in accordance with DAMP and LID design guidelines that would filter and slow the volume and rate of runoff; the contaminated soils would remain onsite; and this alternative would provide for the projected employment growth but would not improve the jobs to housing balance within the region and could generate more vehicle miles traveled. The No Project/ No Build Alternative would not meet any of the Project objectives. The site would not be redeveloped to provide housing to help meet the region's demand for housing, would not provide a development consistent with other regional redevelopment in the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan and IBC, would not develop housing to assist the City in meeting its jobs/housing balance, would not provide onsite uses that reduce VMT, and would not implement SCAG RTP/SCS policies related to providing additional housing near employment centers. Overall, this alternative would not meet any of the objectives of the proposed Project Finding: The City of Santa Ana finds that the No Project/No Build Alternative is infeasible based on several economic and social factors. The site would not be redeveloped to provide development consistent with other regional redevelopment in the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan and IBC, would not develop housing to assist the City in meeting its jobs/housing balance, would not provide onsite uses that reduce VMT, and would not implement SCAG RTP/SCS policies related to providing additional housing near employment centers. Overall, the No Project/No Build Alternative fails to meet any of the Project objectives (Draft EIR at p. 6-12) and is rejected on that basis. Alternative 2 — Reduced Project Alternative The Reduced Project Alternative would result in 3,955 fewer daily vehicular trips than the proposed Project. The reduction in vehicular emissions and consumer products from this alternative would reduce operational air quality impacts to a less than significant level. However, significant and unavoidable impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions and transportation would continue to occur from implementation of this alternative. Additionally, the mitigation required for implementation of the proposed Project would continue to be required for the Reduced Project Alternative to reduce impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials and tribal cultural resources to a less than significant level. Overall, although the volume of impacts would be less by the Reduced Project Alternative in comparison to the proposed Project, the Reduced Project Alternative would not eliminate all of the significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed Project or eliminate the need for mitigation. Furthermore, the Reduced Project Alternative would result in a reduced beneficial impact. Providing fewer multi -family units and less commercial space on the Project site would result in fewer opportunities to improve the jobs -housing balance as fewer residents would have the potential to travel to local employment opportunities. City of Santa Ana 60 May 2020 75C-478 The Bowery Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findinqs of Fact The Reduced Project Alternative would meet the Project objectives, but not to the same extent as the proposed Project. The site would be redeveloped to provide housing to help meet the region's demand for housing, would provide a development consistent with other regional redevelopment in the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan and IBC. However, fewer residential units and less commercial space would be provided and a reduced improvement to the jobs -housing balance and VMT would occur. Additionally, the alternative would result in less implementation of SCAG RTP/SCS policies related to providing additional housing near employment centers. Overall, this alternative would meet the objectives of the proposed Project, but not to the same extent as the proposed Project. Finding: The City of Santa Ana finds that the Reduced Project Alternative is infeasible based several economic and social factors. A key consideration for the City is to develop housing to assist the City in meeting its jobs/housing balance, which would be less under this alternative than the proposed Project. Under the Reduced Project Alternative fewer residential units and less commercial space would be provided and a reduced improvement to the jobs -housing balance and VMT would occur. Additionally, the alternative would result in less implementation of SCAG RTP/SCS policies related to providing additional housing near employment centers. In addition, the Reduced Project Alternative would not eliminate all of the significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed Project or eliminate the need for mitigation. Thus, the Reduced Project Alternative would not achieve the Project objectives to the same extent as the proposed Project, would continue to result in significant and unavoidable impacts, and would continue to require mitigation. The Reduced Project Alternative is rejected on that basis. Alternative 3 — Build Out of the Existing Land Use and Zoning Alternative The Build Out of the Existing Land Use and Zoning Alternative would result in 9,559 fewer daily vehicular trips than the proposed Project. The reduction in vehicular trips from this alternative would reduce the proposed Project's significant and unavoidable operational air quality emissions and transportation/traffic impacts to a less than significant level. However, significant and unavoidable impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions would continue to occur from implementation of this alternative. Additionally, the mitigation required for hazards and hazardous materials and tribal cultural resources for the proposed Project would continue to be required for the Build Out of the Existing Land Use and Zoning Alternative. Overall, although the volume of impacts would be less by the Build Out of the Existing Land Use and Zoning Alternative in comparison to the proposed Project, the Build Out of the Existing Land Use and Zoning Alternative would not eliminate all of the significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed Project or eliminate the need for mitigation. Furthermore, the Build Out of the Existing Land Use and Zoning Alternative would result in a reduced beneficial impact, as it would not provide multi -family units on the Project site; and therefore, would not improve the jobs -housing balance. The Build Out of the Existing Land Use and Zoning Alternative would only meet one Project objective, to redevelop existing land uses that would utilize existing infrastructure, including: water, sewer, arterial roadways, transit, and freeways; and provide non -vehicular (pedestrian and bicycle) circulation. The site would not be redeveloped with new housing near existing employment centers, to meet the regions demand for housing or be developed consistent with the redevelopment in the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan area or within the IBC. It would not promote an improved jobs/housing balance and would not meet the related SCAG RTP/SCS land use objectives. Finding: The City of Santa Ana finds that the Build Out of the Existing Land Use and Zoning Alternative is infeasible based several economic and social factors. A key consideration for the City City of Santa Ana 61 May 2020 75C-479 The Bowery Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findinqs of Fact is to develop housing to assist the City in meeting its jobs/housing balance, which would not occur under this alternative. In addition, this alternative would not provide a development consistent with the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan and IBC, it would not provide an improvement to VMT, and it would not implement SCAG RTP/SCS policies related to providing additional housing near employment centers. Thus, the Build Out of the Existing Land Use and Zoning Alternative would not achieve the Project objectives to the same extent as the proposed Project. The Build Out of the Existing Land Use and Zoning Alternative is rejected on that basis. Environmentally Superior Alternative Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines indicates that an analysis of alternatives to a proposed project shall identify an environmentally superior alternative among the alternatives evaluated in an EIR. The CEQA Guidelines also state that should it be determined that the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, the EIR shall identify another environmentally superior alternative among the remaining alternatives. The Build Out of the Existing Land Use and Zoning Alternative would reduce the Project's significant and unavoidable operational air quality and transportation/traffic impacts to a less than significant level, would implement the existing General Plan land use and zoning designations for the Project site, and would not require a General Plan amendment or zoning change. However, this alternative would continue to require mitigation related to contaminated soils onsite and tribal cultural resources; and would continue to result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to GHG emissions. Therefore, although the volume of impacts would be less by the Build Out of the Existing Land Use and Zoning Alternative in comparison to the proposed Project, the Build Out of the Existing Land Use and Zoning Alternative would not eliminate all of the significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed Project or eliminate the need for mitigation. In addition, it would not implement the SCAG policies to the same degree as the proposed Project, because this alternative would not locate new housing near existing jobs and reduce the jobs -housing ratio or the corresponding reduction in vehicle miles traveled. In addition, the Build Out of the Existing Land Use and Zoning Alternative would not meet many of the Project objectives. The site would not be redeveloped with new housing near existing employment centers, to meet the regions demand for housing or be developed consistent with the redevelopment in the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan area or within the IBC. It would not promote an improved jobs/housing balance and would not meet the related SCAG RTP/SCS land use objectives. CEQA does not require the City of Santa Ana to choose the environmentally superior alternative. Instead, CEQA requires the City to consider environmentally superior alternatives, weigh those considerations against the environmental impacts of the proposed Project, and make findings that the benefits of those considerations outweigh the harm. Based on the considerations described herein, the City of Santa Ana finds that the Build Out of the Existing Land Use and Zoning Alternative is infeasible based on these economic and social factors. City of Santa Ana 62 May 2020 75C-480 The Bowery Mixed -Use project CEQA Findinqs of Fad Vill. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Introduction The City of Santa Ana is the Lead Agency under CEQA for preparation, review and certification of the EIR for The Bowery Mixed -Use Project (Project). As the Lead Agency, the City is also responsible for determining the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action and which of those impacts are significant, and which can be mitigated through imposition of mitigation measures to avoid or minimize those impacts to a level of less than significant. CEQA then requires the Lead Agency to balance the benefits of a proposed action against its significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts in determining whether or not to approve the proposed Project. In making this determination the City is guided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, Statement of Overriding Considerations, which states: (a) CEQA requires the decision -making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposal (sic) project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable." (b) When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section 15091. In addition, Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) requires that where a public agency finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in an EIR and thereby leave significant unavoidable effects, the public agency must also find that overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects of the project. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 (b) and the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City has balanced the benefits of the proposed Project against the unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the Project and has adopted all feasible mitigation measures with respect to these impacts. The City also has examined alternatives to the proposed Project, none of which both meet the Project objectives and is environmentally preferable to the proposed Project for the reasons discussed in the Findings and Facts in Support of Findings. The City of Santa Ana, as the Lead Agency for this Project, and having reviewed the EIR for the Bowery Mixed -Use Project, and reviewed all written materials within the City's public record and heard all oral testimony presented at public hearings, adopts this Statement of Overriding Considerations, which has balanced the benefits of the Project against its significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts in reaching its decision to approve the Project. City of Santa Ana 63 May 2020 75C-481 The Bowery Mixed -Use Proied CEQA Findinqs of Fad Overriding Considerations The City, after balancing the specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the Project, has determined that the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts identified above may be considered acceptable due to the following specific considerations which outweigh the unavoidable, adverse environmental impacts of the Project, each of which standing alone is sufficient to support approval of the Project, in accordance with CEQA Section 21081(b) and CEQA Guideline Section 15093. The specific economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of the Project are as follows: • The Project implements capital investment through construction of new buildings and offsite infrastructure improvements to enhance the City's economic and fiscal viability pursuant to the City of Santa Ana Strategic Plan. • The Project improves the jobs -housing balance, providing a beneficial effect of providing multi -family housing in a jobs -rich area so that employees can easily travel to employment opportunities. • The Project results in a potential reduction of vehicle miles traveled and the related traffic congestion, air quality, and greenhouse gas emissions compared with potential uses under the existing land use designation through the provision of housing and building space for commercial and restaurant uses near existing office uses and other sources of employment, and by improving the jobs -housing balance. • The Project provides additional housing to support the regionally forecasted increase in economic activities and employment increases. • The Project transforms an underutilized site with an economically viable development consistent with other regional redevelopment in the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan and Irvine Business Complex (IBC) and combines residential uses with community -serving commercial uses near employment opportunities, freeway access, and transit. • The Project implements the SCAG Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) Land Use Policies related to population and housing by providing additional housing near employment centers. • Consistent with the General Plan and City of Santa Ana Strateaic Plan. the Project facilitates the economic development of the City by creating an expanded employment base by creating building space for multiple businesses, providing new diverse employment opportunities and attracting new businesses by locating residences, which will house future costumers for the businesses. • The Project will redevelop a site that has buildings and improvements that are tailored to a specific tenant which no longer needs the site or buildings. The existing buildings and improvements would have limited demand in the current condition and would not result in the benefits of the capital investment the Project will bring. • The Economic and Fiscal Analysis (2019) prepared for the Project determined that due to greater construction costs and scale, the estimated one-time construction economic impacts the Project ($498 million) to the City of Santa Ana is greater than the impact of the construction of a typical industrial building allowed under the current land use and zoning ($76 million). This is particularly important during this COVID-19 pandemic when significant economic impacts are severely impacting cities, businesses and jobs. City of Santa Ana 64 May 2020 75C-482 The Bowery Mixed -Use Proied CEQA Findinqs of Fad • The Economic and Fiscal Analysis determined that the Project could generate more than double the estimated net annual revenue to the City compared with a typical industrial building allowed under the current land use and zoning. • The Project creates a high quality, master planned mixed -use development that will attract an array of businesses and provide a variety of employment and housing opportunities and creates a larger annual net fiscal surplus compared to build out of the existing Land Use and Zoning designations. City of Santa Ana 65 May 2020 75C-483 The Bowery Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fad SECTION IX RESOLUTION REGARDING CERTIFICATION OF THE EIR The City of Santa Ana finds that it has reviewed and considered the Final EIR in evaluating the proposed Project, that the Final EIR is an accurate and objective statement that fully complies with CEQA, State CEQA Guidelines and that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City. The City of Santa Ana declares that no new significant information as defined by State CEQA Guidelines, section 15088.5 has been received by the City after circulation of the Draft EIR that would require recirculation. The City of Santa Ana certifies the EIR based on the entirety of the record of proceedings, including but not limited to the following findings and conclusions: Findings: The following significant environmental impacts have been identified in the EIR and will require mitigation as set forth in Section IV of this Resolution but cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance: air quality (Project -related and cumulative), greenhouse gas (cumulative), and transportation (cumulative). Conclusions: 1. Except as to those impacts stated above relating to air quality, greenhouse gas, and transportation, all significant environmental impacts from the implementation of the proposed Project have been identified in the EIR and, with implementation of the mitigation measures identified, will be mitigated to a level of insignificance. 2. Other alternatives to the proposed Project, which could potentially achieve the basic objectives of the proposed Project, have been considered and rejected in favor of the proposed Project. 3. Environmental, economic, social and other considerations and benefits derived from the development of the proposed Project override and make infeasible any alternatives to the proposed Project or further mitigation measures beyond those incorporated into the proposed Project. City of Santa Ana 66 May 2020 75C-484 The Bowery Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fad SECTION X RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the City of Santa Ana hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. In the event of any inconsistencies between the mitigation measures as set forth herein and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan shall control. City of Santa Ana 67 May 2020 75C-485 The Bowery Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fad SECTION XI RESOLUTION REGARDING CONTENTS AND CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings have been based are located at the City of Santa Ana Planning Division Counter. The custodian for these records is the City of Santa Ana. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code section 21081.6. The record of proceedings for the City's decision on the Project consists of the following documents, at a minimum: 1. The NOP and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the Project; 2. All comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the 45-day comment periods on the Draft EIR; 3. The Final EIR for the Bowery Mixed -Use Project, including comments received on the Draft EIR, responses to those comments, and technical appendices; 4. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the Project; 5. All findings, resolutions and ordinances adopted by the City in connection with the Bowery Mixed -Use Project, and all documents cited or referred to therein; 6. All reports, studies, memoranda, maps, staff reports, or other planning documents relating to the Project prepared by the City, consultants to the City, or responsible or trustee agencies with respect to the City's compliance with the requirements of CEQA and with respect to the City's action on the Bowery Mixed -Use Project; 7. All documents submitted to the City by other public agencies or members of the public in connection with the Bowery Mixed -Use Project up though Project approval. Matters of common knowledge to the City, including, but not limited to Federal, State, and local laws and regulations; 8. Any documents expressly cited or referenced in these findings, in addition to those cited above; and 9. Any other materials required for the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code section 21 167.6, subdivision (e). The following location is where review of the record may be performed: City of Santa Ana, Planning Division Counter 20 Civic Center Plaza, M-20 Santa Ana, CA 92701 City of Santa Ana 68 May 2020 75C-486 The Bowery Mixed -Use Proied CEQA Findinqs of Fad This page intentionally left blank. City of Santa Ana 69 May 2020 75C-487 ad 0 !ƒ§ ] J J ] }{� j) )) )) 0 )kf )k\ /\E �k={ k {LF \)d \)d )Lr0 Lr- ƒ�)} \�\ \ \\�.\\\\ \\\ \�\\ ( ! - §a0 «2 -_ ,@!® EC6 0�#� «/�{2§ �&!| )� ,x 2 ;}§kJ{, §\\{ }!; {- k\}) §f!) �\ j\�\\\j k\\\\ 0P/: tE \}\ �` �(/(� �( ?§ }\�\ - _�a�0 \}) ƒ\))j ƒ/ �%%y§ ® ■\7 R ;�f- § f/ £�;>! £!;] \ ((%) §) ( 0-2of/) !!f° 22;f B§\|��\/!§$&f`§) ��0 ]Gt§§ �,« �;- �;-_o _§-_ § a;i: ]! /!/Z'a!ooZ� Z§f : : !§f«> !§f! �![$! 75C- §§ E -eE J\ J J }{� }) )) 0 (.0 §kf |kf k {7cc \)} 5 \)d \\ \\ \aU !f; 2 - $j§ \ ; \!({] )\k )\/«!±-%\ 7|) _ - - !}k }iG!§- 7fE {§\;� |\ff : \ /\0 CD -®� - : §;!£%is 2«!a; _ [!�$) �}[} \)|\_$} / �_-}\ �k)\ )-/ �\)kk= \\/\\)00 `r��V{!¥�, - k\(: -0 oa,©�a�0=0 ' ®` go}2, _ z}{� .Gij$§f}%+.I§/!l�m2)/k§{i0 ®}/_ f° \ §\\{3[-5§[2\\0k�®\{E\�/f!%f�= ;«0 ] ! [0=�ƒ}0 `$I!\a0 § o.- _-- _=-CLa-a0 }\§!\{}{}(__- _— -§([ § 0\}2\)i-x 0E= « ��k/\I%!!e - O - / \ (ea £}\ 0»}uk)�{\0tt0 E ,$0)aa a 0 _;\§_;§� !92 a 0aa - -0 l�l,�= ��_.a§§/0 a e -- \]\[2\f)0a7/§2 �a9J5/»� aG�:= )7ƒ! a7tffE)\()aF;e Cc }\k$! �52$/ƒ[�&§!aI0 a0&0 EI. 75C- §§ (\ J[§ ] J }{� j) 0 _00)) a }\ \AEU \� `%}f!® 2!]{) # -/))\2ƒj |{/ }§§\;` - § \j){/j/}& - ){ a.2 )\ ;0- -`\0 2 -J§.�)�e ,ft«• z�«t\ _ |!% )\\ k\\\\\§({\ ])\}}\\\ \k) _ f K 7)?\[ ]E -;7§!$! 5§k !\E/2f \\�k/\{e� ;\7 _ \�§ _ - z� - [)I %f§!f\\�& -$a _ \}(� `�}{\?k/}{ /�f 0 0© }\)f§j(*+ :»0 G•a� 7 �-[})/;:=§\E E E=\,ea !\!I _ ;!a.0„/kf :f!-0 �®\!)!«aRE00!`/ - ■-_. ƒ�/)=t� ](\7)\\�($7!r!f&\ 0w0 ° p o" z2\{f=�]?{± }/f(o 0 §\ w:8 (}]()(f;.°�{)!/1-- s a :7ls�&|�l�- ! �l0)0 0, . . . z�l�%] 75C- §O (\ \\} \\� \}5 \}� \\> \:> \{\ \}\ \\ :i \/ _k§i {�0 \\\\ 0 0® �\ -0 -0 -0 \\}\ k007; 0){. \8-E— ,, \\) - -,00. > , (//\\� kmc\}k -;)}k((] �E cc>0 .a�0 ;/§f !% �! !=i) §tz|4a/f(f*)�:%\f7� - �)(ƒ§& d/{, }%(\)§i\ƒ)({}\}§\J/ -0�\ ?/); �!$ƒ0!7\ = ))f!!{\ttU 0 !!}a R ! =DE0=.-|§c )0 }&-a$\ §f }§ ] � a �!- 05 «)v; ■\f(E ;! �B))` �u: a%!!a a § -§ 0 0 ! !=: f-f &ƒta I �0 a} Z.-- ai�ƒl�*` 4 §ƒaf(! u :- a% E! > kCC L�_- ' 0 )a.u9l _ 00B 0E $ \\ u,\0w, E \u }0 1§\ � Ia \/$ \ §\u E-00 ){k } (- _( �2�)0l0V( l; % ] »>%$� ] ) ��( \ { 2ƒ{ § § - 8. - $f/k'f®l}0—`` � f[C «;ESf 0u- 00 m ■])0 07 75C- §1 (\ 0 !§> k :t:»:��» 0--0- -:� !_� „!�B !J§!\Q\f{}§,, e§§«7)%$§/ `!)$/\«|fi2!\%k) \\\\\/\ -!G>;§; {\�k}))k\)\]�{0 \ §_ �- \ \-\})�\)/)�}{{QC�\(} {\)0�\/ - k0}00 0)k|§( CL !0z.v0 f 7-0-0ra-4 � E0_<0� 0 0 u %��ae[)$;tr/ /0 7§*)4) ;! l \� / } }\}) )/{ \| { )), 5(\..�§§j17 \ /§( - _\ � �i+2`ƒ) )\k2a,}\ 0 » , §\ ƒ / |k)} [])) \§� \\ ƒ))}\\))\)§I\\\j/ - !*\|)ƒ§/�\�f/999�/{® \ � - -=§§ elet�e;�zo#-:-�,a;a !I\ƒZ§$K0aUa0 § 75C- §2 75C-493 EIR No. 2020-01, GPA No. 2020-02, & AA No. 2020-01, "The Bowery" 2300, 2310, and 2320 South Redhill Avenue The Final EIR and Technical Appendices are available online at: https://www.santa-ana.org/pb/planning-division/maior-planning-proiects-and-monthly-development- p ro I e ct-reports/bowery Physical copies are also available for viewing by appointment only. Please contact PlanningDepartment@santa-ana.org before visiting the Planning Division public counter located at: 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701 Exhibit C to Exhibit 1— Link to EIR 75C-494 EXHIBIT 2 75C-495 LS 5.11.20 RESOLUTION NO. 2020-xx A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2020-02 AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT TO DISTRICT CENTER FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2300, 2310, AND 2320 SOUTH REDHILL AVENUE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines and declares as follows: WHEREAS, Article 5 of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 (commencing with Section 65300) of the Government Code requires the City to prepare and adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the City; and WHEREAS, on February 2, 1998, the City of Santa Ana adopted the Land Use Element of the General Plan, which has since been amended from time to time; and WHEREAS, Jeremy Ogulnick, representing Arrimus Capital ("Applicant"), seeks to develop The Bowery Mixed -Use Commercial and Residential Project ("proposed Project"), on a 14.69-acre site at 2300, 2310, and 2320 South Redhill Avenue in Santa Ana, California ("Project Site"); and WHEREAS, during the City's entitlement and environmental review process, and in response to comments and concerns raised by the City and public, the Applicant has proposed the subject mixed -use Project; and WHEREAS, the Project as currently proposed entails, among other things, (1) demolition of the existing three (3) structures on the Project Site; (2) redevelopment of the Project Site with a commercial and residential mixed -use development consisting of up to 80,000 square feet leasable commercial area, 1,100 residential units, 2,600 onsite parking spaces, and onsite landscaping and amenities; (3) approval of General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 2020-02, which would change the Project Site's existing land use designation of Professional & Administration Office (PAO) to District Center (DC); and (4) approval of Amendment Application (AA) No. 2020-01, which would change the zoning of the Project Site from Light Industrial (M-1) to Specific Development No. 96 (SD-96) designation; and WHEREAS, the requested General Plan Amendment would change the General Plan land use designation of the property from Professional and Administrative Office (PAO) to District Center (DC) and to update text portions of the Resolution No. 2020-xx Page 1 75C-496 City's Land Use Element to reflect this change in order to allow for development of the mixed -use commercial and residential Project; and WHEREAS, Environmental Impact Report No. 2020-01 (State Clearinghouse/SCH No. 2019080011) for the proposed Project was circulated between January 3, 2020 and February 18, 2020; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Impact Report analyzed the impacts related to the proposed amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element; and WHEREAS, on September 24, 2019, the City invited recognized Native American tribes to engage in consultation regarding the proposed General Plan Amendment pursuant to Government Code Section 65352.3; and WHEREAS, on October 1, 2019, the City received a request for consultation from the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation and a conference call between the City and Chairman Salas occurred on October 30, 2019 during which the history of uses and development of the Project Site and the depth of previous and existing infrastructure on the site was discussed. Chairman Salas did not respond to the City with any information or evidence pertaining to Tribal Cultural Resources; and WHEREAS, during the public comment period, a Planning Commission work- study session was held on February 10, 2020 where staff presented the proposed Project and described the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, on May 11, 2020, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the EIR and General Plan Amendment No. 2020-02 and Amendment Application No. 2020-01. After hearing all relevant testimony from staff, the public and the City's consultant team, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council certify the EIR and adopt the findings, the statement of overriding considerations and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program and approve the Project; and WHEREAS, the "EIR" consists of the Final EIR and its attachments and appendices, as well as the Draft EIR and its attachments and appendices (as modified by the Final EIR); and WHEREAS, on May 21, 2020, the City gave public notice of a City Council public hearing for consideration of Environmental Impact Report No. 2020-01 (State Clearinghouse No. 2019080011) by advertising in the Orange County Register, a newspaper of general circulation, and by mailing to owners of property and residents within 500 feet of the Project; and WHEREAS, June 2, 2020, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the EIR, General Plan Amendment No. 2020-02, and Amendment Application No. 2020-01 and at which hearing members of the public were afforded an Resolution No. 2020-xx Page 2 75C-497 opportunity to comment upon Environmental Impact Report No. 2020-01. After hearing all relevant testimony from staff, the public and the City's consultant team, the City Council voted to certify the EIR, adopt the findings, the statement of overriding considerations and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program and approve the Project. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE, FIND, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT: The City Council has reviewed and certified Environmental Impact Report No. 2020-01, adopted the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) and Statement of Overriding Consideration for the proposed Project, including this General Plan Amendment No. 2020-02. Section 3. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: The General Plan Amendment consists of amendments to the Land Use Element and text updates, as shown in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Section 4. LOCATION OF DOCUMENTS: The General Plan Amendment, Environmental Impact Report and all supporting documents are online, and on file and available for public review at Santa Ana City Hall, 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, California 92702. Section 5. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY: The City Council hereby finds that the proposed General Plan Amendment is compatible with the objectives, policies, and general plan land use programs specified in the General Plan for the City of Santa Ana in that: A. The City of Santa Ana has officially adopted a General Plan. B. The land uses authorized by the General Plan Amendment, and the General Plan Amendment itself, are compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the General Plan, for the following reasons: The existing General Plan land use designation for the site is Professional and Administrative Office (PAO), which allows business and professional offices uses with a floor area ratio of 1.5. In order to facilitate the construction of a multi -family housing project with a maximum floor area ratio of 2.1, the general plan land use designation is proposed to be changed to District Center (DC), which permits high intensity, mixed -use urban villages and pedestrian -oriented experiences that support mid- to high-rise office centers, commercial activity, and cultural activities with floor area ratios ranging from 0.5 to 5.0. Focusing growth within District Centers and along major corridors Resolution No. 2020-xx Page 3 75C-498 reduces the pressure for growth in low density residential neighborhoods ii. The proposed Project will support several goals/objectives and policies of the General Plan. Housing Element (HE) Goal 2: to create diversity of quality housing, affordability levels, and living experiences that accommodate Santa Ana's residents and workforce of all household types, income levels, and age groups to foster an inclusive community. HE Policy 2.2 District Centers. Create high intensity, mixed -use urban villages and pedestrian -oriented experiences that support the mid- to high-rise office centers, commercial activity, and cultural activities in the varied District Centers. HE Policy 2.4 to facilitate diverse types, prices and sizes of housing Housing Element (HE) Goal 4: to provide adequate rental and ownership housing opportunities and supportive services. The Project will provide 1,100 rental housing units. The amendment will expand the District Center designation and provide a mixed -use commercial and residential community in a regional setting consisting of other mixed -use developments nearby in the cities of Santa Ana, Tustin, and Irvine. Land Use (LU) Element Goal 1: to promote a balance of land uses to address basic community needs. LU Policy 1.2 Maintain and foster a variety of residential land uses in the City. LU Policy 4.3 Support land uses which provide community and regional economic and service benefits. LU Policy 4.4 Encourage the development of projects which promote the City's image as a regional activity center. LU Policy 5.5 Encourage development which is compatible with, and supportive of surrounding land uses. LU Policy 5.7 Anticipate that the intensity of new development will not exceed available infrastructure capacity. Land Use (LU) Element Goal 6: to reduce residential overcrowding to promote public health and safety. The Project is located proximate to existing transportation infrastructure Resolution No. 2020-xx Page 4 75C-499 such as the Costa Mesa (SR-55) Freeway, which provides vehicular access to the region; and, the Orange County Transportation Agency bus routes along Redhill Avenue which connects to the Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center. Redhill and Warner Avenues, both major urban corridors with cultural, educational, employment and retail destinations such as the Tustin Legacy, Irvine Business Complex, John Wayne Airport (SNA), beaches, Interstates 5 and 405, and the Tustin District, front the project site. Therefore, the mixed -use development would be within close proximity to major employment centers and retail establishments. The Project will also provide an additional housing option for those seeking housing within the jobs rich southeastern area of the City. The multi -storied development will complement the nearby mid -rise office buildings located Redhill Avenue. Although the density will be higher than the adjacent industrial properties, the mixed -use development is consistent with the uses to the east and south. Urban Design (UD) Element, Goal 1: to improve the physical appearance of the City through development of districts that project a sense of place, positive community image, and quality environment. LID Policy 1.1. New development and redevelopment must have the highest quality design, materials, finishes and construction. LID Policy 1.11 Visual and physical links between districts, nodes, and significant sites, landmarks and other points of interest, are to be provided in all public and private projects. The mixed -use commercial and residential buildings are of high quality design and include high quality materials such as stone veneer, brick veneers, metal panels, and canopies. The buildings are designed with courtyards and landscaped areas to reduce the mass of the buildings. The Project has street frontage on Redhill Avenue which is identified as a minor path in the General Plan and supports the Freeway Corporate District (No. 31) described in the Urban Design Element of the General Plan. The new development will include public art and convey a sense of place and contribute to the urban image for the City along a street corridor that includes regional, local and cultural landmarks. The development will be in scale with the buildings in the area to the east and south in the cities of Santa Ana, Tustin, and Irvine. In addition, the Urban Design Element of the General Plan identifies the site as being near a Gateway at Dyer Road and the SR-55 Freeway; the Project promotes elements of a Gateway by developing the site with a building with attractive architectural features, projecting a positive image for the City of Santa Ana. Resolution No. 2020-xx Page 5 75C-500 C. The proposed General Plan Amendment will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare in that the General Plan Amendment will not result in incompatible land uses on adjacent properties, inconsistencies with any General Plan goals or policies, or adverse impacts to the environment. Section 6. INDEMNIFICATION. The Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, authorized volunteers, and instrumentalities thereof, harmless from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other and proceedings (whether legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute resolution procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and such other procedures), judgments, orders, and decisions (collectively "Actions"), brought against the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or annul, any action of, or any permit or approval issued by the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City) for or concerning the Project, whether such Actions are brought under the Ralph M. Brown Act, California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning and Zoning Law, the Subdivision Map Act, Code of Civil Procedure sections 1085 or 1094.5, or any other federal, state or local constitution, statute, law, ordinance, charter, rule, regulation, or any decision of a court of competent jurisdiction. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld, the legal counsel providing the City's defense, and that Applicant shall reimburse the City for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the course of the defense. City shall promptly notify the Applicant of any Action brought and City shall cooperate with Applicant in the defense of the Action. Section 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: The City Council hereby takes the following action: 1. The City Council approves General Plan Amendment No. 2020-02 as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, subject to compliance with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and upon satisfaction of the conditions set forth below: A. Subject to compliance with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the Land Use Element map and text shall be amended to read as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. B. The General Plan Amendment shall not take effect unless and until Environmental Impact Report No. 2020-01 is certified and Amendment Application No. 2020-02 is approved by the City Council. Resolution No. 2020-xx Page 6 75C-501 Section 8. EXECUTION OF RESOLUTION. The Mayor shall sign this Resolution and the Clerk of the Council shall attest and certify to the adoption thereof. ADOPTED this day of 12020. Miguel A. Pulido Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sonia R. Carvalho City Attorney By: Lisa Storck Assistant City Attorney AYES: Councilmembers NOES: Councilmembers ABSTAIN: Councilmembers Ilei 2aJ*9:Ikq11�1111?67 �T�IR-111:7w CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, DAISY GOMEZ, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2020-xx to be the original resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on June 2, 2020. Date: Daisy Gomez, Clerk of the Council City of Santa Ana Resolution No. 2020-xx Page 7 75C-502 City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Element 1998 City of Santa Ana Planning Division 0 Adopted February 2, 1998 (Reformatted January 2010) The following is a chronology of the approved general plan amendments that have been incorporated into this document since the comprehensive update of the General Plan Land Use Element adopted by the Santa Ana City Council February 2, 1998 (GPA 1997- 05): GPA 2020-02 (Panama) GPA 2020-01 (April 21, 2020) GPA 2018-04 (December 31, 2019) GPA 2019 02 (October 1, 2019) GPA 201901(June 4, 2019) GPA 2017 03 (June 4, 2019) GPA 2018-05 (December 4, 2018) GPA 2018-03 (September 18, 2018) GPA 2018-02 (May 15, 2018) GPA 201501 (May 15, 2018) GPA 201702(December 19,2017) GPA 2017 01 (June 20, 2017) GPA 2016-03 (February 21, 2017) GPA 201602(May 17, 2016) GPA 201601(April 19, 2016) GPA 201503 (February 2, 2016) GPA 201402 (October 21, 2014) GPA 201401 (June 3, 2014) GPA 2011-03 (March 19, 2012) GPA 2011-02 (June 6, 2011) GPA 2010 01 (June 7, 2010) GPA 2008 02 (July 20, 2009) GPA 2007-03 (May 18, 2009) GPA 200403 (Febmary 2, 2009) GPA 2008 01 (May 5, 2008) GPA 200702(June 18, 2007) GPA 200701(March 19, 2007) GPA 2006-01 (October 2, 2006) GPA 200501 (December 5, 2005) GPA 200502 (October 17, 2005) GPA 200401 (April 5, 2005, as passed by the voters of Santa Ana) GPA 200404 (July 19, 2004) GPA 200406 (July 6, 2004) GPA 200302 (June 16, 2003) GPA 200301 (February 18, 2003) GPA 2002-01 (September 3, 2002) GPA 2002-03 (August 19, 201 GPA 200103 (February 19, 2002) GPA 200102 (January 7, 2002) GPA 2000-09 (May 7, 2001) GPA 2000-08 (February 5, 2001) GPA 2000-03 (December 4, 2000) GPA 2001(November 20, 2000) GPA 199H2 (October 18, 1999) GPA 1999-01 (August 16, 1999) GPA 1998-04 (October 5,1998) GPA 1998-05 (September 21, 1998) GPA 199801 (May 4, 1998) 75C-503 LAND USE ELEMENT Center, Bowery District Center, and Urban Neighborhood areas. To encourage a dynamic mixture of residential, office and commercial uses, within these areas both building intensity and residential density is based on floor area ratio and zoning development standards. In calculating either the allowable floor area or the allowable residential density, it is the City's policy to not allow upward rounding. The Land Use Plan is illustrated in Exhibit 2. Additional information concerning the Land Use Plan and the land use designations is provided in Table 1 (Land Use Development Intensity Standards), and in the Appendix. Table 1 Development Intensity Standards Density/Intensity Standards Land Use Designation (du/acre - FAR)' . r. Low Density Residential (LR-7) 7 du/acre Low -Medium Density Residential (LMR-11) 11 du/acre Medium Density Residential (MR-15) DesignationsMixed Use Land Use District Center'(DC) 15 du/acre Other District Center (Midtown, MacArthur Place, etc.) 90 du/acre and FAR 1.0-2.0 Bowery District Center FAR 2.06 Heritage District Center FAR 1.7 Downtown District Center FAR 3.0 Metro East District Center FAR 3.0 Transit Village District Center FAR 5.0 Harbor Corridor District Center FAR 5.0 One Broadway Plaza District Center (OBPDC) 3 FAR 2.9 Urban Neighborhood Transit Zoning Code Area/ Segerstrom, First, Fifth & 17" Corridor FAR 0.5-1.80 Harbor Corridor FAR 3.0 Metro East DesignationsCommercial Land Use Professional and Administrative Office (PAO) FAR 0.75-1.5 FAR 0.5-1.0 General Commercial (GC) FAR 0.5-1.0 DesignationsIndustrial Land Use Industrial (IND) Other Land use Designations Institutional (INS) FAR 0.45 FAR 0.5 Open Space (0) FAR 0.2 Notes: 'The intensity standards shown refer to the theoretical mapmum amount of development permitted fore ach land use designation (du -dwelling ungs; FAR -floor area ratio). Development must also adhere to zoning regulations, and/or specific plan requirements. The District Center and Urban Neighborhood land use designations permil both residential and non-residential development. ' One Broadway Raza District Center land use designation pounds residential, office, restaurant and ancillary retail for a master planned development. Commercial intensities may vary. Baseline FAR is 0.5. Specific areas allowing greater intensities are indicated in A-3. `Refer to Appends for description of Land Use designations. CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN 75C-504 15 f ma'RmR��pCL NCL ®CL ° C V CD a dg S V 0 m o? C CDV a $ 'm 3 n ID 7 0 8 pT O 75C-505 LAND USE ELEMENT LAND USE PLAN IMPLEMENTATION To effectively achieve the broad range of goals outlined for the City's future growth and development, a variety of plans, programs, and regulations must be relied upon. This section of the Element discusses these tools, and how they correlate with implementation of the City's land use goals. DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY STANDARDS Table A- I summarizes the development intensity standard for each of the General Plan designations, and provides land use distribution by acreage for the land use. The intensity standards for the categories permitting residential development are expressed in density, measured in "units per acre," or floor area ratio and zoning development standards in the case of certain Mixed Use land use designations. The intensity standards for non-residential development are expressed as "floor area ratio" or FAR. The FAR concept is illustrated in Exhibit A-3. The intensity standards in concert with the zoning and development standards regulate the massing, form and building size. Table A-1 Development Intensely Standards Land Use DesignationsResidential Land Use Density/Intensity Standards Low Density 777du/acre Low -Medium Density 11 du/acre Medium Density DesignationsMixed Use Land Use District Center 15 du/acre Other District Centers Midtown, etc. 90 du/acre and FAR 1.0-2.0 Bowery District Center FAR 2.06 Heritage District Center FAR 1.7 Downtown District Center FAR 3.0 Metro East District Center FAR 3.0 Transit Village District Center FAR 5.0 Harbor Corridor District Center FAR 5.0 One Broadway Plaza District Center FAR 2.9 Urban Neighborhood Transit Zoning Code Area/ Segerstrom, First, Fifth & 17" Corridor FAR 0.5-1.80 Harbor Corridor FAR 3.0 Metro East DesignationsCommercial Land Use Professional/Admin. Office FAR 0.75-1.5 FAR 0.5-1.0 General Commercial FAR 0.5-1.0 DesignationsIndustrial Land Use Industrial Other Land Use Designations FAR 0.45 Institutional FAR 0.5 Open Space FAR 0.2 Notes: do -dwelling unit, FAR - floor area ratio CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN 75C-506 All LAND USE ELEMENT The City established development intensity standards in 1988, for nonresidential land use designations. The standards measure intensity through the use of floor area ratios. The floor area ratios proposed for the City's major commercial corridors are expected to remain in place over the life of the Land Use Element. Those areas of the City proposed for the most intensive levels of development include district centers, professional and administrative office districts, and several other commercial centers with a unique character, or special development concerns. Some of these areas correspond to those for which Specific Plans have been prepared. The proposed floor area ratio(s) for most of the City's commercial corridors allows structures of two to three stories with surface parking. The major development areas -the District Centers and ProfessionaVAdministrative Office Districts along Tustin Avenue and East First Street -allow mid -rise and high-rise buildings with structured parking. These areas are expected to generate the highest level of development activity in the City as centers of commerce. These areas are listed in Table A-2 and are shown in Exhibit A-4. The floor area ratios indicated in Table A-2 are the maximum building intensity allowed for development. Table A-2 Key Area- Floor Area Ratios Area Project/Area FAH 1 MainPlace 2.1 2 City Place 2.54 3 North Main Street 1.5 4 North Broadway 1.0 5 Museum District 1.5 6 Hutton Development 1.0 7 Civic Center Specific Development Plan 1.0 8 Midtown Specific Plan 0.5-1.0 9 Civic Center 1.0 10 Downtown 3.0 11 Orange County Register 1.15 12 First Street/Tustin Avenue 1.0 13 Bentall Center Development 1.5 14 2720 Hotel Terrace Drive 1.0 15 1951 East Camegie Avenue 0.55 16 4040 West Carriage Avenue 0.47 17 Lake Center Development 0.72 18 South Coast Metro 1.0 19 MacArthur Place North 2.0 20 MacArthur Place South 1.0 21 Pac Tel Office 1.5 22 Metro East 3.0 23 Transit Village 5.0 24 Town & Country Manor 1.27 25 Harbor Mixed Use Transit Corridor 5.0 26 Heritage 1.7 27 BoweN 2.06 Al2 75^-507 CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN a 'o < g z m E m L t O C w Nfn LLLL > o y E 98 �`.arvry N 75C-508 LAND USE ELEMENT Commercial The Land Use Plan identifies three land use designations that encourage a variety of office, retail and commercial enterprises to serve the community. The Professional/Administrative Office (PAO) designation applies to those areas where professional and/or administrative offices are predominant, or where such development is being encouraged. Land included in this designation is found primarily near the Civic Center, and along the First Street and Tustin Avenue Corridors in close proximity to freeways. There are other smaller PAO areas in the City such as along North Broadway and along portions of east and west Seventeenth Street. A total of 586.4600.8 acres is included in this land use designation. The floor area ratio intensity standard applicable to this land use designation ranges from 0.5 to 1.0. The Professional and Administrative Office areas are intended to provide a unique environment for office development in those areas of the City where office uses are the predominant land use. The purpose for maintaining and supporting these areas exclusively for office and office -related uses is to encourage major employment centers at locations which significantly lessen the impact to the City's local street system. The First Street/Tustin Avenue office corridor between the Santa Ana (I-5) and Costa Mesa (SR-55) Freeways serves this purpose. In addition, the orderly, well -maintained quality of existing development supports a continuation of these areas as functional office/employment centers. The Professional and Administrative Office designation includes a range of floor area ratios to differentiate development intensity and character in relation to adjacent land uses. The areas with a FAR of 0.5 are not major office centers, but rather have an established character of lower intensity garden office and professional service uses. These areas are typically adjacent to low density residential neighborhoods, or are converted residential office uses. Office development along East Fourth Street, between Grand Avenue and the Santa Ana Freeway, is typical of this low-rise office character. The PAO area located adjacent to the Civic Center contains a range of office development intensity which supports the City's functional role as the government center of the County. The types of uses typically located in the PAO district include the following: Professional and administrative offices/office parks; Service activities such as copy centers, courier services, travel agencies, and restaurants when such uses are an integral component of a planned office development; and Professional uses such as accountants, attorneys, doctors, engineers, and insurance brokers. The General Commercial (GC) district applies to commercial corridors in Santa Ana including those located along Main Street, Seventeenth Street, \ A-20 75C-509 CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT Harbor Boulevard, and other major arterial roadways in the City. The intensity standard applicable to this designation is a floor area ratio of 0.5 - 1.0, though most General Commercial districts have a FAR of 0.5. A total of 859.6acres of land is included in this designation. General Commercial districts are key components in the economic development of the City. They provide highly visible and accessible commercial development along the City's arterial transportation corridors. In addition, General Commercial land uses provide important neighborhood facilities and services, including shopping, recreation, cultural and entertainment activities, employment, and education. The districts also provide support facilities and services for industrial areas including office and retail, restaurants and various other services. The General Commercial development standards are based upon the character and intensity of development, as well as the degree of access and market demand for these properties. The relationships to adjacent land uses, are also considered. Uses typically located in this district are: • Business and professional offices; • Retail and service establishments; • Recreational, cultural, and entertainment uses; and • Vocational schools. General Commercial Districts have a floor area ratio of 0.5 with the exception of the Mid -town area which has an floor area ratio of up to 1.0. The Land Use Plan provides for two distinct mixed use land use designations. These designations allow for both vertical and horizontal mixed use developments, with an emphasis on linkages to a range of transportation options: The District Center (DC) land use designation includes the major activity areas in the City. Ei¢htSeveir areas of the City, totaling 699.8-68-54 acres, are designated as District Center. The intensity standard for the District Center designation ranges from a floor ratio of 1.0 to 5.0. District Centers are designed to serve as anchors to the City's commercial corridors, and to accommodate major development activity. District Centers are to be developed with an urban character that includes a mixture of high- rise office, commercial, and residential uses which provide shopping, business, cultural, education, recreation, entertainment, and housing opportunities. Residential developments within some District Centers are allowed at a density of up to 90 units per acre when developed as an integral component of a master planned mixed use project. In Harbor Corridor, Metro East, Downtown, and Transit Village District Centers residential S 4,W I aa ArS CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN 75C-510 A21 LAND USE ELEMENT The Bowery District provides urban housing opportunities at the City's southeastern edge, in close proximity to the 55 Freeway regional travelway. The district allows high -density housing and complementary commercial uses to serve surrounding industrial, commercial, and residential areas. District Centers are considered to be the City's "major development areas." The most intense development in the City is targeted to these areas. The Tustin Avenue corridor is a major development area even though it is not a designated District Center. This area has developed over the years as a prime office corridor and employment area. The PAO designation facilitates the continued development of this area with high intensity, high quality regional office projects. The One Broadway Plaza District Center (OBPDC) is a distinct land use that is envisioned as a major activity center with a landmark mixed -use tower, which will include residential, professional office, and commercial uses. The district will be a focal point in the downtown area serving the Civic Center complex, Downtown, and Midtown urban areas. The Urban Neighborhood (UN) land use designation applies to primarily residential areas with pedestrian oriented commercial uses, schools and small parks. The Urban Neighborhood allows for a mix of residential uses and housing types, such as mid to low rise multiple family, townhouses and single family dwellings; with some opportunities for live -work, neighborhood serving retail and service, public spaces and use, and other amenities. Either vertical or horizontal integration of uses is permitted based on zoning standards, with an emphasis on tying together the uses with pedestrian linkages and street frontages. Street connectivity is desirable, allowing for a high degree ofwalkabilitg transit options, and other forms of transportation including pedestrian and bicycle travel. The intensity standard for the Urban Neighborhood ranges from a floor area ration of 0.5 to 3.0; with residential density based on a combination of floor area ratio and zoning development standards. A total of 317.0 acres of land in the City are designated Urban Neighborhood. Industrial The Industrial designation applies to those areas developed with manufacturing and industrial uses. The designation applies to areas which are predominantly industrial in character, and includes those industrial districts in the southwestern, south central and southeastern sections of the City. A total of 2,152.8 acres of land in the City is designated as Industrial. The maximum floor area ratio for this designation is 0.45. The Industrial districts of the City are vital to its economic health. These areas provide employment opportunities for local residents, and generate municipal revenues for continued economic development. As one of the County's oldest cities, Santa Ana has long been an industrial center for the region. The City's goal CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN 75C-511 A-23 LAND USE ELEMENT Redevelopment Plans. The City will apply redevelopment tools associated with the implementation of the adopted redevelopment plans, as appropriate. The City will encourage the further development of industrial, commercial, and residential projects in suitable locations to strengthen the City's tax and employment base. Special Studies. In certain instances, a special study may be required to address a particular issue. In these cases, a specific effort to identify staff resources needed to conduct the appropriate investigation and analysis will be identified. Zoning Code Review. The zoning code serves as a primary tool used by the City to regulate development. The City will develop a program to revise the Zoning Ordinance to ensure that development regulations and standards are consistent with community needs and high quality development. The City will initiate appropriate changes to the ordinance to ensure, where appropriate, conformity between the Land Use Element and Zoning Map. LAND USE PLAN BUILDOUT As indicated previously, the City of Santa Ana has been almost completely developed for many years. As a result, any new development will necessarily consist of redevelopment and infill development on the remaining vacant and underutilized parcels. Many parcels with nonresidential land use designations will never be developed to the maximum intensity permitted under the General Plan. Table A-4 indicates the development possible under the build -out of the Land Use Plan. The build -out for residential land uses considered two scenarios. Effective build -out for residential development is calculated by adding the 22,9962++46 units possible in the areas designated as District Center and Urban Neighborhood to the existing 74,669 units presently found in the City per Census 2000. Theoretical build -out for residential development considered the development possible if all of the areas designated as residential were developed according to the permitted Land Use Plan intensities. Since the Land Use Element does not contemplate the elimination of existing housing in the City, the effective build -out figure represents a more realistic estimate of future residential development. As indicated in TableA-4, three of the non-residential land use designations have a range in FAR intensities. For the non-residential land use designations, effective build -out considered the development possible under the lower range of FAR intensities while theoretical build -out considered the upper FAR range. Typically, parking and landscaping requirements will result in significantly less floor area for commercial and industrial developments than that which is permitted under the General Plan. As indicated in Table A-4, between 78,3814?2$p to 97,6659�5 housing units are allowed by the Land Use Plan. The additional units which presently exist in S 4,W I aa ArB CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN 75C-512 A-33 LAND USE ELEMENT the City beyond the maximum number permitted under the theoretical buildout scenario are a reflection of the higher density multiple -family developments constructed in the 1970's and 1980's. However, the purpose of the Land Use Plan as it applies to the residential areas is to preserve and maintain the stability of existing neighborhoods, regardless of the character of development. The intent of the Plan is not to create any displacement, nor decrease existing development densities. Rather, it is to ensure a safe, healthy, and livable environment for City residents. Existing residential development entitlements are protected through this Land Use Element, applicable Zoning regulations, and sections of the City code pertaining to legal nonconforming uses. The Land Use Element's implementation may result in an increase in the amount of commercial, office, and industrial development in the City. As indicated in Table A-4, up to 31,495,429� 808,10T square feet of commercial and office, and 42,199,991 square feet of industrial development are possible under the effective capacity parameters of Land Use Plan. A-34 75C-513 CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT Table A-4 Land Use Plan Build -out Capacities Intensity/ Effective Buildout' Theoretical Land Use Residential Acres Densitt Buildout Low Density Residential L9-7 6,468.1 7 du/ac 45,276 du Low Medium Density Residential LMR-11 421.6 11 du/ac 4,638 du Medium Density Residential MR-15 364.7 15 du/ac 5,471 du Subtotal 7,254.4 Non Res. dL5 I Non -Res. 55,385 du Mixed Use District Center Res. Res. Other' DC 309.5 90 du /ac 11,955,583 sf 3,017 du 23,764,534 sf 3,017 du FAR 1.0-2.0 BoVM DC 14.4 FAR 2.06 80,000 sf 100 du I 80,000 s 100 du Heritage DC 18.8 FAR 1.7 54,090 sf 1,221 du 54,090 sf 1,221 du Downtown DC 62.5 FAR 3.0 2,057,824 sf 1,661du 2,057,824 sf 1,661 du Metro East DC 113.9 FAR 0.75- 3.0 2,464,776 sf 5,037 du 2,464,776 si 5,037 du Transit Village DC 51.4 FAR 5.0 402,864 sf 2,761 du 402,864 sf 2,761 du Harbor Corridor DC 125.0 FAR 5.0 1,836,155 sf 2,029 du 1,836,155 sf 2,029 du One Broadway Plaza District Ctr' OBPDC 4.3 FAR 2.9 310,000 sf 415 du 310,000 sf 415 du Urban Neighborhood UN 317.0 FAR 0.5-3.0 1,656,955 sf 5,755 du 1,656,955 sf 5,755 du Subtotal 1016.8 20,818,247 22996 32,627,198 22996 1,092.4 nn 7o�nn7 sf 21,096 du 3n cn�190 sfj 21,096 du Professional & Admin. Office PAO 586.4 FAR 0.5-1.0 12,772,445 25,540,891 I r3B&B „99&42e sf '"�^ Q°QQ4Q.s General Commercial GC 859.6 FAR 0.5-1.0 18,722,983 sf 37,445,967 s 1 446.1 31,495,429 62,990.85 Subtotal 4-059.4 34598;497sf 63;646;645s Industrial IND 1 2,152.8 FAR 0.45 42,199,991 sf 42,199,991 s Other Institutional I INS 1 800.61 FAR 0.2-0.5 1 6,974,740 sf 17,436,850 s Open Space OS 1,010.9 1 FAR 0.2 1 8,806,961 sf 8,806,961 s Subtotal 1,811.5 1 1 15,781,701 sf 1 26,243,811 sf FAR=floor area ratio: d.u.=dwellina unit: s.f.=sauare feet (of floor area). Acreaae shown in table does not include roads in riaht-of-way. ' Effective capacity for non-residential development assumes development possible under the lower range of FAR intensity standards with the exception of the Metro East District Center, Transit Village District Center, Downtown District Center, Heritage District Center, and Urban Neighborhood areas. The Harbor Corridor District Center, Metro East District Center, Transit Village District Center, Downtown District Center, and Urban Neighborhood areas allow a range of intensity for mixture of residential and non-residential development based on the zoning development standards. Residential effective capacity was calculated by adding the 22 9962a-@86 units possible in the District Center and Urban Neighborhood with the existing 74,669 (Census 2000) housing units. ' land use designation permits both residential and non-residential development. Build -out assumes 90% of land area will be developed as commercial and 10% will be developed as residential; with the exception of Town and Country Manor project intended for continuum of care and housing n8g iors. 3 land use designation permits high intensity office development with ancillary retail use. This table has been revised to correspond with the GIS Land Use Map illustrated in Exhibit 2. CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN 75C-514 A-35 EXHIBIT 3 75C-515 LS 5.11.20 ORDINANCE NO. NS-XXXX AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVING AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO. 2020-01 REZONING THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2300, 2310, AND 2320 SOUTH REDHILL AVENUE FROM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (M- 1) TO SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT NO. 96 (SD-96) AND ADOPTING SD-96 FOR SAID PROPERTY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines and declares as follows: WHEREAS, Chapter 41, Article 1, Division 1, Section 41-1 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code establishes the necessity of segregating the location of residences, businesses, trades and industries; regulating the use of buildings, structures, and land regulation; the location, height, bulk and size of buildings and structures, the size of yards and open space; the City is divided into land -use districts of such number, shape and area as may be considered best suited to carry out these regulations and provide for their enforcement; and WHEREAS, the regulations are considered necessary in order to: encourage the most appropriate use of land, conserve and stabilize property value, provide adequate open spaces for light and air and to prevent and fight fires, prevent undue concentration of population, lessen congestion on streets and highways, and promote the health, safety and general welfare of the people, all as part of the general plan of the City; and WHEREAS, the City of Santa Ana has adopted a zoning map which has since been amended from time to time; and WHEREAS, Jeremy Ogulnick, representing Arrimus Capital ("Applicant'), seeks to develop The Bowery Mixed -Use Commercial and Residential Project ("proposed Project'), on a 14.69-acre site at 2300, 2310, and 2320 South Redhill Avenue in Santa Ana, California ("Project Site"); and WHEREAS, during the City's entitlement and environmental review process, and in response to comments and concerns raised by the City and public, the Applicant has proposed the subject mixed -use Project; and WHEREAS, the Project as currently proposed entails, among other things, (1) demolition of the existing three (3) structures on the Project Site; (2) redevelopment of the Project Site with a commercial and residential mixed -use development consisting of up to 80,000 square feet leasable commercial area, 1,100 residential units, 2,600 onsite parking spaces, and onsite landscaping and amenities; (3) approval of General Plan Ordinance No. NS-XXXX Page 1 75C-516 Amendment (GPA) No. 2020-02, which would change the Project Site's existing land use designation of Professional & Administration Office (PAO) to District Center (DC); and (4) approval of Amendment Application (AA) No. 2020-01, which would change the zoning of the Project Site from Light Industrial (M-1) to Specific Development No. 96 (SD-96) designation; and WHEREAS, Applicant agrees to execute a Mutual Declaration of Acknowledgement and Acceptance of Approval Conditions, signed by the developer and property owner and recorded against the development property, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit C; and WHEREAS, the requested Amendment Application would change the zoning designation of the property from Light Industrial (M-1) to Specific Development No. 96 (SD-96) and adoption of Specific Development No. 96 to reflect this change in order to facilitate the construction of the proposed Project; and WHEREAS, Environmental Impact Report No. 2020-01 (State Clearinghouse/SCH No. 2019080011) for the proposed Project was circulated between January 3, 2020 to February 18, 2020; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Impact Report analyzed the impacts related to the proposed amendment to the zoning map and adoption of Specific Development No. 96; and WHEREAS, during the public comment period, a Planning Commission work- study session was held on February 10, 2020 where staff presented proposed Project and described the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, on May 11, 2020, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the EIR and the GPA, and AA applications described above. After hearing all relevant testimony from staff, the public and the City's consultant team, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council certify the EIR and adopt the findings, the statement of overriding considerations and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program and approve the Project; and WHEREAS, on May 21, 2020, the City gave public notice of a City Council public hearing for consideration of Environmental Impact Report No. 2020-01 (State Clearinghouse No. 2019080011) by advertising in the Orange County Register, a newspaper of general circulation, and by mailing to owners of property and residents within 500 feet of the Project; and WHEREAS, on June 2, 2020, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the EIR, General Plan Amendment No. 2020-02, and Amendment Application No. 2020-01 and at which hearing members of the public were afforded an opportunity to comment upon Environmental Impact Report No. 2020-01. After hearing all relevant testimony from staff, the public and the City's consultant team, the City Council voted to certify the EIR, adopt the findings, the statement of overriding Ordinance No. NS-XXXX Page 2 75C-517 considerations and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program and approve the Project; and WHEREAS, the "EIR" consists of the Final EIR and all attachments and appendices, as well as the Draft EIR and its attachments and appendices (as modified by the Final EIR). NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE, FIND, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT: The City Council has reviewed and certified Environmental Impact Report No. 2020-01; adopted the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP); and adopted the Statement of Overriding Consideration for the proposed Project, including this Amendment Application No. 2020-01. SECTION 3. AMENDMENT APPLICATION: The Amendment Application consists of amendments to the zoning map (SDM IRS-9) and adoption of Specific Development No. 96, as shown in Exhibit A and Exhibit B respectively, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 4. LOCATION OF DOCUMENTS: The Amendment Application, Environmental Impact Report and all supporting documents are online, on file and available for public review at Santa Ana City Hall, 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, California 92702. SECTION 5. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY: The City Council hereby finds that the proposed Amendment Application is compatible with the objectives, policies, and general plan land use programs as amended by General Plan Amendment No. 2020- 02 in that: A. The proposed Amendment Application will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare in that the Amendment Application will not result in incompatible land uses on adjacent properties, inconsistencies with any General Plan goals or policies, or adverse impacts to the environment. B. The amendment application to change the zoning designation from Light Industrial (M-1) to Specific Development No. 96 (SD-96) is consistent with Santa Ana Municipal Code section 41-593.1 for the following reasons: (1) Protecting and enhancing the value of properties by encouraging the use of good design principles and concepts, as related to the division of property, site planning and individual improvements with full recognition of the significance and effect they have on the proper planning and development of adjacent and nearby properties. Ordinance No. NS-XXXX Page 3 75C-518 The project's site plan has been designed to integrate the project site into the surrounding community. The development's primary access points will be from a right -in, right -out driveway on Redhill Avenue, and from a signalized intersection on Warner Avenue. These access points have been designed to ensure the safety of residents and visitors of the project site, as well as commuters, employees, and residents of the surrounding community. Onsite circulation has been designed to ensure a high -quality pedestrian experience, with wide sidewalks, a central paseo, and plazas and courtyards that buffer or separate pedestrians from onsite vehicular traffic. Moreover, the project has been broken into four primary buildings and two freestanding commercial pads, which reduces the overall massing of the project and creates a more pedestrian -scale village of buildings onsite. The two future roadway connections on the project site will allow the development to become integrated with the adjacent site to the southwest, should an application for redevelopment be approved. (As of the date of this ordinance, no application for redevelopment of the adjacent site to the southwest has been submitted for the City's consideration). (2) Encouraging, securing and maintaining the orderly and harmonious appearance, attractiveness and aesthetic development of structures and grounds in order that the most appropriate use and value thereof be determined and protected. The project's six buildings on the 14.69-acre site are designed in a cohesive manner with unifying materials, floor heights, and articulation using contemporary architecture in an "industrial tech" style. High -quality building materials will ensure long-term durability and maintaining high value of the project, including metal trim, awnings, railing, slats, and cladding; brick veneers and high -quality light sand finish stucco; glass railing; and poured concrete forms. Onsite furniture and details, such as lighting, waste receptacles, benches, tables, and open space areas, have been designed to complement the site's contemporary architecture. High ground -floor window and ceiling heights will contribute to the high -quality commercial component of the project site, which has been designed to create a dynamic, commercial and residential village. These finishes and designs are consistent with the development standards and design guidelines found in the City's mixed -use zoning areas such as the Transit Zoning Code and Metro East Mixed Use (MEMU) Overlay Zone, as well as the Citywide Design Guidelines. Ordinance No. NS-XXXX Page 4 75C-519 Open space and amenities will be provided on the site in a variety of means, including private unit balconies and patios, amenity decks atop parking structures, ground -level courtyards, the central paseo, and the central plaza. The resident open space areas will contain pools, courtyards, exercise areas, relief areas for pets, and other amenities typical to high -quality mixed - use developments found in Santa Ana and in Orange County. Based on a standard of two (2) acres of public park and/or recreational area per 1,000 residents (SAMC Sec. 35-108), the proposed project would require 4.2 acres of parkland to serve the new residents. The onsite total proposed open space is 183,363 square feet (4.21 acres), which is consistent with the SAMC standard and with other mixed -use projects that provide their own onsite public and private open space areas. (3) Providing a method whereby specific development plans are to be based on the general plan as well as other regulations, programs, and legislation as may, in the judgment of the city, be required for the systematic execution of the general plan. With approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2020-02, the Project will be consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element. Although the Project requires an amendment to the Land Use Element to allow for residential use of the property, the Project still supports and is consistent with several other overarching goals and policies of the General Plan. For example, as described in the associated General Plan Amendment No. 2020-02: Housing Element Goal 2, to create diversity of quality housing, affordability levels, and living experiences that accommodate Santa Ana's residents and workforce of all household types, income levels, and age groups to foster an inclusive community. Land Use Element Goal 4, to protect and enhance development sites and districts which are unique community assets that enhance the quality of life. Urban Design Element, Goal 1, to improve the physical appearance of the City through development of districts that project a sense of place, positive community image, and quality environment. (4) Recognizing the interdependence of land values and aesthetics and providing a method to implement this interdependence in order to maintain the values of surrounding properties and improvements and encouraging excellence of property development, compatible with the general plan for, and character of, the city, with due regard for the public and private interests involved. Ordinance No. NS-XXXX Page 5 75C-520 The proposed development contains a large commercial component of 80,000 square feet of leasable retail, service, and restaurant area. This volume of commercial space complements the residents, visitors, and employees working and living on and around the project site. The 80,000 square feet of leasable commercial area is among the largest commercial components proposed in recent mixed -use developments. For comparison, the Elan project (1660 East First Street) approved in 2018 contains 603 residential units and 20,000 square feet of commercial space; the First American redevelopment (114 East Fifth Street) approved in 2019 contains 220 residential units and 12,350 square feet of commercial space, and The Heritage (2001 East Dyer Road), which is under construction nearby, contains 1,221 residential units and 18,400 square feet of net new commercial square footage. The mixture of land uses on the project site, including residential, commercial, and open space, will contribute to the formation a dynamic mixed -use village. The commercial and open space components will serve both residents and visitors of the project site, as well as the large daytime employee population working in the project site's immediate vicinity. (5) Ensuring that the public benefits derived from expenditures of public funds for improvements and beautification of streets and public facilities shall be protected by exercise of reasonable controls over the character and design of private buildings, structures and open spaces. The mixed -use development will utilize existing water, sewer, and drainage infrastructure and will not result in the expansion of infrastructure. In addition, the Project will not result in the expansion of new or altered police or fire facilities. The Project will be subject to utility user tax, property taxes based on the valuation of the new construction and management company business taxes. The building facades and new landscaping are designed to deter graffiti, existing sidewalks will be removed and replaced with new sidewalks that are constructed to current City standards, new street lights will be installed and the City's Building Security Ordinance will be implemented which includes security and crime preventing measures to help reduce City expenditures on public services and maintenance. In addition, the development will be subject to all required development impact fees. Ordinance No. NS-XXXX Page 6 75C-521 SECTION 6. INDEMNIFICATION. A. General Indemnification. The Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, authorized volunteers, and instrumentalities thereof, harmless from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other and proceedings (whether legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute resolution procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and such other procedures), judgments, orders, and decisions (collectively "Actions"), brought against the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or annul, any action of, or any permit or approval issued by the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City) for or concerning the project, whether such Actions are brought under the Ralph M. Brown Act, California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning and Zoning Law, the Subdivision Map Act, Code of Civil Procedure sections 1085 or 1094.5, or any other federal, state or local constitution, statute, law, ordinance, charter, rule, regulation, or any decision of a court of competent jurisdiction. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld, the legal counsel providing the City's defense, and that Applicant shall reimburse the City for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the course of the defense. City shall promptly notify the Applicant of any Action brought and City shall cooperate with Applicant in the defense of the Action. B. Further Indemnification. Within five (5) days of receipt of a referendum petition by the City, Applicant shall deposit Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) ("Referendum Deposit") with the City. City may use the funds to pay any and all costs associated with said referendum measure. If at any time the Referendum Deposit account has Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000) or less remaining, Applicant shall, within three (3) days of receiving notice from the City, deposit with the City additional funds as requested by the City to cover all costs and expenses associated with processing the referendum and holding the related election. Following certification of the election results, any funds remaining in the Referendum Deposit account shall be returned to the Applicant. SECTION 7. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause phrase or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 8. CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS: The City Council hereby takes the following actions: Ordinance No. NS-XXXX Page 7 75C-522 1. The City Council hereby adopts an Ordinance approving Amendment Application No. 2020-01 as follows: A. Subject to compliance with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the property at 2300, 2310, and 2320 shall be amended to Specific Development No. 96 and the Specific Development No. 96 plan shall be adopted as set forth in Exhibit A and Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. B. The Amendment Application shall not take effect unless and until Environmental Impact Report No. 2020-01 and General Plan Amendment No. 2020-02, are each certified and approved by the City Council. SECTION 9. EXECUTION OF ORDINANCE. The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the Clerk of the Council shall attest and certify to the adoption thereof. ADOPTED this day of 12020. APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sonia R. Carvalho City Attorney LM Lisa Storck Assistant City Attorney AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: NOT PRESENT Councilmembers Councilmembers Councilmembers Councilmembers Miguel A. Pulido Mayor Ordinance No. NS-XXXX Page 8 75C-523 CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, DAISY GOMEZ, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify that the attached Ordinance No. NS-XXXX to be the original ordinance adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on , 2020, and that said ordinance was published in accordance with the Charter of the City of Santa Ana. Date: Daisy Gomez Clerk of the Council City of Santa Ana Ordinance No. NS-XXXX Page 9 75C-524 THE BOWERY MIXED -USE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT No. 96 Table of Contents 1. Introduction and Applicability of Ordinance ..............................................Page 3 a. Specific Development Location ....................................................Page 3 2. Purpose and Objectives.......................................................................Page 4 3. Land Use and Zoning.........................................................................Page 4 a. Density and Intensity.................................................................Page 4 b. Permitted Uses........................................................................Page 5 c. Development Standards.............................................................Page 6 d. Off -Street Parking Standards .......................................................Page 7 e. Open Space Requirements .........................................................Page 7 f. Walls/ Fences..........................................................................Page 7 4. Design and Performance Standards ......................................................Page 8 a. Exterior Materials, Finishes and Colors ..........................................Page 8 b. Exterior Lighting.......................................................................Page 8 c. Refuse Collection and Trash Enclosure .........................................Page 8 d. Utility and Mechanical Equipment .................................................Page 8 5. Public Realm and Landscape Design .....................................................Page 9 6. Signage and Wayfinding......................................................................Page 9 7. Public Art........................................................................................Page 10 8. Property Safety and Maintenance ........................................................Page 10 a. On -Site Property Manager ........................................................Page 10 b. Maintenance..........................................................................Page 10 c. Crime Free Housing................................................................Page 10 d. Building Security......................................................................Page 10 e. Emergency Evacuation Plan ......................................................Page 11 f. On Going Property Maintenance ................................................Page 11 Figures Figure 1: Specific Development Area ..........................................................Page 3 Tables Table 1: Permitted Uses..........................................................................Page 5 Table 2: Development Standards...............................................................Page 6 75Cf526 SECTION 1 — INTRODUCTION AND APPLICABILITY OF ORDINANCE The purpose of The Bowery Mixed -Use Specific Development (SD) zone (SD-96) is to guide the redevelopment of an existing industrial site into a mixed -use and pedestrian oriented development. SD-96 is authorized by Chapter 41, Division 26, Section 41-593 et seq. of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC). SD-96 contains specific standards and regulations for the purpose of establishing land use regulations and development and operational standards for the development site. All other applicable Chapters, Articles, and Sections of the SAMC are in full effect unless expressly superseded by regulations contained within this specific development. A. Specific Development Location The specific development site is 14.37 acres and is located at 2300, 2310, and 2320 South Redhill Avenue in the City of Santa Ana. The site is located at the southwest corner of Redhill Avenue and Warner Avenue. Regional access to the site is provided via the Costa Mesa (SR-55) Freeway at the Dyer Road exit. Access to the site is provided by Red Hill Avenue and Warner Avenue. The site is located within the southeastern most portion of the City of Santa Ana adjacent to the cities of Tustin and Irvine and the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan and the Irvine Business Complex. Fiqure 1: Specific Development Area Santa Ana Tustin = Project Site z`�.. PROJECT SITE Tustin Legacy Irvine N A 7fC�rM SECTION 2 — PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES The specific development is intended to redevelop an industrial site into a mixed -use and pedestrian oriented community. Located at one of the City's southeastern gateways, the specific development will function as a key focal center, and serve to link Santa Ana to surrounding industrial, commercial and residential areas. SD-96 will meet the following objectives: 1. Facilitate development of a mixed -use village containing commercial and multi- family residential buildings, which would help meet the region's demand for housing. 2. Transform an underutilized site with an economically viable development consistent with other regional redevelopments in the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan and Irvine Business Complex (IBC) and combines residential uses with community -serving retail near employment opportunities, freeway access, and transit. 3. Redevelop existing land uses that would utilize existing infrastructure, including: water, sewer, arterial roadways, transit, and freeways; and provide non -vehicular (pedestrian and bicycle) circulation. 4. Develop a mix of housing to assist the City in meeting its jobs/housing balance. 5. Provide onsite uses that reduce vehicular miles traveled (VMT) by providing an internal pedestrian circulation system that links residential uses, recreation areas, and retail/commercial areas onsite. 6. Implement the SCAG Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) Land Use Policies related to population and housing by providing additional housing near employment centers. SD-96 establishes standards and regulations for protecting the health, safety, and general welfare of the people of the City by promoting and enhancing the value of property and encouraging the orderly development of the property. SECTION 3 — LAND USE AND ZONING A. Density and Intensity The maximum authorized building density and intensity for the project is a floor area ratio (FAR) of 2.06, including residential areas, community -serving areas (e.g., leasing office, gym and club room), commercial components, and interior corridors. The maximum residential density permitted is 77 dwelling units per acre. 7f Qr548 B. Permitted Uses 1. SD-96 permits the development of a mixed -use community consisting of 80,000 square feet of leasable commercial area to be constructed in conjunction with a residential component consisting of up to 1,100 residential units configured in live/work, stacked dwelling, lined block, or podium configurations. 2. This section identifies the permitted, conditional, and accessory or temporary uses within the SD-96 area. Uses in the table are permitted subject to the permit criteria referenced. Uses identified by a "P" are permitted by right, those identified by a "CUP" are subject to a Conditional Use Permit, and those identified by "LUC" are subject to a Land Use Certificate. Table 1: Permitted Uses Land Use Types SD-96 Additional Use Regulations Commercial/retail and service uses such as bakeries, bookstores, art galleries, food/grocery P stores (retail market), pet stores and similar uses. Office uses. Professional, administrative and business offices providing personal and P professional services, including medical and dental offices, architects/engineers, and similar uses. Service oriented office uses including insurance, real estate, travel, finance (including walk-up ATMs), creative office co -working (WeWork, P Common Desk, etc.), beauty salons, and similar uses. Health and Fitness Clubs P Tattoo/Body art establishment P Restaurants, cafes and eating establishments P Outdoor dining P Multi -family apartments and/or condominiums and associated leasing offices and recreational/fitness P facilities. Live/work lofts P Alcohol sales for on -site or off -site consumption CUP Subject to SAMC Sec. 41-196 Limited artisan/craft manufacturing, ancillary to a CUP primary allowed use Pick-up windows P Food vending vehicles LUC Subject to Article XIV Temporary outdoor activities LUC Subject to SAMC Sec.41-195.5 7fC4gq Land Use Types SD-96 Additional Use Regulations Businesses operating between 12:00 a.m. CUP (midnight) and 7:00 a.m. Major wireless communication facilities CUP Subject to SAMC Sec. 41-198 Subject to SAMC Sec. Minor wireless communication facilities LUC 41-198 Any use not included shall be considered prohibited unless deemed to be similar to an allowable use as interpreted by the Executive Director of the Planning and Building Agency or his/her designee. C. Development Standards The development standards for SD-96 are subject to and shall comply with the development approved plans per Development Project No. 2019-06 (DP No. 2019-06) and the approved Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), attached hereto as Attachment A and Attachment B for reference. The plans shall govern in the event there is a conflict between the SD and the project plans. The following standards in Table 3 are minimums unless otherwise indicated. Table 2 — Development Standards Item 111V Density Standard 77 dwelling units per acre Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 2.06 Minimum Lot Size 14 acres (entire specific development area) I'I Building Height 7 Levels; 94 feet (not including subterranean levels) Building Setbacks: Redhill Avenue Setback 10 feet minimum Warner Avenue Setback 8 feet minimum Interior Property Line Setback 10 feet minimum Outdoor Dinning Setbacks: Redhill Avenue Setback 6 feet minimum Table 2 Notes: (1) Prior to the issuance of building permits, any and all subdivision maps, lot line adjustments, or voluntary lot mergers shall be approved and recorded. 7fCc-530 D. Off -Street Parking Standards The minimum off-street parking requirements for the development is as follows: 1. Two (2) vehicle parking spaces per residential unit, not to be less than 2,200 residential parking spaces; 2. Five (5) vehicle parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area of leasable commercial space, achieved through 351 parking spaces and 49 valet service spaces as administered per the approved Parking Management Plan, attached hereto as Attachment C; 3. One (1) bicycle parking space per five (5) residential units and one (1) space per each 7,500 square feet of commercial space; and 4. One (1) motorcycle parking space per every 250 vehicle parking spaces. E. Open Space Requirements The development shall provide open space, public plazas and pedestrian paseos as shown on the approved plans. 1. Common Open Space: The project will provide a minimum of 15 percent of the total lot size shall be open space in the form of common, landscaped open space areas, pools, spas, deck, courtyard and lobby, interior community room, dining room, gym, business room, etc. 2. Private Open Space: Each residential unit shall have a patio or balcony of a minimum size of 50 square feet. F. Walls/Fences A new solid block wall with a minimum height of seven (7) feet shall be constructed along the project site's entire perimeter, except in street -side landscape setback areas. The block wall shall be designed to contain a decorative cap, regularly -spaced decorative pilasters, and a decorative finish in accordance to the design provisions contained within the most recent version of the City's design guidelines. Fences/walls along Redhill Avenue and Warner Avenue properties lines are prohibited. Z Cr531 SECTION 4 — DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS This section provides standards and guidelines to ensure the development is of high quality and cohesive and to facilitate exterior alterations to the development. A. Exterior Materials, Finishes and Colors Exterior building and exterior parking structure materials, finishes and colors for the project shall comply with the approved materials board submitted for the project and as approved by the Planning and Building Agency Executive Director. Any changes to the materials, finishes and colors shall be approved by the Planning and Building Agency Executive Director. All trash enclosures and similar ancillary structures shall match the texture, material and color of the primary building. B. Exterior Lighting An exterior lighting plan for the security and safety of on -site areas such as building entrances, parking, loading, pedestrian walkways, alley walkways and open space areas shall be provided to the Planning and Building Agency Director for review and approval. A minimum of one foot-candle evenly distributed across a parking lot is recommended. At entrances and loading areas, up to 2 foot-candles may be appropriate. Decorative night lighting is required. Low energy lights, such as LED lights or solar powered lights, shall be used whenever possible. Light fixtures and their structural support shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with the main buildings on -site. Direct glare onto adjoining property, streets, or skyward shall be avoided. All lighting fixtures shall be shielded to confine light spread on -site. C. Refuse Collection and Trash Enclosure Bins for recycling and any other refuse mandated by the State of California shall be provided for all uses in trash enclosures. There shall be an onsite designated trash staging area only to be used on service days and the staging area and bins shall not disrupt vehicular use of streets or drive aisles. The minimum requirements needed to service the development shall be clearly indicated on the plans and subject to the approval of the Public Works Agency. D. Utility and Mechanical Equipment All utility lines shall be placed underground except where required to be above -ground by utility providers. Where equipment is located above -ground, it shall be screened from public view. This includes all ground, wall, and roof mounted equipment. Screening elements shall be an integral part of the building; no screening method shall give the appearance of being "tacked on." Typical ground -mounted equipment shall be adequately screened with decorative walls and/or landscaping. 7fCg.532 SECTION 5 — PUBLIC REALM AND LANDSCAPE DESIGN STANDARDS A detailed and comprehensive Public Realm and Landscape Plan shall be submitted to the Planning and Building Agency Executive Director or his/her designee for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. The plan shall comply with the City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELD) Chapter 41, Article XVI of the SAMC. The plan shall include an irrigation system layout with the location of controllers and points of connection with data on valve sizes and gallons per minute (G.P.M.), the size and location of sleeves and all spray heads, including the location of conventional systems and drip systems; an irrigation legend with complete specifications; irrigation notes and construction details of all assemblies and components; a recommended irrigation schedule, preferably on an annual basis; and a summary block on the initial page of submitted plans that will present the above information clearly and accurately. The plan shall include a Plant Legend containing: plant symbol, scientific name of plant material, common name of plant material, plant container size, and plant spacing. Very low, low and medium water usage plant materials are encouraged. The plan shall include details of site furnishings. Site furnishing should be compatible in style with the buildings and selected to bring comfort, scale and design expression to the streetscape. These must also be highly durable and easy to maintain. Planters and pots should be used to complement the project architecture and other site amenities; avoiding obstructions to pedestrian traffic flow with planters and pots. All elements of the furniture palette should be uniform. Landscaping for the project shall be completed in phases by building and shall be installed and inspected prior to occupancy of units within that building. The Owner shall be responsible for maintaining all common area landscaping within the development. SECTION 6 — SIGNAGE AND WAYFINDING A comprehensive sign program shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning and Building Agency Executive Director or his or her designee prior to the issuance of building permits. The sign program may include creative signage where the contents and standards of the sign program are not consistent with the Santa Ana Municipal Code, provided the sign program complements the form and function of the building and contributes to the aesthetics of the project. 7fCI-533 SECTION 7 — PUBLIC ART A Public Art Program shall be submitted to the Planning and Building Executive Director for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. Public Art shall be installed and maintained with a value equivalent to one-half of one percent (0.5%) of the total construction cost of the development. Total construction cost shall mean all design, engineering and construction costs. SECTION 8 — PROPERTY SAFETY AND MAINTENANCE A. On -Site Property Manager The specific development area shall include 24-hour on -site Property Management services and personnel. Up-to-date 24-hour contact information for the on -site personnel shall be provided to the following City Agencies on an ongoing basis: 1. Police Department, 2. Fire Authority, 3. Planning and Building Agency, and 4. Community Development Agency. B. Maintenance The property shall be maintained free of trash, debris and graffiti. Graffiti shall be removed within 24-hours after its appearance in accordance with Section 10-227 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code. C. Crime Free Housing Prior to submittal into building plan check, a Crime Free Housing Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning and Building Agency Director. The Plan shall be approved prior to occupancy of the first unit and shall be implemented and administered by the Owner. D. Building Security. All structures and parking lots shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8, Article II, Division 3 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (Building Security Ordinance). E. Emergency Evacuation Plan. An approved Emergency Evacuation Plan (EEP) from City Police and Fire Protection agencies shall be on file for the project. Up-to-date 24-hour emergency contact information for the on -site personnel shall be provided to the City on an ongoing basis and the approved EEP shall be kept onsite and also be submitted to the following City Agencies: 7f Qz534 1. Police Department 2. Orange County Fire Authority 3. Planning and Building Agency 4. Community Development Agency F. On Going Property Maintenance. Developer (and the owner of the property upon which the authorized use and/or authorized improvements are located if different from the Developer) shall execute a maintenance agreement with the City of Santa Ana which shall be recorded against the property and which shall be in a form reasonably satisfactory to the City Attorney. The maintenance agreement shall contain covenants, conditions and restrictions relating to the following: 1. Compliance with operational conditions applicable during any period(s) of construction or major repair (e.g., proper screening and securing of the construction site; implementation of proper erosion control, dust control and noise mitigation measure; adherence to approved project phasing etc.); 2. Compliance with ongoing operational conditions, requirements and restrictions, as applicable (including but not limited to hours of operation, security requirements, the proper storage and disposal of trash and debris, enforcement of the parking management plan, and/or restrictions on certain uses); 3. Ongoing compliance with approved design and construction parameters, signage parameters and restrictions as well as landscape designs, as applicable; 4. Ongoing maintenance, repair and upkeep of the property and all improvements located thereupon at all times (including but not limited to controls on the proliferation of trash and debris about the property; the proper and timely removal of graffiti; the timely maintenance, repair and upkeep of damaged, vandalized and/or weathered buildings, structures and/or improvements; the timely maintenance, repair and upkeep of exterior paint, parking striping, lighting and irrigation fixtures, walls and fencing, publicly accessible bathrooms and bathroom fixtures, landscaping and related landscape improvements and the like, as applicable); 5. If Developer and the owner of the property are different (e.g., if the applicant is a tenant or licensee of the property or any portion thereof), both the applicant and the owner of the property shall be signatories to the maintenance agreement and both shall be jointly and severally liable for compliance with its terms; 6. The maintenance agreement shall further provide that any party responsible for complying with its terms shall not assign its ownership interest in the property or any interest in any lease, sublease, license or sublicense, unless 75C,3535 the prospective assignee agrees in writing to assume all of the duties and obligations and responsibilities set forth under the maintenance agreement; 7. The maintenance agreement shall contain provisions relating to the enforcement of its conditions by the City and shall also contain provisions authorizing the City to recover costs and expenses which the City may incur arising out of any enforcement and/or remediation efforts which the City may undertake in order to cure any deficiency in maintenance, repair or upkeep or to enforce any restrictions or conditions upon the use of the property. The maintenance agreement shall further provide that any unreimbursed costs and/or expenses incurred by the City to cure a deficiency in maintenance or to enforce use restrictions shall become a lien upon the property in an amount equivalent to the actual costs and/or expense incurred by the City; and 8. The execution and recordation of the maintenance agreement shall be a condition precedent to the issuance of final approval for any construction permit related to this entitlement. 7f Q7536 ATTACHMENT A: Attached to the Agenda as "Plans." ATTACHMENT B: Attached to the Staff Report as Exhibit B to Exhibit 1 ATTACHMENT C: Attached to the Staff Report as Exhibit 10 7Q15� EIR No. 2020-01, GPA No. 2020-02, & AA No. 2020-01, "The Bowery" 2300, 2310, and 2320 South Redhill Avenue The Final EIR and Technical Appendices are available online at: https://www.santa-ana.org/pb/planning-division/maior-planning-proiects-and-monthly-development- p ro I e ct-reports/bowery Physical copies are also available for viewing by appointment only. Please contact PlanningDepartment@santa-ana.org before visiting the Planning Division public counter located at: 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701 Exhibit C to Exhibit 1— Link to EIR 75C-538 EXHIBIT 4 75C-539 http://apps.spatialstream.com/production/dashboard/8/9/0/CurrentBuild/... I SdM1d And Boi ►� • pia 1 lofl t� 1 4 v� 407 % 1 1 _ 500 feet p Exhibit 4 75G540n 2020 Digital Mao Products. All rights reserved. 4/23/2020, 10:32 AM EXHIBIT 5 75C-541 Cl) 0 0 x a w N x w EXHIBIT 6 75C-543 EIR No. 2020-01, GPA No. 2020-02, & AA No. 2020-01, "The Bowery" 2300, 2310, and 2320 South Redhill Avenue The Final EIR and Technical Appendices are available online at: https://www.santa-ana.org/pb/planning-division/maior-planning-proiects-and-monthly-development- P ro i e ct-re po its/bowe ry Physical copies are also available for viewing by appointment only. Please contact PlanningDepartment@santa-ana.org before visiting the Planning Division public counter located at: 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701 Exhibit 6 — Link to EIR 75C-544 EXHIBIT 7 75C-545 a g 'I AV NINN'n,N 0 o o EXHIBIT 8 75C-547 N v 75C-548 N P- 75C-549 N O 75C-550 x ®Nz z m N V 75C-551 N O 75C-552 m N v 75C-553 \ j 75C.554 �( EXHIBIT 9 75C-555 THE BOWERY AT 2300 SOUTH RED HILL AVENUE MEMORANDUM Date: April 17, 2019 To: Ali Pezeshkpour, City of Santa Ana Planning and Building Agency From: Ryan Gahagan, Arrimus Capital Re: Report on April 15, 2019 Sunshine Ordinance Meeting The Bowery at 2300 South Red Hill Avenue As a record of the May 31, 2015 public meeting on the Bowery Project, please find attached to this memorandum our report, including the following: Affidavit Exhibit A Mailers, Notification List Exhibit B Site Notices Exhibit C Notice of Meeting Published in OC Register Exhibit D Meeting Minutes Exhibit E Sign -In Sheet Please contact me with any questions at Ryan@arrimus.com or 949.438.4374. Thank you. 240 Newport Center Drives 6t20,Q,-"wport Beach, CA • 92660 FEW 19 JORT"II Sunshine Ordinance Community Meeting The Bowery Project I, Jeremy Ogulnick, declare as follows: 1. This declaration is made on behalf of RHW Holdings, LLC pursuant to Santa Ana Municipal Code section 2-153 ("Section 2-153"). I have personal knowledge of the fact set forth below, and am able to competently testify thereto. 2. The community meeting required by Section 2-153 was held by RHW Holdings, LLC in compliance with Section 2-153, on April 15, 2019, from 6:00pm to 7:30pm. 3. Notice of the meeting was mailed to all property owners, and at least one occupant per dwelling unit having a valid United States Postal Service address within a 500 foot radius of the project site on April 5th, 2019. True and correct copies of the mailing, as well as the notification list, are collectively attached hereto as Exhibit A. 4. Notice of the meeting was posted on the project site on April 4th, 2019. True and correct copies of the posted notices, are attached hereto as Exhibit B. Notice of the meeting was published in the Orange County Register, a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Santa Ana, on April 10, 2019. A true and correct copies of the notice is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 6. Meeting minutes providing an accurate description and summary of the meeting are attached hereto as Exhibit D. 7. The meeting was conducted in an open house format, but began with opening remarks from Jeremy Ogulnick (Developer) and Ali Pezeshkpour (City Staff). Dinh Lee and RC Alley from Architects Orange (Architect) did a presentation of the elevations, site plan and unit mix. It was then opened up to questions that were answered by the Developer, Architect or City Staff. 8. The meeting was attended by 2 members of the public, see attached sign -in sheet. They did forego submitting any written comments. Executed this date of April 17, 2019. RHW Holdings, LLC • 240 Newport Center Drive, Suite 200 • Newport Beach, CA • 92660 75C-557 THE BOWERY EXHIBIT A RHW Holdings, LLC • 240 Newport-W—yF66e 200 • Newport Beach, CA • 92660 The Bowery, 2300 South Red Hill Avenue, Santa Ana, CA 92705 Please Attend a Community Open House Introducing A New Mixed -Use Project At 2300 South Red Hill Avenue In Santa Ana Learn about the proposed project, provide Feedback and ask questions Meeting Date and Time: April 15, 2019 - 6:OOpm to 7:30pm at c',.t Spoons Grill & Bar<P 2601 Hotel Terrace, Santa Ana, CA 92705 i U have tionsru Iin, this mcotin, or d lao,uan Yo Y F F i YouroY t F intcry tt vboa� 1y�. gtaana(ago l �,1 h, y1 onta<t n,. .. �I I J naa The mlwe a 1-19 P11-ded V,.r.... . m 9Aa( seolmu 2153 wwew "7 n 14 ,. +► . !� . Por favor unete a iiosotros en una reunion comunitaria presentando on nuevo proyecto de use mixto en 2300 South Red Hill Avenue en Santa Ana Aprende sabre el proyecto propuesto,proporcionar comentarios y hater preguntas Fecha y Hora De Reunion: 15 de Abril de 2019 — 6:00pm a 7:30pm Ubicacion de Reunion: Spoons Grill & Bar, 2601 Hotel Terrace, Santa Ana, CA 92705 Si tienes preguntas sober esta reunion o si neeesitas servieios de interpretaeion en ontr) idiom, eomuniquese eon nosotros: bowerysantaanaae aH.com E se aviso sc cnvin cn a ii, rdo con S, 9uSoccion 2-1fi3 41 ® Yl Please Attend a Community Open House Introducing A New Mixed -Use Project At 2300 South Red Hill Avenue In Santa Ana Learn about the proposed project, provide Feedback and ask questions Meeting Date and Time: April 15, 2019 - 6:OOpm to 7:30pm at Spoons Grill & Bar 2601 Hotel Terrace, Santa Ana, CA 92705 If you have questions regarding this minting or d you require language erl—tatu inlang'g:: orac rthan L gl I, yloaso contact us: boweiysantaana(a!pnail.com rnn,..1—.. n—,u p.o. Jod p—,ten io smm 1-1— lmz The For favor unete a nosotros en una reunion comunitaria presentando on nuevo proyecto de use mixto en 2300 South Red Hill Avenue en Santa Ana 1 Aprende sabre el proyecto propuesto, proporcionar comentarios y hater preguntas )v Fecha y Hora De Reunion: I 15 de Abril de 2019 6:00 pm a 7:30 pm Ubicacion de Reunion- 0 Spoons Grill & Bar m 2601 Hotel Terrace, Santa Ana, CA 92705 Si tienes preguntas sober esta reunion o si neaesitas servidos de interpretation en once, idiom, comuniquese non noeotros: bowerysantaaru agmail.tom Estc avlso sc cw4i cn acucrto con SAW Section 21fi3 430-021-01 430-021-04 430-021-05 SABIC INNOVATIVE PLASTICSUS GEMINI INDUSTRIES INC WHITE,WILLIAM T W T WHITE III LLC 2311 PULLMAN ST RE 475 CREAMERY WAY SANTA ANA, CA 92705 3197 AIRPORT LOOP DR A EXTON, PA 19341 COSTA MESA, CA 92626 430-222-07 & 16 RHW HOLDINGS LLC 240 NEWPORT CENTER DR 200 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 430-222-21 LBA & PPF INDUST-CARNEGIE LLC PO BOX 847 CARLSBAD, CA 92018 430-222-10 RGTIP 430-231-17 1231 WARNER AVE PROPERTY COMPANY 9777 WILSHIRE BLVD 711 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212 430-231-24 430-231-25 ARK INVESTMENT CONSULTING LLC RED HILL PARTNERS 15941 RED HILL AVE 15901 RED HILL AVE 100 TUSTIN, CA 92780 TUSTIN, CA 92780 430-283-02 ORANGE COUNTY RESCUE MISSION 1 HOPE DR TUSTIN, CA 92782 930-85-403 YU CHOU LLC 1900 E WARNER AVE lE SANTA ANA, CA 92705 930-85-406 RATANJEE FAMILY TRUST 2100 W LINCOLN AVE ANAHEIM, CA 92801 930-85-409 JZ REALTY LLC 4040 CIVIC CENTER DR 219 SAN RAFAEL. CA 94903 930-85-412 PM INVESTMENTS & HOLDINGSINC 8150 SCHOLARSHIP IRVINE, CA 92612 930-85-416 DERKACZ & RENDL INVESTMENT LLC 1920 E WARNER AVE 3G SANTA ANA, CA 92705 930-85-401 MAGHSOODI,SHAHROUZ TRUST 28707 LA SIENA LAGUNA NIGUEL, CA 92677 930-85-404 MAHINI,A & F S JOINT L & TRUST 15 ADRIANA NEWPORT COAST, CA 92657 930-85-407 TESTA,PIETRO 1900 E WARNER AVE 10 SANTA ANA, CA 92705 930-85-410 CAMERA ALFONSO JR TRUST 52503 VIA SAVONA LA QUINTA, CA 92253 930-85-414 RAGUSA JANETTE M THE RAGUSA FAMI 1 LAGO SUD IRVINE, CA 92612 930-85-417 JARRETT,MICHAEL D 1920 E WARNER AVE 3J SANTA ANA, CA 92705 430-222-18 JAYDEE ENTERPRISES LTD 12011 SAN VICENTE BLVD 700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90049 430-231-23 REDHILL INVESTMENTS LLC 1444 185TH AVE BELLEVUE, WA 98008 430-272-11 CITY OF TUSTIN 300 CENTENNIAL WAY TUSTIN, CA 92780 930-85-402 EWS JR PROPERTIES 636 HARBOR ISLAND DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 930-85-405 MADRIGAL,LUCIA 1900 E WARNER AVE 1J SANTA ANA, CA 92705 930-85-408 SOLOMON,MARVIN RALPH TRUST PO BOX 1152 SAN FERNANDO, CA 91341 930-85-411 MYRAN LLC 5 HARVEY CT IRVINE, CA 92617 930-85-415 TAJEN GRAPHICS INC 2700 N MAIN ST 310 SANTA ANA, CA 92705 930-85-418 HALL CHAD T TRUST 17671 IRVINE BLVD 215 TUSTIN, CA 92780 75C-561 930-85-419 930-85-420 930-85-421 CLARK,ANTHONY NORTH COUNTY PIONEER LLC ORANGE COUNTY PROPERTIES LLC 215 SANTA ANA AVE 3825 BIRCH ST 1901 CARNEGIE AVE lA NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 SANTA ANA, CA 92705 930-85-422 FOOTPRINTS HEADQUARTERS LLC 57 RUSTIC CHARM IRVINE, CA 92602 930-85-427 TUNG,ALEX K 78 NEW DAWN IRVINE, CA 92620 930-85-430 BAMBECK,ROBORT J TRUST 1921 CARNEGIE AVE 3A SANTA ANA, CA 92705 939-65-061 OLEN PROPERTIES CORP 7 CORPORATE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 939-65-090 ONO ENT LLC 1185 WARNER AVE 9 TUSTIN, CA 92780 939-65-093 CHO,KYUNGJA 26828 DESERT LOCUS MURRIETA, CA 92562 930-85-424 930-85-425 WILLIAMSON,SCOTT A TRUST RIVCO PROPERTIES LLC 14062 WINDSOR PL 26697 PIERCE CIR SANTA ANA, CA 92705 MURRIETA, CA 92562 930-85-428 CARNEGIE PINSCO LLC 1901 CARNEGIE AVE 1Q SANTA ANA, CA 92705 930-85-433 AIC REALTY LLC 1821 CARNEGIE AVE 3G SANTA ANA, CA 92705 939-65-088 CHANG,FRED CHIEN-YEH & SU- PING R 51 DEL CAMBREA IRVINE, CA 92606 939-65-091 QUINN,JACK K 6010 E CHOLLA LN PARADISE VALLEY, AZ 85253 939-65-094 INDIEWORKS HOLDINGS LLC ST 1173 WARNER AVE TUSTIN, CA 92780 939-65-096 STREAM OF PRAISE MUSIC MINISTRIE 1165 WARNER AVE TUSTIN, CA 92780 939-65-100 SULLY EXCELSIOR LLC 2002 NANTUCKET PL TUSTIN, CA 92780 939-65-098 BINESH HOLDINGS LLC 2041 SWAN DR COSTA MESA, CA 92626 - 55 PRINTED - * DUPLICATE OWNERS REMOVED 930-85-429 GONZALEZ,ADRIAN 1911 CARNEGIE AVE 2-A SANTA ANA, CA 92705 930-85-434 ELLIS,DON R TRUST 530 EMERALD BAY LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 939-65-089 SPATACEAN,DAVID TRUST 1193 WARNER AVE 8 TUSTIN, CA 92780 939-65-092 STAPLETON,DANIEL 5 CAMBRIDGE CT COTO DE CAZA, CA 92679 939-65-095 WOODS ENTERPRISE LLC 1169 WARNER AVE TUSTIN, CA 92780 939-65-099 MOLLYCORP LLC 1153 WARNER AVE TUSTIN, CA 92780 75C-562 430-021-01 430-021-04 430-021-05 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1831 CARNEGIE AVE 2311 PULLMAN ST 1830 E WARNER AVE SANTA ANA, CA 92705 SANTA ANA, CA 92705 SANTA ANA, CA 92705 430-222-07 OCCUPANT 2300 REDHILL AVE SANTA ANA, CA 92705 430-222-15 430-222-18 430-222-21 OCCUPANT 1951 CARNEGIE AVE SANTA ANA, CA 92705 430-231-16 430-231-23 OCCUPANT 15991 RED HILL AVE STE 101 TUSTIN, CA 92780 430-231-23 OCCUPANT 15991 RED HILL AVE STE 200 TUSTIN, CA 92780 430-231-23 OCCUPANT 15991 RED HILL AVE STE 210 TUSTIN, CA 92780 430-231-23 OCCUPANT 15991 RED HILL AVE STE 240 TUSTIN, CA 92780 430-222-10 430-222-16 OCCUPANT 2310 REDHILL AVE SANTA ANA, CA 92705 430-222-19 OCCUPANT 2001 CARNEGIE AVE SANTA ANA, CA 92705 430-222-22 430-231-17 OCCUPANT 1231 WARNER AVE TUSTIN, CA 92780 430-231-23 OCCUPANT 15991 RED HILL AVE STE 102 TUSTIN, CA 92780 430-231-23 OCCUPANT 15991 RED HILL AVE STE 202 TUSTIN, CA 92780 430-231-23 OCCUPANT 15991 RED HILL AVE STE 220 TUSTIN, CA 92780 430-231-24 OCCUPANT 15941 RED HILL AVE STE 100 TUSTIN, CA 92780 430-222-11 430-222-17 NOT A;TAli3APi3E 430-222-20 NOT A;TAli3APi3E 430-222-23 430-231-23 OCCUPANT 15991 RED HILL AVE STE 100 TUSTIN, CA 92780 430-231-23 OCCUPANT 15991 RED HILL AVE STE 103 TUSTIN, CA 92780 430-231-23 OCCUPANT 15991 RED HILL AVE STE 204 TUSTIN, CA 92780 430-231-23 OCCUPANT 15991 RED HILL AVE STE 230 TUSTIN, CA 92780 430-231-24 OCCUPANT 15941 RED HILL AVE STE 200 TUSTIN, CA 92780 75C-563 430-231-24 430-231-24 430-231-24 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 15941 RED HILL AVE STE 201 15941 RED HILL AVE STE 203 15941 RED HILL AVE STE 205 TUSTIN, CA 92780 TUSTIN, CA 92780 TUSTIN, CA 92780 430-231-24 OCCUPANT 15941 RED HILL AVE STE 208 TUSTIN, CA 92780 430-231-25 OCCUPANT 15901 RED HILL AVE STE 200 TUSTIN, CA 92780 430-231-25 OCCUPANT 15901 RED HILL AVE STE 203 TUSTIN, CA 92780 430-231-25 OCCUPANT 15901 RED HILL AVE STE 211 TUSTIN, CA 92780 430-272-25 430-272-31 930-85-402 OCCUPANT 1900 E WARNER AVE 1C SANTA ANA, CA 92705 930-85-405 OCCUPANT 1900 E WARNER AVE 1J SANTA ANA, CA 92705 930-85-408 OCCUPANT 1900 E WARNER AVE lP SANTA ANA, CA 92705 430-231-24 OCCUPANT 15941 RED HILL AVE STE 210 TUSTIN, CA 92780 430-231-25 OCCUPANT 15901 RED HILL AVE STE 201 TUSTIN, CA 92780 430-231-25 OCCUPANT 15901 RED HILL AVE STE 205 TUSTIN, CA 92780 430-272-11 430-272-29 92489 430-283-02 OCCUPANT 1 HOPE DR TUSTIN, CA 92782 930-85-403 OCCUPANT 1900 E WARNER AVE lE SANTA ANA, CA 92705 930-85-406 OCCUPANT 1900 E WARNER AVE 1L SANTA ANA, CA 92705 930-85-409 OCCUPANT 1910 E WARNER AVE 2A SANTA ANA, CA 92705 430-231-25 OCCUPANT 15901 RED HILL AVE STE 100 TUSTIN, CA 92780 430-231-25 OCCUPANT 15901 RED HILL AVE STE 202 TUSTIN, CA 92780 430-231-25 OCCUPANT 15901 RED HILL AVE STE 210 TUSTIN, CA 92780 430-272-23 QGGYJPANT- SST, 430-272-30 SST , 930-85-401 OCCUPANT 1900 E WARNER AVE IA SANTA ANA, CA 92705 930-85-404 OCCUPANT 1900 E WARNER AVE 10 SANTA ANA, CA 92705 930-85-407 OCCUPANT 1900 E WARNER AVE 10 SANTA ANA, CA 92705 930-85-410 OCCUPANT 1910 E WARNER AVE 2C SANTA ANA, CA 92705 75C-564 930-85-411 930-85-412 930-85-413 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1910 E WARNER AVE 2F 1910 E WARNER AVE 2G 1920 E WARNER AVE 3A SANTA ANA, CA 92705 SANTA ANA, CA 92705 SANTA ANA, CA 92705 930-85-414 930-85-415 930-85-416 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1920 E WARNER AVE 3C 1920 E WARNER AVE 3E 1920 E WARNER AVE 3G SANTA ANA, CA 92705 SANTA ANA, CA 92705 SANTA ANA, CA 92705 930-85-417 930-85-418 930-85-419 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1920 E WARNER AVE 3J 1920 E WARNER AVE 3L 1920 E WARNER AVE 3N SANTA ANA, CA 92705 SANTA ANA, CA 92705 SANTA ANA, CA 92705 930-85-420 930-85-421 930-85-422 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1920 E WARNER AVE 3P 1901 CARNEGIE AVE IA 1901 CARNEGIE AVE 1C SANTA ANA, CA 92705 SANTA ANA, CA 92705 SANTA ANA, CA 92705 930-85-423 930-85-424 930-85-425 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1901 CARNEGIE AVE 1F 1901 CARNEGIE AVE 1G 1901 CARNEGIE AVE 1K SANTA ANA, CA 92705 SANTA ANA, CA 92705 SANTA ANA, CA 92705 930-85-426 930-85-427 930-85-428 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1901 CARNEGIE AVE 1L 1901 CARNEGIE AVE 10 1901 CARNEGIE AVE 1Q SANTA ANA, CA 92705 SANTA ANA, CA 92705 SANTA ANA, CA 92705 930-85-429 930-85-430 930-85-431 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1911 CARNEGIE AVE 2A 1921 CARNEGIE AVE 3A 1921 CARNEGIE AVE 3C SANTA ANA, CA 92705 SANTA ANA, CA 92705 SANTA ANA, CA 92705 930-85-432 930-85-433 930-85-434 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1921 CARNEGIE AVE 3E 1921 CARNEGIE AVE 3G 1921 CARNEGIE AVE 3K SANTA ANA, CA 92705 SANTA ANA, CA 92705 SANTA ANA, CA 92705 930-85-435 930-85-436 939-65-061 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1921 CARNEGIE AVE 3L 1921 CARNEGIE AVE 3N 1371 WARNER AVE STE A SANTA ANA, CA 92705 SANTA ANA, CA 92705 TUSTIN, CA 92780 939-65-061 939-65-061 939-65-061 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1371 WARNER AVE STE B 1371 WARNER AVE STE C 1371 WARNER AVE STE D TUSTIN, CA 92780 TUSTIN, CA 92780 TUSTIN, CA 92780 75C-565 939-65-061 939-65-061 939-65-062 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1371 WARNER AVE STE E 1371 WARNER AVE STE F 1431 WARNER AVE STE A TUSTIN, CA 92780 TUSTIN, CA 92780 TUSTIN, CA 92780 939-65-062 939-65-062 939-65-062 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1431 WARNER AVE STE B 1431 WARNER AVE STE C 1431 WARNER AVE STE D TUSTIN, CA 92780 TUSTIN, CA 92780 TUSTIN, CA 92780 939-65-062 939-65-062 939-65-063 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1431 WARNER AVE STE E 1431 WARNER AVE STE F 1381 WARNER AVE STE A TUSTIN, CA 92780 TUSTIN, CA 92780 TUSTIN, CA 92780 939-65-063 939-65-063 939-65-063 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1381 WARNER AVE STE B 1381 WARNER AVE STE C 1381 WARNER AVE STE D TUSTIN, CA 92780 TUSTIN, CA 92780 TUSTIN, CA 92780 939-65-063 939-65-063 939-65-063 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1381 WARNER AVE STE E 1381 WARNER AVE STE F 1381 WARNER AVE STE G TUSTIN, CA 92780 TUSTIN, CA 92780 TUSTIN, CA 92780 939-65-064 939-65-064 939-65-064 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1421 WARNER AVE STE A 1421 WARNER AVE STE B 1421 WARNER AVE STE C TUSTIN, CA 92780 TUSTIN, CA 92780 TUSTIN, CA 92780 939-65-064 939-65-064 939-65-064 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1421 WARNER AVE STE D 1421 WARNER AVE STE E 1421 WARNER AVE STE F TUSTIN, CA 92780 TUSTIN, CA 92780 TUSTIN, CA 92780 939-65-065 939-65-065 939-65-065 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1415 WARNER AVE STE A 1415 WARNER AVE STE B 1415 WARNER AVE STE C TUSTIN, CA 92780 TUSTIN, CA 92780 TUSTIN, CA 92780 939-65-065 939-65-066 939-65-066 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1415 WARNER AVE STE D 1385 WARNER AVE STE A 1385 WARNER AVE STE B TUSTIN, CA 92780 TUSTIN, CA 92780 TUSTIN, CA 92780 939-65-066 939-65-066 939-65-067 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1385 WARNER AVE STE C 1385 WARNER AVE STE D 1391 WARNER AVE STE A TUSTIN, CA 92780 TUSTIN, CA 92780 TUSTIN, CA 92780 75C-566 939-65-067 939-65-067 939-65-067 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1391 WARNER AVE STE B 1391 WARNER AVE STE C 1391 WARNER AVE STE D TUSTIN, CA 92780 TUSTIN, CA 92780 TUSTIN, CA 92780 939-65-068 939-65-068 939-65-068 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1411 WARNER AVE STE A 1411 WARNER AVE STE B 1411 WARNER AVE STE C TUSTIN, CA 92780 TUSTIN, CA 92780 TUSTIN, CA 92780 939-65-068 939-65-069 939-65-069 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1411 WARNER AVE STE D 1405 WARNER AVE STE A 1405 WARNER AVE STE B TUSTIN, CA 92780 TUSTIN, CA 92780 TUSTIN, CA 92780 939-65-069 939-65-069 939-65-070 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1405 WARNER AVE STE C 1405 WARNER AVE STE D 1401 WARNER AVE STE A TUSTIN, CA 92780 TUSTIN, CA 92780 TUSTIN, CA 92780 939-65-070 939-65-070 939-65-070 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1401 WARNER AVE STE B 1401 WARNER AVE STE C 1401 WARNER AVE STE D TUSTIN, CA 92780 TUSTIN, CA 92780 TUSTIN, CA 92780 939-65-071 939-65-088 939-65-089 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1395 WARNER AVE 1195 WARNER AVE 1193 WARNER AVE TUSTIN, CA 92780 TUSTIN, CA 92780 TUSTIN, CA 92780 939-65-090 939-65-091 939-65-092 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1185 WARNER AVE 1183 WARNER AVE 1177 WARNER AVE TUSTIN, CA 92780 TUSTIN, CA 92780 TUSTIN, CA 92780 939-65-093 939-65-094 939-65-095 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1175 WARNER AVE 1173 WARNER AVE 1169 WARNER AVE TUSTIN, CA 92780 TUSTIN, CA 92780 TUSTIN, CA 92780 939-65-096 939-65-097 939-65-098 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1165 WARNER AVE 1167 WARNER AVE 1163 WARNER AVE TUSTIN, CA 92780 TUSTIN, CA 92780 TUSTIN, CA 92780 939-65-099 939-65-100 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT - 149 PRINTED - 1153 WARNER AVE 1155 WARNER AVE TUSTIN, CA 92780 TUSTIN, CA 92780 75C-567 THE BOWERY EXHIBIT B RHW Holdings, LLC • 240 Newport f 6gdrgdge 200 • Newport Beach, CA • 92660 COMMUNITY MEETING NOTICE YOU ARE INVITED TO ATTEND A COMMUNITY MEETING FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIBED BELOW: SUBJECT: Proposed Mixed -Use Development LOCATION: 2300 South Red Hill Avenue, Santa Ana CA 92705 MEETING DATE: April 15, 2019 MEETING TIME: 6:00pm to 7:30pm MEETING LOCATION: Spoons Grill & Bar 2601 Hotel Terrace, Santa Ana, CA 92705 If you have questions regarding this meeting or if you require language interpretation services in languages other than English, please contact us: CONTACT PERSON: Ryan Gahagan PHONE: (310) 571-8227 E-MAIL: bowerysantaana@gmail.com This notice is being provided pursuant to SAMC Section 2-153(c). RHW Holdings, LLC • 240 Newport pt �iyF,�S�yto 200 • Newport Beach, CA • 92660 Aviso de Reunion Comunitaria TE INVITAMOS A PARTICIPAR EN UNA JUNTA COMUNITARIA PARA EL PROYECTO PROPUESTO DESCRITO ABAJO: TEMA: Proyecto propuesto de use mixto LOCALIZACION: 2300 South Red Hill Avenue, Santa Ana CA 92705 FECHA DE LA REUNION: 15 de Abril, 2019 HORA DE LA REUNION: 6:00pm a 7:30pm LOCALIZACION DE REUNION: Spoons Grill & Bar 2601 Hotel Terrace, Santa Ana, CA 92705 Si tienes preguntas sober esta reunion o si necesitas servicios de interpretacion en ontro idiona, comuniquese con nosotros: PERSONA DE CONTACTO: Ryan Gahagan TELEFONO: (310) 571-8227 CORREO ELECTRONICO: bowerysantaana@gmail.com Este aviso de proporciona conforme a ha Secci6n SAMC Section 2-153(c). RHW Holdings, LLC • 240 Newport �,&6- ••� Etc 200 • Newport Beach, CA • 92660 THE BOWERY EXHIBIT C RHW Holdings, LLC • 240 Newport f 6gdrrjjte 200 • Newport Beach, CA • 92660 MEETING NOTICE YOU ARE INVITED TO ATTEND A COMMUNITY MEETING FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIBED BELOW: SUBJECT: Proposed Mixed -Use Development LOCAT I ON : 23U0 South Red Hi I I Avenue, Santa Ana CA 92705 MEETI NG DATE: April 15, 2019 MEETINGTIME: 6:00pm107:30pm MEETI NG LOCATION: Spoons Grill & Bar 2601 Hotel Terrace, Santa Ana, CA 92705 ji f you have questions regarding this meeting or if you require language interpretation services in languages other than English, please -contact us: CONTACT PERSON: Ryan Gahagan -PHONE: (310) 571-8227 -E-MAI L: botverysantaana(q��lmail.com Tlii s [lot ice is bei ng provided pursuant to SAMC Section 2-153(c }- Avlsade Reunion Cornuni to ria TE INVITAMOSA PARTICI PAR EN UNA JUNTA COMUN ITARIA PARA EL PROYECTO PROPUESTO DESCRITOABAJ0: TEMA: Proyecto propuestode use mixto LOCALIZAC ION : 2300 South Red Hi I I Avenue, Santa Ana CA 92705 FECHA DE LA REUNION: 15deAbril, 2019 HO RA DE LA REUNION: 6:00pma7:30pm LOCALIZAC ION DE REUNION: Spoons Grill & Bar 2601 Hotel Terrace, Santa Ana, CA 92705 -Si tie nes preguntas soberesta reunion a si necesitas servicios de interpretation en ontro idiona, comuniquese con nosotros: PERSONA DE CONTACTO: Ryan Gahagan -TELEF0N0: (310) 571-8227 CORREO ELECTRON ICO: bovierysantaana(up9mail.com -Este avisode proportion confarrne a la Sec non SAMC Section -2-153(C). Publish: Orange County Register April 10, 2019 11257138 RHW Holdings, LLC • 240 Newport f _6efriy�Sy,ite 200 • Newport Beach, CA • 92660 THE BOWERY EXHIBIT D RHW Holdings, LLC • 240 Newport- 17-r 93te 200 • Newport Beach, CA • 92660 Meeting Minutes Attendees: Jeremy Ogulnick-Developer Dinh Lee -Architects Orange RC Alley -Architects Orange Jerry Guevarra- City of Santa Ana Ali Pezeshkpour-Cityof Santa Ana Attending Residents: Ed Rendl Performing Printing Corporation Scott WIlliamson Photo Design Studios The meeting began at 6pm on April 15, 2019. It was conducted in an open house format, and began with opening remarks from Jeremy Ogulnick (Developer) and Ali Pezeshkpour (City Staff). Dinh Lee and RC Alley from Architects Orange (Architect) did a presentation of the elevations, site plan and unit mix. It was then opened up to questions that were answered by the Developer, Architect and/or City Staff. Q&A/Comments: Q:Do you own the entire site and will all of the existing buildings be demolished? A: Yes, we own the entire site and all 3 buildings and our plan is to eventually demolish all 3 buildings Q: Will there be a parking structure along the rear of the property? And will it be landscaped A: Yes, the plan is to have a parking structure along the rear of the property and it will have landscaping between it and the property line. Q: Will the units be for sale? A: No, they will be rental units Q:How many stories of parking will there be and how high? A: There will be 6.5 levels of parking and be approximately 70 feet high RHW Holdings, LLC • 240 Newport f _6gdriy�Su'te 200 • Newport Beach, CA • 92660 Q: Where are the entrances to the site? A: There will be one on Red Hill and possibly 2 on Warner. Q:Will there be any improvements done to Warner Ave? A: We are not sure yet, it will depend on the results of the technical studies. Q:What impact will building residential next to where marijuana use is permitted? A: There will not be any impact. The map that the city has published will dictate where that use is permitted. It will not change because of residential being approved nearby. Q: How long before this gets approved and built. A. It will depend on how long approvals take but we anticipate going to City Council at the end of this year. Construction will start approximately 1 year after approvals. Construction will take approximately 2.5 years once permits are issued. Q: Can you show us a view from the property that Ed owns? A: Yes, we will provide an elevation Q: Is this project in the City of Tustin? A:No, it is in the City of Santa Ana Q: How many levels are residential? A:5 Q:How many levels of parking for building C? A 6.5 Q:Is there a driveway West of building C? A: Q:What is to be done with the wall between your site and the one to the West? A:We will replace it. The meeting ended at 7:30pm. RHW Holdings, LLC • 240 Newport f-6efria 200 • Newport Beach, CA • 92660 THE BOWERY EXHIBIT E RHW Holdings, LLC • 240 Newport f 6gd=iyj to 200 • Newport Beach, CA • 92660 13 U VV f F v le Name 7c r Comlxmy(Compaf3ia)t_, Ci,q UM- Email (E-Mail) Phone (Telffono) LA -4 L4 az, I Name R-ortte Company Wompaflia)-. F"favr.c, Email (E-Mail) eae Phone (Tel6fbno) 7k -t Name (Nombre) Lfs-&N?,e Company (Compafiia); 577-tPlo S ' Phone j Name (Nombre) Company (Compaiiia): Email (&Mail) Phone (Tel6fono) Name (Nombre) Company Email (F-Mail) Phone (TeWfono) Name Company (Compafiia): Email (E-Mail) Phone (Tel6fono) Name Company (Compafiia); Email :7,-YA03 Phone (-f Name I Company (Compania): Email (E-Mail) Phone (Teloifbno) 75C-577 r1ro!)v TITLE P•! i p � INF OHf1RilOM SYSTEMS 13520 Scarsdale Way San Diego, CA 92128 www.titleprois.com CERTIFICATION I SEAN WILSON/ TITLE PRO INFORMATION SYSTEMS HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE ATTACHED LIST CONTAINS THE NAMES, ADDRESSES AND PARCEL NUMBERS OF ALL PERSONS TO WHOM ALL PROPERTY IS ASSESSED AS THEY APPEAR ON THE LATEST AVAILABLE ASSESSMENT ROLL OF THE COUNTY WITHIN THE AREA DESCRIBED AND REQUESTED BY YOU THE CLIENT, THE REQUIRED RADIUS MEASURED FROM THE EXTERIOR BOUNDARIES OF THE PROPERTY REQUESTED AND DESCRIBED AS: APN: 430-222-07 & 16 50OFT PLAT DATE: 03/29/2019 COUNTY OF: ORANGE CITY OF: SANTA ANA SEAN WILSON TITLE PRO INFORMATION SYSTEMS DATE: 04 02 2019 Phone: 760.295.39511 Fax:760.295.4038 75C-578 !§i Qao N16' g@e �v 3 '' Y FJ cop �Oa a�ja l' z E tie x — e +h 35il.31' ,P 4 36C.03 230.46' 211.37 n s- ci n 1mm, Or 31 y - t IR! I1n1S fQ FlFl i� ^ i0 vAC v a— a 7 AAWR ma'si k 1 1h N LOT w Or 12 tLIN Ar A- C. iz y r i tar w „g 27 21M AC, tar S IA el a a'L s Y 29 rvw 6.55r AC. '�22 ` i�a� Stl E 3 a" 4 p5 ` .• z3 142T r 24 0 =.9 - �. .•..n a 3acav 3°nawa • n- ..Q w-n wA y Gar A.1 7 1.517 AC. Sl i : aOa C3g LOT 00 e 0.W, qC- 0.5 3rAC.22 aA'. � F$ S.Sh1 AC. i, 44 75C-579 EXHIBIT 10 75C-580 o i 4_ of Santa , Celebrating �� "Years �P• LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN engineers REVISED PARKING STUDY AND PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN THE BOWERY Santa Ana, California May 5, 2020 (original dated April 28, 2020) Engineers & Planners Traffic Transportation Parking 75C-582 May 5, 2020 Engineers&Planners Traffic Transportation Mr. Jeremy Ogulnick Parking RHW Holdings, LLC 240 Newport Center Drive, Suite 200 p a span, E & Greenspan, Greenspan, Engineers Newport Beach, CA 92660 2 Executive Circle Suite 250 LLG Reference: 2.20.4274.1 INine,CA9261a 999.825.6175 T Subject: Parking Study and Parking Management Plan for the 949.825.6173 The Bowery vaww.11gengineers.com Santa Ana, California Pasadena Irvine San Diego Dear Mr. Ogulnick: woodland Hills As requested, Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) is pleased to submit this Parking Study for the proposed The Bowery Project (hereinafter referred to as Project) in the City of Santa Ana, California. The Bowery Project is a proposed mixed -use residential apartment project consisting of 1,100 apartment units with 80,000 SF of retail/commercial space to be located south of Warner Avenue and west of Red Hill Avenue in the City of Santa Ana, California. It is our understanding that a parking study is needed to validate the parking demand and adequacy of proposed parking supply for the retail/commercial portion of the Project as well as the proposed parking supply of the Project's residential component in comparison to the City requirements as outlined in Article AY — Off -Street Parking of the Municipal Code. Pursuant to our coordination efforts, prior work experience on similar projects, and understanding of the City of Santa Ana requirements, the preparation of a Parking Study, inclusive of a Parking Management Plan (PMP) is required to ensure adequate parking for all Project tenants, employees and guests, and reduce or eliminate any parking intrusion on the adjacent commercial properties. This PMP is intended to be used to ensure that the Project's parking supply will be sufficient to accommodate the Philip M. Unseen, PE 092430601 actual parking demand for both the Project's retail/commercial component as well as Jack M. Greenspan, PE mm.l the Project's residential component. William A. Law, PE IRe4 Paul w.Wilkinson, PE John P. Keating, PE David S. Shedder, PE John A. Boorman, PE Clare M. Look -Jaeger, PE Richard E. Barrens. PE Kea D. Maaerry, PE hW20012204274-Th,B -.,. Sams Aw'.R,,.-M274 The Br -R,N-d Pn75i�l583 m.r".in d303-G020 duce v An IGPNB Company Founded 1966 Jeremy Ogulnick May 5, 2020 Page 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND MULTIMODAL SETTING The Bowery Project is a proposed mixed -use residential apartment project to be located south of Warner Avenue and west of Red Hill Avenue in the City of Santa Ana, California. The Project site is a square shaped parcel of land totaling 14.69t- acres and that is currently developed with three (3) industrial buildings with a total floor area of 212,121 square -feet (SF). Figure 1 is an existing aerial photograph of the Project site. Based on the review of the Project Site Plan, prepared by AO, the proposed Project includes the development of four (4) buildings, identified as Building A through Building D, with a total of 1,100 apartment units and 80,000 square -feet (SF) of retail/commercial space consisting of 44,000 SF of retail space, 24,000 SF of restaurant/food uses, and a 12,000 SF health/fitness club, all of which front Red Hill Avenue. Parking for the Project will be provided within four (4) parking structures with a combined parking supply of 2,546 spaces and 54 space surface parking lot for a total supply of 2,600 spaces. Of this total supply, 400 spaces are allocated for use by the retail/commercial component of the Project Under the current Project site plan, individually, Building A includes the development of a 280-unit apartment podium, consisting 63 studio units, 144 one - bedroom units, 73 two -bedroom, and zero (0) three -bedroom units wrapped around a 7-level 705-space parking structure with a 12,000 SF retail building and 4,000 SF pad building. Building B includes the development of a 244-unit apartment podium, consisting 35 studio units, 136 one -bedroom units, 68 two -bedroom, and five (5) three -bedroom units, wrapped around a 7-level 592-space parking structure and 16 surface parking spaces, with 24,000 SF building to be equally occupied by retail space and a fitness/health club and 20,000 SF building with a mix of restaurant/food uses. Building C includes the development of a 322-unit apartment podium, consisting 79 studio units, 149 one -bedroom units, 89 two -bedroom, and five (5) three -bedroom units with 20,000 SF of retail shops space, wrapped around a 7-level 743-space parking structure with an additional 36 spaces provided in a surface lot. Lastly, Building D includes the development of a 254-unit apartment podium, consisting 50 studio units, 146 one -bedroom units, 53 two -bedroom, and five (5) three -bedroom units wrapped around a 6-level 506-space parking structure plus 2 surface parking spaces. R:W200'd20J274-The Hnaery.Sam.AnaV,.,642]d The Bmeery Reai,d P:7r5 G^ -5 844 ,Pian 05-05-2020 d.c, Jeremy Ogulnick May 5, 2020 Page 3 It should be noted that the total parking supply of 2,600 spaces includes 49 spaces via the use of valet/valet assist for the Project's retail/commercial component and 212 spaces via the installation of vehicle lifts for the Project's residential component. Table 1, attached to this proposal, provides a summary of the Project development, inclusive of the Project's proposed parking supply based on information provided by AO, dated 04/24/2020, inclusive of 130 tad access (Tandem) stalls. Figure 2 presents the proposed site plan, prepared by AO. Project's Pedestrian Connections Pedestrian circulation would be provided via existing public sidewalks along Red Hill Avenue and Warner Avenue which will connect to the project site. The project will protect the existing sidewalk along project frontage, and if necessary, repair or reconstruct sidewalks along the project frontage per the City's request. The existing sidewalk system within the project vicinity provides direct connectivity to the City of Santa Ana, Irvine and Tustin along with connectivity to the Tustin Metrolink Station located on Edinger Avenue west of Jamboree Road. From the project site, it would take approximately 54 minutes to walk to the Tustin Metrolink Station that is 2.8 miles from the site. Project's Proximity to Public Transit Public transit bus service for the Project site is adequate and is provided in the project area by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). Eleven (11) OCTA bus routes operate within the vicinity of the project site on Main Street, Standard Avenue, Grand Avenue, Dyer Road, Edinger Avenue, Red Hill Avenue, Warner Avenue, SR-55 and Von Karmen Avenue, which consists of the following: • OCTA Route 53: The major route of travel is Main Street. Nearest to the project site are bus stops on Main Street - northbound and southbound west of the intersection with Red Hill Avenue. Route 53 operates on approximate 30-minute headways during weekdays and 20-minute headways on weekends. • OCTA Route 55: The major routes of travel include Main Street and Standard Avenue. Nearest to the project site are bus stops on Standard Avenue - northbound and southbound west of the intersection with Warner Avenue. Route 55 operates on approximate 30-minute headways on the weekdays and weekends. • OCTA Route 59: The major routes of travel include Grand Avenue, Dyer Road, and Barranca Parkway. Nearest to the project site are bus stops on Dyer Road - eastbound and westbound south of the intersection with Red Hill Avenue. Route 59 operates on approximate 30-minute headways on the weekdays and 60-minute headways on the weekends. R N,120(1'2Z01?71-Th,9...... Sm,m ArtaiR.pnrt 1271 The. ene-rvrp rznksdPa i i lei V irni emn o5-flfrzaClt,mrx Jeremy Ogulnick May 5, 2020 Page 4 • OCTA Route 70: The major route of travel is Edinger Avenue. Nearest to the project site are bus stops on Edinger Avenue — northbound and southbound east and west of the intersection with Red Hill Avenue. Route 70 operates on approximate 30-minute headways on the weekdays and weekends. ■ OCTA Route 71: The major route of travel is Red Hill Avenue. Nearest to the project site are bus stops on Dyer Road— northbound and southbound east of the intersection with Red Hill Avenue. Route 71 operates on approximate 30-minute headways on the weekdays and 45-minute headways on the weekends. • OCTA Route 72: The major route of travel is Warner Avenue. Nearest to the project site are bus stops on Warner Avenue — eastbound and westbound west of the intersection with Red Hill Avenue. Route 72 operates on approximate 30- minute headways during weekdays and 45-minute headways on weekends. • OCTA Route 86: The major route of travel is Main Street. Nearest to the project site are bus stops on Red Hill Avenue — eastbound and westbound east and west of the intersection with Red Hill Avenue. Route 86 operates on approximate 40- minute headways on the weekdays and no service on the weekends. • OCTA Route 90: The major route of travel is Edinger Avenue. Nearest to the project site are bus stops on Edinger Avenue. — eastbound and westbound east of the intersection with Red Hill Avenue. Route 90 operates on approximate 30- minute headways on the weekdays and 75-minute headways on the weekends. • OCTA Route 213: The major route of travels includes SR-55 and Von Karmen Avenue. Nearest to the project site are bus stops on Von Karmen Avenue — eastbound and westbound west of the intersection with Michelson Drive. Route 213 operates on approximate 40-minute headways on the weekdays and no service on the weekends. ■ OCTA Route 463: The major route of travel is Grand Avenue. Nearest to the project site are bus stops on Grand Avenue — northbound and southbound east of the intersection with Warner Avenue. Route 463 operates on approximate 30- minute headways on the weekdays and no service on the weekends. • OCTA Route 472: The major route of travel is Red Hill Avenue. Nearest to the project site are bus stops on Red Hill Avenue — northbound and southbound east of the intersection with Warner Avenue. Route 472 operates on approximate 35- minute headways on the weekdays and no service on the weekends H W20221W274 The Bmrery, Santa Ana`Repnrtl4274 The Bmcery Revise) PoTM6,-p1un MS 52020.&, Jeremy Ogulnick May 5, 2020 Page 5 Figure 3 graphically illustrates the transit routes of OCTA within the vicinity of the project. Figure 4 identifies the locations of the existing bus stops in proximity to the Project site. It is noted that based on review of Section 5.14 SB743 Compliance of The Bowery Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by E I P I D Solutions, dated December 12, 2019, it was concluded that the proposed Project would have a less than significant VMT impact since the Project site is located adjacent to existing transit service with an interval of approximately 6 minutes (Bus Route 71, 72 and 472) during the peak commute hours and is located within a 2040 High -Quality Transit Area per SCAG GIS data. Project's Proximity to Bicycle Facilities The City of Santa Ana, Irvine and Tustin all promote bicycling as a means of mobility and a way in which to improve the quality of life within its community. The Bikeway Master Plan recognizes the needs of bicycle users and aims to create a complete and safe bicycle network throughout the City. Currently, not many bicycle facilities exist in the study area, with the exception of a Class I bike lane along Red Hill Avenue, between Warner Avenue and Alton Avenue. In addition, a Class R bike lanes along Grand Avenue and Edinger Avenue, between Edinger Avenue and Dyer Road and between Chestnut Avenue and Dyer Road. Class I bike lanes along Valencia Avenue, Armstrong Avenue, east of Barranca Parkway. Figure 5, 6 and 7, which presents the City Santa Ana, Irvine and Tustin Bikeway Master Plans, respectively. ,C\420(IBL0J21a-The B.,,, Sm Ana\R,.,,1d271 The Bmeeep R-!,,dPz75G�M.T- Plw 0S05-2020.6nw Jeremy Ogulnick May 5, 2020 Page 6 RETAIL/COMMERCIAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS The code parking calculation for the retail/commercial component of the proposed Project is based on the City's requirements as outlined in Article XV — Off -Street Parking of the Municipal Code. The City's Municipal Code specifies the following parking requirements: • Retail stores and services uses: 5 space for each 1000 SF of gross floor area (GFA). ■ Restaurants cafes, etc: 8 space for each 1000 SF of GFA, with a minimum of 10 spaces. ■ Exercise gym, spas, health clubs, etc.: 1 space for each 180 SF of floor area devoted to physical activity other than racquetball or handball (exclusive of locker rooms, shower facilities, utility rooms and ancillary public areas). I Retail/Commercial Parking Supply Based on review of Table 1, parking for the retail/commercial component of the Project will be provided via combination of structured parking and surface parking. As shown, a total of 339 "Is' access" spaces will be provided, which will be supplemented by an additional 12 "2Bd access (tandem)" spaces provided within the Project's parking structures, and 49 "valet/valet assist" spaces for a total supply of 400 stalls (339 + 12 + 49 = 400). City Code Parking Requirements Assuming 80,000 SF of retail space, the Project's retail/commercial parking supply of 400 spaces would satisfy the City code requirement of 400 spaces. However, when applying the City's parking ratios to the Project's potential mix of 44,000 SF of retail space, 24,000 SF of restaurant/food uses, and a 12,000 SF health/fitness club, a code parking requirement of 445 parking spaces is calculated. With a proposed retail/commercial parking supply of 400 spaces, a shortfall of 45 spaces is forecast when compared to City requirements. Shared Parking Analysis To validate the adequacy of the proposed retail/commercial parking supply of 400 spaces with the Project's proposed mix of uses/tenants, a shared parking analysis has Since the floor plan for the proposed health club is unknown at this time the physical activity area is assumed to be 50% of the GFA. &,1100221n2]J-The Bnwen:Sams Ana\R,,m,,\1274 The BumenR,vi•.d P75 C-580 -Plen O:i-0i-2020.dnce Jeremy Ogulnick May 5, 2020 Page 7 been prepared based on the utilization profile of each included land use component. The following section calculates the parking requirements for Project based on the shared parking methodology outlined in ULI Shared Parking, 2nd Edition. The specific tenancy mix of the Project provides an opportunity to share parking spaces based on the utilization profile of each included land use component. The parking ratios identified above have been used directly for incorporation into a shared parking analysis consistent with the methodology outlined in the Urban Land Institute (ULI) and published in Shared Parking, 2nd Edition. Based on the results of this shared parking assessment, the adequacy of the Project's retail/commercial component parking supply of 400 spaces can be determined. Key inputs in the shared parking analysis for each land use include: • Peak parking demand by land use for visitors and employees. ■ Adjustments for alternative modes of transportation, if applicable. • Adjustment for internal capture (captive versus non -captive parking demand), if applicable. • Hourly variations of parking demand. ■ Weekday versus weekend adjustment factors • Monthly adjustment factors to account for variations of parking demand over the year. ■ Applicable parking ratios per Article Xv— Off -Street Parking in the City of Santa Ana Municipal Code For this analysis, a conservative 5% parking adjustment was utilized to account for "walk-in" trips attributable to synergy between uses and the residential component of The Bowery and adjoining retail/commercial component. These adjustments are representative of the interaction between the Project's uses. Tables 2 and 3 present the overall weekday and weekend parking demand profiles for the retail/commercial component of the Project based on the shared parking methodology. Columns (1) through (3) of these tables present the parking accumulation characteristics and parking demand of the proposed uses for the hours of 6:00 AM to midnight. Columns (4) through (5) presents the expected joint -use parking demand for the Center on an hourly basis and further presents the hourly parking surplus/deficiency for the proposed Project compared to the parking supply of 400 spaces. Review of Tables 2 and 3 indicates that the future full occupancy weekday peak retail/commercial parking demands will occur at 12:00 PM with peak demands of 332 spaces. Based on the proposed retail/commercial parking supply of 400 spaces, the peak demand hours on a weekday will yield a surplus of 68 spaces. On a weekend YW20f1\M2].I-ThPB.,,. ,Santa Ana\R,p,64274 The Bravery Revn.d P7r5G 1 89—Plan 0.505-21)20.doc Jeremy Ogulnick May 5, 2020 Page 8 the peak parking demand will occur at 12:00 PM with a peak demand of 374 spaces resulting in a surplus of 26 spaces. Appendix A contains the detailed weekday and weekend shared parking worksheets. Figures 8 and 9 graphically illustrate the weekday and weekend hourly parking demand forecast for the proposed Project retail/commercial component, respectively. Each of the anticipated land use componenUtenant mix and its corresponding hourly Shared Parking demand for various mixes of uses, which were presented in Tables 2 and 3, are depicted in these two figures relative to a proposed parking supply of 400 spaces, of which 12 spaces are 2"d access (tandem) stalls and 49 spaces are valet/valet assist spaces. A review of these figures indicates that the Project's parking supply of 400 spaces will adequately accommodate The Bowery's proposed retail/commercial uses on weekday and weekend hourly shared parking demand. Further yet, based on the results of this analysis, the use of valet/valet assist spaces would only be necessary on weekends for the time period between 11:00 AM and 10:00 PM; although the weekday parking demand may not necessitate the need for valet/valet assists spaces, the use of these spaces during the weekday midday period of 11:00 AM to 2:00 PM would be an enhanced service that would support the "lunch time" crowd of the proposed restaurant/food uses. Therefore, we conclude that there is adequate parking on site to accommodate the Project's retaiUcommercial component shared parking demand and is reliant on the implementation of a "valet/valet assist" program as proposed. Based on LLG's experience, the results presented as part of the share parking assessment represent the most pragmatic approach to future parking conditions. RESIDENTIAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS Parking Requirements per City Code Requirements To determine the number of parking spaces required to support the proposed Project residential uses, the parking requirement was calculated based on parking information published in the City of Santa Ana Municipal Code Article XV — Off -Street Parking. The following parking ratio was used to determine the required parking: a) The minimum off-street parking requirements for each dwelling unit in multiple -family dwellings are as follows: one (1) space in a garage or carport. b) Each multi -family dwelling site shall provide off-street parking spaces, in addition to the minimum requirements of subsection (a) of this section, in an amount not less than the number of bedrooms on the site. Such spaces may be open or covered and may be assigned to particular units or not so assigned. Bachelor units shall be considered as une-bedroom units. NIW Znn z114774 rb,Ervx-S it aAn'Re,v,W YlF H1.1—V"nvlttd Ndi, s- n %, nvim. u,, Mlq 1 5 na 2,1'1J„n 75C-590 Jeremy Oguhtick May 5, 2020 Page 10 Pasadena. Additional details for the comparable sites is also provided inclusive of the location, development summary, parking facility type, parking supply, and presence of ground floor retail. Review of the rightmost column of Table 5 presents the tenant and guest peak parking ratio (spaces per DU) for each of the twelve comparable sites. This array of peak parking rates yields an average ratio of 1.35 spaces per unit, an 85' percentile ratio of 1.48 spaces per unit, and a 95' percentile ratio of 1.61 spaces per unit. Given the above, LLG concludes that the parking ratios derived from the twelve comparable sites are accurate representations for the unique parking characteristics of the proposed Project that are not reflected in the City Code ratio. Parking Generation (5d' Edition) published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), and Shared Parking (2"d Edition) published by the Urban Land Institute (ULI), as well as other reference materials for the cities of Ontario and Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, and Riverside County, provide peak parking ratios for apartment complexes, as summarized in the lower portion of Table 5. These parking ratios range from 0.98 spaces per unit (average ratio per ITE) to 1.66 spaces per unit (field studies in Ontario and Rancho Cucamonga). In order to provide more context behind the location and parking -related characteristics for the most relevant sites in Table 5, we have compiled the following information with regards to land use setting, proximity to public transit, and availability of off -site parking (i.e., on -street spaces, nearby off -site parking spaces): ProiealThe Bowery There is no on -street parking or other public parking facilities in the immediate vicinity of the site. There are existing bus stops located nearby, specifically at the intersections of Red Hill Avenue at Warner Avenue. The Tustin Metrolink Station is located just under two mile to the northeast of the site. Main Street Village: 2555 Main Street, Irvine (I.42 spaces per DU) There is no on -street parking or other public parking facilities in the immediate vicinity of the site. There are existing bus stops located nearby, specifically at the intersections of Siglo/Main Street and Jamboree Road/Main Street. The nearest Park & Ride lot is located about 1.5 miles to the southeast of Main Street Village, near the intersection of Culver Drive at Sandburg Way. The adjoining land uses to Main Street Village consist of mostly office and residential uses. Paragon at Old Town: 700 S. Myrtle Avenue, Monrovia 0.48 spaces per DU) On -street parking is generally permitted in the vicinity of the site, most notably along Myrtle Avenue (north of Walnut Avenue), Olive Avenue, Walnut Avenue, and Ivy Avenue. The nearest existing bus stop is located at the intersection of Primrose X\4201PZZ0427I-The Bmven,S.,n.A.,\R.ponb1271 The Bneery R,,.,dft C'_ 9:1nem Phan03-Oi-211211.,br> Jeremy Ogulnick May 5, 2020 Page 11 Avenue/Walnut Avenue. An existing Park & Ride lot and Metro Light Rail station is located about 0.7 miles to the south of Paragon at Old Town, near the intersection of Myrtle Avenue/Duarte Road. The adjoining land uses to Paragon at Old Town consist of shopping/food uses to the north, residential uses to the east, and office/warehouse building to the south and west. Trio Apartments: 44 N. Madison Avenue, Pasadena (1.22 spaces per DU) On -street parking is generally permitted in the vicinity of the site, most notably along Madison Avenue, Colorado Boulevard, and Union Street. Further, several paid public parking lots are located nearby, including on the west side of Madison Avenue and a few south of Colorado Boulevard. Existing bus stops are located at the intersection of El Molino Avenue/Union Street, as well as various bus stops located Colorado Boulevard. An existing Park & Ride lot is located about 0.5 miles to the northwest of Trio Apartments, near the intersection of Marengo Avenue/Walnut Street. Further, existing Metro Light Rail stations are located at Lake Street/I-210 Freeway (about 0.5 miles from Trio Apartments) and near Raymond Avenue/Holly Street (about 0.5 miles from Trio Apartments). The adjoining land uses to Trio Apartments consist of mostly office and commercial uses. Adagio on the Green: 2660 Oso Parkway, Mission Vieio (1.45 spaces per DU) There is no on -street parking or other public parking facilities in the immediate vicinity of the site. Existing bus stops are located nearby, specifically at the intersections of Country Club Drive/Oso Parkway and Marguerite Parkway/Oso Parkway. There is no Park & Ride facility in the nearby vicinity of Adagio on the Green. The adjoining land uses to Adagio on the Green consist of mostly residential uses, with a golf course to the north and south of Oso Parkway and some commercial uses. Skye at Laguna Niguel: 28100 Cabot Road. Laguna Niguel (1.49 spaces per DU) There is no on -street parking or other public parking facilities in the immediate vicinity of the site. The nearest existing bus stop is located at the intersection of Cabot Road/Crown Valley Parkway. An existing Park & Ride lot and Metrolink train station is located immediately east of the SR-73 Freeway, along Forbes Road (about 0.2 miles from Skye at Laguna Niguel). The adjoining land uses to Skye at Laguna Niguel consist of mostly residential uses, with commercial uses to the east. Apex Laguna Niguel: 27960 Cabot Road. Laguna Niguel (1.28 spaces per DU) There is no on -street parking or other public parking facilities in the immediate vicinity of the site. The nearest existing bus stop is located at the intersection of Cabot Road/Crown Valley Parkway. An existing Park & Ride lot and Metrolink train station is located about 0.3 miles to the southeast from Apex Laguna Niguel, along Forbes Ab1200'22042F4-The.Bme,,.5anm Ana ReponW2i4 The B.,, R,Kvd Ba750-592Plan 064)5-20M d... Jeremy Ogulnick May 5, 2020 Page 12 Road. The adjoining land uses to Apex Laguna Niguel consist of mostly residential uses, with commercial uses to the east. Based on the above descriptions of six existing sites, locational and parking -related characteristics are similar and comparable to the Project (i.e., not located in a TOD/Transit-Oriented Development, with no off -site parking nearby, which can reduce on -site parking needs), with their empirical parking demand ratios considered to be indicative of the Project's potential parking needs. The Project will be providing a supply of 2,200 spaces, which, when divided by 1,100 dwelling units, corresponds to a parking supply ratio of 2.0 spaces per dwelling unit, inclusive of 212 "car lift" spaces. This supply ratio is greater than the empirical ratios from the six comparable sites most similar to the Project and helps validate adequacy of parking for the Project. Residential Component Parking Supply Based on review of Table 1, parking for the residential component of the Project will be primarily provided via structured parking, plus two (2) surface stalls. As shown, a total of 1,870 "is' access" spaces will be provided, which will be supplemented by an additional 118 "2' access (tandem)" spaces provided within the Project's parking structures, and 212 "car lift" spaces for a total supply of 2,200 stalls (1,868 + 2 + 118 + 212 = 2,200). The Project's proposed residential parking supply of 2,200 spaces allows for the provisions one parking space per bedroom, which total 1,413 bedrooms, with a remaining balance of 787 spaces that could be used to accommodate residential guest parking demand and/or additional parking demand of future residents. Project Residential Parking Supply versus Demand The bottom portion of Table 5 estimates the project's parking needs based on the application of the average, 85' percentile, and 95' percentile parking rates from comparable sites. For the 1,100 units as now proposed, it is estimated that the average demand would be 1,518 spaces, the 85' percentile demand would be 1,628 spaces, and the 95't' percentile demand would be 1,771 spaces. Comparing the 95' percentile demand of 1,771 spaces against the proposed supply of 2,200 spaces yields a surplus of 429 spaces. Given these results, we conclude that the proposed residential parking supply of 2,200 spaces is more than adequate and will satisfy the Project's residential parking demands. To maintain adequate parking supply at all times, it is recommended that a Parking Management Plan (PMP) be implemented to ensure parking is available for all users, inclusive of determining, based on the actual needs of the Project, and when the use of "car lifts" would be necessary in the future. NMOU2204214-The How,, 5.iiila AnalRepon\A214 The Bueer, Revised P,750-69 3,nl?1-O5L5-2U204dfo 20k 1'.k, 12k (2-fevef) 12k 75C-594 Jeremy Ogulnick May 5, 2020 Page 13 PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN (PMP) To ensure adequate parking is provided for both tenants, employees and guests of the Project, it is recommended that when the Property Owner and/or Property Management Company deems it necessary, the following key Parking Management Strategies be implemented by the Property Owner and/or Property Management Company: PMP Measures The following measures are available to the Project to mitigate any parking impacts or deficiencies in the event the proposed onsite parking supply is determined to be greater than what is provided. RetalYCommercial Com onent 1. The Property Owner/Property Management Company will work with tenants of the retail center to implement an employee parking program, with the goal of providing convenient and accessible shopping experience for the customers of the retail center and to leave the most desirable parking spaces within the parking structure for use by customers. The location of designated employee parking spaces will be developed in collaboration between Property Owner/Property Management Company and the tenants. The employee parking spaces will be identified with a white or yellow circle. It is noted that these spaces will be open for customer use. 2. The Property Owner/Property Management Company will work with tenants of the retail center to identify the need for "short term/time restricted spaces" on an as need basis, dependent on the needs of the proposed retail and/or food use. These short term spaces will most likely be designated in the surface parking that is located directly in front of Building C. The short-term spaces may be used for "curbside/take out" and/or for service retail -type users. The number and location of spaces will be determined by Property Owner/Property Management Company and the potential tenants. 3. If the Property Owner/Property Management Company determines additional parking is needed to meet the parking requirements of the retail/commercial component of the Project the Property Owner/Property Management Company shall implement a valet/valet assist program to accommodate up to 49 spaces. The hours of operation of the valet/valet assist program will be determined by the Property Owner/Property Management Company, and subject to actual demand, may include weekends, between the period 11:00 AM and 10:00 PM, and potentially weekdays during the midday period of 11:00 AM to 2:00 PM to enhance the customer experience accommodate the "lunch time" crowd of the proposed restaurant/food uses. N A2000204274 -The B..v,. Soma an,tR,.,M 274 the 9.. vry rzrvima Pa7u5CP: 15961 Plxn 05-0520ZO d... Jeremy Ogulnick May 5, 2020 Page 14 4. To implement the valet operation, the Property Owner/Property Management Company would engage the services of a well -established valet operations company to develop a detailed plan that would include drop-off and pick-up locations. It is our understanding that Parking Concepts, Inc. has been engaged to assist the Property Owner/Property Management Company team in developing a valet parking operation plan for the Project. Figures 10, 11, 12 and 13 presents the location of the 49 valet/valet assist spaces. Residential Com op nent 5. The Property Owner/Property Management Company shall assign one (1) parking space to every unit. Additional spaces may be assigned to any unit that requests additional assigned spaces dependent on the number of bedrooms provided within said unit. The 2"a access/tandem spaces should be assigned to two -bedroom and three -bedroom units. The Property Owner/Property Management Company shall determine the allocation of parking spaces for resident tenants and location of guest parking spaces, inclusive of spaces designated and signed for prospective resident tenants. 6. Relative to the provision/installation of vehicle lifts, the Property Owner/Property Management Company shall install up to 212 vehicle lifts. Figure 10, 11, 12 and 13 presents the location for vehicle lifts. The Property Owner/Property Management Company will assign 15 lift spaces to the three -bedroom units and 197 lift spaces to the two -bedroom units. 7. The Property Owner/Property Management Company, if deemed necessary, may allow resident guest to utilize the valet program identified in Measure No. 5, as an enhanced service. To implement the valet operation, the Property Owner/Property Management Company would engage the services of a well -established valet operations company, similar to PMP measure No. 3. Retail/Commercial & Residential Component 8. The parking conditions for the Project will be reviewed/monitored on a quarterly basis by the Property Owner/Property Management Company and appropriate actions detailed above will be taken to ensure that the necessary PMP measures are being implemented. 9. The Property Owner and/or Property Management Company will install "car lifts" to accommodate resident parking demand to achieve a desired parking ratio of 2.0 spaces per unit per the direction of the City. %--M014G04274 Emaery Smna Ane Rgro„W2Y4 the Bowery Reeis.d P7,5Gi1596n.Pi„n iru ian,i" Jeremy Ogulnick May 5, 2020 Page 15 Through this monitoring and cooperation with the residents and tenants as a result of the quarterly review/monitoring, a partnership will be formed to ensure that residential tenants and retail employees and Management Company personnel on the property work together to ensure adequate parking is available. CONCLUSIONS Review of the above information shows that the proposed Project provides adequate parking to accommodate the needs of the retail/commercial users, where the parking supply is established via application of 5 spaces per 1000 SF, and residential users independently of each other, which is calculated at 2.0 spaces per unit. The results of the shared parking analysis indicate that the Project's proposed mix of retail/commercial and restaurant uses have a peak demand of 374 spaces. With a proposed parking supply of 400 spaces, a minimum surplus of 26 spaces is forecast. For the Project's residential component, the Project has the ability to implement a PMP via the use of valet/valet assist, assignment of tandem stalls for specific units, plus the use of vehicular lifts to maintain adequate parking for all users of the Project. As noted earlier, the Project could provide an additional 330 spaces for the residents, via 118 2"d access (tandem) stalls and 212 car lift spaces if it were deemed necessary, thus resulting a parking rate of 2.0 spaces per unit as required by the City. We appreciate the opportunity to provide this analysis for RHW Holdings, LLC and the City of Santa Ana. Should you have any questions, please call us at 949.825.6175. Respectively submitted, Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers Richard E. Barretto, P.E. Principal Attachments cc: Shane Green, P.E., Transportation Engineer III N AZ00B2U1274 The B—,,. San A.ak d ,nn14274 The B...e, Revised P, I. n' Plan 05 05-202U. , 4V p n • � 6 f 2 W � , a v • ' o i • � ! r"ii: � p o vim, o�, r �t.. _ o s=rvw+== CZUZ—Sl-40 OPZ L:n dm 6npZ-1 14ZV\6^P\o=o Maas 'ganoq aq — t,voZZ\UO t\;a _----!AV a3NabM 1 .1111 III1I no II ? I � g a;_ m LLI ALIT„ I LI111V ol� `�,I 75C-599 75C-600 931UCa93 OZOZ-£1-*O 6RVZ1 dM 6wp-1y *LZi\6mp\pup ..... •.4pwoq py1 - 4GZ40ZZ\OOZb\" ` 'a r iy � •h Y uWW 7 U 5 c I 75 e Zy No O 10 � ©$S \m �Q ♦5 � j U © $ of® a��� az Maid A-G 1 ®� W i i� ®Eo 2 V c � rc<a:a.IT W a 0 v c U W U +aaa Q a 4 F 5]�rt[y ii �r� N N 6 s`.✓� _ C ?7. u O s ,eawu=n•s 3 n N 3 n � J 75C-601 C atdeVy t .......... LZ LS 60 dOl 6•P'S-. .... .... ... . .... M.S: 5. 9 VI -6 �'PAIBJogIeH IS a 04maN INS IS JOA IS IC, 'is Ilwd is mo uesnS PAIR 75C-602 sa.ynuaa OZOZ-91-40 SS L09l dOl 6mp'9-1 4LZ9\fimp\puo olms •Aamoq ayl — gLZ40ZZ\OOZ4\a s y, V by s� h'b F' �'dd��ib yJ yQ COO In.°. Mid•°°� ooya `-' m Pli q u u`i ni di C 1jYLo i A3HOIF8 NOAI G7 +c 11 7� a N338983A3 C � Z 8V(13O J W .BONOIH m O AVOVIIVH ¢ O U NOSIIH w a G NVO O U [o Z 311355f1O8 3ldVW U m 3ONV8O :E I � J SS38dA0 O � U w m '^ = a � J K Z a c Z l Z a a� � H D x z E In � U► } I --I w m � w z a w 0 J a J Q W Z W ~ W � W � F U Z > } W Y W O a 0 U K O im 75C-603 saluonim IIN-91-11 1P50A1 "1 6w1'1-1 4LZ4\6n1\oun oluos 'A--1 - 1 — IIZ40ZZ\OOL4\Vu 75C-604 s.,.o ",Z—LZ—" 9004 f 1 ddl 6Mp'... 464\6np\ouo .puns 8nmoq ay. — 4640ZZ IWI I lal m �o M m IMI m -a m m ry I Nlal a e S� I wlal o., �e U � o Q N I NISI I Z l(L MINI n I 1 vlw m I WI¢I a ¢IL ICI ry g m N 1�1 N QI MI?1 m of a l l g m �I IL a I I FI <I I I a of I ~ d Ell I I m a w >I I I ry F=I I J a *I I s m a1 I n ZI I I u�1 I I o <I I I oW RI I I o I II g I II I II 0 0 m ti 'mn m I II m" I II m�a I II I I II II ��o�rvm e V F 2 sajedS }o iagwnN • • • 75C-605 r sapuouw OZOZ—LZ—" 80:£A£L d,, 6mp fi-1 >LZb\bmp\ouo .loos •Aaxoq .. — ......Z\wz,\:m N I IIII J ., a U � o Q N I NISI I wlYl I Zlal m I MINI o���a I owl <I a m IL N I I-y l NI IL ICI a of IL al �im1 m NI a l l �I a I FI I I m al m d ZI I I "^ 1t a �I a) I I <I I I o m PI I I I II �m I II a O � m I II III a m m m N I II I II pI I I O O V E o = saaed5;oiagwnN • • • 75C-606 Sd�U0N8d � ,I I1,111�Illl,l�1,111,11 IJjJ�• _ :,11:1I I:I 11:11 III I:111,111 'a - P i I111111 I.11 111•I 11'I1 tV w J I II1'0I... I I III 'O 11111111�11 111'III'I 11 � E � ' jll I11111 IIII111 I � ;�,' 11 �: .II i ne f W a ��. 111111 I11 MI III `1 W 8 „q� �a I1111111 Il lltl lllljf 11 1 .„ `LI�III1111111111111"� IIII ��. w� i G Q i > V y y y a W Q j O u i Q Q U F Rm U F. O apa0 ;=00 2 z V U �� m z =mom cQa �o M � N I YU aye - 3 mill m o ullm < ..................Go 1� sq J p \ W u J O .Ill Illlo ,111,111,111,111 n. ...................................: m N _ :,11,111,111�11 �III,I il,lll"g o NA II III 111'1 I(]HUM 0 � 4 ®•oc pt 1illiln n�0 11 Nn "i' �0 A � ,I I1�111 o-i 1,111,1 a1,1 l l;l I I ° •,II III 11 I,11 I111,111,111 "� a 1111111111 1111111411 �irj W 11 ° LI:111 I II I I1„I I I I,1.1'I J f' c .11 I,I 11 I 1,111,1,,1:111:11 I ,: _ II,111,111,11 ,'111,111,111 °g.'•-•P — :'I I,111,111,111;Ill,llh'I 11 _ 7 ��. '� 11111111�11111 I1�111'1 '1 IIIt='�1' W J WIC I1:91 1,111,1. ,1,111,11 .� ............. 1,111,1.......................... 11.11.. I . i 1, I I I,1 I I,1 I I I 11, I 1 1�Iy 1 1 iei I[ I1.111111 I11 I111111 IIII'°k w sarvoNa� ozoz-Lz-eo aq: - ILZIIZZ\OOZO\:. t III;IIIIIII II,11I111 ,_-"' � �r ��� "I I1111,111l111111. Go ..n.............. ................: ��I_I I111 r ..... a 'I"I IP j`�111III"��v �, ;I11111,111 111111 __��� Illlu'III 111111 :p �_ J — .". v. ... .. J =o S -��111111111111 �J �� III�I II JI I'III III II I'vi. WQ J .. Y d .......... 'L. I'......1. L—m., l' •- 111'111 11 1111 11 1 _�_ i l l l"I I I'I I I'1 I I"I 11'I 1 co •` a — C :...n.......................... ), W 1, 11,, w - -•."I I I'I 11'II I'I1 I'I I I'll I" W f� GO Mi p ........r........ e....n..) { 0 N - i _ IILIILIIIIIILIII r- co y - ,I II;I11,111111,111, � R • e • ����� L K N ' OC � .000 : d .................... W Lu NH 4 N COU Z� -' :.,I II,II I,III II1,111:_IGo 3('ad U III11111 I11111 aj 0 a z z �< ..... k w m�Z ZUU H2:".II IIII III II111111 I' J 2 m y F H y F d Yi a. O i a. I "'I".... OZOZ-LZ-40 L4:64:11 del 6m1 ZI-) VLZ9\6Mp\-u- oquos •AamoQ ay: - ..................-.1 . _ J............... r....... .......... . -'111,1I1:1II I ll,ll lr'p ^ �_ i-'flflflflflflflflflflflflflflfl& i ❑�p �I I,I II,I 11,111,1II,111,1 �-°1�J � [�flfl _ j0 I1;111,111 111;11 cI I ..............................� —� I I1111,111111e111 N { Ill,lll.11l�l ll,ll lj•� P I ICI I III I11 -� ro _ 111111111111 _ ^' ,Ill,h I,III 111.111 -1 � I111111111111111 .oc J p � ...............r.. .............................. r � If �.. J •`� Nfl flflMlfl lJfl� �� 1I I11�111,1111 II1111111111 W ��9Nn Hvaae _ _ ,I 1 I,111,1 I 1111,11 I 1 y1, � — +11 III..... 11 I111 rr•` ._ i ,111,111,111 III �111 y ai 11 I II 11111111,11111 �•`. >> ..�' °•" _ y O ._ R 11,1 I i,l 11,1 1 I;I 1 I,1 I Ijl M1 � -_- ;II1;111;111711 II IY 7' co M V CPIN .............................. I ....................... �..n — �I II 111111 I11'II1 "p• - •• � -' E •= 1'1 u'1 I I 1 n'1 = G -�' a W a _ i ,1II,111.111 111111 _-- r : Q U �nl.l �I 11•I 11111,111.111�1 •-� .� J w/ u t+ N y Q .............................. .. 1•I I.111.111.1 Ir �I H N W .. .. .. ..�:i�. WVU Z>> '� J = � �I II;111,111 ili,ll l�•. _.,,. Q y a Z= J Q = I II,II I,III�111,111�_ : _I M m 0 H V O IC H �I� 1......M. ............ — W = m Y Q F J J W C I1,1 11,1 I1,1 I I,1 I1�L�J' ' OC y F J y ~ d V Oa 0 i GC _ — : z z a _ _ ,w- (:A � \:� ) 6 a / Is :/ \ \ LO \ e :d3 U�j�. k�k- w-/ § §§ / S e § ! : 2e;§§«- �kgok ■§§ | ] � Ln En V) C-6 m W cUi u N u u U cUi U W tO u N3 U C d y y y w fy men Y w w w u d u v 6 S �, cn A mu ro A m ro q i m M No c w per, m b9 N Ci Q +� ° Q 5 ❑❑ Ln U a 7 c F a 4 Fes+ c .O bC9 y VCi N a C 'xi. U 0 la 0 5 C W [L y A U E o 0 0 o u rn m a .� ( N M 50 rcUi X 0.i c U m m O O O O .o O O O C NN W NN W a o ❑ ❑ 75C-611 TABLE 2 WEEKDAY COMMERCIAL SHARED PARKING DEMAND SUMMARY [11 THE BOWERY, SANTA ANA Land Use Retail Family Restaurant Health Club Shared Parking Demand Comparisonw/ Parking Supply 400 Spaces Sim Pkg Rate[21 44.000 KSF 5 /KSF 24.000 KSF 8 /KSF 6.000 KSF 5.55 /KSF Gross Spaces 220 Spc. 192 Spc. 33 Spc. Time of Day Number of Spaces Number of Spaces Number of Spaces Surplus (Deficiency) 6:00 AM 6 38 23 67 333 7:00 AM 15 69 13 97 303 8:00 AM 39 83 13 135 265 9:00 AM 83 100 23 206 194 10:00 AM 132 113 23 268 132 11:00 AM 166 118 26 310 90 12:00 PM 183 129 20 332 1 68 1:00 PM 190 118 23 331 69 2:00 PM 183 74 23 280 120 3:00 PM 175 64 23 262 138 4:00 PM 175 64 26 265 135 5:00 PM 181 101 29 311 89 6:00 PM 181 105 31 317 83 7:00 PM 181 105 29 315 85 8:00 PM 156 105 25 286 114 9:00 PM 105 81 21 207 193 10:00 PM 61 73 10 144 256 11:00 PM 21 67 3 91 309 12:00 AM 0 36 0 36 364 Notes: [1] Source: ULI-Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," Second Edition, 2005. [21 Parking fates for all land uses based on City Code. N:A4200'.2204274-The Bmwrv.San.Ann ,.,,14274 The Bui ry R,a 'P76CT-612 TABLE 3 WEEKEND COMMERCIAL SHARED PARKING DEMAND SUMMARY [11 THE BOWERY, SANTA ANA Laad Use Retail FamilyRestaurant Health Club Shared Parking Demand Comparisonu'/ Parkins Supply 400 Spaces Size Pk,- Rate[2] 44.000 KSF 5 /KSF 24.000 KSF 8 /IG9F 6.000 KSF 5.55 /KSF Gross Spaces 220 Spc. 192 Spe. 33 Spe. Time of Day Number of Spaces Number of Spaces Number of Spaces Surplus (De$clency) 6:00 AM 6 30 20 56 344 7:OOAM 16 61 11 88 312 8:OOAM 35 95 9 139 261 9:OOAM 83 134 12 229 171 10:00 AM 121 169 9 299 101 11:00 AM 150 169 12 331 69 12:00 PM 178 184 12 374 26 1:00PM 194 161 8 363 37 2:OOPM 211 130 7 348 5'_ 3:00 PM 211 84 8 303 97 4:OOPM 203 91 14 308 92 5:OOPM 192 121 26 339 61 6:00 PM 171 136 25 332 68 7:00 PM 160 136 16 312 88 8:00 PM 141 129 8 278 122 9:00 PM 113 70 3 186 214 10:00 PM 79 58 0 137 263 11:00 PM 32 42 0 74 326 12:00 AM 0 25 0 25 375 Notes: [1] Source: ULI-Urban Laod Imtitute"Slurred Poking."SecondPditiom2005. [2] Perking rates for all land uses based on City Code. N "200'd20•127.1-Th. Bnwery. 5a A, a R,,,,W274 i'he B,,,,,, Reason P750413Pla 05-05-2020 do x TABLE 4 CITY CODE PARKING REQUIREMENT AND COMPOSITE PARKING SUPPLY RATIOS3 THE BOWERY, SANTA ANA No. Of No. Of City of Santa Ana Code Parking Spaces Land Use / Project Description Units Bedrooms Requirement Required The Bowery Apartments o No. of Units 1,100 -- 1 space per unit 1,100 o Studio Units 228 228 1 space per bedroom 228 0 1 Bedroom Units 574 574 1 space per bedroom 574 0 2 Bedroom Units 283 566 1 space per bedroom 566 0 3 Bedroom Units 15 45 1 space per bedroom 45 Total 1,100 1,413 2,513 Guest parking -- -- 25% of total parking required 628 (2,513 x 0.25) A. Total Parking Code Requirement: 3,141 B. Proposed Parking Supply - Constructed: 1,870 C. Proposed 2nd Access (Tandem) Supply 118 D. Proposed "Car Lift" Supply 212 E. Total Proposed Parking Supply [Row B + Row C + Row D] 2,200 F. Parking Surplus/Deficiency (+/-) [Row D - Row A] -941 G. Residential Use Code Composite Parking Demand Ratio (sp/du) [Row A + total DU] 2.86 H. Project "Constructed" Parking Supply Ratio (sp/du) [Row B + total DU] 1.7 I. Project Parking Supply Ratio with 2nd Access Stall (sp/du) [(Row B + Row C) + total ]DU] 1.81 J. Total Project Parking Supply Ratio (sp/du) [Row E + total DU] 2.0 3 Source: City of Santa Ana Municipal Code, Section 41-1322 - Multiple-farnily dwellings. . I_ I' 0l271-Tha Bm, ,, Same A,i.1R, A4274 The Bose,, Revised Po75CP-614— Plan 06.0o-2020 doca TABLE 5 COMPARATIVE PARKING RATIO SUMMARY AND DEMAND THE BOWERY, SANTA ANA Tenant &Guest Tenant & Gueet Peak Parking Saturday Rod.- Daytime Peek Parking Spawn per DU Parking Ratio Coro arable Sim Cite Addrexe Develo meet Somm Facility Parking Supply R¢m8 Sury Peoiod eak Haw (Peak Hour Anion Re Coax 250 Unit Luxury A'...s 438 Spaces 1.75 Build]l Mid -Rise ➢wlding Moo Booloo580 Boulevard l • 802 Bedroom Units Swcture •Reddems-331) - .- (Peak Hoar NIA) - • 170Stodiull Bedroom UNrs •Gmos-108 481 Unit Apartments 1,020 Spares 2 Main Sneer bvkre 2555 Main• 2651 Bedroom Unite Structure •Readerx-847sp. _ Wetlnday &lbarsday 1.4E Village lal ser. • 200 2 Bedroom UNrs . PoblidGunas-173 sp. 10PM-12AM (@ 12:0p AM) • 16 3 BW...m Units 2791hdr Aparmonn 3 279 DNe Complex IMne - -2 Studio Units Gated 600Sparo _ Tureday 1.36 - Ibl • 16218edeo. Units snowere 6PM-1Ab1 (Peak Floor NIA) • 115 2 Bedroom Urdm 403 Uwt Complex 403 Unit Aparmrms Gated Tue.Way In 4 dI IMne - •3261 Bedroom UNw St boare 643 Spasm - 6PM-IAM (Pak Hour N/A) •7372 Bedroom Units 460 460 Urd, Aparurems Geed 6 460 Unit Complex - .2561 Bedroom Units Swcmre, 784 Spans _ Tuesday 1.4 -- del • 204 2 Bedroom Dora Gated 6PM-IW (Peak Hour N/A) Sarface Id 183 Unit Complex 183 Unit Aparomru red Go LI 6 Ibl Fwlerton - • 129 1 Bwimnm Unirx Reside,wal 2E31mJden0 I Sporn Yes _ (Peak Dom N/A) -- • 54 2 Bedroom Units Sooctme 250 Unit Complex 250 Unit Apartments 250 caner! 0.94 7 Ibl Ara - • 1081 Bedroom Urdw Residential 453 Rewdendal Spaces Yes - Hoar N/A) - •t452-3 Bedroom Units S.(Peak Paragon at OM 700& 163 Unit Aparmenu Svface Lot. 404 Spares Wednesday&Thwulay 1.48 6 Town lal Menroehi Myrtle •821➢edfaom Lord.OnStreet •Reshl.-329 _ 6PM-HAM (@ 1I:00 PM) A. • 913 Bedroom Units Parking • PadIc/Guess-7755 sp. 44 N. MITT Unit Apammnrs $m fareeet 480Spares 9 Trio Apommws Paadem Madiean •9fi Studio Units O • Reedenis- 450 sp. - Wednesday&Tbaray sd2E 1. _ lot Avewe • 141 1 Bedroom UNrs arking Parking •Publir/Guests -30 sp. 10PM-HAM (912:W AM) • 117E Bedroom DrnN _ Wednday&Tiansday 10 Adagiocndee Mission 2660 On 25fi Unit Apamrenrs Garage, ilReswents-424 ry. _ 7PM-2AM 1.45 (@290.97 PM At 3:00 Green ldl Vito Parkway Surface Lon . Publielcm.-88 p. Stood, l2PM-3PM. (@12-00AM) PNO ?PM 2AM 28IN 142 Unit Aparomms 294 Spaces Wednesday& Tbumday ll Loiter] Cabot •971 Bedroom Uniw Garage •Readmis-240 sp. _ 7PM-2AM 1.49 L07 Niguel ltll Nb,,1 it Niguel Road •452 Bedroom Untie •Public/Guess-54sp. Saturday. 12PM-3PM (@IL00 PM) (@12:U0 PAO 7PM-2AM 284 Unit Aparorenrs 539 Spaces Wednday & T erod, 12 Apex Lagua U,oa27bor Cabot • Units Garage • Retire. 461 sp. .. .13 Wgre1 (tll NI,el Nlguei Rood 1611 Bo Units •912 .PurIn/Gaests-78 sp' Sand iny:lWM 1@2:00 AM) :00 (@3:00 Ptv� :00 Bedroom •912 Betlr0am Units 7?M-2PM-3PM, 7PM-2AM Average: 1.35 85W Nmen➢lc 1.48 95tb Pemntile: _.�1.61_ _ Additional PorWng Ratio Referenm: ITE ParMeg Gerxva0on. 0rb Edidoo IF I Rho A,.., Average: 0.0 85th Percentile: 1.19 UL1 Shared Parking: Readentiel (Redd) Unit 1.0 Field SnMies in Ontario and Rambo Cuawnga Icl 1.58-1.69 Arredcan Community Survey(ACS) In On io ICI 1.62 Houerbeld Suraex in San Bernardino and Riverade lcl 1.45 Parking Calculation Using Empidal Roles Above (1100 DU's for die The Bowery) Average Demand 11.35a 1100 DDs): 1518 bdr Percent] e Demand (L48x1I00 DDs) _ 1628 95ih pmomo a Demand Lfi1 x 1100 DDs : Notes: lal Start. Parking0emandAnalyxdfor the Pmpa RonvenuHNundngran 0rireMind-UsePmjxtCoo7M rnwa. Cablomie,poaeomtbyLLG. at 2012 Ibl Source: Parking StWylorAM Umng Apmrmem Pmjett. preparM by101 Group. Nov. 201E Id Soma:P-kwgRe7orrrr Made Easy, Richafd W. Willmn,2013 Id) Seance: Coversmllmted by LLG on Dearrber 2016. 75C-615 APPENDIX A 11Ll SHARED PARKING CALCULATION WORKSHEETS 75C-616 Appendix Table 1A SHOPPING CENTER (TYPICAL DAYS) WEEKDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [11 Land Use Shopping Center (Typical Days) Size Pkg Ratel21 44.000 KSF 5 /KSF Mode Adjust Non -Captive Ratio 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Gross Spaces 220 Spaces Shared 177 Guest Spc. 43 Emp, Spc. Time of Day % Of Peak [31 # Of Spaces % Of Peak 131 # Of Spaces Parking Demand 6:00 AM 1 % 2 9% 4 6 7:00 AM 5% 9 14% 6 15 8:00 AM 14% 24 36% IS 39 9:00 AM 32% 54 68% 29 83 10:00 AM 59% 99 77% 33 132 1 L00 AM 77% 129 86% 37 166 12:00 PM 86% 144 90% 39 183 1:00 PM 90% 151 90% 39 190 2:00 PM 86% 144 90% 39 183 3:00 PM 81% 136 90% 39 175 4:00 PM 81% 136 90% 39 175 5:00 PM 86% 144 86% 37 ISL 6:00 PM 86% 144 86% 37 181 7:00 PM 86% 144 86% 37 191 8:00 PM 72% 121 81% 35 156 9:00 PM 45% 76 68% 29 105 10:OOPM 27% 46 36% 15 61 11:00 PM 9% 15 14% 6 21 12:00 AM 0% 0 0% 0 0 Notes: [ 11 Source: ULI - Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," Second Edition, 2005. [2] Parking rates for all land uses based on City code. [3] Percentage of peak parking demand factors reflect relationships between weekday parking demand ratios and peak parking demand ratios, as summarized in Table 2-2 of the "Shared Parking" manual. 75C-617 Appendix Table 2A SHOPPING CENTER (TYPICAL DAYS) WEEKEND SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1] Land Use Shopping Center (Typical Days) Size Pkg Rate[2] 44.000 KSF 5 /KSF Mode Adjust Non -Captive Ratio 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Gross Spaces 220 Spaces Shared 176 Guest Spc. 44 Emp. Spc. Time of Day % Of Peak [3] # Of Spaces % Of Peak [31 # Of Spaces Parking Demand 6:00 AM I% 2 10% 4 6 7:00 AM 5% 9 15% 7 16 8,00 AM 10% 17 40% 18 35 9:00 AM 30% 50 75% 33 83 10:00 AM 50% 84 85% 37 121 11:00 AM 65% 108 95% 42 150 12,00 PM 80% 134 100% 44 178 1:00 PM 90% 150 100% 44 194 2:00 PM 100% 167 100% 44 211 3:00 PM 100% 167 100% 44 211 4:00 PM 95% 159 100% 44 203 5:00 PM 90% 150 95% 42 192 6:00 PM 80% 134 85% 37 171 7:00 PM 75% 125 80% 35 160 8:00 PM 65% 108 75% 33 141 9:00 PM 50% 84 65% 29 ll3 10:00 PM 35% 59 45% 20 79 1100 PM 15% 25 15% 7 32 12:00AM 0% 0 0% 0 0 Notes: [ t] Source: ULI - Urban land institute "Shared Parking," Second Edition, 2005. [2] Puking rates for a0 land uses based on City code. [3] Percentage of peak parking demand factors reflect relationships between weekday parking demand ratios and peak parking demand ratios, as summarized in Table 2-2 of the "Shared Parking" manual. 75C-618 Appendix Table 3A FAMILY RESTAURANT WEEKDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [11 Land Use Family Restaurant Size Pkg Rate[2] 24.000 KSF 8 /KSF Mode Adjust Non -Captive Ratio 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Gross Spaces 192 Spaces Shared 165 Guest Spc. 27 Emp. Stir. Time of Day % Of Peak ]3] # Of Spaces % Of Peak [31 # Of Spaces Parking Demand 6:00 AM 18% 29 35% 9 38 7:00 AM 35% 55 53% 14 69 8:00 AM 42% 66 63% 17 83 9:00 AM 53% 83 63% 17 100 I0:00 AM 60% 94 70% 19 113 11:00 AM 63% 99 70% 19 118 12:00 PM 70% 110 70% 19 129 1:00 PM 63% 99 70% 19 118 2,00 PM 35% 55 70% 19 74 3:00 PM 32% 50 53% 14 64 4:00 PM 32% 50 53% 14 64 5:00 PM 53% 83 67% 18 101 6:00 PM 56% 87 67% 18 105 7:00 PM 56% 87 67% 18 105 8:00 PM 56% 87 67% 18 9:00 PM 42% 66 56% 1510:00 PM 39% 61 46% 12 d36 11:00 PM 35% 55 46% 12 12:00 AM 19% 29 25% 7 Notes: [l] Source: ULI - Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," Second Edition, 2005. [21 Parking rates for all land uses based on City code. [3] Percentage of peak parking demand factors reflect relationships between weekday parking demand ratios and peak parking demand ratios, as summarized in Table 2-2 of the "Shared Parking" manual. 75C-619 Appendix Table 4A FAMILY RESTAURANT WEEKEND SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS Ill Land Use Family Restaurant Size Pkg Rate[2l 24.000 KSF 8 IKSF Mode Adjust Non -Captive Ratio 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Gross Spaces 192 Spaces Shared 163 Guest Sin. 29 Emp. Spc. Time of Day % Of Peak [31 # Of Spaces % Of Peak [31 # Of Spaces Parking Demand 6:00 AM 10 % 15 50% 15 30 7:00 AM 25% 39 75% 22 61 8:00 AM 45% 69 90 % 26 95 9:00 AM 70 % 108 90% 26 134 10:00 AM 90 % 140 100% 29 169 11:00 AM 90% 140 100% 29 169 12:00 PM 100% 155 100% 29 184 1:00 PM 85 % 132 100% 29 161 2:00 PM 65% 101 100% 29 130 3:00 PM 40% 62 75% 22 84 4:00 PM 45% 69 75% 22 91 5:00 PM 60 % 93 95% 28 121 6:00 PM 70% 108 95% 28 136 7:00 PM 70% 108 95% 28 136 8:00 PM 65% 101 95% 28 129 9:00 PM 30% 47 80% 23 70 10:00 PM 25% 39 65% 19 58 1100 PM 15% 23 65% 19 42 12:00 AM 109% 15 35% 10 25 Notes: [I] Source: ULI - Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," Second Edition, 2005. [2] Parking rates for all land uses based on City code. [3] Percentage of peak parking demand factors reflect relationships between weekday parking demand ratios and peak parking demand ratios, as summarized in Table 2-2 of the "Shared Parking" manual. 75C-620 Appendix Table 5A HEALTH CLUB WEEKDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [11 Land Use Health Club Size Pkg Rate[2] 6.000 KSF 6 /KSF Mode Adjust Non -Captive Ratio 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Gross Spaces 33 Spaces Shared 31 Guest Spc. 2 Emp. Spc. Time of Day %Of Peak 131 9Of Spaces % Of Peak [31 kOf Spaces Parking Demand 6:00 AM 70% 21 75% 2 23 7:00 AM 40% 11 75% 2 13 8:00 AM 40% 11 75% 2 13 9:00 AM 70% 21 75/ 2 23 10:00 AM 70% 21 75% 2 23 11:00 AM 80% 24 75% 2 26 12:00 PM 60% 18 75% 2 20 1:00 PM 70% 21 75% 2 23 2:00 PM 70% 21 75% 2 23 3:00 PM 70% 21 75% 2 23 4:00 PM 80% 24 75% 2 26 5:00 PM 90% 27 100% 2 29 6:00 PM 100% 29 100% 2 31 7:00 PM 90% 27 75% 2 29 8:00 PM 80% 24 50% l 25 9:00 PM 70% 21 20% 0 21 10:00 PM 35% 10 20% 0 10 I1:00 PM 10% 3 20% 0 3 12:00 AM 0% 0 0% 0 0 Notes: [11 Source: ULI - Urban land Institute "Shared Puking," Second Edition, 2005. [21 Parking rates for all land uses based on City code. [31 Percentage of peak parking demand factors reflect relationships between weekday parking demand ratios and peak parking demand ratios, as summarized in Table 2-2 of the "Shared Parking" mutual. 75C-621 Appendix Table 6A HEALTH CLUB WEEKEND SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [11 Land Use Dealth Club Sue Pkg Rate[21 6.000 KSF 6 /KSF Mode Adjust Non -Captive Ratio 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Gross Spaces 33 Spaces Shared 32 Guest Spc. I Emp. Spc. Time of Day % Of Peak 131 # Of Spaces % Of Peak 131 # Of Spaces Parking Demand 6:00 AM 66% 20 41% 0 20 7:00 AM 37% 11 41% 0 11 8:00 AM 29% 9 41% 0 9 9:00 AM 41% 12 41% 0 12 10:00 AM 29% 9 41% 0 9 11:00 AM 41% 12 41% 0 12 12:00 PM 41% 12 41% 0 12 1:00 PM 25% 8 41% 0 8 2:00 PM 21% 7 41% 0 7 3:00 PM 25% 8 41% 0 8 4:00 PM 45% 13 62% 1 14 5:00 PM 82% 25 82% 1 26 6:00 PM 78 % 24 82% 1 25 7:00 PM 49 % 15 62% 1 16 8:00 PM 25% 8 41% 0 8 9:00 PM 8% 3 16% 0 3 10:00 PM 1% 0 16% 0 0 11:00 PM I 0 16% 0 0 12:00 AM 0% 0 0% 0 0 Notes: 11] Source: ULI - Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," Second Edition, 2005. [2] Puking rates for all land uses based on City code. [3] Percentage of peak parking demand factors reflect relationships between weekday parking demand ratios and peak puking demand ratios, as summarized in Table 2-2 of the "Shared Parking" manual. 75C-622 EXHIBIT 11 75C-623 A_COM Imagine d. � Delivered. Santa Ana "The Bowery" Mixed -Use Development at 2300 S. Redhill Avenue Economic and Fiscal Analysis City of Santa Ana April 28, 2020 Economics General Limiting Conditions AECOM devoted the level of effort consistent with (i) the level of diligence ordinarily exercised by competent professionals practicing in the area under the same or similar circumstances, and (ii) consistent with the time and budget available for the Services to develop the Deliverables. The Deliverables are based on estimates, assumptions, information developed by AECOM from its independent research effort, general knowledge of the industry, and information provided by and consultations with Client and Client's representatives. No responsibility is assumed for inaccuracies in data provided by the Client, the Client's representatives, or any third -party data source used in preparing or presenting the Deliverables. AECOM assumes no duty to update the information contained in the Deliverables unless such additional services are separately retained pursuant to a written agreement signed by AECOM and Client. AECOM's findings represent its professional judgment. Neither AECOM nor its parent corporations, nor their respective affiliates or subsidiaries ("AECOM Entities") make any warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, with respect to any information or methods contained in or used to produce the Deliverables. The Deliverables shall not to be used in conjunction with any public or private offering of securities, debt, equity, or other similar purpose where it may be relied upon to any degree by any person other than the Client. The Deliverables shall not be used for purposes other than those for which they were prepared or for which prior written consent has been obtained from AECOM. Possession of the Deliverables does not carry with it any right of publication or the right to use the name of 'AECOM" in any manner without the prior express written consent of AECOM. No party may reference AECOM with regard to any abstract, excerpt or summarization of the Deliverables without the prior written consent of AECOM. AECOM has served solely in the capacity of consultant and has not rendered any expert opinions in connection with the subject matter hereof. Any changes made to the Deliverables, or any use of the Deliverables not specifically identified in the Agreement between the Client and AECOM or otherwise expressly approved in writing by AECOM, shall be at the sole risk of the party making such changes or use. The Deliverables were prepared solely for the use by the Client. No third party may rely on the Deliverables unless expressly authorized by AECOM in writing (including, without limitation, in the form of a formal reliance letter. Any third party expressly authorized by AECOM in writing to rely on the Deliverables may do so only on the Deliverable in its entirety and not on any abstract, excerpt or summary. Entitlement to rely upon the Deliverables is conditioned upon the entitled party accepting full responsibility for such use, strict compliance with this Agreement and not holding AECOM liable in any way for any impacts on the forecasts or the earnings resulting from changes in "external" factors such as changes in government policy, in the pricing of commodities and materials, changes in market conditions, price levels generally, competitive alternatives to the project, the behavior of consumers or competitors and changes in the Client's policies affecting the operation of their projects. The Deliverables may include "forward -looking statements". These statements relate to AECOM's expectations, beliefs, intentions or strategies regarding the future. These statements may be identified by the use of words like "anticipate," "believe," "estimate," "expect," "intend," "may," "plan," "project," "will," "should," "seek," and similar expressions. The forward -looking statements reflect AECOM's views and assumptions with respect to future events as of the date of the Deliverables and are subject to future economic conditions, and other risks and uncertainties. Actual and future results and trends could differ materially from those set forth in such statements due to various factors, including, without limitation, those discussed in the Deliverables. These factors are beyond AECOM's ability to control or predict. Accordingly, AECOM makes no warranty or representation that any of the projected values or results contained in the Deliverables will actually occur or be achieved. The Deliverables are qualified in their entirety by, and should be considered in light of, these limitations, conditions and considerations. 75C-625 Prepared for: City of Santa Ana Prepared by: AECOM 401 West A Street Suite 120 San Diego, CA 92101 aecom.com Copyright© 2020 by AECOM All rights reserved. No part of this copyrighted work may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of AECOM. 75C-626 Table of Contents 1. Introduction........................................................................................................... 6 KeyFindings..................................................................................................................................................................6 Discussion...................................................................................................................................................................... 7 2. Market Assessment.............................................................................................. 8 ProjectMarket Context...................................................................................................................................................8 DemographicTrends....................................................................................................................................................10 MarketTrends.............................................................................................................................................................. 11 1 nd ustrial......................................................................................................................................................................12 Flex..............................................................................................................................................................................14 Multifamily....................................................................................................................................................................15 Retail............................................................................................................................................................................17 IndustrialMarket Demand............................................................................................................................................19 RetailDemand............................................................................................................................................................. 21 3. Development Feasibility..................................................................................... 24 4. Economic Impact................................................................................................ 26 5. Fiscal Impact...................................................................................................... 32 Appendix A Document copies........................................................................................ 36 DevelopmentFeasibility Analysis.................................................................................................................................36 Industrial Prototype Relevant Comparisons.................................................................................................................39 ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 39 ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 39 FiscalImpact Tables..................................................................................................................................................... 40 Figures Figure 1: Market Context for the Project........................................................................................................................8 Figure 2: Recent Multifamily Development and Pipeline..............................................................................................10 Figure 3: 2-mile Radius around the proposed site of The Project ................................................................................12 Figure4: Industrial Vacancy.........................................................................................................................................12 Figure5: Industrial Vacancy.........................................................................................................................................13 Figure6: Flexy Vacancy...............................................................................................................................................14 Figure7: Flex Rent.......................................................................................................................................................14 Figure8: MFR Vacancy................................................................................................................................................15 Figure9: MFR Rent per SF..........................................................................................................................................16 Figure10: MFR Rent per Unit......................................................................................................................................16 Figure11: Retail Vacancy.............................................................................................................................................17 Figure12: Retail Rent..................................................................................................................................................18 Figure 13: Orange County Projected Growth...............................................................................................................20 Figure14: Residual Land Value...................................................................................................................................24 Figure 15: Top Sectors of Economic Impact - Project..................................................................................................30 Figure 16: Top Sectors of Economic Impact - Industrial Prototype...............................................................................31 75C-627 I F17 LM Table 1: Inventory and Growth in 3 Districts...................................................................................................................9 Table 2: Current Development Pipeline in 3 Districts...................................................................................................10 Table 3: Projected Household Growth.......................................................................................................................... 11 Table 4: Projected Employment Growth....................................................................................................................... 11 Table 5: Industrial Inventory and Growth 2000-19........................................................................................................13 Table 6: Flex Inventory and Growth 2000-19...............................................................................................................15 Table 7: Multifamily Inventory and Growth 2000-19.....................................................................................................17 Table 8: Retail Inventory and Growth 2000-19.............................................................................................................18 Table9: Employment by Sector....................................................................................................................................19 Table 10: Santa Ana Projected Industrial Employment.................................................................................................21 Table 11: Retail Expenditures - Households.................................................................................................................22 Table 12: Retail Expenditures - Employees..................................................................................................................22 Table 13: Retail Expenditures - Hotels.........................................................................................................................23 Table 14: Retail Expenditures Total..............................................................................................................................23 Table 15: Residual Land Value Summary....................................................................................................................24 Table 16: Recent Sales Transactions...........................................................................................................................25 Table 17: Project Construction Economic Impacts.......................................................................................................26 Table 18: Industrial Prototype Construction Economic Impacts...................................................................................27 Table 19: Project Operations Economic Impact............................................................................................................28 Table 20: Industrial Prototype Operations Economic Impact........................................................................................29 Table 21: Industrial Prototype Occupations..................................................................................................................31 Table22: Fiscal Impacts- Project................................................................................................................................32 Table 23: Fiscal Impacts- Industrial Prototype.............................................................................................................32 Table 24: Fiscal Expenditures - Project........................................................................................................................33 Table 25: Fiscal Expenditures - Industrial Prototype....................................................................................................34 75C-628 1. Introduction The City of Santa Ana (The "City") is seeking to analyze the potential development feasibility and fiscal and economic impacts of a proposed mix -used residential and retail development on approximately 14.69 acres of land on two parcels (430-222-16 and 430-222-07) at 2300, 2310, and 2320 Redhill Avenue (hereafter referred to as the Site) compared to an alternative light -industrial project that would comply with the maximum allowable density under the existing zoning. The proposed mixed -use project (hereafter referred to as the "Project") comprises 1,110 dwelling units and 80,000 square feet (SF) of retail space, along with communal space for residents and a mix of surface and structured parking. Current uses of the Site include 3 buildings with approximately 212,000 SF of light industrial and flex space built in 1979 and 1981, surface parking, and vacant land. To establish a relevant comparison for high-level planning purposes, AECOM developed a light industrial prototype (hereafter referred to as Industrial Prototype) of new light industrial/flex space with approximately 320,000 SF of rentable building area (RBA) according to current zoning specifications. The development of the Industrial Prototype allows an analysis of the development feasibility of the Project compared to the Industrial Prototype and the estimation of their respective economic and fiscal impacts. The major components of AECOM's analysis are as follows: • Market assessment - A review of market trends for residential, retail, and industrial land uses in the market area and an assessment of supportable demand for the two alternatives, the Project and the Industrial Prototype, by land use • Development feasibility analysis - A residual land value analysis of the development feasibility of the two alternatives that estimates the highest and best use of the Site from a development perspective • Economic impact analysis - An estimate of the economic impacts from construction and operations of the two alternatives • Fiscal impact analysis — An estimate of the ongoing fiscal impacts of the two alternatives on the City of Santa Ana General Fund Key Findings Residential Market Assessment —The Project is oriented towards development patterns occurring in adjacent areas in the cities of Tustin and Irvine that have seen an expansion in mixed -use properties and other uses beyond industrial and office. Newer multifamily properties in the area are characterized by rents more reflective of Orange County market rate properties, lowvacancy rates, and strong absorption of new units. Industrial Market Assessment— Demand for incremental industrial space is driven by employment growth in sectors concentrated in industrial land uses, including Manufacturing, Wholesale Trade and Professional/Technical/Scientific Services in which the City of Santa Ana has relatively large concentrations. Based on projected employment growth, Santa Ana could experience incremental demand of approximately 2.2 million SF of new industrial space by 2026. In the vicinity of the Site, rents for industrial properties have increased by 24% since 2010 after adjusting for inflation and vacancy rates have been below the threshold for structural occupancy. Retail Market Assessment— Demand for retail space in the Project is driven by local spending patterns of residents, workers, and hotel guests in the vicinity of the Site. It is estimated the Project could support between 65,000-80,000 square feet of new retail space under current conditions and between 80,000-96,000 square feet at buildout of development currently in the known pipeline within a 2-mile radius of the project. Development Feasibility — Both the Project and Industrial Prototype yield positive and high residual land values (RLV), indicating strong development feasibility. RLV is a method used to determine the value and potential feasibility of a property by estimating the value of the land that remains after factoring in the costs of developing, maintaining and selling the property. AECOM developed pro-formas to compare the development costs and market value of both projects and estimated that the Project would yield an RLV of approximately $65 million ($100/SF of land) and the 75C-629 Industrial Prototype would yield an RLV of approximately $17 million ($26/SF of land). Current market conditions indicate that development of both projects would be feasible. Economic Impact—AECOM estimated the economic impacts both of construction and ongoing operations (normalized to 2019) at stable occupancy for the Project and Industrial Prototype for the City of Santa Ana and Orange County. Due to greater construction costs and scale, the estimated one-time construction economic impacts the Project ($498 million) to the City of Santa Ana is greater than the impact of the construction of the Industrial Prototype ($76 million). On the other hand, due to the larger quantity of jobs that generate value to the economy, the estimated annual economic impact of the ongoing operations of the Industrial Prototype ($153 million) to the City of Santa Ana is greater than that of the ongoing operations of The Project ($58 million). Ongoing operations 'of the Project are estimated to generate over 1,200 jobs in Orange County annually, 349 of which could be captured by Santa Ana. These jobs are likely to be concentrated in Retail, Restaurants, Wholesale Trade and Real Estate with low to medium average annual wages. Ongoing operations of the Industrial Prototype are estimated to generate over 1,400 jobs in Orange County, 638 of which could be captured by Santa Ana. These jobs are likely to be concentrated in Architecture and Engineering, Scientific Research and Development and Wholesale trade with medium to high average annual wages. Fiscal Impact —AECOM estimated the potential revenues to the City's General Fund from ongoing operations of the Project and Industrial Prototype, both of which are expected to generate a net fiscal surplus. The Project could generate an estimated $2.5 million in annual revenue to the City and cost $1.5 million in expenditures, resulting in an annual net fiscal surplus of approximately $1 million. The Industrial Prototype could generate an estimated $710,000 in annual revenue to the City and $185,000 in expenditures, resulting in an annual net fiscal surplus of approximately $525,000. Calculations for expenditures are based on an estimated service population2 of approximately 2,300 for The Project and 300 for the Industrial Prototype. Discussion The market analysis provides evidence that both the Project and the Industrial Prototype would likely experience sufficient market demand to warrant development interest and attract tenants to the buildout project with strong rents and low vacancy rates. The development feasibility shows that under these market conditions, both alternatives yield positive residual land values (RLV) through a proforma analysis. The Project yields a higher RLV than the Industrial Prototype, but it also requires a much larger investment from the developer and could require further entitlements or impact fee assessments before construction could commence. The economic impact of the Industrial Prototype is larger than that of the Project, both in terms of employment and total economic output. The median salary of the jobs produced by the Industrial Prototype likely to accrue to the City of Santa Ana are also higher than those created by the Project. The fiscal impact of the Project is greater than that of the Industrial Prototype on both sides of the City's balance sheet (expenditures and revenues). As such, the net fiscal benefit to the City of the Project is greater than that of the Industrial Prototype, but the City would also endure greater costs to extend services to the Project's residents and employees. This results in a Revenue to Expenditure Ratio of approximately 1.6:1 for the Project and 3.8:1 for the Industrial Prototype. While the Project would likely create a greater net fiscal benefit, the greater expenditures to the City could warrant further discussion of cost allocation. The existing conditions of the industrial buildings at 2300, 2310, and 2320 Redhill Ave in Santa Ana are generally considered to be underperforming in the market and are not achieving the highest and best use for the two parcels (APN's 43-222-07 and 43-2222-16) under currently allowable land use designations. According to Costar, the three buildings encompass approximately 212,000 square feet of warehouse and light manufacturing space built in 1979 and 1981, and a significant portion of one parcel lies vacant. Private investment into the land could achieve greater economics of scale and attract a high -end industrial client who demands updated, modern facilities. This would allow for a single tenant to maximize economic output in this industrial space. Through discussions with the City, AECOM developed the Industrial Prototype that would raise the assessed value, square feet of usable space, and employment to allow a more significant benefit/cost comparison to the Project at full buildout. Ongoing operations are understood to be annually recurring impacts once the projects are built out, or permanent jobs and economic outputs as long as operations continue 2 The service population consists of all residents and a percentage allocation of workers based on residency and operating hours of Santa Ana residents and workers 75C-630 2. Market Assessment Project Market Context The Site is located at the southeast corner of the City of Santa Ana in an area with a large concentration of industrial, flex, and office buildings at the intersection of 3 municipalities: Santa Ana, Tustin, and Irvine. While this district of Santa Ana (hereafter referred to as Dyer South) has a long history of these land uses, recent trends have seen a significant and growing addition of retail and residential properties to the local area inventory. Both the cities of Tustin and Irvine have developed plans (Tustin Legacy Specific Plan and the Irvine Business Complex Vision Plan) to encourage mixed -use development that includes residential, professional office, retail, flex, industrial, hospitality and institutional uses. (Figure 1). These plans identify maximum densities and quantities of land uses at buildout. Figure 1: Market Context for the Project Source: Google Earth, AECOM Both the Irvine Business Complex and Dyer South have a considerable existing inventory of industrial, flex, and office uses with an established history, but limited growth has occurred in these areas since 2010, with the exception of multifamily residences in the Irvine Business Complex. Tustin Legacy sits on the site of a former Marine Corps Air Station that saw the development of approximately 1 million SF of retail along its periphery but no other significant development prior to the adoption of the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan in 2013. Since then, approximately 88,000 SF of new retail space has been delivered along with over 500,000 SF of office space and nearly 1,000 multifamily units. Details on the current inventory and growth in these 3 districts since 2000 are shown in Table 1. The existing inventory, and potential future growth of the land uses included in this local area, factors substantially into the assessment of supportable demand for the Project's proposed land uses, especially as it pertains to retail. While the Project includes a substantial amount of retail, 80,000 SF, it is neither currently planned nor envisioned to be a component of a major retail hub. As such, the Project's retail component is not expected to be directly competitive with nearby regional malls or districts that are drawing on the regional market. Instead, its retail component appears to be oriented towards capturing a portion of demand from future Project households, demand from existing households and incremental household growth in the local area (such as the Heritage and growth in the Tustin Legacy area), and existing employment and incremental employment growth in the local area. Residential 75C-631 demand is expected to be more regional in nature given the Project's accessibility and proximity to centers of employment, the increasingly regional nature of the housing market, and the Project's market rate rental profile. Table 1: Inventory and Growth in 3 Districts Inventory and Growth in 3 Districts Dyer South Irvine Bus Com Tustin Legacy Multifamily 2019 Inventory (Units) 0 8,592 998 Growth 2010-19 (Units) 0 4,086 998 Growth Since 2010 (%) 0% 48% 100% Retail 2019 Inventory (SF) 133,789 1,181,459 1,067,109 Growth 2010-19 (SF) 0 26,699 88,465 Growth 2010-19 (%) 0% 2% 8% Office 2019 Inventory (SF) 1,939,711 20,428,286 517,217 Growth 2010-19 (SF) 0 787,290 517,217 Growth 2010-19 (%) 0% 4% 100% Industrial 2019 Inventory (SF) 1,969,114 10,699,791 0 Growth 2010-19 (SF) 0 51,450 0 Growth 2010-19 (%) 0% 0.5% 0% Flex 2019 Inventory (SF) 1,133,883 6,180,044 0 Growth 2010-19 (SF) 9,000 13,530 0 Growth 2010-19 % 0.8% 0.2% 0% Source: Costar, AECOM There has been significant growth of multifamily dwelling units in the 3 districts since 2010, and an additional 5,694 units are in the current development pipeline, representing a further 50% growth in total inventory. Numerous commercial projects are currently proposed or under construction in the 3 districts, including over 530,000 SF of office, 230,000 SF of flex, and 420,000 SF of healthcare related facilities. Table 2 shows the current development pipeline for the 3 districts. Figure 2 shows the recent construction and pipeline MFR projects in the vicinity of the Dyer South Focus Area. 75C-632 Figure 2: Recent Multifamily Development and Pipeline Source: ESRI, Costar, AECOM Table 2: Current Development Pipeline in 3 Districts Current Development Pipeline in 3 Districts Dyer South Irvine Bus Com Tustin Legacy Total Multifamily(units) 1,221* 4,473 0 5,694 Retail (SF) 25,200 37,816 0 63,016 Office (SF) 56,000 426,000 50,000 532,000 Flex (SF) 0 239,000 0 239,000 Hotel (rooms) 0 168 0 168 Health Care SF 0 424,413 0 424,413 * These are units associated with the Heritage project which are currently included in the Co Star pipeline. Source: Costar, AECOM The recent and proposed development patterns occurring in the adjacent areas indicate a general shift from traditional industrial uses towards more residential and mixed -use development. Nonetheless, the region within a 2- mile radius of the Site maintains a strong concentration of industrial and professional office space that generates employment and economic growth for the County and, coupled with the existing inventory of these uses and existing residential units, forms the backbone of potential quantifiable supportable retail demand. For this reason, AECOM has analyzed demographic trends and projections from a variety of geographies to better contextualize the demand for both the proposed uses of the Project and the Industrial Prototype. Demographic Trends SCAG projections estimate that Santa Ana will experience limited growth in households and employment between 2020 and 2040, however, there is already more residential inventory in the Santa Ana pipeline than is included in these forecast estimates for this entire timeframe. Residential vacancy rates in Santa Ana and Orange County have consistently remained below structural occupancy and, as already noted, the Project's residential orientation is towards the Orange County housing market and to some extent the region beyond. As such, continued growth of 75C-633 Orange County households and employment are expected to be major drivers of demand for residential uses at the Site, while retail demand is expected to be driven more by local growth. Table 3: Projected Household Growth Projected Household Growth 2012 2020 2035 2040 202040 Growth Irvine 81,835 109,488 122,088 123,364 13% Santa Ana 73,261 74,886 75,471 75,831 1% Tustin 25,568 27,234 27,778 27,940 3% Orange County 999,361 1,073,174 1,136,745 1,153,713 8% Source: SCAG, AECOM The proposed unit mix of the Project includes 228 studios, 574 1-bedroom, 283 2-bedroom units and 15 3-bedroom units, which suggests orientation towards singles and young families that differ significantly in demographic features from the relatively large average Santa Ana household size of approximately 4.4 members per household (accordinc to US Census Bureau ACS 5-year estimates). Table 4: Projected Employment Growth Projected Employment Growth 2012 2020 2035 2040 2020-40 Growth Irvine 224,435 280,649 313,960 320,033 14% Santa Ana 154,800 160,604 165,159 165,975 3% Tustin 37,616 51,818 64,599 66,425 28% Orange County 1,526,227 1,730,085 1,870,025 1,898,685 10% Source: SCAG, AECOM Employment in the City of Santa Ana is projected to grow at just 3% overall between 2020 and 2040. During the same time period SCAG estimates Orange County will see a 14% increase in overall employment while growth in Irvine and Tustin is estimated to be 10% and 28% respectively over the same period. Demand for industrial, flex or other commercial uses at the Site will result from this wider growth, and the significant industrial/flex/office cluster in Dyer South and the neighboring districts is potentially positioned to capture a portion of this growth. Market Trends While demand for residential and industrial uses is expected to draw on regional growth primarily from Orange County, detailed characteristics of the retail market potential of the Site is expected to be more reflective of trends in the immediate market area, or approximately a 2-mile radius around the Site. The 2-mile radius encompasses the entirety of the Dyer South and Tustin Legacy districts, approximately 2/3 of the Irvine Business Complex, and the cluster of industrial land uses in southeastern Santa Ana. Trends such as vacancy rates, average rents, and inventory growth in the 2-mile radius of the various proposed land -uses offer insights that could determine the development feasibility of the Project and the Industrial Prototype. Figure 3 shows the geographical context of the 2-mile radius. 75C-634 !!. }• t �•���rsyr'c`, �' ass A/ .r. � w ,aa III.1' 'asp • .. Figure 5: Industrial Vacancy Industrial Rent (NNN/SFNear) $14.00 o $12.00 18.83 I $10.00 rn $8.00 ,$9.14 Q 0 $6.00 -- 0 $4.00 -- rn $2.00 o $0.00 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 —2-Mile Radius —Orange County Source: Costar, BLS, AECOM The industrial vacancy rates for the 2-mile radius have consistently tracked those of the Orange County market as a whole and, as of 2018, were lower (2.7%) than that of Orange County (3.7%). These vacancy rates have remained relatively stable since 2000 with slight fluctuations that correlate with periods of recession. Despite relative economic downturns, the vacancy rate has remained below the industry standard full structural occupancy rate of 10% associated with industrial uses. This indicates a healthy industrial market. Similarly, industrial rent in the 2-mile radius has been historically similar or higher than that of Orange County through 2016. The rent (NNN/SF/year) in Orange County was higher ($10.83) than that of the 2-mile radius ($9.74) at the end of 2018. A Triple Net lease (NNN) is a lease agreement wherein the tenant pays all property expenses (taxes, insurance, maintenance) in addition to rent and utilities. NNN agreements are typical of industrial and retail properties that rent to a variety of businesses with different demands on the property. Adjusted for inflation, industrial rent increased 24% in the 2-Mile Radius and 44% in Orange County from 2010-2018, again indicating a healthy industrial market. Table 5: Industrial Inventory and Growth 2000-19 Industrial Inventory and Growth 2000-2019 2-Mile Radius Orange County Inventory 28,456,795 232,289,991 Share of OC 12% 100% Growth 2010-19 (SF) 51,450 6,482,042 Growth 2010-19 (%) 0.2% 2.8% Share of OC Growth 0.8% 100% Source: Costar, AECOM The 2-mile radius represents a significant portion (12%) of Orange County's total industrial inventory, however, growth has been minimal since 2010 (<1%). While the Orange County growth of industrial space has been more robust in the same timeframe it has also not grown substantially. This trend is largely consistent with national transformational trends in the industrial and manufacturing market where employment growth has generally been tepid as a result of increasing automation. This has dampened the demand for traditional industrial space in recent years even as output has grown substantially. 75C-636 Flex Figure 6: Flexy Vacancy 12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% 2000 Flex Vacancy 5.6% 3.6% 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 —2-Mile Radius —Orange County Source: Costar, AECOM Figure 7: Flex Rent Flex Rent (NNN/SFNear $25.00 o $20.00 L $16.24 $15.00 Q o $10.00 $5.00 rn 0 N $0.00 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 —2-Mile Radius —Orange County Source: Costar, AECOM Flex properties are designed for versatility, combining professional office space with some combination of research and development, industrial, warehouse and retail. Flex buildings are sometimes called Tech or Incubator space. The versatility of this space has also resulted in vacancy rates that have experienced some volatility since 2000. The vacancy rate for the 2-mile radius was higher (5.6%) than that of Orange County (3.6%) at the end of 2018, both of which are much lower than their 2010 peaks above 10% and 9% respectively. 75C-637 Flex rent in the 2-mile radius has been historically higher than industrial properties, which also tend to be larger on average. The 2-mile radius has tracked the trend of Orange County and was $16.24 (NNN/SF/year) for both geographies at the end of 2018. Adjusted for inflation, Industrial rent increased 27% in the 2-Mile Radius and 22% in Orange County from 2010-2018, again indicating a healthy industrial market. Table 6: Flex Inventory and Growth 2000-19 Flex Inventory and Growth 2000-2019 2-Mile Radius Orange County Inventory 10,887,724 67,826,884 Share of OC 16% 100% Growth 2010-19 (SF) 22,530 159,713 Growth 2010-19 (%) 0.2% 0.2% Share of OC Growth 14% 100% Source: Costar, AECOM While the 2-mile radius represent a significant portion (16%) of Orange County's total flex inventory, growth has been minimal since 2010 (<1 %). Nonetheless, growth across Orange County for flex space has been very low (<1 %) and the 2-mile radius has captured 14% of this limited growth. As shown in Table 2, a single project in the current pipeline will add over 230,000 SF of flex space to the 2-mile radius, greater than total inventory growth for all of Orange County since 2010. Many of the same factors that are impacting traditional industrial space are also dampening demand for flex space. Multifamily Figure 8: MFR Vacancy MFR Vacancy 10.0% 9.0% 8.0% - 7.0% _ 6.0% 5.0% 4.0% 4.7% 3.0% 2.0% -. 1.0% 0.0% 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 —2-Mile Radius —Orange County Source: Costar, AECOM 75C-638 Figure 9: MFR Rent per SF MFR Rent (Effective/SF/Month) w $2.50 $2.24 0 $2.00 LD $1.50 = a o $1.00 $0.50 = rn o $0.00 — 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 —2-Mile Radius —Orange County Source: Costar, BLS, AECOM Figure 10: MFR Rent per Unit MFR Rent (Effective/Unit/Month) fn $2,500 M o $1,998 $2,000 L a 928 z $1,500 Q o $1,000 m $500 0 N $0 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 —2-Mile Radius —Orange County Source: Costar, BLS, AECOM While the multifamily vacancy rate of the 2-mile radius has risen following additions of inventory around 2008, 2014 and 2018, the market has absorbed these units fairly quickly as the rate stabilizes between 3%-5% (Inventory has grown 27% since 2010, see Table 2.7 below). Multifamily rent for both geographies has increased gradually since 2000 and was found to be approximately $2.24 per SF or $1,998 and $1,928 in the 2-mile radius and Orange County respectively at the end of 2018. After adjusting for inflation, this represents approximately a 17% increase in rent for both geographies and has pushed inflation adjusted average rents slightly above their previous peak prior to the last recession. Rent per unit is helpful to assess the health of a market, while rent per SF is an important input for the development feasibility analysis modeling of the Project in the following sections. 75C-639 Table 7: Multifamily Inventory and Growth 2000-19 Multifamily Inventory and Growth 2000-2019 2-Mile Radius Orange County Inventory 13,331 302,327 Share of OC 4% 100% Growth 2010-19 (Units) 3,554 31,251 Growth 2010-19 (%) 27% 10% I Source: Costar, AECOM I The strong growth numbers, along with lowvacancy rates and climbing inflation adjusted rents indicate a healthy multifamily market. While the 2-mile radius comprises only 4% of the total inventory of multifamily units in Orange County, it accounts for 11 % of total growth since 2010, reflecting the ongoing transformation of this area into both a residential and employment center. Continued mixed -use development that combines employment opportunities with livable communities is likely to maintain demand for incremental multifamily residence dwelling units in the 2-mile radius. Retail Figure 11: Retail Vacancy Retail Vacany 12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 3.4% 4.0% pro 2.0% 0.0% 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 —2-Mile Radius —Orange County Source: Costar, AECOM 75C-640 Figure 12: Retail Rent Retail Rent (NNN/SFNear $45.00 $40.00 000 $35.00 $30.00 - $26-60 rn $25.00 Q $25.79 C $20.00 0 $15.00 C $10.00 rn o $5.00 N $0.00 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 —2-Mile Radius —Orange County Source: Costar, BLS, AECOM The vacancy rate for retail properties in the 2-mile radius rose above 10% in 2011 but has remained very low since 2014. At the end of 2018, the vacancy rate for the 2-mile radius was 2%, and that of Orange County was also very low at 3.4%. Adjusted for inflation, retail rent decreased 8% in the 2-Mile Radius and 5% in Orange County from 2010-2018. This is the only land use for which rent has declined once adjusted to the Consumer Price Index. Nominal rents increased slightly but did not match the rate of inflation. Generally, this decline is indicative of national trends for retail where traditional brick -and -mortar retail has found itself increasingly competing with online retail. This has led to a shift to destination retail which focuses on both the redevelopment of existing retail and development of new retail that focuses on experiences and entertainment in order to thrive. This is generally consistent with the orientation of retail uses proposed in the Project. These wider trends help explain the lack of rent growth even as vacancy rates have decreased below what is considered full retail structural occupancy (5%), indicating a continued demand for retail space. Class B and C retail properties in the 2-mile radius lower the average rent for the area compared to the newer Class A high -end destination retail establishments. Table 8: Retail Inventory and Growth 2000-19 Retail Inventory and Growth 2000-2019 2-Mile Radius Orange County Inventory 3,413,062 142,979,370 Share of OC 2% 100% Growth 2010-19 (SF) 137,016 4,594,568 Growth 2010-19 (%) 4% 3% Share of OC Growth 3% 100% Source: Costar, AECOM The retail inventory in the 2-mile radius represents a relatively small percentage of both the County total and share of growth and covers a wide variety of retail types including both older neighborhood -serving commercial corridors, such as the Main Street Corridor, and large destination retail centers, such as the District at Tustin Legacy. 75C-641 Industrial Market Demand AECOM estimated industrial demand for the Industrial Prototype based on existing market conditions for industrial and flex uses and estimated incremental demand resulting from employment growth in sectors heavily concentrated in industrial land uses. Demand for industrial space is driven by regional job growth, and the likely mix of occupations in Orange County and Santa Ana in the coming years will determine the feasibility of developing new industrial space at the Site. Table 9 shows the most recent data for employment by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) sectors in the 2-mile radius, City of Santa Ana, and Orange County. Table 9: Employment by Sector 2017 Employment by Sector 2-Mile Radius Santa Ana Orange County Agriculture 77 52 2,018 Mining and Extraction 10 11 569 Utilities 592 695 5,939 Construction 8,330 7,182 98,346 Manufacturing 28,552 19,043 156,145 Wholesale Trade 11,686 6,671 90,964 Retail Trade 5,884 11,986 144,569 Transportation and Warehousing 1,673 1,766 25,243 Information 3,292 1,543 29,189 Finance and Insurance 8,806 7,392 84,807 Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 3,262 2,424 37,773 Professional/Scientific/Tech Services 15,109 11,596 131,371 Management of Companies 3,024 2,516 35,643 Admin/Support Waste Management 14,571 16,700 130,681 Educational Services 883 12,438 106,137 Health Care and Social Assistance 5,755 11,746 165,203 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 348 1,101 42,689 Accommodation and Food Services 5,421 7,835 141,730 Other Services 2,401 3,258 42,913 Public Administration 0 22727 38051 Total 119,676 148,682 1,509,980 Source: LEHD, AECOM Employment concentrations are similar for the City of Santa Ana and the 2-mile radius surrounding the Site, with a high number of jobs in Manufacturing, Professional/Scientific/Technical, and Administration/Support for Waste Management and Remediation. These sectors typically operate in industrial and flex space and provide incomes that range from medium (Equipment Technician, annual average salary $56,000) to high (Industrial Manager, annual average salary $120,000). 75C-642 ure is: orange i ounry rrotecteu urowin Orange County Projected Employment Growth 2016-2026 Public Administration a 4% Other Services 7% Accommodation and Food Services Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 10% Health Care and Social Assistance Educational Services Admin/Support Waste Management 10% Management of Companies 6% Professional/Scientific(rech Srevices � 10% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 6% Finance and Insurance 4% Information 11 °k Transportation and Warehousing Retail Trade 3% Wholesale Trade 3% Manufacturing 1% Construction Utilities 3% Mining and Extraction-17% Agriculture 9% Source: EDD, LEHD, AECOM 14% 16% 20% -20% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% The California Employment Development Department (EDD) tracks industry sector and employment patterns at the county level. The EDD projects that between 2016 and 2026, Orange County growth will be the strongest in Construction, Healthcare, Educational Services, and Transportation and Warehousing. Both Construction, and Transportation and Warehousing generate demand for industrial space. Further growth in Professional/Scientific/iechnical, and Administration/Support for Waste Management and Remediation could also generate demand for new flex and industrial space. While EDD projections are highly regarded to assess a county -wide economy, no such detailed projections exist at the municipal level. Nonetheless, AECOM estimated future incremental demand for new industrial and flex space based on the City's current capture of projected county -wide employment growth by sector. Estimates assume a 90% stable occupancy rate and an average of 500 SF per worker, which is a common assumption for light industrial land uses. 75C-643 Table 10: Santa Ana Projected Industrial Employment Santa Ana Current and Projected Industrial Employment 2017-2026 Estimated Santa Ana Incremental Growth 2017 Jobs Capture 2017-2026 Construction 7,182 7% 1,388 Manufacturing 19,043 12% 122 Wholesale Trade 6,671 7% 205 Transportation and Warehousing 1,766 7% 273 Professional/Scientific/Tech Services 11,596 9% 1,156 Admin/Support Waste Management 16,700 13% 1,674 Total 63,000 5,000 Estimated SF of Industrial Space 35,000,000 2,700,000 Note: Totals are rounded and my not sum Source: LEHD, EDD, AECOM If Santa Ana maintains its current capture rate for employment concentrated in industrial land uses, then employment in these sectors could increase by approximately 5,000 by 2026. These jobs could support approximately 2.7 million additional SF of industrial/flex space. There are currently approximately 540,000 SF of industrial space under construction in the 2-mile radius surrounding the site, with 500,000 SF on a 24-acre lot just east of the Dyer South district in Santa Ana (located at 666 E. Dyer Rd.). To accommodate future employment growth in Santa Ana according to current trends and projections from the EDD, approximately 2.2 million SF could be demanded by 2026. Retail Demand AECOM estimated retail demand for the Project based on existing residential, employment, and visitor demand, and estimated incremental demand resulting from these land uses that have been identified in the development pipeline (according to CoStar). In the following discussion and tables there is a focus on current land uses and buildout. Current refers to land uses that are on the ground, while buildout refers to what is included in the development pipeline that can be reasonably expected within the next three to five years. Based on a review of the broader Orange County retail market, it is assumed that Project retail is most likely to serve demand from on -site residents and workers, as well as workers, residents, and hotel guests that are close to the project. A 2-mile radius was utilized to estimate demand. AECOM preliminarily estimates that the Project could support between 65,000-80,000 SF of new retail space under current conditions and between 80,000-96,000 SF at buildout of development currently in the known pipeline within a 2-mile radius of the project. Beyond the pipeline of projects (currently proposed or under construction), the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan allows 3,500 additional housing units and approximately 500,000 SF of commercial space that could be added at some point in the future. It is important to note that the timeline for delivery of this additional inventory is unknown and is contingent upon economic conditions and other factors. As such, this analysis does not include any estimate of supportable retail demand from this future potential buildout. A portion of the household spending from these additional units would be captured at the Bowery project, however, the timeline uncertainty involved in the delivery of such units makes it infeasible to estimate responsibly. This potential demand is contingent both on the actual mix of businesses that occupy the retail space at the Project and the characteristics of the future competitive supply in the vicinity of the Project. AECOM estimates that stabilized occupancy of this planned space could create demand for an additional 4,800-6,000 SF of retail space at the Project beyond the estimated 80,000-96,000 SF at buildout sited in the preceding paragraph. 75C-644 Supportable on -site retail demand is estimated based on a reasonable Project capture rate of resident, worker, and hotel guest expenditures within both a''/,mile radius and 2-mile radius. Higher capture rates are assumed within the '/,mile radius as a result of it being walk accessible. There are approximately 3.4 million SF of retail space within a 2- mile radius of the Project, including a variety of destination, neighborhood and convenience options, and approximately 75,000 SF in the current development pipeline. AECOM estimated on -site supportable retail demand for the Project based on characteristics of households, employees, and hotel guests under current conditions, and at buildout of land uses currently in the pipeline in the 2-mile radius surrounding the Project, which includes the Tustin Specific Plan. Buildout estimates include stable occupancy of residential, commercial, and industrial land uses for all known projects currently proposed and under construction. Capture rates for retail space in the Project are a reasonable estimate based on current and future competitive supply. The following tables detail findings (Figures in the tables are rounded and may not sum). Assumptions and details of data sources follow. Table 11: Retail Expenditures - Households Estimated Bowery Capture of Household Retail Expenditures 1/2 Mile Radius 2 Mile Radius' Total Current BuildouC* Current Buildout** Current Buildout** Housing Units 0 2,248 22,922 23,434 22,922 25,682 Households(95%occupancy) 0 2,136 21,776 23,434 21,776 25770 On -Site 0 1,027 0 0 0 1,027 Expenditure Site Capture 0 7.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Off -site 0 1,221 22,922 23,434 22,922 24,594 Site -Ca Lure % 0 7.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% Median HH Income 0 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,006 HH Retail Expenditures*** 0 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 Total Estimatetl HH Retail Ependitures 0 $45,000,000 115,000,000 $490,002,849 $455,334,069 $534,658,245 Total Estimated HH Expentlitures Capture 0 $3,430,000 $11,380,000 $12,250,000 $11,380,000 $15,680,000 '2 Mile Ratlius is excl us iw of 12 Mle Radius to aw id double counting. Numbers are round ad and may not sum. "Assumes stable occupan cy of dwelling units (95%) in The Heritage, Bowery, and all projects in the known current pipeline "'BLS asssumes 30% ofineidian income isspent on all retail categories, site -capture rate adjusted for probable retail type Source: ESRI, BLS, Coster California DOF, AECOM AECOM estimates that existing households within the 2-mile radius generate approximately $11.4 million of total expenditures under current conditions and $15.6 million that could be captured by the Project at buildout of uses in the pipeline. These expenditures are based on ESRI estimates of the median household income in the 2-mile radius ($70,000) and the proportion of that income that is spent of retail purchases of all types (30%).AECOM then estimated the capture rates for those living on -site, within a''% mile radius, and within a.2-mile radius based on reasonable assumptions of spending at retail establishments that is likely to occupy the space as detailed in the Project's development program. Table 12: Retail Expenditures - Employees Estimated BoweryCapture of Employee Retail Expenditures 1/2 Mile Radius 2 Mile Radius' Total Current BuildouC* Current Buildout** Current Buildout** Employees 7,285 10,097 99,828 103,803 107,113 113,899 On -site 0 304 0 0 0 304 Annual Expenditures"' $4,500 $4,500 $4,500 $4,500 $4,500 $4,500 Site Capture 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% Offaite 7,285 9,793 99,828 103,803 107,113 113,595 Annual Expenditures"' $4,500 4,500 $4,500 4,500 $4,500 4,500 Site Capture 7.5% 7.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% Total Estimated Employee Retail Expenditures $32,782,500 $45,434,548 $449,223,840 $467,111,369 $482,006,340 $512,545,917 Total Estimated Employee Expentlitures Capture 1 $2,460,000 $3,441,0001 $11,230,000 $11,678,0001 $13,690,000 $15,120,000 '2 Mile Radius is exclusive of 12 Vile Radius to avoid double counting. Numbers are rounded and maynot sum. "Assumes stable occupancy of com m erciallndustrial space in The Heritage, Bowery, Flight and all projects in the known current pipeline using Employee/Square Foot industrystandards byland use type "'Based on ICSC data for average workdas endin for office and retail workers transportation, grocerystores and warehouse clubs Source: ESRI, BLS, LEHD, Coster, =,, AECOM A similar approach was utilized to estimate demand from employees. AECOM estimates that employee demand could generate approximately $13.7 million of total expenditures under current conditions and $15.1 million at buildout that could be captured by Project retail at buildout of uses in the pipeline. The US Census Bureau's Longitudinal Employer -Household Dynamics (LEND) estimates that there are 7,300 and 100,000 workers respectively within a''/ -mile and 2-mile radius of the project. Employment sectors include a wide variety of manufacturing, professional and technical services, retail, and others. This was then combined with 75C-645 estimates for employees at buildout of pipeline uses from numerous sources that track economic and employment trends in various land uses (office, retail, industrial, and hotel). Estimated workday spending per employee data from estimates by the International Council of Shopping Centers' Research Department was applied to the total number of employees. In the subsequent step, AECOM estimated Project retail demand capture rates of employee expenditures within a'M, mile radius and within a 2-mile radius based on reasonable assumptions of spending of the types of retail establishments likely to occupy the space as outlined in the Project development program. Table 13: Retail Expenditures - Hotels Estimated Bowery Capture of Hotel Guest Retail Expentlitures 1/2 Mile Radius 2 Mile Radius' Total Current BuiltlouC* lCurrent BuiMout** lCurrent Builtlout** Hotel Guest (average per night) 125 298 3,066 3,066 3,191 3,364 Awrage Annual Spending/Guest... $13,000 $13,000 $13,000 $13,000 $13,000 $13,000 Total Annual Guest Spending $1,630,000 $3,880,000 $39,850,000 $39,850,000 $41,500,000 $43,750,000 Site Capture % 10% 10% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% Total Estimated Hotel Guest Sales Capture $163,000 $388,000 $995,000 $995,000 $1,160,000 $1,385,000 '2 Mile Radius is exclusive of 12 Vile Radius to awitl double counting. Numbers are rounded and maynot sum. "Assumes stable occupancy of Staybritlge Suites "'Basetl on CBRE 2018 data for occupancy Source: Coster, CBRE, AECOM Estimates from hotel guest expenditures were also estimated. AECOM estimates that hotel guests could generate approximately $1.2 million in total expenditures under current conditions and $1.4 million at buildout that could be captured by Project retail at buildout of land uses in the current pipeline. CBRE includes the Project in the Orange County Airport sub -market that spans the adjacent areas of Santa Ana, Irvine, and Tustin. The 2018 CBRE report estimates that hotel occupancy for this sub -market averaged 76% with 1.35 guests per room night. Staybridge Suites is the only hotel project in the current pipeline, but developments in the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan or the Irvine Business Complex Community Development could add more hotel rooms to the inventory in the future. Because those are not included in the pipeline and not expected to be built in the near future, they have not been included in this analysis. Table 14: Retail Expenditures Total Estimated Bowery Capture of Household, Employee and Hotel Guest Retail Expenditures 1/2 Mile Radius 2 Mile Radius' Total Current BuiltlouC* Current BuiMout** Current Builtlout** Total Estimated HH E entlitures Capture 0 $3,525,000 $2,460,000 $3,455,000 $163,000 $388,000 $11,980,000 $12,250,000 $11,230,000 $11,780,000 $995,000 $995,000 $11,980,000 $15,680,005 $13,690,000 $15,235,000 $1,160,000 $1,385,000 Total Estimated Employee E entlitures Capture Total Estimated Hotel Guest Sales Capture Total Estimated Retail Demand Capture $2,620,000 $7,260,000 $23,610,000 $27,480,000 $26,830,000 $32,300,009 Supportable Retail SF($350/SF) 7,800 22,000 71,000 75,000 80,000 96,000 Supportable Retail SF($425/SF) 6500 18,000 58,000 6- l66 ,80,000 '2 Mile Radius is exclusive of 1/2 Vile Radius to awitl double counting. Numbers are rounded and maynot sum. "Assumes stable occupancyof The Heritage, Bowery, Flight, Staybritlge Suits and all known current pipeline. -Su Retail SF has beengrossed u to account fora 5%strutlural vacancy. Source: ESRI, BLS, LEND, Coster, Celi(ornia DOF, =,, AECOM The estimated capturable expenditures from residential, employee, and visitors were then combined to establish a reasonable estimate of total estimated expenditure capture by Project retail and supportable retail space. AECOM estimates that Project retail could capture an estimate of approximately $26.8 million in retail expenditures under current conditions and $32.3 million at buildout of land uses in the current pipeline. A range of $350-$425 of retail sales per SF was utilized to establish an approximate range of retail space at the Project. AECOM estimates that the Project could capture sufficient residential, employee, and visitor spending to support between 65,000-80,000 SF of new retail space under current conditions and between 80,000-96,000 SF at buildout of uses currently in the pipeline. 75C-646 3. Development Feasibility AECOM estimated the residual land value (RLV) of the land uses according to the development scenarios of both the Project and Industrial Prototype and considered the projected market demand for these land uses in the City of Santa Ana and representative comparable districts of Orange County. This analysis allows a comparison of the highest and best use for the Site, from a development perspective, and the financial implications of development under current market conditions. The use of the Industrial Prototype is to compare the impact of the Project to that of the Industrial Prototype. The feasibility analysis of the various land uses is based on a static pro forma model, which simulates the economic conditions a developer would consider in deciding whether to pursue a project. As such, the model includes typical direct and indirect costs a developer would incur, market revenue potential, and a standard rate of return a developer would expect as compensation. Total estimated project costs (including the assumed return) are subtracted from estimated project revenue to arrive at a net residual land value. Figure 14 details a simplified infographic of RLV. If the net value is positive and high enough to pay for land at current market rates, the project is considered financially feasible. Otherwise, the proposed project is considered infeasible. This approach generates a broad estimate of development feasibility, which is acceptable for planning -level analysis. Figure 14: Residual Land Value uevempmem LUUs Table 15 shows the summary results of the pro -forma analysis and estimation of RLV for both the Project and Industrial Prototype. Assumptions about rents for the various land uses were derived from the market assessment and selection of representative projects in Orange County. RLV calculations are sensitive to fluctuations in the market for both rents and development costs (hard and soft) and offer only a broad estimate of actual market prices. Table 15: Residual Land Value Summary Residual Land Value Summary The Pro act Industrial Prototype Site Acres 14.7 14.7 Floor to Area Ratio (FAR) 1.80 0.45 Gross Building Area (GBA) 1,150,000 355,000 Estimated Total Value $509,000,000 $65,406,977 Estimated Total Costs $444,000,000 $48,490,005 Residual Land Value RLV $65,000,000 $16,916,972 RLV per Land SF $100 $26 RLV per GBA SF $55 $56 Feasible Yes Yes Note: Numbers are rounded and my not sum Sources. Costar, CBRE, RS Means, Orange County Register, AECOM 75C-647 Both the Project and the Industrial Prototype yield significant positive RLV under current market conditions. Market demand for new residential, retail, and industrial properties in the regional market of the Site suggest that both projects are financially feasible at buildout. These RLV estimates include costs of demolition of existing land uses but exclude land acquisition costs. Detailed pro-formas for both the Project and Industrial Prototype are shown in Appendix A and a short explanation of sources and assumptions follows. Capitalization Rate The capitalization rate (cap rates) is the rate of return on a real estate investment, calculated by dividing the Net Operating Income (NOI) by the current market value. Cap rates for multifamily, retail, and industrial land uses are based on CBRE H1 2019 estimates for the Orange County market. A cap rate of 6.5 was assumed for retail, while a cap rate of 4.0 was assumed for both multifamily and industrial. Rent Commercial rent was estimated based on comparative analysis of recent lease agreements for comparative new (since 2017) mixed -use residential/retail and industrial properties in Santa Ana and the adjacent areas of Irvine and Tustin. AECOM assumed an annual Triple Net Lease (NNN) Rent per SF of $30 for retail space and $11 for industrial. Construction Costs Direct costs for the pro -forma models draw from other recent studies of comparable construction in Orange County and comparable areas of Los Angeles including IRS Means 2019 construction cost estimates. Indirect costs are largely based on either ratios of direct costs or per square foot allocations typically used in planning -level cost estimation. To verify the assumptions and market value of the pro-formas, AECOM surveyed recent sales transactions of representative properties to compare the price per SF or unit of The Project and Industrial Prototype. The pro -forma for the Project estimated a market price of $721/SF of Land and approximately $449,000 per unit. The pro -forma for the Industrial Prototype estimated a market price of $117/SF of Land and approximately $234/SF of building area (RBA). Table 16 shows comparable recent transactions of comparable developments. Table 16: Recent Sales Transactions Recent Sales Transactions for Industrial and Multifamily Properties Industrial Address Acres RBA Price/RBA Price/Land Date 9300 Toledo Way, Irvine 75.22 1,193,692 $233 $85 Jul-19 1730 S Anaheim Way, Anaheim 6.93 143,930 $230 $110 May-18 15025 Proctor Ave, Industry 5.91 257,440 $225 $113 Nov-18 4278 N Harbor Blvd Fullerton 8.66 212,202 $186 $105 Jan-19 Multifamily Address Acres Units Price/Unit Price/Land Date 17321 Murphy Ave, Irvine 3.63 280 $423,214 $749.42 Nov-18 251 Orangefair Ave, Fullerton 6.38 323 $405,573 $471.37 Jun-18 1105 E Katella Ave, Anaheim 4.25 386 $341,192 $711.39 Jan-19 1091 E 1st St, Santa Ana 5.07 264 $371,212 $443.74 Jun-19 Source: Costar, AECOM Comparable transactions reveal that the estimated market prices for both The Project and Industrial Prototype are either within the range of recent transactions or slightly above reported sales prices. For new construction in a desirable location, estimated prices represent a reasonable future value of the developments. Images and details of Industrial Prototype are included in Appendix A. 75C-648 4. Economic Impact To effectively estimate the economic impact of the Project and the Industrial Prototype, AECOM developed 4 economic models for the two project options from construction and ongoing operations at full buildout and stable occupancy. Total impacts are the combined direct, indirect, and induced impacts created by the initial change in the economy. In general terms, the direct economic effects of the project begin as construction capital is expended, later evolving into economic activities that become a permanent part of the modeled economy (e.g. new business and new residents). The indirect economic effects follow a similar pattern evolving from construction -oriented spending patterns to establish business -to -business transactions that support the newly housed economic functions within the Site. Finally, the additional consumer spending from residents and the increased collective labor income pool are represented through induced effects. Construction impacts are modelled as one-time impacts. Impacts from operations, maintenance, business activity, workers incomes, and residents' expenditures (net of transfers) continue to occur (estimated on an annual basis). Direct Impacts: Result from the short-term impact generated by contracting and construction and the ongoing operations of businesses and residents that occur at the Site. (Example: Sales from On -site Retail) Indirect Impacts: Result from local businesses directly impacted by the construction and operations of the projects through the purchase of materials, supplies, goods or services from secondary firms off the Site. (Example: Sales of intermediary goods for the elaboration of final goods sold at On -site Retail) Induced Impacts: Result from the consumption spending of employees that are directly or indirectly affected by the projects. This includes the household consumption of both workers and residents of the Project. (Example: Sales of household consumption items from employees of On -Site Retail) AECOM applied a Multi -Regional Input Output (MRIO) model using IMPLAN data that includes detailed local spending multipliers and regional trade flow calculators for every zip code in Orange County. The model approximates the direct, indirect, and induced impacts on every industry sector in the county. This allows for a detailed estimation of the probable total economic impact of new economic inputs, such as employment in particular industry sectors or household spending, on the local economy. IMPLAN estimates impacts on Employment, Labor Income, Value Added (Labor Income, Proprietor Income, Other Property Income, Taxes) and Output (Value Added, Intermediate Expenditures). Note that these figures are not representative of taxable sales or taxes accrued to the City of Santa Ana, and their elaboration represent an approximation of impacts on a large geographical area. Table 17 - Table 20 show results. Table 17: Project Construction Economic Impacts Estimated Economic Impact of the Project Construction City of Santa Ana Impact Employment Labor Income Value Added Output Direct 2,414 $200,000,000 $268,000,000 $488,000,000 Indirect 65 $3,600,000 $5,500,000 $9,000,000 Induced 12 $600,000 $1,200,000 $2,000,000 Total 21491 $204,000,000 $275,000,000 $498,000,000 Rest of Orange Count Impact Employment Labor Income Value Added Output Direct N/A N/A N/A N/A Indirect 956 $56,000,000 $88,000,000 $137,000,000 Induced 1,007 $55,000,000 $102,000,000 $160,000,000 Total 1,963 $111 000 000 $190 000 000 $297 000 000 Total Countywide off 4,454 $315,000,000 $465,000,000 $795,000,000 Note: Numbers are rounded and may not sum Source: IMPLAN, AECOM 75C-649 During the Construction phase of the Project, IMPLAN estimates that the direct, indirect, and induced impacts of Project construction would support 4,454 jobs and generate over $795 million of total economic output for Orange County, with 2,491 jobs and over $498 million in economic output occurring within the City of Santa Ana. Employment and output estimates for construction offer insight into the cumulative economic impacts of construction during the construction phase. For the construction phase, employment represents Full Time Equivalencies (FTE), while for the operations phase, employment includes all wage and salary employees, as well as proprietors. (This is the same methodology used by the BEA and BLS'.) Thus, construction impacts are one-time impacts, while ongoing operations impacts can be interpreted as recurring annual impacts. Table 18: Industrial Prototype Construction Economic Impacts Estimated Economic Impact of Industrial Prototype Construction City of Santa Ana Impact Employment Labor Income Value Added Output Direct 501 $39,230,000 $49,600,000 $75,000,000 Indirect 3 $270,000 $450,000 $706,000 Induced 1 $60,000 $118,000 $185,000 Total 506 $39,560,000 $50,100,000 $76,000,000 Rest of Orange County Impact Employment Labor Income Value Added Output Direct N/A N/A N/A N/A Indirect 49 $3,900,000 $6,500,000 $10,000,000 Induced 166 $9,160,000 $16,900,000 $26,470,000 Total 216 $13,100,000 $23,4000,000 $36,500,000 Total Countywide 722 $52,600,000 $73,500,000 $112,500,000 Note: Numbers are rounded and may not sum Source: IMPLAN, AECOM During the Construction phase of the Industrial Prototype, IMPLAN estimates that the direct, indirect, and induced impacts of construction would support 722 jobs and generate over $112 million of total economic output for Orange County, with 506 jobs and over $75 million in economic output occurring within the City of Santa Ana. The economic output from the Construction phases would occur as a. one-time impact and does not represent the generation of operational long-term income or employment. 3 Bureau of Labor Statistics employment definitions: https://vvvwv.bls.gov/cps/lfcharacteristics.htrn#emp 75C-650 Table 19: Project Operations Economic Impact Estimated Economic Impact of the Project Operations City of Santa Ana Impact Employment Labor Income Value Added Output Direct 304 $19,500,000 $32,300,000 $50,600,000 Indirect 7 $472,000 $809,000 $1,230,000 Induced 38 $2,000,000 $3,900,000 $6,100,000 Total 349 $21,940,000 $36,300,000 $57,850,000 Remainder of Orange County Impact Employment Labor Income Value Added Output Direct N/A N/A N/A N/A Indirect 99 $6,940,000 $13,000,000 $19,400,000 Induced 787 $44,000,000 $80,840,000 $127,600,000 Total 886 $51,000,000 $94,000,000 $147,000,000 Total Countywide 1,235 $73,000,000 $130,000,000 $204,800,000 Note: Numbers are rounded and may not sum Source: IMPLAN, BLS, California DOF, AECOM At buildout and stable occupancy of the Project, IMPLAN estimates that the direct, indirect, and induced impacts of Project operations would annually support approximately 1,235 jobs and generate over $207 million of total economic output for Orange County, with 349 jobs and over $57 million in economic output occurring within the City of Santa Ana. AECOM assumed retail operations at buildout would include a mix of restaurant, clothing, electronics, general goods, and personal care services. Beyond retail operations, the major source of induced employment and economic output is the household consumption of residents in the Project. AECOM assumed the Project's 80,000 SF of retail could support approximately 304 employees at structural occupancy (250 SF/employee). The area's median household income of approximately $72,000 was assumed for 976 households (95% occupancy of the up to 1,150 units). 75C-651 Table 20: Industrial Prototype Operations Economic Impact Economic Impact of Industrial Prototype Operations City of Santa Ana Impact Employment Labor Income Value Added Output Direct 608 $65,100,000 $92,300,000 $149,000,000 Indirect 29 $2,000,000 $2,800,00 $4,180,000 Induced 2 $107,000 $200,000 $330,000 Total 638 $67,200,000 $95,300,000 $153,500,000 Remainder of Orange County Impact Employment Labor Income Value Added Output Direct N/A N/A N/A N/A Indirect 390 $27,700,000 $42,000,000 $62,830,000 Induced 383 $21,000,000 $39,000,000 $60,900,000 Total 773 $48,790,000 $81,000,000 $123,740,000 Total CountVwide 1,411 $116,000,000 $176,200,000 $277,000,000 Note: Numbers are rounded and may not sum Source: IMFLAN, BLS, California DOF, AECOM For ongoing operations of the Industrial Prototype, IMPLAN estimates that the direct, indirect, and induced impacts of construction would annually support approximately 1,411 jobs and generate over $277 million of total economic output for Orange County, with 638 jobs and over $153 million in economic output occurring within the City of Santa Ana. AECOM assumed industrial operations at buildout would include a mix of engineering, professional/technical services, research and development, and wholesale trade. AECOM assumed the Project's 320,000 SF of industrial space could support approximately 608 employees at structural occupancy (500 SF/employee). The Industrial Prototype would be estimated to generate more employment and economic output than the equivalent factors for the Project. Sectors utilizing this space have significant potential to add value to a local economy beyond what is measurable in taxable sales on site. 75C-652 Figure 15: Top Sectors of Economic Impact - Project Top Sectors of Economic Impact from Project Operations $40,000,000 $35,000,000 $30,000,000 $25,000,000 $20,000,000 $15,000,000 — $10,000,000 $5,000,000 ' I \ae ye awe is c�5 ae cy .gym ,�e m �t J� 5� �e <a eta a'`�o roa �aa oiaA OR �a u�a �,a toa�0 o z o a ♦ o �a,�a p Oral ti ■Direct ■Indirect ■Induced Source: IMPLAN, BLS, Califomia DOF, AECOM The Industry Sectors directly impacted by the Project Operations are likely to be Retail of Clothing and Accessories, Household Consumption and Real Estate. Other indirect and induced impacts are likely to be seen in General Retail, Restaurants, and Wholesale Trade. Occupations and annual wages associated with these sectors include Supervisors of Retail Workers (annual wage of $44,000), Restaurant Cooks (annual wage of $30,610) and Non - manufacturing Wholesale Sales Reps (annual average wage of $68,700) 75C-653 Figure 16: Top Sectors of Economic Impact - Industrial Prototype Top Sectors Economic Impact of the Industrial Prototype $60,000,000 $50,000,000 $40,000,000 $30,000,000 $20,000,000 $10,000,000 $0 in— v o z 5 tie 5 5 5 5 5 5 m�° �taa era J° C °¢ . 0 c�ce ea�o pc�°'� eon oc�o� '� OQ°ta lac ■Direct ■Indirect ■Induced Source: IMPLAN, BLS, California DOF, AECOM The Industry Sectors directly impacted by the Industrial Prototype operations are likely to be Architecture/Engineering, Wholesale trade and Scientific Research and Development. Other indirect and induced impacts are likely to been seen in Real Estate, Household Consumption (Occupied Dwelling Units) and Management Consulting services. Table 4.5 shows select occupations typically associated with these industry sectors, along with their location quotients and mean annual wages. Location quotients measure an occupation's concentration in an area relative to the occupation's share of national employment. A location quotient of 1.0 indicates the area has the same ratio of an occupation's share of employment as the nation, while numbers greater than 1.0 indicate regional specialization. Orange County has high concentrations of engineering and research occupations relative to the nation as a whole. Some mix of these occupations are probable candidates to occupy the space of the Industrial Prototype. Table 21: Industrial Prototype Occupations Orange County Industrial Prototype Associated Occupations Wage and Quotient Occupation Location Quotient* Annual Wage* Biomedical Engineers 2.57 $90,250 Aerospace Engineers 2.38 $121,640 Electro-Mechanical Technicians 2.33 $55,810 Sales Reps, Wholesale and Manufacturing 2.17 $68,760 Property, Real Estate Managers 1.78 $85,470 Transportation Distribution Managers 1.04 $107,640 Light Truck or Delivery Services Drivers 0.93 $36,480 *BLS data from Anaheim -Santa Ana -Irvine 2017 Note: Numbers are rounded and may not sum Source: BLS, AECOM 75C-654 5. Fiscal Impact AECOM performed a fiscal assessment to estimate the annual net fiscal impacts on the City of Santa Ana General Fund of the two project alternatives at the Site. Estimated expenditures for services administered by the City of Santa Ana were calculated on a per service population4 basis for residents and workers at the Site. AECOM estimated revenues to the City of Santa Ana on a reasonable estimate of the property taxes, sales taxes from businesses and employees, business permits, licenses and inspections, franchise fees, fines and forfeitures, and intergovernmental transfers. Detailed tables of Expenditures and Revenues are shown in Appendix A. Table 22: Fiscal Impacts -Project Fiscal Impact of the Project City of Santa Ana General Fund Annual Net Fiscal Impact from Project Cost/Revenue Description Estimated Value Estimated Total Costs to the City General Fund $1,511,000 Sources of Revenue Property Tax $922,000 Property Tax In Lieu of VLF $224,000 Property Transfer Tax $26,000 Sales Tax $1,032,000 Other Revenue $341,000 Total Estimated Revenue from Buildout $2,545,000 Estimated Net Fiscal Surplus from Buildout $1,034,000 Note: Numbers are rounded and may not sum Source: Orange County Treasurer -Tax Collector, City of Santa Ana, California Department of Finance, Costar, AECOM Table 23: Fiscal Impacts - Industrial Prototype Fiscal Impact of the Industrial Prototype City of Santa Ana General Fund Annual Net Fiscal Impact from Project Cost/Revenue Description Estimated Value Estimated Total Costs to the City General Fund $185,000 Sources of Revenue Property Tax $140,000 Property Tax In Lieu of VLF $0 Property Transfer Tax $4,000 Sales Tax $524,000 Other Revenue $42,000 Total Estimated Revenue from Buildout $710,000 Estimated Net Fiscal Surplus from Buildout $525,000 Note: Numbers are rounded and may not sum Source: Orange County Treasurer -Tax Collector, City of Santa Ana, California Department of Finance, Costar, AECOM 4 Service population represents all estimated residents from the Project and a percentage allocation of workers based on US Census LEHD data of where employees work and live in the Focus Area 75C-655 The estimated City General Fund expenditures for providing services to the Project are approximately $1511,000 and the estimated revenues are approximately $2,545,000, resulting in a net fiscal surplus of approximately $1,034,000 at full buildout. The pro-rata expenditures for the incremental service population applied to both the Project and Industrial Prototype are show in Table 5.3 The estimated City expenditures for providing services to the Industrial Prototype are approximately $185,000 and the estimated revenues are approximately $710,000 resulting in a net fiscal surplus of approximately $525,000 at full buildout. Tables 5.3 and 5.4 show the breakdown of expenditures by department and likely costs to the City of the incremental service population from the Project and Industrial Prototype. Table 24: Fiscal Expenditures - Project Project - Calculated Per Service Population Costs to General Fund City Cost per City of Santa Service Burden of Cost for New Department Ana Budget Population Service Population Police $131,600,000 $312.81 100% $312.81 Fire $45,600,000 $108.39 100% $108.39 Planning and Building $13,200,000 $31.38 60% $18.83 Finance and Management Services $9,700,000 $23.06 60% $13.83 City Manager's Office $2,200,000 $5.23 40% $2.09 City Attorney's Office $3,200,000 $7.61 40% $3.04 Clerk of the Council's Office $1,700,000 $4.04 40% $1.62 Public Works Agency $13,200,000 $31.38 100% $31.38 Community Development Agency $3,300,000 $7.84 60% $4.71 Human Resources $2,500,000 $5.94 80% $4.75 Parks, Recreation, Community Services $21,400,000 $50.87 100% $50.87 Bower's Museum $1,500,000 $3.57 100% $3.57 Library $5,400,000 $12.84 100% $12.84 Civic Center $1,200,000 $2.85 100% $2.85 Strategic Plan $2,500,000 $5.94 60% $3.57 Transfer to Project Funds $9,000,000 $21.39 100% $21.39 Total Cannabis Program $6,200,000 $14.74 100% $14.74 Total Budgeted Expenditures $273,400,000 Total Pro Rata Cost per Service Population $610 Total Incremental Service Population 2,472 Total Cost of New Service to Incremental Service $1,511,000 Population Note: Numbers are rounded and may not sum Source: Santa Ana FY2019-2020 Adopted Budget, AECOM 75C-656 Table 25: Fiscal Expenditures - Industrial Prototype Table 5.4: Industrial Prototype - Calculated Per Service Population Costs to General Fund City Cost Burden of Cost for City of Santa per Service New Service Department Ana Budget Population Population Police $131,600,000 $312.81 100% $312.81 Fire $45,600,000 $108.39 100% $108.39 Planning and Building $13,200,000 $31.38 60% $18.83 Finance and Management Services $9,700,000 $23.06 60% $13.83 City Manager's Office $2,200,000 $5.23 40% $2.09 City Attorney's Office $3,200,000 $7.61 40% $3.04 Clerk of the Council's Office $1,700,000 $4.04 40% $1.62 Public Works Agency $13,200,000 $31.38 100% $31.38 Community Development Agency $3,300,000 $7.84 60% $4.71 Human Resources $2,500,000 $5.94 80% $4.75 Parks, Recreation, Community Services $21,400,000 $50.87 100% $50.87 Bower's Museum $1,500,000 $3.57 100% $3.57 Library $5,400,000 $12.84 100% $12.84 Civic Center $1,200,000 $2.85 100% $2.85 Strategic Plan $2,500,000 $5.94 60% $3.57 Transfer to Project Funds $9,000,000 $21.39 100% $21.39 Total Cannabis Program $6,200,000 $14.74 100% $14.74 Total Budgeted Expenditures $273,400,000 Total Pro Rata Cost per Service Population $610 Total Incremental Service Population 305 Total Cost of New Service to Incremental Population $185,000 Note: Numbers are rounded and may not sum Source: Santa Ana FY2019-2020 Adopted Budget, AECOM While it is estimated the Industrial Prototype requires fewer services from the City, the Project would likely generate a more significant increase in property taxes through assessed improvements and induce greater sales taxes from increased households in the City. The Project could lead to capital deficits for Focus Area because of higher densities of households and businesses concentrated in and around the current institutions and infrastructures. A further analysis of the current capacity and distribution of public facilities should be conducted to understand the impact of the incremental growth in service population on facilities such as schools, police/fire stations, or other capital investments associated with the provision of public services. The City will consider commissioning an infrastructure needs assessment after the environmental assessment has been completed. Assumptions on Revenues: Property Taxes: Property taxes for both the Project and Industrial Prototype were assessed on the total construction costs of the improvements discounted by 5% to account for the difference between market value and assessed value. The corresponding Tax Rate Area (TRA) allocates 19.4% of the tax assessment to the City's General Fund. Detailed tables are shown in Appendix A. 5 For the purposes of this study, AECOM assumed all expenditures to the City would be based on a pro-rata allocation tothe service population, which is the industry -standard for anticipating long-term citywide fiscal impacts. Developers are required to pay development fees designed to offset immediate capital costs to the City. AECOM did not work with City staff or public service agents to analyze the thresholds required for new fixed costs to service provision, such as an additional police or fire station. 75C-657 Sales Taxes: Sales taxes for both developments come from both taxable sales from the proposed retail and industrial land uses and spending from future residents and employees. For the Project, BLS data on household consumption expenditures for the area were discounted to account for the likely capture to Santa Ana of households on the periphery of the City with considerable retail options in adjacent districts of neighboring cities. A capture rate of 30% was applied to account for this spending and the capture of on -site retail of the Project described above in the Retail Demand section and the potential transfer of sales tax from other retail establishments in the City. Workday spending for on -site employees for both developments also assumed these factors in their discount rates. Detailed tables are shown in the Appendix A. Other Government Revenues: Other sources of revenue are expected to increase as the result of the annexation of the Study Area, including business permits, licenses and inspections, franchise fees, fines and forfeitures and intergovernmental transfers. Detailed tables are shown in the Appendix A. 75C-658 Appendix A Document copies Development Feasibility Analysis PROGRAM Site Area 14.7 acres Height 6 stories Density 75 DU/AC 1.88 FAR Built Area 1,204,209 GBAsq.fi. 79% efficiency 949,735 NLAsq.R. Residential 1,115,320 GBAsq.fi. 80% efficiency 869,735 NLAsq.R. Retail 88,889 GBAsq:fi. 90% efficiency 80,000 NLAsq.R. Club/Fitriess/Rec 28,151 Room Mix Studio 228 units 657 NLAsq.R./unit One -Bedroom 574 units 713 NLAsq.R./unit Two -Bedroom 283 units 1,031 NLAsq.R./unit Three -Bedroom 15 units 1242 NLAsq.R./unit Total 1,100 791 Parking Residential (Resident) 1,100 1.7 stall/unit 1,857 stalls Residential (Guest) 1 100 0.0 stall/unit 0 stalls Total Residential 1.7 stall/unit 1,857 stalls Retail 5.0 /1,000 NLAsq.fi. 400 stalls 2,147 stalls Parking Type Surface 84 stalls Structured 2,059 stalls REVENUE Residential Studio $3.30 NLA/sq.R. $2,169 /unitlmonth 228 units $5,935,382 One -Bedroom $3.03 NLA/sq.R. $2,162 /unitlmonth 574 units $14,889,593 Two -Bedroom $2.75 NLA/sq.R. $2,835 /unitlmonth 283 units $9,626,669 Three -Bedroom 2.60 NLA/sq.R. $3,229 /unitlmonth 15 units $581,256 Gross Potential Revenue $2.97 NLA/sq.R. 1100 units $31,032,900 (less) Vacancy 5.00% ($1,551,645) (less) Operating Expenses 30.00% ($9,309,870) (less) Capital Reserves 2.00% ($620.658) Residential NOI $19,550,727 Capitalized Value of NOI* 4.00% cap rate $488,768,176 (less) Cost of Sale 2.00% ($9.775.364) Net Residential Value $478,992,813 Retail NNN Rental Revenue $2.50 NLA/sq.R. $2,400,000 (less) leasing fee 4.0% NNN Rent ($96,000) (less)Vacancy 5.00% ($115,200) (less) Non-reimb. Exp. 5.00% ($115.200) Retail NOI $2,073,600 Capitalized Value of NOI* 6.50% cap rate $31,901,538 (less) Cost of Sale 3.00% ($957.046) Net Retail Value $30.944A92 TOTAL VALUE 4.2% implied cap rate $509,937,305 75C-659 DEVELOPM34T COSTS Direct Costs Site Work $15 /sq.fi. $9,598,446 Parking Surface $3,500 /stall $294,000 Structured $25,000 /stall $51,475,000 Subtotal $51,769,000 Residential Site 93% pro rate based on GBA $8,889,935 Parking 82% pro rate based on stalls $42,594,166 Construction $180 /GBAsq.R. $200,757,642 Subtotal $252,241,743 Retail Site 7% pro rate based on GBA $708,511 Parking 18% pro rate based on stalls $9,174,834 Construction $110 /GBAsq.R. $9,777,778 TVTA $40 /NLAsq.fi. $3,200,000 Subtotal $22,861,122 Total Direct Costs $275,102,866 Indirect Costs LEED Certification 3.0% $8,253,086 Permits and Fees 8% /GBAsq.R. $22,008,229 Legal 1.0% of Direct Costs $2,751,029 Insurance and Warranty 2.0% of Direct Costs $5,502,057 Architecture and Engineenq 7.0% of Direct Costs $19,257,201 Developer Fee 5.0% of Direct Costs $13,755,143 G&A 2.5% of Direct Costs $6,877,572 Subtotal Indirect Costs $78,404,317 Residential 92% pro rate based on DC $71,888,897 Retail 8% pro rate based on DC $6,515,420 Financing*** 1.5 year(s) construction period $14,228,664 Residential 92% pro rate based on DC $13,046,258 Retail 8% pro rate based on DC $1,182,406 Contingency 5.0% $18,386,792 Residential 92% pro rate based on DC $16,858,845 Retail 8% pro rate based on DC $1,527,947 Profit as a %of Total Costs ( 15% $57,918,396 Residential 92% pro rate based on DC $53,105,361 Retail 8% pro rate based on DC $4,813,034 Total Indirect Costs $168,938,169 TOTAL COSTS (Direct +Indirect) Residential $407,141,105 Retail $36,899,930 $444,041,035 RESIDUAL LAND VALUE Residential $71,851,708 Retail $5,955,438 Net RLV $65,896,270 Per Acre $4,485,791 Per Land Square Foot $103 Per Gross Building Square Foot $55 Per Net Building Square Foot $69 RLV as % of Total Costs 15% *CBRE Retail Cap Rate Orange County Hl 2019 for Class A 4-4.5 **CBRE Retail Cap Rate Orange County Hl 2019 for Class B: 6.25-6.75 —Construction financing assumptions:60%LTC, 4.5%interest, 2%fee, 50%avg. balance 75C-660 PROGRAM Site Area Height Density Built Area Industrial Parking Industrial Parking Type Surface REVENUE Industrial NNN Rental Revenue (less) leasing fee (less) Vacancy (less) Non-reimb. Exp. Indutrail NOI Capitalized Value of NOI' (less) Cost of Sale Net Indutrial Value TOTALVALUE DEVELOPMENT COSTS Direct Costs Site Work Parking Surface Industrial Site Parking Construction TI/TA Subtotal Total Direct Costs Indirect Costs LEED Certification Permits and Fees Legal Insurance and Warranty Architecture and Engineering Developer Fee G&A Subtotal Indirect Costs Industrial Financing" Industrial Contingency Industrial Profit as a %of Total Costs (Belt Industrial Total Indirect Costs TOTAL COSTS (Direct + Indirect) Industrial 14.7 acres 1 stories N/A DU/AC 303,109 GBA sq.ft. 303,109 GBA sq.ft. 2.0 /1 ,000 NLAsq.ft. $0.95 NLArsq.ft. 3.0% NNN Rent 5.00% 5.00% 4.25% cap rate 3.00% 4.4% implied cap rate $7 /s q.ft. $3,500 /stall 100% pro rata based on GBA 100% pro rata based on stalls $65 /GBA sq.ft. $15 MLA sq.ft. RESIDUAL LAND VALUE Industrial Retail Net RLV Per Acre Per Land Square Foot Per Gross Building Square Foot Per Net Building Square Foot RLV as % of Total Costs 3.0% 6% of Direct Costs 1.0% of Direct Costs 2.0% of Direct Costs 7.0% of Direct Costs 5.0% of Direct Costs 2.5% of Direct Costs 0.45 FAR 0% efficiency 95% efficiency 576 stalls stalls 576 stalls 100% pro rata based on DC 1.5 year(s) construction period 100% pro rata based on DC 5.0% 100% pro rata based on DC 15% 100% pro rata based on DC N LA s q.ft. 287,953 NLAsq.ft. $3,282,669 ($98,480) ($159,209) ($159.209) $2,865,770 $67,429,874 (52.022.896) $65,406,977 $65,406,977 $4,479,275 $2,016,000 $4,479,275 $2,016,000 $19,702,073 $4,319,301 $30,516,649 $30,516,649 $915,499 $1,830,999 $305,166 $610,333 $2,136,165 $1,525,832 762 916 $8,086,912 $8,086,912 $1,553,793 $1,553,793 $2,007,868 $2,007,868 $6,324,783 $6,324,783 $17,973,356 $17,973,356 $48,490,005 $48,490,005 $65,406,977 0 $16,916,972 $1,151,598 $26 $56 $58.75 35% CBRE Industrial Cap Rate Orange County Hl 2019 for Class A 3.75-4.25 "Construction financing assumptions:60% LTC, 4.5% inteleJ5)C .5861alance Industrial Prototype Relevant Comparisons Address: RBA: $/SF NNN: Year Built: 11488 Slater Ave Fountain Valley 134,000 SF $9-11/SF 2016 721 S Van Buren St, Placentia 69,882 SF $11-13/SF 2019 yew Address: 2906 Tech Center Dr Santa Ana RBA: 509,470 SF $/SF NNN: $12-16/SF Year Built: Under Construction 75C-662 Fiscal Impact Tables The Project - Estimated Property Tax Revenues at Stabilized Occupancy Real Estate Sale Assumptions Estimated Total Assessed Value Total Improved Value* $475,000,000 Property Transfer Tax Revenue Assumptions Total Improved Value $475,000,000 Property TransferTaxl ($0.275 per $500) $261,000 Annual Property Transfer Tax (5%of total) $26,100 Property Tax Revenue Allocation Assumptions Total Improved Value $475,000,000 1% Property Tax Allocation $4,750,000 % of Property Tax Distributed to City of Santa Ana General Fund** 19.4% Net Increase in Property Tax Revenue $922,000 % of City of Santa Ana in Lieu of Vehicle License Fee (VLF)*** 4.7% Net Increase of In Lieu of VLF to the City of Santa Ana $223,887 Total Estimated Annual Property Tax Allocation to the City of Santa Ana $1,145,887 Annual Combined Property Transfer Tax and Property Tax Allocation to the City of Santa Ana $1,171,987 *Discounted 5%to account for Assessed versus Market Value **Tax Rate Area 11-019 ***Tax ratio is based on per capita estimated 2018-18 Santa Ana Budget Property Tax In Lieu of VLF revenues Source: Orange County Tax Assessor, Costar, BLS, California DOF, AECOM 75C-663 Industrial Prototype - Estimated Property Tax Revenues at Stabilized Occupancy Estimated Total Assessed Real Estate Sale Assumptions Value Total Improved Value* $72,188,313 Property Transfer Tax Revenue Assumptions Total Improved Value $72,188,313 Property Transfer Tax ($0.275 per $500) $40,000 Annual Property Transfer Tax (5% of total) $4,000 Property Tax Revenue Allocation Assumptions Total Improved Value $72,188,313 1% Property Tax Allocation $722,000 % of Property Tax Distributed to City of Santa Ana General Fund** 19.40% Net Increase in Property Tax Revenue $140,000 % of City of Santa Ana in Lieu of Vehicle License Fee (VLF) 0.0% Net Increase of In Lieu of VLF to the City of Santa Ana $0 Total Estimated Annual Property Tax Allocation to the City of Santa Ana $140,000 Annual Combined Property Transfer Tax and Property Tax Allocation to the City of Santa Ana $144,000 *Discounted 5%to accountfor Assessed versus Market Value **Tax Rate Area 11-019 Source: Orange County Tax Assessor, Costar, BLS, California DOF, AECOM 75C-664 The Project - Estimated Sales Tax Revenue Description Value Households* 1,045 Estimated City of Santa Ana per capita Sales $20,910.00 Capture Rate 30% Taxable Sales in Santa Ana $6,555,285 Sales Tax Rate 2.50% Sales Tax generated by New Residents $163,882 Annexation Employees** 260 Estimated Annual Taxable Workday Spending*** $6,700 Capture to Santa Ana 30% Total Estimated Annual Taxable Sales from On -site Employees $522,070 Local Sales Tax (excluding California State sales tax and voter additions) 2.50% Estimated Annual Sales Tax Revenue by On -site Employees $13,052 Annual Estimated Sales Tax Revenue by Residents and On -Site Employees $176,934 Total Annual Sales from Businesses $855,000 Total Sales Tax $1,031,934 *95% Structural Occupancy —Discounted for % of Workers living in Santa Ana **ICSC Estimates for average worker with comparable retail offerings Source: California BOE, Orange County Tax Assessor, LEHD, ICSC, AECOM Industrial Prototype - Estimated Sales Tax Revenue Description Value Annexation Employees* 519 Annual Taxable Workday Spending** $6,700 Capture to Santa Ana 35% Total Estimated Annual Taxable Sales from On -site Employees $1,218,164 Local Sales Tax (excluding California State sales tax and voter additions) 2.50% Estimated Annual Sales Tax Revenue by On -site Employees $30,454 Total Annual Sales from Businesses $493,920 Total Sales Tax $524,374 *Discounted for % of Workers living in Santa Ana **ICSC Estimates for average worker with comparable retail offerings Source: Califomia BOE, Orange County Tax Assessor, LEHD, ICSC, AECOM 75C-665 The Project - Estimated Other General Fund Revenue Other General Fund Revenue Sources* Pro Rata Share** Estimated Revenue*** Business Licenses $35.48 $87,696 Fees, Permits, and Other Charges $66.38 $164,078 Fines, Forfeitures and Penalties $18.03 $44,576 Intergovernmental $18.08 $44, 700 Estimated Total of other Revenue $137.97 $341,050 *General Fund revenue sources identified here are believed to have a reasonable relationship with population change. **Pro rata shares calculated using City of Santa Ana 2019-2020 Adopted Budget and estimated 2019 population (California Department of Finance). ***Estimated Revenue = Pro Rata Share x Estimated Development Service Population Source: City of Santa Ana Califomia Department of Finance, AECOM Industrial Prototype - Estimated Other General Fund Revenue Other General Fund Revenue Sources* Pro Rata Share** Estimated Revenue*** Business Licenses $35.48 $10,785 Fees, Permits, and Other Charges $66.38 $20,179 Fines, Forfeitures and Penalties $18.03 $5,482 Intergovernmental $18.08 $5,497 Estimated Total of other Revenue $137.97 $41,943 *General Fund revenue sources identified here are believed to have a reasonable relationship with population change. **Pro rata shares calculated using City of Santa Ana 2019-2020 Adopted Budget and estimated 2019 population (California Department of Finance). ***Estimated Revenue = Pro Rata Share x Estimated Development Service Population Source: City of Santa Ana Califomia Department of Finance, AECOM 75C-666 75C-667 75C-668 Exhibit 2 LS 8.18.20 RESOLUTION NO. 2020-xx A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA (1) ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, (2) CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2019080011), (3) ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND (4) APPROVING THE PROPOSED MIXED -USE COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF SANTA ANA LOCATED AT 2300, 2310, AND 2320 SOUTH REDHILL AVENUE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines and declares as follows: WHEREAS, Jeremy Ogulnick, representing Arrimus Capital ("Applicant"), seeks to develop a Mixed -Use Commercial and Residential Project ("proposed Project"), on a 14.69-acre site at 2300, 2310, and 2320 South Redhill Avenue in Santa Ana, California ("Project Site"); and WHEREAS, during the City's entitlement and environmental review process, and in response to comments and concerns raised by the City and public, the Applicant has proposed the subject mixed -use Project; and WHEREAS, the Project as currently proposed entails, among other things, (1) demolition of the existing three (3) structures on the Project Site; (2) redevelopment of the Project Site with a commercial and residential mixed -use development consisting of up to 80,000 square feet leasable commercial area, 1,100 residential units, 2,600 onsite parking spaces, and onsite landscaping and amenities; (3) approval of General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 2020-02, which would change the Project Site's existing land use designation of Professional & Administration Office (PAO) to District Center (DC); and (4) approval of Amendment Application (AA) No. 2020-01, which would change the zoning of the Project Site from Light Industrial (M-1) to Specific Development No. 96 (SD-96) designation; and WHEREAS, the proposed Project has been submitted and requires review and certification of an Environmental Impact Report (the "EIR") (State Clearing house/SC H No. 2019080011) (Environmental Impact Report No. 2020-01) and the GPA and AA applications listed above; and Resolution No. 2020-xx Page 1 75C-669 WHEREAS, the Project Site is located at the southwest corner of Redhill and Warner Avenue, at a gateway intersection into the City of Santa Ana and a location across major mixed -use development planning areas in the cities of Tustin and Irvine; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 21067 of the Public Resources Code, and Section 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, § 15000 et seq.), the City of Santa Ana is the lead agency for the proposed Project; and WHEREAS, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(a), the City as Lead Agency determined that an EIR was clearly required for the project, and therefore did not prepare an Initial Study; and WHEREAS, the City determined that an EIR should be prepared to evaluate the proposed Project's potential to have a significant effect on the environment in all of the following areas as required by Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines Appendices: Aesthetics; Air Quality; Cultural Resources; Energy; Geology and Soils; Greenhouse Gas Emissions; Hazardous Materials; Hydrology and Water Quality; Land Use and Planning; Noise; Population and Housing; Public Services and Recreation; Transportation; Tribal Cultural Resources; Utilities and Service Systems; and Project Alternatives; and WHEREAS, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, on July 26, 2019, the City sent to the Office of Planning and Research and each responsible and trustee agency a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") - which was also published in the Orange County Register, a newspaper of general circulation - stating that an Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2019080011) would be prepared; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.9 and State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15082(c) and 15083, the City held a duly noticed Scoping Meeting on August 15, 2019, to solicit comments on the scope of the environmental review of the proposed Project; and WHEREAS, ten (10) comment letters were received in response to the NOP; and WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR") was prepared for the proposed Project, addressing comments received in response to the NOP and evaluating the proposed Project's potentially significant environmental impacts; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR identifies five significant and unavoidable impact associated with this project, which pertain to Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Transportation. Air Quality impacts stem from emissions from operation of the project exceeding SCAQMD's threshold for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that would be derived from consumer products and vehicular activity that neither the Applicant nor the City have the ability to reduce. Greenhouse Gas Emissions impacts stem from approximately 60 percent of the GHG emissions being generated by vehicle trips. Neither the Applicant nor the City can substantively or materially reduce the vehicular -source GHG emissions. Lastly, Transportation impacts stem from the Resolution No. 2020-xx Page 2 75C-670 project's requirement to pay fair share funds to improve right -turn overlap phasing at the intersections of Grand and Warner Avenues and Redhill Avenue and Alton Parkway, and to construct right -turn overlap phasing and prohibit southbound U-turns at the intersection of Redhill Avenue and Barranca Parkway; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR further determines that mitigation measures are required to address impacts to Air Quality, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Transportation, and Tribal Cultural Resources; and WHEREAS, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15085, a Notice of Completion was prepared and filed with the Office of Planning and Research on January 3, 2020, and WHEREAS, as required by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15087(a), the City provided a Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR to the public - and published the Notice of Availability in the Orange County Register - at the same time that the City sent a Notice of Completion to the Office of Planning and Research on January 3, 2020, and WHEREAS, during the public comment period, copies of the Draft EIR and technical appendices were available for review and inspection at City Hall (20 Civic Center Plaza), on the City's website, and at the Santa Ana Public Library (26 Civic Center Plaza); and WHEREAS, during the public comment period, a Planning Commission work- study session was held on February 10, 2020 where staff presented proposed project and described the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15087(e), the Draft EIR was circulated for a 45-day review period, from January 3, 2020 to February 18, 2020; and WHEREAS, during the 45-day public comment period, the City consulted with and requested comments from all responsible and trustee agencies, other regulatory agencies, and others pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15086; and WHEREAS, the City has complied with CEQA environmental review requirements; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, on April 27, 2020, the City provided copies of its responses to commenting public agencies and interested organizations and parties more than ten (10) days prior to the City's consideration of the Final EIR; and WHEREAS, on April 27, 2020, the City released the Final EIR ("Final EIR"), attached hereto as Exhibit "C", which consists of the Draft EIR, all technical appendices prepared in support of the Draft EIR, all written comment letters received on the Draft EIR, written responses to all written comment letters received and verbal comments Resolution No. 2020-xx Page 3 75C-671 received on the Draft EIR, revisions to the Draft EIR and technical appendices, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and WHEREAS, on May 11, 2020 and May 26, 2020, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the EIR and the GPA, and AA applications described above. After hearing all relevant testimony from staff, the public and the City's consultant team, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council certify the EIR and adopt the findings, the statement of overriding considerations and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program and approve the Project; and WHEREAS, on August 6, 2020, the City gave public notice of a City Council public hearing for consideration of Environmental Impact Report No. 2020-01 (State Clearinghouse No. 2019080011) by advertising in the Orange County Register, a newspaper of general circulation, and by mailing to owners of property and residents within 500 feet of the Project; and WHEREAS, on August 18, 2020, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the EIR, General Plan Amendment No. 2020-02, and Amendment Application No. 2020-01 and at which hearing members of the public were afforded an opportunity to comment upon Environmental Impact Report No. 2020-01. After hearing all relevant testimony from staff, the public and the City's consultant team, the City Council voted to certify the EIR, adopt the findings, the statement of overriding considerations and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program and approve the Project; and WHEREAS, the "EIR" consists of the Final EIR, and all attachments and appendices to the Final EIR, as well as the Draft EIR and its attachments and appendices (as modified by the Final EIR); and WHEREAS, all potentially significant adverse environmental impacts were sufficiently analyzed in the EIR; and WHEREAS, as contained herein, the City Council has endeavored in good faith to set forth the basis for its decision and recommendations on the Project; and WHEREAS, all of the requirements of the Public Resources Code and the State CEQA Guidelines have been satisfied by the City in connection with the preparation of the EIR, which is sufficiently detailed so that all of the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project have been adequately evaluated; and WHEREAS, all of the findings and conclusions made by the City Council pursuant to this Resolution are based upon the oral and written evidence presented to it as a whole and the entirety of the administrative record for the Project, which are incorporated herein by this reference, and not based solely on the information provided in this Resolution; and Resolution No. 2020-xx Page 4 75C-672 WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Project's significant environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level even with incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures, as identified in the EIR, and described in Section 4 of the CEQA Findings of Fact, attached hereto as Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Project's environmental impacts that are less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation measures, as identified in the EIR, are described in Section 3 of the Findings of Fact, attached hereto as Exhibit "A": and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that environmental impacts that are identified in the EIR as less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Section 2 of the Findings of Fact, attached hereto as Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, the cumulative impacts of the Project identified in the EIR are described in Section 5 of the Findings of Fact, attached hereto as Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, the potential significant and irreversible environmental changes that would result from the proposed Project identified in the EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section 5 of the Findings of Fact, attached hereto as "Exhibit A"; and WHEREAS, the existence of any growth -inducing impacts resulting from the proposed Project identified in the EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section 5 of the Findings of Fact, attached hereto as Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, alternatives to the proposed Project that might further reduce the proposed Project's environmental impacts are described in Section 5 of the Findings of Fact, attached hereto as Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the City Council has heard, been presented with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record, including but not limited to the EIR, and all oral and written evidence presented to it during all meetings and hearings; and WHEREAS, the EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council and is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Project, and WHEREAS, no comments made in the public hearing conducted by the City Council and no additional information submitted to the City have produced substantial new information requiring recirculation of the EIR or additional environmental review of the Project under Public Resources Code section 21092.1 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.51 and WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred; and Resolution No. 2020-xx Page 5 75C-673 NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE, FIND, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: 1. The City Council hereby finds that it has been presented with the EIR, which it has reviewed and considered, and further finds that the EIR is an accurate and objective statement that has been completed in full compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, and that the EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City. 2. The City Council declares that no evidence of new significant impacts or any new information of "substantial importance", as defined by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, has been received by the City after circulation of the Draft EIR that would require recirculation of the EIR. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL HEREBY: 1. Certifies the EIR based on the entirety of the record of proceedings. 2. Adopts the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A", after balancing the significant and unavoidable aesthetic impacts of the Project against the benefits of the Project. 3. Adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "B", consistent with Public Resources Code section 21081.6; makes implementation of the Mitigation Measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program a condition of approval of the Project; and find that in the event of any inconsistencies between the Mitigation Measures set forth herein and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program shall control. 4. Directs City staff to cause a Notice of Determination to be filed and posted with the County of Orange Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk and the State Clearinghouse within five (5) working days of the City Council's final Project approval. Section 2. INDEMNIFICATION. The Applicant has agreed to and shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, authorized volunteers, and instrumentalities thereof, harmless from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other proceedings (whether legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute resolution procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and such other procedures), judgments, orders, and decisions (collectively "Actions"), brought against the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or annul, any action of, or any Resolution No. 2020-xx Page 6 75C-674 permit or approval issued by the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City) for or concerning the Project, whether such Actions are brought under the Ralph M. Brown Act, California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning and Zoning Law, the Subdivision Map Act, Code of Civil Procedure sections 1085 or 1094.5, or any other federal, state or local constitution, statute, law, ordinance, charter, rule, regulation, or any decision of a court of competent jurisdiction. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld, the legal counsel providing the City's defense, and that Applicant shall reimburse the City for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the course of the defense. City shall promptly notify the Applicant of any Action brought and City shall cooperate with Applicant in the defense of the Action. Section 3. EXECUTION OF RESOLUTION. The Mayor shall sign this Resolution and the Clerk of the Council shall attest and certify to the adoption thereof. ADOPTED this _ day of , 2020. Miguel A. Pulido Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sonia R. Carvalho City Attorney Lisa Storck Assistant City Attorney AYES: Councilmembers NOES: Councilmembers ABSTAIN: Councilmembers NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers Resolution No. 2020-xx Page 7 75C-675 CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, DAISY GOMEZ, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2020-xx to be the original resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on 2020. Date: Daisy Gomez Clerk of the Council City of Santa Ana Resolution No. 2020-xx Page 8 75C-676 EXHIBIT A The Wamer Redhill Mixed -Use Proiect CEQA Findinqs of Fad CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT FOR THE WARNER REDHILL MIXED -USE PROJECT SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2019080011 CITY OF SANTA ANA DP NO. 2019-06 Public Resources Code section 21002 states that "public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]" Section 21 002 further states that the procedures required by CEQA "are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which would avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects." Agencies demonstrate compliance with section 21002's mandate by adopting findings before approving projects for which EIRs are required. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (a); State CEQA Guidelines § 15091, subd. (a).) The approving agency must make written findings for each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a proposed project and must reach at least one of three permissible conclusions. • The first possible finding is that "[c]hanges or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR." (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091, subd. (a) (I ).) • The second permissible finding is that "[s]uch changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding" and that "[s]uch changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency." (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091, subd. (a)(2).) • The third potential conclusion is that "[s]pecific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR." (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091, subd. (a)(3).) Agencies must not adopt a project with significant environmental impacts if feasible alternatives or mitigation measures would substantially lessen the significant impacts. Public Resources Code section 21061.1 defines "feasible" to mean "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological factors." State CEQA Guidelines section 15364 adds "legal" considerations as another indicium of feasibility (See also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 565). Project objectives also inform the determination of "feasibility." (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 401, 417.) Further, "'feasibility' under CEQA encompasses 'desirability' to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors." (Id.; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715.) An agency need not, however, adopt infeasible mitigation measures or alternatives (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091, subds. (a), (b)). Further, environmental impacts that are less than significant do not require the imposition of mitigation measures (Leonoff v. Monterey County Board of Supervisors (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1337, 1347). City of Santa Ana May 2020 75C-677 The Wamer Redhill Mixed -Use Proiect CEQA Findinqs of Fad Notably, section 21002 requires an agency to "substantially lessen or avoid" significant adverse environmental impacts. Thus, mitigation measures that "substantially lessen" significant environmental impacts, even if not completely avoided, satisfy section 21002's mandate. (Laurel Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City Council (1 978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 521 ("CEQA does not mandate the choice of the environmentally best feasible project if through the imposition of feasible mitigation measures alone the appropriate public agency has reduced environmental damage from a project to an acceptable level"); Las Virgenes Homeowners Federation, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 300, 309 ("[t]here is no requirement that adverse impacts of a project be avoided completely or reduced to a level of insignificance ... if such would render the Project unfeasible"). CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible, to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur. Project modification or alternatives are not required, however, where such changes are infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying the Project lies with some other agency. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091, subds. (a), (b). The California Supreme Court has stated, "[t]he wisdom of approving ... any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced." (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 576). The City of Santa Ana has determined that based on all the evidence presented, including, but not limited to, the Final EIR, written and oral testimony given at meetings and hearings on the Project, and submission of testimony from the public, organizations and regulatory agencies, the following environmental impacts associated with the Project are: (1) less than significant and do not require mitigation; (2) potentially significant and each of these impacts would be avoided or reduced to a level of insignificance through the identified mitigation measures; or (3) significant and cannot be fully mitigated to a level of less than significant but will be substantially lessened to the extent feasible by the identified mitigation measures. City of Santa Ana 2 May 2020 75C-678 The Wamer Redhill Mixed -Use SECTION I ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION CEQA Findings of Fad The Final EIR includes the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) dated January 2020, written comments on the Draft EIR that were received during the public review period, written responses to those comments and changes to the Draft EIR, and the Final EIR Errata making minor corrections and revisions to the Final EIR. In conformance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Santa Ana conducted an extensive environmental review of the Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Project: • The City of Santa Ana concluded that an EIR should be prepared, and the Notice of Preparation (NOP) was released for a 30-day public review period from July 26, 2019 (Modified on August 5, 2019), through August 29, 2019. The NOP was posted at the Orange County Clerk's Office on July 26, 2019 and August 5, 2019. The notice was published in the Orange County Reporter, a newspaper of general circulation. Under CEQA, a Lead Agency may proceed directly with preparation of the EIR without preparation of an Initial Study if it is clear that an EIR will be required (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15060[d]). The City of Santa Ana has made such a determination for this Project and has not prepared an Initial Study. • Completion of a scoping process, in which the public was invited by the City of Santa Ana to participate. The scoping meeting for the EIR was held on August 15, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. at the Embassy Suites located at 1325 East Dyer Road in Santa Ana. The notice of a public scoping meeting was included in the NOP distributed on July 26, 2019 and August 5, 2019. • Preparation of a Draft EIR by the City of Santa Ana, which was made available for a 46- day public review period (January 3, 2020 through February 18, 2020). The Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft EIR was sent to all persons, agencies and organizations on the interest list interested persons, sent to the State Clearinghouse in Sacramento for distribution to public agencies, and published in the January 3, 2020 Orange County Reporter. The NOA was posted at the Orange County Clerk's Office on January 3, 2020. Copies of the Draft EIR were made available for public review at the City of Santa Ana, Planning Division Counter, located at 20 Civic Center Plaza, M-20, Santa Ana, CA 92701, and the City of Santa Ana Public Library, located at 26 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701. The Draft EIR was also available for review and download via the following City website location: https://www.santa-ana.org/pb/planning-division/major-planning- pro jects-and-documents/bowery. • The Final EIR contains comments on the Draft EIR, responses to those comments, revisions to the Draft EIR, if any, and appended documents. The Final EIR was released for a 10-day agency review period prior to certification of the Final EIR. • After considering the EIR and in conjunction with making these findings, the City of Santa Ana hereby finds that pursuant to Section 15092 of the CEQA Guidelines that approval of the Project will result in significant effects on the environment, however, the significant effects will be eliminated or substantially lessened where feasible, and has determined that remaining significant effects are found to be acceptable under Section 15093. City of Santa Ana 3 May 2020 75C-679 The Wamer Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact • The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is hereby adopted to ensure implementation of feasible mitigation measures identified in the EIR. The City of Santa Ana finds that these mitigation measures are fully enforceable conditions on the Project and shall be binding upon the City and affected parties. • The City of Santa Ana finds that the Project is in the public interest and is necessary for the public health, safety, and welfare. • The City of Santa Ana hereby certifies the Final EIR in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. • Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15095, staff is directed as follows: a) copy of the Final EIR and CEQA Findings of Fact shall be retained in the Project files; b) copy of the Final EIR and CEQA Findings of Fact shall be provided to the Project applicant who is responsible for providing copy of same to all CEQA "responsible" agencies. City of Santa Ana 4 May 2020 75C-680 The blamer Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fad SECTION II RESOLUTION REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT REQUIRING MITIGATION Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines does not require specific findings to address environmental effects that an EIR identifies as "less than significant" where no mitigation is required. These findings will nevertheless fully account for all such effects identified in the Draft EIR in this Section II. Thus, the City hereby finds that the following potential environmental impacts of the Project are less than significant and do not require the imposition of mitigation measures: A. Aesthetics Impact Finding: The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista (Draft EIR at p. 5.1 -23). Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site and surrounding areas are either urbanized or planned for urbanization and do not contain any sensitive scenic vistas. The General Plan Scenic Corridors Element does not identify any scenic resources or vistas at or adjacent to the Project site. The nearest feature identified by the General Plan is Edinger Avenue, a "Secondary Street Corridor", which is approximately 1 mile north of the site. Due to the flat topography and distance, Edinger Avenue it is not visible from the Project site. Because there are no scenic vistas within the viewshed of the Project site, no impacts related to the scenic vistas would occur from implementation of the proposed Project. Impact Finding: The Project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway (Draft EIR at p. 5.1 -23). Facts in Support of Findings: There are no officially designated state scenic highways in the vicinity of the proposed Project (Caltrans 2019). The only officially designated scenic highway within Orange County is a portion of SR-91 that is located between SR-55 to east of the Anaheim city limit (Caltrans 2019), which is not in the vicinity of the Project site. Likewise, there are no County -designated scenic highways that run through the City of Santa Ana. Further, the proposed Project site is flat and surrounded by an urban built environment, and there are no other scenic resources, including trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings within the viewshed of the Project. Therefore, no impacts related to scenic resources within a state scenic highway would occur. Impact Finding: The Project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings and would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality (Draft EIR at p. 5.1 -2A). Facts in Support of Findings: Construction Construction of the proposed Project is anticipated to last approximately 27-months. Views of demolition and construction activities would exist from adjacent public view locations along Red Hill Avenue and Warner Avenue. During Project demolition and construction, various activities would alter the character of the Project site and its surroundings. Graded surfaces, demolition and construction debris, construction equipment, and truck traffic would be visible. Soil would also be stockpiled and equipment for grading activities would be staged at various locations throughout City of Santa Ana 5 May 2020 75C-681 The blamer Redhill Mixed -Use Proiect CEQA Findinqs of Fact the site. Construction -related visual impacts would not be constant over the 27-month construction period (as different construction phases would involve varying activities occurring at different times). Upon completion of construction, these short-term visual impacts would cease. Because the views of construction activities would be temporary and changing as construction progresses, impacts related to the visual degradation of the existing character or quality of the site would be temporary and less than significant. Operations Implementation of the Project would result in a strong visual contrast from existing conditions but would not degrade the character or quality of the site, which currently has limited visual character or interest. The character of the site would change from setback urban views of industrial uses to a residential, urban mixed -use village that would have a unifying urban modern architectural theme. While implementation of the Project would alter the visual character of the site and surroundings, it is not anticipated that a substantial degradation of the visual character or quality would occur. In addition, the proposed Project would be visually compatible with the existing and future built environment in the Project area that includes various high -density, urban -style boxy large buildings and ornamental landscaping. The areas in the viewshed of the Project site include urban structures such as, Naval Air Station airplane hangars, two and four-story office structures, and a 5-story hotel. The undeveloped chained linked areas across from the Project site in the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan are planned for employment buildings that would likely be modern in architecture and are permitted to be 6-stories and 70-feet in height with a 40-foot setback from Red Hill Avenue. Although the 94 foot high structure would be 24-feet higher than development within the Tustin Legacy, and four stories taller than adjacent structures on Red Hill and across Warner Avenue from the site, the modern urban and dense character of the proposed Project would be similar to the existing and planned uses, which generate similar views. As a result, the proposed Project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character of the site or surrounding area, and impacts would be less than significant. Regarding a potential conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality, the Project includes a zone change that would change the existing zoning designation change from M-1 (Light Industrial) to a Specific Development (SD) to implement the proposed mixed -use Project. As described in the City's Zoning Code Section 41-593.1, the purpose of the SD zone is to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare by the use of good design principles, maintaining an orderly and harmonious appearance, and encouraging excellence of property development. When development projects are proposed within the SD zone, they are required (per Zoning Code Section 41-593.4) to submit development plans for architectural review to ensure that buildings, structures, and grounds would be in keeping with the neighborhood and would not be detrimental to the harmonious development of the City or impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood. The proposed Project would create an attractive, cohesive mixed -use community through the use of contemporary architectural materials and landscaping throughout the Project site. As required by the Zoning Code, the proposed Project's development plans would be reviewed by the City to ensure consistency with development standards. Thus, the proposed Project would not conflict with applicable zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality. Overall, impacts would be less than significant. City of Santa Ana 6 May 2020 75C-682 The blamer Redhill Mixed -Use Proiect CEQA Findinqs of Fad Impact Finding: The Project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area (Draft EIR at p. 5.1 -4). Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed Project would include the provision of nighttime lighting for security purposes around all of the buildings and parking structures. Implementation of the proposed Project would result in a higher intensity development on the site than currently exists, which would contribute additional sources to the overall ambient nighttime lighting conditions. However, all outdoor lighting would be hooded, appropriately angled away from adjacent land uses, and would comply with the Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41-611.1 and Section 41-1304 that provides specifications for shielding lighting away from adjacent uses and intensity of security lighting. Because the Project area is within an urban area with various sources of existing nighttime lighting, and the Project would be required to comply with the City's lighting regulations that would be verified by the City's Planning and Building Agency during the permitting process, the lighting increase in light that would be generated by the Project would not adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Overall, lighting impacts would be less than significant. Reflective light (glare) can be caused by sunlight or artificial light reflecting from finished surfaces such as window glass or other reflective materials. Generally, darker or mirrored glass would have a higher visible light reflectance than clear glass. Buildings constructed of highly reflective materials from which the sun reflects at a low angle can cause adverse glare. However, the proposed Project would not use highly reflective surfaces, or glass sided buildings. Although the residential and commercial buildings would contain windows, the windows would be separated by stucco and architectural treatments, which would limit the potential of glare. In addition, as described previously, onsite lighting would be angled down and shielded, which would avoid the potential on onsite lighting to generate glare. In addition, the majority of vehicle parking would be located within parking structures and the Project does not contain large surface parking lots that could generate glare from numerous windshields aligned in one area. Therefore, the Project would not generate substantial sources of glare, and impacts would be less than significant. B. Air Quality Impact Finding: Construction of the Project would not 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 (Draft EIR at p. 5.2-15). Facts in Support of Findings: Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would result in short-term and temporary emissions of CO, VOCs, NOx, SOx, PMio, and PM2.5 lasting approximately 27- months. The maximum daily construction emissions were estimated using CaIEEMod; and the modeling includes compliance with SCAQMD Rules 403, 431.2, 1113, and 1186 / 1186.1, which are requirements that would reduce air contaminants during construction. The Draft EIR Table 5.2-7, on page 5.2-16, provides the maximum daily emissions of criteria air pollutants from construction of the proposed Project and shows that SCAQMD thresholds would not be exceeded. Thus, impacts related to construction emissions would be less than significant with implementation of required SCAQMD Rules listed below. Plans, Program and Policies: PPP AQ-1: Rule 403. The following measures shall be incorporated into construction plans and specifications as implementation of Rule 403: o All clearing, grading, earth -moving, or excavation activities shall cease when winds exceed 25 mph per SCAQMD guidelines in order to limit fugitive dust emissions. City of Santa Ana 7 May 2020 75C-683 The blamer Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact o The contractor shall ensure that all disturbed unpaved roads and disturbed areas within the Project are watered at least three (3) times daily during dry weather. Watering, with complete coverage of disturbed areas, shall occur at least three times a day, preferably in the mid -morning, afternoon, and after work is done for the day. o The contractor shall ensure that traffic speeds on unpaved roads and Project site areas are reduced to 15 miles per hour or less. PPP ACI-2: Rule 1113. The following measure shall be incorporated into construction plans and specifications as implementation of Rule 1113. The Project shall only use "Low -Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)" paints (no more than 50 gram/liter of VOC) consistent with SCAQMD Rule 1113. PPP ACI-3: Rule 445. The following measure shall be incorporated into construction plans and specifications as implementation of Rule 445. Wood burning stoves and fireplaces shall not be included or used in the new development. Impact Finding: The Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations (Draft EIR at p. 5.2.17). Facts in Support of Findings: Localized Construction Air Quality. As shown in the Draft EIR in Table 5.2-9, on page 5.2-17, emissions during peak construction activity of the Project would not exceed the SCAQMD's localized significance threshold for any of the pollutants. Therefore, impacts related to localized significant emissions from construction activity would be less than significant. CO Hotspots. An adverse CO concentration, known as a "hot spot", can occur if an exceedance of the state one -hour standard of 20 ppm or the eight -hour standard of 9 ppm were to occur. With operations of the proposed Project and cumulative projects, the traffic volume (described in Draft EIR at Table 5.2-10, on page 5.2-18) would not be high enough to generate a CO "hot spot" per the 2003 AQMP hot spot study. Therefore, impacts related to CO "hot spots" from operation of the proposed Project would be less than significant. Impact Finding: The Project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people (Draft EIR at p. 5.2.18). Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed Project would not emit other emissions, such as those generating objectionable odors, that would affect a substantial number of people. The type of facilities that are considered to result in other emissions, such as objectionable odors, include wastewater treatments plants, compost facilities, landfills, solid waste transfer stations, fiberglass manufacturing facilities, paint/coating operations (e.g., auto body shops), dairy farms, petroleum refineries, asphalt batch plants, chemical manufacturing, and food manufacturing facilities. The proposed Project would implement retail and restaurant commercial and residential development within the Project area. These land uses do not involve the types of uses that would emit objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. During construction, emissions from construction equipment, architectural coatings, and paving activities may generate odors. However, these odors would be temporary, intermittent in nature, and would not affect a substantial number of people. The noxious odors would be confined to the City of Santa Ana 8 May 2020 75C-684 The Wamer Redhill Mixed -Use Proiect CEQA Findinqs of Fad immediate vicinity of the construction equipment. Also, the short-term construction -related odors would cease upon the drying or hardening of the odor -producing materials. In addition, all Project -generated solid waste would be stored in covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance with solid waste regulations and would not generate objectionable odors. Therefore, impacts associated with other operation- and construction - generated emissions, such as odors, would be less than significant. C. Cultural Resources Impact Finding: The Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 (Draft EIR at p. 5.3-7). Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site does not contain any historic resources. As described in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment that was prepared for the Project site (Phase 12018) (Appendix D of the Draft EIR), aerial photographs between 1938 and 1977 show the site being used for agriculture or being vacant. The existing industrial buildings was constructed in the early 1980s, which are not more than 39 years old and are not historic resources. The industrial buildings were previously used by Ricoh Electronics Inc. for imaging and electronics manufacturing. No historically important activities previously occurred within the existing buildings. Overall, the site does not include any historic resources and implementation of the proposed Project would not impact a historic resource. In addition, the Project site is not adjacent to any historic structures. Areas surrounding the site consist of modern office buildings, business park buildings, modern public service facilities, and vacant land that is proposed for new development. Therefore, redevelopment of the Project site would not result in an indirect effect to any off -site historic resources. Overall, no impacts related to historic resources would occur from implementation of the proposed Project. Impact Finding: The Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. (Draft EIR at p. 5.3-7). Facts in Support of Findings: The site has a long history of ground disturbance from previous agricultural uses and development, as detailed in the Geotechnical Report (Appendix C of the Draft EIR) describes that artificial fill was observed in field explorations up to 7.5 feet below existing grade and previous excavation and recompaction ranged from 5 feet to 13 feet for development of the existing buildings and removal of underground storage tanks. It is likely that the site disturbance included the undeveloped portion of the site at the corner of Red Hill and Warner Avenue. The extensive previous excavation, recompaction, and fill soils onsite have limited the potential of the site to contain archaeological resources. Also, as described in the Draft EIR Section 3.0, Project Description, the proposed Project would excavate onsite soils to a minimum of 5 feet below the bottom of the building foundations and 5 feet beyond the building perimeters. The soils would be reconditioned and recompacted as engineered fill to support the proposed building structures. The depth of the excavation is within the previously disturbed soil depths, which further reduces the potential of the Project to result in impacts related to archaeological resources. City of Santa Ana 9 May 2020 75C-685 The Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact Overall, due to the extent and depth of previous ground disturbances throughout the site, the potential for archaeological resources is limited. Therefore, the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resources; and impacts would be less than significant. Impact Finding: The Project would not disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries (Draft EIR at p. 5.3-8). Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site has been extensively disturbed and has not been previously used as a cemetery. Thus, impacts related to human remains are less than significant. In the unanticipated event that human remains are found during project construction activities compliance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 would ensure that human remains are treated with dignity and as specified by law. As specified by California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, if human remains are found on the Project site, the County Coroner's office shall be immediately notified and no further excavation or disturbance of the discovery or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains shall occur until the Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code 5097.98. If the Coroner recognizes the remains to be Native American, he or she shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours. The NAHC will make a determination as to the Most Likely Descendent. Compliance with the existing California Health and Safety Code regulations, would ensure impacts related to potential disturbance of human remains are less than significant. D. Enemy Impact Finding: The Project would not result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation (Draft EIR at p. 5.4-5). Facts in Support of Findings: Construction During construction of the proposed Project, energy would be consumed in three general forms, petroleum -based fuels, electricity, and energy used in the production of construction materials. Construction activities related to the proposed mixed -use Project would not be expected to result in demand for fuel greater on a per -unit -of -development basis than other development projects in Southern California. Construction would occur over a 27-month period and the demand for construction -related electricity and fuels would be limited to those time frames. Draft EIR pages 5.4-6 through 5.4-7 detail that construction of the proposed Project is estimated to result in the need for 1,674,604 kWh of electricity, approximately 123,957 gallons of diesel fuel. Construction workers would use approximately 291,025 gallons of fuel to travel to and from the Project area. Approximately 25,976 gallons of fuel would be used by medium high duty and 160,174 gallons of fuel would be used for hauling by heavy-duty trucks during construction of the proposed Project. Construction contractors are required to demonstrate compliance with applicable California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulations and compliance with existing CARB idling restrictions and the use of newer engines and equipment would reduce fuel combustion and energy consumption on City of Santa Ana 10 May 2020 75C-686 The blamer Redhill Mixed -Use Proiect CEQA Findinqs of Fad the Project site. Overall, construction activities would require limited energy consumption and would comply with all existing regulations. Thus, impacts related to construction energy usage would be less than significant. Ooeration Once operational, the mixed -use Project would generate demand for electricity, natural gas, as well as gasoline for motor vehicle trips. Operational use of energy includes the heating, cooling, and lighting of buildings, water heating, operation of electrical systems and plug-in appliances within buildings, parking lot and outdoor lighting, and the transport of electricity, natural gas, and water to the areas where they would be consumed. Draft EIR pages 5.4-8 and 5.4-9 detail that operation of the proposed Project is estimated to result in the annual use of 1,236,920 gallons of fuel. In addition, the proposed Project would use approximately 29,255,440 thousand British thermal units (kBTU) per year of natural gas, and approximately 12,721,140 kilowatt-hour (kWh) per year of electricity. The proposed mixed -use development would be required to meet the current Title 24 energy efficiency standards. The City's administration of the Title 24 requirements and the City's Climate Action Plan includes review of design components and energy conservation measures that occurs during the permitting process, which ensures that all requirements are met. Typical Title 24 measures include insulation; use of energy -efficient heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment (HVAC); solar -reflective roofing materials; energy -efficient indoor and outdoor lighting systems; reclamation of heat rejection from refrigeration equipment to generate hot water; and incorporation of skylights, etc. In complying with the Title 24 standards, impacts to peak energy usage periods would be minimized, and impacts on statewide and regional energy needs would be reduced. All development is required to comply with the adopted California Energy Code (Code of Regulations, Title 24 Part 6). The Project would consist of an urban infill redevelopment that would provide mixed residential and commercial (retail/restaurant) uses. Since it would be undertaken on a currently developed and underutilized site, and would be located near existing off -site employment, commercial, residential, and retail destinations and in proximity to existing public bus stops and freeways, which would result in reduced vehicle trips and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) in comparison to a Project of similar size and land without close access to employment, service, and retail, destinations; in addition to public transit and freeways. In addition, the Project site is within an area where existing infrastructure would provide for efficient delivery of electricity and natural gas to the Project and the Project would not inhibit the development of other alternative energy sources. Furthermore, other existing and future regulations are likely to result in more efficient use of all types of energy, and reduction in reliance on non-renewable sources of energy. These include the federal Energy Independence and Security Act, the state Long Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan, SB 350 and AB 1007, which are designed to reduce reliance on non-renewable energy resources and reduce demand by providing federal tax credits for purchasing fuel -efficient items and improving the renewable fuel, appliance, and lighting standards. Thus, operation of the proposed Project would not use large amounts of energy or fuel in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary manner, and impacts would be less than significant. City of Santa Ana 1 1 May 2020 75C-687 The Wamer Redhill Mixed -Use Proiect CEQA Findinqs of Fad Impact Finding: The Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed Project would be required to meet the CCR Title 24 energy efficiency standards in effect during permitting of the Project. The City's administration of the CCR Title 24 requirements includes review of design components and energy conservation measures that occurs during the permitting process, which ensures that all requirements are met. In addition, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct opportunities to use renewable energy, such as solar energy. Redevelopment of the site would not result in obstruction of opportunities for use of renewable energy. Thus, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and impacts would not occur. E. Geology and Soils Impact Finding: The Project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault. (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 4) (Draft EIR at p. 5.5-7). Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and no active faults are known to cross the site. The closest known active faults are associated with the San Joaquin Hills Fault, located approximately 1.5 miles from the site; the Newport -Inglewood Fault Zone, approximately 8.4 miles southwest of the site; and the Elsinore Fault Zone, approximately 13.2 miles northeast of the site. Because no known faults exist on the site, the proposed Project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects from rupture of a known earthquake fault that is delineated on an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map or other evidence of a fault, and impacts would not occur. Impact Finding: The Project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking (Draft EIR at p. 5.5-7). Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site is within a seismically active region, with numerous faults capable of producing significant ground motions. The closest known active faults are associated with the San Joaquin Hills Fault, located approximately 1.5 miles from the site; the Newport -Inglewood Fault Zone, approximately 8.4 miles southwest of the site; and the Elsinore Fault Zone, approximately 13.2 miles northeast of the site (GEO 2019). Therefore, Project implementation could subject people and structures to hazards from ground shaking. However, seismic shaking is a risk throughout southern California, and the Project site is not at greater risk of seismic activity or impacts as compared to other areas within the region. The CBC includes provisions to reduce impacts caused by major structural failures or loss of life resulting from earthquakes or other geologic hazards. For example, Chapter 16 of the CBC contains requirements for design and construction of structures to resist loads, including earthquake loads. The CBC provides procedures for earthquake resistant structural design that include considerations for onsite soil conditions, occupancy, and the configuration of the structure including the structural system and height. City of Santa Ana 12 May 2020 75C-688 The Wamer Redhill Mixed -Use Proiect CEQA Findinqs of Fad The City of Santa Ana has adopted the CBC as part of the Municipal Code Chapter 8, Article 2, Division 1, which regulates all building and construction projects within the City and implements a minimum standard for building design and construction that includes specific requirements for seismic safety, excavation, foundations, retaining walls and site demolition. Structures built in the City are required to be built in compliance with the CBC. The Project would be required to adhere to the provisions of the CBC as part of the building plan check and development review process. Compliance with the requirements of the CBC for structural safety would reduce hazards from strong seismic ground shaking. Because the proposed Project would be required to be constructed in compliance with the CBC and the City's Municipal Code, which would be verified through the City's plan check and permitting process and is included as PPP GEO-1, the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact related to strong seismic ground shaking. Plans, Program and Policies: PPP GEO-1: CBC Compliance. The Project is required to comply with the California Building Standards Code (CBC) as included in the City's Municipal Code as Chapter 8, Article 2, Division 1, to preclude significant adverse effects associated with seismic and soils hazards. As part of CBC compliance, CBC related and geologist and/or civil engineer specifications for the proposed Project shall be incorporated into grading plans and building specifications as a condition of construction permit approval. Impact Finding: The Project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction (Draft EIR at p. 5.5-8). Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site is located within a liquefaction hazard area. In addition, the Geotechnical Report identified that onsite soils include relatively isolated loose to medium dense sand layers, generally located approximately 40 to 50 feet below existing grade that are considered susceptible to liquefaction; and the depth of groundwater is in the range of 24 to 33 feet below ground surface (bgs), but the historic high groundwater is approximately 10 feet below the existing grade. Based on these onsite soils and groundwater conditions, the Geotechnical Report determined that the seismic settlement potential is estimated to be 2 inches or less; and differential seismic settlement is estimated as 1 -inch over a horizontal span of about 40 feet. However, structures built in the City are required to be built in compliance with the CBC, as included in the City's Municipal Code as Chapter 8, Article 2, Division 1 (and in the Draft EIR as PPP GEO-1), which regulates all building and construction projects within the City and implements a minimum standard for building design and construction that includes specific requirements for seismic safety, excavation, foundations, retaining walls and site demolition. The Geotechnical Report (Geo 2019) prepared for the Project site provides CBC seismic design criteria that are specific to the onsite soils and the potential liquefaction and settlement. Compliance with the CBC, as included as PPP GEO-1, would require proper construction of building footings and foundations so that it would withstand the effects of potential ground movement, including liquefaction and settlement. The CBC, as currently adopted in the City's Municipal Code Chapter 8, Article 2, Division 1, includes provisions to reduce impacts caused by potential major structural failures or loss of life resulting from geologic hazards. The City requires the Project specific engineering design recommendations be incorporated into grading plans and building specifications as a condition of construction permit approval. Therefore, the development of the proposed Project would be required to conform to the seismic design parameters of the City of Santa Ana 13 May 2020 75C-689 The Wamer Redhill Mixed -Use Proiect CEQA Findinqs of Fact CBC, as included as PPP GEO-1, would reduce hazards from seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction and settlement to a less than significant level. Plans, Program and Policies: PPP GEO-1: CBC Compliance. As listed previously. Impact Finding: The Project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides (Draft EIR at p. 5.5- 9). Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site ranges from approximately 57 to 65 feet msl and that the site is not located within a mapped area considered potentially susceptible to seismically induced slope instability. In addition, the Project site is not adjacent to any hills or slopes that could be subject to a landslide. Thus, the Project site is not located within or adjacent to an earthquake -induced landslide area, and the Project would not expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects involving landslides, and impacts related to landslides would not occur. Impact Finding: The Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil (Draft EIR at p. 5.5-9). Facts in Support of Findings: The City's Municipal Code Chapter 18-156, Control of Urban Runoff implements the requirements of the Orange County Municipal NDPES Storm Water Permit (Order No. R8-2016-0001 ). All projects in the City are required to conform to the permit requirements, which includes installation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) in compliance with the NPDES permit, which establishes minimum stormwater management requirements and controls that are required to be implemented for the proposed Project. To reduce the potential for soil erosion and the loss of topsoil, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulations to be developed by a QSD (Qualified SWPPP Developer). The SWPPP is required to address site -specific conditions related to specific grading and construction activities. The SWPPP is required to identify potential sources of erosion and sedimentation loss of topsoil during construction, identify erosion control BMPs to reduce or eliminate the erosion and loss of topsoil, such as use of silt fencing, fiber rolls, or gravel bags, stabilized construction entrance/exit, hydroseeding. With compliance with the City's Municipal Code, RWQCB requirements, and the BMPs in the SWPPP that is required to be prepared to implement the Project, construction impacts related to erosion and loss of topsoil would be less than significant. In addition, the proposed Project includes installation of landscaping, such that during operation of the Project substantial areas of loose topsoil that could erode would not exist. Also, the onsite drainage features that would be installed by the Project have been designed to slow, filter, and slowly discharge stormwater into the offsite drainage system, which would also reduce the potential for stormwater to erode topsoil during Project operations. Furthermore, implementation of the Project requires City approval of a site specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), which would ensure that the City's Municipal Code, RWQCB requirements, and appropriate operational BMPs would be implemented to minimize or eliminate the potential for soil erosion or loss of topsoil to occur. As a result, potential impacts related to substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil would be less than significant. City of Santa Ana 14 May 2020 75C-690 The Wamer Redhill Mixed -Use Proiect CEQA Findinqs of Fad Impact Finding: The Project would not 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 (Draft EIR at p. 5.5-10). Facts in Support of Findings: The elevation of the site ranges from approximately 57 to 65 feet msl and the site is not located on or adjacent to a hillside or slope. Based on the relatively flat topography of the site, lack of a free face nearby and general lack of potentially liquefiable layers in the upper 40 feet, the Geotechnical Report determined that the potential for lateral spreading on the site is low. Thus, impacts related to lateral spreading would be less than significant. Also, as described previously, impacts related to landslides would not occur. The Geotechnical Report identified that seismic inducted settlement onsite could be 2 inches or less; and differential seismic settlement is estimated as 1 -inch over a horizontal span of about 40 feet The Geotechnical Report prepared for the Project site provides CBC seismic structural design criteria that are specific to the onsite soils, including the soils settlement and minor ground subsidence conditions that could occur. The Project includes excavation and recompaction of soils, and development of foundation systems in compliance with the CBC, as included as PPP GEO-1, which would require proper construction of building foundations to reduce impacts related to settlement and subsidence would not occur onsite. Also, the CBC, as currently adopted in the City's Municipal Code Chapter 8, Article 2, Division 1, requires that a California Certified Engineering Geologist or California -licensed civil engineer provide site -specific engineering data for the proposed structures, which are reviewed by the City for appropriate inclusion as part of the building plan check and development review process. Compliance with the requirements of the CBC and City's municipal code for structural safety through implementation of as included as PPP GEO-1 would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. Plans, Program and Policies: PPP GEO-1: CBC Compliance. As listed previously. Impact Finding: The Project would not be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property (Draft EIR at 5.5-10). Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site contains medium stiff to hard clays with variable sand content, as well as loose to medium dense, moist to wet clayey and silty sands. Due to the clay content in the onsite soils, the site has the potential for expansion. However, as described in the Draft EIR Section 3.0, Project Description, the soils onsite would be excavated to a minimum of 5 feet below the bottom of the building foundations and 5 feet beyond the building perimeters, reconditioned, and recompacted as engineered fill to support the proposed building structures. As part of reconditioning the compacted engineered fill, the soils would be moisture conditioned, as required by the CBC for expansive soils. Furthermore, prior to approval of construction, an engineering level design geotechnical report is required to be prepared and submitted to the City that details the project designs that have been included to address potential geotechnical and soil conditions pursuant to the CBC requirements, that are included in the City's Municipal Code Chapter 8, Article 2, Division 1, and implemented by PPP GEO-1. Compliance with the CBC, through design level geotechnical specifications that City of Santa Ana 15 May 2020 75C-691 The Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fad would be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer, per PPP GEO-1 would ensure that potential impacts related to expansive soils would be less than significant. Plans, Program and Policies: PPP GEO-1: CBC Compliance. As listed previously. Impact Finding: The Project would not 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 (Draft EIR at 5.5-11 ). Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site is currently connected to the City's sewer system, and the proposed Project would install onsite sewer lines that would connect to the existing sewer lines adjacent to the site. The Project would not use septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. As a result, impacts related to septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would not occur from implementation of the proposed Project. Impact Finding: The Project would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature (Draft EIR at 5.5-1 1 ). Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site is underlain by Quaternary aged young alluvial fan deposits and older artificial fill. Quaternary alluvial materials in Orange County are assigned a low paleontological resource sensitivity due to their relatively recent age. Likewise, the Orange County General Plan Figure VI-9 shows that the Project site is not located within an area of paleontological sensitivity. In addition, the Project site has been previously disturbed from agricultural and development activity. Artificial fill was observed in the field explorations up to 7.5 feet below existing grade and previous excavation and recompaction ranged from 5 feet to 13 feet for development of the existing buildings. The extensive previous excavation, recompaction, and fill soils onsite have further reduced the potential of the site to contain paleontological resources. Because the Project site is within an area of low paleontological resource sensitivity, has been previously disturbed, and the depth of Project excavated is within the previously disturbed soil depths, potential impacts related to paleontological resources would be less than significant. F. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact Finding: The Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials (Draft EIR at p. 5.7-21 ). Facts in Support of Findings: Operation Operation of the proposed Project includes activities related to retail commercial, restaurant, and multi -family residential development, which generally uses common hazardous materials, including: solvents, cleaning agents, paints, pesticides, batteries, and aerosol cans. Although the Project would utilize common types of hazardous materials, normal routine use of these products pursuant to existing regulations would not result in a significant hazard to the environment, residents, or workers in the vicinity of the Project. Therefore, operational impacts related to routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials during operation of the Project would be less than significant. City of Santa Ana 16 May 2020 75C-692 The blamer Redhill Mixed -Use Proiect CEQA Findinqs of Fact Impact Finding: The Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment (Draft EIR at p. 5.7-23). Facts in Support of Findings: Construction: Accidental Releases. While the routine use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials in accordance with applicable regulations during demolition, excavation, grading, and construction activities would not pose health risks or result in significant impacts; improper use, storage, transportation and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes could result in accidental spills or releases, posing health risks to workers, the public, and the environment. The use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) during construction implemented as part of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as required by the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System General Construction Permit (and included as PPP WQ-1) would minimize potential adverse effects to workers, the public, and the environment to a less than significant level. Asbestos Containing Materials. Buildings on the Project site were constructed in 1979 and 1981 when many structures were constructed with what are now recognized as hazardous building materials, such as lead and asbestos. Demolition of these structures could result in the release of hazardous materials. However, asbestos abatement contractors must follow state regulations contained in California Code of Regulations Sections 1529, and 341.6 through 341.14 as implemented by SCAQMD Rule 1403 to ensure that asbestos removed during demolition or redevelopment of the existing buildings is transported and disposed of at an appropriate facility. The contractor and hauler of the material are required to file a Hazardous Waste Manifest which details the hauling of the material from the site and the disposal of it. Section 19827.5 of the California Health and Safety Code requires that local agencies not issue demolition permit until an applicant has demonstrated compliance with notification requirements under applicable federal regulations regarding hazardous air pollutants, including asbestos. These requirements are included as PPP HAZ-1 to ensure that the Project applicant submits verification to the City that the appropriate activities related to asbestos have occurred, which would reduce the potential of impacts related to asbestos to a less than significant level. Lead Based Materials. Lead -based materials may also be located within existing structures on the Project site. The lead exposure guidelines provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development provide regulations related to the handling and disposal of lead -based products. Federal regulations to manage and control exposure to lead -based paint are described in Code of Federal Regulations Title 29, Section 1926.62, and state regulations related to lead are provided in the California Code of Regulations Title 8 Section 1532.1, as implemented by Cal -OSHA. These regulations cover the demolition, removal, cleanup, transportation, storage and disposal of lead -containing material. The regulations outline the permissible exposure limit, protective measures, monitoring and compliance to ensure the safety of construction workers exposed to lead -based materials. Cal/OSHA's Lead in Construction Standard requires project applicants to develop and implement a lead compliance plan when lead -based paint would be disturbed during construction or demolition activities. The plan must describe activities that could emit lead, methods for complying with the standard, safe work practices, and a plan to protect workers from exposure to lead during construction activities. In addition, Cal/OSHA requires 24- hour notification if more than 100 square feet of lead -based paint would be disturbed. These City of Santa Ana 17 May 2020 75C-693 The Wamer Redhill Mixed -Use Proiect CEQA Findinqs of Fact requirements are included as PPP HAZ-2 to ensure that the Project applicant submits verification to the City that the appropriate activities related to lead have occurred, which would reduce the potential of impacts related to lead -based materials to a less than significant level. Plans, Program and Policies: PPP WO-1: NPDES/SWPPP. Prior to issuance of any grading or demolition permits, the applicant shall provide the City Building and Safety Division evidence of compliance with the NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) requirement to obtain a construction permit from the State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB). The permit requirement applies to grading and construction sites of one acre or larger. The Project applicant/proponent shall comply by submitting a Notice of Intent (NOI) and by developing and implementing a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and a monitoring program and reporting plan for the construction site. PPP HAZ-1: SCAQMD Rule 1403. Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the Project applicant shall submit verification to the City Building and Safety Division that an asbestos survey has been conducted at all existing buildings located on the Project site. If asbestos is found, the Project applicant shall follow all procedural requirements and regulations of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1403. Rule 1403 regulations require that the following actions be taken: notification of SCAQMD prior to construction activity, asbestos removal in accordance with prescribed procedures, placement of collected asbestos in leak -tight containers or wrapping, and proper disposal. PPP HAZ-2: Lead. Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the Project applicant shall submit verification to the City Building and Safety Division that a lead -based paint survey has been conducted at all existing buildings located on the Project site. If lead -based paint is found, the Project applicant shall follow all procedural requirements and regulations for proper removal and disposal of the lead -based paint. Cal -OSHA has established limits of exposure to lead contained in dusts and fumes. Specifically, CCR Title 8, Section 1532.1 provides for exposure limits, exposure monitoring, and respiratory protection, and mandates good working practices by workers exposed to lead. Operation Development under the proposed Project would involve multi -family, restaurant, and retail commercial uses that would use and store common hazardous materials such as paints, solvents, and cleaning products. Also, building mechanical systems and grounds and landscape maintenance could also use a variety of products formulated with hazardous materials, including fuels, cleaners, lubricants, adhesives, sealers, and pesticides/herbicides. Normal routine use of these products pursuant to existing regulations would not result in a significant hazard to the environment, residents, or workers in the vicinity of the Project. In addition, a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) is required to be implemented for the Project (included as PPP WQ-2). The WQMP would protect human health and the environment should any accidental spills or releases of hazardous materials occur during operation of the Project. As a result, operation of the proposed Project would not result in a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions City of Santa Ana 18 May 2020 75C-694 The Wamer Redhill Mixed -Use Proiect CEQA Findinqs of Fact involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment, and impacts would be less than significant. Plans, Program and Policies: PPP WO-2: WQMP. Prior to the approval of the Grading Plan and issuance of Grading Permits a completed Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be submitted to and approved by the City Building and Safety Division. The WQMP shall identify all Post -Construction, Site Design. Source Control, and Treatment Control Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be incorporated into the development project in order to minimize the adverse effects on receiving waters. Impact Finding: The Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school (Draft EIR at p. 5.7-25). Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site is located 0.7 mile from the closest school, which is Heritage Elementary School, located at 15400 Landsdowne Road, Tustin. Thus, the proposed Project would not be within one -quarter mile of an existing school. Impact Finding: The Project would not be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the public or the environment (Draft EIR at p. 5.7-26). Facts in Support of Findings: The Phase I Environmental Site Assessments that was conducted database searches to determine if the Project area or any nearby properties are identified as currently having hazardous materials. The record searches determined that although the site has a history of various uses, and identified as previously generating hazardous wastes and clean-up activities, the Project site is not located on or near by a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Additionally, the Phase I ESA did not identify any nearby or surrounding area sites that are included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, and as a result, impacts related to hazards from being located on or adjacent to a hazardous materials site would not occur from implementation of the proposed Project. Impact Finding: The Project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area for a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such plan has not been adopted, be within 2 miles of a public airport use airport or public use airport (Draft EIR at p. 5.7-26). Facts in Support of Findings: John Wayne Airport (JWA) is located approximately 2.2 miles southwest of the Project site under the primary aircraft approach corridor. The Project site is not located within JWA's Airport Safety Zone, as shown in Draft EIR Figure 5.7-1) and is located outside of the airport's 55 CNEL contours (Draft EIR Figures 5.7-2 and 5.7-3). Table 1 of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport shows that residential land uses outside of the 60 CNEL contour are "normally consistent". Thus, development of residential units on the Project site would not result in excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area. City of Santa Ana 19 May 2020 75C-695 The Wamer Redhill Mixed -Use Proiect CEQA Findinqs of Fad Also, because the Project would not exceed the JWA FAR Part 77 Notification Area for JWA (100:1 imaginary surface slope extending outward for 20,000 feet) (Final EIR Figure 1), the Project site is not located within the AELUP Notification area for JWA, not within the JWA planning area boundary, FAA and ALUC notification of the proposed Project would not be required. The tallest point on the proposed structures would be approximately 94-feet from ground level. At 2.2 miles from JWA and at a maximum height of 94-feet, the Project would not create any imaginary surfaces with any of the specific slope characteristics within the imaginary surface area for the airport (shown on Figure 1 of the Final EIR). In addition, the proposed Project would not result in hazards related to excessive glare, light, steam, smoke, dust, or electronic interference. As described in Draft EIR Section 5.1, Aesthetics, the proposed Project would not generate substantial light or glare. Exterior lighting fixtures and security lighting would be installed in accordance with Municipal Code Division 3, Building Security Regulations, which includes specifications for shielding and intensity of security lighting. In addition, the proposed Project would not use highly reflective surfaces, and does not include large areas of glass on the buildings. Therefore, the Project would not generate substantial sources of glare. As described in Draft EIR Section 5.2, Air Quality, operation of the proposed residential and commercial uses would not generate substantial quantities of steam, smoke, or dust emissions. As described, dust emissions are regulated by AQMD requirements and construction related air quality emissions that could include steam, smoke, and dust emissions would be less than significant with implementation of the standard AQMD Rules listed in Section 5.2, Air Qualify. The proposed Project consists of residential and commercial uses that would include the use of typical electronics, such as computers, televisions, and other electronics with wireless capability. These types of electronics are currently being used by the existing industrial land uses on the site, and other uses in the vicinity of the site. The new residential and commercial uses on the site would use similar technology that does not cause electronic interference that could affect aircraft. Thus, impacts related to electronic interference with operations of the JWA would not occur. Overall, because the Project is not located within the JWA Airport Safety Zone, the Airport Impact Zone, outside of the JWA 55 CNEL noise contour; and would not penetrate the imaginary surfaces area or result in hazards related to excessive glare, light, steam, smoke, dust, or electronic interference, the proposed Project would not introduce a safety hazard associated with airport operations for people residing, working, and visiting the Project site. Thus, Project -related hazard and noise impacts associated with JWA operations would be less than significant. Impact Finding: The Project would not impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan (Draft EIR at p. 5.7-27). Facts in Support of Findings: Construction The proposed construction activities, including equipment and supply staging and storage, would occur within and adjacent to the Project site and would not restrict access of emergency vehicles to the Project site or adjacent areas. Full roadway closure and traffic detours are not expected to be necessary. Construction activities that may temporarily restrict vehicular traffic would be required to implement adequate measures to facilitate the safe passage of persons and vehicles through/around any required temporary road restrictions in accordance with Section 503 of the California Fire Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 9), which requires that prior to City of Santa Ana 20 May 2020 75C-696 The blamer Redhill Mixed -Use Proiect CEQA Findinqs of Fad any activity that would encroach into a right-of-way, the area of encroachment be safeguarded through the installation of safety devices that would be specified by the City's Building and Safety Division during the construction permitting process to ensure that construction activities would not physically interfere with emergency access or evacuation. Therefore, implementation of the Project through the City's permitting process would reduce potential construction related physical interference impacts to emergency access to a less than significant level. Operation The Project would include vehicular access to the site from driveways on both Warner and Red Hill Avenues. As described in draft EIR Section 5.13, Transportation, these driveways would provide adequate and safe circulation to, from, and through the Project site and would provide a variety of routes for emergency responders to access the Project site and surrounding areas. During operation of the Project, residents and commercial building tenants would be required to maintain adequate emergency access for emergency vehicles as required and verified by the City and the OCFA. Because the Project is required to comply with all applicable City codes, as verified by the City and OCFA, potential impacts related to emergency evacuation or emergency response plans would be less than significant. Impact Finding: The Project would not expose people or structures either directly or indirectly to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires (Draft EIR at p. 5.7-28). Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site is located within an urban developed area and is not located within an identified wildland fire hazard area and is not an area where residences are intermixed with wildlands. In addition, implementation of the proposed Project would be required to adhere to the following chapters of the City's Municipal Code to reduce potential fire hazards: Chapter 8.2 Uniform Building Code, Chapter 8.4 Uniform Mechanical Code, Chapter 8.5 National Electric Code, and Chapter 14 City of Santa Ana Fire Code. Additionally, the Project would be in compliance with any further guidelines from OCFA related to fire prevention and is subject to approval by the City's Building Division. Therefore, the proposed Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death from wildfires. G. Hydrology and Water Quality Impact Finding: The Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade water quality (Draft EIR at p. 5.8-11 ). Facts in Support of Findings: Construction Pollutants of concern during construction activities generally include sediments, trash, petroleum products, concrete waste (dry and wet), sanitary waste, and chemicals. Each of these pollutants on its own or in combination with other pollutants can have a detrimental effect on water quality. In addition, chemicals, liquid products, petroleum products (such as paints, solvents, and fuels), and concrete -related waste may be spilled or leaked during construction, which would have the potential to be transported via storm runoff into nearby receiving waters and eventually may affect surface or groundwater quality. During construction activities, excavated soil would be exposed, thereby increasing the potential for soil erosion and sedimentation to occur compared to City of Santa Ana 21 May 2020 75C-697 The Wamer Redhill Mixed -Use Proiect CEQA Findinqs of Fad existing conditions. In addition, during construction, vehicles and equipment are prone to tracking soil and/or spoil from work areas to paved roadways, which is another form of erosion that could affect water quality. However, the use of BMPs during construction implemented as part of a SWPPP as required by the NPDES General Construction Permit and included as PPP WQ-1 would serve to ensure that Project impacts related to construction activities resulting in a degradation of water quality would be less than significant. Ooeration The proposed Project includes operation of retail and restaurant commercial and multi -family residential uses. Potential pollutants associated with the proposed uses include various chemicals from cleaners, pathogens from pet wastes, nutrients from fertilizer, pesticides and sediment from landscaping, trash and debris, and oil and grease from vehicles. If these pollutants discharge into surface waters, it could result in degradation of water quality. As described previously, San Diego Creek Reachl and the Upper Newport Bay, to which the Project site ultimately drains, are currently listed as impaired on the EPA's 303(d) list for various pollutants. However, operation of the proposed Project would be required to comply with the requirements of the Santa Ana Regional MS4 Permit to develop of a project -specific WQMP (included as PPP WQ-2) that would describe implementation of LID infrastructure and non-structural, structural, and source control and treatment control BMPs to protect surface water quality. The Project site is located within the Selenium Concentration Area and the South Basin Groundwater Protection Project area, and is adjacent to the Tustin Marine area, as shown in Draft EIR Figure 5.8-1. Infiltration into the groundwater is prohibited by OCWD within these areas. As such, infiltration of water quality pollutants from the Project would not occur, which would reduce potential impacts to groundwater quality. In addition, the proposed Project would install Modular Wetland System units for water quality treatment, which have been sized to treat runoff from the Design Capture Storm (85th percentile, 24-hour) from the proposed Project. The Modular Wetland System units proposed for the Project consist of biotreatment systems that utilize multi -stage treatment processes including screening media filtration, settling, and biofiltration. The pre-treatment chamber contains a catch basin inlet filter to capture trash, debris, gross solids and sediments, a settling chamber for separating out larger solids, and a media filter cartridge for capturing fine silts, metals, nutrients, and bacteria. Runoff then flows through the wetland chamber where treatment of the water is done through a variety of physical, chemical, and biological processes. As storm water passes down through the planting soil, pollutants are filtered, adsorbed, biodegraded and sequestered by the soil and plants, functioning similar to bioretention systems. The discharge chamber at the end of the unit collects treated flows and discharges it into the existing storm drain in Red Hill Avenue. The WQMP is required to be approved prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit. The Project's WQMP would be reviewed and approved by the City to ensure it complies with the Santa Ana RWQCB MS4 Permit regulations. Overall, implementation of the WQMP pursuant to the existing regulations would ensure that operation of the proposed Project would not violate any water quality standards, waste discharge requirements, or otherwise degrade water quality; and impacts would be less than significant. City of Santa Ana 22 May 2020 75C-698 The Wamer Redhill Mixed -Use Proiect CEQA Findinqs of Fad Plans, Program and Policies: PPP WQ-1: NPDES/SWPPP. Prior to issuance of any grading or demolition permits, the applicant shall provide the City Building and Safety Division evidence of compliance with the NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) requirement to obtain a construction permit from the State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB). The permit requirement applies to grading and construction sites of one acre or larger. The Project applicant/proponent shall comply by submitting a Notice of Intent (NOI) and by developing and implementing a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and a monitoring program and reporting plan for the construction site. PPP WO-2: WQMP. Prior to the approval of the Grading Plan and issuance of Grading Permits a completed Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be submitted to and approved by the City Building and Safety Division. The WQMP shall identify all Post -Construction, Site Design. Source Control, and Treatment Control Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be incorporated into the development project in order to minimize the adverse effects on receiving waters. Impact Finding: The Project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin (Draft EIR at p. 5.8-13). Facts in Support of Findings: As detailed in Draft EIR Section 5.16, Utilities and Service Systems, Table 5.8-2 the City's water supply would be sufficient during both normal years and multiple dry year conditions between 2020 and 2040 to meet all of the City's estimated needs, including the proposed Project. Therefore, the Project would not result in changes to the projected groundwater pumping that would decrease groundwater supplies. Thus, impacts related to groundwater supplies would be less than significant. In addition, the onsite soils have a low infiltration rate and do not currently provide onsite infiltration; and the Project site is located within an infiltration constraints area (Draft EIR Figure 5.8-1) and infiltration is prohibited due to existing pollutant plumes under or adjacent to the site. Therefore, impacts related to interference with groundwater recharge would be less than significant. Impact Finding: The Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off - site (Draft EIR at p. 5.8-14). Facts in Support of Findings: Construction The existing NPDES Construction General Permit and Orange County DAMP require preparation and implementation of a SWPPP by a Qualified SWPPP Developer for the proposed construction activities (included as PPP WQ-1). The SWPPP is required to address site -specific conditions related to potential sources of sedimentation and erosion and would list the required BMPs that are necessary to reduce or eliminate the potential of erosion or alteration of a drainage pattern during construction activities to a less than significant level. Operation City of Santa Ana 23 May 2020 75C-699 The Wamer Redhill Mixed -Use Proiect CEQA Findinqs of Fact The proposed Project would maintain the existing drainage pattern. The runoff from the Project area would be collected by roof drains, surface flow designed pavement, curbs, and area drains and conveyed Modular Wetland System units for treatment. The Modular Wetland System units contain catch basin inlet filters to capture trash, debris, gross solids and sediments, a settling chamber for separating out larger solids, and a media filter cartridge for capturing fine silts, metals, nutrients, and bacteria. The MS4 permit and DAMP require new development projects to prepare a WQMP (included as PPP WQ-2) that is required to include BMPs to reduce the potential of erosion and/or sedimentation through site design and structural treatment control BMPs. The proposed drainage system and adherence to the existing regulations would ensure that Project impacts related to alteration of a drainage pattern and erosion/siltation from operational activities would be less than significant. Plans, Program and Policies PPP WQ-1: NPDES/SWPPP. As listed previously. PPP WQ-2: WQMP. As listed previously. Impact Finding: The Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site (Draft EIR at p. 5.8-15). Facts in Support of Findings: Construction As described previously, implementation of the Project requires a SWPPP (included as PPP WQ- 1) that would address site specific drainage issues related to construction of the Project and include BMPs to eliminate the potential of flooding or alteration of a drainage pattern during construction activities. This includes regular monitoring and visual inspections during construction activities. Compliance with the Construction General Permit and a SWPPP prepared by a QSD and implemented by a QSP (per PPP WQ-1) as verified by the City through the construction permitting process would prevent construction -related impacts related to potential alteration of a drainage pattern or flooding on or off -site from development activities. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Oneration The Project would maintain the existing drainage pattern by collecting runoff in roof drains, curbs, and area drains and conveying it to one of four Modular Wetland System units for treatment. Treated runoff would be conveyed to the existing 84-inch drain located within Red Hill Avenue. Although the Project related runoff conditions (flow rates and durations) would increase from predevelopment conditions (shown in Draft EIR Table 5.8-1), the Project would manage the increased flow with Modular Wetland System units that have been designed to accommodate the increased volume pursuant to the M54 permit and DAMP requirements. The units would retain, filter, and slowly discharge runoff into the existing off -site drain. As part of the permitting approval process, the proposed drainage design and engineering plans would be reviewed by the City's Engineering Division to ensure that the proposed drainage would accommodate the appropriate design flows. Overall, the proposed drainage system and adherence to the existing City of Santa Ana 24 May 2020 75C-700 The blamer Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fad M54 permit and DAMP regulations would ensure that Project impacts related to alteration of a drainage pattern or flooding from operational activities would be less than significant. Plans, Program and Policies PPP WO-1: NPDES/SWPPP. As listed previously. PPP WO-2: WQMP. As listed previously. Impact Finding: The Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would 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 (Draft EIR at p. 5.8-16). Facts in Support of Findings: Construction Implementation of the Project requires a SWPPP (included as PPP WQ-1) that would address site specific pollutant and drainage issues related to construction of the Project and include BMPs to eliminate the potential of polluted runoff and increased runoff during construction activities. This includes regular monitoring and visual inspections during construction activities. Compliance with the Construction General Permit and a SWPPP prepared by a QSD and implemented by a QSP (per PPP WQ-1) as verified by the City through the construction permitting process would prevent construction -related impacts related to increases in run-off and pollution from development activities. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Operation The Project would manage increased stormwater flow with Modular Wetland System units that have been designed to accommodate the increased volume pursuant to the M54 permit and DAMP requirements. The units would retain, filter, treat, and slowly discharge runoff into the existing off -site drain. Additionally, the City permitting process would ensure that the drainage system accommodate new flows and that specifications adhere to the existing MS4 permit and DAMP regulations, which would ensure that pollutants are removed prior to discharge. Overall, with compliance to the existing regulations as verified by the City's permitting process, Project impacts related to the capacity of the drainage system and polluted runoff would be less than significant. Plans, Program and Policies PPP WO-1: NPDES/SWPPP. As listed previously. PPP WO-2: WQMP. As listed previously. Impact Finding: The Project would substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would impede or redirect flood flows (Draft EIR at p. 5.8- 17). Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site does not include, and is not adjacent to, a stream or river. Implementation of the Project would not alter the course of a stream or river. In addition, according to the FEMA FIRM for the Project area (06059CO279J), the Project site is located within City of Santa Ana 25 May 2020 75C-701 The blamer Redhill Mixed -Use Proiect CEQA Findinqs of Fad "Zone X," which is an area determined to be outside of the 0.2 percent annual chance flood. Therefore, there is a low potential for onsite flooding to occur. The Project would maintain the existing drainage pattern; and drainage would be accommodated by onsite by Modular Wetland System units that have been sized to accommodate the DAMP required design storm. Therefore, the Project would not result in impeding or redirecting flood flows by the addition of the impervious surfaces. As detailed previously, the City's permitting process would ensure that the drainage system specifications adhere to the existing M54 permit and DAMP regulations, and compliance with existing regulations would ensure that impacts would be less than significant. Plans, Program and Policies PPP WQ-I: NPDES/SWPPP. As listed previously. PPP WQ-2: WQMP. As listed previously. Impact Finding: The Project would risk release of pollutants due to project inundation in a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, (Draft EIR at p. 5.8-18). Facts in Support of Findings: The FEMA FIRM for the Project area (06059CO279J) shows that the Project site is located within "Zone X," which is an area of minimal flood hazard potential outside of the 0.2 percent annual chance flood. Thus, the Project site is not located within a flood hazard area that could be inundated with flood flows and result in release of pollutants. Impacts related to flood hazards and pollutants would not occur from the Project. The Project site is over 8.5 miles from the Pacific Ocean, and outside of the Tsunami Hazard Zone identified by the California Department of Conservation. Thus, the Project site would not be inundated by a tsunami that could result in the release of pollutants, and impacts would not occur. Additionally, because the Project site is not within the vicinity of a water body, it is not at risk for seiche flood hazards. Therefore, the release of pollutants on the Project site resulting from a seiche inundation would not occur Impact Finding: The Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan (Draft EIR at p. 5.8-18). Facts in Support of Findings: Use of BMPs during construction implemented as part of a SWPPP as required by the NPDES Construction General Permit and PPP WQ-1 would serve to ensure that Project impacts related to construction activities resulting in a degradation of water quality would be less than significant. Thus, construction of the Project would not conflict or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan. Also, development projects are required to implement a WQMP (per the Regional M54 Permit) that would comply with the Orange County DAMP. The WQMP and applicable BMPs are verified as part of the City's permitting approval process, and construction plans would be required to demonstrate compliance with these regulations. Therefore, operation of the proposed Project would not conflict of obstruct with a water quality control plan. In addition, as detailed previously, the OCWD manages basin water supply through the Basin Production Percentage (BPP), such that, the anticipated production of groundwater would remain City of Santa Ana 26 May 2020 75C-702 The Wamer Redhill Mixed -Use Proiect CEQA Findinqs of Fad steady from 2025 through 2040 (as shown in Draft EIR Table 5.8-1). As detailed in Draft EIR Section 5.16, Utilities and Service Systems, the City's supply of water listed in Draft EIR Table 5.8- 1 would be sufficient during both normal years and multiple dry year conditions between 2020 and 2040 to meet all of the City's estimated needs, including the proposed Project. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with the groundwater management plan and would not conflict with or obstruct its implementation. Thus, impacts related to water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan would be less than significant. Plans, Program and Policies PPP WQ-1: NPDES/SWPPP. As listed previously. PPP WO-2: WQMP. As listed previously. H. Land Use and Plannina Impact Finding: The Project would not physically divide an established community (Draft EIR at p. 5.9-20). Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site is surrounded by roadways on two sides and existing business park and industrial warehouse buildings on the other two sides. Areas across Warner Avenue, which is a 6-lane arterial roadway, include commercial office uses. The land directly across Redhill Avenue (also a 6-lane arterial roadway) from the Project site is undeveloped land within the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan area that is planned for employment uses, such as: professional office, business park, and commercial uses. Areas to the northeast of the site, across both Red Hill Avenue and Warner Avenue, are also within the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan area and are partially developed with public serving uses that include a US Armed Forces Reserve Center, Orange County Sheriff Training Academy, and an animal shelter. The proposed Project would redevelop the site to provide a mixed -use development that would provide residences, restaurant, and retail services near employment generating uses, which are complementary community uses. The change of the Project site from a partially underutilized light industrial site to a residential and commercial mixed -use site would not physically divide an established community. In addition, the Project would not change roadways or install any infrastructure that would result in a physical division. Thus, the proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts related to physical division of an established community. Impact Finding: The Project would not 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. (Draft EIR at p. 5.4-21 and Final EIR Chapters 2 and 3). Facts in Support of Findings: 2016 RTP/SCS. The 2016 RTP/SCS Goals that are relevant to the proposed Project focus largely on maximizing mobility, encouraging development patterns and densities that reduce infrastructure costs, and provide for efficiency. The proposed Project would be consistent with the applicable SCAG's 2016 RTP/SCS goals, as detailed in Draft EIR Table 5.9-1. Therefore, City of Santa Ana 27 May 2020 75C-703 The blamer Redhill Mixed -Use Proiect CEQA Findinqs of Fad implementation of the proposed Project would not result in conflict with RTP/SCS goals, and impacts would not occur. JWA Airport Environs Land Use Plan. JWA is located approximately 2.2 miles southwest of the Project site under the primary aircraft approach corridor, but not within the AELUP Notification area or JWA planning area. As detailed in the Final EIR, the Project site is 1 ) located outside of the JWA 60 CNEL contour (Draft EIR Figures 5.7-2 and 5.7-3); 2) not located within the airport safety zones (Draft EIR Figure 5.7-1); and 3) would not would not penetrate the FAR Part 77 100:1 Notification Area elevation (Final EIR Figure 1 ). As a result, the AELUP identifies the proposed mix -use residential land uses as normally consistent. Thus, pursuant to the AELUP for JWA, impacts related to land use compatibility would not occur. Land Use Consistency. Development of the site for multi -family residential and commercial (retail/restaurant) uses would integrate into the planned development of these adjacent and nearby areas. The site would provide housing for local employees working nearby in Santa Ana, Tustin, and Irvine. The site would also provide commercial retail services and restaurants for onsite residents and employees working nearby. The site would provide both vehicular and pedestrian access and would integrate into the land uses of the area. The Project would not result in a land use inconsistency. Rather, designating lands for mixed -uses, including multi -family residential, would provide locational efficiently as it allows people to work, live, and obtain services and restaurants within a small area, which has the potential to reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled in comparison to residential development that is farther from employment services and restaurants. Also, the proposed land use designation change from PAO to DC would not conflict with a policy or plan adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The PAO land use designation does not provide avoidance of an environmental effect and the DC land use designation provides for development flexibility to design a project that could avoid an environmental effect. Therefore, impacts related to land use inconsistency would be less than significant. General Plan Goals, Policies, and Objectives. A detailed analysis of the proposed Project's consistency with the applicable goals, policies, and objectives of the City's General Plan that serve to avoid or mitigate environmental impacts is provided in Draft EIR Table 5.9-3. As described in the Table, the proposed Project would be consistent with the relevant goals, policies, and objectives of the City's General Plan that avoid or mitigate environmental impacts, and impacts related to conflict with a General Plan policy related to an environmental effect would be less than significant. Zoning Code. A majority of the proposed development consists of development of 6 story mixed use structures and 7-levels of above ground parking that would be approximately 94-feet in height at the tallest point. The purpose of the proposed SD zone is to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare by the use of good design principles, maintaining an orderly and harmonious appearance, and encouraging excellence of property development. When development projects are proposed within the SD zone, they are required (per Zoning Code Section 41-593.4) to submit development plans for architectural review. The Project would create an attractive, cohesive mixed -use community through the use of contemporary architectural materials and landscaping throughout the Project site. As required by the Zoning Code, the City of Santa Ana 28 May 2020 75C-704 The Wamer Redhill Mixed -Use Proiect CEQA Findinqs of Fad proposed Project's development plans would be reviewed by the City to ensure consistency with development standards. Thus, impacts related to zoning would not occur from the proposed Project. Noise Impact Finding: The Project would not result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies (Draft EIR at p. 5.10-15). Facts in Support of Findings: Construction Per Section 1 8-314 (Special Provisions) of the City's Municipal Code noise sources associated with construction activities are exempt from the City's established noise standards as long as the activities do not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or any time on Sunday or a federal holiday. The proposed Project's construction activities would occur pursuant to these regulations. Thus, the proposed Project would be in compliance with the City's construction related noise standards. As shown on Draft EIR Table 5.10-6, construction noise at the nearby receiver locations would range from 51.0 to 71.4 dBA Leq, which would not exceed the 85 dba Leg daytime construction noise level threshold (the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Criteria for Recommended Standard: Occupational Noise Exposure) at nearby non-residential non - sensitive receiver locations. Therefore, construction impacts would be less than significant. Also, the increase in temporary noise from Project construction, as detailed in Draft EIR Table 5.10-7, would not exceed the 12 dBA Leq significance threshold (per Caltrans Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol). Therefore, impacts related to substantial increases in ambient noise related to construction activity would be less than significant. Operation Onsite Operational Noise. Noise generated by the Project site would occur from stationary equipment such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units that would be installed for the new development, use of parking facilities, trash removal activity, and activity at outdoor gathering areas. Based on these typical noise levels, operation of the Project would not result in an exceedance of the City's Municipal Code Section 18-313 noise standards. Also, the City's building and plan check permitting process includes verification that the location of operational noise sources would not result in an exceedance of the municipal code standards. Thus, the City's standards development permitting process would ensure that the proposed Project would not generate on -site operational noise that would exceed noise standards. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Onsite Traffic Noise. The location and design of the multi -family residential outdoor common areas substantially limits the exposure to traffic noise. As shown on Draft EIR Table 5.10-8, the exterior noise levels at the multi -family residential outdoor common areas would range from 45.1 to 57.7 dBA CNEL, which is below the General Plan Noise Element 65 dBA CNEL exterior noise level standard for outdoor common areas. Therefore, the on -site traffic noise impacts at the multi- family residential outdoor common areas would be less than significant. City of Santa Ana 29 May 2020 75C-705 The Wamer Redhill Mixed -Use Proiect CEQA Findinqs of Fad Off site Traffic Noise. In the existing with Project conditions (Draft EIR Table 5.10-9) noise would range from 66.8 to 75.8 dBA CNEL. Implementation of the proposed Project A would generate a noise level increase of up to 0.5 dBA CNEL on the study area roadway segments, which is less than the 1.5 dBA CNEL threshold for areas above 65 dBA CNEL. Thus, off -site traffic noise impacts in the existing plus Project condition would be less than significant. In the opening year (2022) with Project conditions (Draft EIR Table 5.10-10) noise would range from 67.4 to 76.2 dBA CNEL. Implementation of the proposed Project would generate a noise level increase of up to 0.5 dBA CNEL on the study area roadway segments, which is less than the 1.5 dBA CNEL threshold for areas above 65 CNEL. Thus, off -site traffic noise impacts in the opening year plus Project condition would be less than significant. In 2040 with Project conditions (Draft EIR Table 5.10-11 ) noise would range from 69.7 to 76.6 dBA CNEL. Implementation of the proposed Project would generate a noise level increase of up to 0.4 dBA CNEL on the study area roadway segments, which is less than the 1.5 dBA CNEL threshold for areas above 65 CNEL. Thus, off -site traffic noise impacts in the 2040 plus Project condition would be less than significant. Interior Noise. The roadways near the Project site would generate noise. However, Draft EIR Tables 5.10-12 through 5.10-15 show that based with a "windows closed" condition with standard windows with a minimum Sound Transmission Class (STC) of 27, the interior noise levels of the residential units would be below the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard. Therefore, impacts related to interior noise would be less than significant. Impact Finding: The Project would not generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels (Draft EIR at p. 5.10-26). Facts in Support of Findings: Construction Demolition, excavation, and grading activities are required for the Project and can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and methods used, distance to the affected structures and soil type. Based on the reference vibration levels provided by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), a large bulldozer represents the peak source of vibration with a reference velocity of 0.089 in/sec PPV at 25 feet. At distances ranging from 85 to 667 feet from construction, vibration levels are anticipated to range from 0.001 to 0.014 in/sec PPV, as shown on Draft EIR Table 5.10-16. These vibration levels would not be sustained during the entire construction period but would occur only during the times that heavy construction equipment is operating in the vicinity of the sensitive receivers. This level of vibration would be below the Caltrans building damage threshold of 0.3 in/sec PPV and vibration standard of 0.04 in/sec PPV for human annoyance at all receiver locations. Therefore, vibration impacts would be less than significant. Operation Operation of the proposed commercial and multi -family uses would include heavy trucks for residents moving in and out of the rental units, product deliveries to retail and restaurant uses, and garbage trucks for solid waste disposal. Truck vibration levels are dependent on vehicle characteristics, load, speed, and pavement conditions. However, typical vibration levels for the heavy truck activity at normal traffic speeds would be approximately 0.006 in/sec PPV, based on the FTA Transit Noise Impact and Vibration Assessment. Truck movements on site would be City of Santa Ana 30 May 2020 75C-706 The Wamer Redhill Mixed -Use Proiect CEQA Findinqs of Fact travelling at very low speed, so it is expected that truck vibration at nearby sensitive receivers would be less than the vibration threshold of 0.08 in/sec PPV for fragile historic buildings and 0.04 in/sec PPV for human annoyance, and therefore, would be less than significant. Impact Finding: The Project would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive airport noise levels within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport (Draft EIR at p. 5.10-27). Facts in Support of Findings: The exterior noise thresholds outlined in the AELUP, multi -family residential development is considered normally consistent with exterior noise levels of less than 60 dBA CNEL, conditionally consistent with exterior noise levels between 60 and 65 dBA CNEL and normally inconsistent with exterior noise level above 65 dBA CNEL. For commercial retail land use, exterior noise levels are considered normally consistent with exterior noise levels of less than 65 dBA CNEL and conditionally consistent with exterior noise level above 65 dBA CNEL. As shown on Draft EIR Figure 5.10-2, the Project site is located outside the 55 dBA CNEL aircraft noise level contour boundaries of JWA. Therefore, according to the AELUP, the Project residential and commercial retail land use is considered normally consistent with JWA aircraft noise exposure exterior noise level compatibility thresholds. Also, the airport related noise at the Project site does not exceed the City's municipal code permissible noise levels. Additionally, the County's General Aviation Noise Ordinance that prohibits commercial aircraft departures between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. and arrivals between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. These restrictions substantially limit the aircraft noise during the noise sensitive nighttime hours for residential use. Overall, the Project site would not be exposed to excessive noise levels from airport operations, and therefore, impacts would be less than significant. J. Population and Housing Impact Finding: The Project would not 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) (Draft EIR at p. 5.11 -9). Facts in Support of Findings: Draft EIR Table 5.11-7 shows that at full occupancy the Project would house approximately 2,081 residents, which would constitute a 0.62 percent increase over the 2019 City of Santa Ana population of 337,716. In addition, the 1,150 new multi -family units would constitute a 1.5 percent increase in the total number of residential units in the City, and a 4.5 percent increase in the number of the multi -family residential units (5+ units) within the City. As SCAG projects that the City and County will experience a population increase of 7.4 percent by 2040, the population of the Project would be within the projected population growth. Similarly, SCAG anticipates the number of housing units throughout the County would increase by 10.2 percent by 2040. Thus, the 1,150 new multi -family units would also be within the SCAG projected growth. Additionally, the 320 employment opportunities that would be generated by the Project would be 0.27 percent of the existing jobs within 2-miles of the Project site; and therefore, would not result in induced unplanned employment growth. The existing jobs -housing ratio is 2.08 in Santa Ana and is projected to be 2.13 in 2040. The proposed Project would reduce the jobs -housing ratio slightly to 2.05; and to 2.10 in 2040, as shown in Draft EIR Table 5.11-8. This would be a beneficial effect of providing multi -family City of Santa Ana 31 May 2020 75C-707 The Wamer Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fad housing on the Project site in a jobs -rich area, where employees can easily travel to nearby employment opportunities. Regarding infrastructure, the Project site is adjacent to existing roadways that would not be extended to serve the Project. Likewise, water and wastewater services would be provided by connections to the existing infrastructure within Red Hill Avenue and Warner Avenue, which would accommodate the proposed Project, as described in Draft EIR Section 5.15, Utilities and Service Systems. Provision of continued (but greater volumes) water and sewer services to the Project site would not result in the need to extend infrastructure. Therefore, indirect impacts related to the extension of infrastructure would not occur from implementation of the proposed Project. Overall, the Project would not result in inducement of population growth that would have the potential to create a significant physical change to the environment. As a result, impacts related to population growth are less than significant. Impact Finding: The Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere (Draft EIR at p. 5.11 -1 1 ). Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site is currently developed with three industrial buildings, one of which is currently being used as a temporary 200-bed homeless shelter through a short-term lease for use of the site on an interim basis until redevelopment of the site commences. The City of Santa Ana is working on various homeless shelter solutions, including the purchase of a permanent homeless shelter site, that are anticipated to be available for the existing persons on the Project site prior to construction of the proposed Project. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in displacement of substantial numbers of people, such that construction of replacement housing elsewhere would be necessary. As a result, impacts would be less than significant. K. Public Services Fire Protection Impact Finding: The Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire service facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios and response times or other performance objectives for fire protection services (Draft EIR at p. 5.12- 4 ). Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed Project is anticipated to result in 2,081 residents and 320 employees at full occupancy. This residential and employee population is expected to create the typical range of service calls to OCFA that are largely related to medical emergencies. However, fire protection equipment and staffing can be augmented by the City as needed (with assistance from revenue provided by the Project and the fire facilities fee required per Chapter 8-46 of the Municipal Code) to expand fire protection and emergency medical staffing and equipment provided from existing stations and better accommodate simultaneous service calls. Because the Project site is within 3.5 miles of 6 existing fire stations and the Project site is within a developed area that is currently served by these stations, the Project would not result in the requirement to construct a new or physically altered fire station. Therefore, impacts related to fire protection services would be less than significant. City of Santa Ana 32 May 2020 75C-708 The blamer Redhill Mixed -Use Proiect CEQA Findinqs of Fad Police Services Impact Finding: The Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered police service facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios and response times or other performance objectives for police services (Draft EIR at p. 5.12-7). Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed Project addresses typical residential security concerns by providing low -intensity security lighting, security cameras, electronic access to buildings, and 24-hour security personnel. Pursuant to the City's existing permitting process, the Police Department would review and approve the final site plans to ensure that crime prevention design measures are incorporated appropriately to provide a safe environment. The proposed Project would result in an incremental increase in demands on law enforcement services and would require two additional officers based on the Police Department's 2018 staffing of 1.07 officers per thousand population. The two additional officers could be located at the Southeast Substation that is 2.2 miles from the proposed Project. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in the need for, new or physically altered police protection facilities. Thus, substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or expanded facilities would not occur, and impacts are less than significant. School Services Impact Finding: The Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered school facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts (Draft EIR at p. 5.12-10). Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed Project would develop 1,150 residential units, which would provide housing for families that have school children. As detailed in Draft EIR Section 5.12.4.5, School Service Environmental Impacts, the proposed Project would result in 334 students at full occupancy. As shown in Draft EIR Table 5.12-2, the school facilities that would serve the Project have a remaining capacity for 1,589 students, which would be able to accommodate the student from the site and continue to have capacity to serve additional students. In addition, the need for additional school facilities is addressed through compliance with school impact fee assessment. The existing Santa Ana Unified School District development impact fee is $3.79 per square foot for all new residential development, and $0.61 per square foot for new commercial development. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65995 applicants shall pay developer fees to the appropriate school districts at the time building permits are issued; and payment of the adopted fees provides full and complete mitigation of school impacts. As a result, impacts related to school facilities would be less than significant. L. Park and Recreation Impact Finding: The Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered park facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts (Draft EIR at p. 5.1 3-5). City of Santa Ana 33 May 2020 75C-709 The Wamer Redhill Mixed -Use Proiect CEQA Findinqs of Fact Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed Project is anticipated to result in 2,081 residents at full occupancy and includes 174,555 square feet of exterior open space recreation area and approximately 8,008 square feet of interior amenities to total 183,363 square feet of recreational and open space onsite. These onsite amenities are anticipated to meet many of the park and recreation needs of Project residents. The new residential population is also anticipated to utilize existing off -site park and recreation facilities. As described listed in Draft EIR Table 5.13-1, there is currently 81.88 acres of Santa Ana parkland within 3-miles of the Project site. These existing City of Santa Ana parks provide a variety of facilities that include sports fields, exercise equipment, picnic areas, and playgrounds. In addition, there are 97.9 acres of parkland within the City of Tustin and 63.6 acres of parkland within the City of Irvine Park facilities (listed in Draft EIR Table 5.13-2 and the Final EIR Chapter 3) that are also within 3 miles of the Project site and are likely (due to location) to be used by residents of the proposed Project. This equals approximately 243.38 acres of existing parkland within three miles of the site, which equates to 5,094.49 acres of parkland per Project resident at full occupancy. Based on a standard of 2 acres of public park and/or recreational space per 1,000 residents (Municipal Code Section 35-108), the proposed Project would require 4.2 acres of parkland to serve the new residents. The Project includes a total of 4.2 acres (183,363 square feet) of park and recreation area. Therefore, the Project would include the Municipal Code required park and/or recreational space. Based on the existing amount of 243.38 acres of existing park and recreation facilities within 3 miles of the Project site, the recreation facilities that would be provided as part of the Project, and the number of residents at full capacity of the proposed Project, the Project is not anticipated to require the provision of new or physically altered park facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios. In addition, Municipal Code Sections 35-108, 35-110, and 35-111 require that residential development fees be paid for the acquisition, construction, and renovation of park and recreation facilities prior to the issuance of a building permit for any construction which adds net residential units. Thus, the proposed Project would be required to pay park and recreation fees to "preserve an appropriate balance between the demand by residents for use of park and recreational facilities", as stated in Municipal Code Section 35-110. Therefore, impacts related to park and recreation service facilities would be less than significant. Impact Finding: The Project would not result in increased use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated (Draft EIR at p. 5.1 3-6). Facts in Support of Findings: Based on the California State Parks information for the southern California Region, the anticipated number of Project residents at full occupancy (2,081 residents), the distance and type of recreational facilities near the Project site, it is anticipated that the Project would generate 348 additional park users two or more times per week, 287 additional park users about once per week, 429 additional park users once or twice per month, 508 additional park users several times a year, and 314 additional park users once or twice a year that would utilize the 245.38 acres of parks within 3 miles of the Project site. City of Santa Ana 34 May 2020 75C-710 The Wamer Redhill Mixed -Use Proiect CEQA Findinqs of Fact Based on the existing amount of park and recreation facilities in the vicinity of the Project site, the recreation facilities that would be provided as part of the Project, and the number of residents all full capacity of the proposed Project, the Project is not anticipated to increase the use of existing parks and recreation facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. In addition, as listed Park and Recreation Regulatory Setting Section, the Santa Ana Municipal Code, Section 35-108 requires that residential development fees be paid for the acquisition, construction, and renovation of park and recreation facilities. Also, Sections 35-108 and 35-111 requires that any person adding residential units shall pay the park and recreation fees prior to the issuance of a building permit. The Municipal Code describes that park and recreation fees are for the purpose of preserving an appropriate balance between the demand by residents for use of park and recreational facilities and the availability of such park and recreational facilities. Thus, by payment of the required park fees, the Project would provide funding to offset any increased usage at other park and recreation facilities within Santa Ana. In addition, use of sports fields is largely by sports leagues that pay fees to the City for use of the facilities, which is used to fund maintenance and improvements related to use of the facilities. Any additional residents that are involved in sports leagues would provide this funding to reduce impacts. Overall, the proposed Project would not result in substantial physical deterioration of park and recreation facilities, and impacts would be less than significant. Impact Finding: The Project would not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment (Draft EIR at p. 5.1 3-7). Facts in Support of Findings: The project includes recreational facilities. The impacts of development of the recreational amenities are considered part of the impacts of the proposed Project as a whole and are analyzed throughout the various sections of the EIR. For example, activities such as excavation, grading, and construction as required for the park and recreational components of this Project are analyzed in the Draft EIR Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise, and Transportation Sections. In addition, while the Project would contribute park development fees pursuant to Municipal Code Sections 35-108, 35-110, and 35-11 1 to be used towards the future expansion or maintenance parks and recreational facilities, these fees are standard with every residential development, and the proposed Project would not require the construction or expansion of other recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. As a result, impacts would be less than significant. M. Transportation Impact Finding: The Project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b) (Final EIR 5.14, Transportation, at p. 5.14-31 ). Facts in Support of Findings: As described in the Final EIR, a direct Project impact would occur if the Project generates a VMT/SP above 15 percent below the Countywide Average. The Project related VMT/SP is 5.14 and the Countywide Average VMT/SP is 14.71. Thus, the VMT/SP of the Project is 35 percent of the Countywide Average VMT/SP; and the Project would not generate City of Santa Ana 35 May 2020 75C-711 The blamer Redhill Mixed -Use Proiect CEQA Findinqs of Fad VMT/SP above 15 percent below the Countywide Average. Thus, direct Project impacts related to VMT would be less than significant. In addition, the City's screening criteria for VMT cumulative impacts, include project consistency with the RTP/SCS or results in an increase in VMT within the City. As shown on Final EIR Transportation Section Table 4.14-13, the Project results in a net decrease in VMT. Also, Table 5.14-14 shows that the Project's VMT/SP is approximately 22 percent lower than the cumulative VMT/SP for the City. Therefore, the Project would not result in a negative effect on VMT/SP at the citywide level, and cumulative impacts would be less than significant. Impact Finding: The Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) (Draft EIR at p. 5.14-23). Facts in Support of Findings: The Project includes development of mixed uses that include residential, retail/restaurant commercial, and open space recreation. The Project includes community type uses and does not include any incompatible uses, such as farm equipment. The proposed Project would be accessed from one driveway on Red Hill Avenue and two driveways on Warner Avenue that provide direct access to parking areas. The Project would also not increase any hazards related to a design feature. All of the proposed improvements would be required to be installed in conformance with City design standards. The City's construction permitting process includes review Project site plans to ensure that no potentially hazardous transportation design features would be introduced by the Project. For example, sight distance at each Project driveway would be reviewed for conformance with City of Santa Ana sight distance standards at the time of permitting approvals for grading, landscape, onsite circulation construction, and street improvement plans. As a result, impacts related to vehicular circulation design features would be less than significant. Impact Finding: The Project would not result in inadequate emergency access (Draft EIR at p. 5.14-23). Facts in Support of Findings: Construction: The proposed construction activities, including equipment and supply staging and storage, would occur within and adjacent to the Project area and would not restrict access of emergency vehicles to the Project site or adjacent areas. The roadway improvements and installation of driveways that would be implemented during construction of the proposed Project could require the temporary closure of travel lanes, but full roadway closure and traffic detours are not expected to be necessary. However, construction activities may temporarily restrict vehicular traffic that could increase hazards. Therefore, the construction activities would be required to implement measures to facilitate the passage of persons and vehicles through/around any required temporary road restrictions, and ensure the safety of passage in accordance with Section 503 of the California Fire Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 9) and the City of Santa Ana Fire Code included as Municipal Code Chapter 14, which would be ensured through the City's permitting process. Thus, implementation of the Project through the City's permitting process would ensure existing regulations are adhered to and would reduce potential construction related emergency access impacts to a less than significant level. City of Santa Ana 36 May 2020 75C-712 The Wamer Redhill Mixed -Use Proiect CEQA Findinqs of Fad Operation the Project includes one driveway on Red Hill Avenue and two driveways on Warner Avenue that provide direct access to parking areas. As described previously, these driveways would provide adequate and safe circulation to and from the Project site and would provide a several routes for emergency responders to access different portions of the Project site and surrounding areas. Additionally, during operation of the Project, building tenants would be required to maintain adequate emergency access for emergency vehicles as required and verified by the City and the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) through operational permitting and inspections. Because the Project is required to comply with all applicable City codes, as verified by the City and OCFA potential impacts related to inadequate emergency access would be less than significant. N. Tribal Cultural Resources Impact Finding: The Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k) (Draft EIR at p. 5.15-5). Facts in Support of Findings: There are no sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either eligible or listed in the California Register of Historical Resources or local register of historical resources on the Project site. In accordance with SB 18 and AB 52, the City sent letters to 18 Native American representatives identified by NAHC, notifying them of the proposed Project. One California Native American tribe request for consultation, the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation. Mr. Andrew Salas provided oral information about the use of the Orange County area for Native American village sites and the City provided the history of uses and development of on the Project site, including the depth of previous and existing infrastructure and foundation systems on the site. Based on the consultation conducted, no TCRs were identified. The Project site includes three modern industrial buildings that were developed in the early 1980s and do not involve tribal cultural resources. The site has a long history of ground disturbance from previous agricultural uses and development. Artificial fill was observed in geotechnical field explorations up to 7.5 feet below existing grade and previous excavation and recompaction ranged from 5 feet to 13 feet for development of the existing buildings. It is likely that the site disturbance included the undeveloped portion of the site at the corner of Red Hill and Warner Avenue. The extensive previous excavation, recompaction, and fill soils onsite have limited the potential of the site to contain tribal cultural resources. Also, the proposed Project would excavate onsite soils to a minimum of 5 feet below the bottom of the building foundations and 5 feet beyond the building perimeters. The depth of the excavation is within the previously disturbed soil depths, which further reduces the potential of the Project to result in impacts related to tribal cultural resources. Overall, the Project site does not include resources that are listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or in a local register of historical resources; and due to the extent and depth of previous ground disturbances throughout the site, the potential for tribal cultural resources is limited. Therefore, Project impacts to tribal cultural resource that are listed or City of Santa Ana 37 May 2020 75C-713 The blamer Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or other register of historical resources would be less than significant. O. Utilities and Service Svstems Water Impact Finding: The Project would not require or result in the construction of new water facilities, or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects (Draft EIR at p. 5.16-6). Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed Project would install new water infrastructure on the Project site that would connect to the existing 12-inch water pipeline in Warner Avenue. The new onsite water system would convey water supplies to the proposed residences, commercial uses, and landscaping through plumbing/landscaping fixtures that are compliant with the CalGreen Plumbing Code for efficient use of water. The proposed Project would continue to receive water supplies through the existing 1 2-inch water line located within the Red Hill Avenue rights -of -way that has the capacity to provide the increased water supplies needed to serve the proposed Project, and no extensions or expansions to the water pipelines that convey water to the Project site would be required. Redevelopment of the existing onsite water distribution lines would only serve the proposed Project and would not provide water to any off -site areas. The construction activities related to the onsite water infrastructure that would be needed to serve the proposed multi -family residential and commercial uses is included as part of the proposed Project and would not result in any physical environmental effects beyond those identified throughout the Draft EIR. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in the construction of new water facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects, and impacts would be less than significant. Impact Finding: The City would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years (Draft EIR at p. 5.16-7). Facts in Support of Findings: As shown in Draft EIR Table 5.16-4, the proposed Project would result in a total demand of 269 AFY at full occupancy, which would be a 245.27 AFY increase in comparison to the water demand from the existing buildings that are included in the UWMP assumptions. This equates to an 8.1 percent of the anticipated increase in water demand between 2015 and 2040 of 3,028 AFY that is anticipated by the 2015 UWMP. Thus, the City would have water supplies available to serve the Project. In addition, as shown in Draft EIR Table 5.16-2, the City's available supply, including groundwater and imported water, will meet projected demand that includes the proposed Project during normal, single dry and multiple dry years. Therefore, impacts related to water supplies from the proposed Project would be less than significant. Wastewater City of Santa Ana 38 May 2020 75C-714 The Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fad Impact Finding: The Project would not require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects (Draft EIR at p. 5.16-1 1 ). Facts in Support of Findings: The Project includes replacing approximately 367 feet of the existing 8-inch City sewer line in Warner Avenue, between the Project site and the Orange County Sanitation sewer line in Red Hill Avenue, with a 10-inch sewer. In addition, the Project would install a new onsite sewer system that would connect to off -site City of Santa Ana sewer facilities. Approximately half the Project site would discharge wastewater directly into a City - owned manhole located at the intersection of Warner Avenue and Red Hill Avenue. The other half of the Project site would discharge wastewater into the improved 10-inch sewer in Warner Avenue to the existing 42-inch sewer in Red Hill Avenue. Based on results of the sewer flow monitoring and the City's Design Criteria for wastewater generation rates, the sewer lines that would serve the Project site would have a peak flow half full capacity of 0.65 cfs which would is adequate capacity to accommodate the additional wastewater flows from the proposed Project. The construction activities related to replacing 367 feet of 8-inch water line with 10-inch water line within the Warner Avenue right of way and installation of the onsite sewer infrastructure that would serve the proposed Project, is included as part of the proposed Project and would not result in any physical environmental effects beyond those identified throughout the Draft EIR. As the proposed Project includes facilities to serve the Project, it would not result in the need for construction of other new wastewater facilities or expansions, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Impact Finding: The Project would not 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 (Draft EIR at p. 5.16-11 ). Facts in Support of Findings: The OCSD Reclamation Plant No. 1 has an additional capacity of 87 mgd, which would accommodate the increase in wastewater flow from full occupancy of the proposed Project that would generate 201,906 gpd. As a result, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in inadequate capacity of the wastewater treatment plant to serve the Project's demand in addition to existing service commitments, and impacts would be less than significant. Drainage Impact Finding: The Project would not require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects (Draft EIR at p. 5.16-13). Facts in Support of Findings: The runoff within the Project site would be collected by roof drains, surface flow designed pavement, curbs, and area drains and conveyed to Modular Wetland System units that would be installed as part of the Project to retain, filter, and slowly discharge drainage. The Modular Wetland System units have been sized to treat runoff from the Design Capture Storm (85th percentile, 24-hour). Treated runoff from the Modular Wetland System units would be discharged from the flow controlling Modular Wetland System units to the existing 84- inch drain located within Red Hill Avenue. From there, flows would travel southeast and be temporarily detained in an existing flood control basin before entering the Barranca Channel, City of Santa Ana 39 May 2020 75C-715 The Wamer Redhill Mixed -Use Proiect CEQA Findinqs of Fact which discharges into San Diego Creek Reach 1, then the Upper Newport Bay, Lower Newport Bay, and finally to the Pacific Ocean at Balboa Beach. Although the Project related runoff conditions (flow rates and durations) would increase from predevelopment conditions (shown in Draft EIR Table 5.15-5), the Project would manage the increased flow by the four Modular Wetland System units that have been designed to accommodate the increased volume. As a result, the proposed Project would not result in a need to expand or construct new off -site drainage systems and impacts to stormwater drainage systems would be less than significant. Solid Waste Impact Finding: The Project would not 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 (Draft EIR at p. 5.16-15). Facts in Support of Findings: Construction The Project is estimated to generate approximately 460 tons of waste during demolition and additional waste during construction, which would occur over a 27-month period. However, Section 5.408.1 of the 2016 California Green Building Standards Code requires demolition and construction activities to recycle or reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste. Thus, the demolition and construction solid waste that would be disposed of at the landfill would be approximately 35 percent of the waste generated. Therefore, demolition activities, which would generate the most solid waste would generate approximately 161 tons of solid waste. Demolition activities would occur over a 30 workday (6 week) period. This equates to approximately 5.4 tons of debris per day. The Frank Bowerman Sanitary Landfill is permitted to accept 11,500 tons per day of solid waste. In September 2019, the maximum tonnage received was 9,967 tons. Thus, the facility had additional capacity of 1,533 tons per day (Calrecycle 2019). Therefore, the Frank Bowerman Sanitary Landfill would be able to accommodate the addition of 5.4 tons of waste per week during construction of the proposed Project. Operation Operation of the Project at buildout would generate approximately 1,137 tons of solid waste per year, at least 75 percent of which is required by California law to be recycled, which would reduce the volume of landfilled solid waste to approximately 284.25 tons per year, or 5.47 tons per week, as shown on Draft EIR Table 5.1 6-6. As the Frank Bowerman Sanitary Landfill is permitted to accept 11,500 tons per day of solid waste, and in September 2019, the maximum tonnage received was 9,967 tons, the facility had additional capacity of 1,533 tons (Calrecycle 2019). Therefore, the Frank Bowerman Sanitary Landfill would be able to accommodate the addition of 5.47 tons of waste per week. Thus, the proposed Project would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Project's solid waste disposal needs and the Project would not impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. Impacts related to landfill capacity would be less than significant. City of Santa Ana 40 May 2020 75C-716 The Wamer Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fad Impact Finding: The Project would comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste (Draft EIR at p. 5.16-16). Facts in Support of Findings: All solid waste -generating activities within the City is subject to the requirements set forth in Section 5.408.1 of the 2016 California Green Building Standards Code that requires demolition and construction activities to recycle or reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste, and AB 341 that requires diversion of a minimum of 75 percent of operational solid waste. Implementation of the proposed Project would be consistent with all state regulations, as ensured through the City's development project permitting process. Therefore, the proposed Project would comply with all solid waste statute and regulations; and impacts would not occur. City of Santa Ana 41 May 2020 75C-717 The Wamer Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fad SECTION III IMPACTS MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT The City hereby finds that mitigation measures have been identified in the EIR that would avoid or substantially lessen the following potentially significant environmental impacts to a less than significant level. The potentially significant impacts and the mitigation measures that would reduce them to a less than significant level are detailed in the EIR and summarized below. A. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact Finding: The Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials (Draft EIR at p. 5.7-21 ). Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Draft EIR. Facts in Support of Findings: Construction: The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment determined that asbestos -containing materials and lead -based paint may exist due to the date of construction of the existing buildings. Therefore, asbestos surveys and abatement would be required prior to demolition or renovation of the existing building pursuant to the existing South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), Cal/OSHA, and the sections of the California Health and Safety Code, which are described above in the Regulatory Setting. These requirements were developed to protect human health and the environment from the hazards associated with exposure to lead based materials and airborne asbestos fibers. Compliance with these existing regulations, as ensured through the permitting process and included as PPP HAZ-1 and PPP HAZ-2, would reduce impacts related to routine transport and disposal of asbestos -containing materials and lead -based paint during construction activities to a less than significant level. In addition, the Project site contains approximately 900 cubic yards of contaminated soil that would require excavation and disposal as part of excavation and grading activities. This includes approximately, 850 cubic yards of TPH contaminated soils (above residential screening levels) and 80 cubic yards of TPH-(diesel) contaminated soils. These contaminated soils would need to be excavated and removed during Project excavation and grading activities as required by DTSC, California Integrated Waste Management Board, RWQCB, OCFA, and the Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA). Due to the existence of the contaminated soils and excavation activities that would occur during Project construction, implementation of the proposed Project has the potential to result in a hazard to the public or environment. As a result, Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would be implemented to reduce the potential risks related to accidental release and exposure of people and the environment to the contaminated soils. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 requires that a qualified consultant prepare a Soil Management Plan (SMP) to be used by construction workers to remove and dispose of the areas of TPH impacted soil. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 requires excavation of contaminated soils be completed pursuant to existing DTSC and RWQCB requirements, soils sampling ensure all contaminated soils are removed, and that a certified hazardous waste hauler remove and transport all TPH impacted soil and other potentially hazardous materials per California Hazardous Waste Regulations to a landfill permitted by the state to accept hazardous materials. Excavated soil City of Santa Ana 42 May 2020 75C-718 The Wamer Redhill Mixed -Use Proiect CEQA Findinqs of Fact containing hazardous substances would be classified as a hazardous waste if they exhibit the characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity (CCR, Title 22, Division 4.5, Chapter 11, Article 3). The SMP would detail hazardous materials excavation and disposal methods and requirements pursuant to the regulation of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations (CaIOSHA) and Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) that regulates the removal, transportation, and disposal of hazardous waste to protect human health and the environment. With implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 impacts related to hazards from contaminated soils would be less than significant. Plans, Program and Policies: PPP HAZA: SCAQMD Rule 1403. Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the Project applicant shall submit verification to the City Building and Safety Division that an asbestos survey has been conducted at all existing buildings located on the Project site. If asbestos is found, the Project applicant shall follow all procedural requirements and regulations of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1403. Rule 1403 regulations require that the following actions be taken: notification of SCAQMD prior to construction activity, asbestos removal in accordance with prescribed procedures, placement of collected asbestos in leak -tight containers or wrapping, and proper disposal. PPP HAZ-2: Lead. Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the Project applicant shall submit verification to the City Building and Safety Division that a lead -based paint survey has been conducted at all existing buildings located on the Project site. If lead -based paint is found, the Project applicant shall follow all procedural requirements and regulations for proper removal and disposal of the lead -based paint. Cal -OSHA has established limits of exposure to lead contained in dusts and fumes. Specifically, CCR Title 8, Section 1532.1 provides for exposure limits, exposure monitoring, and respiratory protection, and mandates good working practices by workers exposed to lead. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a Soil Management Plan (SMP) shall be prepared by a qualified hazardous materials consultant and shall detail procedures and protocols for excavation and disposal of onsite hazardous materials, including: • A certified hazardous waste hauler shall remove all potentially hazardous soils. Excavation of contaminated soils shall be removed. In addition, sampling of soil shall be conducted during excavation to ensure that all contaminated soils are removed, and that residential Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) for residential uses are not exceeded. Excavated materials shall be transported per California Hazardous Waste Regulations to a landfill permitted by the state to accept hazardous materials. • Any subsurface materials exposed during construction activities that appear suspect of contamination, either from visual staining or suspect odors, shall require immediate cessation of excavation activities. Soils suspected of contamination shall be tested for potential contamination. If contamination is found to be present per the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) or Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) ESLs for residential uses, it shall be transported and disposed of per California Hazardous Waste Regulations to an appropriately permitted landfill. City of Santa Ana 43 May 2020 75C-719 The Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact • A Health and Safety Plan (HSP) shall be prepared for each contractor that addresses potential safety and health hazards and includes the requirements and procedures for employee protection. The HSP shall also outline proper soil handling procedures and health and safety requirements to minimize worker and public exposure to hazardous materials during construction. • All SMP measures shall be printed on the construction documents, contracts, and project plans prior to issuance of grading permits. Impact Finding: The Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment (Draft EIR at p. 5.7-23). Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Draft EIR. Facts in Support of Findings: Construction: Contaminated Soils. As described previously, the Project site contains approximately 900 cubic yards of contaminated soil that would require excavation and disposal pursuant to the requirements of the DTSC, California Integrated Waste Management Board, RWQCB, OCFA, and the OCHCA. Due to the existence of the contaminated soils and excavation activities that would occur during Project construction, implementation of the proposed Project has the potential to result in upset or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. As a result, Mitigation Measure Haz-1 requires a Soil Management Plan (SMP) to be prepared and used by construction workers to remove and dispose of the areas of TPH impacted soil. Mitigation Measure Haz-1 requires excavation of contaminated soils be completed pursuant to existing DTSC and RWQCB requirements, soils sampling ensure all contaminated soils are removed, and that a certified hazardous waste hauler remove and transport all TPH impacted soil and other potentially hazardous materials per California Hazardous Waste Regulations to a landfill permitted by the state to accept hazardous materials. With implementation of Mitigation Measure Haz-1 impacts related to hazards from contaminated soils would be less than significant. Undocumented Hazardous Materials. The Project site has a long history of various uses that includes use and storage of hazardous materials. As a result, there is the potential for undocumented hazardous material to exist onsite. Excavated soil containing hazardous substances and hazardous building materials would be classified as a hazardous waste if they exhibit the characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity (CCR, Title 22, Division 4.5, Chapter 11, Article 3). State and federal laws require detailed planning to ensure that hazardous materials are properly handled, used, stored, and disposed of, and in the event that such materials are accidentally released, to prevent or to mitigate injury to health or the environment. These regulations are detailed previously and include, but are not limited to, the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act that is implemented by OSHA, and the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act. Additionally, the California Integrated Waste Management Board and the RWQCB specifically address management of hazardous materials and waste handling in their adopted regulations (CCR, Title 14 and CCR, Title 27). Furthermore, Mitigation Measure HAZ-1would reduce impacts related to other soil contamination, City of Santa Ana 44 May 2020 75C-720 The Wamer Redhill Mixed -Use Proiect CEQA Findinqs of Fact not identified previously. Thus, with implementation of existing regulations and Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, impacts related to upset or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Soil Management Plan (SMP). As listed previously. B. Tribal Cultural Resources Impact Finding: The Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of 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, that considers the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe (Draft El at p. 5.15-6). Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Draft EIR. Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site has been heavily disturbed to substantial depths. The proposed Project involves excavation; however, no substantial evidence exists that TCRs are present in the Project site. Although, no TCRs have been identified, during the SB 18/AB 52 consultation, the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation stated that the Project lies within its ancestral tribal territory within a potentially sensitive area. Therefore, to avoid potential adverse effects to tribal cultural resources, Mitigation Measure TCR-1 has been included to provide for Native American resource sensitivity training, monitoring, and to prescribe activities should any inadvertent discoveries of tribal cultural resources be unearthed by Project construction activities. Additionally, California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5 requires that if human remains are discovered in the Project site, disturbance of the site shall halt and remain halted until the coroner has conducted an investigation. If the coroner determines that the remains are those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure TCR-1 and the existing regulations, impacts to TCRs would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure TCR-I: Native American Monitoring. Prior to the issuance of any permits for initial site clearing (such as pavement removal, grubbing, tree removals) or issuance of permits allowing ground -disturbing activities that cause excavation to depths greater than artificial fill (including as boring, grading, excavation, drilling, potholing or auguring, and trenching), the City of Santa Ana shall ensure that the project applicant/developer retain qualified Native American Monitor(s). The monitor(s) shall be approved by the tribal representatives of the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation and be present on -site during initial site clearing and construction that involves ground disturbing activities that cause excavation to depths greater than artificial fill identified herein. The monitor shall conduct a Native American Indian Sensitivity Training for construction personnel. The training session includes a handout and focus on how to identify Native American resources encountered during earthmoving activities and the procedures followed if resources are discovered. The Native American monitor(s) shall complete monitoring logs on a daily basis, providing descriptions of the daily activities, including construction activities, locations, City of Santa Ana 45 May 2020 75C-721 The Wamer Redhill Mixed -Use Proiect CEQA Findinqs of Fact soil, and any cultural materials identified. The on -site monitoring shall end when grading and excavation activities of native soil (i.e., previously undisturbed) are completed, or when the tribal representatives and monitor have indicated that the site has a low potential for tribal cultural resources, whichever occurs first. In the event that tribal cultural resources are inadvertently discovered during ground -disturbing activities, work must be halted within 50 feet of the find until it can also be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist in cooperation with a Native American monitor to determine if the potential resource meet the CEQA definition of historical (State CEQA Guidelines 15064.5(a)) and/or unique resource (Public Resources Code 21083.2(g)). Construction activities could continue in other areas. If the find is considered an "archeological resource" the archaeologist, in cooperation with a Native American monitor shall pursue either protection in place or recovery, salvage and treatment of the deposits. Recovery, salvage and treatment protocols shall be developed in accordance with applicable provisions of Public Resource Code Section 21083.2 and State CEQA Guidelines 15064.5 and 151 26.4. If unique a tribal cultural resource cannot be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state, recovery, salvage and treatment shall be required at the Project applicant's expense. All recovered and salvaged resources shall be prepared to the point of identification and permanent preservation in an established accredited professional repository. City of Santa Ana 46 May 2020 75C-722 The Wamer Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fad SECTION IV RESOLUTION REGARDING SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Public Resources Code section 21002 states that "it is the policy of the state that public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects. The Legislature further finds and declares that in the event specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof." Section 15364 of the State CEQA Guidelines defines "feasible" as "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors." The City Council hereby finds that, despite the incorporation of feasible measures outlined in the Final EIR, the following impacts cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level. Despite these significant and unavoidable impacts, the City nevertheless approves the Project because of the benefits described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations included herein. P. Air Ouality Impact Finding: The Project would result in a conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan (Draft EIR at p. 5.2-14). Fads in Support of Findings: The SCAQMD's 2016 AQMP is the applicable air quality plan for the proposed Project. Pursuant to Consistency Criterion No. 1, projects that are consistent with the regional population, housing, and employment forecasts identified by SCAG are considered to be consistent with the AQMP growth projections, because the forecast assumptions by SCAG forms the basis of the land use and transportation control portions of the AQMP that result in air quality emissions. As detailed in Draft EIR Section 5.11, Population and Housing, the proposed 1,150 multi -family residential units at full occupancy would result in a population of approximately 2,081 residents and the proposed 80,000 square feet of commercial space would generate approximately 320 employees at full occupancy. This equates to a 1.5 percent increase in residential units within the City, and the estimated 2,081 residents at complete occupancy would be 0.62 percent of the City's population. Based on SCAG's 2016 Integrated Growth Forecast, a 7.4 percent increase in growth throughout the County is anticipated to occur through 2040. Hence, the cumulative growth with implementation of the proposed Project would be consistent with the SCAG growth forecasts and population base. Development of the proposed Project, in combination with other development projects in the vicinity would result in a cumulative increase in population. However, the Project's portion of the cumulative increase in residential units (1,150) is limited at 2.39 percent. Thus, the proposed multi -family units would be within the SCAG projected growth. The housing added by the Project would also help to meet housing demands from projected employment growth in the Project vicinity, while maintaining a healthy vacancy rate. The Project region is jobs -rich. The existing jobs -housing ratio is 2.06 in Santa Ana and is projected to be 2.13 in 2040. The proposed Project would reduce the jobs -housing ratio slightly to 2.05; and to 2.10 in 2040, as shown in the Draft EIR Table 5.11-8 in Section 5.11, Population and Housing. The balance of jobs and housing and the existing transit, bicycle, and pedestrian infrastructure adjacent to the Project site that is available for use would reduce vehicle miles traveled and the related air quality emissions, as City of Santa Ana 47 May 2020 75C-723 The Wamer Redhill Mixed -Use project CEQA Findinqs of Fad employees could easily travel to employment opportunities within the vicinity of the Project site, including areas within the Cities of Santa Ana, Tustin, and Irvine. Thus, the proposed Project would support AQMP objectives to reduce trips, promote infill/redevelopment, and balance jobs and housing, and would not conflict with implementation of the AQMP. In addition, implementing redevelopment of the site, the Project would utilize existing infrastructure such as roadways, drainage, sewer and other infrastructure, and would be consistent with the SCAG objective to "Encourage patterns of urban development and land use that reduce costs in infrastructure construction and make better use of existing facilities:" As a result, the proposed Project would comply with Consistency Criterion No. 1 listed above in the Methodology Section. Regarding Consistency Criterion No. 2, which evaluates the potential of the proposed Project to increase the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations; an impact would occur if the long-term emissions associated with the proposed Project would exceed SCAQMD's regional significance thresholds for operation -phase emissions. As detailed below in Impact AQ-2, operation of the proposed Project would exceed the threshold of significance for emissions of VOCs and there are no feasible mitigation measures that would reduce VOC emissions to below the SCAQMD threshold. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in an impact related to Consistency Criterion No. 2. As a result, impacts related to consistency with the AQMP would be significant and unavoidable. Impact Finding: Operation of the Project would 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 (Draft EIR at p. 5.2-16). Facts in Support of Findings: Implementation of the Project would result in long-term emissions of criteria air pollutants from area sources generated by the proposed commercial and residential uses, such as vehicular emissions, natural gas consumption, landscaping, applications of architectural coatings, and use of consumer products. The emissions from the proposed Project are primarily from vehicle trips. As described in Section 5.14, Transportation, the proposed Project is anticipated to generate 11,546 daily trips, with 534 a.m. peak hour trips and 604 p.m. peak hour trips. The operational emissions from the Project are provided in the Draft EIR Table 5.2-8, on page 5.2-17, which shows that emissions from operation of the proposed Project would exceed the threshold of significance for VOCs. The majority of VOC emissions would be derived from consumer products and mobile activity. Consumer products include cleaning supplies, kitchen aerosols, cosmetics and toiletries, the use of which cannot be controlled by the City. Likewise, vehicular emissions cannot be controlled by either the Project applicant or the City. There are no feasible mitigation measures that would reduce VOC emissions to below the SCAQMD threshold. Therefore, operational emissions of the Project would be significant and unavoidable. Q. Greenhouse Gases Impact Finding: The Project would generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, either directly or indirectly, that would have a significant impact on the environment (Draft EIR at p. 5.6-10). Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed Project would generate GHG emissions from vehicle trips, electricity and natural gas consumption, water and wastewater transport (the energy used to pump water), and solid waste generation. GHG emissions from electricity consumed by the City of Santa Ana 48 May 2020 75C-724 The Wamer Redhill Mixed -Use Proiect CEQA Findinqs of Fact proposed Project would be generated off -site by fuel combustion at the electricity provider. GHG emissions from water transport are also indirect emissions resulting from the energy required to transport water from its source. GHG emissions from solid waste disposal is associated with the anaerobic breakdown of material. As shown in the Draft EIR Table 5.6-3, page 5.6-1 1, Section 5.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the estimated increase in GHG emissions that would be generated from implementation of the proposed Project is estimated to be 9,861.60 MTCO2e per year. This exceeds the SCAQMD Tier 3 screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e. Therefore, additional analysis is provided based upon the direction of SCAQMD's Tier 4 thresholds through use of the City's CAP emissions targets and projected service population, which as detailed in Draft EIR Section 5.6.5, Methodology, identified a threshold of 3.16 MTCO2e per service population in the Project opening year if 2022. The Draft EIR Section 5.1 1, Population and Housing, shows that the Project would result in 2,081 residents and 320 employees at full occupancy. This results in a service population of 2,401 (2,081 residents + 320 employees = 2,401 service population). The Project's net increase in GHG emissions of 9,861.60 MTCO2e per year divided by the service population of the Project would result in 4.10 MTCO2e annually per service population, which exceeds the threshold of 3.16 MTCO2e per service population. Approximately 60 percent of the GHG emissions would be generated by Project mobile sources (vehicle trips). Neither the Project Applicant nor the City of Santa Ana can substantively or materially affect reductions in Project mobile -source emissions. However, the Project is an urban infill redevelopment that would provide mixed residential and commercial (retail/restaurant) uses. The site located near existing off -site employment, commercial, residential, and retail destinations and in proximity to existing public bus stops and freeways, which would result in reduced vehicle trips and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) in comparison to a Project of similar size on land without close access to employment, service, and retail, destinations; in addition to public transit and freeways. The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) has provided guidance for mitigating or reducing transportation related VMT from land use development projects within its guidance document titled Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures (CAPCOA 2010). The land use characteristics of the Project are consistent with the CAPCOA guidance related to a reduction of VMT: • Area Density: CAPCOA identifies that increases in area density, measured in terms of persons, jobs, or dwelling units per unit area, reduces VMT associated with transportation, as it reduces the distance people travel for work or services and provides a foundation for the implementation of other strategies such as enhanced transit services (CAPCOA guidance measure LUT-1 ). According to CAPCOA, the reduction in VMT from increases in area density applies to urban and suburban settings for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed -use projects. The urban infill/redevelopment Project would provide residential, retail/restaurant, and employment uses and is located near other employment opportunities, services, and retail commercial uses. The proposed Project would provide an increase in area residential density and an improvement to the jobs -housing balance. As City of Santa Ana 49 May 2020 75C-725 The Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fad detailed in Section 5.11, Population and Housing, the Project region has an existing and projected future imbalance between the number of jobs and housing units. Thus, per CAPCOA guidance, the addition of residential units within the area would reduce VMT and the VMT-related GHG emissions. • Location Efficiency: Location efficiency describes the location of a project relative to the type of urban landscape such as an urban area, compact infill, or suburban center. CAPCOA guidance measure LUT-2.22 describes that a reduction in VMT and the related GHG emissions occurs from development within urban areas that include residential, retail, office, industrial, mixed -uses, and transportation access. As described previously, the Project is located in an urban infill location and would provide residential units near employment, retail, and services. Additionally, the Project is located adjacent to the Orange County Transit Authority (OCTA) bus lines that runs along Red Hill Avenue and Warner Avenue that makes use of transit efficient. Thus, the location efficiently of the Project would provide for reduced VMT and the related GHG emissions. Also, according to the CAPCOA guidance, factors that contribute to VMT reductions include pedestrian connectivity between the project site and off -site destinations. The Project would include onsite sidewalks that would connect to the existing offsite sidewalks and bicycle lanes exist in the Project vicinity. Both walking and bicycling to onsite or nearby destinations would reduce transportation energy use and the related GHG emissions. Therefore, although the Project Applicant and City cannot reduce GHG vehicular emissions, the Project is consistent with the CAPCOA guidance for mitigating or reducing transportation related VMT from land use development projects. In addition, the Project incorporates various sustainable design features that would reduce GHG emissions, which include: • A minimum of 94 electric vehicle charging stations. • Installation of drought -tolerant plants for landscaping. • Installation of water -efficient irrigation systems, such as weather -based and soil -moisture - based irrigation controllers and sensors, for landscaping according to the California Department of Water Resources Model Efficient Landscape Ordinance. • Designing buildings to provide CALGreen Standards with Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design features for potential certification and would employ energy and water conservation measures in accordance with such standards. This includes design considerations related to the building envelope; heating, ventilating, and air conditioning; lighting; and power systems. • Installation of landscaping in surface parking lots to reduce heat island effect. Trees would be selected and placed to provide canopy and shade for the parking lots. • Implementation of a recycling program in order to meet a 75 percent minimum waste diversion goal. • Utilization of construction materials and interior finish products with zero or low emissions to improve indoor air quality. City of Santa Ana 50 May 2020 75C-726 The blamer Redhill Mixed -Use CEQA Findings of Fad • Provision of adequate ventilation and high -efficiency in -duct filtration system. • Use of low volatile organic compound paints and wallpapers. Also, nonresidential buildings built with the 2019 Title 24/CalGreen standards are estimated to use approximately 30 percent less energy and residential buildings are estimated to use approximately 7 percent less energy compared to development under the 2016 standards. The reduction of energy use results in reduced GHG emissions. Compliance with Title 24 is enforced through the building permit process. The following Title 24 standards are applicable to the proposed Project and would reduce GHG emissions: • Short-term bicycle parking. If a commercial project is anticipated to generate visitor traffic, provide permanently anchored bicycle racks within 200 feet of the visitors' entrance, readily visible to passers-by, for 5 percent of visitor motorized vehicle parking capacity, with a minimum of one two -bike capacity rack. • Long-term bicycle parking. For new buildings with 10 or more tenant -occupants, provide secure bicycle parking for 5 percent of tenant -occupied motorized vehicle parking capacity, with a minimum of one space. • Designated parking. Provide designated parking in commercial projects for any combination of low -emitting, fuel -efficient and carpool/van pool vehicles. • Recycling by Occupants. Provide readily accessible areas that serve the entire building and are identified for the depositing, storage and collection of nonhazardous materials for recycling. • Construction waste. A minimum 65 percent diversion of construction and demolition waste from landfills. • Wastewater reduction. Each building shall reduce the generation of wastewater by either installing water -conserving fixtures or using non -potable water systems. • Water use savings. 20 percent mandatory reduction of indoor water use. • Water meters. Separate water meters for buildings in excess of 50,000 sf or buildings projected to consume more than 1,000 gallons per day. • Irrigation efficiency. Moisture -sensing irrigation systems for larger landscaped areas. • Materials pollution control. Utilize low pollutant emitting interior finish materials such as paints, carpet, vinyl flooring, and particleboard. • Building commissioning. Mandatory inspections of energy systems (i.e., heat furnace, air conditioner, mechanical equipment) for nonresidential buildings over 10,000 sf to ensure that all are working at their maximum capacity according to their design efficiencies. However, there are no feasible Project measures that would reduce vehicular emissions, and approximately 60 percent of the GHG emissions would be generated by Project mobile sources (vehicle trips). Thus, neither the Project Applicant nor the Lead Agency (City of Santa Ana) can substantively or materially affect reductions in Project mobile -source emissions. The Project would result in a net increase in GHG emissions of 9,861.60 MTCO2e per year, which would be 4.10 City of Santa Ana 51 May 2020 75C-727 The Wamer Redhill Mixed -Use Proiect CEQA Findinqs of Fact MTCO2e annually per service population. This would exceed the SCAQMD Tier 3 screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e and exceed the SCAQMD Tier 4/City CAP threshold of 3.16 MTCO2e per service population. Therefore, impacts related to GHG emissions would be significant and unavoidable. Impact Finding: The Project would conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases (Draft EIR at p. 5.6-14). Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed Project consists of an infill redevelopment project that would help to meet housing demands from projected growth in the region while helping to improve the jobs to housing balance (detailed in Draft EIR Section 5.11, Population and Housing), which has the potential to reduce GHG emissions from the reduction of vehicle miles traveled. The proposed Project provides for pedestrian infrastructure, such as sidewalks that connect to off -site sidewalks to promote non -vehicular transportation and reduce the vehicle miles traveled and related GHG emissions. In addition, the Project site is adjacent to existing bus routes and bicycle lanes. Providing a mixed -use development in such a location is consistent with the intent of the AB 32 Scoping Plan and SB 375, which is focused on changing land use patterns and improving transportation alternatives. The proposed Project would be implemented pursuant to the 2019 CALGreen Building/Title 24 requirements, and provide new land uses in a sustainable manner. The City's administration of the Title 24 requirements includes review of proposed energy conservation measures during the permitting process, which ensures that all requirements are met. In complying with the 2019 Title 24 standards, the Project would be implementing regulations that reduce GHG emissions. Also, the CARB Scoping Plans recommend strategies for implementation at the statewide level to meet the goals of AB 32 and SB 32. The proposed Project would be consistent with the applicable measures established in the 2008 CARB Scoping Plan, as shown in Draft EIR Table 5.6-4, page 5.6-14, Section 5.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The 2017 Scoping Plan Update reflects the 2030 target of a 40 percent reduction below 1990 levels, set by Executive Order B- 30-15 and codified by SB 32. Draft EIR Table 5.6-5, page 5.6-15, Section 5.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions summarizes the Project's consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan, which shows that the Project would not conflict with any of the provisions of the 2017 Scoping Plan. The City of Santa Ana's CAP includes reduction measures that would help the City achieve its emissions reduction goal, which is consistent with the statewide goals identified. The proposed Project is consistent with City's CAP strategy of locating new mixed -use development within employment corridors to create a more optimal mix of land uses and reduce vehicle miles traveled. The proposed Project would be consistent with the relevant measures of the City's CAP as described in Draft EIR Table 5.6-6, page 5.6-19, Section 5.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. However, as described previously, the GHG emissions from the Project would exceed the SCAQMD Tier 3 screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e and exceed the SCAQMD Tier 4/City CAP threshold of 3.16 MTCO2e per service population. As described previously, approximately 60 percent of the GHG emissions would be generated by vehicle trips. Neither the Project Applicant nor the City of Santa Ana can substantively or City of Santa Ana 52 May 2020 75C-728 The Wamer Redhill Mixed -Use Proiect CEQA Findinqs of Fad materially reduce the vehicular -source GHG emissions. Thus, the Project would result in an exceedance of the CAP's emissions target and impacts would be significant and unavoidable. R. Transportation Impact Finding: The Project would conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities (Draft EIR at p. 5.14-10). Facts in Support of Findings: In the Year 2040 plus Project traffic conditions the Project would result in a significant cumulative impact at the following three intersections, as detailed in Final EIR Transportation Section Table 5.14-10: • Grand Avenue/Warner Avenue (#4) in the p.m. peak hour • Red Hill Avenue/Barranca Parkway (#30) in the p.m. peak hour • Red Hill Avenue/Alton Parkway (#32) in the p.m. peak hour Improvements for impacted intersections have been identified, which would reduce the impacts to a less than significant level. However, improvements at the intersections of Red Hill Avenue/ Barranca Parkway (#30) and Red Hill Avenue/Alton Parkway (#32) cannot be guaranteed because they require approval and/or implementation by the City of Tustin or the City of Irvine. In addition, the improvement at the Grand Avenue/Warner Avenue (#4) is required as a result of a is a cumulative impact, as the intersection operates with unsatisfactory LOS in the baseline 2040 condition. The Project would be responsible for a fair share of the improvement; however, there is no currently planned improvement at the location, and it is unknown if the Grand Avenue/Warner Avenue improvement would be implemented by 2040. Therefore, implementation of the Project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact under the Year 2040 Plus Project condition at these three intersections. City of Santa Ana 53 May 2020 75C-729 The Wamer Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fad SECTION V RESOLUTION REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES Section 15126.2(c) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR discuss "any significant irreversible environmental changes which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented." Generally, a project would result in significant irreversible environmental changes if one of the following scenarios is involved: • The Project would involve a large commitment of nonrenewable resources. • Irreversible damage can result from environmental accidents associated with the Project. • The proposed consumption of resources is not justified (e.g., the Project results in the wasteful use of energy). The Project would result in or contribute to the following irreversible environmental changes: • Lands in the Project area that are currently developed with light industrial uses would be committed to multi -family residential and commercial retail uses once the proposed buildings are constructed. Secondary effects associated with this irreversible commitment of land resources include: o Changes in views associated with construction of the new buildings and associated development (Draft EIR Section 5.1, Aesthetics). o Increased traffic on area roadways (Draft EIR Section 5.14, Transportation). o Emissions of air pollutants associated with Project construction and operation (Draft EIR Section 5.2, Air Quality). o Consumption of non-renewable energy associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project due to the use of automobiles, lighting, heating and cooling systems, appliances, and the like (Draft EIR Section 5.4, Energy). o Increased ambient noise associated with an increase in activities and traffic from the Project (Draft EIR Section 5.10, Noise). • Construction of the proposed Project as described in Draft EIR Section 3.0, Project Description, would require the use of energy produced from non-renewable resources and construction materials. In regard to energy usage from the proposed Project, as demonstrated in the analyses contained in Draft EIR Section 5.4, Energy, the proposed Project would not involve wasteful or unjustifiable use of non-renewable resources, and conservation efforts would be enforced during construction and operation of proposed development. The proposed development would incorporate energy - generating and conserving project design features, including those required by the California Building Code, California Energy Code Title 24, which specify green building standards for new developments. In addition, as listed in Draft EIR Sections 3.0, Project Description and 5.4, Energy, the proposed Project includes project design features that result in additional energy -efficiency. City of Santa Ana 54 May 2020 75C-730 The Wamer Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fad SECTION VI RESOLUTION REGARDING GROWTH -INDUCING IMPACTS AND COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES Section 15126.2(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires the EIR to address the growth -inducing impact of the Project. EIR Section 5.17 evaluates the potential for the proposed Project to affect economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Emolovment Related Growth The Project site has been used Ricoh Electronics Inc. for light industrial uses that provide employment since its development in 1979 and 1981. The site was vacated by Ricoh in 2018 and the buildings are partially re -occupied and used for storage, electronics recycling, and as temporary housing for the homeless. The proposed Project would redevelop the Project site to provide 1,150 multi -family residential units and 80,000 square feet of commercial retail space. As detailed in Section 5.11, Population and Housing, this is anticipated to generate approximately 320 employees at full occupancy, which would be 0.27 percent of the existing jobs within 2-miles of the Project site; and therefore, would not result in induced unplanned employment growth. Infrastructure Obstacles to Growth The proposed Project would redevelop the existing onsite infrastructure systems and provide an off -site sewer line improvement that would connect to the existing off -site systems that currently serve the Project site. The new infrastructure would not provide additional capacity beyond what is needed to serve the proposed Project. In addition, because the Project is within a developed area that is receiving services from existing infrastructure and would connect to the existing infrastructure, development of the proposed Project would not result in an expansion of overall capacity, extension of infrastructure, or provision of services in areas or an unserved area. Therefore, infrastructure improvements would not result in significant growth inducing impacts. Land Development Reaulation Obstacles to Growth The proposed Project includes amendments to the General Plan and to the zoning code to allow for the redevelopment of the site to provide the proposed mixed -use development as opposed to the existing light industrial building uses. The Project proposes a General Plan land use designation amendment from PAO (Professional and Administrative Office) to District Center, which would allow specific development requirements for the proposed mixed uses. In addition, the Project includes a proposed zoning change from M-1 (Light Industrial) to a Specific Development designation, which would also provide specific development regulations for the mixed -use Project. The proposed Project is redevelopment of an already developed area that has been used for urban uses since 1979 and is surrounded by urban development or areas planned for urban development. The proposed Project would involve a change to development regulations and would result in onsite residents and additional onsite employees. However, the zoning and land use changes are parcel specific and would not result in growth outside of the Project site, because the areas are either completely developed or within development land use plans. Changes to the Project site's land use and zoning designations would not result in removing an obstacle to growth within the Project vicinity. City of Santa Ana 55 May 2020 75C-731 The Wamer Redhill Mixed -Use Proiect CEQA Findinqs of Fad In addition, SCAG policies concerning regional growth -inducement are included as part of Draft EIR Section 5.9, Land Use and Planning, and Draft EIR Section 5.11, Population and Housing. As described in those sections, the growth anticipated by SCAG's projections are consistent with the increases in population (2,081 residents) and employees (320 employees) anticipated at full capacity of the Project. Therefore, impacts related to growth from changes in existing regulations pertaining to land development would be less than significant. Public Service Obstacles to Growth The proposed Project is expected to incrementally increase the demand for fire protection and emergency response, police protection, and school services. However, as described in Draft EIR Section 5.12, Public Services, the proposed Project would not require development of additional facilities or expansion of existing facilities to maintain existing levels of service. Based on service ratios and build out projections, the proposed Project would not create a demand for services beyond the capacity of existing facilities. Therefore, an indirect growth inducing impact as a result of expanded or new public facilities that could support other development in addition to the proposed Project would not occur. The proposed Project would not have significant growth inducing consequences that would require the need to expand public services to maintain desired levels of service. Other Activities Related to Growth The proposed Project involves amendments to the City of Santa Ana General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, but those amendments are specific to the allowable land uses on the Project site itself. The proposed Project does not propose changes to any of the City's building safety standards (i.e., building, grading, plumbing, mechanical, electrical, or fire codes). The Project would comply with all applicable City plans, policies, and ordinances. In addition, Project features and mitigation measures have been identified within this EIR to ensure that the Project minimizes environmental impacts. The Project would not involve any precedent -setting action that could encourage and facilitate other activities that significantly affect the environment. Impacts of Growth All physical environmental effects from construction of development of the proposed Project has been analyzed in the Draft EIR. For example, activities such as excavation, grading, and construction as required for the proposed mixed uses were analyzed in the Draft EIR Sections 5.2, Air Quality, 5.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and 5.10, Noise. Therefore, construction of the proposed Project has been analyzed in the EIR and would be adequately mitigated either through implementation of existing regulations and/or mitigation measures. City of Santa Ana 56 May 2020 75C-732 The Wamer Redhill Mixed -Use SECTION VII RESOLUTION REGARDING ALTERNATIVES CEQA Findings of Fad The City of Santa Ana hereby declares that it has considered and rejected as infeasible the alternatives identified in the EIR and described below. Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the Project, or to the location of the Project, which could feasibly achieve most of its basic objectives, but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects identified in the EIR analysis. An EIR is not required to consider every conceivable alternative to a proposed project. Rather, an EIR must consider a reasonable range of alternatives that are potentially feasible; an EIR is not required to consider alternatives that are infeasible. In addition, an EIR should evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. Therefore, this section sets forth the potential alternatives to the Project analyzed in the EIR and evaluates them in light of the objectives of the Project, as required by CEQA. Objectives The following objectives have been identified in order to aid decision makers in their review of the proposed Project and its associated environmental impacts. • Develop a mixed -use Project that constructs new multi -family residential units, which would help meet the region's demand for housing. • Transform an underutilized site with an economically viable development consistent with other regional redevelopment in the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan and Irvine Business Complex (IBC) and combines residential uses with community -serving retail near employment opportunities, freeway access, and transit. • Redevelop existing land uses that would utilize existing infrastructure, including: water, sewer, arterial roadways, transit, and freeways; and provide non -vehicular (pedestrian and bicycle) circulation. • Develop a mix of housing to assist the City in meeting its jobs/housing balance. • Provide onsite uses that reduce vehicular miles traveled (VMT) by providing an internal pedestrian circulation system that links residential uses, recreation areas, and retail/commercial areas onsite. • Implement the SCAG Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) Land Use Policies related to population and housing by providing additional housing near employment centers. Alternatives Key provisions of the State CEQA Guidelines relating to the alternatives analysis (Section 15126.6 et seq.) are summarized below: • The discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the Project or its location that are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the Project, City of Santa Ana 57 May 2020 75C-733 The Wamer Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fad even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the Project objectives or would be more -costly. • The "No Project" alternative shall be evaluated along with its impact. The "No Project" analysis shall discuss the existing conditions, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the Project is not approved. • The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a "rule of reason"; therefore, the EIR must evaluate only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Project. • For alternative locations, only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR. • An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effects cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative. Rationale for Selecting Potentially Feasible Alternatives The alternatives must include a no -project alternative and a range of reasonable alternatives to the Project if those reasonable alternatives would attain most of the Project objectives while substantially lessening the potentially significant project impacts. The range of alternatives discussed in an EIR is governed by a "rule of reason," which the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(3) defines as: ... set[ting] forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the ones that the lead agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Project. The range of feasible alternatives shall be selected and discussed in a manner to foster meaningful public participation and informed decision -making. Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives (as described in the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)([1]) are environmental impacts, site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the Project proponent could reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to an alternative site. An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effects could not be reasonably identified, and whose implementation is remote or speculative. For purposes of this analysis, the Project alternatives are evaluated to determine the extent to which they attain the basic Project objectives, while significantly lessening any significant effects of the Project. Alternatives Analysis The goal for evaluating any alternatives is to identify ways to avoid or lessen the significant environmental effects resulting from implementation of the proposed Project, while attaining most of the Project objectives. The City of Santa Ana has included the following 3 alternatives for consideration: City of Santa Ana 58 May 2020 75C-734 The Wamer Redhill Mixed -Use Proiect CEQA Findinqs of Fad • No Project/No Build Alternative • Reduced Project Alternative • Build Out of the Existing Land Use and Zoning Alternative Alternatives Not Selected for Analysis Alternative Site: An alternative site was considered and eliminated from further consideration. CEQA specifies that the key question regarding alternative site consideration is "whether any of the significant effects of the Project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the Project at another location." In addition, an alternative site need not be considered when implementation is "remote and speculative," such as when the alternative site is beyond the control of a Project proponent. The Project Applicant is the owner of the Project site, and the Project site building is underutilized in the existing condition. The Project objectives are to redevelop an existing underutilized parcel and implement new multi -family housing near employment, provide development consistent with other regional redevelopment in the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan and IBC and utilize existing infrastructure, all of which are consistent with the opportunities provided by the Project site. In addition, due to the urban and built out nature of the City, development of 1,150 multi -family residential units and 80,000 square feet of commercial uses on another 14.58-acre site at a different location would likely require demolition of existing structures, require similar mitigation, and have similar impacts as the proposed Project. CEQA specifies that the key question regarding alternative site consideration is "whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project at another location." Given the size and nature of the proposed Project and the Project objectives, it would be infeasible to develop and operate the Project on an alternative site with fewer environmental impacts. Therefore, the Alternative Site Alternative was rejected from further consideration. Description of Alternatives Alternative 1: No Project/No Build Alternative Pursuant to Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, the EIR is required to "discuss the existing conditions at the time the notice of preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation is published, at the time the environmental analysis is commenced, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services." Therefore, under this alternative, no development would occur on the Project site and it would remain in its existing condition with three existing buildings with a total 21 2,1 21 square feet. The Project site is located within a completely developed and highly used urban area, near freeways and transit, and contains three existing useable structures. Therefore, it is not reasonable to assume that the Project site would remain underutilized in the long-term. Thus, in the No Project/No Build condition it is reasonably expected that all of the 212,121 square feet of industrial building space would be re -occupied. Hence, this alternative compares impacts of the proposed Project with re -occupation at full capacity of the three existing industrial buildings Alternative 2 — Reduced Project Alternative Under this alternative, a reduction in the number of residential units and commercial square footage would be built, which would result in increased setbacks and reduced building heights. City of Santa Ana 59 May 2020 75C-735 The Wamer Redhill Mixed -Use Proiect CEQA Findinqs of Fact Pursuant to discussion with City planning staff, it was determined that a reasonable decrease in developed on the Project site is 30 percent of each unit type and a 30 percent reduction in commercial retail space resulting in 345 fewer residential units and 24,000 square feet less of commercial space. Like the proposed Project, 17 percent of the units would be studios, 52 percent would be one -bedroom units, and 29 percent would be 2-bedroom units. This alternative would develop and operate 805 multi -family residential units and 56,000 square feet of retail and restaurant commercial uses. Reducing these units from the proposed Project would eliminate 100 units from each of the three proposed mixed use buildings and 45 units from the residential only building, which would reduce the height of the three six -story mixed use buildings by two stories and reduce the height of the one five -story building by one story. Thus, each of the mixed -use and residential buildings would be four -stories in height under the Reduced Project Alternative. To support the reduced Project under this alternative parking spaces would be provided at the same rate as the proposed Project of 1.7 spaces per residential unit and 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of commercial space within a two four -level parking structures and two five -level parking structures, which would each be two levels lower than the proposed Project. The 24,000 square foot reduction in commercial space would occur from reducing the Phase 1 commercial square footage from 40,000 square feet to 20,000 square feet and from reducing the Phase 3 commercial square footage from 20,000 square feet to 16,000 square feet. Under the Reduced Project Alternative, the recreation amenities would also be reduced by 30 percent; thus, approximately 122,189 square feet of exterior open space recreation area and approximately 5,606 square feet of indoor amenities would be provided by this alternative. Like the proposed Project, this alternative would require a General Plan Amendment from the existing land use designation of PAO (Professional and Administrative Office) to District Center (DC), and a Zone change from M-1 (Light Industrial) to a Specific Development (SD) designation Alternative 3 — Build Out of the Existing Land Use and Zoning Alternative The Project site has a General Plan Land Use designation of Professional and Administrative Office (PAO) with a designated Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.5 and is zoned Light Industrial (M-1). Under this alternative, the Project site would be redeveloped for a new light industrial business park as allowed by the existing General Plan Land Use designation and the City's Zoning Code Sections 41 -472 through 41-483. The Project site has a zoning designation of Light Industrial (M- 1), which permits uses such as: warehousing, distribution, manufacture, assembly, and storage. The M-1 zone allows buildings up to 3-stories or 35-feet in height. At the allowable 0.5 FAR, the 14.58-acre site would provide for approximately 317,552 square feet of light industrial building space and building heights of up to 35-feet. These buildings would require approximately 635 parking spaces (per Municipal Code Section 41 -1390 requirement of 2 spaces per 1,000 square feet). The industrial buildings would be surrounded by drought tolerant ornamental landscaping. Under this alternative, the existing onsite development would be demolished, removed, and replaced to provide new building structures that would be developed pursuant to current building requirements, such as energy efficient power systems, drought tolerant landscaping, storm water filtration, and other Low Impact Development (LID) requirements. City of Santa Ana 60 May 2020 75C-736 The Wamer Redhill Mixed -Use Proiect CEQA Findinqs of Fad Evaluation of Alternatives Alternative 1 — No Project/No Build Alternative The No Project/No Build Alternative would avoid the significant and unavoidable air quality, greenhouse gas, and transportation impacts that would occur from the Project and all of the potential construction impacts. Additionally, operational impacts would be reduced and mitigation measures would not be required, which include measures related to hazards and hazardous materials, transportation, and tribal cultural resources. However, the environmental benefits of the Project would also not be realized, such as improvements to storm water quality, removal of contaminated soils, improvements to the jobs/housing balance, and the potential to reduce vehicle miles traveled. The No Project/No Build Alternative would not install storm water filtration features in accordance with DAMP and LID design guidelines that would filter and slow the volume and rate of runoff; the contaminated soils would remain onsite; and this alternative would provide for the projected employment growth but would not improve the jobs to housing balance within the region and could generate more vehicle miles traveled. The No Project/ No Build Alternative would not meet any of the Project objectives. The site would not be redeveloped to provide housing to help meet the region's demand for housing, would not provide a development consistent with other regional redevelopment in the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan and IBC, would not develop housing to assist the City in meeting its jobs/housing balance, would not provide onsite uses that reduce VMT, and would not implement SCAG RTP/SCS policies related to providing additional housing near employment centers. Overall, this alternative would not meet any of the objectives of the proposed Project Finding: The City of Santa Ana finds that the No Project/No Build Alternative is infeasible based on several economic and social factors. The site would not be redeveloped to provide development consistent with other regional redevelopment in the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan and IBC, would not develop housing to assist the City in meeting its jobs/housing balance, would not provide onsite uses that reduce VMT, and would not implement SCAG RTP/SCS policies related to providing additional housing near employment centers. Overall, the No Project/No Build Alternative fails to meet any of the Project objectives (Draft EIR at p. 6-12) and is rejected on that basis. Alternative 2 — Reduced Project Alternative The Reduced Project Alternative would result in 3,955 fewer daily vehicular trips than the proposed Project. The reduction in vehicular emissions and consumer products from this alternative would reduce operational air quality impacts to a less than significant level. However, significant and unavoidable impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions and transportation would continue to occur from implementation of this alternative. Additionally, the mitigation required for implementation of the proposed Project would continue to be required for the Reduced Project Alternative to reduce impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials and tribal cultural resources to a less than significant level. Overall, although the volume of impacts would be less by the Reduced Project Alternative in comparison to the proposed Project, the Reduced Project Alternative would not eliminate all of the significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed Project or eliminate the need for mitigation. Furthermore, the Reduced Project Alternative would result in a reduced beneficial impact. Providing fewer multi -family units and less commercial City of Santa Ana 61 May 2020 75C-737 The Wamer Redhill Mixed -Use Proiect CEQA Findinqs of Fad space on the Project site would result in fewer opportunities to improve the jobs -housing balance as fewer residents would have the potential to travel to local employment opportunities. The Reduced Project Alternative would meet the Project objectives, but not to the same extent as the proposed Project. The site would be redeveloped to provide housing to help meet the region's demand for housing, would provide a development consistent with other regional redevelopment in the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan and IBC. However, fewer residential units and less commercial space would be provided and a reduced improvement to the jobs -housing balance and VMT would occur. Additionally, the alternative would result in less implementation of SCAG RTP/SCS policies related to providing additional housing near employment centers. Overall, this alternative would meet the objectives of the proposed Project, but not to the same extent as the proposed Project. Finding: The City of Santa Ana finds that the Reduced Project Alternative is infeasible based several economic and social factors. A key consideration for the City is to develop housing to assist the City in meeting its jobs/housing balance, which would be less under this alternative than the proposed Project. Under the Reduced Project Alternative fewer residential units and less commercial space would be provided and a reduced improvement to the jobs -housing balance and VMT would occur. Additionally, the alternative would result in less implementation of SCAG RTP/SCS policies related to providing additional housing near employment centers. In addition, the Reduced Project Alternative would not eliminate all of the significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed Project or eliminate the need for mitigation. Thus, the Reduced Project Alternative would not achieve the Project objectives to the same extent as the proposed Project, would continue to result in significant and unavoidable impacts, and would continue to require mitigation. The Reduced Project Alternative is rejected on that basis. Alternative 3 — Build Out of the Existing Land Use and Zoning Alternative The Build Out of the Existing Land Use and Zoning Alternative would result in 9,559 fewer daily vehicular trips than the proposed Project. The reduction in vehicular trips from this alternative would reduce the proposed Project's significant and unavoidable operational air quality emissions and transportation/traffic impacts to a less than significant level. However, significant and unavoidable impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions would continue to occur from implementation of this alternative. Additionally, the mitigation required for hazards and hazardous materials and tribal cultural resources for the proposed Project would continue to be required for the Build Out of the Existing Land Use and Zoning Alternative. Overall, although the volume of impacts would be less by the Build Out of the Existing Land Use and Zoning Alternative in comparison to the proposed Project, the Build Out of the Existing Land Use and Zoning Alternative would not eliminate all of the significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed Project or eliminate the need for mitigation. Furthermore, the Build Out of the Existing Land Use and Zoning Alternative would result in a reduced beneficial impact, as it would not provide multi -family units on the Project site; and therefore, would not improve the jobs - housing balance. The Build Out of the Existing Land Use and Zoning Alternative would only meet one Project objective, to redevelop existing land uses that would utilize existing infrastructure, including: water, sewer, arterial roadways, transit, and freeways; and provide non -vehicular (pedestrian and bicycle) circulation. The site would not be redeveloped with new housing near existing employment centers, to meet the regions demand for housing or be developed consistent with the City of Santa Ana 62 May 2020 75C-738 The Wamer Redhill Mixed -Use Proiect CEQA Findinqs of Fact redevelopment in the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan area or within the IBC. It would not promote an improved jobs/housing balance and would not meet the related SCAG RTP/SCS land use objectives. Finding: The City of Santa Ana finds that the Build Out of the Existing Land Use and Zoning Alternative is infeasible based several economic and social factors. A key consideration for the City is to develop housing to assist the City in meeting its jobs/housing balance, which would not occur under this alternative. In addition, this alternative would not provide a development consistent with the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan and IBC, it would not provide an improvement to VMT, and it would not implement SCAG RTP/SCS policies related to providing additional housing near employment centers. Thus, the Build Out of the Existing Land Use and Zoning Alternative would not achieve the Project objectives to the same extent as the proposed Project. The Build Out of the Existing Land Use and Zoning Alternative is rejected on that basis. Environmentally Superior Alternative Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines indicates that an analysis of alternatives to a proposed project shall identify an environmentally superior alternative among the alternatives evaluated in an EIR. The CEQA Guidelines also state that should it be determined that the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, the EIR shall identify another environmentally superior alternative among the remaining alternatives. The Build Out of the Existing Land Use and Zoning Alternative would reduce the Project's significant and unavoidable operational air quality and transportation/traffic impacts to a less than significant level, would implement the existing General Plan land use and zoning designations for the Project site, and would not require a General Plan amendment or zoning change. However, this alternative would continue to require mitigation related to contaminated soils onsite and tribal cultural resources; and would continue to result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to GHG emissions. Therefore, although the volume of impacts would be less by the Build Out of the Existing Land Use and Zoning Alternative in comparison to the proposed Project, the Build Out of the Existing Land Use and Zoning Alternative would not eliminate all of the significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed Project or eliminate the need for mitigation. In addition, it would not implement the SCAG policies to the same degree as the proposed Project, because this alternative would not locate new housing near existing jobs and reduce the jobs - housing ratio or the corresponding reduction in vehicle miles traveled. In addition, the Build Out of the Existing Land Use and Zoning Alternative would not meet many of the Project objectives. The site would not be redeveloped with new housing near existing employment centers, to meet the regions demand for housing or be developed consistent with the redevelopment in the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan area or within the IBC. It would not promote an improved jobs/housing balance and would not meet the related SCAG RTP/SCS land use objectives. CEQA does not require the City of Santa Ana to choose the environmentally superior alternative. Instead, CEQA requires the City to consider environmentally superior alternatives, weigh those considerations against the environmental impacts of the proposed Project, and make findings that the benefits of those considerations outweigh the harm. Based on the considerations described City of Santa Ana 63 May 2020 75C-739 The Wamer Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fad herein, the City of Santa Ana finds that the Build Out of the Existing Land Use and Zoning Alternative is infeasible based on these economic and social factors. City of Santa Ana 64 May 2020 75C-740 The Wamer Redhill Mixed -Use Proiect CEQA Findinqs of Fad Vill. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Introduction The City of Santa Ana is the Lead Agency under CEQA for preparation, review and certification of the EIR for The Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Project (Project). As the Lead Agency, the City is also responsible for determining the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action and which of those impacts are significant, and which can be mitigated through imposition of mitigation measures to avoid or minimize those impacts to a level of less than significant. CEQA then requires the Lead Agency to balance the benefits of a proposed action against its significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts in determining whether or not to approve the proposed Project. In making this determination the City is guided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, Statement of Overriding Considerations, which states: (a) CEQA requires the decision -making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposal (sic) project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable." (b) When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section 15091. In addition, Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) requires that where a public agency finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in an EIR and thereby leave significant unavoidable effects, the public agency must also find that overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects of the project. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 (b) and the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City has balanced the benefits of the proposed Project against the unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the Project and has adopted all feasible mitigation measures with respect to these impacts. The City also has examined alternatives to the proposed Project, none of which both meet the Project objectives and is environmentally preferable to the proposed Project for the reasons discussed in the Findings and Facts in Support of Findings. The City of Santa Ana, as the Lead Agency for this Project, and having reviewed the EIR for the Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Project, and reviewed all written materials within the City's public record and heard all oral testimony presented at public hearings, adopts this Statement of Overriding Considerations, which has balanced the benefits of the Project against its significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts in reaching its decision to approve the Project. City of Santa Ana 65 May 2020 75C-741 The Wamer Redhill Mixed -Use Overriding Considerations CEQA Findings of Fad The City, after balancing the specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the Project, has determined that the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts identified above may be considered acceptable due to the following specific considerations which outweigh the unavoidable, adverse environmental impacts of the Project, each of which standing alone is sufficient to support approval of the Project, in accordance with CEQA Section 21081(b) and CEQA Guideline Section 15093. The specific economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of the Project are as follows: • The Project implements capital investment through construction of new buildings and offsite infrastructure improvements to enhance the City's economic and fiscal viability pursuant to the City of Santa Ana Strategic Plan. • The Project improves the jobs -housing balance, providing a beneficial effect of providing multi -family housing in a jobs -rich area so that employees can easily travel to employment opportunities. • The Project results in a potential reduction of vehicle miles traveled and the related traffic congestion, air quality, and greenhouse gas emissions compared with potential uses under the existing land use designation through the provision of housing and building space for commercial and restaurant uses near existing office uses and other sources of employment, and by improving the jobs -housing balance. • The Project provides additional housing to support the regionally forecasted increase in economic activities and employment increases. • The Project transforms an underutilized site with an economically viable development consistent with other regional redevelopment in the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan and Irvine Business Complex (IBC) and combines residential uses with community -serving commercial uses near employment opportunities, freeway access, and transit. • The Project implements the SCAG Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) Land Use Policies related to population and housing by providing additional housing near employment centers. • Consistent with the General Plan and City of Santa Ana Strategic Plan, the Project facilitates the economic development of the City by creating an expanded employment base by creating building space for multiple businesses, providing new diverse employment opportunities and attracting new businesses by locating residences, which will house future costumers for the businesses. • The Project will redevelop a site that has buildings and improvements that are tailored to a specific tenant which no longer needs the site or buildings. The existing buildings and improvements would have limited demand in the current condition and would not result in the benefits of the capital investment the Project will bring. • The Economic and Fiscal Analysis (2019) prepared for the Project determined that due to greater construction costs and scale, the estimated one-time construction economic impacts the Project ($498 million) to the City of Santa Ana is greater than the impact of the construction of a typical industrial building allowed under the current land use and zoning ($76 million). This is particularly important during this COVID-19 pandemic when significant economic impacts are severely impacting cities, businesses and jobs. City of Santa Ana 66 May 2020 75C-742 The Wamer Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fad • The Economic and Fiscal Analysis determined that the Project could generate more than double the estimated net annual revenue to the City compared with a typical industrial building allowed under the current land use and zoning. • The Project creates a high quality, master planned mixed -use development that will attract an array of businesses and provide a variety of employment and housing opportunities and creates a larger annual net fiscal surplus compared to build out of the existing Land Use and Zoning designations. City of Santa Ana 67 May 2020 75C-743 The Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fad RESOLUTION REGARDING CERTIFICATION OF THE EIR The City of Santa Ana finds that it has reviewed and considered the Final EIR in evaluating the proposed Project, that the Final EIR is an accurate and objective statement that fully complies with CEQA, State CEQA Guidelines and that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City. The City of Santa Ana declares that no new significant information as defined by State CEQA Guidelines, section 15088.5 has been received by the City after circulation of the Draft EIR that would require recirculation. The City of Santa Ana certifies the EIR based on the entirety of the record of proceedings, including but not limited to the following findings and conclusions: Findings The following significant environmental impacts have been identified in the EIR and will require mitigation as set forth in Section IV of this Resolution but cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance: air quality (Project -related and cumulative), greenhouse gas (cumulative), and transportation (cumulative). Conclusions: 1. Except as to those impacts stated above relating to air quality, greenhouse gas, and transportation, all significant environmental impacts from the implementation of the proposed Project have been identified in the EIR and, with implementation of the mitigation measures identified, will be mitigated to a level of insignificance. 2. Other alternatives to the proposed Project, which could potentially achieve the basic objectives of the proposed Project, have been considered and rejected in favor of the proposed Project. 3. Environmental, economic, social and other considerations and benefits derived from the development of the proposed Project override and make infeasible any alternatives to the proposed Project or further mitigation measures beyond those incorporated into the proposed Project. City of Santa Ana 68 May 2020 75C-744 The Wamer Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fad SECTION X RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the City of Santa Ana hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. In the event of any inconsistencies between the mitigation measures as set forth herein and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan shall control. City of Santa Ana 69 May 2020 75C-745 The Wamer Redhill Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fad SECTION XI RESOLUTION REGARDING CONTENTS AND CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings have been based are located at the City of Santa Ana Planning Division Counter. The custodian for these records is the City of Santa Ana. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code section 21081.6. The record of proceedings for the City's decision on the Project consists of the following documents, at a minimum: 1. The NOP and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the Project; 2. All comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the 45-day comment periods on the Draft EIR; 3. The Final EIR for the Mixed -Use Project, including comments received on the Draft EIR, responses to those comments, and technical appendices; 4. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the Project; 5. All findings, resolutions and ordinances adopted by the City in connection with the Mixed - Use Project, and all documents cited or referred to therein; 6. All reports, studies, memoranda, maps, staff reports, or other planning documents relating to the Project prepared by the City, consultants to the City, or responsible or trustee agencies with respect to the City's compliance with the requirements of CEQA and with respect to the City's action on the Mixed -Use Project; 7. All documents submitted to the City by other public agencies or members of the public in connection with the Mixed -Use Project up though Project approval. Matters of common knowledge to the City, including, but not limited to Federal, State, and local laws and regulations; 8. Any documents expressly cited or referenced in these findings, in addition to those cited above; and 9. Any other materials required for the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code section 21 167.6, subdivision (e). The following location is where review of the record may be performed: City of Santa Ana, Planning Division Counter 20 Civic Center Plaza, M-20 Santa Ana, CA 92701 City of Santa Ana 70 May 2020 75C-746 The Wamer Redhill Mixed -Use This page intentionally left blank. CEQA Findings of Fad City of Santa Ana 71 May 2020 75C-747 EXHIBIT B The Wamer Redhill Mixed -Use Project 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Chapter 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4.1 Introduction The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead or public agency that approves or carries out a project for which an Environmental Impact Report has been certified which identifies one or more significant adverse environmental effects and where findings with respect to changes or alterations in the project have been made, to adopt a "...reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment" (CEQA, Public Resources Code Sections 21081, 21081.6). A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is required to ensure that adopted mitigation measures are successfully implemented for the Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Project (Project). The City of Santa Ana is the Lead Agency for the Project and is responsible for implementation of the MMRP. This report describes the MMRP for the Project and identifies the parties that will be responsible for monitoring implementation of the individual mitigation measures in the MMRP. 4.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program The MMRP for the Project will be active through all phases of the Project, including design, construction, and operation. The attached table identifies the mitigation program required to be implemented by the City for the Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Project. The table identifies the Standard Conditions; Plan, Program, Policies (PPPs); and mitigation measures required by the City to mitigate or avoid significant adverse impacts associated with the implementation of the Project, the timing of implementation, and the responsible party or parties for monitoring compliance. The MMRP also includes a column that will be used by the compliance monitor (individual responsible for monitoring compliance) to document when implementation of the measure is completed. As individual Plan, Program, Policies; and mitigation measures are completed, the compliance monitor will sign and date the MMRP, indicating that the required actions have been completed. City of Santa Ana 4-1 Final EIR April 2020 (Revised May 5, 2020) 75C-748 The Wamer Redhill Mixed -Use Project This page intentionally left blank. City of Santa Ana Final EIR April 2020 75C-749 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4-2 a a � N a a c c V w `a 0 w V avv a= _ m p _ C m p C m p =E 6 Q Q Q O _ 5 0 aw ow C T T T W v v u a o a O a O c o a •� c o E c 2 •E a a a a a a c '£ c c o c 0 0 f 0 C c c O O O c c c 0 0 0 •w •w =o =O =o w =O =o =O a V nV au c c c .E a w N a a m NO ; �O c° 0 p p V O f w O O .. f O O a a " w w N m o va = O o w a m o •V 'V 0 f W T L ~ o C ~ a° d > a O a c •t a a W a z c W > T O o 00 was °' c 0 w 0 a_ a° w w ° 5 o w c o c O 8i a W Q T f a L °- O E 0 f o o� f E-0w w w c d p V Q J 3 C Q j H N Q> O! oV 3 " N ~M O M N G c OV 8l N O Ea ° in Y E °` h N o o Vj W .a o Q w E a p Q c w Y w cL a F a0 c °a w u a d w 3 O C ON O O V o u°a` °3° °°' O 0ww t3 o -o a _ _ = a `o o o° �' v ° �' o a o w _ ° 0° 0 o _ O c E o' s o N c o 3 =o 0 o N oL^ c 0 c o c a w V T° _ V w a E o a E c o o v Q 3 w o v a° o f w 0 r a w o °w 0 0 w— a °w a .« a °o E 0 0 0 a E>> a E M V a �15 75C-750 B 0 \ \ § |)f /)f \)f FL kk# ]§j kkj kv uau Ua Ua \\ � � uic 75C- 51 B /� !ƒ§ ] }\� 0 f F_\ \ \}\ u u E )\kfi\ > v - }22! 0 {E> -\-TE -_ 0 - �� %� _ §�f� \}k(k R§ : - \ §J2 a -!a'6U` - ��®%�t0 \\\)!E}/ _ ! 2)|!7+|a!; _ -_ k\E\ Ifs|e-! __- _ ]}([I , }( __ ee� §�(/ - _ _ [ ( _ _ . +2alEJ�%®ƒ!7;§!;ƒ5\ _} �m \ -�a- r�:$\)f-0 �o \\$_�\_; G a»•0 (/!{=J«;0 nu0 0-�!§§E ��7J] - !f\\k/§�§!ƒi\Ei§-\ }�wj _ 0/0\��\}\/}kk(/� : }}§J)) !!!2:/$§]§$ {f«�§0�E"0e2!\,orl�-°-;&2 e !®m^ )\}i7§±E])f()[/\]\(�]\\ \iE um $ � 75C- 52 B \} \/ \\� \} \�� \\ } \} \\� E kagvm -B f%a #§a® E 0.2 0 !0Z \0 -�§§ IE n E ezE{ \\\\a 4/ftE }\\\\\ §®!&\2 =6++=, }/}\\\ \\00 §�} ) \j§ \o)/)\ owl /}U 2foEA o \J22[a 0�\� E (k�«i0 7®+70 \ƒ�))ff ()\\\\� \0v !\)§}!) 1§r§)f Jg \�\�\ \\§\( \}\�\ r!®/; %fa[\} 14ƒ)i&7 2 /if)/i = 400 0 zvza \\\\\/\ };!\!\$ t{$|0 \�0\\o . 1.E a0 { § / ■ � � 75C- 53 a v � N m — a a E c p — V N `a 0 rna rna rn T V N p° cyW o d a N c' y• c o c -0 o c -0 �O O_ �O o 0 0 >_ ,� V D V D V p a a ° `o o 0 o a _o w f W c o Di E c .0 f •? 0 t •� -E f t•F c a c O O W T W T O (� o 0 0 0co 2 a a C 'y - C d 0 L Q V N V C Q O C W ° f -Ow N dg W a :r FH 0 za00 O j O O °o oWL pO O N 'O° LW a W T O 0 w°oo° ccy c$ c N c o o. °y o v o o v o c> o o f o> v a° c` o° o o ° ° o °i vc o o Q Q r a O 0, o °oE o a v i 3 E m w w r ° o f Q a c w c �a cy�oc 0) �OOL3DV "cEzviaallo w °rni dn o ov-ON o a o•Ec v°Q c m °cW> oo c =" o ov o >E w - ° .w> E iQ= zw c f0 o i c 0 o N L a '� d N= d 0 W Z C a W 1°n 6 a` o L N N o_ % a a 3 `o v c v ° v o o a E' ° c a Y� -0 a C N o O > > w y > a °' ama v°>o v No ° u c r p F o 0) v cw c° a E ° E 'w `° w o co aw-.,Ww p > o 2 c � w E O 5 f .O o O d c a O -0 — W O d 7 f W f z c O N d° N :_^ � T � c W � •� >w 0 o E a c i a v rn o 'L nt °°�' o '^ vc> -a `o -o0 awoca cc c za E VJ zc\a f ac a° 'o- 0 `o o ° ° K`t `m° `Z ° w ofJ'e` ' °cw > Q•cy •adg ao' w m w aE rL 'Ra a rn o i inQ w f o a a= r f Qo_ o y 0 r i rn°`.o o EmZ a o: 75C-754 B (\ )0 }{4 k )i}}})){)E0 \��§}kj\(/\\}/§\} #���-el=E �£/av> •=m�lB0ea; ;ƒ& �-� §!\}§a\i|}{§/\r/7 l:f,\�®)k/\) e --_ -__ - f:-!J®,§�!! -�0!\)\|&F$ r§X ]§e®�e�se*r §})§��!}}{) _ ;f§/!/)(]_)!)!_ ■kB,§v°!§!r} `l�t,:0-�» - - -� ; e:22$ • - 2{]„;r�§! o _r°u-.a�� _ - - ; z)\ff�°%J\)/ 4444�m )|�f\;/§)± £7\|®|{f\\!- }§)\!)\) /)\j\\�) .� _- _ )/!§\e{//\}3\52i, %�&f§i} !"a'_° '_ 0 - --- :-_°\rg2:�&°±r) _--§§;Bƒ]BEƒ=�;!§;§�)0;0�GE`:0 a�ea�% ��=ai"a> 6 0-0 ,��§=))I!\$, >/f:& !l=fE-£SEE )§\k/)f180 -0a 6m0sE®�Zm2,Fla *{^`®^�`!`i®)=arf®!Y}§a%tf;|) C(If\})\%)\}\\(\]!$k/\;\2�kfik! § � � 75C- 55 EXHIBIT C EIR No. 2020-01, GPA No. 2020-02, & AA No. 2020-01, "Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Development' 2300, 2310, and 2320 South Redhill Avenue The Final EIR and Technical Appendices are available online at: https://www.santa-ana.org/pb/planning-division/maior-planning-proiects-and-monthly-development- P ro I e ct- re po its/bowe rV Physical copies are also available for viewing by appointment only. Please contact PlanninizDepartment@santa-ana.org before visiting the Planning Division public counter located at: 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701 Exhibit C to Exhibit 2 — Link to EIR 75C-756 Exhibit 3 ZMARI I RESOLUTION NO. 2020-xx A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2020-02 AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT TO DISTRICT CENTER FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2300, 2310, AND 2320 SOUTH REDHILL AVENUE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines and declares as follows: WHEREAS, Article 5 of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 (commencing with Section 65300) of the Government Code requires the City to prepare and adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the City; and WHEREAS, on February 2, 1998, the City of Santa Ana adopted the Land Use Element of the General Plan, which has since been amended from time to time; and WHEREAS, Jeremy Ogulnick, representing Arrimus Capital ("Applicant"), seeks to develop a Mixed -Use Commercial and Residential Project ("proposed Project"), on a 14.69-acre site at 2300, 2310, and 2320 South Redhill Avenue in Santa Ana, California ("Project Site"); and WHEREAS, during the City's entitlement and environmental review process, and in response to comments and concerns raised by the City and public, the Applicant has proposed the subject mixed -use Project; and WHEREAS, the Project as currently proposed entails, among other things, (1) demolition of the existing three (3) structures on the Project Site; (2) redevelopment of the Project Site with a commercial and residential mixed -use development consisting of up to 80,000 square feet leasable commercial area, 1,100 residential units, 2,600 onsite parking spaces, and onsite landscaping and amenities; (3) approval of General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 2020-02, which would change the Project Site's existing land use designation of Professional & Administration Office (PAO) to District Center (DC); and (4) approval of Amendment Application (AA) No. 2020-01, which would change the zoning of the Project Site from Light Industrial (M-1) to Specific Development No. 96 (SD-96) designation; and WHEREAS, the requested General Plan Amendment would change the General Plan land use designation of the property from Professional and Administrative Office (PAO) to District Center (DC) and to update text portions of the Resolution No. 2020-xx Page 1 75C-757 City's Land Use Element to reflect this change in order to allow for development of the mixed -use commercial and residential Project; and WHEREAS, Environmental Impact Report No. 2020-01 (State Clearing house/SC H No. 2019080011) for the proposed Project was circulated between January 3, 2020 and February 18, 2020; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Impact Report analyzed the impacts related to the proposed amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element; and WHEREAS, on September 24, 2019, the City invited recognized Native American tribes to engage in consultation regarding the proposed General Plan Amendment pursuant to Government Code Section 65352.3; and WHEREAS, on October 1, 2019, the City received a request for consultation from the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation and a conference call between the City and Chairman Salas occurred on October 30, 2019 during which the history of uses and development of the Project Site and the depth of previous and existing infrastructure on the site was discussed. Chairman Salas did not respond to the City with any information or evidence pertaining to Tribal Cultural Resources; and WHEREAS, during the public comment period, a Planning Commission work- study session was held on February 10, 2020 where staff presented the proposed Project and described the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, on May 11, 2020 and May 26, 2020, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the EIR and General Plan Amendment No. 2020-02 and Amendment Application No. 2020-01. After hearing all relevant testimony from staff, the public and the City's consultant team, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council certify the EIR and adopt the findings, the statement of overriding considerations and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program and approve the Project; and WHEREAS, the "EIR" consists of the Final EIR and its attachments and appendices, as well as the Draft EIR and its attachments and appendices (as modified by the Final EIR); and WHEREAS, on August 6, 2020, the City gave public notice of a City Council public hearing for consideration of Environmental Impact Report No. 2020-01 (State Clearinghouse No. 2019080011) by advertising in the Orange County Register, a newspaper of general circulation, and by mailing to owners of property and residents within 500 feet of the Project; and WHEREAS, August 18, 2020, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the EIR, General Plan Amendment No. 2020-02, and Amendment Application No. 2020-01 and at which hearing members of the public were afforded an Resolution No. 2020-xx Page 2 75C-758 opportunity to comment upon Environmental Impact Report No. 2020-01. After hearing all relevant testimony from staff, the public and the City's consultant team, the City Council voted to certify the EIR, adopt the findings, the statement of overriding considerations and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program and approve the Project. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE, FIND, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT: The City Council has reviewed and certified Environmental Impact Report No. 2020-01, adopted the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) and Statement of Overriding Consideration for the proposed Project, including this General Plan Amendment No. 2020-02. Section 3. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: The General Plan Amendment consists of amendments to the Land Use Element and text updates, as shown in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Section 4. LOCATION OF DOCUMENTS: The General Plan Amendment, Environmental Impact Report and all supporting documents are online, and on file and available for public review at Santa Ana City Hall, 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, California 92702. Section 5. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY: The City Council hereby finds that the proposed General Plan Amendment is compatible with the objectives, policies, and general plan land use programs specified in the General Plan for the City of Santa Ana in that: A. The City of Santa Ana has officially adopted a General Plan. B. The land uses authorized by the General Plan Amendment, and the General Plan Amendment itself, are compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the General Plan, for the following reasons: i. The existing General Plan land use designation for the site is Professional and Administrative Office (PAO), which allows business and professional offices uses with a floor area ratio of 1.5. In order to facilitate the construction of a multi -family housing project with a maximum floor area ratio of 2.1, the general plan land use designation is proposed to be changed to District Center (DC), which permits high intensity, mixed -use urban villages and pedestrian -oriented experiences that support mid- to high-rise office centers, commercial activity, and cultural activities with floor area ratios ranging from 0.5 to 5.0. Focusing growth within District Centers and along major corridors Resolution No. 2020-roc Page 3 75C-759 reduces the pressure for growth in low density residential neighborhoods The proposed Project will support several goals/objectives and policies of the General Plan. Housing Element (HE) Goal 2: to create diversity of quality housing, affordability levels, and living experiences that accommodate Santa Ana's residents and workforce of all household types, income levels, and age groups to foster an inclusive community. HE Policy 2.2 District Centers. Create high intensity, mixed -use urban villages and pedestrian -oriented experiences that support the mid- to high-rise office centers, commercial activity, and cultural activities in the varied District Centers. HE Policy 2.4 to facilitate diverse types, prices and sizes of housing. Housing Element (HE) Goal 4: to provide adequate rental and ownership housing opportunities and supportive services. The Project will provide 1,100 rental housing units. The amendment will expand the District Center designation and provide a mixed -use commercial and residential community in a regional setting consisting of other mixed -use developments nearby in the cities of Santa Ana, Tustin, and Irvine. Land Use (LU) Element Goal 1: to promote a balance of land uses to address basic community needs. LU Policy 1.2 Maintain and foster a variety of residential land uses in the City. LU Policy 4.3 Support land uses which provide community and regional economic and service benefits. LU Policy 4.4 Encourage the development of projects which promote the City's image as a regional activity center. LU Policy 5.5 Encourage development which is compatible with, and supportive of surrounding land uses. LU Policy 5.7 Anticipate that the intensity of new development will not exceed available infrastructure capacity. Land Use (LU) Element Goal 6: to reduce residential overcrowding to promote public health and safety. The Project is located proximate to existing transportation infrastructure Resolution No. 2020-xx Page 4 75C-760 such as the Costa Mesa (SR-55) Freeway, which provides vehicular access to the region; and, the Orange County Transportation Agency bus routes along Redhill Avenue which connects to the Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center. Redhill and Warner Avenues, both major urban corridors with cultural, educational, employment and retail destinations such as the Tustin Legacy, Irvine Business Complex, John Wayne Airport (SNA), beaches, Interstates 5 and 405, and the Tustin District, front the project site. Therefore, the mixed -use development would be within close proximity to major employment centers and retail establishments. The Project will also provide an additional housing option for those seeking housing within the jobs rich southeastern area of the City. The multi -storied development will complement the nearby mid -rise office buildings located Redhill Avenue. Although the density will be higher than the adjacent industrial properties, the mixed -use development is consistent with the uses to the east and south. Urban Design (UD) Element. Goal 1: to improve the physical appearance of the City through development of districts that project a sense of place, positive community image, and quality environment. UD Policy 1.1. New development and redevelopment must have the highest quality design, materials, finishes and construction. UD Policy 1.11 Visual and physical links between districts, nodes, and significant sites, landmarks and other points of interest, are to be provided in all public and private projects. The mixed -use commercial and residential buildings are of high quality design and include high quality materials such as stone veneer, brick veneers, metal panels, and canopies. The buildings are designed with courtyards and landscaped areas to reduce the mass of the buildings. The Project has street frontage on Redhill Avenue which is identified as a minor path in the General Plan and supports the Freeway Corporate District (No. 31) described in the Urban Design Element of the General Plan. The new development will include public art and convey a sense of place and contribute to the urban image for the City along a street corridor that includes regional, local and cultural landmarks. The development will be in scale with the buildings in the area to the east and south in the cities of Santa Ana, Tustin, and Irvine. In addition, the Urban Design Element of the General Plan identifies the site as being near a Gateway at Dyer Road and the SR-55 Freeway; the Project promotes elements of a Gateway by developing the site with a building with attractive architectural features, projecting a positive image for the City of Santa Ana. Resolution No. 2020-xx Page 5 75C-761 C. The proposed General Plan Amendment will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare in that the General Plan Amendment will not result in incompatible land uses on adjacent properties, inconsistencies with any General Plan goals or policies, or adverse impacts to the environment. Section 6. INDEMNIFICATION. The Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, authorized volunteers, and instrumentalities thereof, harmless from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other and proceedings (whether legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute resolution procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and such other procedures), judgments, orders, and decisions (collectively "Actions'), brought against the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or annul, any action of, or any permit or approval issued by the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City) for or concerning the Project, whether such Actions are brought under the Ralph M. Brown Act, California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning and Zoning Law, the Subdivision Map Act, Code of Civil Procedure sections 1085 or 1094.5, or any other federal, state or local constitution, statute, law, ordinance, charter, rule, regulation, or any decision of a court of competent jurisdiction. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld, the legal counsel providing the City's defense, and that Applicant shall reimburse the City for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the course of the defense. City shall promptly notify the Applicant of any Action brought and City shall cooperate with Applicant in the defense of the Action. Section 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: The City Council hereby takes the following action: 1. The City Council approves General Plan Amendment No. 2020-02 as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, subject to compliance with the adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and upon satisfaction of the conditions set forth below: A. Subject to compliance with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the Land Use Element map and text shall be amended to read as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. B. The General Plan Amendment shall not take effect unless and until Environmental Impact Report No. 2020-01 is certified and Amendment Application No. 2020-02 is approved by the City Council. Resolution No. 2020-roc Page 6 75C-762 Section 8. EXECUTION OF RESOLUTION. The Mayor shall sign this Resolution and the Clerk of the Council shall attest and certify to the adoption thereof. ADOPTED this day of 2020. Miguel A. Pulido Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sonia R. Carvalho City Attorney By: Lisa Storck Assistant City Attorney AYES: Councilmembers NOES: Councilmembers ABSTAIN: Councilmembers NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, DAISY GOMEZ, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2020-xx to be the original resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on Date: Daisy Gomez, Clerk of the Council City of Santa Ana Resolution No. 2020-xx Page 7 75C-763 IO:/'.II: ir_1 City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Element 1998 City of Santa Ana Planning Division Adopted February 2,1998 (Reformatted January 2010) The following is a chronology of the approved general plan amendments that have been incorporated into this document since the comprehensive update of the General Plan land Use Element adopted by the Santa Ana City Council February 2, 1998 (GPA 1997-05): GPA 2020-02 (Pending) GPA 2020-01 (April 21, 2020) GPA 2018-04 (December 31, 2019) GPA 2019 02 (October 1, 2019) GPA 2019 01(June 4, 2019) GPA 201703(June 4, 2019) GPA 2018-05 (December 4, 2018) GPA 201803(September 18, 2018) GPA 201802(May 15, 2018) GPA 201501(May 15, 2018) GPA 2017 02 (December 19,2017) GPA 2017-01 (June 20, 2017) GPA 201603 (February 21, 2017) GPA 201602 (May 17, 2016) GPA 201601 (April 19, 2016) GPA 2015 03 (February 2, 2016) GPA 201402 (October 21, 2014) GPA 201401 (June 3, 2014) GPA 2011-03 (March 19, 2012) GPA 2011-02 (June 6, 2011) GPA 2010-01 (June 7, 2010) GPA 2008-02 (July 20, 2009) GPA 2007 03 (May 18, 2009) GPA 2004 03 (February 2, 2009) GPA 200801(May 5, 2008) GPA 2007-02 (June 18, 2007) GPA 2007-01 (March 19, 2007) GPA 200601 (October 2, 2006) GPA 2005-01 (December 5, 2005) GPA 2005-02 (October 17, 2005) GPA 2004 01 (April 5, 2005, as passed by the voters of Santa Ana) GPA 2004 04 (July 19, 2004) GPA 200406 (July 6, 2004) GPA 200302 (June 16, 2003) GPA 200301 (February 18, 2003) GPA 2002-01 (September 3, 2002) GPA 200203(August 19, 2002) GPA 2001-03 (February 19, 2002) GPA 2001-02 (January 7, 2002) GPA 2000-09 (May 7, 2001) GPA 2000-08 (February 5, 2001) GPA 200003(December 4, 2000) GPA 200002(November 20, 2000) GPA 1999-02 (October 18, 1999) GPA 1999-01 (August 16,1999) GPA 1998-04 (October 5,1998) GPA 1998-05 (September 21, 1998) GPA 1998-01 (May 4, 1998) 75C-764 LAND USE ELEMENT is a measure of the number of units allowed for each acre of land - with the exception of Metro East District Center, Transit Village District Center, Downtown District Center, Harbor Corridor District Center, Heritage District Center, One Broadway Plaza District Center, Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Development District Center. and Urban Neighborhood areas. To encourage a dynamic mixture of residential, office and commercial uses, within these areas both building intensity and residential density is based on floor area ratio and zoning development standards. In calculating either the allowable floor area or the allowable residential density, it is the City's policy to not allowupward rounding. The Land Use Plan is illustrated in Exhibit z. Additional information concerning the Land Use Plan and the land use designations is provided in Table i (Land Use Development Intensity Standards), and in the Appendix. Table 1 Development Intensity Standards Land Use Designation Residential Land Use Designations Low Density Residential (LR-7) Density/Intensity Standards (du/acre - FAR)' 7 du/acre Low -Medium Density Residential (LMR-11) 11 du/acre Medium Density Residential (MR-15) Mixed Use Land Use Designations District Center DC) 15 du/acre Other District Canter (Midtown, MacArthur Place, etc.) 90 du/acre and FAR 1.0-2.0 Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Development District Center FAR 2.08 Heritage District Center FAR 1.7 Downtown District Center FAR 3.0 Metro East District Center FAR 3.0 Transit Village District Center FAR 5.0 Harbor Comdor District Center FAR 5.0 One Broadway Plaza District Center (OBPDC)' FAR 2.9 Urban Neighborhood Transit Zoning Code Areal Segerstrom, First, Fifth & 17' Corridor FAR 0.5-1.80 Harbor Corridor FAR 3.0 Metro East Commercial Land Use Designations Professional and Administrative Office (PAO) FAR 0.75-1.5 FAR 0.5-1.0 General Commercial (GC) FAR 0.5-1.0 Industrial Land Use Designations Industrial (IND) FAR 0.45 16 75G765 CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT LAND USE PLAN IMPLEMENTATION To effectively achieve the broad range of goals outlined for the City's future growth and development, a variety of plans, programs, and regulations must be relied upon. This section of the Element discusses these tools, and how they correlate with implementation of the City's land use goals. DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY STANDARDS Table A-i summarizes the development intensity standard for each of the General Plan designations, and provides land use distribution by acreage for the land use. The intensity standards for the categories permitting residential development are expressed in density, measured in "units per acre," or floor area ratio and zoning development standards in the case of certain Mixed Use land use designations. The intensity standards for non-residential development are expressed as "floor area ratio" or FAR. The FAR concept is illustrated in Exhibit A-3. The intensity standards in concert with the zoning and development standards regulate the massing, form and building size. Table A-1 Development Intensitv Standards Land Use DenlLitylIntenlLity Standards Residential Land Use Designations Low Density 7 du/acre Low -Medium Density 11 du/acre Medium Density 15 du/acre DesignationsMixed Use Use District Center , Other District Centers (Midtown, etc.) 90 du/acre and FAR 1.0-2.0 Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Development District Center FAR 2.08 Heritage District Center FAR 1.7 Downtown District Center FAR 3.0 Metro East District Center FAR 3.0 Transit Village District Center FAR 5.0 Harbor Corridor District Center FAR 5.0 One Broadway Plaza District Center FAR 2.9 Urban Neighborhood Transit Zoning Code Area/ Segerstrom, First, Fifth & 17" Corridor FAR 0.5-1.80 Harbor Corridor FAR 3.0 Metro East FAR 0.75-1.5 Commercial Land Use Designatons Office FAR 0.5-1.0 General Commercial FAR 0.5-1.0 DesignationsIndustrial Land Use Industrial FAR 0.45 A 12 75C- / 66 CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT 24 Town & Country Manor 1.27 25 Harbor Mixed Use Transit Corridor 5.0 26 Heritage 1.7 27 Warner Hedhill Mixed -Use Development 2.08 CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN 75^-767 A-1 S A F< 4Po p p D o F 3 O O O c r � CDs 3 D 0 3 p 308 N O D 3 x DQ°o- p N = 76 768 v o LAND USE ELEMENT Commercial The Land Use Plan identifies three land use designations that encourage a variety of office, retail and commercial enterprises to serve the community. The Professional/Administrative Office (PAO) designation applies to those areas where professional and/or administrative offices are predominant, or where such development is being encouraged. Land included in this designation is found primarily near the Civic Center, and along the First Street and Tustin Avenue Corridors in close proximity to freeways. There are other smaller PAO areas in the City such as along North Broadway and along portions of east and west Seventeenth Street. A total of 586.460" acres is included in this land use designation. The floor area ratio intensity standard applicable to this land use designation ranges from 0.5 to 1- 0- The Professional and Administrative Office areas are intended to provide a unique environment for office development in those areas of the City where office uses are the predominant land use. The purpose for maintaining and supporting these areas exclusively for office and office -related uses is to encourage major employment centers at locations which significantly lessen the impact to the City's local street system. The First Street/Tustin Avenue office corridor between the Santa Ana (I-5) and Costa Mesa (SR-55) Freeways serves this purpose. In addition, the orderly, well -maintained quality of existing development supports a continuation of these areas as functional office/employment centers. The Professional and Administrative Office designation includes a range of floor area ratios to differentiate development intensity and character in relation to adjacent land uses. The areas with a FAR of 0.5 are not major office centers, but rather have an established character of lower intensity garden office and professional service uses. These areas are typically adjacent to low density residential neighborhoods, or are converted residential office uses. Office development along East Fourth Street, between Grand Avenue and the Santa Ana Freeway, is typical of this low-rise office character. The PAO area located adjacent to the Civic Center contains a range of office development intensity which supports the City's functional role as the government center of the County. The types of uses typically located in the PAO district include the following: Professional and administrative offices/office parks; CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN 75C-769 A-23 LAND USE ELEMENT horizontal mixed use developments, with an emphasis on linkages to a range of transportation options: • The District Center (DC) land use designation includes the major activity areas in the City. EightSevea areas of the City, totaling 6gg.8 68" acres, are designated as District Center. The intensity standard for the District Center designation ranges from a floor ratio of r.o to 5.0. District Centers are designed to serve as anchors to the City's commercial corridors, and to accommodate major development activity. District Centers are to be developed with an urban character that includes a mixture of high-rise office, commercial, and residential uses which provide shopping, business, cultural, education, recreation, entertainment, and housing opportunities. Residential developments within some District Centers are allowed at a density of up to go units per acre when developed as an integral component of a master planned mixed use project. In Harbor Corridor, Metro East, Downtown, and Transit Village District Centers residential development intensity is based on a combination of floor area ratio and zoning overlay and/or development standards. Some District Centers serve as major retail and employment centers locally and regionally, and should include development which promotes the City as a regional activity center while creating an environment conducive to business on a regional scale. District Centers in Santa Ana include the following: • The Main Place/City Place District Center includes a regional shopping center and office complex, as well as high intensity housing and mixed -use development. • The Museum District located between the Downtown and MainPlace/City Place District Centers is proposed as a major office/cultural center which will be developed over the next 15 to zO years. The area will focus upon the expanded Bowers Museum, the Discovery Science Center and the construction of additional museums and cultural centers. • The Downtown District serves as one of the County's major employment and governmental operations centers complemented with a mix of residential, commercial, and services uses to enhance its urban vibrancy. Emphasis on streets that accommodate all modes of transportation, including mass transit, pedestrian and bicyclist is key in this urban setting. CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN 75C_770 A-25 LAND USE ELEMENT • The South Coast Metro District serves as a regional retail shopping area which includes a range of commercial services and office projects. • The MacArthur Place District Center contains an existing office/hotel complex and a proposed major mixed use project which will include professional offices, supporting commercial, and mid and high-rise residential components. • The Metro East District is envisioned as a vibrant urban village with a balance of office, residential, and service uses. Pedestrian and transportation linkages are key in this urban setting. • The Transit Village District is envisioned as avibrant intense urban village with a balance of employment centers, residential and service uses. Pedestrian and transit linkages to the Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center is key in this district. • The Harbor Corridor Mixed Use Transit Corridor creates a vision for a more livable, sustainable setting through higher intensity housing and mixed use development, convenient access to transit, complete streets, and amenities that promotes active lifestyles. • The Heritage District allows for mixed use development with higher density residential and supportive commercial and office uses within proximity to surrounding employment centers. • The Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Development District provides urban housing opportunities at the Ci4'ss southeastern edge, in close proximity to the 55 Freeway regional travelway. The district allows high -density housing and complementary commercial uses to serve surrounding industrial, commercial, and residential areas. District Centers are considered to be the City's "major development areas." The most intense development in the City is targeted to these areas. The Tustin Avenue corridor is a major development area even though it is not a designated District Center. This area has developed over the years as a prime office corridor and employment area. The PAO designation facilitates the continued development of this area with high intensity, high quality regional office projects. • The One Broadway Plaza District Center (OBPDC) is a distinct land use that is envisioned as a major activity center with a landmark A-26 75^-77 A CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT • Mitigation Fees. The City assesses fees on new development to ensure that the public does not incur an undue financial burden in providing services to the project. The City annually evaluates reasonable and fair methods of assessing new development for the cost of providing any additional infrastructure required by the development. Project Review. The City will continue to implement its current project review procedures. The purpose of the project review process is to ensure that building design, architecture, and site layouts are compatible with surrounding development. This process includes coordination by the interagency Development Review Committee (DRC) to ensure consistent and comprehensive application of City regulations and policies for all projects. Redevelopment Plans. The City will apply redevelopment tools associated with the implementation of the adopted redevelopment plans, as appropriate. The City will encourage the further development of industrial, commercial, and residential projects in suitable locations to strengthen the City's tax and employment base. Special Studies. In certain instances, a special study maybe required to address a particular issue. In these cases, a specific effort to identify staff resources needed to conduct the appropriate investigation and analysis will be identified. Zoning Code Review. The zoning code serves as a primary tool used by the City to regulate development. The City will develop a program to revise the Zoning Ordinance to ensure that development regulations and standards are consistent with community needs and high quality development. The City will initiate appropriate changes to the ordinance to ensure, where appropriate, conformity between the Land Use Element and Zoning Map. LAND USE PLAN BUILDOUT As indicated previously, the City of Santa Ana has been almost completely developed for many years. As a result, any new development will necessarily consist of redevelopment and infill development on the remaining vacant and underutilized parcels. Many parcels with nonresidential land use designations will never be developed to the maximum intensity permitted under the General Plan. Table A-4 indicates the development possible under the build -out of the Land Use Plan. The build -out for residential land uses considered two scenarios. Effective build -out for residential development is calculated by adding the 22.9g6 units possible in the areas designated as District CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN 75C_772 A-37 LAND USE ELEMENT Center and Urban Neighborhood to the existing 74,669 units presently found in the City per Census z000. Theoretical build -out for residential development considered the development possible if all of the areas designated as residential were developed according to the permitted Land Use Plan intensities. Since the Land Use Element does not contemplate the elimination of existing housing in the City, the effective build -out figure represents a more realistic estimate of future residential development. As indicated in Table A-4, three of the non-residential land use designations have a range in FAR intensities. For the non-residential land use designations, effective build -out considered the development possible under the lower range of FAR intensities while theoretical build -out considered the upper FAR range. Typically, parking and landscaping requirements will result in significantly less floor area for commercial and industrial developments than that which is permitted under the General Plan. As indicated in Table A-4, between Z38i77--44 to 97.66s9,565 housing units are allowed by the Land Use Plan. The additional units which presently exist in the City beyond the maximum number permitted under the theoretical buildout scenario are a reflection of the higher density multiple -family developments constructed in the 1970's and 198o's. However, the purpose of the Land Use Plan as it applies to the residential areas is to preserve and maintain the stability of existing neighborhoods, regardless of the character of development. The intent of the Plan is not to create any displacement, nor decrease existing development densities. Rather, it is to ensure a safe, healthy, and livable environment for City residents. Existing residential development entitlements are protected through this Land Use Element, applicable Zoning regulations, and sections of the City code pertaining to legal nonconforming uses. The Land Use Element's implementation may result in an increase in the amount of commercial, office, and industrial development in the City. As indicated in Table A-4, up to 1 z square feet of commercial and office, and 42,199,991 square feet of industrial development are possible under the effective capacity parameters of Land Use Plan. A 38 75C-773 CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT Table A-4 Land Use Plan Build -out Capacities Intensity/ Effective Buildout' Theoretical Land Use Residential Acres Low Density Residential LR-7 6,468.1 7du/ac 45,276 du Low Medium Density Residential LMR-11 421.6 11 du/ac 4,638 du Medium Density Residential MR-15 364.7 15 du/ac 5,471 du Subtotal 7,254.4 97665 I 55,385 du Non Res. 96565 du' Non -Res. Mixed Use District Center Res. Res. Other' DC 3095 90 du/ac 11955583 sf 3,017 du 23,764,534 sf 3,017 du FAR 1.0-2.0 Warner RedhillMaed-Use DC 14.4 AR2. F 08 80000 sf 1100 du 80000 sf 1100 du Development Heritage DC 188 FAR 1.7 54,090 sf 1,221 du 54,090 sf 1,221 du Downtown DC 62.5 FAR 3.0 2,057,824 sf 1,661du 2,057,824 sf 1,661 du Metro East I DC 1 113.9 FAR 0.75-3.0 1 2,464,776 sf 1 5,037 du 1 2,464,776s 5,037du Transit Village I DC 1 51.4 FAR 5.0 1 402,864 sf 1 2,761 du 1 402,864 sf I ,761 du Harbor Corridor I DC 1 125.0 FAR 5.0 1 1,836,155 sf 2,029 du W36,15%jdu CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN 75^-774 A-39 LAND USE ELEMENT One Broadway Plaza District Ctr' OBPDC 4.3 FAR 2.9 310,000 sf 415 du 310,000 sf 415 du Urban Neighborhood UN 317.0 FAR 0.5-3.0 1,656,955 sf 5,755 du 1,656,955 sf 5,755 du Subtotal 12M 20,818,247 22696 32,627,198 9M Commercial 4AU4 244r�sf 94M du na 47 Leo sf 2-.M du Professional & Admin. Office PAO 586.4 FAR 0.5-1.0 12,772,44 25,540,891 680-8 449424 24 sf 26-'� s General Commercial GC 859.6 FAR 0.5-1.0 18,722,983 sf 37,445,967 s 1�.1 31,495,429 62990858 Subtotal 4d60:4 24,202,407 sf 62,616,215s Industrial I IND 1 2,152.8 FAR 0.45 1 42,199,991 If 42,199,991 s Other Institutional INS 1 800.61 FAR 0.2 0.5 1 6,974,740 sf 17,436,850 s Open Space I OS I 1,010.9 I FAR 0.2 1 8,806,961 sf 8,806,961 s Subtotal 1,811.5 15,781,701 sf 26,243,811 s FAR=floor area ratio; d.0 =dwelling unit; s.f.=square feet (of floor area). Acreage shown in table does not include roads in right-of-way. ' Effective capacity for non-residential development assumes development possible under the lower range of FAR intensity standards with the exception of the Metro East District Center, Transit Village District Center, Downtown District Center, Heritage District Center, and Urban Neighborhood areas. The Harbor Corridor District Center, Metro East District Center, Transit Village District Center, Downtown District Center, and Urban Neighborhood areas allow a range of intensity for mixture of residential and non-residential development based on the zoning development standards. Residential effective capacity was calculated by adding the 22 696214M units possible � the District Center and Urban Neighborhood with the existing 74,669 (Census 2000) housing units. z Land use designation permits both residential and non-residential development. Build -out assumes 90%of land area will be developed as commercial and 10% will be developed as residential; with the exception of Town and Country Manor project intended for continuum of care and housing seniors. 3 Land use designation permits high intensity office development with ancillary retail use. This table has been revised to correspond with the GIS Land Use Map illustra led in Exhibit 2. A-40 75^-775 CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN Exhibit 4 LS 8.18.20 ORDINANCE NO. NS-XXXX AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVING AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO. 2020-01 REZONING THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2300, 2310, AND 2320 SOUTH REDHILL AVENUE FROM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (M- 1) TO SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT NO. 96 (SD-96) AND ADOPTING SD-96 FOR SAID PROPERTY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines and declares as follows: WHEREAS, Chapter 41, Article 1, Division 1, Section 41-1 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code establishes the necessity of segregating the location of residences, businesses, trades and industries; regulating the use of buildings, structures, and land regulation; the location, height, bulk and size of buildings and structures, the size of yards and open space; the City is divided into land -use districts of such number, shape and area as may be considered best suited to carry out these regulations and provide for their enforcement; and WHEREAS, the regulations are considered necessary in order to: encourage the most appropriate use of land, conserve and stabilize property value, provide adequate open spaces for light and air and to prevent and fight fires, prevent undue concentration of population, lessen congestion on streets and highways, and promote the health, safety and general welfare of the people, all as part of the general plan of the City; and WHEREAS, the City of Santa Ana has adopted a zoning map which has since been amended from time to time; and WHEREAS, Jeremy Ogulnick, representing Arrimus Capital ("Applicant"), seeks to develop a Mixed -Use Commercial and Residential Project ('proposed Project'), on a 14.69-acre site at 2300, 2310, and 2320 South Redhill Avenue in Santa Ana, California ("Project Site"); and WHEREAS, during the City's entitlement and environmental review process, and in response to comments and concerns raised by the City and public, the Applicant has proposed the subject mixed -use Project; and WHEREAS, the Project as currently proposed entails, among other things, (1) demolition of the existing three (3) structures on the Project Site; (2) redevelopment of the Project Site with a commercial and residential mixed -use development consisting of up to 80,000 square feet leasable commercial area, 1,100 residential units, 2,600 onsite parking spaces, and onsite landscaping and amenities; (3) approval of General Plan Ordinance No. NS-XXXX Page 1 75C-776 Amendment (GPA) No. 2020-02, which would change the Project Site's existing land use designation of Professional & Administration Office (PAO) to District Center (DC); and (4) approval of Amendment Application (AA) No. 2020-01, which would change the zoning of the Project Site from Light Industrial (M-1) to Specific Development No. 96 (SD-96) designation; and WHEREAS, Applicant agrees to execute a Mutual Declaration of Acknowledgement and Acceptance of Approval Conditions, signed by the developer and property owner and recorded against the development property, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit C; and WHEREAS, the requested Amendment Application would change the zoning designation of the property from Light Industrial (M-1) to Specific Development No. 96 (SD-96) and adoption of Specific Development No. 96 to reflect this change in order to facilitate the construction of the proposed Project; and WHEREAS, Environmental Impact Report No. 2020-01 (State Clearinghouse/SCH No. 2019080011) for the proposed Project was circulated between January 3, 2020 to February 18, 2020; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Impact Report analyzed the impacts related to the proposed amendment to the zoning map and adoption of Specific Development No. 96; and WHEREAS, during the public comment period, a Planning Commission work- study session was held on February 10, 2020 where staff presented proposed Project and described the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, on May 11, 2020 and May 26, 2020, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the EIR and the GPA, and AA applications described above. After hearing all relevant testimony from staff, the public and the City's consultant team, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council certify the EIR and adopt the findings, the statement of overriding considerations and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program and approve the Project; and WHEREAS, on August 6, 2020, the City gave public notice of a City Council public hearing for consideration of Environmental Impact Report No. 2020-01 (State Clearinghouse No. 2019080011) by advertising in the Orange County Register, a newspaper of general circulation, and by mailing to owners of property and residents within 500 feet of the Project; and WHEREAS, on August 18, 2020, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the EIR, General Plan Amendment No. 2020-02, and Amendment Application No. 2020-01 and at which hearing members of the public were afforded an opportunity to comment upon Environmental Impact Report No. 2020-01. After hearing all relevant testimony from staff, the public and the City's consultant team, Ordinance No. NS-XXXX Page 2 75C-777 the City Council voted to certify the EIR, adopt the findings, the statement of overriding considerations and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program and approve the Project; and WHEREAS, the "EIR" consists of the Final EIR and all attachments and appendices, as well as the Draft EIR and its attachments and appendices (as modified by the Final EIR). NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE, FIND, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT: The City Council has reviewed and certified Environmental Impact Report No. 2020-01; adopted the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP); and adopted the Statement of Overriding Consideration for the proposed Project, including this Amendment Application No. 2020-01. SECTION 3. AMENDMENT APPLICATION: The Amendment Application consists of amendments to the zoning map (SDM IRS-9) and adoption of Specific Development No. 96, as shown in Exhibit A and Exhibit B respectively, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 4. LOCATION OF DOCUMENTS: The Amendment Application, Environmental Impact Report and all supporting documents are online, on file and available for public review at Santa Ana City Hall, 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, California 92702. SECTION 5. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY: The City Council hereby finds that the proposed Amendment Application is compatible with the objectives, policies, and general plan land use programs as amended by General Plan Amendment No. 2020- 02 in that: A. The proposed Amendment Application will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare in that the Amendment Application will not result in incompatible land uses on adjacent properties, inconsistencies with any General Plan goals or policies, or adverse impacts to the environment. B. The amendment application to change the zoning designation from Light Industrial (M-1) to Specific Development No. 96 (SD-96) is consistent with Santa Ana Municipal Code section 41-593.1 for the following reasons: (1) Protecting and enhancing the value of properties by encouraging the use of good design principles and concepts, as related to the division of property, site planning and individual improvements with full recognition of the significance and effect they have on the proper planning and development of adjacent and nearby properties. Ordinance No. NS-XXXX Page 3 75C-778 The project's site plan has been designed to integrate the project site into the surrounding community. The development's primary access points will be from a right -in, right -out driveway on Redhill Avenue, and from a signalized intersection on Warner Avenue. These access points have been designed to ensure the safety of residents and visitors of the project site, as well as commuters, employees, and residents of the surrounding community. Onsite circulation has been designed to ensure a high -quality pedestrian experience, with wide sidewalks, a central paseo, and plazas and courtyards that buffer or separate pedestrians from onsite vehicular traffic. Moreover, the project has been broken into four primary buildings and two freestanding commercial pads, which reduces the overall massing of the project and creates a more pedestrian -scale village of buildings onsite. The two future roadway connections on the project site will allow the development to become integrated with the adjacent site to the southwest, should an application for redevelopment be approved. (As of the date of this ordinance, no application for redevelopment of the adjacent site to the southwest has been submitted for the City's consideration). (2) Encouraging, securing and maintaining the orderly and harmonious appearance, attractiveness and aesthetic development of structures and grounds in order that the most appropriate use and value thereof be determined and protected. The project's six buildings on the 14.69-acre site are designed in a cohesive manner with unifying materials, floor heights, and articulation using contemporary architecture in an "industrial tech" style. High -quality building materials will ensure long-term durability and maintaining high value of the project, including metal trim, awnings, railing, slats, and cladding; brick veneers and high -quality light sand finish stucco; glass railing; and poured concrete forms. Onsite furniture and details, such as lighting, waste receptacles, benches, tables, and open space areas, have been designed to complement the site's contemporary architecture. High ground -floor window and ceiling heights will contribute to the high -quality commercial component of the project site, which has been designed to create a dynamic, commercial and residential village. These finishes and designs are consistent with the development standards and design guidelines found in the City's mixed -use zoning areas such as the Transit Zoning Code and Metro East Mixed Use (MEMU) Overlay Zone, as well as the Citywide Design Guidelines. Ordinance No. NS-XXXX Page 4 75C-779 Open space and amenities will be provided on the site in a variety of means, including private unit balconies and patios, amenity decks atop parking structures, ground -level courtyards, the central paseo, and the central plaza. The resident open space areas will contain pools, courtyards, exercise areas, relief areas for pets, and other amenities typical to high -quality mixed - use developments found in Santa Ana and in Orange County. Based on a standard of two (2) acres of public park and/or recreational area per 1,000 residents (SAMC Sec. 35-108), the proposed project would require 4.2 acres of parkland to serve the new residents. The onsite total proposed open space is 183,363 square feet (4.21 acres), which is consistent with the SAMC standard and with other mixed -use projects that provide their own onsite public and private open space areas. (3) Providing a method whereby specific development plans are to be based on the general plan as well as other regulations, programs, and legislation as may, in the judgment of the city, be required for the systematic execution of the general plan. With approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2020-02, the Project will be consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element. Although the Project requires an amendment to the Land Use Element to allow for residential use of the property, the Project still supports and is consistent with several other overarching goals and policies of the General Plan. For example, as described in the associated General Plan Amendment No. 2020-02: Housing Element Goal 2, to create diversity of quality housing, affordability levels, and living experiences that accommodate Santa Ana's residents and workforce of all household types, income levels, and age groups to foster an inclusive community. Land Use Element Goal 4, to protect and enhance development sites and districts which are unique community assets that enhance the quality of life. Urban Design Element, Goal 1, to improve the physical appearance of the City through development of districts that project a sense of place, positive community image, and quality environment. (4) Recognizing the interdependence of land values and aesthetics and providing a method to implement this interdependence in order to maintain the values of surrounding properties and improvements and encouraging excellence of property development, compatible with the general plan for, and character of, the city, with due regard for the public and private interests involved. Ordinance No. NS-XXXX Page 5 75C-780 The proposed development contains a large commercial component of 80,000 square feet of leasable retail, service, and restaurant area. This volume of commercial space complements the residents, visitors, and employees working and living on and around the project site. The 80,000 square feet of leasable commercial area is among the largest commercial components proposed in recent mixed -use developments. For comparison, the Elan project (1660 East First Street) approved in 2018 contains 603 residential units and 20,000 square feet of commercial space; the First American redevelopment (114 East Fifth Street) approved in 2019 contains 220 residential units and 12,350 square feet of commercial space, and The Heritage (2001 East Dyer Road), which is under construction nearby, contains 1,221 residential units and 18,400 square feet of net new commercial square footage. The mixture of land uses on the project site, including residential, commercial, and open space, will contribute to the formation a dynamic mixed -use village. The commercial and open space components will serve both residents and visitors of the project site, as well as the large daytime employee population working in the project site's immediate vicinity. (5) Ensuring that the public benefits derived from expenditures of public funds for improvements and beautification of streets and public facilities shall be protected by exercise of reasonable controls over the character and design of private buildings, structures and open spaces. The mixed -use development will utilize existing water, sewer, and drainage infrastructure and will not result in the expansion of infrastructure. In addition, the Project will not result in the expansion of new or altered police or fire facilities. The Project will be subject to utility user tax, property taxes based on the valuation of the new construction and management company business taxes. The building facades and new landscaping are designed to deter graffiti, existing sidewalks will be removed and replaced with new sidewalks that are constructed to current City standards, new street lights will be installed and the City's Building Security Ordinance will be implemented which includes security and crime preventing measures to help reduce City expenditures on public services and maintenance. In addition, the development will be subject to all required development impact fees. Ordinance No. NS-XXXX Page 6 75C-781 SECTION 6. INDEMNIFICATION. A. General Indemnification. The Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, authorized volunteers, and instrumentalities thereof, harmless from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other and proceedings (whether legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute resolution procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and such other procedures), judgments, orders, and decisions (collectively "Actions'), brought against the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or annul, any action of, or any permit or approval issued by the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City) for or concerning the project, whether such Actions are brought under the Ralph M. Brown Act, California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning and Zoning Law, the Subdivision Map Act, Code of Civil Procedure sections 1085 or 1094.5, or any other federal, state or local constitution, statute, law, ordinance, charter, rule, regulation, or any decision of a court of competent jurisdiction. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld, the legal counsel providing the City's defense, and that Applicant shall reimburse the City for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the course of the defense. City shall promptly notify the Applicant of any Action brought and City shall cooperate with Applicant in the defense of the Action. B. Further Indemnification. Within five (5) days of receipt of a referendum petition by the City, Applicant shall deposit Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) (`Referendum Deposit") with the City. City may use the funds to pay any and all costs associated with said referendum measure. If at any time the Referendum Deposit account has Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000) or less remaining, Applicant shall, within three (3) days of receiving notice from the City, deposit with the City additional funds as requested by the City to cover all costs and expenses associated with processing the referendum and holding the related election. Following certification of the election results, any funds remaining in the Referendum Deposit account shall be returned to the Applicant. SECTION 7. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause phrase or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional. Ordinance No. NS-XXXX Page 7 75C-782 SECTION 8. CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS: The City Council hereby takes the following actions: 1. The City Council hereby adopts an Ordinance approving Amendment Application No. 2020-01 as follows: A. Subject to compliance with the adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the property at 2300, 2310, and 2320 shall be amended to Specific Development No. 96 and the Specific Development No. 96 plan shall be adopted as set forth in Exhibit A and Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. B. The Amendment Application shall not take effect unless and until Environmental Impact Report No. 2020-01 and General Plan Amendment No. 2020-02, are each certified and approved by the City Council. SECTION 9. EXECUTION OF ORDINANCE. The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the Clerk of the Council shall attest and certify to the adoption thereof. ADOPTED this day of 2020. Miguel A. Pulido Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sonia R. Carvalho City Attorney By:�4 L- (- Lisa Storck Assistant City Attorney AYES: Councilmembers NOES: Councilmembers ABSTAIN: Councilmembers NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers Ordinance No. NS-XX)(X Page 8 75C-783 CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, DAISY GOMEZ, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify that the attached Ordinance No. NS-XXXX to be the original ordinance adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on , 2020, and that said ordinance was published in accordance with the Charter of the City of Santa Ana. Date: Daisy Gomez Clerk of the Council City of Santa Ana Ordinance No. NS-XXXX Page 9 75C-784 ZONING DISTRICTS Al GENERAL AG RICU LTURAL CSM SOUTH MAIN STREET COMMERCIAL DIST. R2 TWO-FAMILY RESIDENCE -B PARKING MODIFICATION C1 COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL GC GOVERNMENT CENTER R3 MULTIPLE- FAMILY RESIDENCE -OZ OVERLAYZONE CFMD COMMUNITY COMMERCAL-MUSEUM DIST. M1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL R4 SUBURBAN APARTMENT PLANNED RESIDENTIAL C2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL M2 HEAVY INDUSTRIAL RE RESIDENTIAL ESTATE PRD DEVELOPMENT C4 PLANNED SHOPPING CENTER 0 OPENSPACE SO SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT -HD2 HEIGHT DISTRICT II C5 ARTERIAL COMMERCIAL P PROFESSIONAL SP SPECIFIC PLAN CR COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL R1 SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENCE OZ1 METRO EAST OVERLAYZONE SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP: IRS-9 e CITY OF SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA Exhibit: 75C-785 THE WARNER REDHILL MIXED -USE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT No. 96 Table of Contents 1. Introduction and Applicability of Ordinance ..............................................Page 3 a. Specific Development Location ....................................................Page 3 2. Purpose and Objectives.......................................................................Page 4 3. Land Use and Zoning.........................................................................Page 4 a. Density and Intensity.................................................................Page 4 b. Permitted Uses........................................................................Page 5 c. Development Standards.............................................................Page 6 d. Off -Street Parking Standards .......................................................Page 7 e. Open Space Requirements .........................................................Page 7 f. Walls/ Fences..........................................................................Page 7 4. Design and Performance Standards ......................................................Page 8 a. Materials, Finishes and Colors .....................................................Page 8 b. Exterior Lighting.......................................................................Page 8 c. Refuse Collection and Trash Enclosure .........................................Page 8 d. Utility and Mechanical Equipment .................................................Page 8 5. Public Realm and Landscape Design .....................................................Page 9 6. Signage and Wayfinding......................................................................Page 9 7. Public Art........................................................................................Page 10 8. Property Safety and Maintenance........................................................ Page 10 a. On -Site Property Manager ........................................................Page 10 b. Maintenance..........................................................................Page 10 c. Crime Free Housing................................................................ Page 10 d. Building Security......................................................................Page 10 e. Emergency Evacuation Plan ......................................................Page 11 f. On Going Property Maintenance ................................................Page 11 g. Avigation Easement.................................................................Page 12 Figures Figure 1: Specific Development Area ..........................................................Page 3 Tables Table 1: Permitted Uses..........................................................................Page 5 Table 2: Development Standards...............................................................Page 6 7CCf7$7 SECTION 1 — INTRODUCTION AND APPLICABILITY OF ORDINANCE The purpose of The Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Specific Development (SD) zone (SD- 96) is to guide the redevelopment of an existing industrial site into a mixed -use and pedestrian oriented development. SD-96 is authorized by Chapter 41, Division 26, Section 41-593 et seq. of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC). SD-96 contains specific standards and regulations for the purpose of establishing land use regulations and development and operational standards for the development site. All other applicable Chapters, Articles, and Sections of the SAMC are in full effect unless expressly superseded by regulations contained within this specific development. A. Specific Development Location The specific development site is 14.37 acres and is located at 2300, 2310, and 2320 South Redhill Avenue in the City of Santa Ana. The site is located at the southwest corner of Redhill Avenue and Warner Avenue. Regional access to the site is provided via the Costa Mesa (SR-55) Freeway at the Dyer Road exit. Access to the site is provided by Red Hill Avenue and Warner Avenue. The site is located within the southeastern most portion of the City of Santa Ana adjacent to the cities of Tustin and Irvine and the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan and the Irvine Business Complex. N - Project Site �I Zf Gr7 SECTION 2 — PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES The specific development is intended to redevelop an industrial site into a mixed -use and pedestrian oriented community. Located at one of the City's southeastern gateways, the specific development will function as a key focal center, and serve to link Santa Ana to surrounding industrial, commercial and residential areas. SD-96 will meet the following objectives: 1. Facilitate development of a mixed -use village containing commercial and multi- family residential buildings, which would help meet the region's demand for housing. 2. Transform an underutilized site with an economically viable development consistent with other regional redevelopments in the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan and Irvine Business Complex (IBC) and combines residential uses with community -serving retail near employment opportunities, freeway access, and transit. 3. Redevelop existing land uses that would utilize existing infrastructure, including: water, sewer, arterial roadways, transit, and freeways; and provide non -vehicular (pedestrian and bicycle) circulation. 4. Develop a mix of housing to assist the City in meeting its jobs/housing balance. 5. Provide onsite uses that reduce vehicular miles traveled (VMT) by providing an internal pedestrian circulation system that links residential uses, recreation areas, and retail/commercial areas onsite. 6. Implement the SCAG Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) Land Use Policies related to population and housing by providing additional housing near employment centers. SD-96 establishes standards and regulations for protecting the health, safety, and general welfare of the people of the City by promoting and enhancing the value of property and encouraging the orderly development of the property. SECTION 3 — LAND USE AND ZONING A. Density and Intensity The maximum authorized building density and intensity for the project is a floor area ratio (FAR) of 2.06, including residential areas, community -serving areas (e.g., leasing office, gym and club room), commercial components, and interior corridors. The maximum residential density permitted is 77 dwelling units per acre. B. Permitted Uses 1. SD-96 permits the development of a mixed -use community consisting of 80,000 square feet of leasable commercial area to be constructed in conjunction with a residential component consisting of up to 1,100 residential units configured in live/work, stacked dwelling, lined block, or podium configurations. 2. This section identifies the permitted, conditional, and accessory or temporary uses within the SD-96 area. Uses in the table are permitted subject to the permit criteria referenced. Uses identified by a "P" are permitted by right, those identified by a "CUP" are subject to a Conditional Use Permit, and those identified by "LUC" are subject to a Land Use Certificate. Table 1: Permitted Uses Land Use Types SD-96 Additional Use Regulations Commercial/retail and service uses such as bakeries, bookstores, art galleries, food/grocery P stores (retail market), pet stores and similar uses. Office uses. Professional, administrative and business offices providing personal and P professional services, including medical and dental offices, architects/engineers, and similar uses. Service oriented office uses including insurance, real estate, travel, finance (including walk-up ATMs), creative office co -working (WeWork, P Common Desk, etc.), beauty salons, and similar uses. Health and Fitness Clubs P Tattoo/Body art establishment P Restaurants, cafes and eating establishments P Outdoor dining P Multi -family apartments and/or condominiums and associated leasing offices and recreational/fitness P facilities. Live/work lofts P Alcohol sales for on -site or off -site consumption CUP Subject to SAMC Sec. 41-196 Limited artisan/craft manufacturing, ancillary to a CUP primary allowed use Pick-up windows P Food vending vehicles LUC Subject to Article XIV Temporary outdoor activities LUC Subject to SAMC Sec.41-195.5 C,r7 Land Use Types SD-96 Additional Use Regulations Businesses operating between 12:00 a.m. CUP (midnight) and 7:00 a.m. Subject to SAMC Sec. Major wireless communication facilities CUP 41-198 Subject to SAMC Sec. Minor wireless communication facilities LUC 41-198 Any use not included shall be considered prohibited unless deemed to be similar to an allowable use as interpreted by the Executive Director of the Planning and Building Agency or his/her designee. C. Development Standards The development standards for SD-96 are subject to and shall comply with the development approved plans per Development Project No. 2019-06 (DP No. 2019-06) and the approved Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), attached hereto as Attachment A and Attachment B for reference. The plans shall govern in the event there is a conflict between the SD and the project plans. The following standards in Table 3 are minimums unless otherwise indicated. Table 2 — Development Standards Item Standard Density 77 dwelling units per acre Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 2.06 Minimum Lot Size 14 acres (entire specific development area) Building Height 7 Levels; 94 feet (not including subterranean levels) Building Setbacks: Redhill Avenue Setback 10 feet minimum Warner Avenue Setback 8 feet minimum Interior Property Line Setback 10 feet minimum Outdoor Dinning Setbacks: Redhill Avenue Setback 6 feet minimum Table 2 Notes: (1) Prior to the issuance of building permits, any and all subdivision maps, lot line adjustments, or voluntary lot mergers shall be approved and recorded. '-T I1 D. Off -Street Parking Standards The minimum off-street parking requirements for the development is as follows: 1. Two (2) vehicle parking spaces per residential unit, not to be less than 2,200 residential parking spaces; 2. Five (5) vehicle parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area of leasable commercial space, achieved through 351 parking spaces and 49 valet service spaces as administered per the approved Parking Management Plan, attached hereto as Attachment C; 3. One (1) bicycle parking space per five (5) residential units and one (1) space per each 7,500 square feet of commercial space; and 4. One (1) motorcycle parking space per every 250 vehicle parking spaces. E. Open Space Requirements The development shall provide open space, public plazas and pedestrian paseos as shown on the approved plans. 1. Common Open Space: The project will provide a minimum of 15 percent of the total lot size shall be open space in the form of common, landscaped open space areas, pools, spas, deck, courtyard and lobby, interior community room, dining room, gym, business room, etc. 2. Private Open Space: Each residential unit shall have a patio or balcony of a minimum size of 50 square feet. F. Walls/Fences A new solid block wall with a minimum height of seven (7) feet shall be constructed along the project site's entire perimeter, except in street -side landscape setback areas. The block wall shall be designed to contain a decorative cap, regularly -spaced decorative pilasters, and a decorative finish in accordance to the design provisions contained within the most recent version of the City's design guidelines. Fences/walls along Redhill Avenue and Warner Avenue properties lines are prohibited. Cr7S2 SECTION 4— DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS This section provides standards and guidelines to ensure the development is of high quality and cohesive and to facilitate exterior alterations to the development. A. Materials, Finishes and Colors Exterior building and exterior parking structure materials, finishes and colors for the project shall comply with the approved materials board submitted for the project and as approved by the Planning and Building Agency Executive Director. Any changes to the materials, finishes and colors shall be approved by the Planning and Building Agency Executive Director. All trash enclosures and similar ancillary structures shall match the texture, material and color of the primary building. Double -paned windows shall be installed for the project as a means to further reduce noise levels. B. Exterior Lighting An exterior lighting plan for the security and safety of on -site areas such as building entrances, parking, loading, pedestrian walkways, alley walkways and open space areas shall be provided to the Planning and Building Agency Director for review and approval. A minimum of one foot-candle evenly distributed across a parking lot is recommended. At entrances and loading areas, up to 2 foot-candles may be appropriate. Decorative night lighting is required. Low energy lights, such as LED lights or solar powered lights, shall be used whenever possible. Light fixtures and their structural support shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with the main buildings on -site. Direct glare onto adjoining property, streets, or skyward shall be avoided. All lighting fixtures shall be shielded to confine light spread on -site. C. Refuse Collection and Trash Enclosure Bins for recycling and any other refuse mandated by the State of California shall be provided for all uses in trash enclosures. There shall be an onsite designated trash staging area only to be used on service days and the staging area and bins shall not disrupt vehicular use of streets or drive aisles. The minimum requirements needed to service the development shall be clearly indicated on the plans and subject to the approval of the Public Works Agency. D. Utility and Mechanical Equipment All utility lines shall be placed underground except where required to be above -ground by utility providers. Where equipment is located above -ground, it shall be screened from public view. This includes all ground, wall, and roof mounted equipment. Screening elements shall be an integral part of the building; no screening method shall give the appearance of being "tacked on." Typical ground -mounted equipment shall be adequately screened with decorative walls and/or landscaping. TT _ SECTION 5 — PUBLIC REALM AND LANDSCAPE DESIGN STANDARDS A detailed and comprehensive Public Realm and Landscape Plan shall be submitted to the Planning and Building Agency Executive Director or his/her designee for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. The plan shall comply with the City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELD) Chapter 41, Article XVI of the SAMC. The plan shall include an irrigation system layout with the location of controllers and points of connection with data on valve sizes and gallons per minute (G.P.M.), the size and location of sleeves and all spray heads, including the location of conventional systems and drip systems; an irrigation legend with complete specifications; irrigation notes and construction details of all assemblies and components; a recommended irrigation schedule, preferably on an annual basis; and a summary block on the initial page of submitted plans that will present the above information clearly and accurately. The plan shall include a Plant Legend containing: plant symbol, scientific name of plant material, common name of plant material, plant container size, and plant spacing. Very low, low and medium water usage plant materials are encouraged. The plan shall include details of site furnishings. Site furnishing should be compatible in style with the buildings and selected to bring comfort, scale and design expression to the streetscape. These must also be highly durable and easy to maintain. Planters and pots should be used to complement the project architecture and other site amenities; avoiding obstructions to pedestrian traffic flow with planters and pots. All elements of the furniture palette should be uniform. Landscaping for the project shall be completed in phases by building and shall be installed and inspected prior to occupancy of units within that building. The Owner shall be responsible for maintaining all common area landscaping within the development. SECTION 6 — SIGNAGE AND WAYFINDING A comprehensive sign program shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning and Building Agency Executive Director or his or her designee prior to the issuance of building permits. The sign program may include creative signage where the contents and standards of the sign program are not consistent with the Santa Ana Municipal Code, provided the sign program complements the form and function of the building and contributes to the aesthetics of the project. 7 eC§794 SECTION 7 — PUBLIC ART A Public Art Program shall be submitted to the Planning and Building Executive Director for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. Public Art shall be installed and maintained with a value equivalent to one-half of one percent (0.5%) of the total construction cost of the development. Total construction cost shall mean all design, engineering and construction costs. SECTION 8 — PROPERTY SAFETY AND MAINTENANCE A. On -Site Property Manager The specific development area shall include 24-hour on -site Property Management services and personnel. Up-to-date 24-hour contact information for the on -site personnel shall be provided to the following City Agencies on an ongoing basis: 1. Police Department, 2. Fire Authority, 3. Planning and Building Agency, and 4. Community Development Agency. B. Maintenance The property shall be maintained free of trash, debris and graffiti. Graffiti shall be removed within 24-hours after its appearance in accordance with Section 10-227 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code. C. Crime Free Housing Prior to submittal into building plan check, a Crime Free Housing Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning and Building Agency Director. The Plan shall be approved prior to occupancy of the first unit and shall be implemented and administered by the Owner. D. Building Security. All structures and parking lots shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8, Article II, Division 3 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (Building Security Ordinance). E. Emergency Evacuation Plan. An approved Emergency Evacuation Plan (EEP) from City Police and Fire Protection agencies shall be on file for the project. Up-to-date 24-hour emergency contact information for the on -site personnel shall be provided to the City on an ongoing basis and the approved EEP shall be kept onsite and also be submitted to the following City Agencies: 75C1a795 1. Police Department 2. Orange County Fire Authority 3. Planning and Building Agency 4. Community Development Agency F. On Going Property Maintenance. Developer (and the owner of the property upon which the authorized use and/or authorized improvements are located if different from the Developer) shall execute a maintenance agreement with the City of Santa Ana which shall be recorded against the property and which shall be in a form reasonably satisfactory to the City Attorney. The maintenance agreement shall contain covenants, conditions and restrictions relating to the following: 1. Compliance with operational conditions applicable during any period(s) of construction or major repair (e.g., proper screening and securing of the construction site; implementation of proper erosion control, dust control and noise mitigation measure; adherence to approved project phasing etc.); 2. Compliance with ongoing operational conditions, requirements and restrictions, as applicable (including but not limited to hours of operation, security requirements, the proper storage and disposal of trash and debris, enforcement of the parking management plan, and/or restrictions on certain uses); 3. Ongoing compliance with approved design and construction parameters, signage parameters and restrictions as well as landscape designs, as applicable; 4. Ongoing maintenance, repair and upkeep of the property and all improvements located thereupon at all times (including but not limited to controls on the proliferation of trash and debris about the property; the proper and timely removal of graffiti; the timely maintenance, repair and upkeep of damaged, vandalized and/or weathered buildings, structures and/or improvements; the timely maintenance, repair and upkeep of exterior paint, parking striping, lighting and irrigation fixtures, walls and fencing, publicly accessible bathrooms and bathroom fixtures, landscaping and related landscape improvements and the like, as applicable); 5. If Developer and the owner of the property are different (e.g., if the applicant is a tenant or licensee of the property or any portion thereof), both the applicant and the owner of the property shall be signatories to the maintenance agreement and both shall be jointly and severally liable for compliance with its terms; 6. The maintenance agreement shall further provide that any party responsible for complying with its terms shall not assign its ownership interest in the property or any interest in any lease, sublease, license or sublicense, unless 76C13796 the prospective assignee agrees in writing to assume all of the duties and obligations and responsibilities set forth under the maintenance agreement; 7. The maintenance agreement shall contain provisions relating to the enforcement of its conditions by the City and shall also contain provisions authorizing the City to recover costs and expenses which the City may incur arising out of any enforcement and/or remediation efforts which the City may undertake in order to cure any deficiency in maintenance, repair or upkeep or to enforce any restrictions or conditions upon the use of the property. The maintenance agreement shall further provide that any unreimbursed costs and/or expenses incurred by the City to cure a deficiency in maintenance or to enforce use restrictions shall become a lien upon the property in an amount equivalent to the actual costs and/or expense incurred by the City; and S. The execution and recordation of the maintenance agreement shall be a condition precedent to the issuance of final approval for any construction permit related to this entitlement. G. Avigation Easement. Developer (and the owner of the property upon which the authorized use and/or authorized improvements are located if different from the Developer) shall, prior to issuance of a building permit, execute and record an avigation easement on the area governed by this specific development. I-T7UQ7797 ATTACHMENT A: Attached to the Agenda as "Plans." ATTACHMENT B: Attached to the Staff Report as Exhibit B to Exhibit 2 ATTACHMENT C: Attached to the Staff Report as Exhibit 7 7CQ1748 Exhibit 5 RESOLUTION NO. 2020-xx A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA OVERRULING THE ORANGE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION OF INCONSISTENCY FOR A MIXED -USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT LOCATED 2300, 2310 AND 2320 SOUTH REDHILL WITH THE AIRPORT ENVIRONS LAND USE PLAN FOR JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT, INCLUDING SUPPORTIVE FINDINGS BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines and declares as follows: WHEREAS, Article 5 of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 (commencing with Section 65300) of the Government Code requires the City to prepare and adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the City; and WHEREAS, on February 2, 1998, the City of Santa Ana adopted the Land Use Element of the General Plan, which has since been amended from time to time; and WHEREAS, Jeremy Ogulnick, representing Arrimus Capital ("Applicant"), seeks to develop a Mixed -Use Commercial and Residential Project ("proposed Project"), on a 14.69-acre site at 2300, 2310, and 2320 South Redhill Avenue in Santa Ana, California ("Project Site"); and WHEREAS, the Project as currently proposed entails, among other things, (1) demolition of the existing three (3) structures on the Project Site; (2) redevelopment of the Project Site with a commercial and residential mixed -use development consisting of up to 80,000 square feet leasable commercial area, 1,100 residential units, 2,600 onsite parking spaces, and onsite landscaping and amenities; (3) approval of General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 2020-02, which would change the Project Site's existing land use designation of Professional & Administration Office (PAO) to District Center (DC); and (4) approval of Amendment Application (AA) No. 2020-01, which would change the zoning of the Project Site from Light Industrial (M-1) to Specific Development No. 96 (SD-96) designation; and WHEREAS, the requested General Plan Amendment would change the General Plan land use designation of the property from Professional and Administrative Office (PAO) to District Center (DC) and to update text portions of the City's Land Use Element to reflect this change in order to allow for development of the mixed -use commercial and residential Project; and Resolution No. 2020-xx 75C-799 Page 1 of 13 WHEREAS, California Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 21676(b) requires the City of Santa Ana to refer projects requiring a general plan amendment or a zone change to the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for consistency with the 2008 John Wayne Airport (JWA) Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP); and WHEREAS, the ALUC is charged with the adoption of an AELUP, establishing guidelines for compatible development in the vicinity of an airport within the jurisdiction of the County of Orange. PUC Section 21670(a) sets forth the fundamental purpose of the AELUP as: (1) "... to promote the overall goals and objectives of the California airport noise standards adopted pursuant to Section 21669 and to prevent the creation of new noise and safety problems" and (2) "... to protect public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses;" and WHEREAS, on May 21, 2020, the ALUC found the proposed project to be inconsistent with the 2008 JWA AELUP by a 6-0 vote. ALUC's findings were made pursuant to AELUP Sections 1.2 and 2.1.4, and PUC Section 216749(a). These sections empower the ALUC "to assist local agencies in ensuring compatible land uses in the vicinity of existing airports to the extent that the land in the vicinity of those airports is not already devoted to incompatible uses," and "to coordinate planning at the state, regional and local levels so as to provide for the orderly development of air transportation, while at the same time protecting the public health, safety and welfare;" and WHEREAS, pursuant to PUC Section 21676(b), the City may, after a public hearing, propose to overrule the commission by a two-thirds vote of its governing body if it makes specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with the purposes of Article 3.5 Airport Land Use Commission of the PUC. At least 45 days prior to the decision to overrule the ALUC, the local agency governing body shall provide the ALUC and the State Division of Aeronautics a copy of the proposed decision and findings. The commission and the Division of Aeronautics may provide comments to the local agency governing body within 30 days of receiving the proposed decision and findings. If the ALUC and State Division of Aeronautics comments are not available within this time limit, the local agency governing body may act without them. Should comments be received, the City Council must include the comments from the ALUC in the public record of any final decision to overrule the ALUC. This decision shall be determined at a public hearing to make the specific findings that the proposed overruling is consistent with the purposes stated in PUC Section 21670. WHEREAS, on June 16, 2020, the City Council of the City of Santa Ana adopted a resolution (Resolution No. 2020-051) authorizing the Planning Division to initiate the preparation and drafting of findings and determination overruling the Orange County ALUC's determination of inconsistency associated with the proposed Mixed -Use Development and to provide notice in accordance with PUC Section 21676(b) to the ALUC and the State Division of Aeronautics; and Resolution No. 2020-xx 75C-800 Page 2 of 13 WHEREAS, on June 30, 2020, the Planning Division of the City of Santa Ana provided a Notice of Intent to overrule the Orange County ALUC's determination that the Mixed -Use Development project is inconsistent with the AELUP of JWA and findings to the ALUC and the State Division of Aeronautics: and WHEREAS, all correspondences received by the ALUC and State Division of Aeronautics have been included in the public record; and WHEREAS, on August 6, 2020, the City gave public notice of a City Council public hearing for consideration of overruling ALUC's determination on the proposed Mixed -Use Development project by advertising in the Orange County Register, a newspaper of general circulation, by mailing to owners of property and residents within 500 feet of the Project, and posting a notice on site; and WHEREAS, August 18, 2020, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 2020-01, General Plan Amendment No. 2020-02, Amendment Application No. 2020-01, and the ALUC overruling determination of inconsistency action and at which hearing members of the public were afforded an opportunity to comment upon such actions. Section 2. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana made the following findings: A. The City of Santa Ana is required to provide findings supporting the overrule of the Orange County ALUC determination as required in the California PUC Section 21676(b). Based on the following Findings of Fact and the associated substantial evidence in the public record, the proposed action by the City on the Mixed -Use Development Project at 2300, 2310 and 2320 Red Hill Avenue and related zoning change and General Plan Amendment are consistent with the purposes of the State Aeronautics Act as stated in PUC Section 21670. B. The proposed Project provides for the orderly development of JWA, and its surrounding area and promotes the overall goals and objectives of the State noise standards by avoiding new noise and safety problems, and protecting the public health, safety and welfare through the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards to the extent that this area is not already devoted to incompatible uses. This Project would not add any new residential or commercial noise impacts to the JWA 65 dBA Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) noise area. C. It is in the public interest to: provide for the orderly development of each public use airport in this state and the area surrounding these airports so as to promote the overall goals and objectives of the California airport noise standards adopted pursuant to PUC Section 21669 and to prevent the creation of new noise and safety problems. D. To provide for the orderly development of JWA and the area surrounding the airport, the ALUC adopted the 2008 AELUP on April 17, 2008. The AELUP Resolution No. 2020-xx 75C-801 Page 3 of 13 guides development proposals to provide for orderly development of the airport and the area surrounding the airport through implementation of the standards in Section 2.1 (aircraft noise, safety compatibility zones, building height restrictions). E. The ALUC is required to use the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (Handbook) that was updated by the California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics (Caltrans) in 2011. The AELUP has not been updated to incorporate the Handbook nor has it updated information about the operation and environmental effects of JWA as reflected in its most recent Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) certified by the Orange County Board of Supervisors on June 25, 2019 for the General Aviation Improvement Program (GAI P). F. On May 21, 2020, the City of Santa Ana presented the Mixed -Use development to the ALUC for a determination of consistency with the JWA AELUP. The ALUC staff report dated May 21, 2020, finds that with regard to AELUP issues of aircraft noise, building heights, safety zones and heliports, that the proposed project, zone change, and General Plan Amendment are each consistent. Despite consistency with each stated criteria of the AELUP, the ALUC staff recommended, "[t]hat the Commission find the proposed ... Mixed Use Project inconsistent with the AELUP for JWA per AELUP Sections 1.2 and 2.1.4 and PUC Section 21674. G. The Project is consistent with the AELUP of JWA and with the purposes of the State Aeronautics Act based on the following Findings of Fact and substantial evidence: a. Lack of evidence of inconsistency by the ALUC. b. There was no evidence presented by or to the ALUC at its hearing on May 21, 2020, to support finding of inconsistency, nor was there a request to provide supplemental information. The ALUC staff made a presentation at the Commission hearing based on the staff report. The only addition made by the ALUC staff to the staff report published with the meeting agenda was their acknowledgment of the City's letter on May 20, 2020 stating that the Final EIR for the Project would reinstate a mitigation measure requiring "Notice of Airport in Vicinity," to be included in all lease/rental agreements and post outdoor signage informing the public of the presence of operating aircraft, which demonstrates further compliance with the AELUP and to minimize potential future noise complaints. C. Noise. The residential and commercial land uses under the proposed Project are consistent with the aircraft noise standards of the AELUP. Project is located outside of the JWA 60 to 65 dBA CNEL aircraft noise contours. Aircraft noise analysis was completed in the Resolution No. 2020-xx 75C-802 Page 4 of 13 Project's EIR and presented at the ALUC hearing. The JWA GAIP EIR also contains noise analysis demonstrating that the Project is outside of the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour. This noise analysis is based on one year's worth of aircraft operations in all runway operating configurations with for both existing aircraft fleet mixes and future fleet forecasts. This analysis includes the time of day of all operations and includes noise penalties for evening (7 pm to 10 pm) and night (10 pm to 7 am) aircraft operations of five and ten decibels per operation. Residential land uses are normally consistent in areas impacted by aircraft noise up to 60 dBA CNEL and commercial land uses up to 65 dBA CNEL as shown in the AELUP Table 1. These are the same noise standards used by the FAA and the State of California to identify compatible land uses near airports. ii. The project is located outside of the JWA single -event aircraft noise contours. The detailed aircraft noise analysis completed as part of the JWA GAIP EIR included analysis of single event aircraft noise. This analysis included single event noise contours for the noisiest aircraft making regular use of JWA. The Project developer's consultant provided analysis and information at the ALUC hearing showing the Project site is located outside of the JWA 85 dB single event noise contours for all aircraft making regular use of the Airport. The project includes mitigation measure notifying future residents. The Final EIR for the Project revised on May 22, 2020 includes a mitigation measure requiring "Notice of Airport in Vicinity," to be included in all lease/rental agreements and post outdoor signage informing the public of the presence of operating aircraft, which demonstrates further compliance with the AELUP and to minimize potential future noise complaints. d. Safety. The residential and commercial land uses under the proposed project are consistent with the safety standards of the AELUP. Project is not in any of the AELUP safety zones. The project is located more than a mile from the outer edge of AELUP Zone 6, Traffic Pattern Zone as depicted in Appendix D. Further, AELUP Appendix D states the "Basic Compatibility Qualities" of Zone 6 as "Allow residential uses" and "Allow most nonresidential uses." Project is not in the JWA runway protection zones (RPZ). The Project is located nearly two miles from the outer edge of the nearest JWA RPZ. ii. The FAA's Determinations of No Hazard to Air Navigation for the Mixed -Use development structures are the only source of authoritative, aviation safety findings regarding the project. The Resolution No. 2020-xx 75C-803 Page 5 of 13 FAA conducted an aeronautical study (49 U.S.C. §44718 and 14 CFR Part 77) and issued its Determinations on March 5, 2020 that structures associated with the project "do not exceed standards and would not be a hazard to air navigation" and that "[b]ased on this evaluation, marking and lighting are not necessary for aviation safety." The FAA's Determinations establish that the Project would be neither an obstruction nor a hazard to air navigation. iii. In this case it is important to first establish what entity has authority over the use of airspace over the project site. "The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States" (49 U.S.C. § 40103(a)(1)). iv. In order to use this airspace, the FAA Administrator is responsible for: (1) Plans and policy for the safe use of the navigable airspace (49 U.S.C. § 40103(b)(1); and (2) "[R]egulations on the flight of aircraft (including regulations on safe altitudes) for navigating, protecting and identifying aircraft; protecting individuals and property on the ground; using the navigable airspace efficiently; and preventing collision between aircraft, between aircraft and land or water vehicle, and between aircraft and airborne objects" (49 U.S.C. § 40103(b)(2)). V. The FAA's aeronautical studies for the project structures are the definitive standard for assessing compliance with federal aviation safety laws and regulations (49 U.S.C. § 77.1(c)). This federal authority is recognized in State law (Cal. PUC §21240). vi. The City of Santa Ana has the local police powers to control land use on the site (Cal. Const., art. XI 11, § 7). This constitutional authority is acknowledged in State law (Cal. PUC §21670 and §21676) and the ALUC process (AELUP §4.11) allowing for overrule of an ALUC finding of inconsistency. vii. The other entities that have processed or commented on this project have aviation safety duties and responsibilities related to this matter. Each of these entities relies on or ultimately defers to the FAA's authoritative aviation safety role in airspace determinations. viii. The AELUP for JWA, Section 2.1.3 Building Height Restrictions states, "In adopting criteria for building height restrictions in the vicinities of airports, the Commission considered only one standard and that was Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77 ([14 CFR] Part 77) entitled, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace. "These regulations are the only definitive standard available [emphasis added] and the standard most generally used." Resolution No. 2020-xx 75C-804 Page 6 of 13 ix. Section 2.1.3 also recognizes FAA aeronautical studies beyond 14 CFR Part 77 surfaces as the standard for review, "In addition to the 'imaginary surfaces,' the Commission will use all of the FAR Part 77.23 standards along with the results of FAA aeronautical studies, [emphasis added] or other studies deemed necessary by the Commission, in order to determine if a structure is an 'obstruction."' This section goes on to state: The Commission considers and recognizes the FAA as the single "Authority" for analyzing project impact on airport or aeronautical operations, or navigational -aid siting, including interference with navigational - aids or published flight paths and procedures. The Commission also considers the FAA as the "Authority" for reporting the results of such studies and project analyses. The Commission will not consider the findings of reports or studies conducted by parties other than the FAA unless the FAA certifies and adopts such findings as true and correct. X. Section 2.1.3 adds reference to FAA Advisory Circular 150/5190- 4A, A Model Zoning Ordinance to Limit Height of Objects Around Airports for Commission Review. This FAA Advisory Circular provides specific guidance for establishing zoning regulations along with specific guidance on a "variance" process for potential obstructions. At Section 3.b., "The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) conducts aeronautical studies on obstructions which examine their effect on such factors as: aircraft operational capabilities; electronic and procedural requirements; and, airport hazard standards. If an aeronautical study shows that an obstruction, when evaluated against these factors, has no substantial adverse effect upon the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace, then the obstruction is considered not to be a hazard to air navigation [emphasis added]." A. CalTrans Division of Aeronautics — Caltrans publishes the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook ("Handbook") in accordance with State Law with the purpose to, " provide information to ALUCs, their staffs, airport proprietors, cities, counties, consultants, and the public; to identify the requirements and procedures for preparing effective compatibility planning documents; and define exemptions where applicable (Caltrans, 2011)." The Handbook provides specific guidance for assessing potential airspace obstructions in Section 4.5 Airspace Protection. Ai. JWA — The FAA requires airport sponsors like Orange County to accept specific grant assurances when they accept federal funding. Hazard Removal and Mitigation and Compatible Land Use are two of these assurances (49 U.S.C. § 47107(a)(9) and (10)). For hazard removal, the Airport relies on the FAA's aeronautical study to meet its requirement. For compatible land Resolution No. 2020-xx 75C-805 Page 7 of 13 use, the Airport relies on coordination with the surrounding cities and the ALUC. The following are the specific assurances: xiii. Hazard Removal and Mitigation. It will take appropriate action to assure that such terminal airspace as is required to protect instrument and visual operations to the airport (including established minimum flight altitudes) will be adequately cleared and protected by removing, lowering, relocating, marking, or lighting or otherwise mitigating existing airport hazards and by preventing the establishment or creation of future airport hazards. xiv. Compatible Land Use. It will take appropriate action, to the extent reasonable, including the adoption of zoning laws, to restrict the use of land adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of the airport to activities and purposes compatible with normal airport operations, including landing and takeoff of aircraft. In addition, if the project is for noise compatibility program implementation, it will not cause or permit any change in land use, within its jurisdiction, that will reduce its compatibility, with respect to the airport, of the noise compatibility program measures upon which Federal funds have been expended. e. Height. The residential and commercial land uses under the proposed project are consistent with the height standards of the AELU P. The proposed buildings associated with the Project would not exceed the sloping, three-dimensional 100:1 (one percent sloping surface from the nearest runway over 3,200 feet in actual length) FAA notification surface to require the Filing of FAA Form 7460-1. This fact is stated in the ALUC staff report and was repeated at the ALUC hearing on the Project. Despite this fact, the Project proponent filed with the FAA and received a Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation on March 5, 2020. ii. The Project does not exceed the sloping, three-dimensional 50:1 FAA precision instrument Approach Surface to JWA Runway 20R. This fact is stated in the ALUC staff report and was repeated at the ALUC hearing on the Project. Despite this fact, the Project proponent filed with the FAA and received a Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation on March 5, 2020. f. Overflight. "Close to the JWA approach centerline" as identified by the ALUC is neither an FAA nor an AELUP standard. The FAA is the only authoritative source of aviation safety data and the FAA does not have a "close to the JWA approach centerline" standard. The FAA's Aeronautical Study of the Project and Determinations of No Hazard to Air Navigation issued on Resolution No. 2020-xx 75C-806 Page 8 of 13 March 5, 2020 are the only authoritative source of airspace impact information as stated in the AELUP. ii. The AELUP clearly identifies its airport land use planning standards around aircraft noise, safety, and height. Objective measures of these standards are clearly identified in AELUP Section 2.1. The Project is consistent with each of these objective standards. iii. Two-dimensional flight tracks and a list of unassociated aircraft do nothing to inform the impact of overflights. The ALUC provided one day of arrival flight tracks, one day of departure flight tracks and lists of aircraft by time of day and altitude that were purported to have produced these flight tracks. iv. The Project proponent prepared three-dimensional models of the ALUC-provided flight track information to depict actual overflight proximity to a scaled model of the Project. These three- dimensional models show that some residents and users of the property would likely be able to see aircraft flying past the property from certain locations. Aircraft noise information from the AELUP, the JWA GAIP EIR and from the Project EIR demonstrate that the noise impact would be less than 60 dBA CNEL and less than single event noise standards identified in the JWA GAIP EIR. V. Aircraft noise contours used to objectively measure noise impact already assume flight tracks and actual operating conditions for a full year including future operations. One day of arrival flight tracks and one day of departure flight tracks are simple anecdotes and not substantive evidence. vi. The project is located outside of the JWA single event noise exposure areas documented in the JWA General Aviation Improvement Program EIR certified on June 25, 2019. The project developer presented this information to the ALUC Commission at its hearing on May 21, 2020. vii. ALUC Commissioners Monin and Murphy asked for but did not receive evidence of general aviation aircraft using Runway 2R/20L would "be turning right in front of the site." In fact, the GA aircraft pattern and voluntary noise abatement procedures for Runway 2R/20L operate within one to two miles from the end of the runway north of the airport and on a 15-degree offset from the extended runway centerline to avoid airspace conflicts with aircraft arriving Runway 20R. This location places GA aircraft south of Barranca Parkway and aligned with the Tustin Legacy property southeast of the Project site. These regular GA aircraft flight tracks are Resolution No. 2020-xx 75C-807 Page 9 of 13 substantiated in the presentation by JWA staff on April 6, 2019 at a Town Hall meeting about the GAIP. g. Heliports. Heliports are not a part of the Project. h. Zone Change and General Plan Amendment. The proposed zone change, and General Plan Amendment are consistent with the objective AELUP aircraft noise, safety and height standards and are therefore consistent with the larger planning role of the ALUC. "Close to the JWA approach centerline" is not an FAA or an ALUC standard. ALUC offers no substantiation that overflights of new residents would be disturbed or annoyed. On the contrary, the ALUC demonstrates that the Project is located outside of the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour. As such, the Project would not add any new residential or commercial noise impacts to the JWA 65 dBA Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) noise area. ii. Flight tracks for one day of arrivals and one day of departures are not unique and are fully accounted for in the one year of overflights used to measure CNEL noise impacts associated with JWA. iii. Flight tracks for one day of arrivals and one day of departures are not unique and are fully accounted for in the single -event noise contours produced for the JWA GAIP EIR. The Project is located outside of these single -event noise contours. iv. The JWA comments on the Project conflict with its own noise analysis contained in the GAIP EIR. The ALUC staff report states, "Because of the project location within the primary approach corridor and its proximity to JWA (2.25 miles), JWA stated it is not supportive of the proposed residential portion of the project." The objective analysis and conclusions of the JWA GAIP EIR find that the objective aircraft noise analysis demonstrate that the Project would be located outside of the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour and would have no impact on operations at JWA due to height. V. The ALUC staff report states that, "per Section 1.2 of the AELUP for JWA, the purpose of the AELUP is to safeguard the general welfare of the inhabitants within the vicinity of the airport and to ensure the continued operations of the airport." The method by which the ALUC achieves this purpose is through the application of the objective standards contained in Section 2.1 of the AELUP. As demonstrated in the ALUC staff report and, in these Findings, the Project is consistent with each of the standards. As a result, the ALUC has met their duty under Section 1.2 by ensuring that the Project meets these standards. Resolution No. 2020-xx 75C-808 Page 10 of 13 vi. The ALUC staff report states that "Additionally, Section 2.1.4 of the AELUP for JWA and PUC Section 21674 charge the Commission to coordinate at the local level to ensure compatible land use planning." The method by which the ALUC achieves this charge is through the application of the objective standards contained in Section 2.1 of the AELUP. As demonstrated in the ALUC staff report and, in these Findings, the Project is consistent with each of the standards. As a result, the ALUC has met their duty under Section 2.1.4 and PUC Section 21674 by ensuring that the Project meets these standards. Section 3. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT: The City Council has reviewed and certified Environmental Impact Report No. 2020-01; adopted the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP); and adopted the Statement of Overriding Consideration for the proposed Project. Section 4. INDEMNIFICATION. The Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, authorized volunteers, and instrumentalities thereof, harmless from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other and proceedings (whether legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute resolution procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and such other procedures), judgments, orders, and decisions (collectively "Actions"), brought against the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or annul, any action of, or any permit or approval issued by the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City) for or concerning the project, whether such Actions are brought under the Ralph M. Brown Act, California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning and Zoning Law, the Subdivision Map Act, Code of Civil Procedure sections 1085 or 1094.5, or any other federal, state or local constitution, statute, law, ordinance, charter, rule, regulation, or any decision of a court of competent jurisdiction. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld, the legal counsel providing the City's defense, and that Applicant shall reimburse the City for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the course of the defense. City shall promptly notify the Applicant of any Action brought and City shall cooperate with Applicant in the defense of the Action. Section 5. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Based on the above evidence and Findings made, and the remainder of the record in this case, the City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby resolves to overrule the Orange County ALUC's Resolution No. 2020-xx 75C-809 Page 11 of 13 determination that the Mixed -Use Development Project is inconsistent with the Orange County AELUP. Section 6. EXECUTION OF RESOLUTION. The Mayor shall sign this Resolution and the Clerk of the Council shall attest and certify to the adoption thereof. ADOPTED this _ day of APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney Byh Lisa E. Storck Assistant City Attorney AYES: Councilmembers NOES: Councilmembers ABSTAIN: Councilmembers 12020. Miguel A. Pulido Mayor Resolution No. 2020-xx 75C-81 0 Page 12 of 13 CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, DAISY GOMEZ, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2020-xx to be the original resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on 12020. Date: Clerk of the Council City of Santa Ana Resolution No. 2020-xx 75C-811 Page 13 of 13 Exhibit 6 EIR No. 2020-01, GPA No. 2020-02, & AA No. 2020-01, "Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Development' 2300, 2310, and 2320 South Redhill Avenue The Final Project Plans are available online at: https://www.santa-ana.org/pb/planning-division/maior-planning-proiects-and-monthIV-development- P ro I e ct-re po its/bowe rV Physical copies are also available for viewing by appointment only. Please contact PlanningDepartment@santa-ana.org before visiting the Planning Division public counter located at: 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701 75C-812 .y i ' of Santa Celebrating �Q YearsL(ifig&JA LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN engineers . 11 .M'ri.Yrf" ..� . Revised Parking Study and Parking Management Plan The Warner-Redhill City of Santa Ana 2020 August 5, 2020 Engineers&Planners (original dated May 5, 2020) Traffic Transportation Parking Mr. Jeremy Ogulnick RHW Holdings, LLC Linscott, Lew & Greenspan, Engineers 240 Newport Center Drive, Suite 200 2Exec olive Circle Newport Beach, CA 92660 Suite 250 Irvine, CA 92614 LLG Reference: 2.20.4274.1 949.825.6175 T 949.825.6173 F Subject: Revised Parking Study and Parking Management Plan for the www.11gongi neers.com The Warner-Redhill Project Santa Ana, California Pasadena Irvine Son Diego Woodland Hills Dear Mr. Ogulnick: As requested, Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) is pleased to submit this Revised Parking Study for The Warner-Redhill Project (hereinafter referred to as Project, and formerly referred to as The Bowery) in the City of Santa Ana, California. The Warner-Redhill Project is a planned mixed -use residential apartment project consisting of 1,100 apartment units with 80,000 SE of retail/commercial space to be located south of Warner Avenue and west of Red Hill Avenue in the City of Santa Ana, California. The revised parking study has been prepared to address the change in project description (i..e unit mix, retail tenant mix and parking supply allocation) and re- validate the parking demand and adequacy of proposed parking supply for the retail/commercial portion of the Project as well as the proposed parking supply of the Project's residential component in comparison to the City requirements as outlined in Article XV — Off -Street Parking of the Municipal Code. Pursuant to our coordination efforts, prior work experience on similar projects, and understanding of the City of Santa Ana requirements, the preparation of a Parking Study, inclusive of a Parking Management Plan (PMP) is required to ensure adequate Philip M. Linscott, PE11924-20001 parking for all Project tenants, employees and guests, and reduce or eliminate any Jack M. Greenspan, PE rentWilliam A. Law, PE laorl parking intrusion on the adjacent commercial properties. This PMP is intended to be Paul w. Wilkinson, PE used to ensure that the Project's parking supply will be sufficient to accommodate the Jahn R. Keating, PE actual parking demand for both the Project's retail/commercial component as well as David s-Shearer, PP the Project's residential component. John A. Narrator, PE Clare M. Look -Jaeger, PE Richard E. Earretta. PE /h- R {w� N'.\42=2204D4-The Bowery, Santa Azm R,ortk2]4 The WmTa Radhill R 7 Red5iGi dfR1.4-anagemat Plan 08-05-2020. dou Kell G. Maharry, PE An LG2=Company FomdetliM Jeremy Ogulnick August 5, 2020 Page 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND MULTIMODAL SETTING The Warner-Redhill Project is a proposed mixed -use residential apartment project to be located south of Warner Avenue and west of Red Hill Avenue in the City of Santa Ana, California. The Project site is a square shaped parcel of land totaling 14.69f- acres and that is currently developed with three (3) industrial buildings with a total floor area of 212,121 square -feet (SF). Figure 1 is an existing aerial photograph of the Project site. According to the revised Project Site Plan, prepared by AO, the proposed Project includes the development of four (4) buildings, identified as Building A through Building D, with a total of 1,100 apartment units and 80,000 square -feet (SF) of retail/commercial space consisting of 38,000 SF of retail space, 30,000 SF of restaurant/food uses, and a 12,000 SF health/fitness club, all of which front Red Hill Avenue. Parking for the Project will be provided within four (4) parking structures with a combined parking supply of 2,548 spaces and 52 space surface parking lot for a total supply of 2,600 spaces. Of this total supply, 400 spaces are allocated for use by the retail/commercial component of the Project. According to the revised Project site plan, individually, Building A includes the development of a 300-unit apartment podium, consisting 57 studio units, 169 one - bedroom units, 74 two -bedroom, and zero (0) three -bedroom units wrapped around a 7-level 730-space parking structure with an retail/commercial allocation consisting of 20,000 SF restaurant/food uses and a 6,000 SF pad building. Building B includes the development of a 248-unit apartment podium, consisting 35 studio units, 145 one -bedroom units, 63 two -bedroom, and five (5) three -bedroom units, wrapped around a 7-level 616-space parking structure and 16 surface parking spaces, with 24,000 SF building to be equally occupied by retail space and a fitness/health club. Building C includes the development of a 322-unit apartment podium, consisting 79 studio units, 149 one -bedroom units, 89 two -bedroom, and five (5) three -bedroom units with 20,000 SF of retail shops space and 10,000 SF of restaurant/food uses, wrapped around a 7-level 758-space parking structure with an additional 36 spaces provided in a surface lot. Lastly, Building D includes the development of a 230-unit apartment podium, consisting 40 studio units, 137 one -bedroom units, 48 two -bedroom, and five (5) three -bedroom units wrapped around a 6-level 458-space parking structure plus 2 surface parking spaces. N'.A42=2204T14-Th. B,.a, Banta Ma ,.ftk274 The Wam RedhillR 5QtdQlllg a ,matP1an08-05-2020.doa Jeremy Ogulnick August 5, 2020 Page 3 It should be noted that the total parking supply of 2,600 spaces includes 61 spaces via the use of valet/valet assist for the Project's retail/commercial component and 163 spaces via the installation of vehicle lifts for the Project's residential component. Table 1, attached to this proposal, provides a summary of the Project development, inclusive of the Project's proposed parking supply based on information provided by AO, dated 08/03/2020, inclusive of 117 2°d access (Tandem) stalls. Figure 2 presents the proposed site plan, prepared by AO. Project's Pedestrian Connections Pedestrian circulation would be provided via existing public sidewalks along Red Hill Avenue and Warner Avenue which will connect to the project site. The project will protect the existing sidewalk along project frontage, and if necessary, repair or reconstruct sidewalks along the project frontage per the City's request. The existing sidewalk system within the project vicinity provides direct connectivity to the City of Santa Ana, Irvine and Tustin along with connectivity to the Tustin Metrolink Station located on Edinger Avenue west of Jamboree Road. From the project site, it would take approximately 54 minutes to walk to the Tustin Metrolink Station that is 2.8 miles from the site. Project's Proximity to Public Transit Public transit bus service for the Project site is adequate and is provided in the project area by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). Eleven (11) OCTA bus routes operate within the vicinity of the project site on Main Street, Standard Avenue, Grand Avenue, Dyer Road, Edinger Avenue, Red Hill Avenue, Warner Avenue, SR-55 and Von Karmen Avenue, which consists of the following: • OCTA Route 53: The major route of travel is Main Street. Nearest to the project site are bus stops on Main Street — northbound and southbound west of the intersection with Red Hill Avenue. Route 53 operates on approximate 30-minute headways during weekdays and 20-minute headways on weekends. • OCTA Route 55: The major routes of travel include Main Street and Standard Avenue. Nearest to the project site are bus stops on Standard Avenue — northbound and southbound west of the intersection with Warner Avenue. Route 55 operates on approximate 30-minute headways on the weekdays and weekends. • OCTA Route 59: The major routes of travel include Grand Avenue, Dyer Road, and Barranca Parkway. Nearest to the project site are bus stops on Dyer Road — eastbound and westbound south of the intersection with Red Hill Avenue. Route N'.\42=2204T14-The Bowery, Santa Ma ,.ftk274 The Wam RedhillR25QtdQIIIIIGMan,g tP1an 08-05-2020. doer Jeremy Ogulnick August 5, 2020 Page 4 59 operates on approximate 30-minute headways on the weekdays and 60-minute headways on the weekends. • OCTA Route 70: The major route of travel is Edinger Avenue. Nearest to the project site are bus stops on Edinger Avenue — northbound and southbound east and west of the intersection with Red Hill Avenue. Route 70 operates on approximate 30-minute headways on the weekdays and weekends. • OCTA Route 71: The major route of travel is Red Hill Avenue. Nearest to the project site are bus stops on Dyer Road— northbound and southbound east of the intersection with Red Hill Avenue. Route 71 operates on approximate 30-minute headways on the weekdays and 45-minute headways on the weekends. • OCTA Route 72: The major route of travel is Warner Avenue. Nearest to the project site are bus stops on Warner Avenue — eastbound and westbound west of the intersection with Red Hill Avenue. Route 72 operates on approximate 30- minute headways during weekdays and 45-minute headways on weekends. • OCTA Route 86: The major route of travel is Main Street. Nearest to the project site are bus stops on Red Hill Avenue — eastbound and westbound east and west of the intersection with Red Hill Avenue. Route 86 operates on approximate 40- minute headways on the weekdays and no service on the weekends. • OCTA Route 90: The major route of travel is Edinger Avenue. Nearest to the project site are bus stops on Edinger Avenue. — eastbound and westbound east of the intersection with Red Hill Avenue. Route 90 operates on approximate 30- minute headways on the weekdays and 75-minute headways on the weekends. • OCTA Route 213: The major route of travels includes SR-55 and Von Karmen Avenue. Nearest to the project site are bus stops on Von Karmen Avenue — eastbound and westbound west of the intersection with Michelson Drive. Route 213 operates on approximate 40-minute headways on the weekdays and no service on the weekends. • OCTA Route 463: The major route of travel is Grand Avenue. Nearest to the project site are bus stops on Grand Avenue — northbound and southbound east of the intersection with Warner Avenue. Route 463 operates on approximate 30- minute headways on the weekdays and no service on the weekends. • OCTA Route 472: The major route of travel is Red Hill Avenue. Nearest to the project site are bus stops on Red Hill Avenue — northbound and southbound east N'.\420N2204T14-The Bowery, Santa Ma ,.ftk274 The Wam RedhillR Red5QtdfRIufkM .n mat Plan 08-05-2020. doer Jeremy Ogulnick August 5, 2020 Page 5 of the intersection with Warner Avenue. Route 472 operates on approximate 35- minute headways on the weekdays and no service on the weekends Figure 3 graphically illustrates the transit routes of OCTA within the vicinity of the project. Figure 4 identifies the locations of the existing bus stops in proximity to the Project site. It is noted that based on review of Section 5.14 SB743 Compliance of The Bowery Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by E I P I D Solutions, dated December 12, 2019, it was concluded that the proposed Project would have a less than significant VMT impact since the Project site is located adjacent to existing transit service with an interval of approximately 6 minutes (Bus Route 71, 72 and 472) during the peak commute hours and is located within a 2040 High -Quality Transit Area per SCAG GIS data. Project's Proximity to Bicycle Facilities The City of Santa Ana, Irvine and Tustin all promote bicycling as a means of mobility and a way in which to improve the quality of life within its community. The Bikeway Master Plan recognizes the needs of bicycle users and aims to create a complete and safe bicycle network throughout the City. Currently, not many bicycle facilities exist in the study area, with the exception of a Class I bike lane along Red Hill Avenue, between Warner Avenue and Alton Avenue. In addition, a Class II bike lanes along Grand Avenue and Edinger Avenue, between Edinger Avenue and Dyer Road and between Chestnut Avenue and Dyer Road. Class I bike lanes along Valencia Avenue, Armstrong Avenue, east of Barranca Parkway. Figure 5, 6 and 7, which presents the City Santa Ana, Irvine and Tustin Bikeway Master Plans, respectively. RETAIL/COMMERCIAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS The code parking calculation for the retail/commercial component of the proposed Project is based on the City's requirements as outlined in Article XU— Off -Street Parking of the Municipal Code. The City's Municipal Code specifies the following parking requirements: • Retail stores and services uses: 5 space for each 1000 SF of gross floor area (GFA). • Restaurants cafes, etc: 8 space for each 1000 SF of GFA, with a minimum of 10 spaces. N'.\420=204T14-TheBowery, Santa Ma�,.r4274 The Wama Redhill R Red5QtdQ111 1anagenaat Plan 08-05-2020. dou Jeremy Ogulnick August 5, 2020 Page 6 • Exercise gym, spas, health clubs, etc.: 1 space for each 180 SF of floor area devoted to physical activity other than racquetball or handball (exclusive of locker rooms, shower facilities, utility rooms and ancillary public areas).' Retail/Commercial Parking Supply Based on review of Table 1, parking for the retail/commercial component of the Project will be provided via combination of structured parking and surface parking. As shown, a total of 327 "I't access" spaces will be provided, which will be supplemented by an additional 12 "2°d access (tandem)" spaces provided within the Project's parking structures, and 61 "valet/valet assist" spaces for a total supply of 400 stalls (327 + 12 + 61 = 400). City Code Parking Requirements Assuming 80,000 SF of retail space, the Project's retail/commercial parking supply of 400 spaces would satisfy the City code requirement of 400 spaces. However, when applying the City's parking ratios to the Project's potential mix of 38,000 SF of retail space, 30,000 SF of restaurant/food uses, and a 12,000 SF health/fitness club, a code parking requirement of 463 parking spaces is calculated. With a proposed retail/commercial parking supply of 400 spaces, a shortfall of 63 spaces is forecast when compared to City requirements. Shared Parking Analysis To validate the adequacy of the proposed retail/commercial parking supply of 400 spaces with the Project's proposed mix of uses/tenants, a shared parking analysis has been prepared based on the utilization profile of each included land use component. The following section calculates the parking requirements for Project based on the shared parking methodology outlined in ULI Shared Parking, 2"d Edition. The specific tenancy mix of the Project provides an opportunity to share parking spaces based on the utilization profile of each included land use component. The parking ratios identified above have been used directly for incorporation into a shared parking analysis consistent with the methodology outlined in the Urban Land Institute (ULI) and published in Shared Parking, 2"d Edition. Based on the results of this shared parking assessment, the adequacy of the Project's retail/commercial component parking supply of 400 spaces can be determined. Since the floor plan for the proposed health club is unknown at this time the physical activity area is assumed to be 50% of the GFA. 7 /h- N'.\4200�2204D4-The Bowery, Santa Ma ,.ftk2]4 The Wam RedhillR 15ed5QWdQllll�M4 ana,e tP1an 08-05-2020. doer Jeremy Ogulnick August 5, 2020 Page 7 Key inputs in the shared parking analysis for each land use include: • Peak parking demand by land use for visitors and employees. • Adjustments for alternative modes of transportation, if applicable. • Adjustment for internal capture (captive versus non -captive parking demand), if applicable. • Hourly variations of parking demand. • Weekday versus weekend adjustment factors • Monthly adjustment factors to account for variations of parking demand over the year. • Applicable parking ratios per Article XV — Off -Street Parking in the City of Santa Ana Municipal Code For this analysis, a conservative 5% parking adjustment was utilized to account for "walk-in" trips attributable to synergy between uses and the residential component of The Warner-Redhill and adjoining retail/commercial component. These adjustments are representative of the interaction between the Proj ect's uses. Tables 2 and 3 present the overall weekday and weekend parking demand profiles for the retail/commercial component of the Project based on the shared parking methodology. Columns (1) through (4) of these tables present the parking accumulation characteristics and parking demand of the proposed uses for the hours of 6:00 AM to midnight. Columns (5) through (6) presents the expected joint -use parking demand for the Center on an hourly basis and farther presents the hourly parking surplus/deficiency for the proposed Project compared to the parking supply of 400 spaces. Both tables highlight the forecast peak parking demand for the retail/commercial center component of the Project during the morning peak hour (shown inM), afternoon peak period (shown inn) and evening peak hour (shown in Based on our experience, the shared parking approach summarized in Tables 2 and 3 are believed to be the most appropriate in evaluating the parking supply -demand relationships for Project. The results in these tables are the focus of this parking investigation and recommendations. Shared Parking Results Review of Tables 2 and 3 indicates that the fixture full occupancy weekday peak retail/commercial parking demands will occur at 7:00 PM with peak demands of 343 spaces. Based on the proposed retail/commercial parking supply of 400 spaces, the peak demand hours on a weekday will yield a surplus of 57 spaces. On a weekend the peak parking demand will occur at (yCyC]yy(�� MRRw a peak demand of 360 spaces N'.\4200�2204D4-The Bowery, Santa Ma ,.ftk2]4 The Wam Redhill Revd TRXC hidCE a,a mat Plan 08-05-2020. dots Jeremy Ogulnick August 5, 2020 Page 8 resulting in a surplus of 40 spaces. Appendix A contains the detailed weekday and weekend shared parking worksheets. Figures 8 and 9 graphically illustrate the weekday and weekend hourly parking demand forecast for the proposed Project retail/commercial component, respectively. Each of the anticipated land use component/tenant mix and its corresponding hourly Shared Parking demand for various mixes of uses, which were presented in Tables 2 and 3, are depicted in these two figures relative to a proposed parking supply of 400 spaces, of which 327 are lsr access spaces, 12 spaces are 2°d access (tandem) stalls and 61 spaces are valet/valet assist spaces. A review of these figures indicates that the Project's parking supply of 400 spaces will adequately accommodate The Warner-Redhill's proposed retail/commercial uses on weekday and weekend hourly shared parking demand. Further yet, based on the results of this analysis, the use of 2°d access and valet/valet assist spaces would only be necessary on weekdays for the time period between 11:00 AM and 2:00 PM and 4:00 PM to 10:00 PM; during weekends, the need for 2°d access and valet/valet assists spaces would be similar to that of weekdays. The provision of the valet service during the weekday and weekend midday period of 11:00 AM to 2:00 PM would be an enhanced service that would support the "lunch time" crowd of the proposed restaurant/food uses. Therefore, we conclude that there is adequate parking on site to accommodate the Project's retail/commercial component shared parking demand and is reliant on the implementation of a "valet/valet assist" program as proposed. Based on LLG's experience, the results presented as part of the share parking assessment represent the most pragmatic approach to future parking conditions. RESIDENTIAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS Parking Requirements per City Code Requirements To determine the number of parking spaces required to support the proposed Project residential uses, the parking requirement was calculated based on parking information published in the City of Santa Ana Municipal Code Article XV — Off -Street Parking. The following parking ratio was used to determine the required parking: a) The minimum off-street parking requirements for each dwelling unit in multiple -family dwellings are as follows: one (1) space in a garage or carport. b) Each multi -family dwelling site shall provide off-street parking spaces, in addition to the minimum requirements of subsection (a) of this section, in an amount not less than the number of bedrooms on the site. Such spaces may be open or covered and may be assigned to particular units or not so assigned. Bachelor units shall be considered as one -bedroom units. N'.\420=204T14-The Bowery, Santa Ma ,.ftk274 The Wam RedhillR 15ed Wt—.fR."�ltingM ,n mat Plan 08-05-2020. doer Jeremy Ogulnick August 5, 2020 Page 9 c) In addition to the minimum requirements of subsections (a) and (b) of this section, each multiple -family dwelling site shall provide guest parking, identified as such, in an amount of spaces not less than twenty-five (25%) percent of the minimum required spaces under subsections (a) and (b) of this section, but in no case less than three (3) spaces. Table 4 presents the code parking requirement for the Project. Review of Table 4 identifies that the Project would require 3,130 spaces, of which 626 spaces would be required to accommodate the guest parking requirement. With a proposed parking supply of 2,200 parking spaces, the Project is projected to have a theoretical parking deficiency of 930 spaces (See Row F) when compared to the City's parking requirements. Although the Project's proposed parking supply is calculated to be deficient based on City Code requirement, the following section provides details of a Project Parking Management Plan (PMP) that could be implemented to manage the proposed residential parking supply, calculated at 2.0 spaces per unit, to the actual parking demand of the Project's residents, recognizing that the City Code requirement is highly conservative when compared to the parking supply provided by similar developments within the City of Santa Ana and other similar sites. In addition to the Project's code -parking requirements, Table 4 also provides a summary of the Project's composite parking supply ratios, in comparison to the City's code composite supply ratio of 2.86 spaces/unit (See Row G: 3,130 spaces 1,100 units). As shown in Row H, the Project's proposed "constructed" on -site supply ratio calculates to 1.75 spaces/unit (1,920 spaces - 1,100 units). The Project's composite parking supply ratio father increases with implementation of PMP measure no. 5 and no. 6, which would add an additional 117 tandem stall and 163 car lift spaces to the Project's supply. As shown in Row I and Row J of Table 4, the Project's total composite parking ratio calculates to 1.85 spaces/unit (2,037 spaces 1,100 units) and 2.0 spaces/unit (2,200 spaces - 1,100 units), respectively. Comparison of Parking Ratios Notwithstanding the requirements of City Code, the actual parking requirements for multifamily residential uses have been found to be less than the City's own Code requirement. This aspect is illustrated by LLG's previous field studies of actual parking demand at existing sites similar to the project, in addition to parking demand/empirical ratio compilations from other sources. Table 5 presents a comparison of site development and parking ratios from various sources. The upper portion of Table 5 presents twelve (12) comparable sites in N'.\42=2204T14-The Bowery, Santa Ma ,.ftk274 The Wam RedhillR2d5Q, 1}Q!'.ERZ,n mat Plan 08-05-2020. doer Jeremy Ogulnick August 5, 2020 Page 10 Fullerton, Orange, Santa Ana, Irvine, Costa Mesa, Monrovia, Laguna Niguel, and Pasadena. Additional details for the comparable sites is also provided inclusive of the location, development summary, parking facility type, parking supply, and presence of ground floor retail. Review of the rightmost column of Table 5 presents the tenant and guest peak parking ratio (spaces per DU) for each of the twelve comparable sites. This array of peak parking rates yields an average ratio of 1.35 spaces per unit, an 85 h percentile ratio of 1.48 spaces per unit, and a 95th percentile ratio of 1.61 spaces per unit. Given the above, LLG concludes that the parking ratios derived from the twelve comparable sites are accurate representations for the unique parking characteristics of the proposed Project that are not reflected in the City Code ratio. Parking Generation (5d' Edition) published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), and Shared Parking (2"d Edition) published by the Urban Land Institute (ULI), as well as other reference materials for the cities of Ontario and Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, and Riverside County, provide peak parking ratios for apartment complexes, as summarized in the lower portion of Table 5. These parking ratios range from 0.98 spaces per unit (average ratio per ITE) to 1.66 spaces per unit (field studies in Ontario and Rancho Cucamonga). In order to provide more context behind the location and parking -related characteristics for the most relevant sites in Table 5, we have compiled the following information with regards to land use setting, proximity to public transit, and availability of off -site parking (i.e., on -street spaces, nearby off -site parking spaces): Proiect/The Warner-Redhill There is no on -street parking or other public parking facilities in the immediate vicinity of the site. There are existing bus stops located nearby, specifically at the intersections of Red Hill Avenue at Warner Avenue. The Tustin Metrolink Station is located just under two miles to the northeast of the site. Main Street Village: 2555 Main Street, Irvine (1.42 spaces per DU) There is no on -street parking or other public parking facilities in the immediate vicinity of the site. There are existing bus stops located nearby, specifically at the intersections of Siglo/Main Street and Jamboree Road/Main Street. The nearest Park & Ride lot is located about 1.5 miles to the southeast of Main Street Village, near the intersection of Culver Drive at Sandburg Way. The adjoining land uses to Main Street Village consist of mostly office and residential uses. Paragon at Old Town: 700 S. Myrtle Avenue, Monrovia (1.48 spaces per DU) On -street parking is generally permitted in the vicinity of the site, most notably along Myrtle Avenue (north of Walnut Avenue Olive Avenue Walnut Avenue, and Ivy N'.\4200�2204Y14-The Bowery, Santa Ma ,.ftk2]4 The Wam Redhill Re01% SNdCE!'�R�Z anagemat Plan 08-05-2020. dots Jeremy Ogulnick August 5, 2020 Page 11 Avenue. The nearest existing bus stop is located at the intersection of Primrose Avenue/Walnut Avenue. An existing Park & Ride lot and Metro Light Rail station is located about 0.7 miles to the south of Paragon at Old Town, near the intersection of Myrtle Avenue/Duarte Road. The adjoining land uses to Paragon at Old Town consist of shopping/food uses to the north, residential uses to the east, and office/warehouse building to the south and west. Trio Apartments: 44 N. Madison Avenue, Pasadena (1.22 spaces per DU) On -street parking is generally permitted in the vicinity of the site, most notably along Madison Avenue, Colorado Boulevard, and Union Street. Further, several paid public parking lots are located nearby, including on the west side of Madison Avenue and a few south of Colorado Boulevard. Existing bus stops are located at the intersection of El Molino Avenue/Union Street, as well as various bus stops located Colorado Boulevard. An existing Park & Ride lot is located about 0.5 miles to the northwest of Trio Apartments, near the intersection of Marengo Avenue/Walnut Street. Further, existing Metro Light Rail stations are located at Lake Street/I-210 Freeway (about 0.5 miles from Trio Apartments) and near Raymond Avenue/flolly Street (about 0.5 miles from Trio Apartments). The adjoining land uses to Trio Apartments consist of mostly office and commercial uses. Adagio on the Green: 2660 Oso Parkway, Mission Vieio (1.45 spaces per DU) There is no on -street parking or other public parking facilities in the immediate vicinity of the site. Existing bus stops are located nearby, specifically at the intersections of Country Club Drive/Oso Parkway and Marguerite Parkway/Oso Parkway. There is no Park & Ride facility in the nearby vicinity of Adagio on the Green. The adjoining land uses to Adagio on the Green consist of mostly residential uses, with a golf course to the north and south of Oso Parkway and some commercial uses. Skye at Lacuna Niguel: 28100 Cabot Road, Laguna Niguel (1.49 spaces per DU) There is no on -street parking or other public parking facilities in the immediate vicinity of the site. The nearest existing bus stop is located at the intersection of Cabot Road/Crown Valley Parkway. An existing Park & Ride lot and Metrolink train station is located immediately east of the SR-73 Freeway, along Forbes Road (about 0.2 miles from Skye at Laguna Niguel). The adjoining land uses to Skye at Laguna Niguel consist of mostly residential uses, with commercial uses to the east. Apex Lacuna Niguel. • 27960 Cabot Road, Lacuna Niguel (1.28 spaces per DU) There is no on -street parking or other public parking facilities in the immediate vicinity of the site. The nearest existing bus stop is located at the intersection of Cabot Road/Crown Valley Parkway. An existing Park & Ride lot and Metrolink train station is located about 0.3 miles to the southeast from Apex Laguna Niguel, along Forbes N'.\42=2204T14-The Bowery, Santa Ma ,.ftk274 The Wam RedhillR RedSQt—.QZC,mat Plan 08-05-2020. doer Jeremy Ogulnick August 5, 2020 Page 12 Road. The adjoining land uses to Apex Laguna Niguel consist of mostly residential uses, with commercial uses to the east. Based on the above descriptions of six existing sites, locational and parking -related characteristics are similar and comparable to the Project (i.e., not located in a TOD/Transit-Oriented Development, with no off -site parking nearby, which can reduce on -site parking needs), with their empirical parking demand ratios considered to be indicative of the Project's potential parking needs. The Project will be providing a supply of 2,200 spaces, which, when divided by 1,100 dwelling units, corresponds to a parking supply ratio of 2.0 spaces per dwelling unit, inclusive of 163 "car lift" spaces. This supply ratio is greater than the empirical ratios from the six comparable sites most similar to the Project and helps validate adequacy of parking for the Project. Residential Component Parking Supply Based on review of Table 1, parking for the residential component of the Project will be primarily provided via structured parking, plus two (2) surface stalls. As shown, a total of 1,918 "lst access" spaces will be provided, which will be supplemented by an additional 117 "2°d access (tandem)" spaces provided within the Project's parking structures, and 163 "car lift" spaces for a total supply of 2,200 stalls (1,918 + 2 + 117 + 163 = 2,200). The Project's proposed residential parking supply of 2,200 spaces allows for the provisions one parking space per bedroom, which total 1,404 bedrooms, with a remaining balance of 796 spaces that could be used to accommodate residential guest parking demand and/or additional parking demand of future residents. Project Residential Parking Supply versus Demand The bottom portion of Table 5 estimates the project's parking needs based on the application of the average, 85d' percentile, and 95d' percentile parking rates from comparable sites. For the 1,100 units as now proposed, it is estimated that the average demand would be 1,518 spaces, the 85d' percentile demand would be 1,628 spaces, and the 95d' percentile demand would be 1,771 spaces. Comparing the 95d' percentile demand of 1,771 spaces against the proposed supply of 2,200 spaces yields a surplus of 429 spaces. Given these results, we conclude that the proposed residential parking supply of 2,200 spaces is more than adequate and will satisfy the Project's residential parking demands. To maintain adequate parking supply at all times, it is recommended that a Parking Management Plan (PMP) be implemented to ensure parking is available for all users, inclusive of determining, based on the actual needs of the Project, and when the use of "car lifts" would be necessary in the future. N'.\42=2204T14-The Bowery, Santa Ma ,.ftk274 The Wam RedhillR RedSANd029L,mat Plan 08-05-2020. doer W , 01. -1 BUILDING D I��Jf tl ��`®17- L tIF CLUB 'BIKE STOR - FITNESS LEASIN MAIL A�All �_ -; -- -_` LEAS •nI s CLUB ROOM ri ? y jJ�� MAIL ` L L RETAIL RETAIL RETAIL ` �y� RETAIL �.- . uv Dki RETAIL tt �. RED HILL AVE. Jeremy Ogulnick August 5, 2020 Page 13 PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN (PMP) To ensure adequate parking is provided for both tenants, employees and guests of the Project, it is recommended that when the Property Owner and/or Property Management Company deems it necessary, the following key Parking Management Strategies be implemented by the Property Owner and/or Property Management Company: PMP Measures The following measures are available to the Project to mitigate any parking impacts or deficiencies in the event the proposed onsite parking supply is determined to be greater than what is provided. Retail/Commercial Component 1. The Property Owner/Property Management Company will work with tenants of the retail center to implement an employee parking program, with the goal of providing convenient and accessible shopping experience for the customers of the retail center and to leave the most desirable parking spaces within the parking structure for use by customers. The location of designated employee parking spaces will be developed in collaboration between Property Owner/Property Management Company and the tenants. The employee parking spaces will be identified with a white or yellow circle. It is noted that these spaces will be open for customer use. 2. The Property Owner/Property Management Company will work with tenants of the retail center to identify the need for "short term/time restricted spaces" on an as need basis, dependent on the needs of the proposed retail and/or food use. These short term spaces will most likely be designated in the surface parking that is located directly in front of Building C. The short-term spaces may be used for "curbside/take out" and/or for service retail -type users. The number and location of spaces will be determined by Property Owner/Property Management Company and the potential tenants. 3. If the Property Owner/Property Management Company determines additional parking is needed to meet the parking requirements of the retail/commercial component of the Project the Property Owner/Property Management Company shall implement a valet/valet assist program to accommodate up to 49 spaces. The hours of operation of the valet/valet assist program will be determined by the Property Owner/Property Management Company, and subject to actual demand, may include weekday weekends, between the period 11:00 AM and 2:00 PM and 4:00 PM to 10:00 PM, to enhance the customer experience accommodate the "lunch time" and "dinner" crowd of the proposed restaurant/food uses. N'.\42M2204D4-The Bowery, Santa Ma ,.ftk274 The Wam Redhill RevlSedWt—.,02ufk Ma,mat Plan 08-05-2020. doer Jeremy Ogulnick August 5, 2020 Page 14 4. To implement the valet operation, the Property Owner/Property Management Company would engage the services of a well -established valet operations company to develop a detailed plan that would include drop-off and pick-up locations. It is our understanding that Parking Concepts, Inc. has been engaged to assist the Property Owner/Property Management Company team in developing a valet parking operation plan for the Project. Figures 10, 11, 12 and 13 presents the location of the 61 valet/valet assist spaces, as well as 12 2°d access (tandem) spaces. Residential Component 5. The Property Owner/Property Management Company shall assign one (1) parking space to every unit. Additional spaces may be assigned to any unit that requests additional assigned spaces dependent on the number of bedrooms provided within said unit. The 2"d access/tandem spaces should be assigned to two -bedroom and three -bedroom units. The Property Owner/Property Management Company shall determine the allocation of parking spaces for resident tenants and location of guest parking spaces, inclusive of spaces designated and signed for prospective resident tenants. 6. Relative to the provision/installation of vehicle lifts, the Property Owner/Property Management Company shall install up to 163 vehicle lifts. Figure 10, 11, 12 and 13 presents the location for vehicle lifts. The Property Owner/Property Management Company will assign 15 lift spaces to the three -bedroom units and 148 lift spaces to the two -bedroom units. 7. The Property Owner/Property Management Company, if deemed necessary, may allow resident guest to utilize the valet program identified in Measure No. 5, as an enhanced service. To implement the valet operation, the Property Owner/Property Management Company would engage the services of a well -established valet operations company, similar to PMP measure No. 3. Retail/Commercial & Residential Component 8. The parking conditions for the Project will be reviewed/monitored on a quarterly basis by the Property Owner/Property Management Company and appropriate actions detailed above will be taken to ensure that the necessary PMP measures are being implemented. 9. The Property Owner and/or Property Management Company will install "car lifts" to accommodate resident parking demand to achieve a desired parking ratio of 2.0 spaces per unit per the direction of the City. X'420=204T14-Th.B,.a , Santa Ma�,.r 4274 The Wama Redhill R Red5Qt dfR2&anagenaat Plan 08-05-2020.dou Jeremy Ogulnick August 5, 2020 Page 15 Through this monitoring and cooperation with the residents and tenants as a result of the quarterly review/monitoring, a partnership will be formed to ensure that residential tenants and retail employees and Management Company personnel on the property work together to ensure adequate parking is available. CONCLUSIONS Review of the above information shows that the proposed Project provides adequate parking to accommodate the needs of the retail/commercial users, where the parking supply is established via application of 5 spaces per 1000 SF, and residential users independently of each other, which is calculated at 2.0 spaces per unit. The results of the shared parking analysis indicate that the Project's proposed mix of retail/commercial and restaurant uses have a peak demand of 360 spaces. With a proposed parking supply of 400 spaces, a minimum surplus of 40 spaces is forecast. For the Project's residential component, the Project has the ability to implement a PMP via the use of valet/valet assist, assignment of tandem stalls for specific units, plus the use of vehicular lifts to maintain adequate parking for all users of the Project. As noted earlier, the Project could provide an additional 280 spaces for the residents, via 117 2nd access (tandem) stalls and163 car lift spaces if it were deemed necessary, thus resulting a parking rate of 2.0 spaces per unit as required by the City. * r * r * r * r * r We appreciate the opportunity to provide this analysis for RHW Holdings, LLC and the City of Santa Ana. Should you have any questions, please call us at 949.825.6175. Respectively submitted, Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers OFESS? c3� _ C�- Na. 2006 Richard E. Barretto, P.E. 3021 Principal 9h TPZAiFIC� Attachments cc: Shane Green, P.E., Senior Transportation Engineer N'.A420=204T14-TheB..a , Santa Ma�,.r 4274 The Wama Redhill R RedKNdManagenaat Plan 08-05-2020.dou C a Z a W Gl. a R� wa v J W o a) w O of al ow aof w O a w U 0 J a U N O z 75C-831 saluoniaa OZOZ-£1-11 1£:91:Z1 111 6e1"£-1 1111\6ap\-uo oleos 'RNaMN all - ILZbOZZ\OOZI\:u e z � Abby �♦''. �J z 0e ti BPI . s bb • �sivi��l 1 • l�Ifsf• � �d. � ,� ��! pry ; v .. Illlel 1111121111...: I lvw Ell* ♦♦ i .Li. Ilir LI 111 ioisiaa r • ,,,, C W z • LLI� �� 'w -0 LL • J cU ALL C •D d ® N cc e M31AH17V cr) (1 d Z � a w �< rD NN �_ V W J 1-4 dLd Iw of oLd Iw z of Iw 0 w } 0 Y u a 0 7 N f u w J Q U N O z 75C-832 saluonLaa OZOZ-£1-11 L£: LIZL 111 6e1"L-1 1111\6ar\-uo oleos 'NamN all - bLZbOZZ\"Zl\:u bv. 7 Ld1�ed 6 1 m R pr c n E J bko `+ ® 4 {� `ay i` O' » `y,d am0 O r ut it 7 `6 V 1 yu 3d o 76 oro Co- 1 L GLand AVE i- 1 LL W O � i#e/!'!� �y � l� Q »U •- e *f2,V m Cl, O V L c m ao K �� U W U CNw6i ��gg� µ, I a < W -&IVp9V9 - .—Ro.lfi Wa.G[. —•..� J--�® Ons © r T v u vl C IS+YIanW W ry 1 13 4 � p 1 Maln 6mwl a �tloln ` � E m �_ n° so�ai a m Z �� 3 •..v_.a a E t a m Y p 4 GGrnury 9� t: 1• � Q� V M b� 6 .._� Y d� 4 g e 3 MfVYO0iM3 r S �? O � O � a i SFlawp S[ 5Flgxeer Sl y+ g 5FI°W�St— -.—� p 75C-833 saIuoniaa OZOZ-91-*0 ZZ:LS:60 d0l 6eV"S-1 VLZIV-P\-uo o1-o 'RNaMN all - ILZbOZZ\00Z6\.0 a 0 N C N � C J Y N Y_ m m 0 _ N v N v ap N .5 d 0 m V I cm cr v I'P^IB XX;JeH L �is ado4 '35 .w IS IC 1S ma ']s uesns 75C-834 saryomaa OLOL-91-11 SS:LOgR 111 6e1"9-1 1111\6ap\-uo o1-o 'NaMN all - bLll,lz\OOZb\:u N u N �O u O2! r doe stiff in m 'm ba A3HDIld a u A O�� J P� G O w /a w �b C N33aEa3n3 a 8VC13O .a m OADIH a p .kVUVIIVH ti VIVO O V NOS1104 V a N 0 W w C, Z 3iussnoa 3ldVW J m 3oNvao � J SS3adnO O J tt U W � N = a � Z � a � J 75C-835 saluoniaa OZOZ-91-11 10:60:01 111 6e1"1-1 IL11\6ap\-uo oleos 'RNaMN all - ILZbOZZ\OOZb\:u 41 !F fir` ti �;• ■ i 0 ffi ■ i G r Ir TW �!16 1 1 L 75C-836 12 II I K II / 12 III§ § 1§ II a l < ^ Ia. II ¥ :II „ - § a II U2 S, . G II I G II / II , - > II \\\;\\ g II � » -- < % r § II II ® ~ - I II I II } saaedSjojaqwnN 75C- 27 saIuoniaa OZOZ-90-90 99:01:b1 d0l 6eV"6-1 VLZIV-P\-uo o1-o 'RNaaea all - ILZbOZZ\OOZI\.0 I I W Zw �o m I < I I aLO I l a I < I I J d m I< I I a o P Nm I I n M m11 n m o N < < NI J a a o M o a ry e I I gl D a z �m LI < I I LoI < LO <I a I I JI C, GI I II a F=I �I I I o m al d m I I oMa��e NI I I o a z a N YI I I <1 I Io 00 tiao a1 I I of I I =ry Qo I I I 0 ¢ y I II I II I II 0 _ V z swed5;o jagwnN • • • • V.' Q � a w O < � as v J W cl wcr Ai C7 Of W z Z S� of W a� Wz W 75C-838 sax�otiao ozoz...... 6MP'ol—: aczaV6^^PAD,os ,vaMOP aPa — ncznozzVoozeV� T ... .EN :: 3 .... co ru-il 11�111111 IIICIII III I�i I'nl> ='�, ,I I I I11 �I, I I I1 ..... x . ...� .. ... ......... `� IIIIIIII II 'Ill 111 lll�. n :I 6111111�ril plll�ll IIII � I (I IIII III III�III�I ,III � rll Ill I1111�110]QQ�Q�QY�10 moo- 11111'I ll`Il lj ;r�'ijl lllr° J ,: 1i111111Iii1110�00100 III1111III III II I�IIIi.� �'.:111111.❑-I IIII 1,111111 -::�. �� IIIIIIII 11'. J I I I11' N ..........................�III.. � � ll I,I I I,I I I,I I I I lil 11111�^ II III III II IIIIII 3 - N IIIIIIII„II IIIIII C4 �� a � I I� J Ies� a J.... ........ +x 4 W mm��m m, :( II III'Ill 11 ijlil lll,I�I III'`y� I�-"II'III III IIfll 11 llel'�, J � _:111�111)ijt 1,111;4,�1 I I IJI 11 ° MO O OD ............................. . O N O _...........:......................... N h O M YI C'l 4 =. •• - •I illl'lliljl �lll�il�l�'iMli _� _ W 'IIjIII�I II�IIIQIII III°IY1�I11 ��' W F y ° cc \ a u G J n W W93y �ay V 111111,.. I, IIII IIIIII 93 H O G d Q=z OVU Ing Q II,III,I11,11�111,1 II;��'!yY 3 m m U V J�+a �Z O w! w Q Z Z Q r W r00 mil= L �II II I�I II'lll 111111�1�1�111 �' w 2 W J U N W > c I I FP 'ICI I111111111�1 III Go ;I IICIIIfI l�lil ltll lh.-_II'iV I U 1 J IM I Is 1111111 Ill I III III' W Ilwlrau C11_I,Ill,hl l; is 1111'�-��u LII I11111 ,I11111111 I11111 —, .... I II111) 11111 I, II Ills J IllI P C0� N N n J J W am u �VI�a< F W H F ti Z O y H N Q °�Y IS Ei Q vy v O azi a LU = z U U ; z W J oaQ J F W �c � OL OC K I I fief YII ..........: ]III,I I 1pDopEgAD Ill I1111111 I"IIICI II�III ..............eo..) l I I I I I I I I I I I Ivl I I� ���I 11_I I Ilpl I I'I I Ijl I ICI I I"..� o_ 0 OD J W W 10 -o.,,,l.I IJIII,111!,1II,I I1�1If;'!:`-"f J J - �IILIII�IIL�JJ I,I II� _`� co J W Q I 1 - II 1111,11I I I I,I I I II I, J J *.i11 ill] 1 I L I I I]III I 1 1:1 111 �II6111,111 III III � _ � I If III.III III;I II', i — II 1111, 111 ................IIII,.III sax�otiao ozoz—so—so 6MP'zI aczaV6^^PAD,os ,zaMOP aPa — ncznozzVoozeV� ���I 'yFo............................�•.. III IIIIII I11 III 'I i�i � 1�[ - -.. ....... ....... _ U I,I I L,I 11,1it 111 11:1 16 ,:i I�III IIIIII - 111`I I Ili 1ill 11 11111 I I � I11111,111 I I I,II I € _I :I'lll lll`I= Z —00=IIIIIII I'I III= _ �� _ I11„�i,. l,llllll,lll; — IIIIIIII I II III II = �E u �j`� '�I I,IIla111a 11�1 �'e; � �`uJ lllnllllll lllnlllr���� I Il ll.l11lll.11ll - 3N11 Atl3N9 p. - : . i�-IILIII IIII II,III n J -;111.11 I:I 11e11111p 1111, .,! _ .............. ...... .......... �I:a•'- w� � ^ d n � -_ 'III°IIIIII I II11 I�rin - _ n — •� .........................- W �111 I I-1,1111 IQ I I[I 11�1 J LU y ee Q I� � y L 4 U W J H � : K + LJ Ky F=H F QF II IQlll ZN ................................ Q� Y ZO �> Q Q _ II,I I,I I I,!I ( I I I III I I _ 3 d azz JQ o _. III III (III II II J f f� F W V U IrIll I I,I I Iel 1 1 l'� w F W W Q Q W OC Y. r lea K 1 I YY RAI �Z,z —waz I P\�:w-, 2 ` \) } )\ \:\` t 2 'o Im \ ) \ LU . �\ LU \ j\ LU_ °° jk | � 5 N N A d a b0 O �' AM !� � � � •� tw/] N � � M O CL vt UNU �O NU �O c°1i Sy b NU o0 NU M aUNUi cNc�� chi Sy •„ u p. [� won a 8 .� '� .� ,� •cs � � � °�' � � � � � � p ti � N I � � U �❑{ c� yy N � I •� � p a •` � � U � N O � ti Pr b F4 P6� A N d b 0 O O O TABLE 2 WEEKDAY COMMERCIAL SHARED PARKING DEMAND SUMMARY [1] THE WARNER-REDHILL, SANTA ANA Land Use Retail Fine/Casual Dining Family Restmrrant Health Club Shared Parking Demand Comparison w/ Parking Supply 400 Spaces Site Pkg Rate[2] 38.000 KSF 5 /KSF 10.000 KSF 8 /KSF 20.000 KSF 8 /KSF 6.000 KSF 5.55 /KSF Gross Spaces 190 Spa 80 Spa 160 Spc. 33 Spc. TimeofDay Number of Spaces Number of Spaces Number of Spaces Number of Spaces Surplus (Deficiency) 6:00 AM 5 0 32 23 60 340 7:00 AM 1 13 2 58 1 13 86 314 8:00 AM 33 5 69 13 120 280 9:00 AM 72 8 $3 23 186 214 10:00 AM 114 20 94 23 251 149 11:00 AM 144 33 98 26 301 99 12:00 PM 158 54 107 20 339 61 1:00 PM 164 54 98 23 339 61 2:00 PM 158 48 62 23 291 109 3:00 PM 151 31 54 23 259 141 4:00 PM 151 37 54 26 268 132 5:00 PM 157 55 84 29 325 75 6:00 PM 157 66 88 31 342 58 7:00 PM 157 69 88 29 343 57 8:00 PM 135 69 88 25 317 83 9:00 PM 91 69 68 21 249 151 10:00 PM 52 66 61 10 189 211 11:00 PM 18 53 57 3 131 269 12:00 AM 0 1 19 30 0 1 49 1 351 = Green highlighted represents morning peak parking demand how = Blue highlighted represents afternoon peak parking demand hour = YellowBOLD highlighted represents owrall / awning peak parking demand hour Notes: [1] Source: ULI-Urban Land Institute Shared Parking," Second Edition, 2005. [2] Parking rates for all lead uses based on City Code. N'.A420=204274-TheBoway, Santa Ana�,.r4274 The Wama Redhill R RedKlmQ4.4Managenaat Plan 08-05-2020.dou TABLE 3 WEEKEND COMMERCIAL SHARED PARKING DEMAND SUMMARY [1] THE WARNER-REDHILL, SANTA ANA Land Use Retail Fine/Casual Dining Family Restmrrant Health Club Shared Parking Demand Comparison w/ Parking Supply 400 Spaces Site Pkg Rate[2] 38.000 KSF 5 /KSF 10.000 KSF 8 /KSF 20.000 KSF 8 /KSF 6.000 KSF 5.55 /KSF Gross Spaces 190 Spa 80 Spa 160 Spc. 33 Spc. TimeofDay Number of Spaces Number of Spaces Number of Spaces Number of Spaces Surplus (Deficiency) 6:00 AM 6 0 25 20 51 349 7:00 AM 1 14 2 50 1 11 77 323 8:00 AM 29 4 80 9 122 278 9:00 AM 73 7 112 12 204 196 10:00 AM 104 9 140 9 262 138 11:00 AM 130 19 140 12 301 99 12:00 PM 154 41 153 12 360 40 1:00 PM 168 44 134 8 354 46 2:00 PM 182 38 108 7 335 65 3:00 PM 182 38 69 8 297 103 4:00 PM 175 38 76 14 303 97 5:00 PM 166 51 101 26 344 56 6:00 PM 148 70 113 25 356 44 7:00 PM 138 74 113 16 341 59 8:00 PM 123 77 107 8 315 85 9:00 PM 97 70 58 3 228 172 10:00 PM 67 70 48 0 185 215 11:00 PM 28 68 35 0 131 269 12:00 AM 0 1 38 21 0 1 59 1 341 NIL= Green highlighted represents morning peak parking demand hour = Blue BOLD highlighted represents overall / afternoon peak parking demand hour = Yellow highlighted represents awning peak parking demand hour Notes: [1] Source: ULI - Urban Landlnstituta'Shared Parking," Second Edition, 2005. [2] Parking rates for all lead uses based on City Code. N'.A420=204274-TheBoway, Santa Ana�,.r4274 The Wama Redhill R Red5QtudQ49Lagenaat Plan 08-05-2020.dou TABLE 4 CITY CODE PARKING REQUIREMENT AND COMPOSITE PARKING SUPPLY RATIOS3 THE WARNER-REDHILL, SANTA ANA No. Of No. Of City of Santa Ana Code Parking Spaces Land Use / Project Description Units Bedrooms Requirement Required The Warner-Redhill Apartments o No. of Units 1,100 -- 1 space per unit 1,100 o Studio Units 211 211 1 space per bedroom 211 0 1 Bedroom Units 600 600 1 space per bedroom 600 0 2 Bedroom Units 274 548 1 space per bedroom 548 0 3 Bedroom Units 15 45 1 space per bedroom 45 Total 1,100 1,404 2,504 Guest parking -- -- 25% of total parking required 626 (2,513 x 0.25) A. Total Parking Code Requirement: 3,130 B. Proposed Parking Supply — Constructed: 1,920 C. Proposed 2°a Access (Tandem) Supply 117 D. Proposed "Car Lift" Supply 163 E. Total Proposed Parking Supply [Row B +Row C + Row D] 2,200 F. Parking Surplus/Deficiency (+/-) [Row D — Row A] -930 G. Residential Use Code Composite Parking Demand Ratio (sp/du) [Row A +total DU] 2.85 H. Project "Constructed" Parking Supply Ratio (sp/du) [Row B + total DU] 1.75 I. Project Parking Supply Ratio with 2na Access Stall (sp/du) [(Row B + Row C) +total DU] 1.85 J. Total Project Parking Supply Ratio (sp/du) [Row E =total DU] 2.0 3 Source: City of Santa Ana Municipal Code, Section 41-]�/J��!CCZZ]7/�'�,1ltip fi(//aay�y�p111�lcn]Il�y] dwellings. N'.\420N2204T14- The Bowery, Santa Mai ,Pr 4274The Wama Redhill RevRed 1Tk'T�SNd Pal kl anagemaR Plan 08-05-2020. dots TABLE S COMPARATIVE PARKING RATIO SUMMARY AND DEMAND THE WARNER-REDH ILL, SANTA ANA Recent &Guert Recent &Guert Peak Parking Saturday Ratio- Daytime Peak Parking Sp aces per DU Parking Ratio Dom arableSite city, Address Develo ecent Surcroany Fautity Parking Supply Raul Surposs, Period TeakHourd Weak1bourd Anton Residential Cosa 580 Anton 250 Unit Luxury Apartments 438 Spaces L]5 1 Md-Rise Building Mesa Boulevard170 802 Bedroom Units Structure -Residents -330sp. — _ (Peak How N/A) _ Stub o/l Bedroom Units •Guests -108 481 Unit Apartments 1,020 Spaces 2 Main Street Irvine 2555 Main• 2651 Bedroom Units Struc0re •Residents-841sp. _ Wednesday& Thursday 142 Village[a] Street • 2002 Bedroom Units .Public/Guests-173sp. 1OPM-12AM 12.00AM) • 16 3 Bedroom Units 239 Unit Apartments 3 239 Unit Complex Irvine • 2 Studio Units Gated 600 Spaces _ Tuesday 136 Up • 1621 Bedroom Units Struc0re 6PM-1AM Dead Hour NIA) • 115 2 Bedroom Units 403 Unit Complex 403 Unit Apartments Gated Tuesday 1.29 4 @] Irvine — • 3261 B edroom Units Struc0re 643Spaces — 6PM-1AM Dead Hour NIA) -T 2 Bedroom Units 460 Unit Apartments Gated 5 460 Unit Complex Graeae — • 2561 Bedroom Units Structure 784Spaces _ Tuesday 14 Up • 2042 Bedroom Units Gated 6PM-1AM Dead HourNIA) Surface Lot Unit Complex 183 Unit Apartments Gated it 6183 [bl Fullerton — • 1291 Bedroom Units Residential 223 Residential Spaces Yes _ (Peak Hour N/A) _ • 542 B edroom Units Struc0re 250 Unit Complex 250 Unit Apartments Gated 094 [bl Santa Ana — • 1081 Bedroom Units Residential 453 Residential Spaces Yes _ (Peak Hour N/A) •1452-3 Bedroom Units Struc0re 700S. 163 Unit Apartments Surface Lot, 404 Spaces 8 Paragon at Old Moruoma Myrtle • 821 Bedroom Units On Street •Residents-329sp. — Wednesday&Thursday 148 Towv [a] Avenue • 813 Bedroom Units Parking •Public/Guests -75sp 6PM-12AM (ph 11.00 PM) N 304 Unit Apartments44 Surface Lot, 480 Spaces 9 Trio Apartments•46 Pasadena MadAvenue Studio Unity On et -Residents -450sp. — WeMesday&Thursday 1 22 [z] Avenue 1411 Bedroom Units Padding Parking -Public/Guests -30 H. 1OPM-12AM ((Al2.00 AM) 1132 Bedroom Units 512 Spaces Wednesday he Thursday 0 57 10 the Mission 2660Oro 256 Unit Apartments Garage • Rblic/Guestsdents — "]PM-2AM 145 m (V 200 PM&400 Green [d] Green[d] Vi jo parkway Surface Lot Saturday: 12PM-RPM, (@12.00AM) Public/Guests H. 88 "]PM-2AM PM) 28100 142 Unit Apartments 294Spaces Wednesday he Thursday 11 Skye at Laguna Laguna (A. but •Y11 Bedroom Units Garage -Residents -240 sp. _ 7PM2AM 149 1.OL Niguel [d] Niguel Road • 452 Bedroom Units •Public/Guests -54H. Saturday: l2PM-3PIvf, ((A 11.00 PM) ((A 12.00 PM) M 284 Unit Apartments 539 Spaces ThursdayApex 12Niguel[d] Laguna Laguna CabotZ1960 32 Studio Unity Garage •Residents-461sp. —M-RPM, AM rwdal 128 113 Niguel Road Road 1611 Bedroom Units -"]8H. (@2OOAM) (�3.00PRO 912BedroomUnits•PublidGuesn AM Average: 1.35 85tb Percentile: 1.48 95tb Pereatile: 1.61. Additional Parking Ratio References: ITE Parting Generation, 4m Edition High -Rise Apartment Average: 0.98 85tb Percentile: 1.19 ULI Shored Porkeng. Penitential (Sexist) Units 1.65 Field Studies in Ontario and Rancho Cucamonga[c] 1.58-1.66 American Community Survey (ACS) in Ontario [c] 1.62 Household Stave s in San Bemardino and Riversides 145 Parking Calculation Using Empirical Rates Above G100 DU's for the The Bowery) Average Demand (1.35 x 1100 DUh: 1518 85tb Percentile Demand (1A8 x 1100 DUh: 1628 95tb Percentile Demand 1.61 x 1100 DUs :. 1991 Notes [a] Source Parting Dernond Anoly—for the Proposed RAh Avenue/Xunnngron Drina tL6xed-Use Project Cry ofMonrowq Cohforniq prepared by LLQ Oct 2012 Up Source Parting SmdyforAMLL Orange AparmentProject, prepared by MI Group, Nov. 2012 [c] Source Parting Reform Made Posy, Richard W. Willson, 2013 [d] Source Counts collected by LLG on December 2016. 75C-847 APPENMA ULI SHARED PARKING CALCULATION WORKSHEETS 75C-848 Appendix Table 1A SHOPPING CENTER (TYPICAL DAYS) WEEKDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [11 Land Use Shopping Center (Typical Days) Size Pkg Rate[2] 38.000 KSF 5 /KSF Mode Adjust Non -Captive Ratio 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Gross Spaces 190 Spaces Shared 153 Guest Spc. 37 Emp. Spc. Time of Day %Of Peak [31 #Of Spaces %Of Peak [31 #Of Spaces Parking Demand 6:00 AM 1% 2 9% 3 5 7:00 AM 5% 8 14% 5 13 8:00 AM 14% 20 36% 13 33 9:00 AM 32% 47 68% 25 72 10:00 AM 59% 86 77% 28 114 11:00 AM 77% 112 86% 32 144 12:00 PM 86% 125 90% 33 158 1:00 PM 90% 131 90% 33 164 2:00 PM 86% 125 90% 33 158 3:00 PM 81% 118 90% 33 151 4:00 PM 81% 118 90% 33 151 5:00 PM 86% 125 86% 32 157 6:00 PM 86% 125 86% 32 157 7:00 PM 86% 125 86% 32 157 8:00 PM 72% 105 81% 30 135 9:00 PM 45% 66 68% 25 91 10:00 PM 27% 39 36% 13 52 11:00 PM 9% 13 14% 5 18 12:00 AM 0% 0 0% 0 0 Notes: [1] Source: ULI- Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking" Second Edition, 2005. [2] Parking rates for all land uses based on City code. [3] Percentage of peak parking demand factors reflect relationships between weekday parking demand ratios and peak parking demand ratios, as summarized in Table 2-2 of the 'Shared Parking" manual. 75C-849 Appendix Table 2A SHOPPING CENTER (TYPICAL DAYS) WEEKEND SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [11 Land Use Shopping Center (Typical Days) Size Pkg Rate[2] 38.000 KSF 5 /KSF Mode Adjust Non -Captive Ratio 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Gross Spaces 190 Spaces Shared 152 Guest Spc. 38 Emp. Spc. Time of Day %Of Peak [31 #Of Spaces %Of Peak [31 #Of Spaces Parking Demand 6:00 AM 1% 2 10% 4 6 7:00 AM 5% 8 15% 6 14 8:00 AM 10% 14 40% 15 29 9:00 AM 30% 44 75% 29 73 10:00 AM 50% 72 85% 32 104 11:00 AM 65% 94 95% 36 130 12:00 PM 80% 116 100% 38 154 1:00 PM 90% 130 100% 38 168 2:00 PM 100% 144 100% 38 182 3:00 PM 100% 144 100% 38 182 4:00 PM 95% 137 100°% 38 175 5:00 PM 90% 130 95% 36 166 6:00 PM 80% 116 85% 32 148 7:00 PM 75% 108 80% 30 138 8:00 PM 65% 94 75% 29 123 9:00 PM 50% 72 65% 25 97 10:00 PM 35% 50 45% 17 67 11:00 PM 15% 22 15% 6 28 12:00 AM 0% 0 0% 0 0 Notes: [1] Source: ULI- Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking" Second Edition, 2005. [2] Parking rates for all land uses based on City code. [3] Percentage of peak parking demand factors reflect relationships between weekday parking demand ratios and peak parking demand ratios, as summarized in Table 2-2 of the 'Shared Parking" manual. 75C-850 Appendix Table 3A FINEICASUAL DINING WEEKDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [11 Land Use Fine/Casual Dining Size Pkg Rate[2] 10.000 KSF 8 /KSF Mode Adjust Non -Captive Ratio 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Gross Spaces 80 Spaces Shared 68 Guest Spc. 12 Emp. Spc. Time of Day %Of Peak [3] #Of Spaces %Of Peak [3] #Of Spaces Parking Demand 6:00 AM 0% 0 0% 0 0 7:00 AM 0% 0 18% 2 2 8:00 AM 0% 0 45% 5 5 9:00 AM 0% 0 68% 8 8 10:00 AM 14% 10 81% 10 20 11:00 AM 36% 23 81% 10 33 12:00 PM 68% 44 81% 10 54 1:00 PM 68% 44 81% 10 54 2:00 PM 59% 38 81% 10 48 3:00 PM 36% 23 68% 8 31 4:00 PM 45% 29 68% 8 37 5:00 PM 68% 44 90% 11 55 6:00 PM 86% 55 90% 11 66 7:00 PM 90% 58 90% 11 69 8:00 PM 90% 58 90% 11 69 9:00 PM 90% 58 90% 11 69 10:00 PM 86% 55 90% 11 66 11:00 PM 68% 44 77% 9 53 12:00 AM 23% 15 32% 4 19 Notes: [1] Source: ULI- Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking" Second Edition, 2005. [2] Parking rates for all land uses based on City code. [3] Percentage of peak parking demand factors reflect relationships between weekday parking demand ratios and peak parking demand ratios, as summarized in Table 2-2 of the 'Shared Parking" manual. 75C-851 Appendix Table 4A FINEICASUAL DINING WEEKEND SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [11 Land Use Fine/Casual Dining Size Pkg Rate[2] 10.000 KSF 8 /KSF Mode Adjust Non -Captive Ratio 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Gross Spaces 80 Spaces Shared 68 Guest Spc. 12 Emp. Spc. Time of Day %Of Peak [3] #Of Spaces %Of Peak [3] #Of Spaces Parking Demand 6:00 AM 0% 0 0% 0 0 7:00 AM 0% 0 20% 2 2 8:00 AM 0% 0 30% 4 4 9:00 AM 0% 0 60% 7 7 10:00 AM 0% 0 75% 9 9 11:00 AM 15% 10 75% 9 19 12:00 PM 50% 32 75% 9 41 1:00 PM 55% 35 75% 9 44 2:00 PM 45% 29 75% 9 38 3:00 PM 45% 29 75% 9 38 4:00 PM 45% 29 75% 9 38 5:00 PM 60% 39 100% 12 51 6:00 PM 90% 58 100% 12 70 7:00 PM 95% 62 100% 12 74 8:00 PM 100% 65 100% 12 77 9:00 PM 90% 58 100% 12 70 10:00 PM 90% 58 100% 12 70 11:00 PM 90% 58 85% 10 68 12:00 AM 50% 32 50% 6 38 Notes: [1] Source: ULI- Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking" Second Edition, 2005. [2] Parking rates for all land uses based on City code. [3] Percentage of peak parking demand factors reflect relationships between weekday parking demand ratios and peak parking demand ratios, as summarized in Table 2-2 of the 'Shared Parking" manual. 75C-852 Appendix Table 5A FAMILY RESTAURANT WEEKDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [11 Land Use Family Restaurant Size Pkg Rate[2] 20.000 KSF 8 /KSF Mode Adjust Non -Captive Ratio 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Gross Spaces 160 Spaces Shared 137 Guest Spc. 23 Emp. Spc. Time of Day %Of Peak [31 #Of Spaces %Of Peak [31 #Of Spaces Parking Demand 6:00 AM 18% 24 35% 8 32 7:00 AM 35% 46 53% 12 58 8:00 AM 42% 55 63% 14 69 9:00 AM 53% 69 63% 14 83 10:00 AM 60% 78 70% 16 94 11:00 AM 63% 82 70% 16 98 12:00 PM 70% 91 70% 16 107 1:00 PM 63% 82 70% 16 98 2:00 PM 35% 46 70% 16 62 3:00 PM 32% 42 53% 12 54 4:00 PM 32% 42 53% 12 54 5:00 PM 53% 69 67% 15 84 6:00 PM 56% 73 67% 15 88 7:00 PM 56% 73 67% 15 88 8:00 PM 56% 73 67% 15 88 9:00 PM 42% 55 56% 13 68 10:00 PM 39% 50 46% 11 61 11:00 PM 35% 46 46% 11 57 12:00 AM 18% 24 25% 6 30 Notes: [1] Source: ULI- Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking" Second Edition, 2005. [2] Parking rates for all land uses based on City code. [3] Percentage of peak parking demand factors reflect relationships between weekday parking demand ratios and peak parking demand ratios, as summarized in Table 2-2 of the 'Shared Parking" manual. 75C-853 Appendix Table 6A FAMILY RESTAURANT WEEKEND SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [11 Land Use Family Restaurant Size Pkg Rate[2] 20.000 KSF 8 /KSF Mode Adjust Non -Captive Ratio 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Gross Spaces 160 Spaces Shared 136 Guest Spc. 24 Emp. Spc. Time of Day %Of Peak [31 #Of Spaces %Of Peak [31 #Of Spaces Parking Demand 6:00 AM 10% 13 50% 12 25 7:00 AM 25% 32 75% 18 50 8:00 AM 45% 58 90% 22 80 9:00 AM 70% 90 90% 22 112 10:00 AM 90% 116 100% 24 140 11:00 AM 90% 116 100% 24 140 12:00 PM 100% 129 100% 24 153 1:00 PM 85% 110 100% 24 134 2:00 PM 65% 84 100% 24 108 3:00 PM 40% 51 75% 18 69 4:00 PM 45% 58 75% 18 76 5:00 PM 60% 78 95% 23 101 6:00 PM 70% 90 95% 23 113 7:00 PM 70% 90 95% 23 113 8:00 PM 65% 84 95% 23 107 9:00 PM 30% 39 80% 19 58 10:00 PM 25% 32 65% 16 48 11:00 PM 15% 19 65% 16 35 12:00 AM 10% 13 35% 8 21 Notes: [1] Source: ULI- Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking" Second Edition, 2005. [2] Parking rates for all land uses based on City code. [3] Percentage of peak parking demand factors reflect relationships between weekday parking demand ratios and peak parking demand ratios, as summarized in Table 2-2 of the 'Shared Parking" manual. 75C-854 Appendix Table 7A HEALTH CLUB WEEKDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [11 Land Use Health Club Size Pkg Rate[2] 6.000 KSF 6 /KSF Mode Adjust Non -Captive Ratio 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Gross Spaces 33 Spaces Shared 31 Guest Spc. 2 Emp.Spc. Time of Day %Of Peak [31 #Of Spaces %Of Peak [31 #Of Spaces Parking Demand 6:00 AM 70% 21 75% 2 23 7:00 AM 40% 11 75% 2 13 8:00 AM 40% 11 75% 2 13 9:00 AM 70% 21 75% 2 23 10:00 AM 70% 21 75% 2 23 11:00 AM 80% 24 75% 2 26 12:00 PM 60% 18 75% 2 20 1:00 PM 70% 21 75% 2 23 2:00 PM 70% 21 75% 2 23 3:00 PM 70% 21 75% 2 23 4:00 PM 80% 24 75% 2 26 5:00 PM 90% 27 100% 2 29 6:00 PM 100% 29 100% 2 31 7:00 PM 90% 27 75% 2 29 8:00 PM 80% 24 50% 1 25 9:00 PM 70% 21 20% 0 21 10:00 PM 35% 10 20% 0 10 11:00 PM 10% 3 20% 0 3 12:00 AM 0% 0 0% 0 0 Notes: [1] Source: ULI- Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking" Second Edition, 2005. [2] Parking rates for all land uses based on City code. [3] Percentage of peak parking demand factors reflect relationships between weekday parking demand ratios and peak parking demand ratios, as summarized in Table 2-2 of the 'Shared Parking" manual. 75C-855 Appendix Table 8A HEALTH CLUB WEEKEND SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [11 Land Use Health Club Size Pkg Rate[2] 6.000 KSF 6 /KSF Mode Adjust Non -Captive Ratio 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Gross Spaces 33 Spaces Shared 32 Guest Spc. 1 Emp.Spc. Time of Day %Of Peak [31 #Of Spaces %Of Peak [31 #Of Spaces Parking Demand 6:00 AM 66% 20 41% 0 20 7:00 AM 37% 11 41% 0 11 8:00 AM 29% 9 41% 0 9 9:00 AM 41% 12 41% 0 12 10:00 AM 29% 9 41% 0 9 11:00 AM 41% 12 41% 0 12 12:00 PM 41% 12 41% 0 12 1:00 PM 25% 8 41% 0 8 2:00 PM 21% 7 41% 0 7 3:00 PM 25% 8 41% 0 8 4:00 PM 45% 13 62% 1 14 5:00 PM 82% 25 82% 1 26 6:00 PM 78% 24 82% 1 25 7:00 PM 49% 15 62% 1 16 8:00 PM 25% 8 41% 0 8 9:00 PM 8% 3 16% 0 3 10:00 PM 1% 0 16% 0 0 11:00 PM 1% 0 16% 0 0 12:00 AM 0% 0 0% 0 0 Notes: [1] Source: ULI- Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking" Second Edition, 2005. [2] Parking rates for all land uses based on City code. [3] Percentage of peak parking demand factors reflect relationships between weekday parking demand ratios and peak parking demand ratios, as summarized in Table 2-2 of the 'Shared Parking" manual. 75C-856 Exhibit 8 A_COM Imagine d. � Delivered. Santa Ana Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Development at 2300 S. Redhill Avenue Economic and Fiscal Analysis City of Santa Ana April 28, 2020 Santa Ana Redhill Development Economics General Limiting Conditions AECOM devoted the level of effort consistent with (i) the level of diligence ordinarily exercised by competent professionals practicing in the area under the same or similar circumstances, and (ii) consistent with the time and budget available for the Services to develop the Deliverables. The Deliverables are based on estimates, assumptions, information developed by AECOM from its independent research effort, general knowledge of the industry, and information provided by and consultations with Client and Client's representatives. No responsibility is assumed for inaccuracies in data provided by the Client, the Client's representatives, or any third -party data source used in preparing or presenting the Deliverables. AECOM assumes no duty to update the information contained in the Deliverables unless such additional services are separately retained pursuant to a written agreement signed by AECOM and Client. AECOM's findings represent its professional judgment. Neither AECOM nor its parent corporations, nor their respective affiliates or subsidiaries ("AECOM Entities") make any warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, with respect to any information or methods contained in or used to produce the Deliverables. The Deliverables shall not to be used in conjunction with any public or private offering of securities, debt, equity, or other similar purpose where it may be relied upon to any degree by any person other than the Client. The Deliverables shall not be used for purposes other than those for which they were prepared or for which prior written consent has been obtained from AECOM. Possession of the Deliverables does not carry with it any right of publication or the right to use the name of 'AECOM" in any manner without the prior express written consent of AECOM. No party may reference AECOM with regard to any abstract, excerpt or summarization of the Deliverables without the prior written consent of AECOM. AECOM has served solely in the capacity of consultant and has not rendered any expert opinions in connection with the subject matter hereof. Any changes made to the Deliverables, or any use of the Deliverables not specifically identified in the Agreement between the Client and AECOM or otherwise expressly approved in writing by AECOM, shall be at the sole risk of the party making such changes or use. The Deliverables were prepared solely for the use by the Client. No third party may rely on the Deliverables unless expressly authorized by AECOM in writing (including, without limitation, in the form of a formal reliance letter. Any third party expressly authorized by AECOM in writing to rely on the Deliverables may do so only on the Deliverable in its entirety and not on any abstract, excerpt or summary. Entitlement to rely upon the Deliverables is conditioned upon the entitled party accepting full responsibility for such use, strict compliance with this Agreement and not holding AECOM liable in any way for any impacts on the forecasts or the earnings resulting from changes in "external" factors such as changes in government policy, in the pricing of commodities and materials, changes in market conditions, price levels generally, competitive alternatives to the project, the behavior of consumers or competitors and changes in the Client's policies affecting the operation of their projects. The Deliverables may include "forward -looking statements". These statements relate to AECOM's expectations, beliefs, intentions or strategies regarding the future. These statements may be identified by the use of words like "anticipate," "believe," "estimate," "expect," "intend," "may," "plan," "project," "will," "should," "seek," and similar expressions. The forward -looking statements reflect AECOM's views and assumptions with respect to future events as of the date of the Deliverables and are subject to future economic conditions, and other risks and uncertainties. Actual and future results and trends could differ materially from those set forth in such statements due to various factors, including, without limitation, those discussed in the Deliverables. These factors are beyond AECOM's ability to control or predict. Accordingly, AECOM makes no warranty or representation that any of the projected values or results contained in the Deliverables will actually occur or be achieved. The Deliverables are qualified in their entirety by, and should be considered in light of, these limitations, conditions and considerations. Prepared for: City of Santa Ana 75C_858 AECOM Santa Ana Redhill Development Prepared for: City of Santa Ana Prepared by: AECOM 401 West A Street Suite 120 San Diego, CA 92101 aecom.com Copyright© 2020 by AECOM All rights reserved. No part of this copyrighted work may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of AECOM. Prepared for: City of Santa Ana 75C-859 AECOM Santa Ana Redhill Development Table of Contents 1. Introduction........................................................................................................... 6 KeyFindings..................................................................................................................................................................6 Discussion......................................................................................................................................................................7 2. Market Assessment.............................................................................................. 8 ProjectMarket Context...................................................................................................................................................8 DemographicTrends....................................................................................................................................................10 MarketTrends..............................................................................................................................................................11 1 nd ustrial......................................................................................................................................................................12 Flex..............................................................................................................................................................................14 Multifamily....................................................................................................................................................................15 Retail............................................................................................................................................................................17 IndustrialMarket Demand............................................................................................................................................19 RetailDemand.............................................................................................................................................................21 3. Development Feasibility..................................................................................... 24 4. Economic Impact................................................................................................ 26 5. Fiscal Impact...................................................................................................... 32 Appendix A Document copies........................................................................................ 36 DevelopmentFeasibility Analysis.................................................................................................................................36 Industrial Prototype Relevant Comparisons.................................................................................................................39 ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 39 ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 39 FiscalImpact Tables..................................................................................................................................................... 40 Figures Figure 1: Market Context for the Project........................................................................................................................8 Figure 2: Recent Multifamily Development and Pipeline..............................................................................................10 Figure 3: 2-mile Radius around the proposed site of The Project ................................................................................12 Figure4: Industrial Vacancy.........................................................................................................................................12 Figure5: Industrial Vacancy.........................................................................................................................................13 Figure6: Flexy Vacancy...............................................................................................................................................14 Figure7: Flex Rent.......................................................................................................................................................14 Figure8: MFR Vacancy................................................................................................................................................15 Figure9: MFR Rent per SF..........................................................................................................................................16 Figure10: MFR Rent per Unit......................................................................................................................................16 Figure11: Retail Vacancy.............................................................................................................................................17 Figure12: Retail Rent..................................................................................................................................................18 Figure 13: Orange County Projected Growth...............................................................................................................20 Figure14: Residual Land Value...................................................................................................................................24 Figure 15: Top Sectors of Economic Impact - Project..................................................................................................30 Figure 16: Top Sectors of Economic Impact - Industrial Prototype...............................................................................31 Preparedfor'. Cityof Santa Ana 75C-860 AECOM Santa Ana Redhill Development IFI7M Table 1: Inventory and Growth in 3 Districts...................................................................................................................9 Table 2: Current Development Pipeline in 3 Districts...................................................................................................10 Table 3: Projected Household Growth..........................................................................................................................11 Table 4: Projected Employment Growth.......................................................................................................................11 Table 5: Industrial Inventory and Growth 2000-19........................................................................................................13 Table 6: Flex Inventory and Growth 2000-19...............................................................................................................15 Table 7: Multifamily Inventory and Growth 2000-19.....................................................................................................17 Table 8: Retail Inventory and Growth 2000-19.............................................................................................................18 Table9: Employment by Sector....................................................................................................................................19 Table 10: Santa Ana Projected Industrial Employment.................................................................................................21 Table 11: Retail Expenditures - Households.................................................................................................................22 Table 12: Retail Expenditures - Employees..................................................................................................................22 Table 13: Retail Expenditures - Hotels.........................................................................................................................23 Table 14: Retail Expenditures Total..............................................................................................................................23 Table 15: Residual Land Value Summary....................................................................................................................24 Table 16: Recent Sales Transactions...........................................................................................................................25 Table 17: Project Construction Economic Impacts.......................................................................................................26 Table 18: Industrial Prototype Construction Economic Impacts...................................................................................27 Table 19: Project Operations Economic Impact............................................................................................................28 Table 20: Industrial Prototype Operations Economic Impact........................................................................................29 Table 21: Industrial Prototype Occupations..................................................................................................................31 Table22: Fiscal Impacts- Project................................................................................................................................32 Table 23: Fiscal Impacts- Industrial Prototype.............................................................................................................32 Table 24: Fiscal Expenditures - Project........................................................................................................................33 Table 25: Fiscal Expenditures - Industrial Prototype....................................................................................................34 Prepared for City of Santa Ana 75C-861 AECOM Santa Ana Redhill Development 1. Introduction The City of Santa Ana (The "City") is seeking to analyze the potential development feasibility and fiscal and economic impacts of a proposed mix -used residential and retail development on approximately 14.69 acres of land on two parcels (430-222-16 and 430-222-07) at 2300, 2310, and 2320 Redhill Avenue (hereafter referred to as the Site) compared to an alternative light -industrial project that would comply with the maximum allowable density under the existing zoning. The proposed mixed -use project (hereafter referred to as the "Project") comprises 1,110 dwelling units and 80,000 square feet (SF) of retail space, along with communal space for residents and a mix of surface and structured parking. Current uses of the Site include 3 buildings with approximately 212,000 SF of light industrial and flex space built in 1979 and 1981, surface parking, and vacant land. To establish a relevant comparison for high-level planning purposes, AECOM developed a light industrial prototype (hereafter referred to as Industrial Prototype) of new light industrial/flex space with approximately 320,000 SF of rentable building area (RBA) according to current zoning specifications. The development of the Industrial Prototype allows an analysis of the development feasibility of the Project compared to the Industrial Prototype and the estimation of their respective economic and fiscal impacts. The major components of AECOM's analysis are as follows: • Market assessment - A review of market trends for residential, retail, and industrial land uses in the market area and an assessment of supportable demand for the two alternatives, the Project and the Industrial Prototype, by land use • Development feasibility analysis - A residual land value analysis of the development feasibility of the two alternatives that estimates the highest and best use of the Site from a development perspective • Economic impact analysis - An estimate of the economic impacts from construction and operations of the two alternatives • Fiscal impact analysis — An estimate of the ongoing fiscal impacts of the two alternatives on the City of Santa Ana General Fund Key Findings Residential Market Assessment —The Project is oriented towards development patterns occurring in adjacent areas in the cities of Tustin and Irvine that have seen an expansion in mixed -use properties and other uses beyond industrial and office. Newer multifamily properties in the area are characterized by rents more reflective of Orange County market rate properties, lowvacancy rates, and strong absorption of new units. Industrial Market Assessment— Demand for incremental industrial space is driven by employment growth in sectors concentrated in industrial land uses, including Manufacturing, Wholesale Trade and Professional/Technical/Scientific Services in which the City of Santa Ana has relatively large concentrations. Based on projected employment growth, Santa Ana could experience incremental demand of approximately 2.2 million SF of new industrial space by 2026. In the vicinity of the Site, rents for industrial properties have increased by 24% since 2010 after adjusting for inflation and vacancy rates have been below the threshold for structural occupancy. Retail Market Assessment— Demand for retail space in the Project is driven by local spending patterns of residents, workers, and hotel guests in the vicinity of the Site. It is estimated the Project could support between 65,000-80,000 square feet of new retail space under current conditions and between 80,000-96,000 square feet at buildout of development currently in the known pipeline within a 2-mile radius of the project. Development Feasibility — Both the Project and Industrial Prototype yield positive and high residual land values (RLV), indicating strong development feasibility. RLV is a method used to determine the value and potential feasibility of a property by estimating the value of the land that remains after factoring in the costs of developing, maintaining and selling the property. AECOM developed pro-formas to compare the development costs and market value of both projects and estimated that the Project would yield an RLV of approximately $65 million ($100/SF of land) and the Prepared for City of Santa Ana 75%�_$C2 AECOM V Qv e Santa Ana Redhill Development Industrial Prototype would yield an RLV of approximately $17 million ($26/SF of land). Current market conditions indicate that development of both projects would be feasible. Economic Impact—AECOM estimated the economic impacts both of construction and ongoing operations (normalized to 2019) at stable occupancy for the Project and Industrial Prototype for the City of Santa Ana and Orange County. Due to greater construction costs and scale, the estimated one-time construction economic impacts the Project ($498 million) to the City of Santa Ana is greater than the impact of the construction of the Industrial Prototype ($76 million). On the other hand, due to the larger quantity of jobs that generate value to the economy, the estimated annual economic impact of the ongoing operations of the Industrial Prototype ($153 million) to the City of Santa Ana is greater than that of the ongoing operations of The Project ($58 million). Ongoing operations 'of the Project are estimated to generate over 1,200 jobs in Orange County annually, 349 of which could be captured by Santa Ana. These jobs are likely to be concentrated in Retail, Restaurants, Wholesale Trade and Real Estate with low to medium average annual wages. Ongoing operations of the Industrial Prototype are estimated to generate over 1,400 jobs in Orange County, 638 of which could be captured by Santa Ana. These jobs are likely to be concentrated in Architecture and Engineering, Scientific Research and Development and Wholesale trade with medium to high average annual wages. Fiscal Impact —AECOM estimated the potential revenues to the City's General Fund from ongoing operations of the Project and Industrial Prototype, both of which are expected to generate a net fiscal surplus. The Project could generate an estimated $2.5 million in annual revenue to the City and cost $1.5 million in expenditures, resulting in an annual net fiscal surplus of approximately $1 million. The Industrial Prototype could generate an estimated $710,000 in annual revenue to the City and $185,000 in expenditures, resulting in an annual net fiscal surplus of approximately $525,000. Calculations for expenditures are based on an estimated service population2 of approximately 2,300 for The Project and 300 for the Industrial Prototype. Discussion The market analysis provides evidence that both the Project and the Industrial Prototype would likely experience sufficient market demand to warrant development interest and attract tenants to the buildout project with strong rents and low vacancy rates. The development feasibility shows that under these market conditions, both alternatives yield positive residual land values (RLV) through a proforma analysis. The Project yields a higher RLV than the Industrial Prototype, but it also requires a much larger investment from the developer and could require further entitlements or impact fee assessments before construction could commence. The economic impact of the Industrial Prototype is larger than that of the Project, both in terms of employment and total economic output. The median salary of the jobs produced by the Industrial Prototype likely to accrue to the City of Santa Ana are also higher than those created by the Project. The fiscal impact of the Project is greater than that of the Industrial Prototype on both sides of the City's balance sheet (expenditures and revenues). As such, the net fiscal benefit to the City of the Project is greater than that of the Industrial Prototype, but the City would also endure greater costs to extend services to the Project's residents and employees. This results in a Revenue to Expenditure Ratio of approximately 1.6:1 for the Project and 3.8:1 for the Industrial Prototype. While the Project would likely create a greater net fiscal benefit, the greater expenditures to the City could warrant further discussion of cost allocation. The existing conditions of the industrial buildings at 2300, 2310, and 2320 Redhill Ave in Santa Ana are generally considered to be underperforming in the market and are not achieving the highest and best use for the two parcels (APN's 43-222-07 and 43-2222-16) under currently allowable land use designations. According to Costar, the three buildings encompass approximately 212,000 square feet of warehouse and light manufacturing space built in 1979 and 1981, and a significant portion of one parcel lies vacant. Private investment into the land could achieve greater economics of scale and attract a high -end industrial client who demands updated, modern facilities. This would allow for a single tenant to maximize economic output in this industrial space. Through discussions with the City, AECOM developed the Industrial Prototype that would raise the assessed value, square feet of usable space, and employment to allow a more significant benefit/cost comparison to the Project at full buildout. Ongoing operations are understood to be annually recurring impacts once the projects are built out, or permanent jobs and economic outputs as long as operations continue 2 The service population consists of all residents and a percentage allocation of workers based on residency and operating hours of Santa Ana residents and workers Prepared for: City of Santa Ana 75C-863 AECOM 7 Santa Ana Redhill Development 2. Market Assessment Project Market Context The Site is located at the southeast corner of the City of Santa Ana in an area with a large concentration of industrial, flex, and office buildings at the intersection of 3 municipalities: Santa Ana, Tustin, and Irvine. While this district of Santa Ana (hereafter referred to as Dyer South) has a long history of these land uses, recent trends have seen a significant and growing addition of retail and residential properties to the local area inventory. Both the cities of Tustin and Irvine have developed plans (Tustin Legacy Specific Plan and the Irvine Business Complex Vision Plan) to encourage mixed -use development that includes residential, professional office, retail, flex, industrial, hospitality and institutional uses. (Figure 1). These plans identify maximum densities and quantities of land uses at buildout. Figure 1: Market Context for the Project Source: Google Earth, AECOM Both the Irvine Business Complex and Dyer South have a considerable existing inventory of industrial, flex, and office uses with an established history, but limited growth has occurred in these areas since 2010, with the exception of multifamily residences in the Irvine Business Complex. Tustin Legacy sits on the site of a former Marine Corps Air Station that saw the development of approximately 1 million SF of retail along its periphery but no other significant development prior to the adoption of the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan in 2013. Since then, approximately 88,000 SF of new retail space has been delivered along with over 500,000 SF of office space and nearly 1,000 multifamily units. Details on the current inventory and growth in these 3 districts since 2000 are shown in Table 1. The existing inventory, and potential future growth of the land uses included in this local area, factors substantially into the assessment of supportable demand for the Project's proposed land uses, especially as it pertains to retail. While the Project includes a substantial amount of retail, 80,000 SF, it is neither currently planned nor envisioned to be a component of a major retail hub. As such, the Project's retail component is not expected to be directly competitive with nearby regional malls or districts that are drawing on the regional market. Instead, its retail component appears to be oriented towards capturing a portion of demand from future Project households, demand from existing households and incremental household growth in the local area (such as the Heritage and growth in the Tustin Legacy area), and existing employment and incremental employment growth in the local area. Residential Prepared for: City of Santa Ana r _$ C /� AECOM 7 V 64 8 Santa Ana Redhill Development demand is expected to be more regional in nature given the Project's accessibility and proximity to centers of employment, the increasingly regional nature of the housing market, and the Project's market rate rental profile. Table 1: Inventory and Growth in 3 Districts Inventory and Growth in 3 Districts Dyer South Irvine Bus Com Tustin Legacy Multifamily 2019 Inventory (Units) 0 8,592 998 Growth 2010-19 (Units) 0 4,086 998 Growth Since 2010 (%) 0% 48% 100% Retail 2019 Inventory (SF) 133,789 1,181,459 1,067,109 Growth 2010-19 (SF) 0 26,699 88,465 Growth 2010-19 (%) 0% 2% 8% Office 2019 Inventory (SF) 1,939,711 20,428,286 517,217 Growth 2010-19(SF) 0 787,290 517,217 Growth 2010-19 (%) 0% 4% 100% Industrial 2019 Inventory (SF) 1,969,114 10,699,791 0 Growth 2010-19 (SF) 0 51,450 0 Growth 2010-19 (%) 0% 0.5% 0% Flex 2019 Inventory (SF) 1,133,883 6,180,044 0 Growth 2010-19 (SF) 9,000 13,530 0 Growth 2010-19 % 0.8% 0.2% 0% Source: Costar, AECOM There has been significant growth of multifamily dwelling units in the 3 districts since 2010, and an additional 5,694 units are in the current development pipeline, representing a further 50% growth in total inventory. Numerous commercial projects are currently proposed or under construction in the 3 districts, including over 530,000 SF of office, 230,000 SF of flex, and 420,000 SF of healthcare related facilities. Table 2 shows the current development pipeline for the 3 districts. Figure 2 shows the recent construction and pipeline MFR projects in the vicinity of the Dyer South Focus Area. Prepared for: City of Santa Ana 75C-865 AECOM 9 Santa Ana Redhill Development Figure 2: Recent Multifamily Development and Pipeline Source: ESRI, Costar, AECOM Table 2: Current Development Pipeline in 3 Districts Current Development Pipeline in 3 Districts Dyer South Irvine Bus Com Tustin Legacy Total Multifamily (units) 1,221* 4,473 0 5,694 Retail (SF) 25,200 37,816 0 63,016 Office (SF) 56,000 426,000 50,000 532,000 Flex (SF) 0 239,000 0 239,000 Hotel (rooms) 0 168 0 168 Health Care SF 0 424,413 0 424,413 * These are units associated with the Heritage project which are currently included in the Co Star pipeline. Source: Costar, AECOM The recent and proposed development patterns occurring in the adjacent areas indicate a general shift from traditional industrial uses towards more residential and mixed -use development. Nonetheless, the region within a 2- mile radius of the Site maintains a strong concentration of industrial and professional office space that generates employment and economic growth for the County and, coupled with the existing inventory of these uses and existing residential units, forms the backbone of potential quantifiable supportable retail demand. For this reason, AECOM has analyzed demographic trends and projections from a variety of geographies to better contextualize the demand for both the proposed uses of the Project and the Industrial Prototype. Demographic Trends SCAG projections estimate that Santa Ana will experience limited growth in households and employment between 2020 and 2040, however, there is already more residential inventory in the Santa Ana pipeline than is included in these forecast estimates for this entire timeframe. Residential vacancy rates in Santa Ana and Orange County have consistently remained below structural occupancy and, as already noted, the Project's residential orientation is towards the Orange County housing market and to some extent the region beyond. As such, continued growth of Prepared for City of Santa Ana 75C-866 AECOM 0 Santa Ana Redhill Development Orange County households and employment are expected to be major drivers of demand for residential uses at the Site, while retail demand is expected to be driven more by local growth. Table 3: Projected Household Growth Projected Household Growth 2012 2020 2035 2040 2020-40 Growth Irvine 81,835 109,488 122,088 123,364 13% Santa Ana 73,261 74,886 75,471 75,831 1% Tustin 25,568 27,234 27,778 27,940 3% Orange County 999,361 1,073,174 1,136,745 1,153,713 8% Source: SCAG, AECOM The proposed unit mix of the Project includes 228 studios, 574 1-bedroom, 283 2-bedroom units and 15 3-bedroom units, which suggests orientation towards singles and young families that differ significantly in demographic features from the relatively large average Santa Ana household size of approximately 4.4 members per household (accordinc to US Census Bureau ACS 5-year estimates). Table 4: Projected Employment Growth Projected Employment Growth 2012 2020 2035 2040 2020-40 Growth Irvine 224,435 280,649 313,960 320,033 14% Santa Ana 154,800 160,604 165,159 165,975 3% Tustin 37,616 51,818 64,599 66,425 28% Orange County 1,526,227 1,730,085 1,870,025 1,898,685 10% Source: SCAG, AECOM Employment in the City of Santa Ana is projected to grow at just 3% overall between 2020 and 2040. During the same time period SCAG estimates Orange County will see a 14% increase in overall employment while growth in Irvine and Tustin is estimated to be 10% and 28% respectively over the same period. Demand for industrial, flex or other commercial uses at the Site will result from this wider growth, and the significant industrial/flex/office cluster in Dyer South and the neighboring districts is potentially positioned to capture a portion of this growth. Market Trends While demand for residential and industrial uses is expected to draw on regional growth primarily from Orange County, detailed characteristics of the retail market potential of the Site is expected to be more reflective of trends in the immediate market area, or approximately a 2-mile radius around the Site. The 2-mile radius encompasses the entirety of the Dyer South and Tustin Legacy districts, approximately 2/3 of the Irvine Business Complex, and the cluster of industrial land uses in southeastern Santa Ana. Trends such as vacancy rates, average rents, and inventory growth in the 2-mile radius of the various proposed land -uses offer insights that could determine the development feasibility of the Project and the Industrial Prototype. Figure 3 shows the geographical context of the 2-mile radius. Prepared for: City of Santa Ana 75r_$C7 AECOM V Qv 11 : wt7 �-± •�� Pam` c O¢nt �y.+ � �, m M1 yam. , ♦ . "�F,$J. � � n�. ,�' w � + Santa Ana Redhill Development Figure 5: Industrial Vacancy Industrial Rent (NNN/SF/Year) $14.00 $12.00 $10.83 a) $10.00 $8.00 $9.74 Q c $6.00 0 $4.00 `c rn $2.00 $0.00 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 —2-Mile Radius —Orange County Source: Costar, BLS, AECOM The industrial vacancy rates for the 2-mile radius have consistently tracked those of the Orange County market as a whole and, as of 2018, were lower (2.7%) than that of Orange County (3.7%). These vacancy rates have remained relatively stable since 2000 with slight fluctuations that correlate with periods of recession. Despite relative economic downturns, the vacancy rate has remained below the industry standard full structural occupancy rate of 10% associated with industrial uses. This indicates a healthy industrial market. Similarly, industrial rent in the 2-mile radius has been historically similar or higher than that of Orange County through 2016. The rent (NNN/SF/year) in Orange County was higher ($10.83) than that of the 2-mile radius ($9.74) at the end of 2018. A Triple Net lease (NNN) is a lease agreement wherein the tenant pays all property expenses (taxes, insurance, maintenance) in addition to rent and utilities. NNN agreements are typical of industrial and retail properties that rent to a variety of businesses with different demands on the property. Adjusted for inflation, industrial rent increased 24% in the 2-Mile Radius and 44% in Orange County from 2010-2018, again indicating a healthy industrial market. Table 5: Industrial Inventory and Growth 2000-19 Industrial Inventory and Growth 2000-2019 2-Mile Radius Orange County Inventory 28,456,795 232,289,991 Share of OC 12% 100% Growth 2010-19 (SF) 51,450 6,482,042 Growth 2010-19 (%) 0.2% 2.8% Share of OC Growth 0.8% 100% Source: Costar, AECOM The 2-mile radius represents a significant portion (12%) of Orange County's total industrial inventory, however, growth has been minimal since 2010 (<1%). While the Orange County growth of industrial space has been more robust in the same timeframe it has also not grown substantially. This trend is largely consistent with national transformational trends in the industrial and manufacturing market where employment growth has generally been tepid as a result of increasing automation. This has dampened the demand for traditional industrial space in recent years even as output has grown substantially. Prepared for City of Santa Ana 75C-869 AECOM 3 Santa Ana Redhill Development Flex Figure 6: Flexy Vacancy 12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% Flex Vacancy 5.6% 23.6% .0% 0.0% 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 —2-Mile Radius —Orange County Source: Costar, AECOM Figure 7: Flex Rent Flex Rent (NNN/SF/Year $25.00 o $20.00 $16.24 $15.00 `o Q o $10.00 $5.00 rn 0 N $0.00 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 —2-Mile Radius —Orange County Source: Costar, AECOM Flex properties are designed for versatility, combining professional office space with some combination of research and development, industrial, warehouse and retail. Flex buildings are sometimes called Tech or Incubator space. The versatility of this space has also resulted in vacancy rates that have experienced some volatility since 2000. The vacancy rate for the 2-mile radius was higher (5.6%) than that of Orange County (3.6%) at the end of 2018, both of which are much lower than their 2010 peaks above 10% and 9% respectively. Prepared for: City of Santa Ana 75%�_87O AECOM V 14 Santa Ana Redhill Development Flex rent in the 2-mile radius has been historically higher than industrial properties, which also tend to be larger on average. The 2-mile radius has tracked the trend of Orange County and was $16.24 (NNN/SF/year) for both geographies at the end of 2018. Adjusted for inflation, Industrial rent increased 27% in the 2-Mile Radius and 22% in Orange County from 2010-2018, again indicating a healthy industrial market. Table 6: Flex Inventory and Growth 2000-19 Flex Inventory and Growth 2000-2019 2-Mile Radius Orange County Inventory 10,887,724 67,826,884 Share of OC 16% 100% Growth 2010-19 (SF) 22,530 159,713 Growth 2010-19 (%) 0.2% 0.2% Share of OC Growth 14% 100% Source: Costar, AECOM While the 2-mile radius represent a significant portion (16%) of Orange County's total flex inventory, growth has been minimal since 2010 (<1 %). Nonetheless, growth across Orange County for flex space has been very low (<1 %) and the 2-mile radius has captured 14% of this limited growth. As shown in Table 2, a single project in the current pipeline will add over 230,000 SF of flex space to the 2-mile radius, greater than total inventory growth for all of Orange County since 2010. Many of the same factors that are impacting traditional industrial space are also dampening demand for flex space. Multifamily Figure 8: MFR Vacancy MFR Vacancy 10.0% — 9.0% 8.0% 7.0% 6.1 % 6.0% 5.0% 4.0% 4.7% 3.0% 2.0% 1.0% 0.0% 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 —2-Mile Radius —Orange County Source: Costar, AECOM Prepared for City of Santa Ana 75C-871 AECOM 15 Santa Ana Redhill Development Figure 9: MFR Rent per SF MFR Rent (Effective/SF/Month) to $2.50 $2.24 o $2.00 — t` $1.50 o Q o $1.00 c $0.50 rn o $0.00 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 —2-Mile Radius —Orange County Source: Costar, BLS, AECOM Figure 10: MFR Rent per Unit MFR Rent (Effective/Unit/Month) p $2,500 M o $1,998 $2,000 z $1,500 `o Q o $1,000 $500 0 N $o 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 —2-Mile Radius —Orange County Source: Costar, BLS, AECOM While the multifamily vacancy rate of the 2-mile radius has risen following additions of inventory around 2008, 2014 and 2018, the market has absorbed these units fairly quickly as the rate stabilizes between 3%-5% (Inventory has grown 27% since 2010, see Table 2.7 below). Multifamily rent for both geographies has increased gradually since 2000 and was found to be approximately $2.24 per SF or $1,998 and $1,928 in the 2-mile radius and Orange County respectively at the end of 2018. After adjusting for inflation, this represents approximately a 17% increase in rent for both geographies and has pushed inflation adjusted average rents slightly above their previous peak prior to the last recession. Rent per unit is helpful to assess the health of a market, while rent per SF is an important input for the development feasibility analysis modeling of the Project in the following sections. Prepared for: City of Santa Ana 75%�_872 AECOM V 16 Santa Ana Redhill Development Table 7: Multifamily Inventory and Growth 2000-19 Multifamily Inventory and Growth 2000-2019 2-Mile Radius Orange County Inventory 13,331 302,327 Share of OC 4% 100% Growth 2010-19 (Units) 3,554 31,251 Growth 2010-19 (%) 27% 10% I Source: Costar, AECOM I The strong growth numbers, along with lowvacancy rates and climbing inflation adjusted rents indicate a healthy multifamily market. While the 2-mile radius comprises only 4% of the total inventory of multifamily units in Orange County, it accounts for 11 % of total growth since 2010, reflecting the ongoing transformation of this area into both a residential and employment center. Continued mixed -use development that combines employment opportunities with livable communities is likely to maintain demand for incremental multifamily residence dwelling units in the 2-mile radius. Retail Figure 11: Retail Vacancy Retail Vacany 12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 3.4% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 —2-Mile Radius —Orange County Source: Costar, AECOM Prepared for: City of Santa Ana 75C-873 AECOM J 17 Santa Ana Redhill Development Figure 12: Retail Rent Retail Rent (NNN/SF/Year $45.00 P $40.00 00 $35.00 $30.00 $26.60 w $25.00 $25.79 c $20.00 0 $15.00 $10.00 rn o $5.00 N $0.00 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 —2-Mile Radius —Orange County Source: Costar, BLS, AECOM The vacancy rate for retail properties in the 2-mile radius rose above 10% in 2011 but has remained very low since 2014. At the end of 2018, the vacancy rate for the 2-mile radius was 2%, and that of Orange County was also very low at 3.4%. Adjusted for inflation, retail rent decreased 8% in the 2-Mile Radius and 5% in Orange County from 2010-2018. This is the only land use for which rent has declined once adjusted to the Consumer Price Index. Nominal rents increased slightly but did not match the rate of inflation. Generally, this decline is indicative of national trends for retail where traditional brick -and -mortar retail has found itself increasingly competing with online retail. This has led to a shift to destination retail which focuses on both the redevelopment of existing retail and development of new retail that focuses on experiences and entertainment in order to thrive. This is generally consistent with the orientation of retail uses proposed in the Project. These wider trends help explain the lack of rent growth even as vacancy rates have decreased below what is considered full retail structural occupancy (5%), indicating a continued demand for retail space. Class B and C retail properties in the 2-mile radius lower the average rent for the area compared to the newer Class A high -end destination retail establishments. Table 8: Retail Inventory and Growth 2000-19 Retail Inventory and Growth 2000-2019 2-Mile Radius Orange County Inventory 3,413,062 142,979,370 Share of OC 2% 100% Growth 2010-19 (SF) 137,016 4,594,568 Growth 2010-19 (%) 4% 3% Share of OC Growth 3% 100% Source: Costar, AECOM The retail inventory in the 2-mile radius represents a relatively small percentage of both the County total and share of growth and covers a wide variety of retail types including both older neighborhood -serving commercial corridors, such as the Main Street Corridor, and large destination retail centers, such as the District at Tustin Legacy. Prepared for: City of Santa Ana r _$ 7 /� AECOM 7 V 4 18 Santa Ana Redhill Development Industrial Market Demand AECOM estimated industrial demand for the Industrial Prototype based on existing market conditions for industrial and flex uses and estimated incremental demand resulting from employment growth in sectors heavily concentrated in industrial land uses. Demand for industrial space is driven by regional job growth, and the likely mix of occupations in Orange County and Santa Ana in the coming years will determine the feasibility of developing new industrial space at the Site. Table 9 shows the most recent data for employment by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) sectors in the 2-mile radius, City of Santa Ana, and Orange County. Table 9: Employment by Sector 2017 Employment by Sector 2-Mile Radius Santa Ana Orange County Agriculture 77 52 2,018 Mining and Extraction 10 11 569 Utilities 592 695 5,939 Construction 8,330 7,182 98,346 Manufacturing 28,552 19,043 156,145 Wholesale Trade 11,686 6,671 90,964 Retail Trade 5,884 11,986 144,569 Transportation and Warehousing 1,673 1,766 25,243 Information 3,292 1,543 29,189 Finance and Insurance 8,806 7,392 84,807 Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 3,262 2,424 37,773 Professional/Scientific/Tech Services 15,109 11,596 131,371 Management of Companies 3,024 2,516 35,643 Admin/Support Waste Management 14,571 16,700 130,681 Educational Services 883 12,438 106,137 Health Care and Social Assistance 5,755 11,746 165,203 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 348 1,101 42,689 Accommodation and Food Services 5,421 7,835 141,730 Other Services 2,401 3,258 42,913 Public Administration 0 22,727 38 051 Total 119,676 148,682 1,509,980 Source: LEHD, AECOM Employment concentrations are similar for the City of Santa Ana and the 2-mile radius surrounding the Site, with a high number of jobs in Manufacturing, Professional/Scientific/Technical, and Administration/Support for Waste Management and Remediation. These sectors typically operate in industrial and flex space and provide incomes that range from medium (Equipment Technician, annual average salary $56,000) to high (Industrial Manager, annual average salary $120,000). Prepared for City of Santa Ana 7 r _$ 7 AECOM V 19 Santa Ana Redhill Development ure to: orange i ounry rrotecteu urowin Orange County Projected Employment Growth 2016-2026 Public Administration Other Services Accommodation and Food Services Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation Health Care and Social Assistance Educational Services Admin/Support Waste Management Management of Companies Professional/Scientific/Tech Srevices Real Estate and Rental and Leasing Finance and Insurance Information Transportation and Warehousing Retail Trade Wholesale Trade Manufacturing Construction Utilities Mining and Extraction-17% Agriculture Source: EDD, LEHD, AECOM 4% 7% 14% 10% 19% 17% 3% 9% 16% 20% -20% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% The California Employment Development Department (EDD) tracks industry sector and employment patterns at the county level. The EDD projects that between 2016 and 2026, Orange County growth will be the strongest in Construction, Healthcare, Educational Services, and Transportation and Warehousing. Both Construction, and Transportation and Warehousing generate demand for industrial space. Further growth in Professional/Scientific/rechnical, and Administration/Support for Waste Management and Remediation could also generate demand for new flex and industrial space. While EDD projections are highly regarded to assess a county -wide economy, no such detailed projections exist at the municipal level. Nonetheless, AECOM estimated future incremental demand for new industrial and flex space based on the City's current capture of projected county -wide employment growth by sector. Estimates assume a 90% stable occupancy rate and an average of 500 SF per worker, which is a common assumption for light industrial land uses. Prepared for: City of Santa Ana 75%�7C _8AEC 20 V v Santa Ana Redhill Development Table 10: Santa Ana Projected Industrial Employment Santa Ana Current and Projected Industrial Employment 2017-2026 Estimated Santa Ana Incremental Growth 2017 Jobs Capture 2017-2026 Construction 7,182 7% 1,388 Manufacturing 19,043 12% 122 Wholesale Trade 6,671 7% 205 Transportation and Warehousing 1,766 7% 273 Professional/Scientific/Tech Services 11,596 9% 1,156 Admin/Support Waste Management 16,700 13% 1,674 Total 63,000 5,000 Estimated SF of Industrial Space 35,000,000 2,700,000 Note: Totals are rounded and my not sum Source: LEHD, EDD, AECOM If Santa Ana maintains its current capture rate for employment concentrated in industrial land uses, then employment in these sectors could increase by approximately 5,000 by 2026. These jobs could support approximately 2.7 million additional SF of industrial/flex space. There are currently approximately 540,000 SF of industrial space under construction in the 2-mile radius surrounding the site, with 500,000 SF on a 24-acre lot just east of the Dyer South district in Santa Ana (located at 666 E. Dyer Rd.). To accommodate future employment growth in Santa Ana according to current trends and projections from the EDD, approximately 2.2 million SF could be demanded by 2026. Retail Demand AECOM estimated retail demand for the Project based on existing residential, employment, and visitor demand, and estimated incremental demand resulting from these land uses that have been identified in the development pipeline (according to CoStar). In the following discussion and tables there is a focus on current land uses and buildout. Current refers to land uses that are on the ground, while buildout refers to what is included in the development pipeline that can be reasonably expected within the next three to five years. Based on a review of the broader Orange County retail market, it is assumed that Project retail is most likely to serve demand from on -site residents and workers, as well as workers, residents, and hotel guests that are close to the project. A 2-mile radius was utilized to estimate demand. AECOM preliminarily estimates that the Project could support between 65,000-80,000 SF of new retail space under current conditions and between 80,000-96,000 SF at buildout of development currently in the known pipeline within a 2-mile radius of the project. Beyond the pipeline of projects (currently proposed or under construction), the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan allows 3,500 additional housing units and approximately 500,000 SF of commercial space that could be added at some point in the future. It is important to note that the timeline for delivery of this additional inventory is unknown and is contingent upon economic conditions and other factors. As such, this analysis does not include any estimate of supportable retail demand from this future potential buildout. A portion of the household spending from these additional units would be captured at the Bowery project, however, the timeline uncertainty involved in the delivery of such units makes it infeasible to estimate responsibly. This potential demand is contingent both on the actual mix of businesses that occupy the retail space at the Project and the characteristics of the future competitive supply in the vicinity of the Project. AECOM estimates that stabilized occupancy of this planned space could create demand for an additional 4,800-6,000 SF of retail space at the Project beyond the estimated 80,000-96,000 SF at buildout sited in the preceding paragraph. Prepared for: City of Santa Ana 75r_877 AEC 21 V Santa Ana Redhill Development Supportable on -site retail demand is estimated based on a reasonable Project capture rate of resident, worker, and hotel guest expenditures within both a''/,mile radius and 2-mile radius. Higher capture rates are assumed within the '/,mile radius as a result of it being walk accessible. There are approximately 3.4 million SF of retail space within a 2- mile radius of the Project, including a variety of destination, neighborhood and convenience options, and approximately 75,000 SF in the current development pipeline. AECOM estimated on -site supportable retail demand for the Project based on characteristics of households, employees, and hotel guests under current conditions, and at buildout of land uses currently in the pipeline in the 2-mile radius surrounding the Project, which includes the Tustin Specific Plan. Buildout estimates include stable occupancy of residential, commercial, and industrial land uses for all known projects currently proposed and under construction. Capture rates for retail space in the Project are a reasonable estimate based on current and future competitive supply. The following tables detail findings (Figures in the tables are rounded and may not sum). Assumptions and details of data sources follow. Table 11: Retail Expenditures - Households Estimated Bowery Capture of Household Retail Expenditures 1/2 Mile Radius 2 Mile Radius' Total Current BuildouC* Current Buildout** Current Buildout** Housing Units 0 2,248 22,922 23,434 22,922 25,682 Households(95%occupancy) 0 2,136 21,776 23,434 21,776 25,570 On -Site 0 1,027 0 0 0 1,027 Expenditure Site Capture 0 7.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Off -Site 0 1,221 22,922 23,434 22,922 24,594 Site -Ca Lure % 0 7.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% Median HH Income 0 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,006 HH Retail Expenditures*** 0 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 Total Estimatetl HH Retail Epenclitures 0 $45,000,000 115,000,000 $490,002,849 $455,334,069 $534,658,245 Total Estimated HH Expentlitures Capture 0 $3,430,000 $11,380,000 $12,250,000 $11,380,000 $15,680,000 '2 Mile Ratlius is exclusive of 12 Mle Radius to avv id double counting. Numbers are rounded and may not sum. "Assumes stable occupan cy of dwelling units (95%) in The Heritage, Bowery, and all projects in the known current pipeline "'BLS asssumes 30% ofineidian income isspent on all retail categories, site -capture rate adjusted for probable retail type Source: ESRI, BLS, Coster California DOF, AECOM AECOM estimates that existing households within the 2-mile radius generate approximately $11.4 million of total expenditures under current conditions and $15.6 million that could be captured by the Project at buildout of uses in the pipeline. These expenditures are based on ESRI estimates of the median household income in the 2-mile radius ($70,000) and the proportion of that income that is spent of retail purchases of all types (30%).AECOM then estimated the capture rates for those living on -site, within a''% mile radius, and within a.2-mile radius based on reasonable assumptions of spending at retail establishments that is likely to occupy the space as detailed in the Project's development program. Table 12: Retail Expenditures - Employees Estimated BoweryCapture of Employee Retail Expenditures 1/2 Mile Radius 2 Mile Radius' Total Current BuildouC* Current Buildout** Current Buildout** Employees 7,285 10,097 99,828 103,803 107,113 113,899 On -site 0 304 0 0 0 304 Annual Expenditures"' $4,500 $4,500 $4,500 $4,500 $4,500 $4,500 Site Capture 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% Offaite 7,285 9,793 99,828 103,803 107,113 113,595 Annual Expenditures"' $4,500 4,500 $4,500 4,500 $4,500 4,500 Site Capture 7.5% 7.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% Total Estimated Employee Retail Expenditures $32,782,500 $45,434,548 $449,223,840 $467,111,369 $482,006,340 $512,545,917 Total Estimated Employee Expenditures Capture 1 $2,460,000 $3,441,0001 $11,230,000 $11,678,0001 $13,690,000 $15,120,000 '2 Mile Radius is exclusive of 12 Mile Radius to avoid double counting. Numbers are rounded and maynot sum. "Assumes stable occupancy of com m erciallndustrial space in The Heritage, Bowery, Flight and all projects in the known current pipeline using Employee/Square Foot industrystandards byland use type "'Based on ICSC data for average workdas endin for office and retail workers transportation, grocerystores and warehouse clubs Source: ESRI, BLS, LEHD, Coster, =,, AECOM A similar approach was utilized to estimate demand from employees. AECOM estimates that employee demand could generate approximately $13.7 million of total expenditures under current conditions and $15.1 million at buildout that could be captured by Project retail at buildout of uses in the pipeline. The US Census Bureau's Longitudinal Employer -Household Dynamics (LEND) estimates that there are 7,300 and 100,000 workers respectively within a''/ -mile and 2-mile radius of the project. Employment sectors include a wide variety of manufacturing, professional and technical services, retail, and others. This was then combined with Prepared for: City of Santa Ana 75r_87Q AEC 22 V Q Santa Ana Redhill Development estimates for employees at buildout of pipeline uses from numerous sources that track economic and employment trends in various land uses (office, retail, industrial, and hotel). Estimated workday spending per employee data from estimates by the International Council of Shopping Centers' Research Department was applied to the total number of employees. In the subsequent step, AECOM estimated Project retail demand capture rates of employee expenditures within a'M, mile radius and within a 2-mile radius based on reasonable assumptions of spending of the types of retail establishments likely to occupy the space as outlined in the Project development program. Table 13: Retail Expenditures - Hotels Estimated Bowery Capture of Hotel Guest Retail Expenditures 1/2 Mile Radius 2 Mile Radius' Total Current BuildouC* Current Buildout** lCurrent Buildout** Hotel Guest (average per night) 125 298 3,066 3,066 3,191 3,364 Average Annual Spending/Guest... $13,000 $13,000 $13,000 $13,010 $13,000 $13,000 Total Annual Guest Spending $1,630,000 $3,880,000 $39,850,000 $39,850,000 $41,500,000 $43,750,000 Site Capture % 10% 10% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% Total Estimated Hotel Guest Sales Capture $163,000 $388,000 $995,000 $995,000 $1,160,000 $1,385,000 '2 Mile Radius is exclusive of 12 Mile Radius to avoid double counting. Numbers are rounded and maynot sum. "Assumes stable occupancy of Staybridge Suites "'Basetl on CBRE 2018 data for occupancy Source: Coster, CBRE, AECOM Estimates from hotel guest expenditures were also estimated. AECOM estimates that hotel guests could generate approximately $1.2 million in total expenditures under current conditions and $1.4 million at buildout that could be captured by Project retail at buildout of land uses in the current pipeline. CBRE includes the Project in the Orange County Airport sub -market that spans the adjacent areas of Santa Ana, Irvine, and Tustin. The 2018 CBRE report estimates that hotel occupancy for this sub -market averaged 76% with 1.35 guests per room night. Staybridge Suites is the only hotel project in the current pipeline, but developments in the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan or the Irvine Business Complex Community Development could add more hotel rooms to the inventory in the future. Because those are not included in the pipeline and not expected to be built in the near future, they have not been included in this analysis. Table 14: Retail Expenditures Total Estimated Bowery Capture of Household, Employee and Hotel Guest Retail Expenditures 1/2 Mile Radius 2 Mile Radius' Total Current BuildouC* Current Buildout** Current Buildout** Total Estimated HH E entlitures Capture 0 $3,525,000 $2,460,000 $3,455,000 $163,000 $388,000 $11,980,000 $12,250,000 $11,230,000 $11,780,000 $995,000 $995,000 $11,980,000 $15,680,005 $13,690,000 $15,235,000 $1,160,000 $1,385,000 Total Estimated Employee E entlitures Capture Total Estimated Hotel Guest Sales Capture Total Estimated Retail Demand Capture $2,620,000 $7,260,000 $23,610,000 $27,480,000 $26,830,000 $32,300,009 Supportable Retail SF($350/SF) 7,800 22,000 71,000 75,000 80,000 96,000 Supportable Retail SF($425/SF) 6500 18,000 58,000 6- l66 ,80,000 '2 Mile Radius is exclusive of 1/2 Mile Radius to avoid double counting. Numbers are rounded and maynot sum. "Assumes stable occupancyof The Heritage, Bowery, Flight, Staybridge Suits and all known current pipeline. -Su Retail SF has beengrossed u to account fora 5%strutl. structural vacancy Source: ESRI, BLS, LEND, Coster, Celi(ornie DOF, =,, AECOM The estimated capturable expenditures from residential, employee, and visitors were then combined to establish a reasonable estimate of total estimated expenditure capture by Project retail and supportable retail space. AECOM estimates that Project retail could capture an estimate of approximately $26.8 million in retail expenditures under current conditions and $32.3 million at buildout of land uses in the current pipeline. A range of $350-$425 of retail sales per SF was utilized to establish an approximate range of retail space at the Project. AECOM estimates that the Project could capture sufficient residential, employee, and visitor spending to support between 65,000-80,000 SF of new retail space under current conditions and between 80,000-96,000 SF at buildout of uses currently in the pipeline. Prepared for'. City of Santa Ana 75%V�_879 AEC 23 Santa Ana Redhill Development 3. Development Feasibility AECOM estimated the residual land value (RLV) of the land uses according to the development scenarios of both the Project and Industrial Prototype and considered the projected market demand for these land uses in the City of Santa Ana and representative comparable districts of Orange County. This analysis allows a comparison of the highest and best use for the Site, from a development perspective, and the financial implications of development under current market conditions. The use of the Industrial Prototype is to compare the impact of the Project to that of the Industrial Prototype. The feasibility analysis of the various land uses is based on a static pro forma model, which simulates the economic conditions a developer would consider in deciding whether to pursue a project. As such, the model includes typical direct and indirect costs a developer would incur, market revenue potential, and a standard rate of return a developer would expect as compensation. Total estimated project costs (including the assumed return) are subtracted from estimated project revenue to arrive at a net residual land value. Figure 14 details a simplified infographic of RLV. If the net value is positive and high enough to pay for land at current market rates, the project is considered financially feasible. Otherwise, the proposed project is considered infeasible. This approach generates a broad estimate of development feasibility, which is acceptable for planning -level analysis. Figure 14: Residual Land Value uevempmem LUUs Table 15 shows the summary results of the pro -forma analysis and estimation of RLV for both the Project and Industrial Prototype. Assumptions about rents for the various land uses were derived from the market assessment and selection of representative projects in Orange County. RLV calculations are sensitive to fluctuations in the market for both rents and development costs (hard and soft) and offer only a broad estimate of actual market prices. Table 15: Residual Land Value Summary Residual Land Value Summary The Proiect Industrial Prototype Site Acres 14.7 14.7 Floor to Area Ratio (FAR) 1.80 0.45 Gross Building Area (GBA) 1,150,000 355,000 Estimated Total Value $509,000,000 $65,406,977 Estimated Total Costs $444,000,000 $48,490,005 Residual Land Value RLV $65,000,000 $16,916,972 RLV per Land SF $100 $26 RLV per GBA SF $55 $56 Feasible Yes Yes Note: Numbers are rounded and my not sum Sources. Costar, CBRE, RS Means, Orange County Register, AECOM Prepared for'. City of Santa Ana 7 5 r _8 QQ O AEC 24 V Santa Ana Redhill Development Both the Project and the Industrial Prototype yield significant positive RLV under current market conditions. Market demand for new residential, retail, and industrial properties in the regional market of the Site suggest that both projects are financially feasible at buildout. These RLV estimates include costs of demolition of existing land uses but exclude land acquisition costs. Detailed pro-formas for both the Project and Industrial Prototype are shown in Appendix A and a short explanation of sources and assumptions follows. Capitalization Rate The capitalization rate (cap rates) is the rate of return on a real estate investment, calculated by dividing the Net Operating Income (NOI) by the current market value. Cap rates for multifamily, retail, and industrial land uses are based on CBRE H1 2019 estimates for the Orange County market. A cap rate of 6.5 was assumed for retail, while a cap rate of 4.0 was assumed for both multifamily and industrial. Rent Commercial rent was estimated based on comparative analysis of recent lease agreements for comparative new (since 2017) mixed -use residential/retail and industrial properties in Santa Ana and the adjacent areas of Irvine and Tustin. AECOM assumed an annual Triple Net Lease (NNN) Rent per SF of $30 for retail space and $11 for industrial. Construction Costs Direct costs for the pro -forma models draw from other recent studies of comparable construction in Orange County and comparable areas of Los Angeles including IRS Means 2019 construction cost estimates. Indirect costs are largely based on either ratios of direct costs or per square foot allocations typically used in planning -level cost estimation. To verify the assumptions and market value of the pro-formas, AECOM surveyed recent sales transactions of representative properties to compare the price per SF or unit of The Project and Industrial Prototype. The pro -forma for the Project estimated a market price of $721/SF of Land and approximately $449,000 per unit. The pro -forma for the Industrial Prototype estimated a market price of $117/SF of Land and approximately $234/SF of building area (RBA). Table 16 shows comparable recent transactions of comparable developments. Table 16: Recent Sales Transactions Recent Sales Transactions for Industrial and Multifamily Properties Industrial Address Acres RBA Price/RBA Price/Land Date 9300 Toledo Way, Irvine 75.22 1,193,692 $233 $85 Jul-19 1730 S Anaheim Way, Anaheim 6.93 143,930 $230 $110 May-18 15025 Proctor Ave, Industry 5.91 257,440 $225 $113 Nov-18 4278 N Harbor Blvd Fullerton 8.66 212,202 $186 $105 Jan-19 Multifamily Address Acres Units Price/Unit Price/Land Date 17321 Murphy Ave, Irvine 3.63 280 $423,214 $749.42 Nov-18 251 OrangefairAve, Fullerton 6.38 323 $405,573 $471.37 Jun-18 1105 E Katella Ave, Anaheim 4.25 386 $341,192 $711.39 Jan-19 1091 E 1st St, Santa Ana 5.07 264 $371,212 $443.74 Jun-19 Source: Costar, AECOM Comparable transactions reveal that the estimated market prices for both The Project and Industrial Prototype are either within the range of recent transactions or slightly above reported sales prices. For new construction in a desirable location, estimated prices represent a reasonable future value of the developments. Images and details of Industrial Prototype are included in Appendix A. Prepared for: City of Santa Ana 75r _8 Q 1 AEC 25 V Q Santa Ana Redhill Development 4. Economic Impact To effectively estimate the economic impact of the Project and the Industrial Prototype, AECOM developed 4 economic models for the two project options from construction and ongoing operations at full buildout and stable occupancy. Total impacts are the combined direct, indirect, and induced impacts created by the initial change in the economy. In general terms, the direct economic effects of the project begin as construction capital is expended, later evolving into economic activities that become a permanent part of the modeled economy (e.g. new business and new residents). The indirect economic effects follow a similar pattern evolving from construction -oriented spending patterns to establish business -to -business transactions that support the newly housed economic functions within the Site. Finally, the additional consumer spending from residents and the increased collective labor income pool are represented through induced effects. Construction impacts are modelled as one-time impacts. Impacts from operations, maintenance, business activity, workers incomes, and residents' expenditures (net of transfers) continue to occur (estimated on an annual basis). Direct Impacts: Result from the short-term impact generated by contracting and construction and the ongoing operations of businesses and residents that occur at the Site. (Example: Sales from On -site Retail) Indirect Impacts: Result from local businesses directly impacted by the construction and operations of the projects through the purchase of materials, supplies, goods or services from secondary firms off the Site. (Example: Sales of intermediary goods for the elaboration of final goods sold at On -site Retail) Induced Impacts: Result from the consumption spending of employees that are directly or indirectly affected by the projects. This includes the household consumption of both workers and residents of the Project. (Example: Sales of household consumption items from employees of On -Site Retail) AECOM applied a Multi -Regional Input Output (MRIO) model using IMPLAN data that includes detailed local spending multipliers and regional trade flow calculators for every zip code in Orange County. The model approximates the direct, indirect, and induced impacts on every industry sector in the county. This allows for a detailed estimation of the probable total economic impact of new economic inputs, such as employment in particular industry sectors or household spending, on the local economy. IMPLAN estimates impacts on Employment, Labor Income, Value Added (Labor Income, Proprietor Income, Other Property Income, Taxes) and Output (Value Added, Intermediate Expenditures). Note that these figures are not representative of taxable sales or taxes accrued to the City of Santa Ana, and their elaboration represent an approximation of impacts on a large geographical area. Table 17 - Table 20 show results. Table 17: Project Construction Economic Impacts Estimated Economic Impact of the Project Construction City of Santa Ana Impact Employment Labor Income Value Added Output Direct 2,414 $200,000,000 $268,000,000 $488,000,000 Indirect 65 $3,600,000 $5,500,000 $9,000,000 Induced 12 $600,000 $1,200,000 $2,000,000 Total 21491 $204,000,000 $275,000,000 $498,000,000 Rest of Orange County Impact Employment Labor Income Value Added Output Direct N/A N/A N/A N/A Indirect 956 $56,000,000 $88,000,000 $137,000,000 Induced 1,007 $55,000,000 $102,000,000 $160,000,000 Total 1,963 $111 000 000 $190 000 000 $297 000 000 Total Countywide off 4,454 $315,000,000 $465,000,000 $795,000,000 Note: Numbers are rounded and may not sum Source: IMPLAN, AECOM Prepared for: City of Santa Ana 7 r _$ Q AECOM V Q 26 Santa Ana Redhill Development During the Construction phase of the Project, IMPLAN estimates that the direct, indirect, and induced impacts of Project construction would support 4,454 jobs and generate over $795 million of total economic output for Orange County, with 2,491 jobs and over $498 million in economic output occurring within the City of Santa Ana. Employment and output estimates for construction offer insight into the cumulative economic impacts of construction during the construction phase. For the construction phase, employment represents Full Time Equivalencies (FTE), while for the operations phase, employment includes all wage and salary employees, as well as proprietors. (This is the same methodology used by the BEA and BLS'.) Thus, construction impacts are one-time impacts, while ongoing operations impacts can be interpreted as recurring annual impacts. Table 18: Industrial Prototype Construction Economic Impacts Estimated Economic Impact of Industrial Prototype Construction City of Santa Ana Impact Employment Labor Income Value Added Output Direct 501 $39,230,000 $49,600,000 $75,000,000 Indirect 3 $270,000 $450,000 $706,000 Induced 1 $60,000 $118,000 $185,000 Total 506 $39,560,000 $50,100,000 $76,000,000 Rest of Orange County Impact Employment Labor Income Value Added Output Direct N/A N/A N/A N/A Indirect 49 $3,900,000 $6,500,000 $10,000,000 Induced 166 $9,160,000 $16,900,000 $26,470,000 Total 216 $13,100,000 $23,4000,000 $36,500,000 Total Countywide 722 $52,600,000 $73,500,000 $112,500,000 Note: Numbers are rounded and may not sum Source: IMPLAN, AECOM During the Construction phase of the Industrial Prototype, IMPLAN estimates that the direct, indirect, and induced impacts of construction would support 722 jobs and generate over $112 million of total economic output for Orange County, with 506 jobs and over $75 million in economic output occurring within the City of Santa Ana. The economic output from the Construction phases would occur as a. one-time impact and does not represent the generation of operational long-term income or employment. ' Bureau of Labor Statistics employment definitions: https://vvvwv.bIs. qov/cps/lfcha racteristics.htm#emp Prepared for: City of Santa Ana 7 r _$ Q �± AECOM V QJ 27 Santa Ana Redhill Development Table 19: Project Operations Economic Impact Estimated Economic Impact of the Project Operations City of Santa Ana Impact Employment Labor Income Value Added Output Direct 304 $19,500,000 $32,300,000 $50,600,000 Indirect 7 $472,000 $809,000 $1,230,000 Induced 38 $2,000,000 $3,900,000 $6,100,000 Total 349 $21,940,000 $36,300,000 $57,850,000 Remainder of Orange County Impact Employment Labor Income Value Added Output Direct N/A N/A N/A N/A Indirect 99 $6,940,000 $13,000,000 $19,400,000 Induced 787 $44,000,000 $80,840,000 $127,600,000 Total 886 $51,000,000 $94,000,000 $147,000,000 Total Countywide 1,235 $73,000,000 $130,000,000 $204,800,000 Note: Numbers are rounded and may not sum Source: IMPLAN, BLS, California DOF, AECOM At buildout and stable occupancy of the Project, IMPLAN estimates that the direct, indirect, and induced impacts of Project operations would annually support approximately 1,235 jobs and generate over $207 million of total economic output for Orange County, with 349 jobs and over $57 million in economic output occurring within the City of Santa Ana. AECOM assumed retail operations at buildout would include a mix of restaurant, clothing, electronics, general goods, and personal care services. Beyond retail operations, the major source of induced employment and economic output is the household consumption of residents in the Project. AECOM assumed the Project's 80,000 SF of retail could support approximately 304 employees at structural occupancy (250 SF/employee). The area's median household income of approximately $72,000 was assumed for 976 households (95% occupancy of the up to 1,150 units). Prepared for: City of Santa Ana r _$ Q /� AECOM 7 V 84 28 Santa Ana Redhill Development Table 20: Industrial Prototype Operations Economic Impact Economic Impact of Industrial Prototype Operations City of Santa Ana Impact Employment Labor Income Value Added Output Direct 608 $65,100,000 $92,300,000 $149,000,000 Indirect 29 $2,000,000 $2,800,00 $4,180,000 Induced 2 $107,000 $200,000 $330,000 Total 638 $67,200,000 $95,300,000 $153,500,000 Remainder of Orange County Impact Employment Labor Income Value Added Output Direct N/A N/A N/A N/A Indirect 390 $27,700,000 $42,000,000 $62,830,000 Induced 383 $21,000,000 $39,000,000 $60,900,000 Total 773 $48,790,000 $81,000,000 $123,740,000 Total Countywide 1,411 $116,000,000 $176,200,000 $277,000,000 Note: Numbers are rounded and may not sum Source: IMPLAN, BLS, California DOF, AECOM For ongoing operations of the Industrial Prototype, IMPLAN estimates that the direct, indirect, and induced impacts of construction would annually support approximately 1,411 jobs and generate over $277 million of total economic output for Orange County, with 638 jobs and over $153 million in economic output occurring within the City of Santa Ana. AECOM assumed industrial operations at buildout would include a mix of engineering, professional/technical services, research and development, and wholesale trade. AECOM assumed the Project's 320,000 SF of industrial space could support approximately 608 employees at structural occupancy (500 SF/employee). The Industrial Prototype would be estimated to generate more employment and economic output than the equivalent factors for the Project. Sectors utilizing this space have significant potential to add value to a local economy beyond what is measurable in taxable sales on site. Prepared for: City of Santa Ana 7 r _$ Q AECOM V Q 29 Santa Ana Redhill Development Figure 15: Top Sectors of Economic Impact - Project Top Sectors of Economic Impact from Project Operations $40,000,000 $35,000,000 $30,000,000 $25,000,000 $20,000,000 $15,000,000 $10,000,000 $5,000,000 $0 111 111r . 1 . _1 a5 �5 wa a a9 ae c5 .gym ,�a m �i� J� yea lei tac eta a,��o roa lac °iaA FOR '�p 2 o a ♦ ° �a,�a p Oral ti ■Direct ■Indirect ■Induced Source: IMFLAN, BLS, California DOF, AECOM The Industry Sectors directly impacted by the Project Operations are likely to be Retail of Clothing and Accessories, Household Consumption and Real Estate. Other indirect and induced impacts are likely to be seen in General Retail, Restaurants, and Wholesale Trade. Occupations and annual wages associated with these sectors include Supervisors of Retail Workers (annual wage of $44,000), Restaurant Cooks (annual wage of $30,610) and Non - manufacturing Wholesale Sales Reps (annual average wage of $68,700) Prepared for City of Santa Ana 75r-Q QC AECOM V QQv 30 Santa Ana Redhill Development Figure 16: Top Sectors of Economic Impact - Industrial Prototype Top Sectors Economic Impact of the Industrial Prototype $60,000,000 $50,000,000 $40,000,000 $30,000,000 — $20,000,000 $10,000,000 o z 5 tie 5 5 5 5 5 5 m�° `as \� �a J° `C `C,e oo�otJ pti�o'� OQotm �\5oa� Go�Q lac ■Direct ■Indirect ■Induced Source: IMPLAN, BLS, California DOF, AECOM The Industry Sectors directly impacted by the Industrial Prototype operations are likely to be Architecture/Engineering, Wholesale trade and Scientific Research and Development. Other indirect and induced impacts are likely to been seen in Real Estate, Household Consumption (Occupied Dwelling Units) and Management Consulting services. Table 4.5 shows select occupations typically associated with these industry sectors, along with their location quotients and mean annual wages. Location quotients measure an occupation's concentration in an area relative to the occupation's share of national employment. A location quotient of 1.0 indicates the area has the same ratio of an occupation's share of employment as the nation, while numbers greater than 1.0 indicate regional specialization. Orange County has high concentrations of engineering and research occupations relative to the nation as a whole. Some mix of these occupations are probable candidates to occupy the space of the Industrial Prototype. Table 21: Industrial Prototype Occupations Orange County Industrial Prototype Associated Occupations Wage and Quotient Occupation Location Quotient* Annual Wage* Biomedical Engineers 2.57 $90,250 Aerospace Engineers 2.38 $121,640 Electro-Mechanical Technicians 2.33 $55,810 Sales Reps, Wholesale and Manufacturing 2.17 $68,760 Property, Real Estate Managers 1.78 $85,470 Transportation Distribution Managers 1.04 $107,640 Light Truck or Delivery Services Drivers 0.93 $36,480 *BLS data from Anaheim -Santa Ana -Irvine 2017 Note: Numbers are rounded and may not sum Source: BLS, AECOM Prepared for: City of Santa Ana 7 r _$ Q 7 AECOM V Q 31 Santa Ana Redhill Development 5. Fiscal Impact AECOM performed a fiscal assessment to estimate the annual net fiscal impacts on the City of Santa Ana General Fund of the two project alternatives at the Site. Estimated expenditures for services administered by the City of Santa Ana were calculated on a per service population4 basis for residents and workers at the Site. AECOM estimated revenues to the City of Santa Ana on a reasonable estimate of the property taxes, sales taxes from businesses and employees, business permits, licenses and inspections, franchise fees, fines and forfeitures, and intergovernmental transfers. Detailed tables of Expenditures and Revenues are shown in Appendix A. Table 22: Fiscal Impacts -Project Fiscal Impact of the Project City of Santa Ana General Fund Annual Net Fiscal Impact from Project Cost/Revenue Description Estimated Value Estimated Total Costs to the City General Fund $1,511,000 Sources of Revenue Property Tax $922,000 Property Tax In Lieu of VLF $224,000 Property Transfer Tax $26,000 Sales Tax $1,032,000 Other Revenue $341,000 Total Estimated Revenue from Buildout $2,545,000 Estimated Net Fiscal Surplus from Buildout $1,034,000 Note: Numbers are rounded and may not sum Source: Orange County Treasurer -Tax Collector, City of Santa Ana, California Department of Finance, Costar, AECOM Table 23: Fiscal Impacts - Industrial Prototype Fiscal Impact of the Industrial Prototype City of Santa Ana General Fund Annual Net Fiscal Impact from Project Cost/Revenue Description Estimated Value Estimated Total Costs to the City General Fund $185,000 Sources of Revenue Property Tax $140,000 Property Tax In Lieu of VLF $0 Property Transfer Tax $4,000 Sales Tax $524,000 Other Revenue $42,000 Total Estimated Revenue from Buildout $710,000 Estimated Net Fiscal Surplus from Buildout $525,000 Note: Numbers are rounded and may not sum Source: Orange County Treasurer -Tax Collector, City of Santa Ana, California Department of Finance, Costar, AECOM 4 Service population represents all estimated residents from the Project and a percentage allocation of workers based on US Census LEHD data of where employees work and live in the Focus Area Prepared for: City of Santa Ana 7 r _$ Q Q AECOM V QQ 32 Santa Ana Redhill Development The estimated City General Fund expenditures for providing services to the Project are approximately $1511,000 and the estimated revenues are approximately $2,545,000, resulting in a net fiscal surplus of approximately $1,034,000 at full buildout. The pro-rata expenditures for the incremental service population applied to both the Project and Industrial Prototype are show in Table 5.3 The estimated City expenditures for providing services to the Industrial Prototype are approximately $185,000 and the estimated revenues are approximately $710,000 resulting in a net fiscal surplus of approximately $525,000 at full buildout. Tables 5.3 and 5.4 show the breakdown of expenditures by department and likely costs to the City of the incremental service population from the Project and Industrial Prototype. Table 24: Fiscal Expenditures - Project Project - Calculated Per Service Population Costs to General Fund City Cost per City of Santa Service Burden of Cost for New Department Ana Budget Population Service Population Police $131,600,000 $312.81 100% $312.81 Fire $45,600,000 $108.39 100% $108.39 Planning and Building $13,200,000 $31.38 60% $18.83 Finance and Management Services $9,700,000 $23.06 60% $13.83 City Manager's Office $2,200,000 $5.23 40% $2.09 City Attorney's Office $3,200,000 $7.61 40% $3.04 Clerk of the Council's Office $1,700,000 $4.04 40% $1.62 Public Works Agency $13,200,000 $31.38 100% $31.38 Community Development Agency $3,300,000 $7.84 60% $4.71 Human Resources $2,500,000 $5.94 80% $4.75 Parks, Recreation, Community Services $21,400,000 $50.87 100% $50.87 Bowers Museum $1,500,000 $3.57 100% $3.57 Library $5,400,000 $12.84 100% $12.84 Civic Center $1,200,000 $2.85 100% $2.85 Strategic Plan $2,500,000 $5.94 60% $3.57 Transfer to Project Funds $9,000,000 $21.39 100% $21.39 Total Cannabis Program $6,200,000 $14.74 100% $14.74 Total Budgeted Expenditures $273,400,000 Total Pro Rata Cost per Service Population $610 Total Incremental Service Population 2,472 Total Cost of New Service to Incremental Service $1,511,000 Population Note: Numbers are rounded and may not sum Source: Santa Ana FY2019-2020 Adopted Budget, AECOM Prepared for: City of Santa Ana %rJlr-$8Y AECOM V QQ 33 Santa Ana Redhill Development Table 25: Fiscal Expenditures - Industrial Prototype Table 5.4: Industrial Prototype - Calculated Per Service Population Costs to General Fund City Cost Burden of Cost for City of Santa per Service New Service Department Ana Budget Population Population Police $131,600,000 $312.81 100% $312.81 Fire $45,600,000 $108.39 100% $108.39 Planning and Building $13,200,000 $31.38 60% $18.83 Finance and Management Services $9,700,000 $23.06 60% $13.83 City Managers Office $2,200,000 $5.23 40% $2.09 City Attorney's Office $3,200,000 $7.61 40% $3.04 Clerk of the Council's Office $1,700,000 $4.04 40% $1.62 Public Works Agency $13,200,000 $31.38 100% $31.38 Community Development Agency $3,300,000 $7.84 60% $4.71 Human Resources $2,500,000 $5.94 80% $4.75 Parks, Recreation, Community Services $21,400,000 $50.87 100% $50.87 Bower's Museum $1,500,000 $3.57 100% $3.57 Library $5,400,000 $12.84 100% $12.84 Civic Center $1,200,000 $2.85 100% $2.85 Strategic Plan $2,500,000 $5.94 60% $3.57 Transfer to Project Funds $9,000,000 $21.39 100% $21.39 Total Cannabis Program $6,200,000 $14.74 100% $14.74 Total Budgeted Expenditures $273,400,000 Total Pro Rata Cost per Service Population $610 Total Incremental Service Population 305 Total Cost of New Service to Incremental Population $185,000 Note: Numbers are rounded and may not sum Source: Santa Ana FY2019-2020 Adopted Budget, AECOM While it is estimated the Industrial Prototype requires fewer services from the City, the Project would likely generate a more significant increase in property taxes through assessed improvements and induce greater sales taxes from increased households in the City. The Project could lead to capital deficits for Focus Area because of higher densities of households and businesses concentrated in and around the current institutions and infrastructures. A further analysis of the current capacity and distribution of public facilities should be conducted to understand the impact of the incremental growth in service population on facilities such as schools, police/fire stations, or other capital investments associated with the provision of public services. The City will consider commissioning an infrastructure needs assessment after the environmental assessment has been completed. Assumptions on Revenues: Property Taxes: Property taxes for both the Project and Industrial Prototype were assessed on the total construction costs of the improvements discounted by 5% to account for the difference between market value and assessed value. The corresponding Tax Rate Area (TRA) allocates 19.4% of the tax assessment to the City's General Fund. Detailed tables are shown in Appendix A. 5 For the purposes of this study, AECOM assumed all expenditures to the City would be based on a pro-rata allocation to these Nice population, which is the industry -standard for anticipating long-term citywide fiscal impacts. Developers are required to pay development fees designed to offset immediate capital costs to the City. AECOM did not work with City staff or public service agents to analyze the thresholds required for new fixed costs to service provision, such as an additional police or fire station. Prepared for: City of Santa Ana 75r_$9O AECOM V 34 Santa Ana Redhill Development Sales Taxes: Sales taxes for both developments come from both taxable sales from the proposed retail and industrial land uses and spending from future residents and employees. For the Project, BLS data on household consumption expenditures for the area were discounted to account for the likely capture to Santa Ana of households on the periphery of the City with considerable retail options in adjacent districts of neighboring cities. A capture rate of 30% was applied to account for this spending and the capture of on -site retail of the Project described above in the Retail Demand section and the potential transfer of sales tax from other retail establishments in the City. Workday spending for on -site employees for both developments also assumed these factors in their discount rates. Detailed tables are shown in the Appendix A. Other Government Revenues: Other sources of revenue are expected to increase as the result of the annexation of the Study Area, including business permits, licenses and inspections, franchise fees, fines and forfeitures and intergovernmental transfers. Detailed tables are shown in the Appendix A. Prepared for: City of Santa Ana 75C-891 AECOM 5 Santa Ana Redhill Development Appendix A Document copies Development Feasibility Analysis PROGRAM Site Area 14.7 acres Height 6 stories Density 75 DU/AC 1.88 FAR Built Area 1,204,209 GBAsq.fi. 79% efficiency 949,735 NLAsq.R. Residential 1,115,320 GBAsq.fi. 80% efficiency 869,735 NLAsq.R. Retail 88,889 GBAsq:fi. 90% efficiency 80,000 NLAsq.R. Club/Fitriess/Rec 28,151 Room Mix Studio 228 units 657 NLAsq.R./unit One -Bedroom 574 units 713 NLAsq.R./unit Two -Bedroom 283 units 1,031 NLAsq.R./unit Three -Bedroom 15 units 1242 NLAsq.R./unit Total 1,100 791 Parking Residential (Resident) 1,100 1.7 stall/unit 1,857 stalls Residential (Guest) 1 100 0.0 stall/unit 0 stalls Total Residential 1.7 stall/unit 1,857 stalls Retail 5.0 /1,000 NLAsq.fi. 400 stalls 2,147 stalls Parking Type Surface 84 stalls Structured 2,059 stalls REVENUE Residential Studio $3.30 NLA/sq.R. $2,169 /unitlmonth 228 units $5,935,382 One -Bedroom $3.03 NLA/sq.R. $2,162 /unitlmonth 574 units $14,889,593 Two -Bedroom $2.75 NLA/sq.R. $2,835 /unitlmonth 283 units $9,626,669 Three -Bedroom 2.60 NLA/sq.R. $3,229 /unitlmonth 15 units $581,256 Gross Potential Revenue $2.97 NLA/sq.R. 1100 units $31,032,900 (less) Vacancy 5.00% ($1,551,645) (less) Operating Expenses 30.00% ($9,309,870) (less) Capital Reserves 2.00% ($620.658) Residential NOI $19,550,727 Capitalized Value of NOI* 4.00% cap rate $488,768,176 (less) Cost of Sale 2.00% ($9.775.364) Net Residential Value $478,992,813 Retail NNN Rental Revenue $2.50 NLA/sq.R. $2,400,000 (less) leasing fee 4.0% NNN Rent ($96,000) (less)Vacancy 5.00% ($115,200) (less) Non-reimb. Exp. 5.00% ($115.200) Retail NOI $2,073,600 Capitalized Value of NOI* 6.50% cap rate $31,901,538 (less) Cost of Sale 3.00% ($957.046) Net Retail Value $30.944A92 TOTAL VALUE 4.2% implied cap rate $509,937,305 Prepared for: City of Santa Ana 75r-Q 92 AECOM V Q 36 Santa Ana Redhill Development DEVELOPM34T COSTS Direct Costs Site Work Parking Surface Structured Subtotal Residential Site Parking Construction Subtotal Retail Site Parking Construction TI/TA Subtotal Total Direct Costs Indirect Costs LEED Certification Permits and Fees Legal Insurance and Warranty Architecture and Engineenq Developer Fee G&A Subtotal Indirect Costs Residential Retail Financing*** Residential Retail Contingency Residential Retail Profit as a %of Total Costs Residential Retail Total Indirect Costs TOTAL COSTS (Direct +Indirect) Residential Retail RESIDUAL LAND VALUE Residential Retail Net RLV Per Acre Per Land Square Foot Per Gross Building Square Foot Per Net Building Square Foot RLV as % of Total Costs $15 /sq.fi. $3,500 /stall $25,000 /stall 93% pro rate based on GBA 82% pro rate based on stalls $180 /GBAsq.R. 7% pro rate based on GBA 18% pro rate based on stalls $110 /GBAsq.R. $40 /NLAsgA 3.0% 8% /GBAsq.R. 1.0% of Direct Costs 2.0% of Direct Costs 7.0% of Direct Costs 5.0% of Direct Costs 2.5% of Direct Costs 92% pro rate based on DC 8% pro rate based on DC 1.5 year(s) construction period 92% pro rate based on DC 8% pro rate based on DC 5.0% 92% pro rate based on DC 8% pro rate based on DC 15% 92% pro rate based on DC 8% pro rate based on DC *CBRE Retail Cap Rate Orange County Hl 2019 for Class A 4-4.5 **CBRE Retail Cap Rate Orange County Hl 2019 for Class B: 6.25-6.75 —Construction financing assumptions:60%LTC, 4.5%interest, 2%fee, 50%avg. balance $9,598,446 $294,000 $51,475,000 $51,769,000 $8,889,935 $42,594,166 $200,757,642 $252,241,743 $708,511 $9,174,834 $9,777,778 $3,200,000 $22,861,122 $275,102,866 $8,253,086 $22,008,229 $2,751,029 $5,502,057 $19,257,201 $13,755,143 $6,877,572 $78,404,317 $14,228,664 $18,386,792 $57,918,396 $71,888,897 $6,515,420 $13,046,258 $1,182,406 $16,858,845 $1,527,947 $53,105,361 $4,813,034 $168,938,169 $407,141,105 $36,899,930 $444,041,035 $71,851,708 $5,955,438 $65,896,270 $4,485,791 $103 $55 $69 15% Prepared for: City of Santa Ana 75C-893 AECOM 37 Santa Ana Redhill Development PROGRAM Site Area Height Density Built Area Industrial Parking Industrial Parking Type Surface REVENUE Industrial NNN Rental Revenue (less) leasing fee (less) Vacancy (less) Non-reimb. Exp. Indutrail NOI Capitalized Value of NOI' (less) Cost of Sale Net Indutrial Value TOTALVALUE DEVELOPMENT COSTS Direct Costs Site Work Parking Surface Industrial Site Parking Construction TI/TA Subtotal Total Direct Costs Indirect Costs LEED Certification Permits and Fees Legal Insurance and Warranty Architecture and Engineering Developer Fee G&A Subtotal Indirect Costs Industrial Financing" Industrial Contingency Industrial Profit as a %of Total Costs (Belt Industrial Total Indirect Costs TOTAL COSTS (Direct + Indirect) Industrial 14.7 acres 1 stories N/A DU/AC 303,109 GBA sq.ft. 303,109 GBA sq.ft. 2.0 /1 ,000 NLAsq.ft. $0.95 NLArsq.ft. 3.0% NNN Rent 5.00% 5.00% 4.25% cap rate 3.00% 4.4% implied cap rate $7 /s q.ft. $3,500 /stall 100% pro rata based on GBA 100% pro rata based on stalls $65 /GBA sq.ft. $15 MLA sq.ft. RESIDUAL LAND VALUE Industrial Retail Net RLV Per Acre Per Land Square Foot Per Gross Building Square Foot Per Net Building Square Foot RLV as % of Total Costs 3.0% 6% of Direct Costs 1.0% of Direct Costs 2.0% of Direct Costs 7.0% of Direct Costs 5.0% of Direct Costs 2.5% of Direct Costs 0.45 FAR 0% efficiency 95% efficiency 576 stalls stalls 576 stalls 100% pro rata based on DC 1.5 year(s) construction period 100% pro rata based on DC 5.0% 100% pro rata based on DC 15% 100% pro rata based on DC N LA s q.ft. 287,953 NLAsq.ft. $3,282,669 ($98,480) ($159,209) ($159.209) $2,865,770 $67,429,874 (52.022.896) $65,406,977 $65,406,977 $4,479,275 $2,016,000 $4,479,275 $2,016,000 $19,702,073 $4,319,301 $30,516,649 $30,516,649 $915,499 $1,830,999 $305,166 $610,333 $2,136,165 $1,525,832 762 916 $8,086,912 $8,086,912 $1,553,793 $1,553,793 $2,007,868 $2,007,868 $6,324,783 $6,324,783 $17,973,356 $17,973,356 $48,490,005 $48,490,005 $65,406,977 0 $16,916,972 $1,151,598 $26 $56 $58.75 35% CBRE Industrial Cap Rate Orange County Hl 2019 for Class A 3.75-4.25 p; ,¢ggtignifyWi.i�ip„ga ,§;Vmptions:60%LTC, 4.5%inteleJt� 1e�51M4alance AECOM II vv o�!��}} 38 Santa Ana Redhill Development Industrial Prototype Relevant Comparisons Address: 11488 Slater Ave Fountain Valley 721 S Van Buren St, Placentia RBA: 134,000 SF 69,882 SF $/SF NNN: $9-11/SF $11-13/SF Year Built: 2016 2019 Address: 2906 Tech Center Dr Santa Ana RBA: 509,470 SF $/SF NNN: $12-16/SF Year Built: Under Construction Prepared for City of Santa Ana 75C-895 AECOM 9 Santa Ana Redhill Development Fiscal Impact Tables The Project - Estimated Property Tax Revenues at Stabilized Occupancy Real Estate Sale Assumptions Estimated Total Assessed Value Total Improved Value* $475,000,000 Property Transfer Tax Revenue Assumptions Total Improved Value $475,000,000 Property TransferTaxl ($0.275 per $500) $261,000 Annual Property Transfer Tax (5%of total) $26,100 Property Tax Revenue Allocation Assumptions Total Improved Value $475,000,000 1% Property Tax Allocation $4,750,000 % of Property Tax Distributed to City of Santa Ana General Fund** 19.4% Net Increase in Property Tax Revenue $922,000 % of City of Santa Ana in Lieu of Vehicle License Fee (VLF)*** 4.7% Net Increase of In Lieu of VLF to the City of Santa Ana $223,887 Total Estimated Annual Property Tax Allocation to the City of Santa Ana $1,145,887 Annual Combined Property Transfer Tax and Property Tax Allocation to the City of Santa Ana $1,171,987 *Discounted 5%to account for Assessed versus Market Value **Tax Rate Area 11-019 ***Tax ratio is based on per capita estimated 2018-18 Santa Ana Budget Property Tax In Lieu of VLF revenues Source: Orange County Tax Assessor, Costar, BLS, California DOF, AECOM Prepared for: City of Santa Ana 75C-896 AEC OM 40 40 Santa Ana Redhill Development Industrial Prototype - Estimated Property Tax Revenues at Stabilized Occupancy Estimated Total Assessed Real Estate Sale Assumptions Value Total Improved Value* $72,188,313 Property Transfer Tax Revenue Assumptions Total Improved Value $72,188,313 Property Transfer Tax ($0.275 per $500) $40,000 Annual Property Transfer Tax (5% of total) $4,000 Property Tax Revenue Allocation Assumptions Total Improved Value $72,188,313 1% Property Tax Allocation $722,000 % of Property Tax Distributed to City of Santa Ana General Fund** 19.40% Net Increase in Property Tax Revenue $140,000 % of City of Santa Ana in Lieu of Vehicle License Fee (VLF) 0.0% Net Increase of In Lieu of VLF to the City of Santa Ana $0 Total Estimated Annual Property Tax Allocation to the City of Santa Ana $140,000 Annual Combined Property Transfer Tax and Property Tax Allocation to the City of Santa Ana $144,000 *Discounted 5%to accountfor Assessed versus Market Value **Tax Rate Area 11-019 Source: Orange County Tax Assessor, Costar, BLS, California DOF, AECOM Prepared for City of Santa Ana 75C-897 AECOM 41 Santa Ana Redhill Development The Project - Estimated Sales Tax Revenue Description Value Households* 1,045 Estimated City of Santa Ana per capita Sales $20,910.00 Capture Rate 30% Taxable Sales in Santa Ana $6,555,285 Sales Tax Rate 2.50% Sales Tax generated by New Residents $163,882 Annexation Employees** 260 Estimated Annual Taxable Workday Spending*** $6,700 Capture to Santa Ana 30% Total Estimated Annual Taxable Sales from On -site Employees $522,070 Local Sales Tax (excluding California State sales tax and voter additions) 2.50% Estimated Annual Sales Tax Revenue by On -site Employees $13,052 Annual Estimated Sales Tax Revenue by Residents and On -Site Employees $176,934 Total Annual Sales from Businesses $855,000 Total Sales Tax $1,031,934 *95% Structural Occupancy **Discounted for % of Workers living in Santa Ana **ICSC Estimates for average worker with comparable retail offerings Source: California BOE, Orange County Tax Assessor, LEHD, ICSC, AECOM Industrial Prototype - Estimated Sales Tax Revenue Description Value Annexation Employees* 519 Annual Taxable Workday Spending** $6,700 Capture to Santa Ana 35% Total Estimated Annual Taxable Sales from On -site Employees $1,218,164 Local Sales Tax (excluding California State sales tax and voter additions) 2.50% Estimated Annual Sales Tax Revenue by On -site Employees $30,454 Total Annual Sales from Businesses $493,920 Total Sales Tax $524,374 *Discounted for % of Workers living in Santa Ana **ICSC Estimates for average worker with comparable retail offerings Source: California BOE, Orange County Tax Assessor, LEHD, ICSC, AECOM Prepared for: City of Santa Ana 75r_89Q AEC 42 V Q Santa Ana Redhill Development The Project - Estimated Other General Fund Revenue Other General Fund Revenue Sources* Pro Rata Share** Estimated Revenue*** Business Licenses $35.48 $87,696 Fees, Permits, and Other Charges $66.38 $164,078 Fines, Forfeitures and Penalties $18.03 $44,576 Intergovernmental $18.08 $44,700 Estimated Total of other Revenue $137.97 $341,050 *General Fund revenue sources identified here are believed to have a reasonable relationship with population change. **Pro rata shares calculated using City of Santa Ana 2019-2020 Adopted Budget and estimated 2019 population (California Department of Finance). ***Estimated Revenue = Pro Rata Share x Estimated Development Service Population Source: City of Santa Ana California Department of Finance, AECOM Industrial Prototype - Estimated Other General Fund Revenue Other General Fund Revenue Sources* Pro Rata Share** Estimated Revenue*** Business Licenses $35.48 $10,785 Fees, Permits, and Other Charges $66.38 $20,179 Fines, Forfeitures and Penalties $18.03 $5,482 Intergovernmental $18.08 $5,497 Estimated Total of other Revenue $137.97 $41,943 *General Fund revenue sources identified here are believed to have a reasonable relationship with population change. **Pro rata shares calculated using City of Santa Ana 2019-2020 Adopted Budget and estimated 2019 population (California Department of Finance). ***Estimated Revenue = Pro Rata Share x Estimated Development Service Population Source: City of Santa Ana California Department of Finance, AECOM Prepared for: City of Santa Ana 75C-899 AEC OM 43 43 Santa Ana Redhill Development Prepared for'. City of Santa Ana 75C-900 AEC 44 Santa Ana Redhill Development 75C-901 Exhibit 9 AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION GRANGE COUNTY FOR ORANGE COUNTY 3160 Airway Avenue • Costa Mesa, California 92626 - 949.252.5170 fax: 949.252.6012 May 26, 2020 Ali Pezeshkpour, AICP Senior Planner Planning and Building Agency City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza P.O. Box 1988 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Subject: Bowery Mixed Use Development at 2300, 2310 and 2320 Red Hill Avenue Dear Mr. Pezeshkpour: During the public meeting held on May 21, 2020, the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for Orange County considered the subject project. The matter was duly discussed, and with a unanimous vote of 6-0, the Commission found the proposed General Plan Amendment, Zoning Code Amendment and proposed Bowery Mixed Use project located at 2300, 2310, and 2320 Red Hill Avenue to be Inconsistent with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan,(AELUP) for John Wayne Airport (JWA) per AELUP Sections 1.2 and 2.1.4, and PUC Section 21674 which state that the commission is charged by PUC Section 21674(a) "to assist local agencies in ensuring compatible land uses in the vicinity of ...existing airports to the extent that the land in the vicinity of those airports is not already devoted to incompatible uses," and PUC Section 21674(b) "to coordinate planning at the state, regional and local levels so as to provide for the orderly development of air transportation, while at the same time protecting the public health, safety and welfare." Please contact me at (949) 252-5123 or at Ichoum@ocair.com if you require additional information or have questions regarding this proceeding. Sincerely, C-1" U, OAWU .— Lea U. Choum Executive Officer 75C-902 AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION NtANGE COUNTY FOR ORANGE COUNTY 3160 Airway Avenue • Costa Mesa, California 92626 - 949.252.SI70 fax: 949.252.6012 AGENDA ITEM 2 May 21, 2020 TO: Commissioners Alternates FROM: Lea Choum, Executive Officer SUBJECT: City of Santa Ana Request for Consistency Finding of the Proposed General Plan Amendment and. Zone Change for the Bowery Mixed -Use Development at 2300, 2310, and 2320 Red Hill Avenue Background The Bowery is a proposed mixed -use project on a 14.6 acre site located at the southwest comer of Red Hill Avenue and Warner Avenue, approximately 2.25 miles from John Wayne Airport (see Attachment 1 for location). The property is currently zoned by the City of Santa Ana as Light Industrial (M-1), and designated in the General Plan as Professional and Administrative Office (PAO). The current zoning allows uses such as warehouses, wholesale operations and manufacturing uses as well as support commercial businesses. The property has three existing 3- story industrial buildings currently used for warehousing and distribution, research and development, and a temporary City of Santa Ana homeless shelter. The applicant is proposing to redevelop the site with a four -phase mixed -use development that would include up to 1,150 multi -family residential units and up to 80,000 square feet of commercial retail and restaurant space. The project would consist of three five -story mixed -use buildings, one five -story residential building, two single -story commercial buildings and four parking structures six to six -and -a -half stories above ground. In addition, the project would provide approximately 220,000 square feet of open space and recreation amenities for residents including common areas, courtyards, and rooftop decks. The project is being referred to your Commission because of the project's location within the Airport Planning Area for JWA and because the project requires a General Plan Amendment and a Zoning Code change. The applicant is requesting to change the zoning designation from Light Industrial (M-1) to Specific Development (SD), and the City is proposing a General Plan Amendment that would change the designation of the site from Professional and Administrative Office (PAO) to District Center (DC), which would allow the construction of a mixed -use development. 75C-903 Agenda Item 2- I he Bowery May 21, 2020 Page 2 The project is approximately .3 miles northeast of a similar mixed -use project, the Heritage, which was brought to your Commission in October 2015. Your Commission found the Heritage project inconsistent with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport, and the City of Santa Ana subsequently overruled the Commission's finding as per Public Utilities Code 21676(b) and proceeded with development. On March 16, 2020, ALUC staff met with the Bowery project applicant, at the applicant's request, to discuss the need for this project to be referred to ALUC for a consistency review. The applicant disagreed with the ALUC staff definition of "Planning Area," and requested a legal response. ALUC's legal counsel/County Counsel met via teleconference with the project applicant's legal representative on April 21, 2020. The project applicant has maintained that this location is not included in ALUC's Planning Area. Separate from (not a part of) this proposal, the City of Santa Ana is in the process of conducting a comprehensive General Plan update. The City has identified a "55 Freeway/Dyer Road Focus Area," in which the properties along Red Hill Avenue, between Warner and Dyer, are proposed for the District Center designation, which would allow for more mixed -use development along Red Hill Avenue. ALUC staff will continue to monitor the City's General Plan Update and provide comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) when it is available. The City of Santa Ana has scheduled the following public hearings for the proposed project: May 11, 2020 - Planning Commission (continued) May 26, 2020 - Planning Commission June 2, 2020 - City Council AELUP Issues The proposed project, zone change and General Plan Amendment have been evaluated for conflicts with respect to aircraft noise, building heights, flight tracks, safety zones and the development of heliports. Regarding Aircraft Noise Impacts The site of the proposed project is not located within the JWA 60 or 65 dBA CNEL noise contours (see Attachment 2). The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed project included Mitigation Measure LU-2 stating that all prospective residents of the project site would be notified of airport related noise (via Notice of Airport in Vicinity language in lease/rental agreements). The City revised the EIR however, and removed that mitigation measure as well as the AELUP for JWA Section 3.2.4 requirement to provide outdoor signage informing the public of the presence of operating aircraft. Regarding Height Restrictions In Section 2.1.3 of the AELUP for JWA, the Commission has incorporated the standards for height limits for determining obstructions and has incorporated the definitions of "imaginary 75C-904 Agenda Item 2- The Bowery May 21, 2020 Page 3 surfaces" for airports as defined in Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77. The proposed project is located within the FAR Part 77 "imaginary surfaces" referral area. The proposed maximum height for the project is 156 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) which does not penetrate the notification surface of 172.4 feet AMSL (see Attachment 3). Attachment 4 shows that the proposed project is located within the approach corridor for JWA which would be penetrated at 300 feet AMSL. The maximum building height proposed for this project is 156 feet AMSL, which would not penetrate the impact areas reserved for air navigation. The project applicant filed Form 7460-1 with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for each of the proposed buildings, and has received four Determinations of No Hazard to Air Navigation. FAA Aeronautical Study Nos. 2020-AWP-1999-OE, 2020-AWP-3470-OE, 2020-AWP-3471-OE, and 2020-AWP-2002-OE are included as Attachment 5. Regarding Flight Tracks and Safety Zones As shown in Attachment 4, the proposed project site is close to the JWA approach centerline, where residents would be subject to overflight of both commercial and general aviation aircraft. Attachment 6 shows the flight tracks over the proposed project site. Exhibits were prepared to demonstrate the elevations of planes flying over the property. The first exhibit in Attachment 6 shows a day's worth of normal operation arrivals. The next exhibit shows a day's worth of reverse flow (departure) flight tracks. Each exhibit also has a corresponding list of each flight, time of day, and elevation above the proposed project site. Under normal arrival operations, the average altitude of flights over the property is 790 feet above ground level. As shown in the Attachment 6 arrivals table, between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m. on January 8, 2020, aircraft were flying over the property with intervals between two (2) and eight (8) minutes between flights. For the 8 p.m. to 9 p.m. hour on the same day, planes flew over the property with the longest interval being at twenty (20) minutes and shortest interval being one (1) minute between flights. Attachment 7 contains the Safety Zones exhibit showing that the proposed project site is not within the safety zone areas for JWA. Heliports Heliports are not proposed as part of project. The City of Santa Ana General Plan includes language that states proposed heliport projects must comply with FAA Regulations, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics and the AELUP for Heliports in the development of heliports. Environmental Compliance A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was prepared as the CEQA documentation to analyze the potential impacts of the project. ALUC staff provided comments on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) on August 28, 2019, and on the DEIR on February 18, 2020. Both letters are attached, as well as the City's response to the DEIR comments (See Attachment 8). The letters emphasized that the proposed project is located under the primary aircraft approach corridor to JWA and stated that future residents would be exposed to significant aircraft overflight and single event noise due to the project's location. Additionally, during reverse flow operations at 75C-905 Agenda Item 2- The Bowery May 21, 2020 Page 4 JWA (approximately five percent (5%) of the time) new residents would experience noise associated with aircraft departures. The letters also recommended outdoor signage informing the public of the presence of operating aircraft/aircraft overflight. The City had included Mitigation Measures NOI-3 regarding noise and LU-2 regarding signage in the Draft EIR, but then removed those measures in the revised EIR, which will be considered by the Santa Ana Planning Commission and City Council at their upcoming meetings (see Attachment 11). Conclusion Attachment 9 to this report contains excerpts from the project submittal package received from the City of Santa Ana for your reference. ALUC staff has reviewed this project, zone change and General Plan Amendment with respect to compliance with the AELUP for JWA, including review of height restrictions, imaginary surfaces, flight tracks, heliports and environmental compliance. The proposed project is not located within the noise contours or safety zones for JWA and does not penetrate the notification or the obstruction imaginary surfaces for JWA. The project is, however, located within the primary aircraft approach corridor to JWA. The proposed project, with the associated zone change and General Plan Amendment would introduce mixed -uses (residential) to this site, which has been historically light industrial and office. This would subject many individuals to overflight activity and likely create disturbances and annoyances for many of the new inhabitants, especially during morning and evening arrivals. As noted in the DEIR comments from the ALUC, in addition to regular arrival operations, future residents will also be exposed to reverse flow (departure) operations at JWA, which take place approximately five percent (5%) of the time. On August 28, 2019, JWA also provided comments on the NOP, emphasizing the same points discussed above (See Attachment 10). Because of the project location within the primary approach corridor and its proximity to JWA (2.25 miles), JWA stated it is not supportive of the proposed residential portion of this project. Residents would be subject to significant aircraft overflight, noise and annoyance as approaching aircraft fly overhead at an average altitude of 790 feet above ground level. Additionally, during reverse flow circumstances, departing aircraft may be higher in altitude, but louder over the project area. It has been JWA's experience that residential uses located under aircraft approach and departure corridors generate a significant number of noise complaints from affected residents. JWA also suggested that the City should give consideration as to how these noise complaints will be addressed should the project be approved. Per Section 1.2 of the AELUP for JWA, the purpose of the AELUP is to safeguard the general welfare of the inhabitants within the vicinity of the airport and to ensure the continued operation of the airport. Specifically, the plan seeks to protect the public from the adverse effects of aircraft noise to ensure that people and facilities are not concentrated in areas susceptible to aircraft accidents, and to ensure that no structures or activities adversely affect navigable airspace. Additionally, Section 2.1.4 of the AELUP for JWA and PUC Section 21674 charge the Commission to coordinate at the local level to ensure compatible land use planning. Therefore, because of the proposed zone change, General Plan amendment and the project's proposed residential uses, the project's location within the primary approach corridor for JWA and the 75C-906 Agenda Item 2- The aowery May 21, 2020 Page > existing significant aircraft overflight above the proposed project site, staff is recommending the following: Recommendation: That the Commission find the proposed zone change, general plan amendment and the proposed Bowery Mixed Use Project inconsistent with the AELUP for JWA per AELUP Sections 1.2 and 2.1.4, and PUC Section 21674 which state that the commission is charged by PUC Section 21674(a) "to assist local agencies in ensuring compatible land uses in the vicinity of ...existing airports to the extent that the land in the vicinity of those airports is not already devoted to incompatible uses," and PUC Section 21674(b) "to coordinate planning at the state, regional and local levels so as to provide for the orderly development of air transportation, while at the same time protecting the public health. safety and welfare." Reespectfully submitted, pp 6,<6, u . o ^—` Lea U. Choum Executive Officer Attachments: 1. Project Location Map 2. JWA CNEL Contours 3. FAR Part 77 AELUP Notification Area for JWA 4. FAR Part 77 JWA Obstruction Imaginary Surfaces 5. FAA Aeronautical Studies (4 Determination Letters) 6. Flight Tracks Over Proposed Project with Corresponding Tables 7. JWA Airport Safety Zone Reference Map 8. ALUC Comment Letters on NOP and DEIR 9. Submittal Package Excerpts from City of Santa Ana 10. JWA Comment Letter on NOP 11. Revisions to EIR 75C-907 ATTACHMENT 1 75C-908 Project Location Santa Atka Tustin w `r` °f° r F PROJECT SITE Marine Corps Air Station Tustin (Closed, "'"nve $� Tustin Legacy E Cf�'un��hl�re A'.�n �.. cE �.. Ra The Disaus '� r<eTasun Leguy ; Irvine T T Costa Mesn& li3C Irvine In,.r John Wayne Airport lhh a WY yn e gramge Coup ry .p', - ' Newport Beach .-P %VUAC US6; NASA E'A. MI-1 NVA.14 ..E6 0 `IOAA.II N Project Site n The Bowery Figure 33-2 Draft EIR 75C-909 ATTACHMENT 2 75C-910 :;,f '! ATTACHMENT 3 75C-912 : J& ATTACHMENT 4 75C-914 I" ATTACHMENT 5 75C-916 Mail Processing Center Federal Aviation Administration Southwest Regional Office Obstruction Evaluation Group 10 10 1 Hillwood Parkway Fort Worth, TX 76177 Issued Date: 03/05/2020 Jeremy Ogulnick Arrimus Capital 240 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Aeronautical Study No. 2020-AWP-1999-OE Prior Study No. 2020-AWP- 1941 -OE ** DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION ** The Federal Aviation Administration has conducted an aeronautical study under the provisions of 49 U.S.C., Section 44718 and if applicable Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 77, concerning: Structure: Building Bowery Building A Location: Santa Ana, CA Latitude: 33-42-39.74N NAD 83 Longitude: 117-50-19.59W Heights: 62 feet site elevation (SE) 94 feet above ground level (AGL) 156 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) This aeronautical study revealed that the structure does not exceed obstruction standards and would not be a hazard to air navigation provided the following condition(s), if any, is(are) met: It is required that FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, be a -filed any time the project is abandoned or: _ At least 10 days prior to start of construction (7460-2, Part 1) _X_ Within 5 days after the construction reaches its greatest height (7460-2, Part 2) Based on this evaluation, marking and lighting are not necessary for aviation safety. However, if marking/ lighting are accomplished on a voluntary basis, we recommend it be installed in accordance with FAA Advisory circular 70/7460- t L Change 2. This determination expires on 09105/2021 unless: (a) the construction is started (not necessarily completed) and FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, is received by this office. (b) extended, revised, or terminated by the issuing office. (c) the construction is subject to the licensing authority of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and an application for a construction permit has been filed, as required by the FCC, within 6 months of the date of this determination. In such case, the determination expires on the date prescribed by the FCC for completion of construction, or the date the FCC denies the application. Page `f k-917 NOTE: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THIS DETERMINATION MUST BE E-FILED AT LEAST 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION DATE. AFTER RE-EVALUATION OF CURRENT OPERATIONS IN THE AREA OF THE STRUCTURE TO DETERMINE THAT NO SIGNIFICANT AERONAUTICAL CHANGES HAVE OCCURRED, YOUR DETERMINATION MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR ONE EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD. This determination is based, in part, on the foregoing description which includes specific coordinates, heights, frequency(ies) and power. Any changes in coordinates, heights, and frequencies or use of greater power, except those frequencies specified in the Colo Void Clause Coalition; Antenna System Co -Location; Voluntary Best Practices, effective 21 Nov 2007, will void this determination. Any future construction or alteration, including increase to heights, power, or the addition of other transmitters, requires separate notice to the FAA.This determination includes all previously filed frequencies and power for this structure. If construction or alteration is dismantled or destroyed, you must submit notice to the FAA within 5 days after the construction or alteration is dismantled or destroyed. I his determination does include temporary construction equipment such as cranes, derricks, etc., which may be u'rd during actual construction of the structure. However, this equipment shall not exceed the overall heights as indicated above. Equipment which has a height greater than the studied structure requires separate notice to the I r\A. I hk determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace h% aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor ol'compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or regulation of any Federal, State, or local govertuncni body. Iwe can be of furtherassistanec. please contact our ol'fice at (206) 231-2990. or paul,holnului,tu faa.gov. On am future correspondence Concerning thi; matter, please refer to Aerarautical StUdy Number 2020-AWT-1999- OE, Signature Control No: 431129105-43?730455 Paul Holmquist Specialist :Attachment(s) blap(s) Page 2 of 4 (DNE) 75C-918 TOPO Map for ASN 2020-AWP-1999-OE Page 3 of 4 75C-919 Sectional Map for ASN 2020-AWP-1999-OE .kaY •. P Or FULLERTON (FUL( ' 1 COF ,lE 19AJIA Q ATIS$125.05 2998 96 "L,31�f 22-95'� �nae 281), RP 24 I�DISNEYCAND,THEME. �0 AHEIM See Not_©_fo uirements , - ^ �5$., •, rs®�` a nd\ STADIUM■■�•JOZi/T (�4 �� 44 s�Sri 07jo P EA F (SL'I) 25 bidgs At7�+1�""�-� �171 �� OHNNE • tPE KE 75 379.975 SA •'• OICRQ _ "'; J�WAY�IV i5a =00 RANGE CO (SNA)f a/ CT --11 §A *A 26 VW G I 122.45 NTIN N TATISi126.0 A ANA RCO' PI 56 L 574 122 95 _ CAU.TIONrUNi RP 2R! 20F LAIYERSIDE JI�006ABLE� IJ ram- 54 44 76 i;c 25 � 425 SE Y 117!2' 555 •;`� � / 15 'OR SEA )�� 1 '; 54 N BALBO 4dio Powers TUNA Mid! 35 SIGNAL ELLS vJEJ 3 5 PEAK / 54 KRAUZ p } Page 4 of 4 75C-920 Mail Processing Center Federal Aviation Administration Southwest Regional Office Obstruction Evaluation Group 10101 Hillwood Parkway Fort Worth, TX 76177 Issued Date: 03/24/2020 Jeremy Ogulnick Arrimus Capital 240 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Aeronautical Study No. 2020-AWP-3470-OE Prior Study No. 2020-AWP-2000-OE ** DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION ** The Federal Aviation Administration has conducted an aeronautical study under the provisions of 49 U.S.C., Section 44718 and if applicable Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 77, concerning: Structure: Building Bowery Building B Location: Santa Ana, CA Latitude: 33-42-42.61N NAD 83 Longitude: 117-50-26.16 W Heights: 60 feet site elevation (SE) 77 feet above ground level (AGL) 137 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) This aeronautical study revealed that the structure does not exceed obstruction standards and would not be a hazard to air navigation provided the following condition(s), if any, is(are) met: It is required that FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, be a -filed any time the project is abandoned or: At least 10 days prior to start of construction (7460-2, Part I) ^X— Within 5 days after the construction reaches its greatest height (7460-2, Part 2) Based on this evaluation, marking and lighting are not necessary for aviation safety. However, if marking/ lighting are accomplished on a voluntary basis, we recommend it be installed in accordance with FAA Advisory circular 7017460-1 L Change 2. This determination expires on 09124/2021 unless: (a) the construction is started (not necessarily completed) and FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, is received by this office. (b) extended, revised, or terminated by the issuing office. (c) the construction is subject to the licensing authority of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and an application for a construction permit has been filed, as required by the FCC, within 6 months of the date of this determination. In such case, the determination expires on the date prescribed by the FCC for completion of construction, or the date the FCC denies the application. Page 1 of 4 75C-921 NOTE: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THIS DETERMINATION MUST BE E-FILED AT LEAST 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION DATE. AFTER RE-EVALUATION OF CURRENT OPERATIONS IN THE AREA OF THE STRUCTURE TO DETERMINE THAT NO SIGNIFICANT AERONAUTICAL CHANGES HAVE OCCURRED, YOUR DETERMINATION MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR ONE EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD. This determination is based, in part, on the foregoing description which includes specific coordinates, heights, frequency(ies) and power. Any changes in coordinates, heights, and frequencies or use of greater power, except those frequencies specified in the Colo Void Clause Coalition; Antenna System Co -Location; Voluntary Best Practices, effective 21 Nov 2007, will void this determination. Any future construction or alteration, including increase to heights, power, or the addition of other transmitters, requires separate notice to the FAA.This determination includes all previously filed frequencies and power for this structure. I I construction or alteration is dismantled or destroyed, you must submit notice to the FAA within 5 days after the construction or alteration is dismantled or destroyed. his determination does include temporary construction equipment such as cranes, derricks, etc., which may be used (luring actual construction of the structure. However, this equipment shall not exceed the overall heights as indicated above. Equipment which has a height greater than the studied structure requires separate notice to the FAA. I his determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body. This determination cancels and supersedes prior detenni nations issued for this structure. II'we can be of further assistance, please contact our office at (206) 231-2990, or paul.holmquist;afaa.gov. On any Ilnure correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2020-AWP-3470- OE. Signature Control No: 434352841-434408278 Paul I lolniquist Specialist Attachment(s) Map(s) Page 2 of 4 (DNE) 75C-922 TOPO Map for ASN 2020-AWP-3470-OE Page 3 of 4 75C-923 Sectional Map for ASN 2020-AWP-3470-OE G VjI VM =1r 1 L I(.:) 40J-1-- 'FULLERTON (FUL) 119.1tQ ATaSx125. �'QQ � �RP 24 t DISNEYR:►AN�I�THEi1AE.i?ARK �rr�QQ_ AHEM SedNoteJ rr uirements, _ 4 r—a �Q' �: r—'-� 3 I - ® nd�L STADIUM -Kr---1 'N a w �� 44 SGjt �2C IRVIR>`• .F (SL'I) ) 22 bl gs178(3" - ' LAKE —Al ,75 379.975 -' rwOKRO ' i ♦ JO,,NrWAYNE 5 41 ORANGE CO0(SNA1� CT�-119T9 *i12&.8 * © I .122.45_ NTIN N TATI$./126.0 - A ANA RCO PI 56 L 57 1. ..9S CAUTION. UN RP 2RIt 20R` 'RIVERSIDE SON CABLE 54 �` 44�4ult 25 42s SFC% 117:2 2014_ SEA /V-'i ' S)j� or 54. N RT 8ALB0 r radio towers and 5 4 SIGNAL GNA V EJ 35 PEAK I-(�ILLS 54 KRAU,Z j i C� Page 4 of 4 75C-924 Mail Processing Center Federal Aviation Administration Southwest Regional Office Obstruction Evaluation Group 10101 Hillwood Parkway Fort Worth, TX 76177 Issued Date: 03/24/2020 Jeremy Ogulnick Arrimus Capital 240 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Aeronautical Study No. 2020-AWP-3471-OE Prior Study No. 2020-AWP-2001-OE ** DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION ** The Federal Aviation Administration has conducted an aeronautical study under the provisions of 49 U.S.C., Section 44718 and if applicable Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 77, concerning: Structure: Building Bowery Building C Location: Santa Ana, CA Latitude: 33.42-35.17N NAD 83 Longitude: 117-50-22.76W Heights: 60 feet site elevation (SE) 77 feet above ground level (AGL) 137 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) This aeronautical study revealed that the structure does not exceed obstruction standards and would not be a hazard to air navigation provided the following condition(s), if any, is(are) met: It is required that FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, be a -filed any time the project is abandoned or: At least 10 days prior to start of construction (7460-2, Part 1) X Within 5 days after the construction reaches its greatest height (7460-2, Part 2) Based on this evaluation, marking and lighting are not necessary for aviation safety. However, if marking lighting are accomplished on a voluntary basis, we recommend it be installed in accordance with FAA Advisory circular 70.7460-1 L Change 2. This determination expires on 09 4:2021 unless: (a) the construction is started (not necessarily completed) and FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, is received by this office. (b) extended, revised, or terminated by the issuing office. (c) the construction is subject to the licensing authority of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and an application for a construction permit has been filed, as required by the FCC, within 6 months of the date of this determination. In such case, the determination expires on the date prescribed by the FCC for completion of construction, or the date the FCC denies the application. PageAb_925 NOTE: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THIS DETERMINATION MUST BE E-FILED AT LEAST 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION DATE. AFTER RE-EVALUATION OF CURRENT OPERATIONS IN THE AREA OF THE STRUCTURE TO DETERMINE THAT NO SIGNIFICANT AERONAUTICAL CHANGES HAVE OCCURRED, YOUR DETERMINATION MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR ONE EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD. This determination is based, in part, on the foregoing description which includes specific coordinates, heights, frequency(ies) and power. Any changes in coordinates, heights, and frequencies or use of greater power, except those frequencies specified in the Colo Void Clause Coalition; Antenna System Co -Location; Voluntary Best Practices, effective 21 Nov 2007, will void this determination. Any future construction or alteration, including increase to heights, power, or the addition of other transmitters, requires separate notice to the FAA.This determination includes all previously filed frequencies and power for this structure. I ['construction or alteration is dismantled or destroyed, you must submit notice to the FAA within 5 days after the construction or alteration is dismantled or destroyed. ['his, determination does include temporary construction equipment such as cranes, derricks, etc., which may be u,cd during actual construction of the structure. However, this equipment shall not exceed the overall heights as indicated above. Equipment which has a height greater than the studied structure requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body. Tliis determination cancels and supersedes prior determinations issued for this structure. [I'" c can be of further assistance, please contact our office at (206) 231-2990, or paul.holmquist«t faa.gov. On any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2020-AWP-3471- Or. Signature Control No: 434352873-434408279 Paul I lolmquist Specialist Attachment(s) Map(s) Page 2 of 4 (DNE) 75C-926 TOPO Map for ASN 2020-AWP-3471-OF Page 3 of 4 75C-927 FULIETOP 19.1t"IC9 96-'L—,31'1 RP•24 ��0'064 F (SLI) 75 379.! !, C WING 54 35 Sectional Map for ASN 2020-AWP-3471-OE -� ` •.. ' j •fir -!.-Y V���� nd\ T § AD 44 4 75 25 bldgs Air 3H N�,WAYN E 1N!CE C,O L {{SN 19.9 */126.8*A Qj CATISi126.0 5712295 RP 2R; 20rl 3ALSO >ee Note M� 1 0 S radio 44 su 35 P uz Page 4 of 4 75C-928 Aft -A.' 117.:2 . :rO ers NA MI4: F(ILLS VIEJ Mail Processing Center Federal Aviation Administration Southwest Regional Office Obstruction Evaluation Group 10101 Hillwood Parkway Fort Worth, TX 76177 Issued Date: 03/05/2020 Jeremy Ogulnick Arrimus Capital 240 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Aeronautical Study No. 2020-AWP-2002-OE ** DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION ** The Federal Aviation Administration has conducted an aeronautical study under the provisions of 49 U.S.C., Section 44718 and if applicable Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 77, concerning: Structure: Building Bowery Building D Location: Santa Ana, CA Latitude: 33-42-40.23N NAD 83 Longitude: 117-5 0-22.54 W Heights: 60 feet site elevation (SE) 77 feet above ground level (AGL) 137 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) This aeronautical study revealed that the structure does not exceed obstruction standards and would not be a hazard to air navigation provided the following condition(s), if any, is(are) met: It is required that FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, be a -filed any time the project is abandoned or: At least 10 days prior to start of construction (7460-2, Part l ) _ X Within 5 days after the construction reaches its greatest height (7460-2, Part 2) Based on this evaluation, marking and lighting are not necessary for aviation safety. However, if marking/ lighting are accomplished on a voluntary basis, we recommend it be installed in accordance with FAA Advisory circular 70,17460-1 L Change 2. This determination expires on 0910512021 unless: (a) the construction is started (not necessarily completed) and FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, is received by this office. (b) extended, revised, or terminated by the issuing office. (c) the construction is subject to the licensing authority of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and an application for a construction permit has been filed, as required by the FCC, within 6 months of the date of this determination. In such case, the determination expires on the date prescribed by the FCC for completion of construction, or the date the FCC denies the application. Page L 6b _929 NOTE: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THIS DETERMINATION MUST BE E-FILED AT LEAST 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION DATE. AFTER RE-EVALUATION OF CURRENT OPERATIONS IN THE AREA OF THE STRUCTURE TO DETERMINE THAT NO SIGNIFICANT AERONAUTICAL CHANGES HAVE OCCURRED, YOUR DETERMINATION MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR ONE EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD. This determination is based, in part, on the foregoing description which includes specific coordinates, heights, Irequency(ies) and power. Any changes in coordinates, heights, and frequencies or use of greater power, except those frequencies specified in the Colo Void Clause Coalition; Antenna System Co -Location; Voluntary Best Practices, effective 21 Nov 2007, will void this determination. Any future construction or alteration, including increase to heights, power, or the addition of other transmitters, requires separate notice to the FAA.This determination includes all previously filed frequencies and power for this structure. I f construction or alteration is dismantled or destroyed, you must submit notice to the FAA within 5 days after the construction or alteration is dismantled or destroyed. I his determination does include temporary construction equipment such as cranes, derricks, etc., which may be used during actual construction of the structure. However, this equipment shall not exceed the overall heights as indicated above. Equipment which has a height greater than the studied structure requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination concerns the effect of this stricture on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body. I Ilee can be of further assistance, please contact our office at (206) 231-2990, or pauI.holmquist(,d faa.gov. On any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2020-AWP-2002- OE. Signature Control No: 431129108-432730457 Paul Holmquist Specialist Attachntent(s) Map(s) Page 2 of 4 ( DNE ) 75C-930 TOPO Map for ASN 2020-AWP-2002-OE Page 3 of 4 75C-931 Sectional Map for ASN 2020-AWP-2002-OE Page 4 of 4 75C-932 ATTACHMENT 6 75C-933 Iva ,n • • ei is *n ♦i ' YT do U• �'�.yf ` Y ♦Y" f '� J. lwwllyy� '' y� x ry�s�'' �f"�'Y✓� i n��k`�. i 1 • v� HY 'P�-ly�y. r.�'G i�i ?Keys ��,�.- �1t..y'$ 1.a'e� $ Er'•, rr ihT'. ... Irl �` ' b�^ri1^r� '�%'\ 11. /.` �z "" 1 1 i�r" y •i e f�� r, T•_. +.a; �e i►,.l s..��'� ���� � ✓ `yam f �. �;'s�; �•'� o h ,. Ord •nit .. � ! � + � r� 6� .�>rf a ice• � ,IFi�a ^� 3 n ' Ib � 4 I y'n •w*r,•rue - I+11 1•1R'`3 'dw Nj AMA '.sy. /1 jfYr'f'. J s [�..<I CY1ki f�` `!ef i. �"�•''.�'\.. Y. ,c R �r Flight Tracks for 2300, 2310, and 2320 Red Hill Avenue Monday, January 6, 2020 - Reverse Flow (Departures) Time Aircraft Type Altitude (ft.) Time Aircraft Type Altitude (ft.) 6:16:15 B350 3,074 9:29:50 B738 2,182 6:30:45 U45 1,933 9:31:31 B737 1,777 6:40:43 CL60 2,271 9:34:46 C210 2,839 7:01:42 B737 1,802 9:42:38 C560 2,179 7:03:12 B738 1,811 9:48:40 B737 1,915 7:04:43 B738 2,036 9:49:58 B350 2,346 7:07:18 B738 2,018 9:52:02 A321 2,598 7:08:32 A319 2,658 10:06:59 B738 2,087 7:10:20 B737 1,671 10:27:10 C56X 3,138 7:11:55 B737 2,070 10:32:19 B737 2,029 7:13:25 B738 2,387 10:39:10 B738 1,869 7:16:48 E75L 2,332 10:41:25 B737 1,977 7:18:29 E145 3,127 10:48:05 BCS1 2,679 7:20:01 B752 2,625 10:53:59 A320 2,241 7:21:08 B738 1,866 10:58:30 B738 2,092 7:24:21 E75L 1,985 11:04:01 PC12 2,433 7:25:51 B738 2,038 11:07:35 E75L 1,858 7:27:26 BCS1 2,769 11:10:17 PRM1 1,667 7:29:14 B737 1,917 11:11:36 E50P 2,112 7:30:45 B350 2,035 11:18:37 B722 2,829 7:32:37 B737 1,871 11:26:28 B737 2,205 7:36:12 B737 1,930 11:28:01 B737 1,866 7:45:21 E55P 3,917 11:29:31 B738 1,903 7:46:56 B738 2,186 11:36:47 E75L 2,324 7:48:37 B738 1,973 11:42:52 B738 1,916 7:51:10 B737 1,881 11:45:26 A320 2,616 7:52:52 CL60 2,585 11:46:53 B738 1,947 8:03:59 B737 1,816 11:49:52 B737 2,004 8:05:33 A319 2,801 11:51:54 B752 2,849 8:07:39 B737 2,037 11:53:31 E135 3,152 8:12:43 B738 2,107 11:56:41 E75L 2,005 8:17:23 E75L 2,065 12:05:13 E75L 2,203 8:20:38 E75L 2,262 12:08:56 B738 1,825 8:24:46 F2TH 2,576 12:12:08 H25C 1,650 8:30:54 B738 2,039 12:29:29 B752 2,409 8:33:05 A319 2,736 12:41:29 A20N 2,155 8:35:13 A320 2,219 12:45:38 A321 2,206 8:44:21 B737 2,053 12:52:30 E75L 2,064 8:53:34 B737 2,186 12:55:37 B737 1,927 8:55:31 E75L 2,289 13:08:44 B738 1,742 9:02:24 B350 2,031 13:11:44 B738 1,919 9:05:04 E55P 3,506 13:17:26 E75L 2,019 9:06:49 B737 2,012 13:19:21 BCS1 2,608 9:16:12 PA27 2,230 13:26:27 B738 1,974 9:28:16 B737 2,101 13:35:13 B736 2,024 75C1935 Flight Tracks for 2300, 2310, and 2320 Red Hill Avenue Monday, January 6, 2020 - Reverse Flow (Departures) Time Aircraft Type Altitude (ft.) Time Aircraft Type Altitude (ft.) 13:36:43 B737 1,947 18:03:45 B738 2,134 13:38:25 E135 2,980 18:10:44 B738 1,795 13:42:16 B737 2,162 18:29:14 B737 1,732 13:46:35 B738 1,995 18:32:28 E75L 1,739 13:49:32 B738 1,965 18:34:42 BCS1 2,764 13:53:33 GLF4 2,886 18:40:00 B737 1,707 13:55:07 A320 2,307 18:46:31 E75L 1,931 13:58:35 B737 2,106 19:11:10 A306 2,262 14:02:02 E55P 2,228 19:16:54 B737 1,708 14:17:47 A319 2,704 19:18:39 B738 1,718 14:43:31 B737 1,730 19:23:15 B752 2,323 14:45:56 B737 1,902 19:24:53 B737 1,830 14:47:56 GLF4 1,455 19:28:01 A320 2,069 14:54:06 B738 1,966 19:43:48 B738 2,133 15:01:44 E75L 2,296 19:45:25 E135 2,064 15:05:03 C206 2,563 19:50:37 E75L 1,985 15:19:32 B737 1,840 19:52:13 E145 2,574 15:21:47 U60 2,432 20:02:15 B737 1,852 15:23:27 E75L 2,181 20:09:50 B737 1,576 15:31:01 B738 1,777 20:26:27 B737 2,154 15:34:19 E75L 1,980 20:48:10 B737 1,749 15:35:58 B737 1,892 21:09:54 B737 2,301 15:41:07 B737 1,607 21:18:07 B738 1,902 15:44:07 B738 1,688 21:22:29 CRJ7 2,520 15:50:18 B737 2,418 21:28:19 B737 1,630 15:51:57 E135 2,340 Average 2,171 15:57:02 E75L 2,009 16:00:02 C550 2,792 16:03:46 B752 2,802 16:14:35 C56X 3,117 16:27:51 E75L 2,199 16:35:27 CL30 3,404 16:37:38 B737 1,854 16:40:57 E75L 1,885 16:43:09 B738 1,960 16:45:38 B738 1,783 16:57:54 B737 2,226 17:01:06 BCS1 2,514 17:04:04 E75L 1,742 17:22:21 C56X 2,379 17:41:59 A320 1,871 17:43:47 B737 1,796 17:45:29 B737 1,750 17:51:16 B738 1,869 17:58:23 E75L 1,741 75C=®86 M Flight Tracks for 2300, 2310, and 2320 Red Hill Avenue Wednesday, January 8, 2020 - Arrivals Time Aircraft Type Altitude (ft.) Time Aircraft Type Altitude (ft.) 7:13:21 C680 817 11:10:17 A320 800 7:27:10 B737 781 11:19:43 B752 835 7:38:08 C182 839 11:21:49 C56X 883 7:49:33 B737 796 11:23:18 PA24 1,276 7:51:19 E75L 822 11:44:37 B737 755 8:06:12 C414 828 11:46:19 A321 789 8:08:06 B737 793 11:49:25 A320 779 8:14:10 CL35 825 11:54:25 C172 603 8:15:32 B737 790 11:58:39 B738 753 8:19:52 B737 766 12:07:18 B738 778 8:32:23 A320 795 12:09:43 B737 760 8:34:33 B738 775 12:12:19 BE36 790 8:39:35 A320 791 12:14:28 C560 837 8:42:05 A320 796 12:18:17 B738 775 8:44:44 PC12 755 12:20:28 B738 765 8:48:44 6737 759 12:25:37 B737 759 8:53:52 BE58 747 12:31:32 B737 763 9:01:05 B738 803 12:39:47 E300 781 9:04:50 PC12 808 12:42:03 C25A 1,055 9:14:01 B737 781 12:47:33 E55P 774 9:17:47 PA46 898 12:49:39 E7SL 731 9:22:43 8737 759 12:51:59 BCS1 801 9:26:12 E75L 745 12:58:16 B737 761 9:28:18 PA12 788 13:01:23 A319 778 9:30:38 E135 787 13:06:59 C172 553 9:34:53 BCS1 775 13:17:11 B752 808 9:40:02 C25A 807 13:19:53 C25A 807 9:43:2S C510 793 13:25.09 C172 906 9:47:54 E75L 783 13:30.13 GLF4 812 9:49:59 B738 773 13 34:16 E75L 805 10:01:41 B738 808 13:45:16 B737 769 10:03:21 E75L 802 13:46:47 B738 776 10:05:18 G280 769 13:48:31 8737 828 10:06:46 B752 801 13:53:50 B350 805 10:09:24 C550 764 13:56:53 SF50 809 10:21:58 P28A 820 14:03:28 C68A 793 10:24:10 E135 752 14:06:28 E75L 765 10:25:40 8737 775 14:08:28 E55P 767 10:27:05 E75L 744 14:09:57 A320 792 10:28:57 8738 777 14:11:46 CL30 808 10:31:50 TBM7 773 14:15:12 P28R 728 10:34:42 A319 762 14:19:07 8737 797 10:39:30 B737 778 14:22:09 C414 914 10:43:02 8737 753 14:25:11 B738 833 10:52:04 B738 767 14:28:17 E135 790 Mrz938 Flight Tracks for 2300, 2310, and 2320 Red Hill Avenue Wednesday, January 8, 2020 - Arrivals Time Aircraft Type Altitude (ft.) Time Aircraft Type Altitude (ft.) 14:29:55 B738 752 18:29:46 E135 801 14:33:10 8737 754 18:31:49 B350 764 14:35:32 B737 765 18:37:57 B738 756 14:47:00 PA44 832 18:39:57 E75L 716 14:49:06 C56X 797 18:41:33 B738 760 14:54:25 C750 796 18:50:44 B737 778 14:58:14 BE36 824 18:57:15 B737 769 15:12:17 C560 736 19:10:55 A320 793 15:22:50 EXP 877 19:27:45 8737 746 15:23:32 B738 770 19:29:24 C56X 831 15:35:56 B738 785 19:31:41 CL60 806 1S:38:15 GL5T 777 19:35:59 B738 770 1S:42:34 B737 884 19:44:58 A320 749 15:50:23 E75L 770 19:49:27 B737 756 1S:52:35 B737 749 19:54:13 CRP 737 15:56:00 BCS1 764 19:56:07 A319 791 16:09:39 P32R 660 19:57:38 B737 789 16:11:36 BE40 902 20:10:19 B737 777 16:19:54 CL30 1,075 20:30:05 E75L 786 16:23:02 BE40 841 20:31:49 B738 787 16:29:06 B738 758 20:33:40 8737 777 16:40:09 8737 763 20:42:41 A319 776 16:45:18 C172 789 21:02:31 B738 792 16:48:06 FA7X 775 21:09:51 B738 753 16:51:07 E7SL 761 21:12:20 E75L 760 17:02:05 A320 802 21:17:28 A320 794 17:19:23 E75L 812 21:20:42 B737 793 17:24:51 8737 771 21:23:33 8737 783 17:28:04 8752 812 21:27:01 C68A 801 17:32:12 A306 780 21:30:00 A319 773 17:35:12 C414 850 21:33:41 B752 785 17:37:21 E135 792 21:37:32 E75L 806 17:39:08 8737 779 21:42:11 8737 781 17:41:06 BCSI 775 21:43:57 E135 794 17:53:32 E75L 750 21:45:31 A321 761 17:S5:46 E75L 745 21:47:14 BCS1 761 18:01:11 CL60 799 21:48:59 E75L 755 18:10:09 8737 766 21:54:02 8737 766 18:13:21 BE20 814 22:01:09 B737 823 18:16:11 8737 777 22:03:43 B737 770 18:20:03 TBM8 821 22:06:38 GLF4 838 18:21:47 8737 774 22:09:00 B738 780 18:24:00 BE20 699 22:12:36 B738 762 18:25:32 B738 753 22:51:46 GLF4 812 18:27:21 8738 771 Average 790 75Co939 ATTACHMENT 7 75C-940 ATTACHMENT 8 75C-942 The Bowery Mixed -Use Project 2. Response to Comments LETTER A4 Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (2 pages) ORANGE COUMY .stun AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION FOR ORANGE COUNTY 3160 Airway Avenue • Costa Mesa, California 92626.949.252370 fax: 949.252.6012 February 18,2020 Jerry C. Guevara, Assistant Planner 1 City of Santa Ana Planning & Building Agency PO Box 1988 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Subject: The BoweryMixed Use Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) Dear Mr. Guevara: Thank you for the opportunity to review the DEIR for The Bowery Mixed -Use Project located at 2300, 2310, and 2320 South Redhill Avenue in the context of the Airport Land Use Commission's Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport 011111 and the AELUPfor Heliports. The proposed project would redevelop the existing 14.58-acre light -industrial project site with a new mixed -use project that include 1,150 multifamily residential units and up to 80,000 square feet of commercial retail and restaurant space. The mixed -use buildings would be rive to six stories high, and the parking structures would be six to seven stories high. City of Santa Ana Final EIR April 2020 The proposed project is located under the primary aircraft approach corridor to John Wayne Airport and is within the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77 Notification Area for JWA. The DEIR should emphasize that future residents would be exposed to significant aircraft overflight and sirg c event noise due to the project's location under the aircraft approach corridor for JWA. Additionally, during reverse flow operations at JWA (approximately rive. percent (510) of the time), future residents would experience noise associated with aircraft departures. Because of the project's proximity to a noise impacted area, we concur with the DEIR inclusion of mitigation measure LU-I that all prospective residents of the project site shall be notified of airport related noise, and that notification shall be included in lease rental agreements and shall state the following: ,NOTICE OF AIRPORT IN VICINITY: This property is presently located in the vicinity of an airport, within what is known as an airport influence area. For that reason, the property may be subject to some ajthe annoyances or inconveniences associated with proximity to airport operations Or example: noise, vibration or odors). Individual sensitivities to those 2- 75C-943 The Bowery Mixed -Use Project 2. Response to Comments ALUC DEIR Comment, The Bowery Nfixed t'se Protect 2, 18.20 Page 2 annoyances can varyfrom person to person. You may wish to consider what 12 airport annoyances, if any, are associated with the property before you complete your purchase and determine whether they are acceptable to you. " Additionally, we recommend that the DEIR include the City's maximum allowable building height for the proposed project area as permitted through the City's General Plan or Zoning Code. Because the proposed project site is located under the aircraft approach corridor and conical surface for JWA, we request that the DEIR discuss maximum building heights and existing ground elevation to address whether the proposed project remains below the imaginary surfaces for JWA. It is also recommended that the DEIR address land use compatibility impacts, safety impacts, visual impacts and outdoor recreational area impacts given the project's location within the JWA primary aircraft approach corridor, including the impacts of approving multi -family residential units at this project site. The Draft EIR should also identify if the project will be impacted by helicopter overnight due to the close proximity of helicopter arrival and departure operations at JWA and if the project allows for heliports as defined in the AELUPfor Heliports. Should the development of heliports occur within your jurisdiction, proposals to develop new heliports must be submitted through the City to the ALUC for review and action pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21661 5 Proposed heliport projects must comply fully with the state permit procedure provided by law and with all conditions of approval imposed or recommended by FAA, by the ALUC for Orange County and by Caltrans/Division of Aeronautics As you know, because this project falls within the JIV.q AELUP planning areas and requires a General Plan Amendment, it is recommended that the project be referred to the Airport Land Use Com;nission (ALUC) for a Consistency determination with the JIVA AELUP. In this regard, please note that the Commission requests that such referrals to be submitted to the ALUC staff between the local agency's expected Planning Commission. and City Council hea.ings Since the ALUC meets on the third Thursday afternoon of each month, submiva:s must be received in the ALUC office by thii first of the month to ensure sufficient tin:. f - plaxrncnt on the agenda, review, and anal%s.b Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the initial stud}. Please contact Julie Fitch, Land Use Manaaer, at (949) 252-5284 or ifitchraocair.com should VOL: have any questions related to the future rep.rral of your project. You may also reach me at (949) 252-5123 or via email at Ichoum',@ocair.com. Sincerely, Lea U. Choum Executive Officer Ana Final EIR April 2020 75C-944 The Bowery Mixed -Use Project 2. Response to Comments Letter A4: Orange County Airport Land Use Commission Comment 1: This comment provides general background information about the Project, and states that the site is located within the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR)' Part 77 Notification Area for John Wayne Airport (JWA). The comment asserts that the Project site is located under the primary aircraft approach corridor (and departure corridor five percent of the time) for JWA and that future residents would be exposed to significant overflight and single -event noise due to the Project's location. Response 1: JWA is located approximately 2.2 miles southwest of the Project, and the site is under the primary aircraft approach corridor. However, Project structures would not be within the FAA FAR Part 77 Notification Area for JWA. The JWA FAR Part 77 Notification Area is a three-dimensional imaginary surface that consists of a 100:1 aerial slope extending outward for 20,000 feet (or 3.79 miles) from the nearest runway, or areas higher than 200 feet above ground level (JWA AELUP page 13). As the Project site is located 2.2 miles from the airport, it is within 20,000 feet (or 3.79 miles) from the runway. However, the Project structures would not be above {or penetrate) the 100:1 imaginary surface slope, and therefore, would not be within the JWA FAR Part 77 Notification Area. As shown in Figure 1, the 100:1 imaginary surface area slope at the Project site is located above heights of 108.6 and 116.95 feet above the ground level. As the highest Project structure is 94 feet above the ground level, the structures would not penetrate the 108.6 through 116.96 foot -high imaginary surface area above the site. Therefore, Project structures would not be within the FAR Part 77 Notification Area (as defined in FAR Part 77.13). Additionally, as described in Section 5.10, Noise, of the Draft EIR, and shown on Draft EIR Figure 5.10-2, the Project site is located outside the 55 dBA CNEL aircraft noise level contour boundaries of JWA. According to the exterior noise thresholds outlined in the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for JWA, multi -family residential development is considered normally consistent with exterior noise levels of less than 60 dBA CNEL. As the Project site is located outside the 55 dBA CNEL aircraft noise level contour boundaries of JWA, the residential land use is consistent with JWA aircraft noise exposure exterior noise level compatibility thresholds. Also, the airport related noise at the Project site does not exceed the City's municipal code permissible noise levels. Therefore, impacts related to single event noise from aircraft overflight would not occur. Additionally, the County's General Aviation Noise Ordinance prohibits commercial aircraft departures be:ween the Hour of 1 0:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. and arrivals between the hours of 1 1 :00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. These restrict'ons substantially limit the aircraft noise during nighttime hours. Therefore, future residential uses at the site would be consistent with airport noise planning and residents of the Project would not be exposed to significant noise from aircraft overflight. Comment 2: This comment asserts that the Project is in proximity to a noise impacted area within the airport influence area and states concurrence with the Draft EIR inclusion of Mitigation Measure LU-1 that all prospective residents of the Protect site shall be notified of airport related noise, and that notification shall be included in lease/rental agreements. Response 2: Asdescribed in Response 1, the Project is not located within or adjacent to an area that is impacted by noise from aircraft overflight. The Project site is located outside the 55 clBA CNEL aircraft noise level contour, where pursuant to the AELUP, multi -family residential development is considered consistent. Also, the airport related noise at the Project site does not exceed the City's municipal code permissible noise levels for multi -family residential uses. t 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFRi Part 77, et seq. City of Santa Ana 2-25 Final EIR April 2020 75C-945 The Bowery Mixed -Use Project 2. Response to Comments In addition, the Project is not within the airport influence area. As described on page 6 of the AELUP,the airport influence area is the airport planning area boundary, and the two terms are synonymous. The AELUP sets the planning area as the furthest extent of the 60 CNEL contour, the FAR Part 77 Notification Area, and the runway safety zones (AELUP page 9). Section 5.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Draft EIR describes that the Project site is not located within JWA's Airport Safety Zone (Draft EIR Figure 5.7-1) and located outside of both the airport's actual (2018) and planned 60 CNEL contours (Draft EIR Figures 5.7-2 and 5.7-3). Therefore, the Project site does not meet the safety zone or noise zone criteria to be in the airport's planning area. In addition, as described in Response 1, the Project structures would not be within the JWA FAR Part 77 Notification Area. Therefore, the Project is not within the airport influence/planning area, and within an area that the AELUP considers consistent with multi -family residential uses. Thus, the notice from the AELUP, included in the Draft EIR as Mitigation Measure LU-1, is not applicable to the Project. Likewise, potentially significant impacts related to residential land uses and JWA operations would not occur, and impacts would be less than significant. As result, Mitigation Measure LU-1, is not required and has been removed, as shown in. Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR. Comment 3: Thiscomment states that the City's maximum allowable building height for the Project area as permitted through the City's General Plan or Zoning Code be included in the Draft EIR. The comment further states that because the proposed Project site is located under the aircraft approach corridor, it is requested that the maximum building heights and existing ground elevation be discussed to address whether the Project remains below the imaginary surfaces for JWA. The comment also recommends that the land use compatibility impacts, safety impacts, visual impacts, and outdoor recreational area impacts be discussed given the Projects location within the JWA primary aircraft approach corridor. Response 3: The Project includes o zone change that would change the existing zoning designation from M- 1 (Light Industrial) that limits structures to 35 feet in height to a Specific Development (SD) zone to implement •he proposed mixed -use Project. -he SD zone does not have specific building height restrictions but requires development plans to be submitted for the City to review subject to Planning Commission and City Council approvals, and., in the case of to; development, to ensure hazards, such as those related to JV/A, do not occur. As described in Response 1 and shown in Figure 1, the FAR Part 77 Not;fication 100:1 in-agincry surface area at the Project site is located above heights of 108.6 and 1 16.95 feet above the gro-.nd level. As the highest Project structure is 94 =eat above the ground level, the structures would not penetrate t e 108.6 through 1 16.96 foot -high FAR Part 77 Notification imaginary surface area above the site. n adcl'tion, the Project would not penetrate the FAR Part 77 Obstruction Imaginary Surfaces area ;as shown on Draft EIR Figure 5.7-5), which's much higher than the 100:1 imaginary surface notification area. Therefore, the Project remains below both the notification and obstruction imaginary surfaces for JWA. Also described in Response 1, the exterior noise thresholds outlined in the AELUP, multi -family residential development is considered normally consistent with exterior noise levels of less than 60 dBA CNEL. As the Project site is located outside the 55 d8A CNEL aircraft noise level contour boundaries. of JWA, the residential land use is considered normally consistent with JWA aircraft noise exposure exterior noise level compatibility thresholds. Thus, pursuant to the AELUP for JWA, impacts related to residential and recreational land use compatibility would not occur. Safety impacts related to operation of JWA are described in Section 5.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials; of the Draft EIR. As detailed, the Project site is not located within JWA's Airport Safety Zone (Droft EIR Figure 5.7-1) and it is described that the Project would not generate substantial light or glare. Exterior lighting City of Santa Ana 2-26 Final EIR April 2020 75C-946 The Bowery Mixed -Use Project 2. Response to Comments fixtures and security lighting would be installed in accordance with Municipal Code Division 3, Building Security Regulations, which includes specifications for shielding and intensity of security lighting. In addition, the proposed Project would not use highly reflective surfaces, and does not include large areas of glass on the buildings. Therefore, the Project would not generate substantial sources of glare. Thus, the Draft EIR determined that Project -related safety and visual impacts associated with JWA operations would be less than significant. Comment 4: This comment states that it should be identified if the Project will be impacted by helicopter overflight due to the close proximity of helicopter arrival and departure operations at JWA and if the Project allows for heliports as defined in the AELUP for Heliports. The comment also provides procedures and regulations related to proposed heliport projects. Response 4: The proposed Project does not include a heliport or any helicopter related activity. In addition, per the Orange County AELUP for Heliports (2008) the Project site is not located within a Helipad Protection Zone, and the height restrictions related to helicopter operations is the same imaginary surface area described in Response 3. As described above, the Project site is located within the three-dimensional FAR Part 77 Notification Area boundary, but the proposed structures would not penetrate the 100:1 Notification Area elevation (Figure I ). Therefore, the proposed structures would remain below the imaginary surface area for JWA and would not be affected by helicopter overflight. In addition, due to the 2.2 mile distance from the Project site to JWA, and a helicopter's 8:1 approach and departure transitional surface (the flight trajectory for landings and departures), helicopters fly over the Project site at a substantial altitude, such that noise from helicopter operations does not significantly impact the noise environment on the Project site. As described in Response 1, the Project site is located outside the 55 dBA CNEL aircraft noise level contour boundaries of JWA, which includes noise related to helicopter operations. Comment 5: This comment states that because this Project falls within the JWA AELUP planning area and requires a General Plan Amendment,. it is recommended that the project be referred to the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for a Consistency determination with the JWA AELUP. The comment also provides general information about the: ALUC meetings and ALUC staff contacts. Response 5: As described in Response 2, the Project structures would not be located within the JWA AELUP planning area. Pursuant to the AELUP, the JWA AELUP planning area includes areas that are: 1) within the JWA 60 CNEL contour; 2) within the FAR Part 77 Notification Area; 3% within the runway safety zones. The Project site is 1 ) located outside of the JWA 60 CNEL contour (Draft EIR Figures 5.7-2 and 5.7-3j; 2) not located within the airport safety zones (Draft EIR Figure 5.7-1); and 3) would not would not penetrate the FAR Part 77 100:1 Notification Area elevation, asshown in Figure 1 . Therefore, pursuant to the JWA AELUP, the site is not within the JWA planning area boundary, and ALUC referral for a consistency determination wossld not be required. In summary, as also described in Response 1, the Project is consistent with the noise thresholds outl'ned i-, tte JWA AELUP that identify multi -family residential uses as normally consistent with exterio, rose leves of less than 60 dBA CNEL. As the Project site is located outside the 55 dBA CNEL aircraft noise leve contour boundaries of JWA, the residential land use would be consistent with the JWA AELUP. Overall, the proposed Project and its related general plan amendment, would be consistent with the AELUP, and a referral to the ALUC would not be required. However, the City has forwarded the Project for ALUC consideration in response to this comment letter. City of Santa Ana Final EIR April 2020 2-27 75C-947 The Sowerj Mixed -Use Project 2 Response to Commerns Figure 1: FAR Part 77 Notification Area 100:1 Slope Bu=;ding Elevation t i gw�jj S�IDi s'¢enu x1 OE.6011 ■! �d .ss6,yy1Y'll��+� On�Y�y.[ l e s e e e I e n e N I ( f116.95 8111,88 • n u a��•aJ45vJJ��x��eli[� iliYl e L ee IiYlllej;pq°W{J',)plfte ,�m1 •T'=1'ei�'—.11ff ° lFlu�trttb lllf�ttl l.11l IIG r��:'h�Yld 1i1 S 1' _� V•1.lfC 1 4.4111 Ojni��e�. vim. l{iflL� N:GtIT'OIY•^!L " M 4 . s -a a y oo Jar n.. 2020 «, e 75C-948 AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION FOR ORANGE COUNTY 3160 Airway Avenue • Costa Mesa, California 92626. 949.252.5170 fax: 949.252.6012 August 28, 2019 Jerry C. Guevara, Assistant Planner I City of Santa Ana Planning & Building Agency PO Box 1988 (M-20) Santa Ana, CA 92702 Subject: The Bowery at 2300 South Red Hill Avenue Mixed -Use Project Dear Mr. Guevara: Thank you for the opportunity to review the Notice of Preparation for The Bowery Mixed -Use Project located at 2300 South Red Hill Avenue in the context of the Airport Land Use Commission's Airpav Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for Jnhn Wayne Airpori (JWA) and the AELUPJor Heliports. The proposed project would redevelop the 14.69-acre sit with new mixed uses that include retail, restaurant, and multi -family residential. Three phases of nixed -use development are proposed, with 1,150 multi- family residential units to be provided in three buildings 5 to 7 stories tall with adjacent parking structures. A total of 80,000 square feet of retail and restaurant commercial space is also proposed. The project would also provide approximately 236,000 square feet of open space in courtyards, common area amenities, a roof deck, and perimeter plazas and open space areas for residents and the public The proposed project is located under the primary aircraft approach corridor to John Wayne Airport and is within the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77 Notification Area for JWA. Any project within this notification area needs to be reviewed by FAA and is required to file FAA Form 7460-1. Also, note that any project within Orange County that is proposed for more than 200 feet above ground level must also file FAA Form 7460-1. The proposed Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) should address all FAR Part 77 imaginary surfaces given the close proximity of the proposed project to JWA. We recommend that the DEIR discuss how all required coordination with FAA was or will be completed. Additionally, we recommend that the DEIR include the City's maximum allowable building height for the proposed project area as permitted through the City's General Plan or Zoning Code. Because the proposed project site is located under the aircraft approach corridor and conical surface for JWA, we request that the DEIR discuss maximum building heights and existing ground elevation to address whether the proposed project 75C-949 ALUC Comments The Bowery at 2300 South Redhill 828 19 Page 2 remains below the imaginary surfaces for JWA. It is also recommended that the DEIR address land use compatibility impacts, safety impacts, visual impacts and outdoor recreational area impacts given the project's location within the JWA primary aircraft approach corridor, including the impacts of approving multi -family residential units at this project site. The DEIR should also discuss that the proposed project site would be exposed to significant aircraft overflight and single event noise due to the project's location under the aircraft approach corridor for JWA. Single noise events in this area would create serious disturbance to many inhabitants and to those utilizing the proposed outdoor areas such as the open space courtyards, roof deck and perimeter plazas and open space areas for resident and the public. Because of the project's proximity to a noise impacted area, any prospective resident should be notified of the presence of aircraft overflight. We recommend that the DEIR include a mitigation measure stating that any residential development in the JWA influence area would be notified of potential aircraft overflight as follows: "NOTICE OF AIRPORT IN VICINITY: This property is presently located in the vicinity of an airport, within what is known as an airport influence area. For that reason, the property may be subject to some of tine annoyances or inconveniences associated with proximity to airport operations (far example: noise, vibration or odors) Individual sensitivities to those annoyances can vary from person to person S'ou may wish to consider what airport annoyances, if any, are associated sr-ith the properly before you complete your purchase and determine whether they are acceptable to you. " The Draft EIR should also identify if the project will be impacted by helicopter overflight due to the close proximity of helicopter arrival and departure operations at JWA and if the project allows for heliports as defined in the Orange County .4ELUP for Heliports. Should the development of heliports occur within your jurisdiction, proposals to develop new heliports must be submitted through the City to the ALUC for review and action pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21661.5. Proposed heliport projects must comply fully with the state permit procedure provided by law and with all conditions of approval imposed or recommended by FAA, by the ALUC for Orange County and by Caltrans/Division of Aeronautics. Because this project falls within the JPVA AELUP planning areas and requires a General Plan Amendment, it is recommended that the project be referred to the Airport Land Use Commission for a Consistency determination with the AELUP for JWA. In this regard, please note that the Commission wants such referrals to be submitted to the ALUC staff between the Local Agency's expected Planning Commission and City Council hearings. Since the ALUC meets on the third Thursday afternoon of each month, submittals must be received in the ALUC office by the first of the month to ensure sufficient time for review, analysis, and agendizing. 75C-950 ALUC Comments The Bowery at 2300 South Redhi II 8 2819 Page 3 Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the Notice of Preperation. Please contact me at (949) 252-5123 or via email at Ichoum@ocair.com should you have any questions related to the future referral of your project. Sincerely, C ` LI. Lea U. Choum Executive Officer 75C-951 ATTACHMENT 9 75C-952 MAYOR Miguel A. Pulido MAYOR PRO TEM Juan Villegas COUNCILMEMBERS Phil Bacerra Cecilia Iglesias David Penaloza Vicente Sarmiento Jose Solorio April 22, 2020 CITY OF SANTA ANA PLANNING AND BUILDING AGENCY 20 Civic Center Plaza • P.O. Box 1988 Santa Ana, California 92702 www.Santa,ana.org Lea Choum, Executive Officer Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County John Wayne Airport 3160 Airway Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92626 CITY MANAGER Kristine Ridge CITY ATTORNEY Sonia R. Carvalho CLERK OF THE COUNCIL Daisy Gomez RECEIVED APR 2 8 2020 4111110{Np{IB mwito RE: The Bowery Project located at 2300, 2310, and 2320 South Redhdl Avenue Dear Ms, Choum: Pursuant to Section 4.7 of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport (1WA), the City of Santa Ana (City) requests that the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) review the proposed Bowery project for consistency with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) at its May 21, 2020 meeting. Project Summary The Bowery is a proposed mixed -use retail, restaurant, and multi family residential projecton 14.69 acres. The development would include 80,000 square feet (sq. ft.) of retail and restaurant space and 1,100 multifamily units The project would consist of three mixed -use buildings 5 stories in height, one residential building 5 stories in height, two commercial buildings 1 story in height, and three parking structures with 6.5 levels of aboveground parking, and one parking structure with 6levels of aboveground parking. The proposed building elevations can be seen in ALUC Attachment No. 4. The project would also include approximately 222,000 sq. ft. of open space in courtyards, common area amenities, a roof deck, and perimeter plazas and open space areas for residents and the public. The project would require demolition of three existing industrial buildings. The proposed building elevations can be seen in ALUC Attachment No. 4. Required Agorovals Development of the proposed project requires the following approvals from the City: • General Plan Amendment (GPA) for a land use change from Professional and Administrative Office (PAO) to District Center (DC) (See ALUC Attachment No. 2) SANTA ANA CITY COUNCIL MpuelA Puk Juan VkQ" VK 14 swo*"o o Jose sob" PhA 13c 18 Ced:aI saes Mary Mayor No Tam Md5 VYWOs — ,§3 Ward1 Wards Ward6 moW delAsame.s,aaro :vlMiaesOtenleJne ne ex Qw. e'er a: lkoz Aa yri Ly y y 20nal ___eaena.arx as ■ Amendment Application (AA) for a zone change from Light Industrial (M-1) to a Specific Development (SD) designation (See ALUC Attachment No. 3) It should be noted that the City's Planning Commission is scheduled to hear this item at its May 11, 2020 meeting. Staff's recommendation is for the Planning Commission to recommend the City Council certify the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and approve the proposed project. Project Location The proposed project site is located at 2300, 2310, and 2320 South Redhill Avenue, at the southwest corner of Warner Avenue and Redhill Avenue in Santa Ana. The site includes Assessor's Parcel Numbers 430-222-01 and 430.222-16. See ALUC Attachment No. 1, Regional Location. Corner North Corner West Corner South Corner East Corner Latitude 33.42'45.06" N 33.42'40.14" N _ 33-42'35.20" N _ 33.42'40.29" N Longitude 117.50'24.01" W 117.50'29.44" W 117.50'22.56" W 117.50'16.83" W Surrounding Building Heights and Land Uses The existing commercial and industrial buildings within a 1,000•foot radius are generally 1 to 2 stories and up to 40 feet in height. FAA Filing The project site is located within an area that requires notification to FAA for any project that would penetrate a three-dimensional imaginary surface that consists of a 100:1 aerial slope extending outward for 20,000 feet (or 3.79 miles) from the nearest runway, or would be more than 200 feet in height above the ground. The 100:1 imaginary surface area slope at the Project site is located above heights of 108.6 and 116.95 feet above the ground level. As the highest Project structure is 94 feet above the ground leve' the structures would not penetrate the 103 6 through 116.96 foot -high imaginary surface area. or be m�) than 200 feet above the ground. Thus, FAA notification would not be required. However, due to expressed potential ALUC concerns, the project filed FAA 7460-1 Notices for each of tie four proposed mixed -used buildings (Building A, Building B, Building C, and Building D), which were al! approved by the FAA with a determination of no hazard to air navigation, as provided in the attached approval letters (ALUC Attachment No. 6). 1WA Related Information (Noise and Safety) • Project Structure Heights. The highest Project structure is 94 feet above the grou^d level and would not penetrate the FAA FAR Part 77 Notification Imaginary Surface area or the higher FAR Part 77 Obstruction Imag'nary Surfaces area. • Noise Contours. The proposed project is not located within a Nose impact Zone identified in the AELUP. The project is outside of the airport's 55 CNEL contour and per the 1WA AELUP and City of Santa Ana Municipal Code, multi -family residential development is considered normally consistent with exterior noise levels of less than 60 dBA CNEL. • Runway Protection Zone (RPZ). The proposed project is not located in the RPZ. 2 75C-954 Safety Zones. The proposed project is not located within J WA Safety Zones. See ALUC Attachment No. 7 for location of the project relative to airport safety zones. • Final EIR - Please see ALUC Attachment No. 8 for (1) the Land Use section, which includes site location related analysis and discussion; (2) the Hazards and Hazardous Materials Section, which includes airport -related hazards analysis and discussion; and (3) the Noise Section, which shows the 1WA noise contours and the location of the project site. The entire EIR is included in electronic form on the attached flash drive. Elevation of Property and Proposed Building Height The property slopes approximately 7 feet from the southeast property corner to the northwest property corner at the western property boundary. The bulk of the property has elevations that range between 64.5 and 57.5 feet based on the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88). In addition, the site elevations at the proposed buildings range from 60 feet AMSL to 62 feet AMSL, as shown in the table below. See the Existing Conditions Plan, Sheet C-1.0 of the project plans (ALUC Attachment No. 9) for additional site topography information. Proposed Building Site Elevation (SE) Building A 62 feet site elevation (SE) Building B 60 feet site elevation (SE) Building C 60 feet site elevation (SE) Building D 60 feet site elevation (SE) The current (and proposed) height limitation is 94-feet from the ground level, which would be at the top of the architectural trim of the 6-story buildings. Building elevations are included in the project plans (ALUC Attachment No. 9). Project Plans and Environmental Impact Report Attached for your review are the proposed plans, see ALUC Attachment No. 9. An EIR has been prepared for the proposed project Applicable sections of the CEQA documentation include Sect on 3.0, Project Description; Section 5.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Section 5.9, Land Use; and Section 5.10, Noise. See ALUC Attachment No. 8, CEQA Document Extracts. Hearing/Meeting Schedule (Tentative) Santa Ana Planning Commission — May 11, 2020 Santa Ana City Council — June 2, 2020 Should you have any questions concerning the preceding information, I can be reached by phone at (714) 647.5882 or via e-mail at APezeshkpour@santa-ana.org. Sincerely, Ali Pezeshkpour, AICP Senior Planner 75C-955 Proposed Zoning OFrcjecr Sire Tustin Land Use �. $onto +ono Zoning 5P I Fwuln Legacy SO {Specific Nvelcpr l} PC No (Plowed ccm ftity snnustrial] M 19Light Indultr:olj jEa $P 2 Tu -n Plazv The Bowery ALUC NG. 3 75C-956 Building Elevations B KEY MAC 42 - I ALUC No i 75C-957 Existing General Plan Land Use t— .AS Santa Santa Ana Irvine General Commercial t Urban and Industrial Industrial Tustin District Center Tustin Legacy Specific Plan N Professional & Administration Office 0 Industrial n Planned Community N Project Site Commercial/Business The Bowery ALUC No. 5 75C-958 75C-958 Proposed Land Use aProject Site Tustin Land Use A' Santa Ana Land Use - Tustin Legacy Specific Plan A - District Center Industrial - Professional & Administration Office Planned Community Commercial/Business The Bowery ALUC No. 2 75C-959 ATTACHMENT 10 75C-960 v a JQHv \AAYM AIRPORT ORANGE COUNTY Barry A. Rondinella, A.A.E./C.A.E. Airport Director 3160 Airway Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92626 - 4608 949.252.5171 949,252.5178 fax Ynvw.ocairx m August 28, 2019 Jerry C. Guevara, Assistant Planner 1 City of Santa Ana Planning & Building Agency PO Box 1988 (M-20) Santa Ana, CA 92702 Subject: The Bowery at 2300 South Red Hill Avenue Mixed -Use Project Dear Mr. Guevara: Thank you for the opportunity to review the Notice of Preparation for The Bowery Mixed -Use Project located at 2300 South Red Hill Avenue. The proposed project would redevelop the 14.69-acre site with new mixed uses that include retail, restaurant, and multi -family residential. Three phases of mixed -use development are proposed with 1,150 multi -family residential units to be provided in three buildings 5 to 7 stories tall with adjacent parking structures. A total of 80,000 square feet of retail and restaurant commercial space is also proposed. The project would provide approximately 236,000 square feet of open space in courtyards, common area amenities, a roof deck, and perimeter plazas and open space areas for residents and the public. The location of thi> property is under the primary aircraft approach corridor to John Wayne Airport (JWA). Because of the project location and its proximity to JWA (2.5 miles), JWA is not supportive of the proposed residential portion of this proposal. Residents would be subject to significant aircraft overnight, noise and annoyance as approaching aircraft fly overhead at an average altitude of approximately 700 feet. Additionally, during reverse flow circumstances, departing aircraft may be higher in altitude, but louder over the project area. It has been JWA's experience that residential uses located under aircraft approach and departure corridors generate a significant number of noise complaints from the affected residents. The City should give consideration as to how these noise complaints will be addressed should the project be approved. Based upon the concerns noted above, JWA requests that the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) address all impacts related to airport compatibility, including but not limited to noise, land use and safety. Additionally, the DEIR should address the visual impacts of aircraft flying above the site and impacts to proposed outdoor recreational areas. JWA also requests that the City include a project alternative in the DEIR that does not include residential uses at this site. 75C-961 J WA Comments The Bowery at 2300 South Redhill 828; 19 Page 2 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Bowery Mixed Use Project. Please provide John Wayne Airport a copy of the Draft EIR when it becomes available for review. Please contact me at (949) 252-5123 or via email at lchoum u.ocair.com should any questions arise regarding these comments. Sincerely, Lea U. Choum Planning Manager, Facilities cc: L. G. Serafini 75C-962 ATTACHMENT 11 75C-963 The Bowery Mixed -Use Project 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR This section contains revisions to the Draft EIR based upon: (1) clarifications required to prepare a response to a specific comment; and/or (2) typographical errors. The provision of these additional mitigation measures does not alter any impact significance conclusions as disclosed in the Draft EIR. Changes made to the Draft EIR are identified here in str keeut text to indicate deletions and in underlined text to signify additions. 3.1 Revisions in Response to Written Comments and City Changes to Text The following text, organized by Draft EIR Chapters and Sections, has been revised in response to comments received on the Draft EIR and corrections identified by the City. Chapter 1.0, Executive Summ The last row of Table 1-2 on Page 1-17, Section 1.0, Executive Summary, is revised as follows: Impact LU-2: The Project would not cause a significant 9 environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating on environmental effect. Potential!) Less than significant g Agreerent that is Lessthan significant rettuirR—ter - - be "-rfied c^mac.... _ ^.- 1sleet ,is-pFe PeFly- S __ __ __ _ _ _ of an sielseft, ♦_ same _r ____ _-__. subject the y� , r lable is None required The third row of Table 1-2 on Page 1-18, Section 1.0, Executive Summary, is revised as follows: Impact NO]-3: The Project Rew,:e8y Less Less than significanr would not expose people than significant ebeve: residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels. None required The last row of Table 1-2 on Page 1-20, Section 1.0, Executive Summary, is revised as follows: Impact TR-1: The Project Significant Mitigation Measure TRA: Grand Significant and would conflict with a Avenue/Warner Avenue (#4) (Santa Ana): Unavoidable program, plan, ordinance, The Development Agreement that is required or policy addressing the for implementation of the proposed Project circulation system, including shall include a clause requiring payment of a transit, roadway, bicycle, fair share contribution to the improvement to and pedestrian facilities. add an eastbound protected right -turn City of Santa Ana Final EIR April 2020 3-1 75C-964 The aowery Mixed -Use Project 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR overlap phase and prohibit northbound V- turns at the intersection of Grand Avenue/Warner Avenue. A__t. - thot is equiFeel for mislementtifien of the Pfeje,,f -L J OFelsesed L F 11 JtwFA eveFlBP phase J pr-�rr�'p�mPith. Mitigation Measure TR-32: Red Hill Avenue/earranca Parkway (#30) (Santa Ana/Tustin/Irvine): The Development Agreement that is required for Implementation of the proposed Project shall include a clause requiring payment of the full cost or implementation of an additional westbound protected right-tvrn overlap phase and to prohibit southbound U-turns. The installation of this improvement is subject to the approval of the Cities of Tustin and Irvine. Mitigation Measure TR-3 2: Red Hill Avenue/Alton Parkway (#32) (Santa Ana/Irvine): The Development Agreement that is required for implementation of the proposed Project shall include a clause requiring payme t of the full cost or implementation of a wesibovod protected Lyle -turn overlap pin.'se o�d to prohibit southbomd U-lurna. The installation of 144 improvemem ii sobj_..i •a the approval of 0" City of Irvine- M1}Igaillem Measure TR-3!-Tu Oin-Reich Road/WarneF Avenve lileicih (#47) (Tuslin): The ge e15PAient-A •-V--0+ejees ing-pctymeM-ef-e fa�mrnlm' -.w- °fie-J AeHkbB'Jnd-1ii "S a share t t,�h-ea-•LugLh lank . h, nFmmoWid-+g+��'Yu 4 ! !a✓enYfti.---;he'appice The fifth row of Table 1-2 on Page 1-21, Section 1.0, Executive Summary, is revised as follows: Cumulative Sign ficont Mii gurion Measure, TR-I thro.gh TR.4 3 S�gn:4icant and listed above. Unavodablc Chapter 3.0, Project Description The first paragraph and bullet points on Page 3-13, Section 3.5, Description of the Project, is revised as follows: The proposed 80,000 square feet of commercial space would consist of the following uses: City of Santa Ana Final EIR April 2020 75C-965 The Bowery Mixed -Use Project 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR • Retail Shopping Center: 1$,000 31.000 square feet • Fast Casual Restaurant: 3/000 3500 square feet • Quality Restaurant: 25,000 20,000 square feet • High -Turnover Sit -Down Restaurant: 25,000 20.000 square feet • Fast Food Restaurant: 3,4M 3500 square feet • Coffee/Donut Shop: 2,000 square feet The fourth paragraph and bullet points on Page 3-13, Section 3.5, Description of the Project, is revised as follows: Site Access Vehicular access to the Project site would be provided via a full -access driveway and a right-in/right-out driveway on Warner Avenue and a right-in/'right-out driveway on Red Hill Avenue. The proposed full access elfiveway on We'ner Avenue % euld be slightly offset to the east fFem the adjeeent dri-e ... a), an the north sode ef WewneF Avenue. This dri-oe way weuld be signalized , kh split phetse eperetien in the nefthbeund e id pfeeetI The fourth paragraph on Page 3-14, Section 3.5, Description of the Project, is revised as follows: The Project would provide new ornamental landscaping throughout the Project site that would include a variety of 24- through 48-inch box trees, I — 5-gallon shrubs, and ground covers. New plant species would be drought -tolerant, non-invasive, and compliant with the City of Santa Ana's landscaping requirements. Likewise, the new irrigation installed onsite would meet the City's requirements for water efficiency (Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41 -1503; Landscape Water Use Standards). In addition. the Project includes the following Project Description Feature: PDF AQ-1 • As part of lease or service contracts the Proiect operator shall provide information to commercial tenants and Project landscape management about the availability of electric landscaping equipment through SCAQMD's Commercial Electric Lawn and Garden Eauipment Incentive and Exchange Program Chapter 4.0, Environmental Setting The fifth paragraph on Page 4-8, Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, is revised as follows: John Wayne Airport John Wayne Airport (1WA) is located approximately 2.2 miles southwest of the Project site under the primary aircraft approach corridor. The Project site is not located within JWA's Airport Safety Zone, as shown in Figure 5.7-1. In addition, the Project site is located outside of both the airport's actual (2018; and planned 60 CNEL contours (Figures 5.7-2 and 5.7-3 in Section 5.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials). HeweveHThe Project site is also outside of the 200-foot high FAR Part 77 Notification Imaginary Surface area (shown on Figure 5.7-5 in Section 5.7. Hazards and Hazardous Maferialsl• and therefore the site is not within the JWA planning area boundary, and FAA and AELUP notification would not be required leeeted Surface eFee, but eutside ef the 200 feet high surfeee Wee (shown en Figure 5.7 5 in Seefien 5.7, HezeFelp The third and fourth paragraphs on Page 4-12, Section 4.11, Land Use and Planning, is revised as follows: City of Santa Ana 3-3 Final EIR April 2020 75C-966 The Bowery Mixed -Use Project 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR John Wayne Airport John Wayne Airport (JWA) is located approximately 2.2 miles southwest of the Project site under the primary aircraft approach corridor, but not within the AELUP Notification area end or 1WA planning area boundary, as detailed in Section 5.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Because the Project site is not located within the AELUP Notification area ertd or JWA planning area boundary ;shown on Figures 5.7-4 and 5.7-5 in Section 5.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials), and the the City is would not be required to refer the proposed Project to the ALUC for review, -_ e the r•_,•r_-_•_ Publie esa{s;ed-pre, 'ietr,{y• The sixth paragraph on Page 4-12, Section 4.12, Noise, is revised as follows: As described previously in Section 5.9, Land Use and Planning, the Project site is not located within the JWA Planning Area's FAR Part 77 Notification Surface; Li 4 and outside of the airport's 60 CNEL Contour. Chapter 5.1, Aesthetics The third paragraph on Page 5.1-24, Section 5.1.6, Environmental Impacts, is revised as follows: The proposed mixed -used Project would result in a visual change from the existing development on the site to a higher intensity development, consisting of 3 mixed use buildings that would be 6-stories in height and one residential building that would be 5-stories in height. Each of these buildings would have an adjacent parking structure for a total of 4 parking structures. Two parking structures would provide 7 levels of above ground parking and would be x-x 76 feet in height and two would provide 6 levels of above ground parking and would be � 70 feet in height. In addition, the Project would develop 2 one-story retail/restauront commercial buildings and a surface parking lot. The tallest point of the Project would be approximately 94 feet fromthe ground level, which would be at the top of the architectural trim of the of the 3 mixed use 6- story buildings. Section The last paragraph on Page 5.4-5, Section 5.4.6, Environmental Impacts, is revised as follows: Also, CCR Title 13, Motor Vehicles, section 2449(d);3) Idling, limits idling times of construction vehicles to no more than 5 minutes, thereby precluding unnecessary and wasteful consumption of fuel due to unproductive idling of construction equipment. Additionally, construction contractors are required to demonstrate compliance with applicable California Air Resources Board (CARE) regulations governing the accelerated retrofitting, repowering, or replacement of heavy duty diesel on- and off -road equipment during the City's construction permitting process. Compliance with existing CARB idling restrictions and the use of newer engines and equipment would reduce fuel combustion and energy consumption. The energy modeling shows. that the Project construction electricity usage over the 2.4 27-month construction period would be approximately 1,674,604 kWh, which is summarized in Table 5.4-1. Section 5.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials The last two paragraphs on Page 5.7-10, Section 5.7.3, Environmental Setting, is revised as follows: (she -n en Figure. The ALUC has adopted Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77 as the criteria City of Santa Ana Final EIR April 2020 3-4 75C-967 The Bowery Mixed -Use Project 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR for determining height restrictions in Orange County. FAR Part 77 requires notification to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for any project that would be more than 200 feet in height above ground level or within the imaginary surface of a 100:1 slope extending outward for 20,000 feet from the nearest runway. As shown on Figure 5.7-5, the Project site is located outside of the 200-foot-high imaginary surface area for JWA. Therefore, FAA notification for the proposed Project would not be required. Additional, bBecause the ALUC has adopted the FAR Part 77 criteria. the Project site is also not located within the AELUP Notification area for JWA and not within the JWA planning area boundary. Therefore, (she n en Figures 5.7 4 and 5.7 5), and !he PFejeet PFOpeses a Genered Plan Amendment and a Eele chef age the Glt.. •- -__. •-_J to -_r_-.L_ _-__ _-_d the Project review does not include to the ALUC fer-review, pursuant to the California Public Utilities Code Section 21676, as listed previously. The fourth paragraph on Page 5.7-26, Section 5.7.6, Environmental Impacts, is revised as follows: HeweverAlso because the Project site is located outside of the 200-foot-high imaginary surface area for JWA (100:1 slope extending outward for 20,000 feet), the Project site is not located within the AELUP Notification area for JWA (shewn e„-Fig -- �c.7 "`, and not within the JWA planning area boundary, -end „s the 200 feet L:_L :.-__•__-). - -s___ are_ f_- PVA,, FAA notification for the proposed Project would not be reqv' red. The third paragraph on Page 5.7-27, Section 5.7.6, Environmental Impacts, is revised as follows: safety.Due te the netwe ef the required City appreveils (i.e., the General Plan end zef img a iiendflienq-,*e-Gay-ef Santa Ane is required, pursuant te Public Utilities Gede Seetien 21676, #a refei- the pFepesed Pfeieet te the Overall, because the Project is not located within the JWA Airport Safety Zone, the Airport Impact Zone, or the JWA 60 CNEL noise contour; and it would not penetrate the imaginary surfaces area or result in hazards related to excessive glare, light, steam, smoke, dust, or electronic interference, the proposed Project would not introduce a safety hazard associated with airport operations for people residing, working, and visiting the Project site. Thus, Project- relored hazard and noise impacts associated with JWA operations .could be less than significant. Section 5.9, Land Use and Planning The last sentence of the second paragraph on Page 5.9-2, Section `�.9.2, Regulatory Setting, is revised as follows: The Project site is not located within the JWA Planning Area's FAR Part 77 Notification Surface-6vt and outsicle of the airport's 60 CNEL Contour. The third paragraph on Page 5.9-19, Section 5.9.3, Environmental Setting, is revised as follows: John Wayne Airport (JWA) is located approximately 2.2 miles southwest of the Project site under the primary aircraft approach corridor, but not within the AELUP Notification area end or planning area boundary, as detailed in Section 5.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Because the Project site is not located within the AELUP Notification area end or planning area boundary ( as detailed in Section 5.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials), end the __ _ _ _h__a_the CityrequiredFefeF the proposed Project is not referred to the ALUC for review, pursuant to the California Public Utilities Code Section 21676, as listed previously. City of Santa Ana 3-5 Final EIR April 2020 75C-968 The Bowery Mixed -Use Project 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR The impact significance header on Page 5.9-21, Section 5.7.6, Environmental Impacts, is revised as follows: Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The first paragraph on Page 5.9-22, Section 5.7.6, Environmental Impacts, is revised as follows: As described previously, JWA is located approximately 2.2 miles southwest of the Project site under the primary aircraft approach corridor and within the AELUP Notification area and planning area boundary for the airport. Table 5.9-2 provides an assessment of the proposed Project's consistency with the JWA AELUP. As detailed, the proposed Project would be consistent with airport land use plan policies with-irnplemetifafien The last row of Table 5.9-2 on Page 5.9.23, Section 5.9.6, Environmental Impacts, is revised as follows: Policy 3.3.6: Condition which may serve to mitigate a project/action and thus may permit the ALUC to make a finding of consistency includes providing noticing that states "Notice of Airport in Vicinety: This property is presently located in the vicinity of an airport, within what is known as an airport influence area. For that reason, the property may be subject to some of the annoyances or inconveniences associated with proximity to airport operations (for example: noise, vibration, or odors). Individual sensitivities to those annoyance; can vary from person to person. You may wish to consider what airport annoyances, if any, are associated uirh the property before you complete your purchase and determine .whether they are acceptable to you' Consistent. A";tgg- -- Measupe W ' has been an'eomp4 o i J. an env&Fenniental efree•. As describedl in Section 57 Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Section 5 10 Noise. the Proiect site is not located within 1 WA's Airport Safety Zone as shown in Figure 5 7-11 and is located outside of the airports 60 CNEL contours (F'aures 6 7-2 and 5 7-3)Table 1 of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport shows that residential land uses outside of the 60 CNEL contour are "normally cnns'stent " Therefore, the proposed Project would not be subiect to noise, vibration or odors related to JWA and is consistent ith Policy 3.3.6. The third row of Table 5.9-2 on Page 5.9-26, Section 5.9.6, Environmental Impacts, is revised as follows: Policy 2.1: Comply with FAA regulations and ALUC requirements on new development and redevelopment located within the height restriction zone for JWA per PUC Section 21676. Consistent. According to the General Plan Airport Environs Element, the Project site is not located within the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) Notification Area for JWA. k�Afsoo the site is not within the FAR Part 77 200-foot height restriction area. In addition, the highest point of the Project buildings .would be 94-feet from ground level. Thus, the proposed Project would not exceed the 200-foot high height restriction zone for JWA, and the proposed Project is consistent with Policy 2.1. The fifth and sixth rows of Table 5.9-2 on Page 5.9-26, Section 5.9.6, Environmental Impacts, is revised as follows: City of Santa Ana Final EIR April 2020 3-6 75C-969 The Bowery Mixed -Use Project 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Policy 2.3: Comply with FAR Part 77 and the AELUPs for Consistent. According to the General Plan Airport Environs JWA and Heliports as they may be amended from time Element, the Project site is not located within the Airport Environs to time. Land Use Plan (AELUP) Notification Area for JWA. "-����'-- Also. the site is not within the FAR Part 77 200-foot height restriction area. In addition, the highest pointof the Project buildings would be 94-feet from ground level. Thus, the proposed Project would not exceed the 200-foot high height restriction zone for JWA. Further, the Project does not propose any heliport features and is not located within the vicinity of a heliport. Thus, the proposed Project is consistent with Policy 2.3. Policy 2.4: Prior to the amendment of the City's general Consistent. The aroiect site is not located within the FAR Part 77 plan or a specific plan, or the adoption or approval of 200-foot height restriction area and not within JWA Planning a zoning ordinance or building regulation within the boundaries. City of Santa Ana would not be required to refer the planning boundary established by the ALUC, and proposed Project to the ALUC prior to being considered for pursuant to PUC Section 21676, the local agency shall adoption by the City Planning Commission or City Council. first refer the proposed action to the ALUC. Therefore, the proposed Project is consistent with Policy 2.4. Section 5.9.3, Level of Significance Before Mitigation, on Page 5.9-41 is revised as follows: Impact LU-1 and Impact LU-2 would be less than significant. Section 5.9.10, Mitigation Measures, on Page 5.9-41 is revised as follows: RFejeet shall include Et thel! elause requifing ell' pFespeetl e residents ef ;he PFejec! site shall be netified of - 'ith ie Yeu fe if per5am. met) wish censide -hat oifpeFt ammeyeinees, any, afe assecieteel No mitigation meosures are required Section 5.9.11, Level of Significance After Mitigation,. on Page 5.9-41 is revised as follows: No significant unavoidable adverse impacts related to land use and planning would occur. Section 5.10, Noise The second paragraph on page 5.10-9, Section 5.10.3, Environmental Setting, is revised as follows: John Wayne Airport (JWA) is located approximately 2.2 miles southwest of the Project site and under the primary aircraft approach corridor but is notes within the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) notification area for JWA. As shown on Figure 5.10-2, the Project site is located outside the 55 dBA CNEL aircraft noise level contour boundaries of JWA. In addition, the County of Orange has adopted the General Aviation Noise Ordinance that prohibits commercial aircraft departures from JWA between the hours of City of Santa Ana Final EIR April 2020 75C-970 The B.nvery Mixed -Use Project 3. Revisions to the Draft OR 1 0:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. and arrivals between the hours of 1 1:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. These restrictions substantially limit the aircraft noise during the noise sensitive nighttime hours for residential use. The third bullet point at the top of Page 5.10-13, Section 5.10.4, Thresholds of Significance, is revised as follows: Generate temporary Project construction -related noise level increases which exceed the 4-0 12 dBA Leq noise level increase threshold (per Caltrans Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol) at residential noise -sensitive receiver locations. The first sentence of the first paragraph on page 5.10-27, Section 5.10.2, Environmental Impacts, is revised as follows: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The third and fourth paragraphs on page 5.10-27, Section 5.10.2, Environmental Impacts, is revised as follows: As shown on Figure 5.10-2, the Project site is located outside the 55 dBA CNEL aircraft noise level contour boundaries of 1WA. Therefore, according to the AELUP, the Project residential and commercial retail land use is considered normally consistent with 1WA aircraft noise exposure exterior noise level compatibility thresholds. Also, the airport related noise at the Project site does not exceed the City's municipal code permissible noise levels. Additionally, the County's General Aviation Noise Ordinance that prohibits commercial aircraft departures between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. and arrivals between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. These restriction; substantially limit the aircraft noise during the noise sensitive nighttime hours for residential use. Therefore the Project would not expose People residing and workina at the site to excessive noise related to PHA, and impacts would be less than significant. He —ever, 5inee the Pr_m_c"'i'jcr ii-oceoed-..;.•'tirrth2.)VAN influence area, of pete fiEll eife aft e-erflight-Ears:s;en; ,'RH- ie fequiFements of the AELYR, is included es Mitigatiei AkeesuFe n 1 eiFpeft '_C C-- that - &1115)HHE 'oeiated eith pFe)Eimity to -if`pJ tm—epefatiens r-PAP eseffip assae teFffiine where the) teeeep_b_ _ te Section 5.10.3, Level of Significance Before Mitigation, on Page 5.10-28 is revised as follows: Upon implementation of regulatory requirements ilmpacts P191-2 would be less than significant. Section 5.10.10, Mitigation Measures, on Page 5.10-29 is revised as follows: Mitigation Measure LU 1 i The De--elepment AgFeement that is reeluired 119F implementation of the Feposed City of Santa Ana 3-8 Final EIR April 2020 75C-971 The Bowery Mixed -Use Project No mitigation measures are required. 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Section 5.10.11, Level of Significance After Mitigation, on Page 5.10-29 is revised as follows: The Fnitigeitien Fneasure emel, existing regulatory programs described previously would reduce potential impacts associated with noise to a level that is less than significant. Therefore, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts related to noise would occur. Section 5.12, Public Services The fourth and fifth paragraphs on page 5.12-2, Section 5.12, Public Services, are revised as follows: Fire protection and emergency medical services in the City of Santa Ana are provided by the OCFA through a contract for services. The OCFA provides fire suppression, emergency medical, rescue, fire prevention, hazardous materials coordination, and wildland management services. OCFA serves -23 24 cities in Orange County and all unincorporated areas. Within the City of Santa Ana, OCFA provides services from 10 city - owned fire stations. There are currently 6 city -owned fire stations located within 3.5 miles of the Project site. Station 79, which is located 1 mile from the Project site is the first responding unit. The location, equipment, and staffing of the fire stations near the Project site are provided in Table 5.12-1. As provided by the OCFA 2018 Statistical Annual Report, there were 27,220 incidents with. 33,983 unit resoonses . Of the calls for service, 6-5 81 percent (21,9521 were for emergency medical calls, 44 2 percent (565) were for fire incidents, and 4-3.8 17 percent (4,703) were for other incidents, which includes: cancelled service calls, ruptures, hazardous conditions, false alarms, and miscellaneous calls. The information in Table 5.12-1 in Section 5.12, Public Services, of the Draft EIR is revised as follows: City of Santa Final EIR April 2020 Table 5.12-1: `einla Ana OCFA Fire Stations Near the Project Site Distance Fire Station Location from Site Equipment Daily Staffing Station 79 1320 East Warner, Santa Ana 1 mile I Paramedic 1 Fire Copraic, Engine 1 Engineer, 2 Firefighters Station 37 1 501 1 Kensington Park Avenue, 1.8 miles 1 Paramedic 1 Fire Captain, Tustin Engine 1 Engineer, 2 Firefi hters Station 6 3180 Barranco Parkway Ir, vine 2.2 miles 1 Paramedic 1 Fire Captain, Engine 1 Engineer, 2 Firefighters Station 28 17862 Gillette Avenue Ir�ine 2.5 miles I Paramedic 2 Fire Captain, Engine, 2 Engineer, 1 Paramedic 4 Firefighters Truck Station 74 1427 S. Broadway Street, 2.8 miles 1 Paramedic 1 Fire Captain, Santa Ana Engine 1 Engineer, 2 Firefighters Station 76 950 W. MacArthur Boulevard, 3.5 miles 1 Paramedic 1 Fire Captain, Santa Ana Truck 1 Engineer, 2 Firefi hters 3-9 75C-972 The Bowery Mixed -Use Project 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR The first full paragraph on page 5.12-4, Section 5.12, Public Services, is revised as follows: This res'dential and employee population is expected to create the typical range of service calls to OCFA that are largely related to medical emergencies, which consist of 6--5 $1 percent of service calls; while fire calls consisted of 4-� 2 percent of OCFA service calls in Santa Ana during 2018. The following bullet point is added as the fourth bullet point on page 5.12-5 in Section 5.12, Public Services. • Access to and around structures would include ladder access on at least two sides of each structure. Section 5.13, Parks and Recreation The paragraph on Page 5.13-3, Section 5.13.2 Environmental Setting, is revised as follows: In addition, there are 9 10 existing City of Tustin park facilities that provide 92-9 97.9 acres of parkland and 3 existing City of Irvine park facilities within 3 miles of the Project site that provide 63.6 acres of park and recreation space, as listed in Table 5.1 3-2. Thus, the total existing parkland within 3 miles of the Project site is 23838 243.38 acres. Table 5.13-2, Tustin and Irvine Park and Recreation facilities Within Three Miles of the Project Site, on Pages 5.13-3 and 5.14-4 is revised as follows: Ron Foell (Greenwood) Plavaround. Amphitheater Basketball Court. 2 Bocce Ball courts 5 acres 1.9 miles Drivina: 4 minutes Walking: 39 minutes Park Windrow Rd 1.4 miles of Wplkina Trail; Picnic Pavilions Total of Tustin Parkland Within 3 Miles of the Project Site 9Z-4 97.9 acres The last two sentences on Page 5.1 3-5, Section 5.13.2, Environmental Impacts, is revised as follows In addition, there are 9-2-.9 97.9 acres of parkland within the City of Tustin and 63.6 acres of parkland within the City of Irvine Park facilities (listed in Table 5.1 3-2) that are also within 3 miles of the Project site and are likely (clue to location) to be used by residents of the proposed Project. This equals approximately 2-45.38 243.38 acres of existing parkland within three miles of the site, which equates to 5,136.3-6-ems 5,094.49 square feet of parkland per Project resident at full occupancy. Table 5.13-3, Average Travel Time in Southern California to Outdoor Recreation Areas, on Page 5.13- 6 is revised as follows: Table 5.13-3: Average Travel Time in Southern California to Outdoor Recreation Areas Mode <5 min 6.10 min 11-F2 20 min 21-60 min 1 >60 min Driving 1 20.1 % ( 17.2% j 20.8% 31.3% 10.6% S-ate Parks, 2014. Section 5.14, Transportation All of the revisions to Section 5.14, Transportation, of the Draft EIR are provided in Attachment A, to this Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR. Chapter 6.0, Alternatives C ty of Santa Ana Final E'R April 2020 3-10 75C-973 The Bowery Mixed -Use Project 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR The last paragraph on Page 6.9, which carries over to page 6-10, Section 6.6.1, Environmental Impacts, is revised as follows: The No Project/No Build Alternative would operate the existing industrial buildings on the Project site, which would not require a General Plan Amendment or zoning change. No impacts related to land use and planning would occur by retention of the existing onsite uses. V riduele residential uses, It would not -eeluire implementation ef Mitigation Measwe 6W 1, - -hich requi-es resident notification of eirpeft operefiens end potential onne)anees. Because this alterrinti, P ei 14 net 'mplementatien of this elternoteye would be less than these of the proposed Project. However, this alternative would not implement the SCAG policies related to high -density, infill development, and improvement of the job/housing balance and corresponding reduction in vehicle miles traveled. The second sentence of the third paragraph on Page 6.16, Section 6.7.1, Environmental Impacts, is revised as follows: JWA is located 2.2 miles southwest of the Project site. It is not within the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) Notification Area, but is net the Airport Safety Zone, or the Airport Impact Zonez and is outside of the 60 CNEL noise contours, as shown in Section 5.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials (Figures 5.7-2 and 5.7-3). The second paragraph on Page 6-17, Section 6.7.1, Environmental Impacts, is revised as follows: oltemofi e would require of Mitigatien Measure LU 1, whieh requires resident nefifiEotoei e4 . The Reduced Project Alternative would develop similar uses that would be less dense, and two -stories lower in height than the proposed Project. Like the proposed Project, the Reduced Project Alternative would be consistent with the JWA AELUP with implementation of AAefigatiem Measure . As a result, the proposed Project and the Reduced Projecl Alternative would have similar less than significant impacts after ef mitigation. The first paragraph on Page 6-23, Section 6.8.1, Environmental Impacts, is revised as follows: Because the Build Out of the Existing Land Use and Zoning Alternative would not include residential uses, it wguld Ise les; then these of the Fepesed PFejee' He - would not implement the SCAG policies to the some degree as the proposed Project, because this alternative would not locate new housing near existing jobs and reduce the jobs -housing ratio or the corresponding reduction in vehicle miles traveled. The second paragraph on Page 6.28, Section 6.9, Environmental Superior Alternative, is revised as follows: The Build Out of the Existing Land Use and Zoning Alternative would reduce the Project's significant and unavoidable operational air quality and transportation/traffic impacts to a less than significant level, would implement the existing General Plan land use and zoning designations for the Project site, and would not require a General Plan amendment or zoning change. Measure L61 1, - hieh Feeltiares residen# notification of airport epeFetiens and potential enneyances. City of Santa Ana 3-1 1 Final EIR April 2020 75C-974 C O d d t N .D N 0 O a 0 d 1 3hy biMm 75C-975 Exhibit 10 MAYOR Miguel A. Pulido MAYOR PRO TEM Juan Villages COUNCILMEMBERS Phil Bacerra Nelida Mendoza David Penaloza Vicente Sarmiento Jose Solorio OWL Planning and Building Agency 20 Civic Center Plaza • P.O. Box 1988 Santa Ana, California 92702 www.santa-ana.org/oba June 30, 2020 Amy Choi, C.M., Division Chief Division of Aeronautics California Department of Transportation 1120 N Street, MS 40 Sacramento, CA 95814 CITY MANAGER Kdstine Ridge CITY ATTORNEY Sonia R. Carvalho CLERK OF THE COUNCIL Daisy Gomez via email at Amy. Choi@dot.ca.gov RE: NOTICE OF INTENT TO OVERRULE THE DETERMINATION OF INCONSISTENCY FOR THE BOWERY MIXED -USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PROPOSED AT 2300, 2310 AND 2320 SOUTH REDHILL AVENUE The purpose of this letter is to inform you of the City of Santa Ana's intention to recommend that the Santa Ana City Council adopt the attached findings to overrule the May 21, 2020 Airport Land Use Commission's (ALUC) determination of inconsistency for The Bowery Mixed -Use Development project proposed at 2300, 2310 and 2320 South Redhill Avenue. The project consists of a mixed -use commercial and residential community that would contain up to 1,100 residential units, 80,000 square feet of leasable commercial area, landscaping, onsite amenities for the public and the community's residents, and parking. On June 16, 2020, the Santa Ana City Council met and (1) approved the issuance of a Notice of Intent to overrule and (2) determined to give notice to the ALUC of its decision to overrule as required by California Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 21676(b). Pursuant to PUC Section 21676, the City hereby respectfully gives proper notice of its intention to overrule and submitted the attached findings (attached hereto as Exhibit A) for review. PUC Section 21676(b) requires that a public agency making a decision to overrule shall give notice to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Aeronautics Division, and the ALUC at least 45 days prior to the final decision to overrule. After this notification, the ALUC and Caltrans have 30 days from the receipt of this notice to provide advisory comments to the City. SANTA ANA CITY COUNCIL Miguel A. Pulido Juan Villages Vicente Bamlento David Penaloza Jose solono Phil Became Nelida Mendoza Mayor Mayor Pro Tem. Ward 6 Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward moullda@sania-ana.omyllleass0santa-ana.omysammento®santa-ana om a en z=s nta-a n_a prq isolonoralsanta-ana.om ooacema®santo-anaom nmenda] 5..ns-ana.om City of Santa Ana Notice of Intent to Overrule & Findings June 30, 2020 Page 2 of 2 This letter shall commence the 45-day notification period, with the City looking forward to receiving comments within 30 days hereof. The Bowery Mixed -Use Development project has been tentatively scheduled for its City Council public hearing on Tuesday, August 18, 2020. Thank you for your prompt attention on this matter. Should you have any questions regarding this notice and/or on the proposed project, please feel free to contact me by phone at (714) 667-2713 or by email at VFregosoasanta-ana.org. Sincerely, A Vince Fregoso ICP Planning Man ger C: Minh Thai, Executive Director of Planning & Building Agency Lisa Storck, Assistant City Attorney Ali Pezeshkpour, Senior Planner Jerry Guevara, Assistant Planner I Exhibit A: Draft Resolution with Supportive Findings to Overrule ALUC's Determination 75C-977 MAYOR Miguel A. Pulido MAYOR PRO TEM Juan Villages COUNCILMEMBERS Phil Bacerra Nelida Mendoza David Penaloza Vicente Sarmiento Jose Solorio CITY OF SANTA ANA Planning and Building Agency 20 Civic Center Plaza • P.O. Box 1988 Santa Ana, California 92702 ww W.santa-ana.orc/oba June 30, 2020 Lea U. Choum, Executive Officer Orange County Airport Land Use Commission 3160 Airway Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92626 CITY MANAGER Kristine Ridge CITY ATTORNEY Sonia R. Carvalho CLERK OF THE COUNCIL Daisy Gomez via email at Ichoum@ocair.com RE: NOTICE OF INTENT TO OVERRULE THE DETERMINATION OF INCONSISTENCY FOR THE BOWERY MIXED -USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PROPOSED AT 2300, 2310 AND 2320 SOUTH REDHILL AVENUE The purpose of this letter is to inform you of the City of Santa Ana's intention to recommend that the Santa Ana City Council adopt the attached findings to overrule the May 21, 2020 Airport Land Use Commission's (ALUC) determination of inconsistency for The Bowery Mixed -Use Development project proposed at 2300, 2310 and 2320 South Redhill Avenue. The project consists of a mixed -use commercial and residential community that would contain up to 1,100 residential units, 80,000 square feet of leasable commercial area, landscaping, onsite amenities for the public and the community's residents, and parking. On June 16, 2020, the Santa Ana City Council met and (1) approved the issuance of a Notice of Intent to overrule and (2) determined to give notice to the ALUC of its decision to overrule as required by California Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 21676(b). Pursuant to PUC Section 21676, the City hereby respectfully gives proper notice of its intention to overrule and submitted the attached findings (attached hereto as Exhibit A) for review. PUC Section 21676(b) requires that a public agency making a decision to overrule shall give notice to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Aeronautics Division, and the ALUC at least 45 days prior to the final decision to overrule. After this notification, the ALUC and Caltrans have 30 days from the receipt of this notice to provide advisory comments to the City. SANTA ANA CITY COUNCIL Miguel A. Pulido Juan Villages Vicente Sarmiento David Penaloaa Jose solodo Phil Be.... Nelida venom Mayor Mayor Pro Tam, Ward 5 Ward WaN2 Ward Word Ward6 moulido0sanla-anaom vllleaasrdsantoana.om vsarnmenlo(asanta-ana.om 7 M isolono�sanU-ana.om obacemulb..nla-ana.om nmendozagsanta.anaom City of Santa Ana Notice of Intent to Overrule & Findings June 30, 2020 Page 2 of 2 This letter shall commence the 45-day notification period, with the City looking forward to receiving comments within 30 days hereof. The Bowery Mixed -Use Development project has been tentatively scheduled for its City Council public hearing on Tuesday, August 18, 2020. Thank you for your prompt attention on this matter. Should you have any questions regarding this notice and/or on the proposed project, please feel free to contact me by phone at (714) 667-2713 or by email at VFregoso(a)santa-ana.org. Sincerely, Vince Fregoso CP Planning Mg ager C: Minh Thai, Executive Director of Planning & Building Agency Lisa Storck, Assistant City Attorney Ali Pezeshkpour, Senior Planner Jerry Guevara, Assistant Planner I Exhibit A: Draft Resolution with Supportive Findings to Overrule ALUC's Determination 75C-979 RESOLUTION NO. 2020-xx A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA OVERRULING THE ORANGE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION OF INCONSISTENCY FOR THE BOWERY MIXED -USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT LOCATED 2300, 2310 AND 2320 SOUTH REDHILL WITH THE AIRPORT ENVIRONS LAND USE PLAN FOR JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT, INCLUDING SUPPORTIVE FINDING BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of and declares as follows: WHEREAS, Article 5 of1Jkk3 of Section 65300) of the Governme�re comprehensive, long-term general ft fob Element of the Get' WHEREAS, to devel Project�a Ana, ornia ("Pt to develop Trb 14.69-acre site ("Project Site"); of Santa Ana 1 of Title OF SANTA ANA AS finds, determines (commencing with City to prepare and adopt a Velopment of the City; and ha adopted the Land Use from time to time; and g Arrimus Capital ("Applicant"), seeks I and Residential Project ("proposed 1 2320 South Redhill Avenue in Santa em9%gulniclftepresenting Arrimus Capital ("Applicant"), seeks ry MM-Use Development Project ("proposed Project"), on a 1, 231nd 2320 South Redhill Avenue in Santa Ana, California WHEREAS, the f Mect as currently proposed entails, among other things, (1) demolition of the existing three (3) structures on the Project Site; (2) redevelopment of the Project Site with a commercial and residential mixed -use development consisting of up to 80,000 square feet leasable commercial area, 1,100 residential units, 2,600 onsite parking spaces, and onsite landscaping and amenities; (3) approval of General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 2020-02, which would change the Project Site's existing land use designation of Professional & Administration Office (PAO) to District Center (DC); and (4) approval of Amendment Application (AA) No. 2020-01, which would change the zoning of the Project Site from Light Industrial (M-1) to Specific Development No. 96 (SD-96) designation; and 75C-980 Resolution No. 2020-xx Page 1 of 13 WHEREAS, the requested General Plan Amendment would change the General Plan land use designation of the property from Professional and Administrative Office (PAO) to District Center (DC) and to update text portions of the City's Land Use Element to reflect this change in order to allow for development of the mixed -use commercial and residential Project; and WHEREAS, California Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 21676(b) requires the City of Santa Ana to refer projects requiring a general plan amendment or a zone change to the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for consistency with the 2008 John Wayne Airport (JWA) Environs LandMb Plan (AELUP); and WHEREAS, the ALUC is charged with guidelines for compatible development in the of the County of Orange. PUC Section 21670, the AELUP as: (1) "... to promote the QM airport noise standards adopted pursuan S of new noise and safety problems" and Milk welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion d measures that minimize the put�=f>exposun within areas around public airp Ahe e devoted to incompatible uses;" anM i bfin of an AELUP, establishing DW of a irport within the jurisdiction tsets forthifundamental purpose of goals and ootives of the California otion 21669 andrevent the creation to pro ect publOMMbalth, safety, and a nd the add ft of land use ssive noise andVafety hazards ent these areas are not already WHEREAS, 0�21, 202 he At -- un&ft proposed project to be inconsistent with tl (A AELI by AL_UC's findings were made pursuant to AEI; Sectiorr ..2 and!MMsV and Ili Section 216749(a). These sections empower th»LUC "tMssist locencies in ensuring compatible land uses in the vicini of existi��ir. =_the egftt that the land in the vicinity of those airports de = incom ibleMes," and "to coordinate planning at the state, Mmnal and -dal le so as ovrde for the orderly development of air transpton, while aJe sam— i-dime protecting the public health, safety and welfare;" and WHERS, pursuano PUC—Section 21676(b), the City may, after a public hearing, proposeoverrule 0 commission by a two-thirds vote of its governing body if it makes specific tt`�' gs tithe proposed action is consistent with the purposes of Article 3.5 Airport Ldr�-Commission of the PUC. At least 45 days prior to the decision to overrule theme_ C, the local agency governing body shall provide the ALUC and the State Division of Aeronautics a copy of the proposed decision and findings. The commission and the Division of Aeronautics may provide comments to the local agency governing body within 30 days of receiving the proposed decision and findings. If the ALUC and State Division of Aeronautics comments are not available within this time limit, the local agency governing body may act without them. Should comments be received, the City Council must include the comments from the ALUC in the public record of any final decision to overrule the ALUC. This decision shall be determined at a public hearing to make the specific findings that the proposed overruling is consistent with the purposes stated in PUC Section 21670. Resolution No. 2020-xx 75C-981 Page 2 of 13 WHEREAS, on June 16, 2020, the City Council of the City of Santa Ana adopted a resolution (Resolution No. 2020-051) authorizing the Planning Division to initiate the preparation and drafting of findings and determination overruling the Orange County ALUC's determination of inconsistency associated with the proposed Bowery Mixed - Use Development and to provide notice in accordance with PUC Section 21676(b) to the ALUC and the State Division of Aeronautics; and WHEREAS, on June 29, 2020, the Planning Division of the City of Santa Ana provided a Notice of Intent to overrule the Orange County ALUC's determination that the Bowery Mixed -Use Development project is inconsistent with the AELUP of JWA and findings to the ALUC and the State Division of Aeronautic& and WHEREAS, all correspondences received la� ALUC and State Division of Aeronautics have been included in the public rec9goft WHEREAS, on August 6, 2020, the= - gave pu -notice of a City Council public hearing for consideration of overr ALUC's detection on the proposed Bowery Mixed -Use Development projectIffidvertising in the Cie County Register, a newspaper of general circulation, by mid to owiaers of pffftdy and residents within 500 feet of the Project, andposting a noonOF >and WHEREAS, August 18, 2City no-kconducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Environm6IRR Reportl) No. 2020-01, General Plan df-� Amendment No. 2020-02, Amennt t€ation W%2020-01, and the ALUC overruling determinate t consister actior at wh> hearing members of the public were afford e p b pity to c me_a-- P0rFM h a -ions. Section 2. TCity (ncil of tCity of Santa Ana made the following findings: — A. _=amity of a An> g equire ide findings supporting the overrule of Orange CUM AL-EQ.,determiHNion as required in the California PUC Seams --"fan 21676(byl sed M e following Findings of Fact and the associated sub§Mbal evidenc the pft record, the proposed action by the City on the Bowery -fixed -Use tEMelopment Project at 2300, 2310 and 2320 Red Hill Avenue relatedoning change and General Plan Amendment are consistent w---_the _doses of the State Aeronautics Act as stated in PUC Section 21670 B. The proposed Project provides for the orderly development of JWA, and its surrounding area and promotes the overall goals and objectives of the State noise standards by avoiding new noise and safety problems, and protecting the public health, safety and welfare through the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards to the extent that this area is not already devoted to incompatible uses. This Project would not add any new residential or commercial noise impacts to the JWA 65 dBA Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) noise area. Resolution No. 2020-xx 75C-982 Page 3 of 13 C. It is in the public interest to: provide for the orderly development of each public use airport in this state and the area surrounding these airports so as to promote the overall goals and objectives of the California airport noise standards adopted pursuant to PUC Section 21669 and to prevent the creation of new noise and safety problems. D. To provide for the orderly development of JWA and the area surrounding the airport, the ALUC adopted the 2008 AELUP on April 17, 2008. The AELUP guides development proposals to provide for orderly development of the airport and the area surrounding the airport through implementation of the standards in Section 2.1 (aircraft noise, safety compa zones, building height restrictions). E. The ALUC is required to use the Irma �__prt Land Use Planning Handbook (Handbook) that was d by the #tfornia Department of Transportation, Division of Aerona(Caltrans) in 20The AELUP has not been updated to incorporate the HWMdb_ook nor has it updMO-_information about the operation and environmental effea f JWA reflectedTt�-�i' s most recent Final Environmental Impa _eport (El %y the Oran ounty Board of Supervisors on June 2 _ for theP Aviation Improvement Program (GAIP). F. On May 21, 20707the City, ant0==�reseff the Bowery Mixed -Use development_ = - __ •UC forlete: of ensistency with the JWA AELUP. ThCUC sreport dQgWy 22�0, finds that with regard to AELUP issuf aircraf_ise, buirheights, safety zones and heliports, that the proposed pr_ct, _change;d General Plan Amendment are each consts nL—.Desp with h stated criteria of the AELUP, the Ad�Q Qmmd, mission find the proposed ...Bowery ;Wed Use Pt incur tent wig_ AELUP for JWA per AELUP Sections end 2.1.4 an>C Seen 21674. G. The Fa ct is consis-taht withWle AELUP of JWA and with the purposes of the State AMMautics Ac ased on the following Findings of Fact and substantial evidence: a. Lack of ewe of inconsistency by the ALUC. b. There was no evidence presented by or to the ALUC at its hearing on May 21, 2020, to support if finding of inconsistency, nor was there a request to provide supplemental information. The ALUC staff made a presentation at the Commission hearing based on the staff report. The only addition made by the ALUC staff to the staff report published with the meeting agenda was their acknowledgment of the City's letter on May 20, 2020 stating that the Final EIR for the Project would reinstate a mitigation measure requiring "Notice of Airport in Vicinity," to be included in all lease/rental agreements and post outdoor signage informing the Resolution No. 2020-xx 75C-983 Page 4 of 13 public of the presence of operating aircraft, which demonstrates further compliance with the AELUP and to minimize potential future noise complaints. C. Noise. The residential and commercial land uses under the proposed Project are consistent with the aircraft noise standards of the AELUP. Project is located outside of the JWA 60 to 65 dBA CNEL aircraft noise contours. Aircraft noise analysis was completed in the Project's EIR and presented at the ALUC hearing. The JWA GAIP EIR also contains noise analysis de nstrating that the Project is outside of the 60 dBA CNEL noisfimiltour. This noise analysis is based on one year's worth craft operations in all runway operating configurations witbdd =existing aircraft fleet mixes and future fleet forecasts.Jb analys Ucludes the time of day of all operations and inclq oise penalfl� r evening (7 pm to 10 pm) and night (10 p•---��-- am) aircraft op%tons of five and ten decibels per operate&& Residential land _s are normally consistent in areas imps by a ft noise u iL60 dBA CNEL and comme l land user_UW dBA CNEL amshown in the AELUP Tab_ bese are t - e noise standards used by the FAA and thetCaliforniidentify compatible land uses near airports. ii. Wffiftct is loud o thelaWA single -event aircraft rose cogs. The t Fai—OWE Oise analysis completed as of thelA GAIPncluded analysis of single event aircraft no This�ysis ined single event noise contours for the noises= �akinregular use of JWA. The Project ��,velopws consut _r vded analysis and information at the hem showing----i__ a Project site is located outside of the JVVY-_5 dB qle event noise contours for all aircraft making regulate of 1—m—k ort. iii. a The projffit includes mitigation measure notifying future residents. the FinAR for the Project revised on May 22, 2020 includes a ameasure requiring "Notice of Airport in Vicinity," to be ind _ in all lease/rental agreements and post outdoor signage informing the public of the presence of operating aircraft, which demonstrates further compliance with the AELUP and to minimize potential future noise complaints. d. Safety. The residential and commercial land uses under the proposed project are consistent with the safety standards of the AELUP. Project is not in any of the AELUP safety zones. The project is located more than a mile from the outer edge of AELUP Zone 6, Traffic Pattern Zone as depicted in Appendix D. Further, AELUP Appendix D states the "Basic Resolution No. 2020-xx 75C-984 Page 5 of 13 Compatibility Qualities" of Zone 6 as "Allow residential uses" and "Allow most nonresidential uses." i. Project is not in the JWA runway protection zones (RPZ). The Project is located nearly two miles from the outer edge of the nearest JWA RPZ. ii. The FAA's Determinations of No Hazard to Air Navigation for The Bowery Mixed Use development structures are the only source of authoritative, aviation safety findings regarding the project. The FAA conducted an aeronautical study-(49 U.S.C. §44718 and 14 CFR Part 77) and issued its Deter -_ions on March 5, 2020 that structures associated with the_-��e_ct "do not exceed standards and would not be a hazard tenfation" and that "[b]ased on this evaluation, marking ating 2laot necessary for aviation safety." The FAA's Detenations estakthat the Project would be neither an obstru or a hazard to air1�viaation. iii. In this case it is imp authority oveL-.the use United Statd�rnrr of the United iv. In - rid .r to use tirsi Jffi-_-- ns and ftcy 9 U.S �— 4010 draft (in ding redo vehicle,- 121103(b)(2)). to It establisftiat entity has over the pit site. "The cclusive sovereignty of airspace W03(a)(1)). e FAAMiministrator is responsible _ usW the navigable airspace and(�]egulations on the flight of ns on sale altitudes) for navigating, aircraft; protecting individuals and Wing the navigable airspace efficiently; 10tween aircraft, between aircraft and between aircraft and airborne objects" ^onatical studies for the Bowery Mixed Use project the definitive standard for assessing compliance aviation safety laws and regulations (49 U.S.C. § federal authority is recognized in State law (Cal. vi. The City of Santa Ana has the local police powers to control land use on the site (Cal. Const., art. XI 11, § 7). This constitutional authority is acknowledged in State law (Cal. PUC §21670 and §21676) and the ALUC process (AELUP §4.11) allowing for overrule of an ALUC finding of inconsistency. vii. The other entities that have processed or commented on this project have aviation safety duties and responsibilities related to this matter. Each of these entities relies on or ultimately defers to �+ Resolution No. 2020-xx 75C-985 Page 6 of 13 the FAA's authoritative aviation safety role in airspace determinations. viii. The AELUP for JWA, Section 2.1.3 Building Height Restrictions states, "In adopting criteria for building height restrictions in the vicinities of airports, the Commission considered only one standard and that was Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77 ([14 CFR] Part 77) entitled, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace. "These regulations are the only definitive standard available [emphasis added] and the standard most generally used." ix. Section 2.1.3 also recognizes FAnautical studies beyond 14 CFR Part 77 surfaces as the ward for review, "In addition to the 'imaginary surfaces,' the —lion will use all of the FAR Part 77.23 standards aIq--- - vai h the cults of FAA aeronautical studies, [emphasis adder other stueemed necessary by the Commission, it Wer to determin _a structure is an 'obstruction."' This sexton goes on to sta��he Commission considers and recogniz he FA&Ps the sirii� -- "Authority" for analyzing prnct impact oirtar aeronautic=perations, or navigationating, incluinterference with�navigational- aids or publiMaLlat_ paths a ---%procedures. The Commission also considers Fps - _the "AMMity" for reporting the results of such studies W pro e=nalys the Commission will not ja�tbe findirof ram= stus conducted by parties per tha—ems--- he FAAMWgg thy_ certifies and adopts such dings aMe and Sectt� eferame to FAA Advisory Circular 150/5190- , AEI Zo6MgiQ 0WWWce to Limit Height of Objects Around g bits 1W—WCommis Review. This FAA Advisory Circular proves sWc guidance for establishing zoning regulations along spdWguidance on a "variance" process for potential obstructs. At Nction 3.b., "The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Mducts aeronautical studies on obstructions which bxamineMeir effect on such factors as: aircraft operational & ; electronic and procedural requirements; and, airport hazes. -standards. if an aeronautical study shows that an obstruction, when evaluated against these factors, has no substantial adverse effect upon the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace, then the obstruction is considered not to be a hazard to air navigation [emphasis added]." A. CalTrans Division of Aeronautics — Caltrans publishes the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook ("Handbook") in accordance with State Law with the purpose to, " provide information to ALUCs, their staffs, airport proprietors, cities, counties, consultants, and the public; to identify the requirements �+ Resolution No. 2020-xx 75C-986 Page 7 of 13 e. and procedures for preparing effective compatibility planning documents; and define exemptions where applicable (Caltrans, 2011)." The Handbook provides specific guidance for assessing potential airspace obstructions in Section 4.5 Airspace Protection. xii. JWA - The FAA requires airport sponsors like Orange County to accept specific grant assurances when they accept federal funding. Hazard Removal and Mitigation and Compatible Land Use are two of these assurances (49 U.S.C. § 47107(a)(9) and (10)). For hazard removal, the Airport relies on the FAA's aeronautical study to meet its requnent. For compatible land use, the Airport relies on coordin — with the surrounding cities and the ALUC. The following auffilift specific assurances: xiii. Hazard Removal and Mite. It wt�tke appropriate action to assure that such tergg airspace SeAs required to protect instrument and visMF�77operations to 'L airport (including established minimum--�trht altitudes) will bequately cleared and protected by rernM , low ng, reloca# r marking, or lighting or 2MRrwise miti —ing airport Tw_ards and by preventing tfblishment reation of future airport hazards. xiv. Compatible La Us UbWWI take a opriate action, to the extent reasanable, inci A-T.Mg th�ion dm ning laws, to restrict the adjaceo or�I]�meda vicinity of the airport to vities d purpo patifflaRth normal airport operations, tuding Iing and!Woff of aircraft. In addition, if the project is fo ise c atibility pr�ram implementation, it will not cause or _ per wmali in I €-- use, within its jurisdiction, that will ucg-1 WMcom Mift. _vW respect to the airport, of the noise atibTR&-Rrogramasures upon which Federal funds have The r3dentialTnd commercial land uses under the proposed are conent with the height standards of the AELUP. i. sed buildings associated with the Project would not ex -the sloping, three-dimensional 100:1 (one percent sloping surface from the nearest runway over 3,200 feet in actual length) FAA notification surface to require the Filing of FAA Form 7460-1. This fact is stated in the ALUC staff report and was repeated at the ALUC hearing on the Project. Despite this fact, the Project proponent filed with the FAA and received a Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation on March 5, 2020. ii. The Project does not exceed the sloping, three-dimensional 50:1 FAA precision instrument Approach Surface to JWA Runway 20R. This fact is stated in the ALUC staff report and was repeated at Resolution No. 2020-xx 75C-987 Page 8 of 13 f the ALUC hearing on the Project. Despite this fact, the Project proponent filed with the FAA and received a Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation on March 5, 2020. Overflight. "Close to the JWA approach centerline" as identified by the ALUC is neither an FAA nor an AELUP standard. The FAA is the only authoritative source of aviation safety data and the FAA does not have a "close to the JWA approach centerline" standard. The FAA's Aeronautical Study of the Project and Determinations of No Hazards Air Navigation issued on March 5, 2020 are the only authors > source of airspace impact information as stated in the AEA ii. The AELUP clearly ideatifRres its wort land use planning standards around aircr��oise, safetd height. Objective measures of these lards are clea &ntified in AELUP Section 2.1. The Prot consistent with eaf these objective —a standards. iii. Two-dimensrfilight tracksa list of unassociated aircraft do nothing to inpact overflights. The ALUC provided one day of areal ij�f�� cks, oil' ay of departure flight tracks and -fists of aircr y tim— iay a6lRi1ttude that were purported iv. Ire Projec roponerl�pared three-dimensional models of the A,proed flight tfc information to depict actual overflight prot_ - # —.. =-paled model of the Project. These three- - _. imens�I modE�o_wtat some residents and users of the p __e_erty w fd likely b le to see aircraft flying past the property froi rtainRiktions. Aircraft noise information from the AELUP, the JC GAIP-M and from the Project EIR demonstrate that the noise ifWct woad be less than 60 dBA CNEL and less than single eMt noise standards identified in the JWA GAIP EIR. V. Jkm—afWise contours used to objectively measure noise impact alb_gr ssume flight tracks and actual operating conditions for a full year including future operations. One day of arrival flight tracks and one day of departure flight tracks are simple anecdotes and not substantive evidence. vi. The project is located outside of the JWA single event noise exposure areas documented in the JWA General Aviation Improvement Program EIR certified on June 25, 2019. The project developer presented this information to the ALUC Commission at its hearing on May 21, 2020. Resolution No. 2020-xx 75C-988 Page 9 of 13 vii. ALUC Commissioners Monin and Murphy asked for but did not receive evidence of general aviation aircraft using Runway 2R/20L would "be turning right in front of the site." In fact, the GA aircraft pattern and voluntary noise abatement procedures for Runway 2R/20L operate within one to two miles from the end of the runway north of the airport and on a 15-degree offset from the extended runway centerline to avoid airspace conflicts with aircraft arriving Runway 20R. This location places GA aircraft south of Barranca Parkway and aligned with the Tustin Legacy property southeast of the Project site. These regular GA aircraft flight tracks are substantiated in the presentation bya-YA staff on April 6, 2019 at a Town Hall meeting about the GPI Heliports. Heliports are not a part Zone Change and Genera change, and General Plan AELUP aircraft noise, safe consistent with the larger plat approach centerline" -is not an Amendrrr The proposed zone ent are consent with the objective height standard>Und are therefore ole owe ALUC. ase to the JWA ALUC offers Wntiationt overflights of new residents would be distt—wed �noyedM� the contrary, the ALUC demonstrates thIM& he ?!% is load outside of the 60 dBA �� S be conto As ProiW would not add any new tdent r coma oise I acts to the JWA 65 dBA 171munitoise Eqt ant Level (NEL) noise area. Fligl md§ f e day rrivals and one day of departures are rt urtr—€_ and ullYWaccounted for in the one year of ightf-�sed to meagre CNEL noise impacts associated with JVIr- - Flight tics for oefire day of arrivals and one day of departures are not uniq & and are fully accounted for in the single -event noise tontour � produced for the JWA GAIP EIR. The Project is located aq='dtMhese single -event noise contours. iv. The ZWA comments on the Project conflict with its own noise analysis contained in the GAIP EIR. The ALUC staff report states, "Because of the project location within the primary approach corridor and its proximity to JWA (2.25 miles), JWA stated it is not supportive of the proposed residential portion of the project." The objective analysis and conclusions of the JWA GAIP EIR find that the objective aircraft noise analysis demonstrate that the Project would be located outside of the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour and would have no impact on operations at JWA due to height. Resolution No. 2020-xx 75C-989 Page 10 of 13 V. The ALUC staff report states that, "per Section 1.2 of the AELUP for JWA, the purpose of the AELUP is to safeguard the general welfare of the inhabitants within the vicinity of the airport and to ensure the continued operations of the airport." The method by which the ALUC achieves this purpose is through the application of the objective standards contained in Section 2.1 of the AELUP. As demonstrated in the ALUC staff report and, in these Findings, the Project is consistent with each of the standards. As a result, the ALUC has met their duty under Section 1.2 by ensuring that the Project meets these standards. vi. The ALUC staff report states that=`_ ditionally, Section 2.1.4 of the AELUP for JWA and Section 21674 charge the Commission to coordinate t=�` t level to ensure compatible land use planning." The metf—Rd by wh the ALUC achieves this charge is through th-plication o objective standards contained in Sectionf the AELUP. demonstrated in the ALUC staff report and%these Findings, theme ect is consistent with each of the standard As adult, the Al has met their duty under motion 2.1.4 action 216741nsuring that the Project rhese stance Section 3. CALIFORNIA WRIVIUMENTAUMLIALITY ACT: The City Council has reviewed and -certified En_onme�tnpact`ort No. 2020-01; adopted the Mitigation Moniteportinogr_P); M adopted the Statement of Overriding Contion itte propck�rject. Section 4. INt MNIF TION. TML Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend arid= atd_the OP& of itftfficials, officers, employees, agents, departs , , autzed volers,d instrumentalities thereof, harmless from ---and all ems, dads, law , writs of mandamus, and other and proceedas (whether1, egle, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), at_alternative mute riution procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, lWiations, arch other procedures), judgments, orders, and decisions (collectively "A�fs"), brow against the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agedepaents, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, oertodify, set aside, void, or annul, any action of, or any permit or approval issue the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City) for or concerning the project, whether such Actions are brought under the Ralph M. Brown Act, California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning and Zoning Law, the Subdivision Map Act, Code of Civil Procedure sections 1085 or 1094.5, or any other federal, state or local constitution, statute, law, ordinance, charter, rule, regulation, or any decision of a court of competent jurisdiction. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld, the legal counsel providing the City's defense, and that Applicant shall reimburse the City for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the course of the defense. City shall promptly notify the Resolution No. 2020-xx 75C-990 Page 11 of 13 Applicant of any Action brought and City shall cooperate with Applicant in the defense of the Action. Section 5. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Based on the above evidence and Findings made, and the remainder of the record in this case, the City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby resolves to overrule the Orange County ALUC's determination that the Bowery Mixed -Use Development Project is inconsistent with the Orange County AELUP. Section 6. EXECUTION OF RESOLUTION. Ate Mayor shall sign this Resolution and the Clerk of the Council shall attest and---- ify to the adoption thereof. ADOPTED this _ day of � , 2020. Pulido APPROVED AS TO Sonia R. Carvalho, ( By: Lisa AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Imembers NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers �+ Resolution No. 2020-xx 75C-991 Page 12 of 13 CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, DAISY GOMEZ, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2020-xx to be the original resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on 2020. Date: Clerk of the Council Resolution No. 2020-xx 75C-992 Page 13 of 13 Exhibit 11 AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION GRANGE COUNTY FOR ORANGE COUNTY 3160 Airway Avenue • Costa Mesa, California 92626 - 949.252.5170 fax: 949.252.6012 July 29, 2020 Vince Fregoso, Planning Manager City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza P.O. Box 1988 Santa Ana, CA 92702 SUBJECT: City of Santa Ana Notice of Intent to Overrule ALI:C Action on the proposed Bowery Project Dear Mr. Fregoso: We are in receipt of the City of Santa Ana's June 30, 2020, letter and draft resolution notifying the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for Orange County of the city's intent to overrule ALUC's inconsistency determination on the Bowery Project located at 2300, 2310, and 2320 Red Hill Avenue. In accordance with Section 21676 of the California Public Utilities Code, the ALUC submits the following comments addressing the proposed overrule findings for the above - referenced project. Please be advised that California Public Utilities Code Section 21678 states: "With respect to a publicly owned airport that a public agency does not operate, if the public agency pursuant to Section 21676, 21676.5 or 21677 overrules a commission's action or recommendation, the operator of the airport shall be immune from liability for damages to property or personal injury caused by or resulting directly or indirectly from the public agency's decision to overrule the commission's action or recommendation." On May 21, 2020, the ALUC found the proposed Bowery project to be inconsistent with the Airport Environs Land I se Plan (AEL UP).?or John Wayne Airport (JWA) with a vote of 6 to 0. The determination was made in accordance with AELUP Sections 1.2 and 2.1.4, and PUC Section 21674 which state that the commission is charged by PUC Section 21674(a) "to assist local agencies in ensuring compatible land uses in the vicinity of ...existing airports to the extent that the land in the vicinity of those airports is not already devoted to incompatible uses," and PUC Section 21674(b) "to coordinate planning at the state, regional and local levels so as to provide for the orderly development of air transportation, while at the same time protecting the public health, safety and welfare." Per Section 1.2 of the AELUP for JWA, the purpose of the AELUP is to safeguard the general welfare of the inhabitants within the vicinity of the airport and to ensure the continued operation 75C-993 ALUC Bowery Overrule Response July 29, 2020 Page 2 of the airport. Specifically, the plan seeks to protect the public from the adverse effects of aircraft noise to ensure that people and facilities are not concentrated in areas susceptible to aircraft accidents, and to ensure that no structures or activities adversely affect navigable airspace. Additionally, Section 2.1.4 of the AELUP for JWA and PUC Section 21674 charge the commission to coordinate planning to protect the public health, safety and welfare. Therefore, because the proposed zone change, General Plan amendment and the project's inclusion of residential uses, the proposed project location within the primary approach corridor for JWA and the existing significant aircraft overflight above the proposed project site, the project is inconsistent with the AELUP. The City of Santa Ana Draft Resolution No. 2020-xx ("Draft Resolution") states that the proposed project does not add any new residential or commercial noise impacts to the JWA 65 dBA CNEL noise areas. While the project is located outside of the 60 and 65 dBA noise contours (Attachment 1 hereto), changing the site's General Plan designation from Professional and Administrative Office (PAO) to District Center (DC), and allowing up to 1,100 residential units in the aircraft approach corridor for JWA would subject residents to noise from overflight of commercial and general aviation aircraft (Attachment 2). Exhibits showing flight tracks in relation to the proposed project site were provided at the May 21, 2020 ALUC meeting (Attachment 3 & 4). Attachment 3 shows a day's worth of normal aircraft arrival operations and has a corresponding table listing each flight, the time of day and elevation above the proposed project site. The table shows that the majority of flights over the property are in range of 750 to 800 feet above ground level and arrive in very close intervals. Attachment 4 has also been included for your information and shows a day's worth of reverse flow departure flight tracks. The reverse departure flow occurs approximately 5% of the time, primarily due to weather factors. During reverse flow circumstances, departing aircraft may be higher in altitude, but louder over the project area. Based upon these aircraft arrival, departure and altitude statistics, future residents of the proposed Bowery Project will experience significant aircraft overflight and single event noise. It has been the ALUC's experience that residential uses located under aircraft approach and departure corridors generate a significant number of noise complaints from the affected residents. The city should give consideration as to how these noise complaints will be addressed should the City Council overrule the ALUC and approve the proposed project. These complaints will likely contact the JWA Noise Office and not the city, despite the fact that the city will have overruled ALUC's valid concerns for the welfare of its future residents. The complainants will then be directed to the city, as the approving authority, and thus, noise concerns should be addressed by the city's regulations or by including noise attenuation conditions of approval. These are not conditions that ALUC can place on the project, but that the city should consider for the protection of their own residents. Finding "F" on page four of Draft Resolution states that the ALUC staff report for the subject item found that "with regard to AELUP issues of aircraft noise, building heights, safety zones and heliports that the proposed project, zone change, and General Plan Amendment are each 75C-994 ALUC Bowery Overrule Response July 29, 2020 Page 3 consistent." This is incorrect, as ALUC staff indicated that the proposed project met the specific technical criteria, but not the general land use policies of the AELUP, including the protection of public health and safety of residents living near the airport (Attachment 5). Page nine of the Draft Resolution, paragraph (G)(1) refers to overflight and incorrectly states that "the FAA is the only authoritative source of aviation safety data...". While the FAA defines Safety Zones in the immediate vicinity of runways, the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook states that "the FAA has no authority over off -airport land uses," and that "state and local agencies are free to set more stringent land use compatibility policies." Section 3.0 of the AELUP for JWA includes general and specific land use policies. Section 3.2.1 states that "within the boundaries of the AELUP, any land use may be found to be inconsistent with the AELUP which: 1) Places people so that they are affected adversely by aircraft noise, and 2) Concentrates people in areas susceptible to aircraft accidents..." The staff report for the Bowery project recommended, and the commission found, that the proposed project, General Plan Amendment and Zone change were inconsistent with the general policies of the AELUP. The Draft Resolution makes several references to Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 627 which was prepared for the General Aviation Improvement Program at JWA and certified on June 25, 2019. This EIR, and its technical reports has not been incorporated into the AELUP for JWA, and therefore, does not provide additional criteria for ALUC review. As per PUC Sections 21670-21679.5 and the Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, the commission is charged with reviewing proposed projects, General Plan Amendments, and Zoning changes in relation to the AELUP for JWA. The ALUC has the responsibility to consider the broader perspective in matters affecting the public's well-being and the viability of public aviation facilities. The ALUC accomplishes these overall goals by applying its discretion to evaluate individual projects based upon a wide range of facts and factors gathered through public testimony and commissioners' knowledge, in addition to informative analysis provided by staff. By virtue of being clearly stated in the AELUP for JWA Sections 1.2 "Purpose and Scope" and 2.0 "Planning Guidelines," every commissioner understands their complex legal charge to protect the public airport environs from encroachment by incompatible land use development, while simultaneously protecting the health, safety and welfare of citizens who work and live in the airport's environs. To this end, and as also statutorily required, our ALUC proceedings are benefited by several members "having expertise in aviation." Based upon our careful consideration of all information provided, and input from our members with expertise in aviation, a majority of the ALUC found the proposed Bowery Project to be inconsistent with the AEL UP for JWA. We support the city's inclusion of the mitigation measure in the Final EIR for the proposed project providing future residents with a "Notice of Airport in Vicinity" and posting outdoor signage informing the public of the presence of operating aircraft (as indicated in the May 20, 2020 letter to ALUC (Attachment 6), and agreed to at the ALUC meeting). Please be advised that Califomia Business & Professions Code Section 11010 requires the following statement to be included on salellease disclosure documents for developments within an ALUC's "Airport 75C-995 ALUC Bowery Overrule Response July 29, 2020 Page 4 Influence Area," and thus, the city should condition approval of the proposed Bowery Project on inclusion of this Notice in the sale/lease disclosure documents: "NOTICE OF AIRPORT IN VICINITY" This property is presently located in the vicinity of an airport, within what is known as an airport influence area. For that reason, the property may be subject to some of the annoyances or inconveniences associated with proximity to airport operations (For example: noise, vibration, or odors). Individual sensitivities to those annoyances can vary from person to person. You may wish to consider what airport annoyances, if any, are associated with the property before you complete your purchase and determine whether they are acceptable to you." We urge the City Council of the City of Santa Ana to take all these matters into consideration in their deliberations prior to deciding whether to overrule the ALUC. Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. Sincerely, Gerald A. Br snah Chairman cc: Members of the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County Members of City of Santa Ana City Council Kevin Ryan, Caltrans/Division of Aeronautics 75C-996 ALUC Bowery Overrule Response July 29, 2020 ATTACHMENT 1 75C-997 Nate: County Unincorporated areas are shown in white. John Wayne Airport Impact Zones Composite contour from John Wayne Airport Project LEGEND Case-1990 and 2005 (see section 2.2.1) CERTIFICATION ' ► —65.. CNEL CONTOUR Adopted by the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County ---• RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE • CITY BOUNDARIES . "f••'••' _AIRPORT BOUNDARIES 75C-E I & Choum, Executive Officer Date AELUP•2007/Jw6pzone- 07(23DORedNell_Son toAno).dgn ALUC Bowery overrule Response July 29, 2020 ATTACHMENT 2 75C-999 - F Ip - 1 21 ALUC Bowery Overrule Response July 29, 2020 ATTACHMENT 3 75C-1001 Q .• \� S,ls ;`F�ri��+� � �t'.'°_5��+yw Ft � �TiH Fti,_ a' ♦; � Yb yy i �y Y� � • �� ♦�'♦•5°'�..rtk\ �� .aura ��`F'+`�`.- }� "�}g � • a of `r'h, a1f ri.'�ja�AF�s° i'af �'fm }s y� x' ~f .� U I •. s.� t R !\ � � ,s. �. I��it '..d`✓ .Q %.r is/�'a, ' � �i�.'e r�r t� ff� r.i r f � • "`'. i 3. • r► a lltN. '16 ��-� . � y�' �i 1'� �{!`��`•<j `4 ;ice •r , *� y$ as eT ♦�'�Y h,;f' i.R,. i h♦ a S a<'i4i, G a; 411 ,! ' • �.9 4 ^ �,�..'aa# '• .yes t, �, 3. ��,�• e " ••; C Zvi ��k, `,e�ais ♦ �. �,r:, a` `� �� �a � a%j� e♦♦ �.� ..ila rI }I( ITEMl•� rirrl���*\./a•�."` ti%:�k+Y+.• •�9�-j 4n i�f4, t3cR ♦ i1�`'T <�` Ufa♦��r •r,f •' ^-`,mac^-s •r.w< .�7. �Qu 6♦a�j a�ff/a�rs�� '�•� !♦ as � �� r �t1 ,.a, ��Z� ��.�e � :.. f Ugl* Jb •4� {�a ,y, �� 4 In< Mr � "i Y�Wt 1`<;. �.g;� I -, i �e l� �' C �C' i i, �+f •ll .i���a`t, ..•. 4:� Via_: _1 IC ��[11�1y �,T�1�yI}J� Ip Y'r�a ti•� � �I� l.i.� tt'GIII. ^. IIY��°t�:M (.J..tj.• I11. .a �.•l •, A R� o -. � � "•� I III Yi A � ,i I f Flight Tracks for 2300, 2310, and 2320 Red Hill Avenue Wednesday, January 8, 2020 - Arrivals Time Aircraft Type Altitude (ft.) Time Aircraft Type Altitude (ft.) 7:13:21 C680 817 11:10:17 A320 800 7:27:10 8737 781 11:19:43 B752 835 7:38:08 C182 839 11:21:49 C56X 883 7:49:33 8737 796 11:23:18 PA24 1,276 7:51:19 E75L 822 11:44:37 B737 755 8:06:12 C414 828 11:46:19 A321 789 8:08:06 8737 793 11:49:25 A320 779 8:14:10 CL35 825 11:54:25 C172 603 8:15:32 8737 790 11:58:39 B738 753 8:19:52 8737 766 12:07:18 B738 778 8:32:23 A320 795 12:09:43 8737 760 8:34:33 B738 775 12:12:19 BE36 790 8:39:35 A320 791 12:14:28 C560 837 8:42:05 A320 796 12:18:17 B738 775 8:44:44 PC12 755 12:20:28 B738 765 8:48:44 8737 759 12:25:37 B737 759 8:53:52 BE58 747 12:31:32 8737 763 9:01:05 B738 803 .12:39:47 E300 781 9:04:50 PC12 808 12:42:03 C25A 1,055 9:14:01 8737 781 12:47:33 E55P 774 9:17:47 PA46 898 12:49:39 E75L 731 9:22:43 8737 759 12:51:59 BCS1 801 9:26:12 E75L 745 12:58:16 8737 761 9:28:18 PA12 788 13:01:23 A319 778 9:30:38 E135 787 13:06:59 C172 553 9:34:53 BCS1 775 13:17:11 8752 808 9:40:02 C25i. 807 13:19:53 C25FL 807 9:43:25 C 5 i ID 793 13:25:09 C172 906 9:47:54 E751 783 13:30:13 GLF" 812 9:49:59 8738 773 13:34:16 E75L 805 10:01:41 8738 808 13:45:16 8737 769 10:03:21 E75L 802 13:46:47 B738 776 10:05:18 G280 769 13:48:31 8737 828 10:06:46 B752 801 13:53:50 B350 805 10:09:24 C550 764 13:56:53 SF50 809 10:21:58 P28A 820 14:03:28 C68A 793 10:24:10 E135 752 14:06:28 E75L 765 10:25:40 B737 775 14:08:28 E55P 767 10:27:05 E75L 744 14:09:57 A320 792 10:28:57 8738 777 14:11:46 CL30 808 10:31:50 TBM7 773 14:15:12 P28R 728 10:34:42 A319 762 14:19:07 8737 797 10:39:30 8737 778 14:22:09 C414 914 10:43:02 8737 753 14:25:11 B738 833 10:52:04 8738 767 14:28:17 E135 790 7519f Z1003 Flight Tracks for 2300, 2310, and 2320 Red Hill Avenue Wednesday, January 8, 2020 - Arrivals Time Aircraft Type Altitude (ft.) Time Aircraft Type Altitude (ft.) 14:29:55 8738 752 18:29:46 E135 801 14:33:10 8737 754 18:31:49 B350 764 14:35:32 B737 765 18:37:57 B738 756 14:47:00 PA44 832 18:39:57 E75L 716 14:49:06 C56X 797 18:41:33 B738 760 14:54:25 C750 796 18:50:44 B737 778 14:58:14 BE36 824 18:57:15 B737 769 15:12:17 C560 736 19:10:55 A320 793 15:22:50 EXP 877 19:27:45 B737 746 15:23:32 B738 770 19:29:24 C56X 831 15:35:56 B738 785 19:31:41 CL60 806 15:38:15 GL5T 777 1935:59 8738 770 15:42:34 B737 884 19:44:58 A320 749 15:50:23 E75L 770 19:49:27 B737 756 15:52:35 B737 749 19:54:13 CRP 737 15:56:00 BCSl 764 19:56:07 A319 791 16:09:39 P32R 660 19:57:38 B737 789 16:11:36 BE40 902 20:10:19 B737 777 16:19:54 CL30 1,075 20:30:05 E75L 786 16:23:02 BE40 841 20:31:49 8738 787 16:29:06 B738 758 20.33:40 B737 777 16:40:09 8737 763 20:42:41 A319 776 16:45:18 C172 789 21:02:31 8738 792 16:48:06 FA7X 775 21:09:51 8738 753 16:51:07 E75L 761 21:12:20 E75L 760 17:02:03 A320 802 21:17:28 A320 794 17:19.23 E75L 812 21:20:42 8737 793 17:24:51 6737 771 21:23:33 6737 783 17:28:04 B752 812 21:27:01 C68A 801 17:32:12 A306 780 21:30:00 A319 773 17:35:12 C414 850 21:33:41 B752 785 17:37:21 E135 792 21:37:32 E75L 806 17:39:08 B737 779 21:42:11 8737 781 17:41:06 BC51 775 21:43:57 E135 794 17:53:32 E75L 750 21:45:31 A321 761 17:S5:46 E75L 745 21:47:14 BC51 761 18:01:11 CL60 799 21:48:59 E75L 755 18:10:09 8737 766 21:54:02 8737 766 18:13:21 BE20 814 22:01:09 8737 823 18:16:11 8737 777 22:03:43 8737 770 18:20:03 TBM8 821 22:06:38 GLF4 838 18:21:47 8737 774 22:09:00 8738 780 18:24:00 BE20 699 22:12:36 8738 762 18:25:32 8738 753 22:51:46 GLF4 812 18:27:21 8738 771 Average 790 75CA 004 ALUC Bowery Overrule Response July 29, 2020 ATTACHMENT 4 75C-1005 t1kn)"ifir f' !f( " � • :. ; � .4 ' • N� f � i° °'ti/ Jr � tip{ e � `• `ti CL • r aj, • �*'►i*rrp +�'fr�'� ' ,[ rl� _ ^<p r ,.� r �j�l }L ' All O ''�• °A-,, ,Cyr, �� s • „"._ I Q �:{�•rr r♦ p Q�%�f1 :.ice �k" rg�{'.rt ! .n�h" ✓ i I f :?r ' �♦ 1. � � � , j � y.`s ( y ,,C � -1 oil � `. � • �'e\h4�;" { ^ K���a£rf ' 'SY ,�!'` e��"1,tJyCfa r 1 [ 1 4 CFFS � � � • ] }r %1`4�-d�'++ir.�+�•/r.�.0 '� ��i+71��".;e���yf��Ai ��r�. {'s. °963'. • ;t+ :rN. >d i F�j +►�lJ� o !ram .r''.• r t J =4`�r, i r�lf r'fT\Ivla�`�ytfil�:90. ` 0 OP 4. f ! 'der • Y t` p •, � � Oq -10 +yLFp .R a� K.r�p,��or4# I Vie. adi fr � ► s� ,n � it ti � b '� a- ` � r �9 ♦ pS Flight Tracks for 2300, 2310, and 2320 Red Hill Avenue Monday, January 6, 2020 - Reverse Flow (Departures) Time Aircraft Type Altitude (ft.) Time Aircraft Type Altitude (ft.) 6:16:15 B350 3,074 9:29:50 B738 2,182 6:30:45 U45 1,933 9:31:31 B737 1,777 6:40:43 CL60 2,271 9:34:46 C210 2,839 7:01:42 B737 1,802 9:42:38 C560 2,179 7:03:12 B738 1,811 9:48:40 B737 1,915 7:04:43 B738 2,036 9:49:58 B350 2,346 7:07:18 B738 2,018 9:52:02 A321 2,598 7:08:32 A319 2,658 10:06:59 B738 2,087 7:10:20 B737 1,671 10:27:10 C56X 3,138 7:11:55 B737 2,070 10:32:19 B737 2,029 7:13:25 B738 2,387 10:39:10 B738 1,869 7:16:48 E75L 2,332 10:41:25 B737 1,977 7:18:29 E145 3,127 10:48:05 BCS1 2,679 7:20:01 B752 2,625 10:53:59 A320 2,241 7:21:08 B738 1,866 10:58:30 B738 2,092 7:24:21 E75L 1,985 11:04:01 PC12 2,433 7:25:51 B738 2,038 11:07:35 E75L 1,858 7:27:26 BCS1 2,769 11:10:17 PRM1 1,667 7:29:14 B737 1,917 11:11:36 E50P 2,112 7:30:45 B350 2,035 11:18:37 B722 2,829 7:32:37 B737 1,871 11:26:28 B737 2,205 7:36:12 B737 1,930 11:28:01 B737 1,866 7:45:21 E55P 3,917 11:29:31 B738 1,903 7:46:56 B738 2,186 11:36:47 E75L 2,324 7:48:37 B738 1,973 11:42:52 B738 1,916 7:51:10 B737 1,881 11:45:26 A320 2,616 7:52:52 CL60 2,585 11:46:53 B738 1,947 8:03:59 B737 1,816 11:49:52 B737 2,004 8:05:33 A319 2,801 11:51:54 B752 2,849 8:07:39 B737 2,037 11:53:31 E135 3,152 8:12:43 B738 2,107 11:56:41 E75L 2,005 8:17:23 E75L 2,065 12:05:13 E75L 2,203 8:20:38 E75L 2,262 12:08:56 B738 1,825 8:24:46 F2TH 2,576 12:12:08 H25C 1,650 8:30:54 B738 2,039 12:29:29 B752 2,409 8:33:05 A319 2,736 12:41:29 A20N 2,155 8:35:13 A320 2,219 12:45:38 A321 2,206 8:44:21 B737 2,053 12:52:30 E75L 2,064 8:53:34 B737 2,186 12:55:37 B737 1,927 8:55:31 E75L 2,289 13:08:44 B738 1,742 9:02:24 B350 2,031 13:11:44 B738 1,919 9:05:04 E55P 3,506 13:17:26 E75L 2,019 9:06:49 B737 2,012 13:19:21 BCS1 2,608 9:16:12 PA27 2,230 13:26:27 B738 1,974 9:28:16 B737 2,101 13:35:13 B736 2,024 75G4007 Flight Tracks for 2300, 2310, and 2320 Red Hill Avenue Monday, January 6, 2020 - Reverse Flow (Departures) Time 13:36:43 13:38:25 13:42:16 13:46:35 13:49:32 13:53:33 13:55:07 13:58:35 14:02:02 14:17:47 14:43:31 14:45:56 14:47:56 14:54:06 15:01:44 15:05:03 15:19:32 15:21:47 15:31:01 15:34:19 15:35:58 15:41:07 15:44:07 15:50:18 111.Y1.7S11.I1 15:57:02 16:00:02 16:03:46 16:14:35 16:27:51 16:35:27 16:37:38 16:40:57 16:43:09 16:45:38 16:57:54 17:01:06 17:04:04 17:22:21 17:41:59 17:43:47 17:45:29 17:51:16 17:58:23 Aircraft Type B737 E135 B737 B738 B738 GLF4 A320 B737 E55P A319 B737 B737 tell!• B738 E75L C206 B737 U60 E75L B738 E75L B737 B737 B738 B737 E135 E75L C550 B752 C56X E75L CL30 B737 E75L B738 B738 B737 BCS1 E75L A320 B737 B737 B738 E75L Altitude (ft.) 1,947 2,980 2,162 1,995 1,965 2,886 2,307 2,106 2,228 2,704 1,730 1,902 1,455 1,966 2,296 2,563 1,840 2,432 2,181 1,777 1,980 1,892 1,607 1,688 2,418 2,340 2,009 2,792 2,802 3,117 2,199 3,404 1,854 1,885 1,960 1,783 2,226 2,514 1,742 2,379 1,871 1,796 1,750 1,869 1,741 Time 18:10:44 18:29:14 18:32:28 18:34:42 18:40:00 18:46:31 19:11:10 19:16:54 19:18:39 19:23:15 19:24:53 19:28:01 19:43:48 19:45:25 19:50:37 19:52:13 20:02:15 20:09:50 20:26:27 20:48:10 21:09:54 21:18:07 21:22:29 21:28:19 Average Aircraft Type B738 B738 B737 E75L BCS1 B737 E75L A306 �:J AYt B738 B752 B737 A320 B738 E135 E75L E145 B737 B737 B737 B737 B737 B738 CR17 B737 Altitude (ft.) 2,134 1,795 1,732 1,739 2,764 1,707 1,931 2,262 1,708 1,718 2,323 1,830 2,069 2,133 2,064 1,985 2,574 1,852 1,576 2,154 1,749 2,301 1,902 2,520 1,630 2,171 75G4;008 ALUC Bowery Overrule Response July 29, 2020 ATTACHMENT S 75C-1009 AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION FOR ORANGE COUNTY 3160 Airway Avenue • Costa Mesa, California 92626 - 949.2523170 fax: 949.252.6012 AGENDA ITEM 2 May 21, 2020 TO: Commissioners/Alternates FROM: Lea Choum, Executive Officer SUBJECT: City of Santa Ana Request for Consistency Finding of the Proposed General Plan Amendment and+Zone Change for the Bowery Mixed -Use Development at 2300, 2310, and 2320 Red Hill Avenue Background The Bowery is a proposed mixed -use project on a 14.6 acre site located at the southwest comer of Red Hill Avenue and Warner Avenue, approximately 2.25 miles from John Wayne Airport (see Attachment 1 for location). The property is currently zoned by the City of Santa Ana as Light Industrial (M-1), and designated in the General Plan as Professional and Administrative Office (PAO). The current zoning allows uses such as warehouses, wholesale operations and manufacturing uses as well as support commercial businesses. The property has three existing 3- story industrial buildings currently used for warehousing and distribution, research and development, and a temporary City of Santa Ana homeless shelter. The applicant is proposing to redevelop the site with a four -phase mixed -use development that would include up to 1,150 multi -family residential units and up to 80,000 square feet of commercial retail and restaurant space. The project would consist of three five -story mixed -use buildings, one five -story residential building, two single -story commercial buildings and four parking structures six to six -and -a -half stories above ground. In addition, the project would provide approximately 220,000 square feet of open space and recreation amenities for residents including common areas, courtyards, and rooftop decks. The project is being referred to your Commission because of the project's location within the Airport Planning Area for JWA and because the project requires a General Plan Amendment and a Zoning Code change. The applicant is requesting to change the zoning designation from Light Industrial (M-1) to Specific Development (SD), and the City is proposing a General Plan Amendment that would change the designation of the site from Professional and Administrative Office (PAO) to District Center (DC), which would allow the construction of a mixed -use development. 75C-1010 Agmaa Item 2- 1 he Bowery May 21, 2020 Page 2 The project is approximately .3 miles northeast of a similar mixed -use project, the Heritage, which was brought to your Commission in October 2015. Your Commission found the Heritage project inconsistent with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport, and the City of Santa Ana subsequently overruled the Commission's finding as per Public Utilities Code 21676(b) and proceeded with development. On March 16, 2020, ALUC staff met with the Bowery project applicant, at the applicant's request, to discuss the need for this project to be referred to ALUC for a consistency review. The applicant disagreed with the ALUC staff definition of "Planning Area," and requested a legal response. ALUC's legal counsel `County Counsel met via teleconference with the project applicant's legal representative on April 21, 2020. The project applicant has maintained that this location is not included in ALUC's Planning Area. Separate from (not a part of) this proposal, the City of Santa Ana is in the process of conducting a comprehensive General Plan update. The City has identified a "55 Freeway Dyer Road Focus Area," in which the properties along Red Hill Avenue, between Warner and Dyer, are proposed for the District Center designation, which would allow for more mixed -use development along Red Hill Avenue. ALUC staff will continue to monitor the City's General Plan Update and provide comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) when it is available. The City of Santa Ana has scheduled the following public hearings for the proposed project: May It, 2020 - Planning Commission (continued) May 26, 2020 Planning Commission June 2, 2020 - City Council AELUP Issues The proposed project, zone change and General Plan Amendment have been evaluated for conflicts with respect to aircraft noise, building heights, flight tracks, safety zones and the development of heliports. Regarding Aircraft Noise Impacts The site of the proposed project is not located within the JWA 60 or 65 dBA CNEL noise contours (see Attachment 2). The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed project included Mitigation Measure LU-2 stating that all prospective residents of the project site would be notified of airport related noise (via Notice of Airport in Vicinity language in leasetrental agreements). The City revised the EIR however, and removed that mitigation measure as well as the AELUP for JWA Section 3.2.4 requirement to provide outdoor signage informing the public of the presence of operating aircraft. Regarding Height Restrictions In Section 2.1.3 of the AELUP for JWA, the Commission has incorporated the standards for height limits for determining obstructions and has incorporated the definitions of "imaginary 75C-1011 Agenda Item 2 The Bowery May 21. 2020 Page 3 surfaces" for airports as defined in Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77. The proposed project is located within the FAR Part 77 "imaginary surfaces" referral area. The proposed maximum height for the project is 156 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) which does not penetrate the notification surface of 172.4 feet AMSL (see Attachment 3). Attachment 4 shows that the proposed project is located within the approach corridor for JWA which would be penetrated at 300 feet AMSL. The maximum building height proposed for this project is 156 feet AMSL, which would not penetrate the impact areas reserved for air navigation. The project applicant filed Form 7460-1 with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for each of the proposed buildings, and has received four Determinations of No Hazard to Air Navigation. FAA Aeronautical Study Nos. 2020-AWP-1999-OE, 2020-AWP-3470-OE, 2020-AWP-3471-OE, and 2020-AWP-2002-OE are included as Attachment 5. Regarding Flight Tracks and Safety Zones As shown in Attachment 4, the proposed project site is close to the JWA approach centerline, where residents would be subject to overflight of both commercial and general aviation aircraft. Attachment 6 shows the flight tracks over the proposed project site. Exhibits were prepared to demonstrate the elevations of planes flying over the property. The first exhibit in Attachment 6 shows a day's worth of normal operation arrivals. The next exhibit shows a day's worth of reverse flow (departure) flight tracks. Each exhibit also has a corresponding list of each flight, time of day, and elevation above the proposed project site. Under normal arrival operations, the average altitude of flights over the property is 790 feet above ground level. As shown in the Attachment 6 arrivals table, between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m. on January 8, 2020, aircraft were flying over the property with intervals between two (2) and eight (8) minutes between flights. For the 8 p.m. to 9 p.m. hour on the same day, planes flew over the property with the longest interval being at twenty (20) minutes and shortest interval being one (1) minute between flights. Attachment 7 contains the Safety Zones exhibit showing that the proposed project site is not within the safety zone areas for JWA. Heliports Heliports are not proposed as part of project. The City of Santa Ana General Plan includes language that states proposed heliport projects must comply with FAA Regulations, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics and the AELUP for Heliports in the development of heliports. Environmental Comoliance A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was prepared as the CEQA documentation to analyze the potential impacts of the project. ALUC staff provided comments on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) on August 28, 2019, and on the DEIR on February 18, 2020. Both letters are attached, as well as the City's response to the DEIR comments (See Attachment 8). The letters emphasized that the proposed project is located under the primary aircraft approach corridor to JWA and stated that future residents would be exposed to significant aircraft overflight and single event noise due to the project's location. Additionally, during reverse flow operations at 75C-1012 Agenda Item 2. ne Bowery May 21, 2020 Pap 4 JWA (approximately five percent (5%) of the time) new residents would experience noise associated with aircraft departures. The letters also recommended outdoor signage informing the public of the presence of operating aircrafttaircraft overflight. The City had included Mitigation Measures NOW regarding noise and LU-2 regarding signage in the Draft EIR, but then removed those measures in the revised EIR, which will be considered by the Santa Ana Planning Commission and City Council at their upcoming meetings (see Attachment 11). Conclusion Attachment 9 to this report contains excerpts from the project submittal package received from the City of Santa Ana for your reference. ALUC staff has reviewed this project, zone change and General Plan Amendment with respect to compliance with the AELUP for JWA, including review of height restrictions, imaginary surfaces, flight tracks, heliports and environmental compliance. The proposed project is not located within the noise contours or safety zones for JWA and does not penetrate the notification or the obstruction imaginary surfaces for JWA. The project is, however, located within the primary aircraft approach corridor to JWA. The proposed project, with the associated zone change and General Plan Amendment would introduce mixed -uses (residential) to this site, which has been historically light industrial and office. This would subject many individuals to overflight activity and likely create disturbances and annoyances for many of the new inhabitants, especially during morning and evening arrivals. As noted in the DEIR comments from the ALUC, in addition to regular arrival operations, future residents will also be exposed to reverse flow (departure) operations at JWA, which take place approximately five percent (5"o) of the time. On August 28, 2019, JWA also provided comments on the NOP, emphasizing the same points discussed above (See Attachment 10). Because of the project location within the primary approach corridor and its proximity to JWA (2.25 miles), JWA stated it is not supportive of the proposed residential portion of this project. Residents would be subject to significant aircraft overflight, noise and annoyance as approaching aircraft fly overhead at an average altitude of 790 feet above ground level. Additionally, during reverse flow circumstances, departing aircraft may be higher in altitude, but louder over the project area. It has been JWA's experience that residential uses located under aircraft approach and departure corridors generate a significant number of noise complaints from affected residents. JWA also suggested that the City should give consideration as to how these noise complaints will be addressed should the project be approved. Per Section 1.2 of the AELUP for JWA, the purpose of the AELUP is to safeguard the general welfare of the inhabitants within the vicinity of the airport and to ensure the continued operation of the airport. Specifically, the plan seeks to protect the public from the adverse effects of aircraft noise to ensure that people and facilities are not concentrated in areas susceptible to aircraft accidents, and to ensure that no structures or activities adversely affect navigable airspace. Additionally, Section 2.1.4 of the AELUP for JWA and PUC Section 21674 charge the Commission to coordinate at the local level to ensure compatible land use planning. Therefore, because of the proposed zone change, General Plan amendment and the project's proposed residential uses, the project's location within the primary approach corridor for JWA and the 75C-1013 Agenda Item 2- The so eery Mai 21. 2020 Page 5 existing significant aircraft overflight above the proposed project site, staff is recommending the following: Recommendation: That the Commission find the proposed zone change, general plan amendment and the proposed Bowery Mixed Use Project inconsistent with the AELUP for JWA per AELUP Sections 1.2 and 2.1.4, and PUC Section 21674 which state that the commission is charged by PUC Section 21674(a) "to assist local agencies in ensuring compatible land uses in the vicinity of ...existing airports to the extent that the land in the vicinity of those airports is not already devoted to incompatible uses." and PUC Section 21674(b) "to coordinate planning at the state, regional and local levels so as to provide for the orderly development of air transportation, while at the same time protecting the public health. safety and welfare." Respectfully submitted, Lea U. Choum Executive Officer Attachments: I. Project Location Map 2. JWA CNEL Contours 3. FAR Part 77 AELUP Notification Area for J WA 4. FAR Part 77 JWA Obstruction Imaginary Surfaces 5. FAA Aeronautical Studies (4 Determination Letters) 6. Flight Tracks Over Proposed Project with Corresponding Tables 7. JWA Airport Safety Zone Reference Map 8. ALUC Comment Letters on NOP and DEIR 9. Submittal Package Excerpts from City of Santa Ana 10. JWA Comment Letter on NOP 11. Revisions to EIR 75C-1014 ALUC Bowery Overrule Response July 29, 2020 ATTACHMENT 6 75C-1015 MAYOR Miguel A. Pulido MAYOR PRO TEM Juan Villages COUNCILMEMBERS Phil Became Cecilia Iglesias David Penaloza Vicente Sarmiento Jose Solorio CITY OF SANTA ANA PLANNING AND BUILDING AGENCY 20 Civic Center Plaza a P.O Box 1988 Santa Ana, Califom:a 92702 www.santa-anaora May 20, 2020 Lea Choum, Executive Officer Orange County Airport Land Use Commission 3160 Airway Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92626 CITY MANAGER Kristine Ridge CITY ATTORNEY Sonia R. Carvalho CLERK OF THE COUNCIL Daisy Gomez RE: May 21, 2020 Airport Land Use Commission Determination of Consistency for The Bowery Project Located at 2300, 2310, and 2320 South Redhill Avenue in Santa Ana Dear Ms. Choum, I am in receipt of the ALUC staff report for The Bowery project that is scheduled for review by your commission on May 21 a'. The purpose of this letter is to highlight a few items that may assist you in making a determination of consistency for the project. First, the proposed project is not within a Safety Zone, Noise Contour Zone, nor does it penetrate the notification surface of 172.4 feet above mean sea level (AMSQ, which minimizes potential complaints from residents of the development. Second, the project site is not located under an established flight path, also eliminating complaints from the development of residential uses on the site. The City believes that the project is in compliance with all metrics used by the ALUC in order to make a determination of consistency. To minimize potential future complaints by the project's tenants, the City of Santa Ana will add a policy to the mitigation monitoring and reporting program requiring the owner to include a "Notice of Airport in Vicinity" within the leases for the project and post outdoor signage informing the public of the presence of operating aircraft to address the concerns of the ALUC. It should also be noted that there are existing residential uses on both this site and a site that is 0.3 miles closer to the airport and closer to the "Approach Corridor;" neither of these sites has had any noise complaints from residents. This precedent should serve to assuage any concerns about this project. SANTA ANA CITY COUNCIL Migue, A Pulido Juan mllega@ viceme sauri'mw DaHd Pmalota Jose sdodo Phi Bamrra Cecilia Iglesas Mayor Maytl Pro Tem. Ward 5 Ward Waid2 Ward Ward Wail :..C:wfi^ 10MOMOMaru ,u�.•:ef3sanle-dR2.N$ ebi-emjli n ,anaixx 'Rn0.d�i d-'-"`— a •Aa-ane :+ox ^.,aleSa�sama-aamo 75C-1016 Lea Choum, Executive Officer Orange County Airport Land Use Commission Page 2 of 2 That, coupled with the agreed upon mitigation measures, will assist your Commission in determining that the project will not result in any adverse impact to the operation of the John Wayne Airport. Feel free to give me a call if you have any questions. Respectfully, /y On behalf of: Vince Fregoso, AICP Planning Manager 75C-1017 Exhibit 12 FREE RECORDING PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE § 27383 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: City of Santa Ana Attn: City Clerk 20 Civic Center Plaza (M-30) Santa Ana, CA 92702 MUTUAL DECLARATION OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND ACCEPTANCE OF APPROVAL CONDITIONS At its __, 2020, meeting, the City Council of the City of Santa Ana voted _ _ to certify FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 2020-01 (SCH No. 2019080011), GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2020- 02 AND AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO. 2020-01 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A MIXED -USE DEVELOPMENT AT 2300, 2310, AND 2320 SOUTH REDHILL AVENUE (the "Project') and as documented by City Council Resolution Numbers 2020- and 2020-_ , Ordinance Number NS-_, and by the Planning Commission Staff Report dated May__, 2020 and May __, 2020, and City Council Report dated 2020, which are incorporated herein by reference, subject to the conditions listed below to be executed and completed by the Applicant/Property Owner ("Developer") of the real property and of the development project ("Project'). The "Project' is Specific Development No. 96 (SD-96) as approved by the City and as described in the above referenced documents and are incorporated herein by reference. The legal description of the Project is more particularly described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Developer hereby acknowledges and agrees to the following: 1. A building permit application for the construction of the Freestanding Pad (30,000 sf), as further defined in Subsections 1(a) of this condition, shall be submitted no later than the first submittal of the building permit application for the construction of the Second Building as further defined in Subsection 1(c) 75C-1018 of this condition. The Freestanding Pad shall be completed and be issued a final approval for the Dark Shell by the City prior to the approval of the Second Building and any other subsequent Buildings within SD-96 for occupancy. a. Freestanding Pad means all building improvements, excluding tenant improvements, and utility connections, site amenities and utility connections, and all exterior improvements necessary to construct a Dark Shell, as further defined in Subsection 1(b) below, including, but not limited to, landscape and hardscape and public realm improvements as approved by the City for the proposed 30,000 square foot freestanding commercial building within SD-96. b. Dark Shell shall have the same meaning as typically used in the commercial real estate industry and shall only include the structural and exterior improvements of the building and does not include interior improvements such as heating, lighting, interior walls, flooring, finish plumbing, or air conditioning. C. Second Building means any building within SD-96 that consists of approved residential uses, not inclusive of the Freestanding Pad, that is proposed to be constructed subsequent to the City approval for construction and occupancy of the first building within SD-96 that consist of residential uses and is inclusive of any and all of Buildings A, B, C and D. 2. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, Developer shall grant an avigation easement to the benefit of City of Santa Ana and the John Wayne Airport in the form and manner approved by the City Attorney and shall cause such avigation easement to be duly recorded in the Office of the County Recorder. 75C-1019 I am/We are the Applicant(s), and the Owner(s), or the duly authorized representative(s) of the owner(s), respectively, of the project and real property that is the subject of the above City approvals and actions. I am/We are aware of, understand, and accept, all the provisions and conditions imposed upon the project and real property that is the subject of the above application(s), and also understand that noncompliance with said provisions and conditions shall constitute grounds for the immediate suspension or revocation of any construction or occupancy permits and approvals issued and granted as a result of said approvals. I am/We are aware of, understand, and accept, the City will not issue any construction or building unless the property owner and applicant have executed and filed this Acceptance Form to indicate awareness and acceptance of these conditions of approval. INVe certify and declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. (Notarized Signatures Below) Applicant Signature: Printed Narr Owner Sign, Printed Name: Date Date 75C-1020 EXHIBIT A [Insert Legal Description Here] 75C-1021