Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout75C - PH - BRISTOL EIR FROM WARNER TO ST. ANDREWREQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: APRIL 7, 2015 TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION TO ADOPT AN ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE BRISTOL STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT BETWEEN WARNER AVENUE AND SAINT ANDREW PLACE (STRATEGIC PLAN NO. 6, 1, G) 1 Z Z — CITY MANAG RECOMMENDED ACTION CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: APPROVED ❑ As Recommended ❑ As Amended ❑ Ordinance on 1a' Reading ❑ Ordinance on 2 I Reading ❑ Implementing Resolution ❑ Set Public Hearing For CONTINUED TO FILE NUMBER Adopt a resolution approving an Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report pertaining to the Bristol Street Improvement Project between Warner Avenue and Saint Andrew Place. Bristol Street is a major north -south transportation facility which is designated as a major arterial highway in the City's Circulation Element of the General Plan. Improvement of the 3.9 -mile Bristol Street segment from Warner Avenue to Memory Lane has been a long -term priority project that is being constructed in several phases. Improvements include widening the street from two to three lanes in each direction, raised landscape medians, bike lanes, and sidewalks. In 1990, the City Council authorized embarking on these proposed improvements with the approval of the Bristol Street Final Environmental Impact Statement /Environmental Impact Report (FEIS /EIR) (EIS No. 89 -01). A copy of the FEIS /EIR is attached (Exhibit 1) and is also available for review in the Clerk of the Council office. Since the adoption of the 1990 FEIS /EIR, there have been no substantial changes in the project scope. Minor design modifications for improvements between Warner Avenue and Saint Andrew Place (Exhibit 2) were considered, including addressing climate change issues. These modifications are identified in the Addendum to the FEIS /EIR (Exhibit 3) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The design modifications to the project segment include the following: 75C -1 Resolution Adopting an Addendum to the FEIR /FEIS for the Bristol Street Improvements (Warner to Saint Andrew) April 7, 2015 Page 2 of 2 • The right -of -way (ROW) width would be increased from 120 feet to 128 feet. • The 15- foot -wide parkway would be reduced to 6 feet in width. • The 10- foot -wide sidewalk would be reduced to 8 feet in width. • The Bristol Street centerline between Saint Anne Place and Saint Andrew Place would be shifted an additional four feet to the west. The Bristol Street centerline would remain unmodified north of Saint Andrew Place. The resolution approving the Addendum to the FEIS /EIR (Exhibit 4) is needed to allow expenditure of federal grant funding for right -of -way acquisition and construction of the project. Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution in accordance with the CEQA requirements. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT Approval of this item supports the City's efforts to meet Goal #6 Community Facilities & Infrastructure, Objective #1 (establish and maintain a Community Investment Plan for all City assets), Strategy G (develop and implement the City's Capital Improvement Program in coordination with the Community Investment and Deferred Maintenance Plans for Bristol Street widening). ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Pursuant to Section 15164(d) of the California Environmental Quality Act, City Council shall consider adopting a resolution approving the Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Statement /Environmental Impact Report. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with this action i-rec ousavipour Exec ive Director Public Works Agency FM /EWG /ML Exhibit: 1. Bristol Street FEIS /EIR (attached CD) 2. Location Map 3. Addendum to the FEIS /EIR 4. Resolution 75C -2 Exhibit 1 A. Bristol Street Improvements and Widening Environmental Impact Study— Environmental Impact Review B. Bristol Street Improvements and Widening Technical Studies C. Bristol Street Improvements and Widening Traffic Study D. Bristol Street Improvements and Widening Historical Property Survey Report E. Bristol Street Improvements and Widening Relocation Impact Study 75C -3 EXHIBIT 1 75C -4 1 13 Report Number: FHWA -CA- EIS- 89 -01 -F SCSI No. 87071509 Project No. M -MO17 (1) City of Santa Ana Bristol Street Widening Proposed widening of Bristol Street, from Warner Avenue to Memory Lane, in the City of Santa Ana. FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Submitted Pursuant to (State) Division 13, Public Resources Code (Federal) 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c), by the U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration and STATE OF CALIFORNIA Cooperating Agencies California Transportation Commission and City of Santa Ana Public Works Ages;ey ) Date City of San Public W )Q 1O O ,� Date altfo '_ ' De'vaArfieni of Ti Date Federal Hiehwav The following people may he contacted for additional information concerning this document: 1) Mr. Jim Bednar, FHWA District Engineer, P.O. Box 1915, Sacramento, CA 95812 -1915, (916) 551- 1310; Z) Mr. Gene Huey, Environmental Planner, Caltrans District 12, Environmental Planning Branch, 2501 Pullman, Santa Ana, CA 92705, (714) 724 -2244; and 3) Nis. Joyce Amerson, Project Manager, Public Works Agency, City of Santa Ana, 101 W. 4th Street, Santa Ana, CA 92701, (714) 647 -5655. ABSTRACT, It is proposed to widen a 3.9 -rniLe segment of Bristol Street from an undivided, four -lane arterial to a divided, six -lane major arterial, from Warner Avenue to Memory Lane, in the City of Santa Ana. The prior Draft Environmental Impact Statement examined three alternatives to widen this roadway, along with several non- widening alternatives, including TSM, mass- transit, bypass, smaller right -of -way, and a one -way couplet with a parallel street. The preferred alignment includes a meandering centerline shift to avoid impacts to major community Facilities and a Section 4(f) site, along with widened intersection approaches atcritical intersections. Impacts of this project include: residential and business displacement, increased noise levels, and construction impacts which include loss of access, detours, noise and dust, and utility relocation. Mitigation measures will avoid long -term noise impacts and will minimize displacement and other potentially signifccant impacts. 75C -5 Page Nn. G`3 ME EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I. PURPOSE AND NEED A. I Introduction /Project Description I I- 1 B. O Operational Deficiencies Y Y- 5 C. E Existing Transportation Facility and Projected Traffic Conditions 1 1-14 U. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES A, Alternatives Evaluated Prior to Selection of Preferred Alignment II - 1 B. Preferred Alternative [I - 3 C. Alternatives Withdrawn From Consideration II - 26 D. No- Project Alternative II - 24 M. AFFECTED ENVIRONME NT A. Physical Characteristics III - I 1. Topography III - 1 2. Geology III - 1 3. Soils III - 4 4. Hydrology III - 7 5. Vegetation and Biotic Resources III - 9 6. Air Quality and Climate ffi - to 7. Noise Environment III - 16 8. Visual Environment M - 26 B. Social Characteristics 111-27 1. Population 1[[ - 28 2. Housing III - 30 3. Recreation Facilities III - 31 4. Community Facilities III -32 5. Emergency Services III - 33 75C -6 1. Population 1[[ - 28 2. Housing III - 30 3. Recreation Facilities III - 31 4. Community Facilities III -32 5. Emergency Services III - 33 75C -6 Table of Contents (Cont.) IV. Page No. C. Economic Characteristic III - 35 1. Land Use 111-35 2. Tax Base III - 56 3. Household Income III - 56 4. Labor Force III - 57 5. Industry and Services 111-57 6. Utilities III -57 D. Cultural and Historical Resources III - 60 1. Paleontological Resources II1 - 61 2, Archaeological Resources III - 61 3. Historical Resources 1111- 62 E. Transportation Facilities III - 62 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND MITIGATION MEASURES A. Landform Modification IV - 1 B. Seismic Hazards IV - 2 C. Erosion Impacts IV - 3 D. Floodptain /Floodway Encroachment IV - 4 E. Streambed Modification N - 5 F. Water Quality IV - 6 G. Urban Landscaping IV - 7 H. Air Quality N - 8 I. Noise Levels IV - 20 J. Light and Glare IV - 43 K Aesthetic Considerations IV - 44 L. Population IV - 45 M. Housing Displacement IV - 48 N. Business Displacement IV - 48 O. Impacts on Neighborhood Character and Minority Groups IV - 51 P. Impacts on Recreational Facilities IV - 53 Q. Impacts on Community Facilities IV - 53 R. Effect on Assessed Property Values IV - 57 S. Effect on Utilities IV - 58 T. Cultural Resources IV - 58 U. Impacts to Transportation Facilities IV - 59 V. Construction Impacts IV - 77 W. Consumption of Renewable and Non- Renewable Energy Resources IV - 83 75C -7 LIST OF FICMS Fi�W-e No. Ma Page 1 Regional Location 1- 2 2 Vicinity Map I - 3 3 Construction Phasing i - 4 4 Typical Existing Mid -Block Cross Sections I - 7 5 Proposed Mid -Block Cross Sections 11 - 4 6 Intersection Geometrics II - 5 7 Far -Side Bus Turn -Out Detail II - 14 8 Preferred Alternative lI - 15 9 Existing Topography III - 2 10 Potential Subsidence and Uquefaction Hazard Areas 11 Distribution of Soils 12 Flood Hazard Areas III - 8 13 Noise Measurement Locations 111 - 19 14 Existing Land Use III - 36 15 Existing General PIan Designations 111-41 16 Existing Zoning Designations III - 45 17 Nonconforming Eases III - 52 18 Air Pollutant Analysis Locations IV - 16 L9 Potential Residential Noise Impacts and Barriers IV - 34 20 Proposed Street Closures IV - 66 75C -8 Table ido. Title Pa e 1 Average Daily Traffic - Roadway Link Levels of Service - 1986 I - 11 2 Existing V/C and LOS Values on Bristol Street - 1986 1- 12 3 Average Daily Traffic - Roadway Link Levels of Service - Year 2006 I - 15 4 Year 2006 Intersection V/C and LOS Values on Bristol Street Without Widening 1- 17 5 Year 2006 Intersection V/C and LOS Values on Bristol Street With Widening I- 18 6 Seismic Parameters for Santa Ana III - 3 7 Health Effects of Au Pollutants III - 14 8 Noise Measurements at Sensitive Receptors III - 21 9 Current Exterior CNEL Exposure Adjacent to Bristol Street III - 25 10 Current Exterior Leq Exposure Adjacent to Bristol Street III - 26 11 Population Characteristics for 12 Census Tracts Adjoining Bristol Street Corridor III - 28 12 Housing Characteristics III - 30 13 Construction Equipment Emissions 1V - 10 14 Project- Related Motor Vehicle Emission Inventory Comparison IV - 12 15 Carbon Monoxide Concentrations Adjacent N - 15 to Nearby Roadways 16 Future Exterior CNEL Exposure Adjacent to Bristol Street IV - 25 75C -9 List of Tables (Cont.) Tale No. Title P___ 17 Future Exterior Leq Exposure Adjacent to Bristol Street IV - 26 18 Noise Analysis (Leq) for Sensitive Receptors (Year 2006) IV - 29 19 Service Area of Displaced Businesses IV - 49 20 Types of Displaced Businesses IV - 49 21 Proposed Intersection Lane Configurations IV - 68 22 Potential Hazardous Material Sites IV - 85 75C -10 Table of Contents (Cont.) X. Hazardous Materials IV - 84 Y. Short-Term Uses Verses Long -Term Productivity IV - 88 Z. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources IV - 88 AA. Unavoidable Significant /Insignificant Adverse Impacts IV - 89 BB. Growth Inducing and Cumulative Impacts V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION VI, DISTRIBUTION LIST FOR DRAFT AND FINAL EIS VII. LIST OF PREPARERS VIII. BIBLI GRAPHY LX. CORRESPONDENCE APPENDIX A - SUMMARY OF RIGHT -OF -WAY IMPACTS APPENDIX B - MINUTES AND DISTRIBUTION ITEMS FROM SCOPING MEETINGS APPENDIX C - AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF SANTA ANA AND SANTA ANA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, RESERVING STREET RIGHT -OF -WAY ALONG FRONTAGE OF JOSE SEPULVEDA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SITE. 1 `!� ()1238/0404/065 55869/0404/065 wldn \rpt \rp5o 75C -11 IV - 90 V- 1 VI - 1 VII - 1 VIII - 1 This document is intended to address the environmental effects associated with the proposed Bristol Street Widening project in the City of Santa Ana, County of Orange, State of California. This environmental study is an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The EIS /EIR, where feasible, suggests design measures and modifications in the project to mitigate identified adverse environmental consequences to the greatest degree feasible and practical. The document is intended to be an informational source for use by the public and decision - makers. The following persons may be contacted for additional information concerning this project and this environmental document: (41I Y OF SANTA ANA Ms. Joyce Amerson, Project Manager Public Services Agency, City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza, M -21 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Tel. (714) 647 -5655 WILLDAN ASSOCIATES CITY ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ENGI- NEERING CONSULTANT) Mr. John Blodgett, Senior Planner Willdan Associates 12900 Crossroads Parkway South, Suite 200 Industry, CA 91746 -3499 Tel. (213) 695 -0551 -r 75C -12 PROJECT DESCRIP"11ON The proposed project entails the widening and reconstruction of a 3.9 -mile segment of Bristol Street, located in the City of Santa Ana, County of Orange, State of California (see Figure 1). The project limits are Warner Avenue on the south and Memory Lane on the north (see Figure 2). The street widening project objective is to provide six lanes of through traffic in accordance with adopted County of Orange and City of Santa Ana standards for a Major Arterial Highway. Additionally, the City of Santa Ana has adopted a Redevelopment Plan for the Bristol Corridor. The goals and objectives of the Redevelopment Plan include: The reduction and prevention of blight. The expansion of the community's supply of housing (inside or outside the Project Area, _ including opportunities for low and moderate income households). The protection of the housing stock and neighborhood integrity from adverse _ consequences associated with new development or redevelopment. The widening and improvement of Bristol Street in accordance with the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways and the City's Circulation Element The retention and expansion of as many existing businesses as possible. The creation and development of local job opportunities and the preservation of the area's existing employment base. The preferred street widening alternative includes right -of -way acquisition from both sides of Bristol Street, which is responsive to the City's transportation needs as well as furthering the efforts of the City's adopted Redevelopment Plan. The description of the preferred alternative is as follows: _ Santiago Creek to 17th Street - The centerline is shifted west to avoid the Bristol Reservoir and Santiago School. Property will be acquired from both sides. 17th to Washington Streets - The centerline is shifted east to avoid Rancho Santiago College. Property will be acquired from the east side. Washington to Edinger Avenues - Widening is from the centerline, with acquisition from both sides. Edinger Avenue to Glenwood Place - The centerline is shifted west to avoid Mater Dei Higb School with acquisition from both sides. -ii- 75C -13 Glenwood Place to Warner Avenue - Widening is from the centerline, with property takes from both sides. Additional intersection improvements are also proposed to alleviate existing congestion and delay problems throughout the project corridor. A third component of the project involves the widening of the bridge which crosses Santiago Creek near the northerly project limit. It is anticipated that the entire 3.9 -toile roadway project will be constructed in a staged or phased manner. A six-phase approach is envisioned as illustrated in Figure 3, and as described below: Phase 1 - Santiago Creek Bridge Widening Phase 2 - Warner Avenue to Edinger Avenue Phase 3 - Edinger Avenue to McFadden Avenue Phase 4 - McFadden Avenue to First Street Phase 5 - First Street to Seventeenth Street Phase 6 - Seventeenth Street to Memory Lane A permit will be required from the United States Army Corps of Engineers for the widening of the Santiago Creek Bridge, pursuant to Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act. Precise street design plans will require the approvals of the City of Santa Ana Redevelopment Agency and the City's Public Worsts Agency. If federal funding is involved in the preparation of precise plans, right -of -way acquisition, and /or construction, approval of the plans by the Federal Highway Administration and the State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) will also be required. The City of Santa Ana, through the Orange County Transportation Commission, has applied and received preliminary approval for Federal Aid Urban (FAU) fending to assist in the construction of the proposed street improvements. The City will also use other funding sources, which include tax increment from the Redevelopment Plan, Measure M (half -cent sales tax), Proposition I I I funds, and area fees to improve Bristol Street. Certification of the adequacy of this Environmental Impact Statement /Environmental Impact Report (EIS /EIR) and the separate Draft Relocation Impact Study is required from the City of Santa Ana, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Construction of the proposed improvements will be carried out under the direction of the City of Santa Ana and will involve extensive coordination with local utility purveyors, Caltrans and public service agencies to ensure that the final design and the construction program properly reflect the findings and recommendations of this document and the on- going needs of the affected utilities and agencies. Four other major projects are proposed in the vicinity of the proposed project, which may occur concurrently. They include: A. Widening and improvement of the Santa Ana Freeway (I -5) and the Newport Freeway (Route 55) interchange. (Caltrans is the head Agency.) -iii- 75C -14 B. Widening and improvement of 1 -5 between the 1 -5 /Route 55 and 1 -5 /Route 22 - interchanges. (Caltrans is the Lead Agency.) C. Widening and improvement of Westminster Avenue in the City of Santa Ana. (City of Santa Ana is the Lead Agency.) D. Establishment of a redevelopment project area encompassing the Bristol Street _ project corridor. This redevelopment project will provide for the elimination of blighted conditions in this area, through the use of property tax increment financing techniques. (The City of Santa Ana will be the lead agency.) .. Tel A total of four alternatives were evaluated in the Draft EIS prior to the selection of a preferred alternative, with three of these contemplating a six-lane divided roadway within a 120 -foot right -of -way with additional lanes and rggbt -of -way width at selected intersections. Section R, following, contains a detailed description of the widening — alternatives and a discussion of the factors leading to selection of the preferred alternative. The fourth alternative is the "no project" alternative, which must be included to comply with the statutory requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A detailed description of the alternatives which are under consideration as well as those evaluated and subsequently withdrawn from consideration can be found in Section R of this document. Illustrations of the proposed street geometrics, intersection modifications and bus to mouts are presented on Figures 5 -7, pages 11 -3 through H -13. I. ra mot_ ►� I. • � Beneficial impacts resulting from construction of the proposed street improvements would include the following: A. Hydrology ` Areas with deficient curb and gutter will be replaced by new and properly designed curb and gutter, thus improving existing drainage flows along the edges ` of Bristol Street. B. Air Quality - Carbon monoxide concentrations would be substantially reduced at intersections Y within the project area, below both federal and state one -hour and eight -hour standards. Along the roadway, emissions of carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons would decrease, due to reduced traffic congestion and slightly higher traffic speed, allowing vehicle motors to perform more efficiently. •• 75C -15 C. Noise With the installation of solid walls along the boundaries of selected properties containing sensitive receptors, numerous outdoor residential and school activity areas will be provided with noise attenuation that will meet federal noise level standards. Approximately 9,000 feet of 6 -foot high walls, at an estimated cost of $675,000, would be required. Many homes that currently are subject to noise levels in excess of State and federal standards would be removed, eliminating this existing health hazard. D. Aesthetics By providing a uniform appearance to the public improvements in the project corridor, visual continuity will result, a quality that is lacldng in the existing streetscape. Proposed improvements include a substantial amount of additional landscaping within the public right -of -way, which will help soften the harsh and utilitarian appearance of this urban arterial and provide an amenity for the street. The project would also provide an opportunity to place existing overhead utilities uadergrouad, thereby reducing the visual clutter of the streetscape. In addition, the smaller remnant parcels could be utilized as a landscaped extension of the public right -of -way, lending a more naturalistic effect to the streetscape. E. Transportation Completion of the proposed roadway improvements would implement both the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways and the Circulation Element of the City of Santa Ana, as they pertain to Bristol Street. Provision of six travel lanes, along with the proposed intersection modifications, would significantly improve the vehicular traffic- carrying capacity and movement efficiency for this heavily travelled arterial. The added capacity which this fully improved six-lane divided roadway would provide would greatly aid traffic circulation by reducing congestion and delay and accommodating projected future traffic increases. Based on experience, a substantial reduction in accident frequency can be expected, due to the proposed extensive use of raised center medians. By reducing the number of locations from which movements can be made across the major through street, raised medians would also improve the flow and traffic - carrying capacity of the roadway. By prohibiting on- street parking throughout this segment of Bristol Street, as proposed, the street would operate more efficiently and with greater safety. This is due to the elimination of potential vehicular conflicts and through the retention of sight distance at intersections and driveways. -v- 75C -16 M The provisions of far -side bus turnouts at major intersections, as recommended, would enhance through travel by removing stopped buses from the through traffic lane. Pedestrian circulation would be significantly improved and made safer, through installation of ten -foot wide sidewalks along both sides of the street (currently, sidewalks do not exist uniformly throughout the corridor and are missing in some spots ). Continuous sidewalks will also improve pedestrian access to and from the bus stops along Bristol Street. The proposed project would also include an upgraded street lighting system, which will improve lighting levels and everting visibility for both pedestrians and motorists. _ 5. Removal of old, unsafe structures and non - conforming uses. Acquisition of needed right -of -way and widening of the roadway and major intersections would require the removal of several old structures, including fences, walls and buildings, which may be unsafe at present due to their age and _ deteriorated conditions. The removal of these structures, along with other sound structures which contain or support non - conforming uses, would enhance the potential for implementations of the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance _ objectives for this area. Adverse Impacts that would accompany construction and completion of the proposed _ street improvements include the following: A. Air Quality _ Short -term increases in local emissions would occur during construction of the proposed improvements, which could be considered a nuisance by local residents, pedestrians, shoppers, etc. who are present during construction operations. Such emissions would involve exhaust from construction equipment, fugitive dust from grading activities and vehicular exhaust from motor vehicles of the construction crew and the vehicles used to transport the construction equipment. Long -term increases in emissions of nitrogen dioxides would occur because of improved traffic flow and higher operating speeds. B. Noise Short -term increases in local noise levels would occur during construction of the proposed improvements, which could be perceived as nuisance noise by residents, pedestrians, shoppers, etc. during construction operations. A widened roadway will result in a wider dispersion of traffic noise along the roadway, potentially resulting in noise level increases in excess of federal and -vi- 75C -17 State standards for numerous sensitive receptors, if adequate sound barriers cannot feasibly be provided because of access and sight distance requirements. C. Housing Displacement Acquisition of needed right -of -way and completion of the proposed improvements would result in the removal of 163 housing units (including both single and multi- family units). Removal of these housing units would displace approximately 538 residents (assuming an average household size of 3.3) who would need comparable, decent, safe and sanitary replacement housing in a nearby neighborhood of their choice. A proper and adequate residential relocation program will be complicated by the mixed Hispanic, Asian and Caucasian ethnicity of the displaced households and by the expected high percentage of lower income households involved. As discussed in the Draft Relocation Study, the City will retain Spanish and Viemamese•spealang relocation agents and interpreters to facilitate relocation of these affected minority groups. Graphic illustrations of the parcel by parcel right-of-way requirements and displacement sites are presented in Figures A and B of Appendix A- D. Business Displacement Acquisition of the needed right -of -way and completion of the proposed im- provements could result in the displacement of 99 private business firms in the project area. This could result in the temporary or even permanent loss of employment and income for the 594 employees that are involved (assuming an average of six employees per business). Many of the potential displaced businesses rely heavily on iocal patronage, due to neighborhood identification and ethnic ties. These business would have greater difficulty in successfully relocating to a new location. Some of these firms may be forced to close permanently as a result. Graphic illustrations of the parcel -by- parcel right -of -way requirements and potential displacement sites are presented in Figures A and B of Appendix A- E. Neighborhood Character and Minority Groups The net effects of the proposed street widening with respect to neighborhood character and minority groups would be most evident in terms of physical appearance and a reduced influence of Hispanic and Asian minorities as components of the local population and local business community. These are unavoidable consequences of any street widening alternative, due to the right -of- way acquisition requirements and the fact that Hispanic and Asian minorities are the largest components of the local population. The local citizen -based Project Area Committee (PAC), established to provide direct community input into the -V11- 75C -18 planting of the proposed Bristol Street Corridor Redevelopment Project and this project, will assist in addressing the minority and small business relocation issues and provide recommendations to the City Council. F. Community Facilities Right -of -way requirements would result in the diminishment of site area at one public elementary school and one church, and would require displacement of two private preschools. The affected sites include: 1. loss of front yard area at the Jose Andres Sepulveda School; - 2. the Southwest Learning Center /Preschool would be displaced; 3. the Children Center /Preschool would be displaced; 4. the Lutheran Church at 1406 South Bristol Street would lose• land along - Bristol Street, requiring a reorientation of building and parldng areas to meet City of Santa Ana zoning standards. G. Assessed Property Values Acquisition of needed rigbi -of -way and removal of existing structures would - reduce the amount of private property subject to assessment of local property _ taxes. The potential loss in annual property taxes is currently estimated at $322,300. This would be as adverse impact for those public agencies which receive property tax disbursements from the project area. The potential diminishment in property taxes will be somewhat recovered through redevelopment of remnant parcels and intensification of existing uses. R H. Utilities No disturbance of underground utilities is anticipated in order to construct the widened roadway; however, since overhead utility lines will need to be relocated, the project may cause temporary disruption of electrical and telephone service to some area businesses and residences. It is possibie to minimise any disruption to service during the construction process through coordination with local utility companies. Circulation The construction activities required to widen the roadway may temporarily restrict traffic flow along Bristol Street. While the roadway will remain open to through traffic, the number of available travel lanes will probably be reduced during various phases of construction, thereby reducing the capacity and efficiency of the -viii- 75C -19 roadway. For this reason, the volume of traffic which Bristol Street can handle efficiently will be decreased during the period of project construction. Since this would result in an increase in travel time along Bristol Street, some motorists will probably choose to take an alternative route when convenient. Access to property fronting along Bristol Street will also be intermittently disrupted as work progresses adjacent to individual parcels and temporarily blocks driveway access. Provisions will be made for interim access whenever necessary. Since construction of the project will be undertaken in phases, the disruption of circulation along the roadway will be reduced since only certain segments of the street would then be affected at any one time. In order to enhance traffic flow and minim; e hazards, traffic control plans will be prepared prior to each step in the construction process. The disruption of traffic and restriction to access along Bristol Street during project construction could affect the mobility and responsiveness of emergency vehicles which commonly utilize the street. The fire department has indicated that Stations 1, 3, 4; 5 and 7 will be impacted during construction of the proposed project since these stations typically utilize Bristol Street in route to an emergency call. Similarly, police vehicles and ambulances commonly utilize Bristol Street as a travel route in emergency situations and, as a result, will be adversely impacted by any restrictions to travel caused by construction activities. Even though movement may be hampered by construction activities, Bristol Street will remain open to through traffic and access to property along the street will be maintained. _PDXMAX01 a M61 01MIDWINTA Areas of controversy raised during public scoping meetings and as indicated by written comments received from local citizens and other public agencies include the following; A. Potential housing and business displacement and relocation benefits; B. Disruption of through traffic and site access during construction and related effects on local businesses and emergency response vehicles; C. Procedure for determining the amount of compensation for owners of property acquired for the expanded right -of -way; D. Duration of the construction process and proposed methods of minimizing nuisance emissions and noise during construction activities; E. Long -term noise and air quality impacts; F. Conversion of several intersecting streets to cul -de -sacs; and -ix- 75C-20 G. Whether Flower Street should be improved along with or instead of Bristol r Street Each of these areas were addressed when raised at a public scoping meeting and are _ discussed in detail within the text of this EIS. Current conditions, potential impacts associated with the various alternatives under consideration and measures to mitigate potentially adverse impacts to acceptable levels comprise the content of the analysis of these issues and the many other issues included in this document -x- 75C-21 w 75C -22 NEED FOR IMPROVEMENTS 75C -23 fS- 1ui!gra f ` t ` t A. INTRODUCnON /FROdECr DESCRIPTIOI�I The proposed project entails the widening and reconstruction of a 3.9 mile segment of Bristol Street in the City of Santa Ana, County of Orange, State of California (See Figure 1). The limits of the proposed project are Memory Lane on the north and Warner Avenue on the south (See Figure 2). The preferred street widening alternative would involve right -of -way acquisition on both sides of Bristol Street, as follows: Santiago Creek to 17th Street - The centerline is shifted west to avoid the Bristol Reservoir and Santiago School. Property will be acquired from both sides. 17th to Washington Streets - The centerline is shifted east to avoid Rancho Santiago College. Property will be acquired from the east side. Washington to Edinger Avenues - Widening is from the centerline, with acquisition from both sides. Edinger Avenue to Glenwood Place - The centerline is shifted west to avoid Mater Dei High School with acquisition from both sides. Glenwood Place to Warner Avenue - Widening is from the centerline, with pLoperty takes from both sides. It is anticipated that the entire 3.9 mile roadway project will be constructed in a staged or phased manner. A six-phase approach is envisioned with Phase I consisting of the widening and reconstruction of the bridge which crosses Santiago Creek. Figure 3 graphically identifies the three anticipated stages of project construction. This environmental document will assess the need for the proposed improvements and will determine the environmental consequences of the alternative design plans which are under consideration. The document will also suggest mitigation measures which, if incorporated into the design and construction of the project, witl wherever possible reduce identified impacts to the degree feasible. Bristol Street serves as a vital north -south transportation link through the City of Santa Ana. Bristol Street is designated as Major Arterial Highway (120 -foot right -of -way) in the Orange County Master Plan of Streets and Highways and is a designated truck route. The existing right -of -way for Bristol Street varies from 70 to 115 feet, while curb -to -curb width varies from 58 to 84 feet (See Figure 4 I -1 75C -24 r w r W R W I' Figure I I _. Regional Location NORTH & `' WILLDAN ASSOCIATES BRISTOL STREET WIDENING PROJECI� ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS CITY OF SANTA ANA - 75C325 NORTH WILLDAN ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS 76G -26 Figure 2 Vicinity Map BRISTOL STREET WIDENING PROJECT CITY OF SANTA ANA NORTH Q� ' phase 1 I&A A00 OREE% RMOOE p WIM&N33 W Phase 2 (WARNER AVE \ EOINOER AVE) \\ W. — e C m Phase 6 (SEVENTEENTH ST TO MEMORY LN ) Phase S 1 FIRST ST TO SEVENTEENTH ST 1 sI Phase a (MC FADOEN AVE TO MRST ST) Phase 3 / l EDINGER AVE TO MC FADOEN AVE) •r WILLDAN ASSOCIATES ENMURS AM PLANNERS 75C -27 Figure 3 Construction Phasing BRISTOL STREET WIDENING PROJECT — CITY OF SANTA ANA for existing cross sections). Similarly, the number of travel lanes varies from four to six, not including left -turn lanes at all major intersections and right -turn lanes at Bristors intersection with Memory Lane, 17th Street, First Street, McFadden Avenue and Warner Avenue. 9 m I O �1 k The purpose and goals of the Bristol Street Widening project are to: 1. Provide sufficient roadway capacity to accommodate current and future traffic demand. 2. Improve the performance and safety of the roadway for the benefit of the motoring public. 3. To reduce current and projected future delays experienced at major intersections and to design intersections to function at acceptable Levels of Service (LOS). 4. To design the roadway in manner conducive to the provision of public transportation, namely bus service provided by the Orange County Transit District (OCTD). Roadway improvements are needed within the Bristol Street Corridor to alleviate existing peak hour congestion problems and to prevent increased congestion in the future as traffic volumes increase. The area adjoining Bristol Street varies in existing land use with a mixture of both commercial and residential developments. Existing development also includes an elementary school on the east side of Bristol Street south of Santa Clara Avenue, a private high school, Mater Dei, on the east side south of Edinger Avenue, and Rancho Santiago Community College at 17th Street. Bristol Street is designated as a major arterial highway through the City of Santa Ana. The curb -to -curb width of this roadway varies from 56 feet to 84 feet. Bristol Street has a posted speed limit of 40 mph from Memory Lane to 17th Street, a 35 mph speed limit from 17th Street to Edinger Avenue and a 40 mph limit from Edinger to Warner Avenue. The Average Daily Traffic (ADT) on Bristol Street varies from 48,600 vehicles /day south of Memory Lade to 31,900 vehicles /day south of McFadden Avenue. Bristol Street is designated as a truck route through the City of Santa Ana. North of Memory Lane, Bristol Street has six lanes. South of Warner Avenue, Bristol Street is also fully improved to six travel lanes. I -5 75C -28 Evaluation of the operating conditions Bristol Street is experiencing under existing traffic volumes was based upon theoretical capacity levels promulgated in the Or 11; Cou= General Plan - Master Plats of Arterial Highways Component. County of Orange, Environmental Management Agency, 1982. The Orange County General Plan has established capacity levels that are associated with various levels of service. These levels are "general rule of thumb" values that are used in planning future road systems. For this reason, the capacity levels given are conservative in nature. Bristol Street varies from a four lane undivided road to a five lane undivided road between Memory Lane and Warner Avenue. The Average Daily Traffic volumes on all links of Bristol Street correspond to Levels of Service (LOS) of "D" or "F' with a majority of the roadway being subject to LAS "F". Levels of Service (LAS) are an expression of the operational characteristics of a location in terms of congestion They are expressed in term of "A" through 'T"' with W' being best and "F" being poor. Link volumes and their corresponding LAS are summarized in Table 1. Because of the limiting effect of intersection control, the performance of any road network is as much a function of intersection capacity as it is a function of the capacity of any street segment. For this reason, it is important to analyze intersections throughout the system for potential impacts as well as the various street segments. Turning movement counts were taken at all the critical signalized intersections on Bristol Street during both the AM and PM peak hours (7 -9 AM and 4 -6 P.M.) in 1986. The AM and PM peak hour volumes represent the highest hourly volumes that can be expected on a roadway under normal operating conditions., These turning movement counts were then used to perform Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) calculations. The ICU method gives a numerical representation of intersection utilization based upon a ratio of traffic volume to lane capacity (V/Q. These V/C ratios are then used in determining a Level of Service (LOS) designation. I -6 75C -29 100'Riw 04' w 18' I 11' 11' 14' 11' 21' H' I W/S E/S Memory Ln. to Bridge over Santiago Creak WR /W 56 tl' 13' 11' 10' 11' 13' 11' W/S EIS Bridge over Santiago Creek to S10 21st St. Figure 4A Typical Existing Mid -Block Cross Sections No Scais WILLDAN ASSOCIATES ENMNEMM AND PLA14HEM 75C -3M BRISTOL STREET WIDENING PROJECT CITY Or SANTA ANA 100'R /W 82' d 21' 1 17 11' 10' 'a. r 1 B• 10' I1 W/S EIS SIO 21st St. tQ Washington Av. 80' RJW so' 10' 1 i' 1 I' 10' 10' 19' 10' W/S EIS Weshington Av. to N/O 611h St. Figure 48 Typical Existing Mid -Block Cross Sections No Scale iaWILLDM ASSOCIATES ENGNElAS AND PLANHOS w w BRISTOL STREET WIDENING PROJECT CITY OF SANTA ANA 75G.;31 - 80'R�W 5e 11' 1 14' 12' 10' 12' !1' W/S E!S N/d 8th St. to First Si. 76'R /W 56' 10' 12' 11' 10' 11' 12' 10' W/S EIS First St. to 475 Ft. 5/0 Saint Gertrude PI. Figure 4C Typical Existing Mid -Block Cross Sections No Scale WIUDAN ASSOCIATES BRISTOL STREET WIDENING PROJECT ENGINMEs um PLMelp19 CITY OF SANTA ANA 75C -fig R W WILLDAN ASSOCIATES BRISTOL STREET WIDENING PROJECT - FNWIEEM AND MANN°"75L'_33 CITY OF SANTA ANA - Table 1 Average Daily Traffic Roadway Link bevels of Service ]986 I -11 75C -34 Existing Bristol Street ADT LOS Memory Ln. to Santa Clara Ave. 48,600 F Santa Clara Ave. to 17th St, 42,800 F 17th St. to Washington Ave. 39,400 F Washington Ave. to Civic Center Dr. 37,300 F Civic Center Dr, to 5th St. 36,700 F 5th St. to Santa Ana Bt. 35,500 F Santa Ana BI. to 1st St. 35,500 F 1st St, to Wfilits St. /Bishop St. 40,000 F Willits St. /Bishop St. to McFadden Ave. 35,700 F McFadden Ave. to Edinger Ave. 31,900 F Edinger Ave. to s/o St. Gertrude Pl. 33,400 F s/o St. Gertrude Pl. to Warner Ave. 33,400 D I -11 75C -34 Table 2 Eidsting V/C and LOS Values on Bristol Street for A.M. and P.M. Peak Hours 1986 BRISTOL STREET A.M. PEAK P.M. PEAK AT V/C LOS V/C LOS Memory Lane 1.07 F 1.01 F Santa Clara Avenue 0.93 E 0.84 D 17th Street 0.84 D 0.99 E Washington Avenue 0.79 C 0.83 D Civic Center Drive 0.76 C 0.84 D 5th Street 0.72 C 0.75 C Santa Ana Boulevard 0.61 B 0.71 C 1st Street 0.82 D 0.96 E Bishop St. /Willits St. 0.49 A 0.69 13 McFadden Ave. 0.75 C 0.71 C Edinger Ave. 0.63 B 0.75 C Glenwood Pl. 0.44 A 0.49 A Warner Ave. 0.60 A 0.80 C Table 2 lists the existing ICU's as well as their corresponding Levels of Service for each of the critical signalized intersections. In rural areas a LOS of "C" or better is desirable while in urban areas a LOS of "D" or better is desired. The most critical intersections on Bristol Street are at Memory Lane, Santa Clara Avenue, 17th Street, 1st Street, McFadden Avenue, Edinger Avenue and Warner Avenue. The Memory Lane I -12 75C -35 r R intersection is experiencing a LOS of 'T"' during both the AM and PM peak hours. The Santa Clara Avenue intersection during the AM peak hour and the intersections at 17th Street and 1st Street during the PM peak how, are experiencing LOS of "E°. These intersections are operating at capacity levels in which motorists are experiencing a great deal of delay. T"he information portrayed in Tables 1 and 2 clearly shows that Bristol Street and the major intersections within project area are presently operating beyond their designed capacities. An additional physical feature limiting the traffic carrying capacity of Bristol Street is the 53 -foot wide bridge across Santiago Creek. As presently con- structed, the bridge cannot accommodate more than four through lanes and represents a major bottleneck. Existing operational conditions along Bristol Street have contributed to the occurrence of traffic accidents. Between January 1, 1986 and May 11, 1987, a total of 1,108 traffic incidents were reported along Bristol Street between La Veta Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard. Specifically within the project area, between Memory Lane and Warner Avenue, a total of 918 accidents were reported during this 16 -month period. A total of 35 incidents involved damage to City property; 29 involved pedest- rians; 26 involved bicycles; 41 involved collisions with parked cars (although on- street parking is not permitted in the project area); and 22 involved motor - cycies. A total of 12 head -on collisions were also reported in the project area, as were 155 incidents involving left -turn movements. These latter two statistics appear to indicate the need for improved traffic controls, by such means as medians to separate opposing traffic, additional signalization, and left -turn restrictions at minor intersections. It should be noted that the accident data cited above was derived from the City of Santa Ana Public Service Agency's computer files. The proposed" improvements will serve to alleviate existing congestion problems and will help accommodate future traffic on this important north- south arterial, The project will result in the establishment of a safer, more efficient roadway with a substantial reduction in delays experienced by motorists, I -13 75C -36 Bristol Street is a north -south arterial road through the City of Santa Ana that connects to the Garden Grove Freeway and the San Diego Freeway. Bristol Street is generally believed to as a supplementary north -south access through Santa Ana for peak hour motorists who choose to avoid the heavily traveled Newport Freeway (State Highway 55) which parallels Bristol Street one to three miles to the east. Two major traffic generators significantly affect traffic volumes on Bristol Street. Rancho Santiago Community College is located at the southwest corner of Bristol Street and 17th Street within the project area. The South _. Coast Plaza Regional Shopping Center is located approximately two miles south of Warner Avenue at the junction of Bristol Street and the San Diego Freeway (Interstate 405). Other significant traffic contributors include Santa Ana's scattered industrial areas as well as the city, county, and federal government facilities and corporate and financial offices in the Downtown core .� to the east of Bristol Street. Future traffic volumes, for the target year 2006, were developed using historical and projected traffic, and development and population data obtained from the City of Santa Ana. Comparison of past and present traffic volumes along Bristol Street revealed the growth in traffic to be approximately one (1) percent per year. In the Five -Year Trau=ortation Study Update to 1990 prepared by Basmaciyan- Darnell, Inc., June 1985, the projected increase in _ area -wide traffic volumes south of the project area was anticipated to be greater than one (1) percent per year. The volume of traffic on Bristol Street north of Warner Avenue is, however, consistent with a one (1) percent per _ year growth rate. It was assumed that in the year 2006 all roads would be built out to their ultimate widths, as designated on the Orange Coua General Plan - Master Plan of Arterial Highways Component, County of Orange, Environmental Management Agency, 1982. Future Without Widening Evaluation of the operating conditions Bristol Street would experience under future year 2006 traffic volumes was based upon the same methodology as was described under the Section B above. Table 3 summarizes the project traffic volumes on each link with the corresponding levels of service for "no build" and 'build" conditions. -- Under the "no- project" alternative, each link of Bristol Street from Memory Lane to Warner Avenue would experience a Level of Service of "F". Traffic - on Bristol Street would be extremely congested and motorists would experience a great deal of delay. I -14 75C -37 Table 3 Average Daily Traffic Roadway Link Levels of Service Year 2006 Year 2006 Year 2006 w/o Widening w/ Widening Bristol Street ADT LOS ADT LOS Memory Ln_ to Santa Clara Ave, 58,300 F 58,300 F Santa Clara Ave. to 17th St. 51,400 , F 51,400 E 17th St. to Washington Ave. 47,300 F 47,300 D Washington Ave. to Civic Center Dr. 44,800 F 44,800 C Civic Center Dr. to 5th St. 44,000- F 44,000 C 5th St. to Santa Ana BI. 42,600 F 42,600 C Santa Ana 131. to 1st St. 42,600 F 42,600 C 1st St. to Willits St. /Bishop St. 48,000 F 48,000 D Willits St. /Bishop St. to McFadden Ave. 42,800 F 42,800 C McFadden Ave. to Edinger Ave. 38,300 F 38,300 B Edinger Ave. to s/o St. Gertrude Pi. 40,100 F 40,100 B s/o St. Gertrude Pl. to Warner Ave. 40,100 F 40,100 B I -15 75C -38 Due to the limiting nature of a road system, there is an upper limit to the volume of traffic which any roadway can carry. When traffic volume demand exceeds these limits the remaining traffic will be forced onto adjoining roads in the circulation system and affect their corresponding road capacities. The traffic projections on Bristol Street north of McFadden Avenue are expected to exceed the theoretical maximum roadway capacity for a four lane undivided —' highway and the remaining traffic is expected to seek alternative routes. _ However, because there are many variables that can affect the roadway capacity, no attempt was made to quantify the theoretical maximum. The traffic voiumes projected for the future year 2006 may, therefore, be higher than the roadway can actually accommodate. In the future year 2006 without widening, the intersections along Bristol Street that are expected to experience undesirable Levels of Service during both the AM and PM peak hours include Memory Lane, Santa Clara Avenue, 17th Street, Washington Avenue, 1st Street, and Warner Avenue. In addition, the Civic Center Drive intersection would also be experiencing an undesirable - LOS of "F' during the PM peak hour. Future With Widening Bristol Street is designated as a major arterial highway in the Orange County General Plan - Master Plan_ of Arterial_HighN= __ =onenL County of Orange, Environmental Management Agency, 1982. In the General Plan, a ` major arterial highway is designated as a six-lane divided roadway, with a typical right -of -way width of 120 feet and a roadway width from curb -to -curb of 100 feet. This project therefore proposes widening Bristol Street, from Memory Lane to Warner Avenue, to its full right -of -way width as designated ., on the Orange County General Plan. The added capacity which this fully improved six lane divided roadway will provide will greatly aid traffic circulation by reducing congestion and delay and accommodating projected future traffic increases. The Level of Service on each link of Bristol Street would greatly improve with widening. Projected link volumes and their corresponding LOS values are shown in Table 3. Projected traffic volumes on Bristol Street north of Washington Avenue result in undesirable levels of service on several links; with a LOS of "F" anticipated on the Memory Lane to Santa Clara Avenue link, a LOS of "E" on the Santa Clara Avenue to 17th Street link, and a LOS of "D" between First Street and Bishop /Willits Street. While these values are above the desired LOS of "C" the anticipated volumes can be accommodated on the proposed six lane divided roadway due to the conservative nature of the capacity values. Motorist may continue to experience delay, however, the length of delay would greatly diminish with roadway widening. All other links on Bristol Street would experience a Level of Service of "C" or better. I -16 75C -39 W W ICU calculations were performed at each signalized intersection for future traffic volumes under existing lane configurations. Table 4 summarizes the anticipated V/C and LOS values that are anticipated under the no widening alternative. Table 4 Year 2006 Intersection V/C and LOS Values on Bristol Street Without Widening BRISTOL STREET A.M. PEAK P.M. PEAK AT V/C LOS V/C LOS Memory Lane 1.26 F 1.14 F Santa Clara Avenue 1.11 F 1.00 E 17th Street 1.00 E 1.18 F Washington Avenue 0.95 E 1.00 E Civic Center Drive 0.90 D 1.01 F 5th Street 0.87 D 0.90 D Santa Ana Boulevard 0.72 C 0.85 D 1st Street 0.98 E 1.15 F Bishop St. /Willits St. 0.59 A 0.82 D McFadden Ave. 0.89 D 0.85 D Edinger Ave. 0.75 C 0.90 D Glenwood PIP) 0.60 A 0.66 B Warner Ave. 0.71 C 0.96 E �') Signal under construction. 1 -17 75C -40 Intersection controls have a limiting effect upon the performance of any road network ICU calculations were therefore performed for future year 2006 with widening and improvements. These results are summarized in Table 5. Table 5 Year 2006 Intersection V/C and LOS Values on Bristol Street With Widening BRISTOL STREET A.M. PEAK P.M. PEAK AT /C LOS V/C LOS Memory Lane 0.88 D 0.88 D Santa Clara Avenue 0.84 D 0.77 C 17th Street 0.68 B 0.89 D , Washington Avenue 0.77 C 0.82 D Civic Center Drive 0.80(`, C 0.80 C 5th Street 0.70 B 034 C Santa Ana Boulevard 0.57 A 0.67 B 1st Street 0,73 C 0.83 D Bishop St. /Willits St. 0.47 A 0.50 A McFadden Ave. 0.67 B 0.69 B Edinger Ave. 0.63 B 0.63 B Glenwood PI f2l 0.40 A 0.50 A Warner Ave. 0.50 A 0.50 A V/C reduces to 0.79 with cud -de -sacs. cz� Signal under construction. I -18 75C -41 r Travel demand on Bristol Street currently exceeds the desiGm canacity of the roadway. Without major improvements, this condition is expected to become increasingly critical as substantial volume increases are foreseen. As described in Section C above, Bristol Street is used by many motorists as a bypass for the congested Newport Freeway and to access Santa Ana's scattered industrial areas, Rancho Santiago Community College at Bristol and 17th Streets, city, county, and federal offices as well as corporate business offices to the east, and the South Coast Plaza regional shopping center in Costa Mesa to the south. The Santa Ana Civic Center, located between First and 17th Streets, employs nearly 20,000 persons. The City of Santa Ana has approved the Bristol Corridor Redevelopment Plan for the Bristol Street Corridor. Because of this plan activity levels in the project area will increase. The City of Santa Ana is continuing to take an active role in redevelopment and new high density residential development, thereby increasing pressure on the local circulation system. The City of Santa Ana's present population is 235,961. By the Year 2000, the City's population is expected to be 300,000. •9: • tl' Bristol Street is a transportation corridor which has historically been limited to two modes of transportation, private vehicles and public bus service. The roadway is also designated as an official truck route. Bus service is provided by the Orange County Transit District (OCTD) with the following routes: 1. Route 49 - serves Bristol Street from Fifth Street to Memory Lane. 2. Route 56 - serves Bristol Street from 17th Street to Garden Grove Boulevard. 3. Route 57 - serves Bristol Street from 5th Street to Warner Avenue. At present, there are 40 bus stops located along Bristol Street within the proposed project area. These stops include 20 northbound and 20 southbound locations. 1 -19 75C -42 - - 75C -43 75C -44 II PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 75C -45 Three widening_ alternatives were evaluated, each of which would provide a new street right -of -way of 120 feet throughout the project limits, except for the segment between Santiago Creek and Memory Lane, which would remain at its - _present 100 -foot right -of -way configuration The proposed right -of -way between Santiago Creek and Warner Avenue would provide three lanes of through traffic in both directions, plus a 14 -foot wide, raised center median that could be fully or partially landscaped, throughout the entire project corridor. The remaining segment between Santiago Creek and Memory Lane would be modified, without widening the street section, to provide three lanes of through traffic, in each direction, divided by a 14 -foot wide, raised center median, consistent with the street section along the rest of the corridor. Additional right -turn only lanes and left -turn lanes would also be added to several of the major intersections. Far -side bus turn -outs are proposed at the following_ intersections: Warner Avenue: northbound and southbound Edinger Avenue: northbound and southbound McFadden Avenue: northbound and southbound First Street: northbound and southbound Santa Ana Boulevard: eastbound At several intersections, the right -of -way will need to be expanded somewhat beyond the standard 120 feet to safely accommodate the additional right and left turn lanes and the far side bus turn-outs. ^Similarly, additional right -of -way will be needed along the east and west legs of several intersections to achieve completely improved geometrics in accordance with County and City standards and to safely accommodate projected levels of traffic. j Ten east -west through streets are proposed to become cul -de -sacs to further decrease congestion along Bristol Street (see Figure 20). The alternatives each envision widening the existing 53 -foot wide bridge across Santiago Creek to accommodate six through travel lanes. Please zefer to Section N.0 for a complete discussion of the proposed traffic and circulation system improvements. The alternative widening approaches evaluated consist of the three options described below. It should be noted that each of these alternatives wout d have the common features of maintaining the existing right -of -way and centerline north of Santiago Creek and would also have a common design between 17th Street and Santiago Creek. This common design feature would D -1 75C -46 be a shift of the roadway a sufficient distance to the west to avoid the need for right -of -way acquisition from Santiago Elementary School. This property has been categorized as a 4(f) site (see Section II.C3 - for definition) due to the fact that the playfield areas are used for organized recreational activities. The alternatives consisted of the following: 1, Widening to a 120 -foot right -of -way, through acquisition of right -of -way along both sides of the street, with a 60 -foot right -of -way on each side of the existing centerline of Bristol Street. A thirty (30) foot transition towards the west would be required between 17th Street and the southerly perimeter of Santiago Elementary School to avoid right -of- way impacts to this 4(f) property. The same transition back to the east would be required between the northerly perimeter of the school and the Santiago Creek bridge to return to the present centerline alignment. This alignment alternative would necessitate substantial acquisition of right -of -way and widening of the street along the Bristol Street frontage of the Rancho Santiago Community College campus, and the City's Bristol Street Reservoir (water storage facility). Right -of -way acqui- sition and construction costs for tbis alternative are currently estimated at $59.7 million. 2. Widening to a 120 -foot right -of -way, through acquisition of right -of -way along the east side of the street. Under this alternative, a fifty (50) foot westerly transition would be required between 17th Street and the school and between the school and Santiago Creek to avoid 4(f) impacts. This alignment alternative would necessitate substantial right - of -way acquisition and widening of the Bristol Street frontage of the Mater 17ei High School and Bristol Street Reservoir sites. Right -of -way acquisition and construction costs for this alternative are currently estimated at $41.9 million. 3. Widening to a 120' right -of -way, through acquisition of right -of- way along the west side of the street. Under this alternative, a ten (10) foot westerly transition would be required north and south of the elementary school to avoid 4(f) impacts. This alignment alternative would necessitate substantial right -of -way acquisition and widening of the Bristol Street frontage at the Rancho Santiago Community College campus. Right -of -way acquisition and construction costs for this alternative are currently estimated at $37.2 million. The costs for completing Alternative No. 1 are much higher than the other two, due to the more substantial right -of -way requirements. Widening the street along both sides would necessitate the acquisition of many more parcels, most of which would involve "full takes," rather than "partial takes." It should be noted that the discussion of right -of -way acquisition on the east or west side presumes an existing 80 -foot right -of -way, with 40 feet on both sides of the center line, as a basis. In fact, several locations exist with only 70 feet 75C -4� T T T W- r of right -of -way. In instances where there is less than 40 feet of right -of -way on one side of the centerline, property will need to be acquired on that side even if the alternative selected is for widening on the opposite side. Proposed mid -block css -sec ;ons, iaterseraon geometr'ics and bus turn -out specifications are illustrated in Figures 5, 6, and 7. None of the three alternatives include provisions for on- street parking. This is consistent with existing conditions and the City's policy for prohibiting on- street parking on major arterials. After evaluating the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), the various oral and written comments received on the DEIS, and following a walk- through of the project area, the City Council selected a preferred alignment for the widening of Bristol Street. The selected alignment consists of a combination of the three widening alternatives described above, as follows: -- From Warner Avenue to Glenwood Place, widening would be from the centerline, following the 'both sides" alignment. -- From Glenwood Place to Edinger Avenue, widening would follow the "west side only' alignment, to avoid any disturbance of the Mater Dei High School site. From Edinger Avenue to Washington Street, widening would follow the "both sides" alignment -- From Washington Street to 17th Street, widening would follow the "east side only" alignment, to avoid any disruption to the Rancho Santiago Community College site. Between 17th Street and the Santiago Creek bridge, widening would follow the "west side only' alignment, to avoid any disruption to the Santiago Elementary School and Bristol Reservoir sites. The preferred alignment is illustrated in Figures 8A -8D, following. Right -of- way requirements and residential and business displacement impacts associated with the selected alignment are illustrated in Figures A through F in Appendix A. The preferred alignment was selected by the City of Santa Ana, on the basis of a careful balancing of the social, environmental, and fiscal costs of the three widening alternatives, and consideration of the City's Redevelopment Plan goals and objectives. Since due to the Redevelopment Plan, the preferred II -3 75C -48 1oo'Rrw as' T 14' 11' 11' 14' 11' 11' 14' 7 I W/S EIS Memory Ln. to Bridge over Santiago Creek 120'R�W 100' 10' 19' 12' 12' 14' 12' 17 19' 10' W/S . E/S Santiago Creek to Warner Av, Nure 5 Proposed Mid -Block Cross Sections No Scale WILLDAN ASSOCIATES BRISTOL STREET WIDENING PROJECT OGWIMM AND P1 MUM CITY OF SANTA ANA 75C -49 u -4 m c m J a L O E a Bristol Street Figure 6A Memory Lane Intersection 4 NORTH WILLDAN ASSOCIATES BRISTOL STREET WIDENING PROJECT 060MEUM NO PLMMMS CITY OF SANTA ANA 75Q -50 S m m W � t P —I G o � h m C ' p m m , p N _ b k R i t 1f 7 ff ff ff A' 1z a 4 VI'V 17 a¢ tt F 21- -� Ul Bristol Street WILLDAN ASSOCIATES EM14EERS AND PLANNER 75CITV _1 u r T T T T BRISTOL STREET WIDENING PROJECT CITY OF SANTA ANA �, 1 lei II JS w�-• � m �S7 �R � rte. � u I I Bristol Street Figure 6C Civic Center Drive Intersection 4 NORTH WILLDAN ASSOCIATES BRISTOL STREET WIDENING PROJECT EMGMMM AND PIANNFJq CITY OF SANTA ANA 75C -'62 I ' i 19' 12' 17 T T Q m c — n 12' 12'' 17 W' 1 1Q - 12 Bristol SU , n d M r w r y WILLDAN ASSOCIATES BRISTOL STREET WIDENING PROJECT EHGgtMR% MO PLMMRS CITY OF SANTA ANA •� 75V53 m H r fA LL _ p p Ly w• ! 1Z l z 7 p a — i S i tIt fIf L �1 Bristol Street WILLDAN ASSOCIATES EN6MEEM AND PLM{NEAa 75"4 Figure BE First Street Intersection Q NORTH BRISTOL STREET WIDENING PROJECT CITY OF SANTA ANA + -- w C 19' 72' 12' V k 12' m LL — 12' 17 12' V 12' 12' ,@' los - ,2s Brletol fteat Figure 6F Mc Fadden Avenue Intersection Q MCATH w w w all r NIP w • 1p WLLDAN ASSOCIATES BRISTOL STREET WIDENING PROJECT °wpFEM AND PLM CITY OF SANTA ANA 75C -55 ps i 125' wsl L - ,9' 12' 12' 10' , ?' ,Y' 12' m � L I - a' r— v c a W —� ,2'I ,T 112' 10' 12' 12' 19S — 125� i i Bristol Street Figure 6G Edinger Avenue Intersection Q NORTH WILLDAN ASSOCIATES BRISTOL STREET WIDENING PROJECT vMwEZ"a MO PLANNFAe CITY OF SANTA ANA 75,P -156 110' u' l 12' 7 V 10 ff t7 t7 m Q 1 pa' Bristol Street ' Figure 6H Wamer Avenue Intersection NORTH M w w R WILLDAN ASSOCIATES BRISTOL STREET WIDENING PROJECT ENGMEE16 AMO PLAMNERS 75057 CITY OF SANTA ANA II— 12 100 III L I. 19' 12' 17 10' ,2 112 19' 19' 12' 12' 10' 12' 1 }2' 19' I I 100' ,20' Bristoi Street Figure 6 1 Other Typical Intersections 4 NORTH WILLDAN ASSOCIATES BRISTOL STREET WIDENING PROJECT EWMEMANO PUNNFAB CITY OF SANTA ANA 7558 J Dy INSTALL ' NO PARKING BUS STOP " 51UN Direction of Travei -� NO SCALE WILLQAN ASSOCIATES aGIMEM AND auWMERS 75C -59 i1 -14 Figure 7 Farside Bus Tumout Detail w �T T .M r T• i� A BRISTOL STREET WIDENING PRCJECT w CITY OF SANTA ANA v c • m 4 J F% Ww i 2 e x O z N 3 O i mmi w W U n 3N.1 ND1VM 3AY 34Y tl30N143 NL— a..MN]10 FAJ ONYO E: w 0 3AV tl3NtlYM 0O a W cc it Q Z LL LLI Q 0 u.i Q m LLI LL W Q IL 7 u.t H w w H Q Z Q Q z Q U- 0 A a z e a3 c m N w 2 V rJ w J 3 Igh mr] v C • m • J W i F z w u s i 0 m 0 7n17 _J 1B 1001A AO 111M1YM IN Y N m u cc a Z G7 S w w W U- w m IL VJ U Z W 4 d d T Q2 Z U- Z O 'L ar w w r- J 0 F F m v7 Rf'� S i a J z a n W Z -r �f µ T A A w r w m. r� 9 C m J Z w o `w � O LL N W 'T� 6 F2 � D W W U 3 .,.rw ITT ^?' 7 I �Ta�C ' lam' NFT- u� u_iv l VJ W co? w ui �z 0 CO Q a _mow LL °o J ¢ ZI w w n x 3 w LL LU W W W U3 J CD W m VJ W 1 z r z Vj U- m ai z K a r m a w tY c'3 W a U O CO Q °o Z a O a 1 z r z Vj U- m ai z K a r m a w tY c'3 W 3 � o w � LL 0 O � w w = � Cr � W 0 3 # W y � w ~ � C J O X J � y W C O v F. 1 75C -63 11 -18 an > U 2 4 L LU Z 0 Z Q U' [C a" jr LU Q u, w ¢ W o r U W 11 W a 2 f- ED ra VJ W 4 a U z Q a in d Q H C o Z W Q i O r o J � -J _, .r r w x1 r. M w V w M alternative is more costly than is necessary to accomplish transportation needs, federal funds will be limited to acquisition and construction costs within the street right -of -way. Public comments received generally agreed with the need to widen the street to improve its traffic - carrying capacity, provided that the environmental and economic costs to the affected property owners anu residents is adequately compensated for. Since any of the widening alternatives would involve a substantial amount of acquisition of private properties and displacement of existing businesses or residences, the balancing of alternatives focused on avoiding damage to the several major community facilities found along the subject segment of Bristol Street. These facilities, which occupy large sites and are developed in a manner which requires full use of existing site area to maintain their effective functioning as community facilities, include: — Mater Dei High School -- Rancho Santiago Community College Santiago Elementary School (a 4[f] site) Bristol Street Reservoir (City water facility) The preferred alternative was selected because it will not impact three of the major community facilities, and it will have minimal impact on another one. To avoid impacting the community facilities locations on Bristol Street, the centerline will he transitioning east, west, and to the center of the street. With the centerline shifting in many locations, property will be acquired from both sides of the street. Because the City's right -of -way acquisition policy requires the purchase of the entire property if a parcel is rendered nonconforming due to street widening, more full-takes will be acquired. Therefore, the costs for the preferred alternative are much higher due to the substantial residential takes. A summary of the housing displacement and major facilities impacts follows: HOUSING DISPLACEMENT Single Multi- Family Family Preferred Alternative (modified Alternative 1) 137 26 Alternative 1 (both sides) 163 73 Alternative 2 (east side) 106 66 Alternative 3 (west side) 80 53 Il-19 75C -64 MAJOR COMMUNITY FACH -rrIES IMPACTS The cost for acquisition of land and improvements to provide the necessary right -of -way is currently estimated at $50.3 million. Estimated construction costs total $14.6 trillion. Although this cost is much higher than the other alternatives, it is considered acceptable because the preferred alternative preserves the major community facilities in this area and better meets the Redevelopment Plan adopted by the City of Santa Ana, All alternatives avoid 4(f) sites. Any of the lower cost alternatives would result in significant adverse effects upon these community facilities and thereby result in unacceptable disruption of the community character. In addition, the preferred alignment involves a larger number of full-take parcels. These larger parcels can be more effectively redeveloped than remnant parcels, in a comprehensive and integrated manner, consistent with the design and development objectives for the Bristol Corridor Redevelopment project, recently adopted by the Santa Ana Redevelopment Agency. -M s l�il�• ••�t � It ; • This alternative would involve modifications to the existing transpor- tation facility that would improve its traffic moving efficiency, without acquiring additional right -of -way. Traffic signals throughout the subject segment of Bristol Street are already synchronized. Insufficient roadway width and right -of -way exists to enable restriping to add additional through lanes or additional turn lanes at the intersections. The addition of bus stops was not suggested by the Orange County Transit District, and without acquiring right -of -way to establish a bus II -20 75C -65 R w T • W T Preferred Alt.I Alt.2 Alt.3 Alternative, (both sides) (east side) (west side} Mater Dei None None Substantial None high School acquisition Rancho Santiago Minimal Substantial None Substantial Community College acquisition on acquisition acquisition the 17th street froutage Santiago Elementary None None None None School [4(f)] Bristol Street None Substantial Substantial None Reservoir acquisition acquisition The cost for acquisition of land and improvements to provide the necessary right -of -way is currently estimated at $50.3 million. Estimated construction costs total $14.6 trillion. Although this cost is much higher than the other alternatives, it is considered acceptable because the preferred alternative preserves the major community facilities in this area and better meets the Redevelopment Plan adopted by the City of Santa Ana, All alternatives avoid 4(f) sites. Any of the lower cost alternatives would result in significant adverse effects upon these community facilities and thereby result in unacceptable disruption of the community character. In addition, the preferred alignment involves a larger number of full-take parcels. These larger parcels can be more effectively redeveloped than remnant parcels, in a comprehensive and integrated manner, consistent with the design and development objectives for the Bristol Corridor Redevelopment project, recently adopted by the Santa Ana Redevelopment Agency. -M s l�il�• ••�t � It ; • This alternative would involve modifications to the existing transpor- tation facility that would improve its traffic moving efficiency, without acquiring additional right -of -way. Traffic signals throughout the subject segment of Bristol Street are already synchronized. Insufficient roadway width and right -of -way exists to enable restriping to add additional through lanes or additional turn lanes at the intersections. The addition of bus stops was not suggested by the Orange County Transit District, and without acquiring right -of -way to establish a bus II -20 75C -65 R w T • W T turnout, additional bus stops would only add to congestion at the approaches to the bus stop. TSM measures, alone, were deemed insufficient to achieve the City's goals for upgrading Bristol Street to a six-lane, divided roadway, consistent with the Orange County Master Plan of Highways and the City of Santa Ana Circulation Element. A 100 -foot right -of -way alternative, including bus turn-outs and addi- tional right and left turn lanes at selected intersections could also accomplish the desired expansion of Bristol Street to a six-lane arterial. This right -of -way alternative could also be accomplished through three basic widening approaches: 1) along both sides of the street; 2) only on the east side of the street; and 3) only on the west side of the street. Some combination of these approaches could also achieve a 100 -foot right -of -way. . The 100 -foot right -of -way alternatives were withdrawn from considera- tion, however, since a 100 -foot roadway would be inconsistent with both County of Orange and City of Santa Ana standards for a primary arte- rial. County and City standards specify a 120 -foot right -of -way, providing a six-lane divided roadway. A 100 -foot right -of -way would be severely insufficient to accommodate the desired additional left and right turn lanes at several intersections. In addition, the 100 -foot right - of -way would not be sufficient to accomplish the City of Santa Ana goal to provide extensive parkway landscaping and other beautification measures in an equivalent manner. Finally, the 100 -foot alternative would hamper the establishment of certain traffic control devices and would not allow for emergency stopping along the edge of the roadway. bro b The federal statutes and implementing procedures for preservation of public park and recreation lands, wildlife, and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites are commonly referred to as "Section 4(f)." The full regulatory reference is Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act (80 stat. 931; Public Law 89 -670, as amended.) Whenever a proposed action involving federal funds, federal land, or federal approval could affect the types of land identified above, the significance of such land uses must be evaluated. No use of such significant land may occur unless there are no feasible and prudent alternatives and the proposed action includes all possible planning to minimi c harm to the resource protected by Section 4(f). II -21 75C -66 Within the project area, only the public school recreational facilties associated with the Santiago Elementary School site and the Jose Andres Sepulveda School site were determined to qualify as Section 4(f) resources. Having determined this, the City decided that any improvement alternative that requires any tatting or other "constructive" use of this site would not be considered, since there are prudent and feasible avoidance alternatives. 3,00MITIMPMMOMMIED 111.2 The one -way couplet alternative with Flower Street was recommended by a few local residents during the public meeting process. This alternative was explored and withdrawn from consideration because of several significant constraints related to right -of -way impacts, redirection of travel patterns through residential neighborhoods, and disruption to efficient north /south travel between State Route 22 and the IA05 Freeway. The purpose of widening Bristol Street is to accommodate increasing traffic volumes on Bristol Street. Local City travelers use Bristol Street to reach destinations which are located on Bristol Street. Regional T travelers use Bristol Street as a major arterial to connect them to the 22 Freeway to the north and the 405 Freeway to the south. Flower Street is not connected to the north or south freeway access points. A one - way couplet would not provide adequate local and regional access to + accomplish north /south traffic circulation needs. A one -way couplet would involve extensive environmental impacts to W schools, parks, public facilities and residences along Flower Street. Flower Street has long blocks with few cross streets. A deficiency in east /west cross streets would result in circuitous travel into residential areas. Such travel would cause increased coagestion on smaller streets T which are less able to accommodate burgeoning traffic flow. Public surveys indicate that community residents agree that Bristol Street needs improvement. The suggestion to construct a one -way couplet rater than to widen Bristol Street has not been supported in large numbers. In contrast. the North Central Santa Ana residents have repeatedly expressed their desire to keep high volumes of traffic out of +. their neighborhood. The decision to minimize traffic volumes on Flower Street is consistent with the City's General Plan, the Master Plan of Arterial Highways and City Council policy. 5. North /South Bypass Route This alternative would involve acquiring an extensive amount of land east or west of Bristol Street to accommodate a new north /south bypass route through the City to improve local circulation. II -22 75C -67 Santa Ana and adjacent communities in this area are heavily urbanized, and the arterial roadway systems for this area are already established. Patterns of travel are also well established. A north /south bypass route is simply not feasible, given the existing development and commuting patterns. Substantial relocation impacts would also occur, even if a feasible and "under capacity" bypass route could be found. A possible southerly extension of the State Route (SR) 57 Freeway, along the Santa Ana River, from the SR -22 Freeway to the I -405 Freeway, is being discussed by regional transportation officials. That project is considered very long range (10 -20 years), due to extensive design review requirements and the lack of available funding for the estimated one billion dollar cost. In any event, projected traffic volumes along Bristol Street warrant additional traffic capacity, with or without the SR -57 extension. 6. Mass Transit Alternative The Orange County 20 -year Master Plan of Transportation Improvements, prepared by the Orange County Transportation Commission, contains a Transit Strategy Report which establishes the County's long -range plan and policies for development, a comprehensively multi -model transit system. Within the City of Santa Ana, and near the Bristol Street project corridor, the Transit Strategy proposes an Advanced /Automated Guideway (AGT) facility to connect the central county activity centers between Anaheim and South Coast Metro /IBC (in Costa Mesa and Irvine). The successful implemeritation of this comprehensive transit strategy relies heavily in as yet unapproved sales tax funding. The City of Santa Ana, in conjunction with the Cities of Anaheim, Costa Mesa, Fullerton, Irvine and Orange, are currently discussing the development of an elevated fixed guideway system which would provide this link in Orange County's long -range transit strategy. The proposed alignment is primarily on Main Street, in Santa Ana, with a northern terminus at the multi -model transit station in Fullerton, and the southern terminus at the Irvine Transportation Center. This alignment is preferred because it connects the current and projected activity centers in Central Orange County, Bristol Street, between Civic Center Drive and the South Coast Metro area, is considered a potential alignment, but only if significant redevelopment activity were to occur and it becomes another major activity center. 11 -23 75C -68 The development of mass transit system which utilizes the Bristol Street .. Corridor as an alternative to widening the street, was rejected for the following reasons: i. An elevated fixed guideway or other AGT system along Bristol Street would not relieve the current and projected traffic congestion on the street, unless the entire corridor is developed into a cohesive and integrated activity center that would line into other subregional centers. Such a redevelopment program at .. best, would take many terms to complete, as the City's Redevelopment Agency has only recently adopted a plan for the areas and funds for property acquisition and redevelopment will -, accumulate gradually over the next 20 years or so. The project and traffic congestion problems require immediate rather than long -range improvements. 2. The Main Street alignment is the, preferred alignment for such a transit facility in this area, since it would link existing and projected activity centers more effectively. This is the adopted alignment in the Orange County Transit Strategy. Bristol Street is an urban arterial highway providing access to a large number of commercial and residential uses. Eliminating left -rum lanes and left-turn movements and /or the use of reversible flow lanes _would be inconsistent with the characteristics and usage of this type of r roadway, the City's Circulation Element, and the County of Orange , Transportation Element, Therefore, these options were not considered as project alternatives, + D. NO -PRO] CT ALTERNATWE The No- Project alternative would essentially involve no new efforts to modify or improve the subject segment of Bristol Street and the various intersections within the project limits. Already programmed improvements would occur in + accordance with existing City plans. Only minor repairs and modifications would occur, incrementally as new development takes place. Existing conditions with respect to traffic movement, noise, air quality, drainage, +' socioeconomics, aesthetics, land use, utilities, neighborhood character, etc., would remain essentially the same, with changes taking place slowly in response to private development activity and increasing traffic congestion. R-2a 75C -69 '� 75C -70 III AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 75C -71 We 0115103M�� �:• �r r MOOR. — As shown on the U.S.G.S. Anaheim and Newport Beach Quadrangle Maps (See Figure 9, following), the project area is nearly flat. A very slight gradient exists, sloping northwesterly to southwesterly, between Memory Lane and Edinger Avenue, then shifting slightly to a more north to south slope to Warner Avenue. The elevation at Bristol Street and Memory Lane is about 120 feet above sea level (ASL), while the elevation at Bristol Street and Warner Avenue is about 45 feet ASL. This 75 -foot fall across the total 20,600 foot long roadway segment accounts for a fairly uniform average slope of just under four - tenths of one percent. No roadside embankments or other notabie topographic features exist within the project area. 2. Geolopy No earthquake faults, whether active, potentially active or inactive, are known to exist in the City of Santa Ana. There are, however, two major faults in close proximity to the City: the Newport- Inglewood Fault, some 8 miles to the west /southwest; and the Whittier- Elsinore Fault, some 12 miles to the northeast. Other fault zones, including the San Andreas and the Raymond faults, are located 40 and 30 miles away, respectively. Susce it is the closest fault zone, the Newport- Inglewood Fault is considered the most likely source of earthquake - related seismic hazards. Seismic parameters for each of the active faults within a 40 mile radius of Santa Ana are illustrated in Table 6, following. Historically, earthquake- associated geologic hazards have not been significant in Santa Ana. Rather, subsidence and liquefaction have been the primary geotechnical problems. Subsidence is the general lowering of the ground surface over a large area. Area subsidence has occurred within various parts of the City, generally attributed to lowering of ground water levels and the settlement and oxidation of peat. More localized or focal subsidence can occur as a result of earthquake motion. The potential for subsidence is largely dependent on the magnitude, duration and frequency of the earthquake energy waves. The design earthquake (maximum probable earthquake) for Santa Ana is one of a long - period, rolling motion, rather than intensive high frequency shaking. This 7 5 C 172 1'y �l•'y:� � M fey �S }r ~i— Z� w} ��'�`� memry law 7f • ..�_ �p�_'- •I N1 6' ANA Flmt Sulm rJ FIGURE 9 Ed;ny.r Awmw Existing Topography —• I T, .m — •� I 3 L • 4�ir e ria � � Wmmr Av w �t NORTH " I I ..V i � II w I II WILlDAN ASSOCIATES BRISTOL STREET WIDENING PROJECT ENGINEERS AND MANRFAS CITY OF SANTA ANA 75C -73 " ) « } ) § \ 7j j) / 5 1 / cc �� §ƒ a $ )\ ]� t §§ ] \ § § f \\ 2))m} \ ) / j/ \\ \/ }\ S %2m \ &2ƒ 44�Q )kkƒ 7 )/) \ ) CZ2�§« § j\ \ \\ 7j j) / 5 1 cl rq cc '46 146 cl '5C-74 \_ }d cd f) ) / ) {3 } / ] \ \ \ / / / \ \ \ \ rq cc ] \ § § f ) / j/ \\ 7 )/) \ ) § j\ \ \\ '5C-74 \_ }d cd f) ) / ) {3 } / ] \ \ \ / / / \ \ \ \ results in a low potential for large area or focal ground subsidence due _ to earthquakes. Soil liquefaction is the phenomenon in which water - saturated, cohesion - less soil temporarily loses its strength when subjected to dynamic forces. Soils most vulnerable to liquefaction are those that are composed of saturated sands, in a loose to medium -dense condition, in areas where the water table is less than 20 feet deep. The probability of Liquefaction occurring in Santa Ana is relatively low, given the type of earthquake expected and the distance to active faults. Moderate to high potential subsidence and liquefaction areas within the subject segment of Bristol Street are shown on Figure 10, following. _ Only the extreme northerly portion is considered subject to a potential subsidence hazard. Most of the south half of the study area, between McFadden Avenue and Warner Avenue, is in an area classified as r within the highest potential liquefaction area. Between McFadden Avenue and First Street, the liquefaction hazard potential is considered ° moderate. From First Street north to Memory Lane, liquefaction potential is considered slight. 3. S_ oils Within the project area, there are no instances of undisturbed, natural soils. All surface areas have been modified or covered, due to construction activities or due to the planting of urban landscape materials. The soil types found throughout the project area are — importaut in terms of their characteristics which would support or ,r constrain further urban development and redevelopment, including the proposed street widening. The distribution of soil types found within the study area is shown on Figure 11, following. As described in the Soil Survey for this area, prepared by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service, these soils have the following characteristics: Chino Silty Clay Loam. Drained. Nearly level, on large alluvial fan. Moderately alkaline and calcareous throughout. If soil is bare, runoff is slow and erosion hazard slight. This soil is drained and the water table is more than 60 inches below the surface. The effective rooting depth is 60 inches or more. Depth to bedrock exceeds 60 inches. Moderate shrink -swell potential. Low risk of corrosion to concrete; moderate - high risk of corrosion to uncoated steel, depending on depth. 111 -4 75C -75 5 -III VNV V1NVS d0 1110 sLSNNVId uNV Sil33moNa 103ro8d ON1N30IM 13MUS 1O1SIU3 Sal OOSSd NValI N H1HpN i seeiv p.iezeH uolpepnbl-I pue soueplsgnS lel}ualOd " MM OIJ IQI1ua ;od uollou;onbl'l 4BIH 1e11ue%Od uolhelenbl-1 e3EJepoyd Ie13ue11od eoueplsgnS 451H YL• /L''J:.1 mid Iu V mr nws w Auomamos 75C -76 ,WJgM lukmi I WLL 4auow I Memory 17th Fitt Warner Sail Types 194 San Emtgdlo Loath 0-2% Slope 'Be Macho wont 0- 2%Slops 163 Matt Loamy Sand isa Hueneme Flne Sandy Loam, Drained 140 Chino Silty Clay Loam, Drained 123 Balsa Slit Loam, Drained R Rivervrash Source: Boll sunvy of Orange Cavity and Waatam RI:relde County, United State Department of AgMatat", Solt Canearvstlon Service and Forest Service, FIGURE 11 Distribution of soils .161� NORTH r MLLDAN ASSOCIATES BRISTOL STREET WIDENING PROJECT _ ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS CITY OF SANTA ANA 75Ce -77 Mocho Loam 0.2% Slone. Well drained, on alluvial fan or flood plains. Moderately alkaline and calcareous throughout. Moderately permeable. Effective rooting depth of 60 inches or more. Low - moderate shrink -swell potential. IRgh risk of corrosion to uncoated steel; low risk of corrosion to concrete. Water table is greater than six feet deep. Depth to bedrock is greater than 60 inches. Available water capacity is 9.5.12 inches. San Emigdio Fine Sandy Loam 0-2% Slone. Well drained, occurring on flood plains and alluvial fans. If soil is bare, runoff is slow and the erosion hazard is slight. Moderately alkaline and calcareous throughout. Moderately rapid permeability. Available water capacity is 7 -9 inches. Water table depth is greater than six feet. Depth to bedrock is greater than 60 inches. Low shrink -swell potential. High risk of corrosion to uncoated steel; low risk of corrosion to concrete. Riverwash. Unconsolidated alluvium, generally stratified and varying widely in texture. Runoff is generally rapid and the erosion hazard is high. Deposition and removal of alluvium is common. Hueneme Fine Sandy Loam, Drained. Nearly level, on large alluvial Can or flood plains. Water table has been lowered by pumping wells or construction of flood control channels and is now permanently below 60 inches. If soil is bare, runoff is slow and the erosion hazard slight. Available water capacity is 7 -9 inches. Effective rooting depth is 60 inches or more. Low shrink -swell potential. Fligh risk of corrosion to uncoated steel; low risk of corrosion to concrete. HENE;frl IM Two portions of Bristol Street in the project area are subject to significant flood hazard, according to the Flood Insurance Study for Orange County and incorporated Areas, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) on September 15, 1989. At the southerly end of the proposed project, from St. Gertrude Place to Warner Avenue, the project is influenced by a southeasterly trending area which is subject to overflow with a 1.0 foot flooding depth from a 100 -year flood from the Santa Ana River to the west (see Figure 12). At the northerly periphery of the project, Bristol Street is affected by overflow from the Santiago Creek Channel, which has the potential for overtopping its banks and the Bristol Street Bridge during a 100 -year storm. This channel is identified in the FEMA study as a floodway. III -7 75C -78 W To the west of Bristol Street, between Memory Lane and Santiago Creek, is an additional area subject overflow from the Santa Ana River; however, Bristol Street in this area is sufficiently elevated allowing avoidance of this potential hazard. Surface drainage aiong Bristol Street flows in a southerly direction, intercepted by catch basins at various locations along the street. It is anticipated that the existing drainage system pattern will not be changed due to the widening of Bristol Street. Therefore, the storm drain improvements will be limited to reconstructing new catch basins at existing locations and any new catch basins as required to eliminate cross gutters at major intersections, 5. Vegetation and Biotic Resources During early consultation efforts for the preparation of this document, contact was made with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Laguna Nigel Field Office, to determine the presence or absence of any federally listed rare or endangered species within the project area. In a letter dated November 7, 1985, they indicated that no such species were known to exist here (see page IX -30). Since so much time has passed since then, telephone contact was made with the same U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service field office on December 6, 1989. Mr. Jack Fancher of that office confirmed that there are still no known rare or endangered species in the project area, The study area does not contain any indigenous vegetation whatsoever and does not provide a meaningful habitat for any faunal species. Vegetation present consists of urban landscaping limited to lawns, street trees and ornamental plants and shrubs typical of a suburban neighborhood. Landscaped areas along Bristol Street are generally confined to residential yards, perimeter landscaping in some commercial centers, and the grounds adjacent to some public and institutional facilities. Due to the age of most development adjacent to the street, the landscape vegetation in the area is generally quite mature and, thus, many species have attained a large size. The quality of landscaping and level of maintenance deteriorate noticeably moving southerly along Bristol Street as the age of development generally increases and the integrity of former residential districts breaks down due to the encroachment of commercial uses. Landscaping in the public right -of- way is limited to intermittent plantings of street trees, most commonly consisting of queen palm trees which have been reoccurringly planted along the entire length of the street. 1 ' 75C -80 An assessment of the Santiago Creek Channel which crosses Bristol Street south of Memory Lane was prepared in March of 1987 for W11dan Associates by Dr. Richard Vogl of California State University Los Angeles. Dr. Vogl is a recognized specialist in wetlands biology. The following discussion is based on Dr. VogPs assessment. Santiago Creek in the vicinity of the Bristol Street crossing is without wetland features. The floor of the creek has a level rock, gravel, and sand bottom that is apparently graded from time to time by flood control maintenance. The creek bottom lacks a stream channel and is dry except when it receives storm runoff. The banks of the creek have been sloped, contoured, and covered with wire revetment. Typical wetland plants are absent. Weedy upland plants such as wild oats, wild radish, brome grass, black mustard, and curly dock temporarily invade the creek bottom between storm and grading disturbances. A few herbicide- resistant perennial plants such as Boston Ivy and Ice Plant grow on the creek banks. No native plants were found on the creek banks or bottom. Riparian (stream side) trees are missing. Wildlife values are low in this area. Wetland animals cannot be _ sustained in this portion of Santiago Creek. Use by wetland organisms is minimal and restricted, at best, to wet, rainy periods. 6. Air Ouality and Climate umma The project area is located within the South Coast Air Basin of Southern California. The air quality of the basin is determined by the primary pollutant emissions added daily and by the primary and secondary pollutants already present in the air mass. Oxidants (90 percent of which are ozone) represent the major air quality problem basin -wide. Ambient air quality within the project area is a function of the primary pollutants emitted locally and the existing regional ambient air quality. It is also determined by the meteorological and topographic conditions which influence the intrusion of pollutants into the area from sources outside of the immediate vicinity. The local climate is Mediterranean, affected primarily by the land /sea breeze. Average local temperatures range from 57° F. in January to 75.8° F. in July. Average annual precipitation is 12.5 inches. 111sul 75C -81 The South Coast Air Basin is a "non - attainment area ", due to the violations of federai air quality standards for carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen dioxide and total suspended particulates. California standards have also been exceed for suspended particulates and carbon monoxide. There have been recent improvements in regional air quality, due to control measures required on both stationary and mobile air pollutant sources. Long -range strategies in the Draft AOM? 1982 Revision are expected to further reduce basin -wide pollution levels. The proposed Bristol Street project is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). The air quality of the basin is determined by the primary pollutant emissions added daily, and by the primary and secondary pollutants already present in the air mass. Oxidants (90 percent of which are ozone) represent the major air quality problem basin -wide. The study area has a Mediterranean climate with warm summers, mild winters, and moderate rainfall. The land /sea breeze is the primary factor affecting the region's mild climate. The daytime winds are sea breezes predominantly from the west which flow at relatively low velocities. These sea breezes exhibit velocities below 15 mph approximately 96 percent of the time, and below 4 mph about half of the tithe, with an average velocity of 5 to 7 mph. During the night, the winds across the basin usually reverse direction. These land breezes flow from the east at 1 to 2 miles per hour.t Average monthly temperatures recorded in the vicinity of the APE[ at the Santa Ana Fire Station range from 57 degrees Fahrenheit in January to 75.8 degrees Fahrenheit in July. Temperature extremes range from a high of 101 degrees during August to a low of 36 degrees in December. Precipitation averages about 12.49 inches annually in the vicinity, with nearly 90 percent occurring between November and March.' t Source: SCAQMD "Air Quality Handbook ", December 1983. z Source: NOAH, "Climatological Data Annual Summary", 1985. III -11 75C -82 The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) maintains ambient air quality monitoring stations at numerous locations, the closest of which is in Anaheim, Ambient air quality data from this station is given in terms of state and federal standards which were adopted to protect public health with a margin of safety. In addition, California has adopted episode criteria for ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and sulfates in combination with ozone. Episode criteria represent short-term exposures at concentrations that threaten public health. The South Coast Air Basin has been designated a non - attainment area because of violations of the national ambient air quality standards for carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and total suspended particulates. Air quality trends which have developed at the Anaheim air quality monitoring station between 1983 and 1985 show that sulfur dioxide, sulfate, and lead have not equalled or exceeded the relevant state or federal standards. Oxidant (ozone) particulates, carbon _ monoxide, and nitrogen dioxide have exceeded the ambient air quality standards. Of all the pollutants monitored, ozone equals or exceeds the state and federal standards most often. The California one -hour ozone standard (0.10 ppm) was equalled or exceeded on 19 percent of the days .. monitored in Anaheim. The less stringent federal one- hour standard (0.12 ppm) was exceeded on 10 percent of the days monitored. The _ maximum one hour concentration measured was 0.30 ppm. Nineteen State One ozone episodes were called at the Anaheim station; 10 in _ 1983, 5 in 1984, and 4 in 1985. There were no Stage Two episodes declared for ozone. Suspended particulates exceeded the California 24 -hour standard of 100 micrograms per cubic meter on 4 percent of the days monitored at the — Anaheim station during 1983 and 1984. Suspended particulates were not monitored at this statiou during 1985. The less stringent federal 24- hour standard of 260 micrograms per cubic meter was riot exceeded. - The highest 24 -hour concentration measured was 215 micrograms per cubic meter (more than twice the state standard). The state and federal 8 -hour carbon monoxide standard (9 ppm) was equalled or exceeded on 1 percent of the days monitored at the Anaheim station. The 1 -hour state standard (20 ppm) and federal — standard (35 ppm) were not exceeded on the days monitored at this _. III -12 75C -83 station. The maximum 1 -hour CO concentration measured at the Anaheim station was 19 ppm (compared to the 20 ppm state standard). The state and federal lead standards were not exceeded at the Anaheim station. The one -hour state nitrogen dioxide standard (25 ppm) was exceeded on less than one percent of the days monitored at this station. The 24 -hour state sulfate standard (25 ug /m) was not exceeded at the Aaabeim station. Table 7 summarizes the health effects of air pollutants. Air Oualitv Manaeement Plan (AOMP) The Federal Clean Air Act and the State Lewis Air Qualitv Act require the preparation of a plan for the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) which will demonstrate the attainment of both the federal and state air quality standards at the earliest date achievable (1987) using all reasonably available control measures. The AQMP, originally adopted in 1979 and revised by the 1982 Draft (adopted in October 1982), is the SCAB'S plan to meet federal and state air quality standards. A revision to the AQMP was approved by the South Coast Air Quality Management District, the Southern California Association of Governments, and the California Air Resources Board, in late 1989. The plan has not yet been approved by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The 1989 AQMP identities the control measures available for implementation by 1993, as well as long range strategies to bring the basin into later compliance. These measures will meet the federal and state standards for nitrogen dioxide by 1996. The air basin is already in compliance with federal and state standards for lead. There will be continuous attainment of federal sulfur dioxide standards and state CO standards; however, violations will continue for particulates and ozone after the 2007 attainment deadline. Federal carbon monoxide standards are expected to be met by the year 1997. State sulfate standards, which are occasioaatly exceeded, will be addressed in the 1991 AQMP update, along with all other state air quality standards. Staff representatives of both the Southern California Association of Governments and the South Coast Air Quality Management District were contacted to determine how the new AQMP applies to this project. Their response was that the AQIvIP addresses only trans- portation projects of state -wide or region -wide significance, such as freeway and highway projects, new transportation corridors, mass transit Il11m] 75C -84 Table 7 HEALTH EFFECTS OF AIR POLLUT N751 1 Source: SCAQMD,'1983 Annual Summary' 2 Smoke is a British measure of particulate matter concentralion. Urfa 75C -85 r Concentration! Observed Health Effects Po Sutant Exposure Time at Speel}Ied Concentrations Ozone 0.25 pprrvl hour Increased frequency of asthma attacks. 0.30 ppmll hour Cough, chest discomfort and headache. 0.37 pprrV2 hour Decline in pulmonary functon in healthy individuals. Carbon Monoxide 15 -18 pprrV8 hour Can cause decreased exercise capacity in patients with angina pectoris. 50 ppnV1 hour Can cause impairment of time interval estimation and visual function, Nitrogen Dioxide 0.11 ppmlfew minutes Sensory responses may be elicited or altered. Daily peak exceeds May cause some impairment of pulmonary 0.45 ppm an 10% of function and increased incidence of days for 12 months acute respiratory disease. 1.50 ppm/Short term Can cause difficulty in breathing in healthy as well as bronchitk: groups. Lead Increase in blood lead levels which 3.2 u91m317 weeks may impair or decrease hemoglobin synthesis. Sulfur Dioxide/ 0.037 ppm SO May cause higher frequencies of Total Suspended annual average acute respiratory symptoms and Particulate association with diminished vantilatory function' (TSP) 100uglm3smoke 2 in children. 1 Source: SCAQMD,'1983 Annual Summary' 2 Smoke is a British measure of particulate matter concentralion. Urfa 75C -85 r proposals, etc. Local roadway improvements, such as the proposed Bristol Street widening, are not specifically addressed in the AQMP. Conformity criteria for local highway projects, such as the Bristol Street widening project, have not yet been developed. In conjunction with the Southern California Association of Govern- ments (SCAG), the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAOMD) prepares an annual 'Reasonable Further Progress Report", which evaluates the AQMP's progress toward the reduction and control of pollutant emissions to acceptable levels. This report is presented to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for review. The report describes basin -wide progress in reducing total hydrocarbons (THC) and carbon monoxide (CO) levels. Progress in reducing nitrogen dioxide levels was required in this report until a plan revision was submitted to the EPA in September, 1985. There have• been improvements in air quality despite the growth in population, motor vehicles, and fuel consumption in the four- county basin. Stage I ozone episodes have been declining at a rate of four per year since 1976, with an overall reduction of 33 percent between 1976 and 1985. The improvements can be directly attributed to the control measures required on both stationary and mobile air pollutant sources. One of the most important and significant control measures, an annual vehicle inspection and maintenance program, was signed into law on September 10, 1982. Of the 33 Transportation, Energy, and Land Use Control Measures implemented, the inspection and maintenance program produced the largest cumulative reduction for both THC and CO. This program decreased THC emissions by 14.2 tons per day and was responsible for 86 percent of the total THC emissions reductions. CO emissions were decreased by 95.6 tons per day with this rogram (76 percent of the reductions attributed to control measures).? After the first year of vehicle inspection, the CARS estimated that a 17 percent reduction in CO and THC emissions was achieved as a direct result of this program Based upon the adoption of an annual vehicle inspection and maintenance program, the EPA removed constraints affecting federally funded transportation and sewage treatment projects in California. ' Air Ouahty Dieest, July - August 1986, page 10. III -15 75C -86 �UIIM 1 _ 1 II I _ I . There are two sets of noise criteria that apply to the Bristol Street widening project. These include the federal noise criteria (promulgated by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWAJ) and the City of Santa Ana noise standards established in the Noise Element of the General Plan and the City's Noise Control Ordinance. Each set of criteria uses a different noise metric and a unique methodology of assess noise impacts. Federal Standards: The FHWA has developed a series of design noise levels for various activity categories which are expressed in terms of equivalent sound levels (Leq) or L10 values.' These design noise levels are commonly used in federally funded projects or projects for which federal review or Caltrans review is anticipated. The FHWA design noise levels incorporate trade -offs between desirable and feasible noise levels (recognizing that in many cases lower noise exposures would result in even greater community benefits). The - Federal -Aid Highway Program Manual, Volume 7, Chapter 7, Section 3 (FIRM 7.73) has established design noise levels for different activity categories. Residences, schools and recreation areas are in activity Category B which specifies an exterior design noise level of 67 dBA .- (Leq). Most commercial areas are in activity Category C with a corresponding design noise level of 72 dEA (Leq). The design noise rt levels are to be applied to: those undeveloped lands for which development is planned designed and programmed on the date of public knowledge of the highway or other federally funded construction project, those activities and land uses in existence on the date of public knowledge of the project; and those areas which have regular human use and in which a - lowered noise level would be of benefit. 1�u values are noise levels exceeded ten percent of the time. They are commonly used to express peak hour noise levels (since peak hour traffic volumes are typically 10 percent of the daily traffic volume). III -16 75C -87 The FHWA noise abatement criteria establish an exterior noise level for residential uses of 67 Leq. An interior level of 52 Leq applies where: 1) no exterior activity area is identified; or 2) the exterior activities are either remote from the highway or shielded in some manner so that they will not be significantly affected by the noise {but the interior activities will). When considering interior noise levels, FHWA encourages field measurements be taken, when practicable. Otherwise, the criteria apply to private yard areas and assume that typical wood frame homes provide a 10 dB (outdoor to indoor) noise reduction with windows open and a 20 dB reduction with windows closed. Within the project corridor, exterior activity area criteria apply for all affected residential uses. Under federal noise standards, traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted noise levels approach or exceed the noise abatement criteria, or when the predicted traffic noise levels substantially exceed the existing noise levels. City Standards: The City of Santa Ana General Plan Noise Element includes a series of goals, implementation policies and implementation programs related to land use compatibility with noise. The desirable maximum noise level for residential uses ranges from 65 CNEL for low density to 70 CNEL for high density. Commercial and office uses have a desirable maximum noise level of 65 CNEL and a maximum acceptable noise level of 75 CNEL. Industrial land uses have the same maximum acceptable noise level as commercial uses (75 CNEL) but a higher desirable maximum noise level (70 CNEL), In addition to the noise compatibility guidelines specified in the Noise Element, the City has adopted a Noise Control Ordinance (August 21, 1978) which specifies maximum noise levels which can be generated at the property line of residences, churches, schools and hospitals, as well as the procedure for identifying and resolving noise violations. The amount of exterior noise that can legally be generated is 55 dBA between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m., and 50 dBA between 10 p.m. and 7 am. I i. �.. Ambient noise levels in the project area are currently affected primarily by motor vehicle noise emanating from Bristol Street. The project site is far removed from public, military, and private airports, railroads, and other significant noise generators. However, the project area is subject to the sight and sound of aircraft utilizing the John Wayne /Orange County Airport. Fifteen noise measurements were taken by Endo Engineering (Decem- ber 1986) at thirteen representative locations along Bristol Street within III -17 75C -88 the project area. The measurement locations are illustrated in Figure 13. The measurement sites were selected as being representative of the noise sensitive receptors nearest to the roadway and therefore most likely to be affected by the proposed project All of the measurement sites are classified as activity areas where exterior design noise levels of 67 dBA (Leq) apply, The measurement sites include a high school track /field, a community college auditorium, two elementary school playgrounds, two multi- family attached dwellings and seven single - family residences. Sites 1 through 12 lie adjacent to Bristol Street, whereas Site 13 is one lot removed and therefore a second Line receptor. All measurements were located with respect to the existing right -of -way. Single - family residences at Sites 1, 5, and 6 Have front yards facing with direct driveway access onto Bristol Street. Both multi- family residential sites (3 and 7) and single -family sites 8, 9, 12, and 13 take access from side streets and have front yards facing away from Bristol Street. Traffic on Bristol Street was free flowing during all measurements with the exception of sites adjacent to major intersections where vehicle delay was significant Measurement 7 is considerably affected by this situation due to its proximity to the intersection and location adjacent to the southbound approach lane. Also note that mid -block noise levels are significantly greater than levels closer to the intersections since higher travel speeds are prevalent and noise generated from vehicles is highly speed dependent. Table 8 provides the ambient noise measurements at each site in .. decibels on the A- weighted scale, using the Leq noise descriptor. It also includes comments on the type of adjacent land use. Ten minute noise level recordings were used to represent the maximum noise level for a typical weekday evening peak hour period. Traffic counts were made during the noise measurements and the maximum Leq values shown in Table 8 include adjustments to reflect the peak hour traffic conditions. 11MU w 75C -89 ja 9� R 0 03 O 9 V - r a 1�� I �I W s w ... ,m. rtr� �a a� f. _ m 3 it c u I` RL !P- li� d _ • ck E3a 75C -909 4 ca w � u o C7 J Y C E CD 7 m N uJ z W MME ORNAP U w 0 a .rt Z z uU Q uj uU m O co y E m z zz Q U- 0 H U cn LU Q U W S O//'�� VJ J ��I/t� Q VJ S Q y Z Q J V* -�"m C;j 'III 9� R 0 03 O 9 V - r a 1�� I �I W s w ... ,m. rtr� �a a� f. _ m 3 it c u I` RL !P- li� d _ • ck E3a 75C -909 4 ca w � u o C7 J Y C E CD 7 m N uJ z W MME ORNAP U w 0 a .rt Z z uU Q uj uU m O co y E m z zz Q U- 0 H U cn LU Q U W S O//'�� VJ J ��I/t� Q VJ S Q y Z Q J V* .Mll NOLYN ]nv RAY u�*NW3 7 y W � ld ?1 ld N]m YIYO ltl 3HNY L■ 'a m 9 8� L Y ti r is LL LL C NNY L � lOtlLtl]O 'L■ RAY N]NtlYM L■ 18 tl1i LY 18 38 L9 alinvo m C a m FT. L m� L a9n L.vtl N3UG Yiaq 4 � lle..na 3 m 1IH go U) Lz w UJ = ' a V c�0 az H Z 0 Q � ca W U CD M LU a Q C/3 m m H W e N K RZ l a w ❑Z V J J W Table 8 Noise Measurements at Sensitive Receptors i Adjusted to reflect maximum one -hour Leq values based upon the peak hour traffic volume compared to the traffic volume during the noise measurement period. Source: Eado Engineering III -21 75C -92 Leq• lime of Lay Late Site (dBA) (PM) (1986) Comments -------------------------------------------- 1 71- 5:00 12/17 Front yard of mid -block SFD. 2 70 4:40 12/17 Elementary school playground. 3 66 5:17 12/17 Recreational area of MFD. 4 67 5:40 12/17 Community College auditorium. 5 72 6:00 12/30 Front yard of SFD, full street exposure. 6 72 6:07 12/17 Front porch of mid -block SFD. 7 73 5:25 12/30 MFA at Bristol right -of -way. 8 68 4:48 12/30 Corner SFD. 9 64 5:03 12/30 Rear yard of SFD; 5' block wall. 10 71 3:15 12/18 Track'field at high school; 3.5' above grade. 11 70 3:57 12/18 Elementary school playground. 12 70 5:40 12/18 Front yard of corner SFD. 12A 63 4:45 12/18 Rear yard of corner SFD; wooden fence. 13 63 4:57 12/18 Front yard of second line receptor. 13A 54 5:25 12/18 Back yard of second line receptor. i Adjusted to reflect maximum one -hour Leq values based upon the peak hour traffic volume compared to the traffic volume during the noise measurement period. Source: Eado Engineering III -21 75C -92 Measurement Site 1 was located in the front yard of a single - family residence. The residence lies mid -block on Bristol Street, 200 feet north of Santa Clara Avenue and is affected by changes in noise level due to the signal at this intersection. The measurement was taken 15 feet from the Bristol Street right -of -way and 5 feet from the front entryway of the house. This residence is representative of 10 other houses in the vicinity. Measurement Site 2 was located in the playground area of the Santiago Elementary School. The playground lies adjacent to Bristol Street and has full street exposure. There is an existing chain link fence separating the school grounds from the roadway. This fence provides no noise attenuation and is broken at two ends of the property for pedestrian access. The closest classroom to Bristol Street lies 275 feet from the Bristol Street right -of -way. Measurement Site 3 was selected at a muiti- family detached (MFD) dwelling complex in a common recreational area. The site was adjacent to a gazebo in an outdoor activity area, between two of the front residential units and 39 feet west of the Bristol Street right -of -way. A chain link fence, gated for pedestrian access, exists at the right -of -way. This noise measurement is representative of the noise level at 33 residences on Bristol Street between Santa Clara Avenue and Seventeenth Street. Measurement Site 4 was taken on the Rancho Santiago Community College Campus adjacent to the auditorium. The site was 70 feet from the Bristol right -of -way. A three -foot block wall at the right -of -way provides some noise attenuation but allows complete line of sight exposure to truck exhaust stacks. This block wall is also broken directly in front of the measurement site to allow for pedestrian access. The noise level measured at this site also reflects volumes on Seventeenth ` Street adjacent to this intersection. _. Measurement Site 5 was taken in the front yard of a mid -block single - family dwelling (SFD) at five feet from the Bristol Street right -of -way. This front yard area has full exposure to the roadway. The noise level at this residence is expected to be representative of noise levels at 16 similar residences along Bristol Street in the project vicinity. Measurement Site 6 was selected at an SFD that is a "worst case" receptor in this area. The site lies three feet from the Bristol Street right -of -way at a point 80 feet south of Seventh Street. The measurement was taken adjacent to the front porch. This outdoor activity area has full exposure to Bristol Street. Measurement Site 7 was taken adjacent to a four -unit, multi - family - attached (MFA) dwelling at 114 Bristol Street. The residence lies at 111-22 75C -93 the right -of -way, and an outdoor activity area is only possible in the side yard area. This area receives full street exposure from Bristol and First Streets since it is separated from First Street by a vacant lot. The site was located 60 feet from the First Street right -of -way. The intersection has a phased signal and traffic queue in front of this residence. Measurement Site 8 was selected in the front yard of a single- family dwelling on the southeast corner of Bristol Street at Raymar Avenue. The measurement was taken 11 feet from the Bristol Street right -of -way adjacent to a front porch. This residence is similar to eleven other houses in the project vicinity. Measurement Site 9 was taken in the rear yard of a comer house at Richland Avenue and Bristol Street. The site was located at an outdoor activity area on the patio in the rear yard which lies adjacent to Bristol Street. The site was 30 feet from the Bristol Street right -of -way and five feet from the rear entrance. The rear yard is separated from the roadway by a five -foot high block wall. This noise level measurement was assumed to be representative of sound levels in the vicinity that are currently attenuated by a five -foot block wall. Measurement Site 10 was selected at the Mater Dei High School track field which lies adjacent to Bristol Street, just south of Edinger Avenue. The track is raised 3.5 feet above grade and lies seven feet from the right -of -way. The measurement was taken when this field was in use to reflect the greatest noise impact on sensitive receptors. The measurement site was located at the edge of the track and separated from the roadway by a chain link fence. A bus stop on Bristol Street, located directly in front of this track /field, will contribute to the ambient noise level at this site. Measurement Site 11 was selected at the Jose Andres Sepulveda Elementary School on the west side of Bristol Street opposite Mater Dei High School. The site was at a playground for younger children, situated between a chain Link fence at the right -of -way and the school media center. The measurement was taken 16 feet from the right -of- way. The media center, the closest building to the roadway, is situated 62 feet from the right -of -way. Current plans include the relocation of this playground as a safety precaution (to increase the distance to Bristol Street). Measurement Sites 12 and 12A are located at an SFD on the northeast comer of Bristol Street at St. Gertrude Place. Site 12 was taken in the front yard 18 feet from the Bristol Street right -of -way. There is a stop sign on St. Gertrude Place in front of this site where vehicles queue during the peak hour. Site 12A was situated in the rear yard at an exterior living area, 30 feet from the right -of -way. The yard is enclosed with a 5.5 foot wooden fence that provides some noise attenuation. 75C -16'44 Measurement Sites 13 and 13A are located at an SFD which is one house removed from the corner of Bristol at St. Gertrude. This residence is. considered as a second line receptor since the comer house provides shielding which would be eliminated if the house was removed after right -of -way acquisition. Site 13 is located in the front yard at 70 feet from the Bristol Street right -of -way. Site 13A is located in the rear yard at an exterior activity area 90 feet from the Bristol Street right -of- way. A 5.5 foot high wooden fence separates this rear yard from the comer residential lot. From Table 8, it can be seen that noise levels at Measurement Sites 13 and 13A are significantly lower than levels at the first line receptor. Noise from motor vehicles is generated by the engine vibrations, the interaction between the tires and the road, and the exhaust system. Reducing the speed of motor vehicles reduces the noise exposure of listeners inside the vehicle and those located adjacent to the roadway. The highway traffic noise prediction model developed by the Federal Highway Administration (RD -77 -108) and currently being applied throughout the nation was used to evaluate current noise conditions at various points along Bristol Street within the project area. This model accepts various parameters including; the traffic volume; vehicle mix and speed; and roadway geometry in computing equivalent noise levels during typical daytime, evening, and nighttime hours. The resultant noise levels can then be weighted, summed over 24 hours, and output as' the CNEL value. Various CNEL contours are subsequently located through a series of computerized iterations w designed to isolate the critical contour locations. Noise contours were developed as a planning tool for local agencies. ` ' Cp Table 9 Current Exterior CNEL Exposure Adjacent to Bristol Street Roadway Link Current CNEL at Dist. to Contour (ft) (Speed) A.D.T.' 75 ft-2 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA Bristol Street (35, 40 mph) -N /O Warner Avenue 33,400 70 78 232 729 -N /O Edinger Avenue 31,900 69 57 161 502 -N /O - McFadden Avenue 35,700 69 62 179 562 -N /O Bishop Street 40,000 70 68 201 630 -N /O First Street 35,500 69 62 178 559 -N /O Santa Ana Boulevard 35,500 69 62 178 559 -N /O Fifth Street 36,700 69 61 183 577 -N /O Civic Center Drive 37,300 69 62 186 587 -N /O Washington Street 39,400 70 68 198 620 -N /O Seventeenth Street 42,800 71 95 296 934 -NlO Santa Clara Avenue 48.600 72 110 336 1,060 A.D.T. means 1987 average daily two -way traffic volume. 2 All distances are measured from the centerline. All contours ignore localized shielding effects. Source: Endo Engineering Tables 9 and 10 provide the predicted current CNEL and Leq levels adjacent to Bristol Street in the project area Assuming a noise reduction with a distance factor of 3.0 dBA with each doubling, and assuming no adjustment for local attenuation (houses, buildings, noise barriers, etc.), the distance to various noise contours used for land use compatibility purposes have also been determined and shown. The FHWA RD- 707 -108 noise model predicts noise levels based upon average traffic volumes, speeds, roadway width, truck mix, and distance to observers. Noise measurements reflect the actual conditions on one particular day at the location monitored. [Noise measurements can be strongly affected by weather, placement of traffic control devices, design and condition of the roadway, and topography. A comparison of the noise model predictions and the noise measurements can provide additional information about the affect of localized conditions on traffic noise. 11I -25 75C -96 Table 10 Current Exterior LEQ Exposure Adjacent to Bristol Street Roadway Link Peak Leq at I-zq Contour (ft) (Speed) VPHI 75 ft.= 67 dBA 62 dBA Bristol Street (35, 40 mph) -N /O Warner Avenue -N /O Edinger Avenue -N /O McFadden Avenue -N /O Bishop Street -N /O First Street -N /O Santa Ana Boulevard -N /O Fifth Street -N /O Civic Center Drive -N /O Washington Street -NIO Seventeenth Street 2,672 70 136 424 2,552 68 96 293 2,856 69 107 327 3,200 69 119 367 2,840 69 106 326 2,840 69 106 326 2,936 69 108 -336 2,984 69 110 342 3,152 69 117 361 3,424 71 172 542 PM peak hour 2 -way vehicle volume in vehicles per hour. a Distance was measured from the Bristol Street centerline. All contours ignore localized shielding effects. Source: Endo Engineering g, Visual Environment Bristol Street extends through a completely urbanized area consisting of an extensive mix of commercial and residential development. The area is characterized by a mixture of different building types as well as the haphazard mixture of old and new development. Residential and commercial areas alike possess a disjointed appearance typically encountered along urban arterials where development is composed of buildings of different types and ages. The age of development increases moving south along Bristol Street while, correspondingly, physical deterioration and maintenance deficiencies also rise noticeably. It is apparent that most of the subject segment of Bristol Street originally consisted of single- family residential development that has incrementally given way to commercial and other non - residential uses. In numerous instances, older, single- family residences along the street have been converted to commercial use. These conversions usually degrade the design quality of the building, resulting in an appearance which seems inappropriate to the use. More recent commercial 756-97 development also exists sporadically along the street, usually at the intersections with other major streets. The contrasts between old and new development are pronounced and further contribute to the disjointed and degraded visual appearance of the street, especially in the central and sootheM segments. Numerous common elements exist along Bristol Street which also serve to detract from the visual quality of the streetscape. These include an agglomeration of overhead utility lines (especially in the central segment of the street), billboards, poor quality signage, and non- uniform public improvements. The level of amenity encountered in the project area is generally low with only a minimal amount of area devoted to landscaping, site features, or embellished improvements. B. SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS neral Characteristics The City of Santa Ana is located within Orange County, a largely urbanized area contiguous to the Los Angeles metropolitan area. The 786 - square mile County has been subject to dramatically paced urban development and population growth over the past twenty years. The City of Santa Ana and particularly the study area, however, were largely developed during earlier decades. New development within the project vicinity is limited primarily to infill development and recycling of obsolete uses. The proposed project is contained within the Rancho Santiago Santa Ana which was established in 1810. The City of Santa Ana, the oldest City in Orange County, was founded in 1869. Orange County was subsequently formed in 1889 and Santa Ana was designated as the County seat. Today, Santa Ana remains the government center of Orange County and the strength and vitality of the Downtown Civic Center area is evidenced by the extensive redevelopment and beautification efforts made over the last few years, accompanied by substantial private investment in new financial and professional office developments. A recent important development in the regional significance of Santa Ana is the new multi -modal transportation center, located adjacent to the AT &SF trucks immediately south of Fourth Street. This facility will provide intercity travelers and regional commuters with immediate accessibility to express bus, rapid transit and intercity commuter rail services. III-27 75C -98 Table 11 Population Characteristics for 12 Census Tracts Adjoining Bristol Street Corridor z aracteristic Total Population Total Households Average Household Size Median Household Income % large ( +5) Households Total Families Average Family Size Median Family income Spanish /Hispanic Median Age % Older (Age 55 +) %a White Collar Occupation % Blue Collar Occupation Median School Years ' % High School Only " % Any College * % 2+ Vehicles /Households % Moved in between 1970 -1980 * Of the population age 25 or older. Source: Urban Decision Systems, Los Angeles, California 1. Ponulation ':1 54,020 15,279 3.4 519,785 24.5 12,054 3.79 $21,184 46.4 26.2 14.8 42.8 57.2 12.3 28.1 31.1 59.4 74.4 Table 11, above, provides data from the 1980 Federal Census, the City of Santa Ana Housing Element and otber state and regional planning sources, which describe characteristics of the population residing in the 12 census tracts which encompass the Bristol Street Study Area The immediate project area comprises less than 10 percent of the total area covered by the 12 census tracts. The City's 1984 Housing Element also indicates that, as of 1983, nearly half of all households in the City had annual incomes of less than 80 percent of the SMSA median, considered low and very low by both federal and state standards. Field observation confirmed this characteristic within the study area as well. III -28 75C -99 Total population City -wide is expected to continue growing steadily, to nearly 240,000 or by the year 2000.' Within the project area, however, it is unlikely that the population will grow appreciably over the next 13 years, due to the lack of available vacant land. This could change if Las high -. d- asit;, redevelopment projects occur. At *His * ^P the City has no such plans for the subject segment of Bristol Street, although several higher density housing projects are underway or planned in other portions of the City. Household sizes in Santa Ana, contrary to national trends, have been rising since 1976. This is largely due to the influx of large, ethnic minority families that have moved to Santa Ana during the last 10 years. This trend is expected to continue for the near future. The two major ethnic groups throughout Santa Ana and in the subject study area are Hispanic and Pacific Islander /Asian. Santa Ana Unified School District enrollment figures between 1976 and 1983 showed a steady increase in the student population by these two groups. October, 1984 data indicated nearly 68 percent of the students were of Hispanic origin, while nearly 12 percent were of Pacific Islander /Asian origin.2 It is estimated that at least 60 percent of all residents within the limits of the project area are of Hispanic or Pacific Islander /Asian ethnicity, with the Hispanic residents alone comprising somewhere between 40 and 50 percent of the total resident population. ' Hou5I Element, City of Santa Ana, June 25, 1984, page 26. 2 Housing_ Element, City of Santa Ana, June 25, 1984, page 28. 11I -29 75C -100 2. Housing Data taken from the 1980 Federal Census, the City's Housing Element and other state and regional planting agency estimates, reveal the foIlowing characteristics of the housing stock in the 12 census tracts which cover the Bristol Street Study Area, compared to the City -wide characteristics: Table 12 Housing Characteristics ' Data from Urban Decision Systems, Los Angeles, California, based on 1980 Census, unless otherwise indicated. a From the City of Santa Ana Housing Element, adopted June 25, 1984, unless otherwise indicated. 3 Based on field survey of the project area by Willdan Associates, September 1986. ° January 1, 1987 estimates by State of California, Department of Finance. 5 1980 Census data. 6 1988 Housing Assistance Plan. II I 75C -101 w w w w w 12- Census Tract Characteristics Area 1980' City-Wide2 Total Housing Units 15,804 72,629" % Single - Family 753 53.4° %a Multi - Family 253 42.44 % Mobilehomes 03 4.1° % Owner- Occupied 58.2 52.96 % Renter - Occupied 38.5 47.96 % Built 1979 -84 0 2 % Built 1970 -1979 18.5 17 Built 19604969 26.8 30 0/0 Built 1950 -1959 32.7 23 % Built 1949 or earlier 22 18 %a Sound Condition 503 84.65 To Substandard, but feasible to rehab. 503 9.25 %a Deteriorated, not feasible to rehab. W 63 %a Vacant Unknown (1986) 3.65° % Overcrowded Unknown (1986) 175 Median Housing Value (Non- Condo) $82,488 $79,167 (1980) ' Data from Urban Decision Systems, Los Angeles, California, based on 1980 Census, unless otherwise indicated. a From the City of Santa Ana Housing Element, adopted June 25, 1984, unless otherwise indicated. 3 Based on field survey of the project area by Willdan Associates, September 1986. ° January 1, 1987 estimates by State of California, Department of Finance. 5 1980 Census data. 6 1988 Housing Assistance Plan. II I 75C -101 w w w w w As seen in Table 12, most of the housing stock in the study area is fairly old and in need of repair. While the field survey identified approximately three- quarters of the dwellings along the Bristol Street Corridor as single - family structures, it is not known what the present division between owner and renter-occupied 'households is. in 27800, most (58.2 %) households in the 12 census tract area were owner- occupied. At present, however, it is more likely that most of the households in the immediate project area are renters, due to the high cost of for -sale housing and the large number of lower income households that have been moving into the City of Santa Ana. Vacancy rates within the City of Santa Ana and surrounding cities are all quite low at present, but the turnover rate, especially for rental units, is not ]mown. There are 326 total dwelling units presently found on the parcels adjoining the subject segment of Bristol Street. Of these, 171 are single - family units, 70 are within duplexes and 85 are located within a condominium complex. Most of the single - family units are found south of First Street, while all of the duplexes are found north of First Street. As described in the City's Housing Element, several programs are offered by the City to improve the condition of the City's housing stock. Loans and rebates are available to finance the rehabilitation of both single- family and multi - family structures. Code enforcement activities to detect substandard dwellings are being increased. In addition, the City is sponsoring or assisting in several programs to construct new housing units, predominantly for lower income households but also including owners, renters and various income groups. None of the new housing projects are proposed along the subject segment of Bristol Street. 3. Recreation Facilities Currently, there are no parks located within the proposed project area. The only recreational facilities which are located within the project corridor consist of school playgrounds. These playgrounds are located at the following schools: 1) lose Andres Sepulveda Elementary School, located at 1818 Bristol Street; 2) Santiago Elementary School, located at 2212 N. Baker Street; and 3) Mater Del High School, located at 1202 W. Edinger Avenue. These above - mentioned facilities and their associated impacts are discussed in detail in Sections 1V.Q of this document. Recreational facilities at these facilities include playfield areas, baseball diamonds, and various types of playground equipment. III -31 75C -102 4. Community Facilities Schools Four schools are located within the proposed project area right-of-way. These schools are Santiago Elementary School (located at 2212 N. Baker Street); Jose Andres Sepulveda School (located at 1818 S. Bristol Street); Rancho Santiago College Santa Ana Campus (located at 1530 W. 17th Street; and Mater Dei High School (located at 1202 W. Edinger Avenue). Santiago Elementary School consists of approximately 8.97 acres and has a current enrollment of 827 students in grades K through 5. This is a public school, under the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana Unified School District. Jose Andres Sepulveda Elementary School consists of approximately 7.49 acres and has a current population of 505 students in grades K through 5. This is also a public school, under the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana Unified School District. Rancho Santiago Community College - Santa Ana Campus consists of approximately 58 acres and has a current (census) enrollment of 20,465. This is operated by the State of California as part of its junior college system. - Mater Dei High School is a private, Catholic school, consisting ! of approximately 17.1 acres of land has a current population of 2,200 students in grades 9 through 12. It should also be noted that the Santa Ana Unified School District has initiated condemnation proceedings for the acquisition of property for _ the future Martin Luther King Jr. Elementary School planned within the 1000 block of South Bristol Street. The proposed school has anticipated student population of 915 and is scheduled to be operational in 1993. T D, py Care Centers / Prescbool Currently, there are three day care centers /preschools located within the proposed project area right -of -way. These day care centers/ - preschools include: 1) the Southwest Learning Center (located 810 N. Bristol Street); 2) Cano Headstart /State Preschool (located at 202 N, Bristol Street); and 3) the Children's Center - Preschool (located at 1003 N. Bristol Street). MUM Three churches are found within the project limits: — Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints, 2500 North Bristol Street -- United Evangelical Lutheran Church, 1406 South Bristol Street Johnson Chapel of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, 204 North Bristol Street and 1301 West First Street. The main sanctuary building and parldng lot is located at the 1301 West First Street site, while the CANO I-Ieadstart/State Preschool center operates at the 204 North Bristol Street site. The remaining community facilities have been discussed in various sections of this document. The specific sections are indicated below: Police, fire and medical facilities are discussed in Section III.B.S of this document. Electricity, gas, telephone, Cable TV, water, and sewer services are discussed in Section IH.C.6 of this document. Recreational facilities are discussed in Section III.B.3 of this document. UbraaFacilities Currently, no library facilities are located within the proposed project area. S. Emergency SQrvices Fire Protection Fire protection is provided in the City of Santa Ana by the City of Santa Ana Fire Department. Currently, the fire department has a staff of 206 full -time firefighters and 60 reserve firefighters. The department maintains a minimum of three persons per engine company and provides 52 fire suppression personnel (City-wide) at all times. The Santa Ana Fire Department currently operates nine (9) fire stations with an additional station under construction. The following list includes the existing fire station facilities by station number and location. 75C -1 N Station Number Location 1 1029 W. 17th Street 2 1668 E. 4th Street 3 419 S. Franklin Street 4 1427 S. Broadway 5 120 W. Walnut Avenue 6 950 W. MacArthur Boulevard 7 2317 S. Greenville Street 8 501 N. Newhope Street 9 (Currently under construction at Warner Avenue just west of Grand Avenue) 10 2301 N. Old Grand Avenue According to department personnel, men and equipment from Stations 1, 3, 4, 5 and 7 could be using Bristol Street at any time in the line of duty. Police protection is provided in the proposed project area by the City of Santa Ana Police Department. At present, there are 385 sworn officers assigned to the department and 33 reserve officers. The following is a listing of the existing police stations by station and location. Main Station 24 Civic Center Plaza Area A Substation 113 S_ Harbor Boulevard W Area B Substation 408 E. 4th Street Area C Substation 1400 W. McFadden Avenue Area D Substation 1760 S. Main Street None of these stations are located within the project area, however personnel from any or all stations would have cause to use Bristol Street as part of routine patrol as well as for emergency purposes. Medical Facilities At present, there are no hospitals located within the proposed project w area. However, the following medical facilities are noteworthy due to the fact that emergency medical vehicles frequently travel to and from " these facilities via Bristol Street. These facilities include Coastal Community Hospital located at 2701 S. Bristoi Street and University of California Irvine (UC1) Medical Center located at 101 City Drive, in the City of Orange. 75c -I65 W C. According to the Santa Ana Fire Department Paramedic Supervisor, Coastal Community Hospital is a paramedic receiving center. The UCI Medical Center is regularly utilized by both paramedic and ambulance services. With regard to ambulance services, the following ambulance services operate within the project area and repeatedly travel on Bristol Street to both Coastal Community Hospital and UCI Medical Center. These ambulance services are listed below by company and location. Comp Location Doctors 23095 Terra Drive, Laguna Hills Medix 661 W. First Street, Tustin Morgan 1533 E. First Street, Santa Ana Schaefer 2215 S. Bristol Street, Santa Ana Southland 10600 Katella, Anaheim In addition, the above mentioned ambulance services have indicated they regularly travel to the following locations: 1) Emergency Treatment Services (ETS); 2) Royale Convalescent Hospital; and 3) Royale Therapeutic Residential Center (TRC). All of these facilities are located at 1030 West Warner Avenue, just east of the proposed project area in the City of Santa Ana. 1. Land Use Existing land uses in the project area are graphically depicted on Figure 14, following. This information was developed through a walk - through survey of the entire project corridor during March and October, 1986. In general terms, the types of land uses found here include a mixture of residential, conuneMal, educational and public facilities. Most of the project area was developed between 1946 and 1956, the first decade following World War 11. During this period, Mater Dei High School was constructed, Santa Ana (now 'Rancho Santiago') Community College became operational and numerous commercial businesses were started. North of Seventeenth Street, citrus groves were converted to tract duplex housing and Honer Plaza and the Santiago Elementary School were built. The Santiago Creek Bridge was built in 1947. 75C -'06 a Z w a w J e d a SAN W20N103 f J_ Q J LL t Z O 0 w df W LL a ; z u o u III':: L �r I e e 4 e v U Z w 6 w O � Z 3 -"j 0 < d¢ LL�e 0 Z w O y v �- w U a w r a s J o C3 C0 !1J U� W oz VJ J C a QG 2 Q Z Q y� 2 J z w w w .n w } 6 � 71 J = z7 O 3 y N W p a o O Z W ¢ y F F LLI W O Wly ( 6 Q U V C7� J �'`I`lj�ryIm`I jII1`Ijj IWL 1111 I N�YI1M° 14 l it I� India MM1YM 3k1d 4 S !t lOHittNO iP;T— i 27INM1 1 .y It t11HY] 3 4OH414 7 M3AM1YY E�. OM�1gO1tl u .w,r 1NmN co W a U� Q a 0� co a 4 z aW Q= J m e J W 7 I— i LU 4 Q c ~ i o a ¢ L ; z z U- )< y W U—J u LU LU W U) m� W co W a U� Q a 0� co a 4 z aW Q= J m e J § § k 2` - ���)} ) k k) \ } q 2� � � »2 4 § §( 0 \ /| � \\ u� § § !41 19F § \� §� § a § m m ) § 5 ) } \ LL § @ L k ! § 2k ¢| D2 � 9-: LLF a LU .j 151 i 75C -1 „10 - uj D LL O 114 Im Z a. z ( '< z Z — LL W C) L) F- LLJ uj cc cn ... I 0 ca ca U) •LI L) 0 Cl) co Z < , z r The entire project corridor and surrounding areas are fully urbanized. Very few vacant parcels can be found. All utility facilities presently exist within the project area and there are no known capacity or service deficiencies which would limit new or redevelopment projects. The City of Santa Ana recently adopted a redevelopment plan project for an area which includes the Bristol Street Corridor. The objective of this plan is to gradually remove blighted conditions, assist in the redevelopment of new and more stable land uses, and help finance the Bristol Street widening project. An elementary school site is tentatively proposed to be developed at the northwest comer of Bristol Street and McFadden Avenue (presently a Chief Auto Parts store). Several major downtown area commercial projects, including office, retail, hotel, luxury apartments and federal court facilities are in the planning stages. In terms of land use regulations, the City of Santa Ana has recently adopted new General Plan policies and zoning standards to control the development and use of land throughout the City. Current General Plan Land Use Element and Zoning designations throughout the project area are shown on Figures 15 and 16, following. _ The City of Santa Ana General Plan provides the following policies for the future development of the subject Bristol Street Corridor: General Business Districts m This designation applies to those areas that contain or will contain the City's retail, professional office and service- oriented — businesses. This primarily applies to commercial development along major arterials such as Bristol Street and also where commercial uses are already well established. Such commercial - areas normally serve adjacent residential uses and general arterial traffic. A key policy which will guide future development in these areas will be the integration of land uses, pedestrian walkways, open space and building configurations. The General Business District (GBD) designation is the predominant land use category applied throughout the project corridor. The GBD designation includes the following portions of the project area: 1. Parcels abutting both sides of Bristol Street, between Warner Avenue and St. Gertrude Place; III -40 75C -111 0 N Y s F Z N w 3 o y w N w w s x h 2 J W t O fL i z o a :I€1VI 3A. MNIG3 /J �3AV Y3NKVM �WIT12- m -41 M U w Lu m z C5 CL �_ v a } F- uj m W w W z= VJ! Z i 0 cn X N W m nh mip a) Ud Z Q i uj LL 0 } _d N a UW 0 Y � Cn a U) = d� N Zm d 0 J 6 Z W 0 uj U N N N W 2 7 m a z W II Il�d � 1JwlYM m U 2 w F � LU < 4 cr z � tz3 o dS a IL a G r LZu�J � � U � LLJ h LL! Z 5 LL1 C7 O F— W 2 H Q ¢ ,Q YJ J cn Y Q N zW Q= o� _J o 0 r Z� w a O � � ¢ 2 y � m U {LL H 2 a 4 j ¢ N W W 3 z w p W 4 r F+f_a.q U ^ F- - Z U Z 6 O p W W a c� z 3 ar ; W Z� uj CO G c Q to �n W m m L Q z a N LL 0 r t U U3 LU F- a� UW Z O d (n < a y z¢ W a Y z ..J w In Z w 0 LLJ -j �l O Hill Tw mn 1 0 0 a lu m = Z E 0 r 4. go LIJ z LU a Z I LU L) LU O Q CL 0 z of LU W V) E ED W, z z U) LL 0 LU 0 CO 0) z JW cl Z LLI 0 w J i F z W O J < W O F S O J N 1 J W � F Y 2 J W f F O i W� � W � t 4 r � H J W eS D L b � _ � W 0 MIDI UlUvm 1 gvwF� III -45 W O; h� ae 0f _o N a � T Z_ Z 1 Q o Ne ZW H a co . X W U Lu Er IL a Z 3Q 7 LIJ lLE Q r N J O F- u7 Q m T a Z a a a LL V } h U W F- 0 {''n�ryry 6 V, a Q Z 41 Z W Q 2 J c m 6 LU __j ]% (2 R � j / � cc k § 2 d / § ( | ,OFF §§ �\ \� k§ uj � { � 2 < ! �} «| kz �§ � � 2f \�/ � � A2q ]% (2 R � j / � cc k § 2 d / § ( | ,OFF §§ �\ \� k§ uj � { � 2 < ! �} «| kz �§ � � 2 m > !2 Z > Cb cr) io s: z C) i CD I M IFS L h IN i R 750.11§ 0 0 z m m z 0 r m m z 0 Tn iR CD Cn m N m --1 0 Z Z rri z 14 =1 z Ito Z §4a i R 750.11§ 0 0 z m m z 0 r m m z 0 0 z W 0 W 6 � L Y z N W � < s ) h j z v � a y LL W JWJ 1 ) � 1 { W ❑ J W F _ � 1 N i L i J W 1 U 4 E w � � 2 w F U o �y h 75q_,119 w z W W zW rs T � nW Q° z� 0 i O; C7 zo X W� w uva z a I d z z CO z rte-) o > U r w�w vn 0 H CA V/ W 4N Q O'^� C'/^3 6 y! z Q W Q W Q � z J w J L w 2. All parcels abutting both sides of Bristol Street, from just north of St. Andrew Place to Martha Lane, at the south border of the Rancho Santiago Community College. The college is designated as Open Space, while all properties abutting the opposite side of the street, up to Seventeenth Street, are designated GBD; 3. The vacant parcels at the northeast corner of Bristol Street and Seventeenth Street; and 4. Honer Plaza, along the west side of Bristol Street, between Seventeenth Street and Twenty -First Street. KKITI This designation applies primarily to those areas in the City that have historically developed with a mixture of land uses, including retail, residential, and office or other service uses. Mixtures of commercial and multi -family residential uses, at densities of 22 - 35 dwelling traits per acre, will continue to be permitted. Muted Use Districts are generally located along major arterials. Mixed use nodes may also be located at the intersection of major arterials, especially where such intersections include commercial pockets that serve nearby low- medium density residential neighborhoods. Designated Mixed Use Districts within the project area include only the following areas: 1. Existing commercial uses behind properties abutting both sides of Bristol Street, fronting on Santa Ana Boulevard, Fifth Street and Sixth Street. Low Density Residential This designation implements a goal of preserving and enhancing low- density, single- family neighborhoods, at densities of up to seven dwelling units per acre. Within the project area, the Low Density Residential designation applies to the following areas: 1. Lots behind row of parcels abutting east side of Bristol Street, between Warner Avenue and St. Gertrude Place, which front on Magnolia Avenue; 2. Parcels abutting both sides of Bristol Street, between St. Gertrude Place and Mater Dei High School, just north of St. Andrew Place; 75C -TY6 3. Parcels behind properties abutting the east side of Bristol Street, between Seventeenth Street and Ninth Street, which front on Louise Street, 4. Parcels fronting on Civic Center Drive and Seventh Street, bebind parcels abutting the west side of Bristol Street; and 5. Properties abutting both sides of Bristol Street, between Seventeenth Street and Memory Lane, except for Honer Plaza, the vacant lots at the northeast corner of Seventeenth and Bristol, the Santiago Elementary School site and the City of Santa Ana Utilities Agency site adjacent to and south of Santiago Creek. Medium-Demity Residential This designation applies to properties primarily zoned R -2 and developed with duplexes, which serve as buffers between commercial development and low- density residential neighborhoods. Permitted density is up to 15 dwelling units per acre. The Medium - Density Residential designation within the " project area includes: Parcels fronting both sides of Sixth Street, behind parcels abutting the east side of Bristol Street; and w 2. Parcels fronting both sides of Sixth Street, behind parcels abutting the west side of Bristol Street. w Medium -High Density Residential This designation applies to areas that have been developed with multi -family uses. Permitted density is up to 22 dwelling units per acre. Medium -High Density Residential designations within the project area include: 1. Properties fronting on both sides of Third Street, behind parcels abutting the east side of Bristol Street; and 2. Properties fronting on both sides of Third Street, behind parcels abutting the west side of Bristol Street. The City of Santa Ana is currently reviewing development standards for several land use classifications, which are likely to result in modifications to floor area ratios, lot coverage, building bulk, streetscape structure, beight and lot consolidation standards which will affect future development along the Bristol Street corridor, 75C -1521 Many of the commercial uses in the project area consist of small, independent businesses conducted out of converted single - family homes. On -site parking is usually substandard and very little has been done to change the appearance, other than the installation of signs to identify the site a; a business property, inese small business uses are consistent with the current zoning designations, however, since they occur primarily between Edinger Avenue and 17th Street, where several blocks containing residential lots abutting Bristol Street were previously rezoned to the present commercial classification The most prevalent nonconforming uses in the project corridor are the many parcels containing their original residential use, which are now zoned for commercial uses and are therefore considered nonconforming. These parcels are found on both sides of Bristol Street, primarily in several concentrations between Edinger Avenue and 17th Street (See Figure 17). Article VI of the City of Santa Ana's Zoning Ordinance provides the following notable limitations on modifications to nonconforming uses: a. Normal repair and maintenance is allowed in order to maintain a building or structure in a safe and sound condition. b. A nonconforming use of land or buildings may not be expanded on the same or nearby property. Nonconforming uses within a building may not be expanded to any other part of the building. c. Non- couformiug uses may not be changed to another noncon- forming use. d. The conversion of a nonconforming residence to a permitted use in a commercial or industrial district must conform to all development standards for that use in that particular zone. e. While a nonconforming use of land or buildings exists, no other use(s), whether permitted or not, may be established on the same property. There are also a number of inconsistences between the City's General Plan and Zoning designations. They are described as follows: a. Permitted density (up to 15 du /ac) for R -2 zoned lots along both sides of Bristol Street, between St. Gertrude Place and St. Andrew Place, is inconsistent with the General Plan designation of Low Density Residential (up to 7 du /ac). Ill -51 75C -122 O z W (7 ui J w cc �— m L cc LL c Om UCc dz 9 a � 2 � N 0 e � � z w m Q r a w g IE O Z ° O � � 2 Z ° Vv F- 75C.423 w O m a. C7 7 z w n w w s U) U) O a Z z 4 N 0 H A co W Q 0� n Q w Q 3 0 2 w J O W 0 W J W LU J � a a a Q o w w i W O ¢ U (7 OZ z z a cc ¢ ¢ 0 0 LL z z O O O O z z 3N11 Ro"m Inv 3nv ' I 1 Lv I I a� q e m N 9 W ¢ ez o LL � z O� Z m o; z= E v° Npp L N U Z LW a CL z 0 z LL w 0 w w r y JIr UN 0 a z t d w i J w M9tl GNV ll N�NO iu i aaaxw3ia ' I 1 Lv I I a� q e m N 9 W ¢ ez o LL � z O� Z m o; z= E v° Npp L N U Z LW a CL z 0 z LL w 0 w w r y JIr UN 0 a z t d w i J w O Z LU (3 LU .i 03 z O as LU nc (D Z 0 LL z Z 0 z I ghil ROL EE Li &nmlvm 19 MOGtl■ 3w• n31 U) Uj z z Z LU z < LU 00 LU n 0 < 0- Z 2 z LL 0 US LU F— Z LU LLJ 2. cri —j 0 U) Uj z z Z 0 Z LU -j LLJ in LU cr 0 z m cr 0 O I MT- : F- 7 5 1-2 6= 111-55 cn -Z cn LL ii N 6= Z T LJ a. im im uj LU er W -j C cn cn U) LU 0 z o TT -TFM RL MT- : F- 7 5 1-2 6= 111-55 cn -Z cn LL ii N 6= Z T LJ a. im im uj LU er W -j C cn cn U) LU 0 z o b. R -2 zoned lots along both sides of Bristol Street, between Cubbon Street and Camille Street, are inconsistent with the General Plan designation of General Business District, which does not provide for stand -alone residential uses, C, The C -5 and R -I zoning of the south parking area of the Santa Ana College is inconsistent with the General Plan designation of District Center. L All but one of the R -2 zoned lots and all but one of the R -3 zoned lots, between 17th Street and Eim Street, are inconsistent with the General Plan designation of Low Density Residential. The R -3 zoned parcel at the southwest corner of Bristol Street and 21st Street is inconsistent with the General Plan designation of General Business District, The R -2 zoned lot just north of 17th Street on the east side of Bristol Street is inconsistent with the General Plan designation of General Business District. 2. Tax Base Tax revenues within the project corridor are produced from two main sources: property taxes and sales taxes. Property taxes are levied on all private and nonexempt parcels. Exempt properties within the project area include: four churches, one private and three public school sites, and a City of Santa Ana Utilities Agency Yard. Sales tax generators in the project corridor include eight (8) gas stations and a variety of retail businesses. The major source of sales tax - revenues is the Honer Plaza, an approximately 38 -acre commercial and shopping center located at the northwest comer of Bristol Street and 17 Street. The second major concentration of sales lax generators is the neighborhood commercial center located along the west side of Bristol Street, between Wilshire Avenue and McFadden Avenue. Other - concentrations of retail sales tax generators include: a neighborhood center and adjacent shops, at the northwest comer of Bristol Street and Warner Avenue, a small collection of shops and a retail nursery at the southwest corner of Edinger Avenue and Bristol Street and an auto sales lot at the northwest corner of Edinger and Bristol Street. 3. Household Income The estimated Citv -wide median bousehold income in 1985 was $24,446. This is mulch lower than the median household income estimate for the Anaheim - Santa Ana - Garden Grove Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area, reported for July, 1986 as $36,800. Within the subject project area, household incomes are estimated as being comparable to the City- wide median, with more than half of the households earning less than the median for the PMSA III -56 75C -127 :3 R Labor Force 1980 U. S. Census statistics for the 12 census tracts that cover the total project corridor, contained the following distribution of occupations: Crafts Percentage of Occupation Total Labor Force Professional /Technical 11.3 Managerial /Proprietor 8.8 Clerical 14.6 Sales 8.1 Total White Collar 42.8 Crafts 15.0 Operatives 19.6 Service 12.6 Laborer 6.7 Farm Workers 3.3 Total Blue Collar 57,2 Current unemployment figures for this particular area are not available. Based on field observations, however, it is estimated that the unemployment percentage for the project area is higher than that for the entire City and most certainly higher than the County as a whole. Within the project area, there are no major industrial sites. There are several small quasi- industrial uses such as a metal polishing and plating shop and a few automotive repair services. A number of professional and personal service businesses operate within the boundaries of the project area. These consist primarily of small, one -three employee operations, offering medical, dental, personal care, financial and children day care services to local residents. Utilities Electrical Service Southern California Edison Company (SCE) is responsible for the provision of electrical service to businesses and residents in the City of Santa Ana. Electrical transmission facilities along Bristol Street predominantly consist of overhead utility lines and poles with the exception of two underground sections. The following list of aerial and underground facilities was obtained through telephone conversations EU -57 75C -128 with a Southern California Edison Service Planner and subsequent field review of the proposed project area: Aerial west side of Bristol Street from Memory Lane to approximately Santiago Creek. east side of Bristol Street from Santiago Creek to approximately 200 feet north of 17th Street. west side of Bristol Street from Washington Avenue to First Street. east side of Bristol Street from First Street to McFadden Avenue. west side of Bristol Street from Edinger Avenue to Warner Avenue. Mi =6_4 east side of Bristol Street from approximately 200 feet north of 17th Street to Washington Avenue. east side of Bristol Street between McFadden Avenue and Edinger Avenue. In addition to the above - mentioned facilities, there are some incidental underground facilities located at various locations along the roadway. The exact location of these facilities will be identified by the Edison Company when final construction plans are made available. Natural Gas Southern California Gas Company is responsible for the provision of natural gas to businesses and residents in the City of Santa Ana. The proposed project area is served by an underground pipeline located within the existing Bristol Street right -of -way. The natural gas pipeline is situated within the westerly side of the Bristol Street right -of -way varying in location from 5 feet to 42 feet from the existing property lines. According to Southern California Gas Company, the pipeline is located at an average depth of 36 inches and consists of primarily 8 -inch and 8 5/8 -inch diameter lines with some 10- inch diameter sections. Additionally, a series of lateral lines carry natural gas directly to the individual properties along Bristol Street and vary in size from 3/8 inch to 3 inches in diameter. These lines serve M -58 75C -129 the local businesses and residents located along Bristol Street and adjacent development on nearby cross streets. Sewers Sewer lines carrying sewage flows from north to south edst at various depths beneath Bristol Street for the entire length of the project area and beyond. The sewer lines are large (ranging from 18" to 24" in diameter), and no deficiencies in capacity exist nor are anticipated in the near future. The various segments of sewer litre beneath the street are under a combination of ownership by either the City of Santa Ana or the Orange County Sanitation District. From Memory Lane south to Santa Clara Avenue, the sewer line is an 18" vitreous clay pipe (VCP) owned by the City of Santa Ana. Between Santa Clara Avenue and Myrtle Street, the sewer line is owned by OCSD and consists of VCP which enlarges in diameter from 18" to 21" to 24" as the line proceeds south. From Myrtle Street south to Warner Avenue, the sewer line under Bristol Street again comes under City ownership and steps down in size. .South of Myrtle the sewer line is 14" in diameter enlarging in size to 16 ", 21 ", and eventually 24" by the time the line reacbes Warner Avenue. There is also a small 6" diameter line which serves the properties on the east side of Bristol Street between St. Gertrude Place and Warner Avenue. Upon leaving the project area, the sewer line continues south beneath Bristol Street, merging with other lines and incrementally increasing in size. Sewage from this line is directed to a larger line which carries flows west beneath Alton Avenue, eventually exiting the City and carrying sewage downstream for treatment. In addition to the sewer line which runs along Bristol Street for the length of the project area, there are several east -west lines which cross beneath Bristol Street at numerous laterals which serve the properties fronting upon the street. Water Water mains run beneath Bristol Street for the entire length of the project area. These are generally 12" diameter lines with the exception of a 1p" line which runs between Memory Lane and Santa Clara Avenue, and two 4" lines which run between 17th Street and Civic Center Drive and between First Street and McFadden Avenue. Larger mains (12" diameter) run adjacent to the 4" lines for most of the segment lengths served by the smaller lines, resulting in duai lines beneath these street segments. There are also numerous laterals to provide service to properties along Bristol Street and various east -west mains which cross beneath the street. The water lines in the area are presently considered adequate with no known problems. In addition, a Metropolitan Water District transmission line, ranging in size from 33% 36" in diameter, runs beneath Bristol Street for the entire length of the III -59 75C -130 project area. A water reservoir and hydrogeneration station are located adjacent to the east side of Bristol Street just south of Santiago Creek near the northern limits of the project area. An enlarged reservoir and pumping station at this facility are currently trader study by the Santa Ana Public Works Agency. .I(IMb . Telephone service in the project area is currently provided by Pacific Bell Telephone Company, The telephone company currently maintains both overhead and underground telephone facilities along Bristol Street. Aerial facilities are generally located north of Santa Clara Avenue and south of First Street and include poles, overhead cables, drip wires, and cross- connect boxes. Underground facilities are located at various locations along the length of Bristol Street and include buried cables, duct structures and manholes. A large twenty -four duct structure rugs along the west side of Bristol Street from 6th Street to Warner Avenue in two parallel conduit structufes. Cable Television Cable service to the proposed project area is currently provided by the Comcast Cabtevision Company, located at 1400 N. Main Street in the City of Santa Ana. According to Comcast's Construction Supervisor, cable facilities are located within the proposed project area. The lines are located predominantly on overhead utility poles with a couple of drops to ground level to feed underground facilities. Cable lines generally follow e3dsting Pacific Bell and Southern California Edison poles. �i[ifN��.[��i1.�`�� .'�IE�lICi7.�iL• iii :i:GY7il��L� The purpose of this section is to describe the paleontological, archaeological and historical resources e7dsting along Bristol Street between Warner Avenue and Memory Lane in the City of Santa Ana. For the purpose of historic assessment, the project was limited to the first row of properties fronting on Bristol Street in the segment between Warner Avenue and Memory Lane. A Historic Property Survey Report, which is available from the City Public Services Agency, was prepared for this project by Willdan .Associates. The archaeological and historical assessments were completed by RonaId M. Bissell, an Orange County Certified Archaeologist, Additional research and evaluation related to a possibly significant building was conducted by Mr. Roger Hatheway, architectural historian. The paleontological assessment was accomplished by Mr. Rodney E. Raschke, an Orange County Certified Paleontologist. In addition, a historical records search was completed by the ID -60 - 75C -131 UCLA Archaeological Survey which included a map and record search of the APEI and vicinity. The following paleontological information was compiled by Mr. Rodney E. Raschke, an Orange County Certified Paleontologist, and is based on a review of the published and unpublished locality records of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County and the Natural History Foundation of Orange County. A review of the latest published geological map of the area revealed that Bristol Street, between Warner Avenue and Memory Lane is underlain by Quaternary Alluvium. Typically, these deposits are less than 10,000 years old, which makes them geologically too young to contain important fossils. There are no confirmed reports of fossils from these deposits in the Santa Ana area or APEI. There are unconfirmed questionable reports of the remains of "ice age" animals supposedly recovered from alluvial deposits. However, no fossils are currently available to support these reports. Therefore, based on the characteristics of the Quaternary Alluvium underlying the APEI, it was determined that a field review of the APEI was unnecessary. As a part of the Archaeological assessment for this project, a letter was sent to the UCLA Institute of Archaeology requesting an archaeological records search of the APEL This search involved a review of all maps and records on file at the UCLA Archaeological Survey relevant to the APEI. This search revealed that Mr. Ron M. Bissell and Mr. Ronald E. Raschke had completely surveyed the area for historic, archaeological, and paleontological resources. The letter also indicated that Mr. Bissell's report contained the most up -to -date data on what is currently known about this particular section of Bristol Street. Furthermore, the letter indicated that the reports adequately described the cultural sensitivity of the APEI and clearance is recommended if their recommendations are followed. More specifically, Mr. Bissell's report on archaeological resources, included a field review of the entire project corridor to observe the limited undeveloped surface areas, and an extensive research of available archaeological literature for the area. A literature review established that the APEI had never been pre- viously examined for archaeological remains and that no archaeological sites had been recorded in the immediate vicinity of the APEI. During the field work for this project all open areas fronting on Bristol Street were examined for archaeological remains. Most of the inspected W -61 75C -132 areas were highly disturbed by past urbanization /construction activity. No archaeological remains were discovered during this field inspection. Tberefore, at this time, there is no basis for assessing the archaeological potential of the APEI and there is presently no means of developing the data necessary for such an evaluation. 3. Historical Resources The first step in the effort to identify historic properties in the proposed project area involved an examination and recording of: 1) address of each structure; 2) approximate age of each structure as determined by architectural style condition and other factors; and 3) obvious modifications. The next step was to examine public records such as the building permit Les of the City of Santa Ana to determine the true date of the structures. Residences which were clearly less than fifty (50) years of age and exhibited no notable features or history were eliminated from further research. Parcel numbers and current owner information for those buildings exceeding 50 years of age was obtained from the records of the Orange County Assessor. The final step was to examine archival resources to establish a general history for the proposed project area and to determine if noted historical figures had been associated with any of the structures for which evaluation forms had been prepared. None of the structures within the proposed project area are listed in the • National Register of the California Inventory of Historic Resources. However, numerous structures were found to be over 50 years old, one aspect of National Register consideration. Of these, only the Walker - Residence, located at 1248 West Bishop, was determined to possess sufficient architectural and historical significance to merit further review in accordance with National Register criteria. No other structures less -� than 50 years old were found which would be eligible for listing in the National Register. In recognition of this preservation potential, a Request for Determination of Eligibility (for National Register listing) was prepared. In consultation with the State Historic Preservation _ Officer (SHPO), however, this structure was found not to be eligible for National Register listing (see letter from SHPO, dated May 9, 1988, page XI -1). T The existing transportation network in the City of Santa Ana is comprised of a general pattern of arterial, collector and local streets which provide circulation through the City and access to individual properties. With regard to freeways, the City is situated between four major freeway systems: 1) Garden Grove 75C -bt (22) Freeway to the north; 2) Newport-Costa Mesa (55) Freeway to the east; 3) San Diego (405) Freeway to the south; and 4) Santa Ana (5) Freeway to the northeast. None of the above mentioned freeways cross the proposed project area. MpVl Yv e vt ry wvre D a�td iLLlt µL�h County Transit District (OCTD). The proposed project area is served by bus routes 49, 56 and 57. Currently, there are 40 bus stops located within the proposed project area, 20 northbound and 20 southbound. Total passenger activity for the month of January, 1987, was approximately 2,938 persons northbound and 2,977 persons southbound. Rail transit in the City of Santa Ana is provided by two major railroad companies. These companies include the AChison Topeka and Santa Fe (AT &SF) railroad and the Southern Pacific (SP) railroad. The following is a brief discussion of each of the above mentioned railroads. 1. The Southern Pacific Railroad - enters the City of Santa Ana (north of the project area) at the Santa Ana River, passes through the City of Santa-Ana Regional Transportation Center (located at 10Q0 E. Santa Ana Boulevard) and continues in a southerly direction to approximately Adams Street, then continues southwesterly across Bristol Street (south of the project area) along Alton Avenue and continues south to the City limits. Daily operation includes three (3) freight trains and two (2) road switchers. 2. Achison Topeka and Santa Fe - enters the City of Santa Ana (northeast of the project area) at Santiago Park, continues south `and passes through the City of Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center and continues in a south - southeasterly direction to the City limits. Daily operation includes two (2) road switchers (who handle industrial switching), two (2) freight trains, and 14 Amtrak passenger trains (7 northbound and 7 southbound). The Santa Ana Regional Transportation Facility (RTC), located at 1000 East Santa Ana Boulevard, offers a wide variety of transportation services. The Center combines Amtrak rail, Orange County Transit District bus service, Greyhound and Trailways inter -city and interstate bus transportation, Camino Real Express bus service between Orange County and Tijuana Airport, Luxe Livery airport shuttle and limousine and taxi services. The Circulation Element of the City of Santa Ana General Plan does not show an existing or proposed bicycle trail along Bristol Street, within the proposed project area. However, the Element includes a proposed on- street bike path along Edinger Avenue. This path has not been constructed and is no longer being considered because of a change in City policy. When the Circulation Element is updated, the Edinger Avenue bike path designation will be removed. There is minimal bicycle use on Bristol Street, due to the existing traffic congestion. 75C uJ_A4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND MITIGATION MEASURES 75C -135 IV - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND MITIGATION MEASURES This section contains an analysis of the impacts which can be expected upon the implementation of the preferred alternative. Where feasible or practical, measures have been identified for inclusion in the project which will mitigate the severity of the identified impacts. Section VII.0 of this document discusses the significance of any impacts identified which cannot be mitigated to insignificant levels. Several technical studies have been prepared to provide the technical basis for this environmental document, and are hereby incorporated by reference. These specialized studies, which are listed below, are available from the City of Santa Ana Public Works Agency, 101 West Fourth Street, Santa Ana, California 92702. Traffic and Circulation Impact Analysis, Willdan Associates, May 1987 Historic Property Survey Report, Willdan Associates, May 1987 Draft Relocation Impact Study, Willdan Associates, February 1988 Air Quality and Noise Technical Studies, Endo Engineering, May 1987 Biological Assessment for Santiago Creek Channel, Dr. Richard Vogl, March 1987 Evaluation of Existing Bristol Street Bridge at Santiago Creek, Willdan Associates, December 1986 A. LANDFORM MODIFICATION Consequences The preferred alignment would not result in any significant modifications to the present landform in the project area. Construction of new pavement, curb, gutter and sidewalk will result in virtually no changes to the current shape, direction and elevation of the ground surface in the study area. In fact, probably all areas that will be disturbed during street construction activities have previously been disturbed. New landscaped berms, two to four feet in height, could be introduced into the proposed parkways along both sides of Bristol, constituting a different surface IV -1 75C -136 relief feature than is currently found. The effect of such berms will be primarily visual and a positive aesthetic effect. Mitigation Measures No significant landform impacts will occur with the preferred alternative; therefore, no mitigation measures are needed. B. SEISMIC HAZARDS I ' As discussed in Section III-A.2 of this report, although unlikely, seismic hazards that could affect the project area involve the potential for subsidence and liquefaction. Figure 10 graphically illustrates the location of those portions of the project area that could be affected by such hazards. Since subsidence and liquefaction phenomenon involve soil settlement and loss of soil cohesion, damage to buildings and structures, especially habitable and .- critical structures such as hospitals, reservoirs, schools, etc., are of most concern during such events. The proposed project involves no building construction. The Santiago Creek Bridge lies within an area considered to ., have a high potential for subsidence. At this time, it is not known whether the bridge supports were designed and constructed to withstand such an event. r The potential for subsidence induced damage to this bridge therefore exists. ., Displacement of utility poles, street lights and traffic signal devices may occur within the potential subsidence and liquefaction hazard areas. These activities could occur with the preferred street widening alternative. If not anchored properly, such structures could become loose and wobbly and may collapse during subsidence and liquefaction events. Street pavement, curb, gutter, and sidewalk could buckle and crack if a strong seismic event stimulated subsidence and liquefaction in the project area. Loose utility poles, traffic signals and street lights, along with cracked and buckled pavement, curb and sidewalks could result in safety hazards to pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicular commuters in the areas. Although the potential for subsidence or liquefaction events in Santa Ana is considered low, such consequences as described above .. could occur with the preferred alternative. Typically, utility poles, street light poles, traffic signal devices, etc. are not t designed to withstand such seismic events. This is due to the fact that such structures are not considered critical, as compared to a hospital, school, etc. It is also due to the extraordinarily higher costs of removing and replacing subsurface materials with subsidence /liquefaction characteristics or with constructing extensive footings that reach down to stable subsurface material. IV -2 75C -137 r The proposed project would result in the removal of a number of buildings and structures that do not meet current safety standards. This would be a beneficial consequence in terms of reducing the number of unsafe buildings in the area. Mitigation Measures 1. As part of the engineering and preparation of design plans, structural and soils engineers will be retained to determine the structural stability of the Santiago Creek Bridge, with regard to a potential subsidence event. These assessments will include recommendations, if needed, to provide adequate structural support for the bridge. 2. Consideration will be given to installing and replacing surface level structures such as street lights, traffic signals and utility poles, with structures that have extensive subsurface footings that reach stable material. C. EROSION IMPACTS Consequences Erosion of barren rock and soil surfaces uncovered during excavation could occur under any of the street widening alternatives. Any such erosion would be very minor, due to the slight gradient that exists throughout the project corridor and the relatively small amount of rock or soil surfaces that would be expected. Erosion potential with the banks of the Santiago Creek is primarily a function of the intensity and frequency of storm waters occurring during the rainy season. Reconstruction of the bridge supports, if needed, would occur only during the dry season and would not result in greater erosion of the stream bed than under normal conditions. Mitigation Measures 1. If reconstruction of the Santiago Creek Bridge supports is determined to be necessary, construction activities will be limited to the dry season. Design and construction will be coordinated with the Orange County Environmental Management Agency and the State Department of Fish and Game. 2. Straw or other suitable materials will be placed over uncovered soils, as needed, during street construction activities. This would reduce the amount of erosion. 1V -3 75C -138 3. Temporary culverts, ditches, catch basins, dams and settling ponds will be installed in the street construction areas to maintain existing Wro n... fln- and to cnilect excess water and sediments flowing out of " the construction sites. Sediments collected will be disposed of at a - Class II or Class III disposal site. As identified in Section III.A.4 and Figure 12, two portions of the project area are subject to flooding from a 100 -year episode storm (designated as Zone "A" by the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). The risks associated with the Santa Ana River floodplain at the southerly periphery of the project area and the Santiago Creek are minimal. Please refer to Sections III.A.5 and 1 V.G for further information on biological resources. The widening of the Santiago Creek Bridge would entail very minor encroachments into the creek, which will not affect the floodway as long as the existing bridge elevation is maintained. Please refer to the discussion of the bridge improvements in the following section concerning streambed modification. The proposed Santiago Creek Bridge improvements will be designed so that those portions encroaching into the regulatory floodway will .. be consistent with the standards established in FEMA's Flood Insurance Study (September 15, 1989) and administered by the City of Santa Ana. The project is not a longitudinal encroachment into either of the two flood plains and the project will not affect probable incompatible floodplain development. There are no significant impacts on natural and beneficial floodplain values, including biological resources. The proposed action does not constitute a significant floodplain encroachment, nor a significant effect on a regulatory floodway. Mitigation Measures Routine construction procedures will be implemented to minimize impacts to the floodplains. With regard to the bridge over Santiago Creek, the design will consider the possibility of the Creek overtopping its banks and will be designed to withstand such an episode. There are no special mitigation measures necessary to minimize impacts or -, restore and preserve natural beneficial floodplain values. IV -4 75C -139 The three proposed alternatives envision widening of the existing 53 -foot wide bridge across Santiago Creek to accommodate six through travel lanes. A bridge evaluation report prepared by Willdan Associates in 1986 indicates that it is feasible to widen the existing bridge in lieu of replacing it entirely. Although the specific design for the widened bridge has not been developed at this stage, it is envisioned that the bridge will be widened to nearly 120 feet consistent with the proposed street right -of -way, thereby encroaching into further portions of the Santiago Creek streambed. Based on a preliminary evaluation of the live load carrying capacity of the existing bridge structure, it appears that the existing bridge will not have to be rebuilt as part of the total bridge widening effort. An additional bridge span, adjacent to the existing bridge, is presently contemplated as the probable means of widening the bridge. This would be accomplished by either a single - span or double -span bridge structure; neither bridge design would require any fill within Santiago Creek. A single -span bridge would be supported by abutments located atop the creek banks on either side of the creek. A double - span bridge would include a central pier support within the creek bottom, in addition to the two abutments atop both sides of the creek. The central support would be sunk deep below the level of the creek bottom and would require no fill. Any minor reduction in the creek capacity resulting from the expansion to the bridge would be replaced by either raising the level of the bridge or by widening the sides of the creek. In consultation with the United States Army Corps of Engineers, it was determined that the proposed bridge construction will be covered under the nationwide permit for discharges of dredged or fill material into non -tidal rivers, streams, and their lakes and impoundments, including adjacent wetlands, that are located above the headwaters, which would cause the loss or substantial adverse modification of less than one acre of such waters (Section 330.5 (a)(26)(i)) of the Federal Clean Water Act. As long as the City complies with specific nationwide permit conditions in Section 330.5 (b), an individual permit is not required. Bridge construction plans will also be submitted to the California Department of Fish and Game, Region 5, to determine whether a Streambed Alteration Permit will be required, pursuant to Section 1601 of the State Fish and Game Code. If so, plans will incorporate the applicable permit requirements. As indicated in Section III.4.5, Dr. Richard Vogl, a recognized wetlands expert, prepared an assessment of the Santiago Creek channel's biota. The following impact discussion is based on Dr. Vogl's analysis. IM 75C -140 Widening or reconstruction of the Bristol Street bridge is not expected to have impacts on the minor biological features of Santiago Creek The wetland — features of Santiago Creek and the wetland features that formerly existed on this creek have been previously destroyed when the seek was stabilized and channelized. Activities during the construction phase of the bridge - widening are not expected to impact adjacent or downstream wildlife values. The greatest impact will be to the ornamental plants that exist on the road .- shoulders adjacent to the bridge. At least three large blue gum trees on the southwest shoulder, a large Italian stone pine on the northwest shoulder, and one medium -sized sycamore tree on the southeast shoulder of the bridge will have to be removed to accommodate the bridge and street widening. Their removal is not expected to produce negative biological impacts. Mitigation Measures 1. Replacement of tree plantings will occur on those shoulders without surviving trees. _ 2. Bridge widening design and construction will comply with applicable requirements of the "nationwide permit" provisions pursuant to the Federal Clean Water Act and with applicable requirements of a Streambed Alteration Permit issued by the California Department of Fish and Game. F. WATER QUALITY M Consequences Construction of the preferred widening alternative would not directly affect the quality of local groundwater or other water sources. Street construction activities typically involve very shallow excavation, reaching maximum depths of about one or two feet. Throughout the subject segment of Bristol Street _ (except Santiago Creek), depths to groundwater are greater than five feet. Within Santiago Creek, depth to groundwater is somewhat shallower, especially during the rainy season, but the absence of any typical wetland vegetation or wildlife indicate that depth to groundwater in the creek bed is not shallow. Reconstruction of the Santiago Creek Bridge supports, if needed, would be accomplished during dry months, thus minimizing any disturbance to ground water. If not controlled, sediments and urban run -offs occurring during street widening activities could result in contaminants being added to downstream waters, where the street drainage system ultimately flows. N -6 75C -141 WMITMI U- 1 1. Temporary culverts, ditches, catch basins, dams and settling ponds will be installed in construction areas to maintain existing drainage flows and collect excess water and sediment coming from construction sites. Sediments collected will be disposed of at a Class II or Class III disposal facility. 2. II reconstruction of the Santiago Creek Bridge supports is determined to be necessary, construction activities will be limited to dry months. Construction will be coordinated with the Orange County Environmental Management Agency and will comply with their requirements. Temporary drainage and erosion controls such as sandbags, ditches, dams, culverts, catch basins and settling ponds will be used, as needed. Collected sediments will be properly disposed of at a Class II or Class III disposal facility. 10,701 41 The widening of Bristol Street will necessitate the removal of various street trees and ornamental landscaping adjacent to the existing roadway. The plant species to be removed are not considered to possess any unique biological value, except for the mature age and size of some specimens. The design of the widened roadway incorporates substantial landscaping into the public right - of-way, thereby providing an opportunity to establish an extensive and consistent landscaping theme along the entire length of the street. There may also be an opportunity to establish new landscaping on those sites which need to be redesigned as a result of the project (i.e., commercial parking areas) or which will be converted to a new use (i.e., full parcel takes). Each of the three alternatives for widening would have similar impacts on existing landscaping. The TSM and "no project" options would avoid any possible impacts. Mitigation Measures 1. A consistent theme will be developed and implemented for the landscaping within the public right -of -way for Bristol Street as a part of the street widening project. 2. Consideration will be given to the implementation of a Xeriscape landscaping program. Such a program would involve the use of low- IV -7 75C -142 maintenance, drought - tolerant plant materials, thereby reducing long- term costs for maintenance and water consumption. s Ib IM Summary A detailed air quality impact assessment for this project was prepared by Endo Engineering, under separate cover. That study forms the basis for the -• following discussion and is available for public review at offices of the City of Santa Ana Public Services Agency. Two types of air pollutant sources must be considered with respect to the proposed project: stationary sources and mobile sources. Stationary source considerations include emissions on -site from construction activities, as well as - emissions at the power plant associated with the electrical requirements of the project. Mobile source considerations include exhaust emissions resulting from short -term construction activities and long -term traffic changes associated with the project. Temporary, short -term pollutant emissions will occur during construction of - the proposed street improvements, including fugitive dust, construction equipment and vehicle exhaust and construction crew vehicle exhaust. These emissions will vary from day to day as construction levels change, but should be minimal and dispersed without significant impact on sensitive receptors. Long -term carbon- monoxide emissions along the project route would decrease by approximately 3,666 pounds /day by the year 2006, if the project is implemented. Hydrocarbon emissions would decrease by approximately 376 pounds /day by 2006, if the proposed improvements are built. Nitrogen dioxide emissions would increase by about 5 pounds /day. No significant change in the levels of sulfur dioxide and particulates would occur with or without the project. The reduction in carbon monoxide and total hydrocarbon emissions would result from the reduction in traffic congestion, which would lead to slightly higher speeds and shorter travel times. Higher traffic speeds, however, would _ also result in increased emissions of oxides of nitrogen from each vehicle. Carbon monoxide concentrations were estimated using the Caline 3 computer model, at four intersections where sensitive receptors are located, for both "project" and "no- project" scenarios, and for both 1987 and estimated year 2006 traffic volumes. The results indicated that, if the project were currently in place, there would be no difference in CO concentrations at the intersections analyzed. Estimates for year 2006 traffic volumes indicated that the proposed NW 75C -143 street improvements would result in a substantial decrease in the one -hour and eight -hour average carbon monoxide concentration, below both federal and state standards and lower than projected conditions for the "no- project" alternative. Conversely, the state one -hour standard could be exceeded in 2006, if the improvements are not built. Standard construction management measures will be followed to minimise short-term, construction - related air pollutant emissions. In addition to the proposed improvements, which will result in several beneficial effects on local air quality, consideration will be given to the provisions of bus - turnouts, the use of energy efficient street lighting, and synchronization of traffic signals to further minimise long -term emissions. Discussion Two types of air pollutant sources must be considered with respect to the proposed project: stationary sources and mobile sources. Stationary source considerations include emissions on -site from construction activities as well as emissions at the power plant associated with the electrical requirements of the project. Mobile source considerations include exhaust emissions resulting from short-term construction activities and long -term traffic changes associated with the project. Short-term impacts on air quality will occur during the construction activities required to implement the proposed project. These temporary impacts will include: 1. particulate (fugitive dust) emissions from construction activities on -site; 2. exhaust emissions from the construction equipment used on -site as well as the vehicles used to transport the equipment to and from the site; and 3. exhaust emissions from the motor vehicles of the construction crew. On a short -term basis, large dust particles (30 -100 microns in diameter) that settle to earth within a few hundred feet of the construction area could create a temporary localized nuisance problem. Additionally, fine - grained particles (less than 30 microns in size) may be emitted and dispersed over greater distances, occasionally annoying adjacent receptors especially during Santa Ana wind conditions. An average particulate emission factor for heavy construction activities of 1.2 tons of dust per month of activity per acre disturbed has been cited by the rV -9 75C -144 EPA in AP42. Fugitive dust generations can be reduced by half through dust suppression techniques such as regular watering during construction ((particularly on unpaved areas used by construction vehicles.) Diesel construction equipment constitutes approximately 90 percent of the heavy construction machinery in use today. It emits on the average about one - half pound of NOx (and smaller amounts of CO and THC) for each gallon of fuel burned (EPA AP -42). Construction equipment emission rates on very active days may total several hundred pounds of contaminants per hour. Construction of the proposed project is expected to begin in mid -1993, although no start-up date has been firmly established. It has been estimated that completion of the project could require an estimated 24 construction vehicles over a 6 month period, with construction activities occurring continuously. Based upon this estimate, Table 13 provides the vehicle emission projections from diesel construction equipment. As shown therein over the construction period, the following could be emitted: 38 pounds of CO, 15 pounds of HC, 178 pounds of NOx, 13 pounds of SOx, and 11 pounds of particulates, daily, Exhaust emissions during the construction activities will vary from day to day as construction activity levels change but should be minimal and dispersed without significant impact on sensitive receptors. The construction crew will generate an insignificant amount of air pollutants along the various site access routes. Primary Pollutant CO THC NOx sox Particulates Table 13 Construction Equipment Emissions' Pounds Per Day 38.1 15.0 178.4 13.1 10.7 ' See Page 4 of the Appendix of the Endo study for assumptions and calculations. Source: Endo Engineering IV -10 75C -145 w R w w w w Long -term impacts are those associated with the change in usage of Bristol Street that will result from the roadway widening. Emission projections can be made for current conditions (1987) and future design year conditions (2006) by multiplying anticipated motor vehicle usage rates with and without the project by the appropriate emission factors. The emission factors used were taken from the ARB EMFAC6D model which adjusts the EPA "Mobile Source Emission Factors" to reflect the more stringent emission requirements of California vehicles. Vehicle miles of travel (VMT) and average route speeds are typically the basis for estimating the change in air pollutant emissions associated with a roadway improvement project. Traffic data provided by Willdan Associates representing current and future conditions indicate changes in average route speeds but no change in design year VMT values with and without the project. The traffic prediction model, upon which the assessment of air quality impacts was based, assumed that future traffic volumes along Bristol Street would be approximately the same, with or without the proposed improvements. The proposed improvements will expand the traffic carrying capacity and efficiency of Bristol Street and, for a short period of time, commuters may experiment with the improved Bristol Street as an alternate north /south route. Such changes in normal commuting patterns are possible, but cannot be quantified with any acceptable level of accuracy, and may, in fact, not occur. It is acknowledged that, should commuters temporarily or even permanently alter their normal north /south travel to drive greater distances in order to use an improved Bristol Street, total VMT would increase, and traffic speeds may not increase as much as predicted. These effects could alter the future air quality conditions. Table 14 provides the air pollutant emission projections anticipated for existing conditions and future conditions in the design year (2006) with and without the project. As shown therein, there will be a decrease in future carbon monoxide emissions of 3,666 pounds /day with versus without the project in 2006. There will also be a decrease in hydrocarbon emissions with the project (376 pounds /day in 2006). There will be an increase in nitrogen dioxide emission of S pounds /day in 2006. There will be no change in the emissions of sulfur dioxides and particulates with versus without the project. The widening of Bristol Street will relieve congestion which will lead to slightly higher speeds and shorter travel times. The increase in speed will cause a significant reduction of carbon monoxide and total hydrocarbon pollutant emissions from the vehicles using the road. However, higher speeds increase emissions of oxides of nitrogen from each vehicle on the roadway. IV -11 75C -146 Thus, on a short and long -term basis, the proposed project will have a beneficial impact on ambient air quality in terms of CO, THC, and the secondary pollutants formed as a result of these primary pollutants. The project will, however, increase the localized effects of NOx by accommodating more vehicles at higher speeds within the roadbed and thereby increasing the concentration of this pollutant adjacent to the roadbed. Table 14 Project- Related Motor Vehicle Emission Inventory Comparisons (Pounds /Day) Scenario -------------------------------------------- CO THC NOx sox Parts -------------------------------------------- 1987 (Current Year) 5,496 571 525 90 122 - No Project 7,792 790 583 69 108 - Project NA NA NA NA NA - Change with Project NA NA NA NA NA 2006 (Future Year) - No- Project 9,162 947 520 90 122 - Project 5,496 571 525 90 122 - Change with Project -3,666 -376 +5 0 0 Note: NA = Not Available. t Values are the same for all three alternatives. Source: Endo Engineering Microscale analyses were made at four intersections within the project limits where typical sensitive receptors were located. Carbon monoxide concentrations were estimated adjacent to these intersections using "worst case" assumptions and the California Department of Transportation Line Source Dispersion Model Caline 3. This model is approved for use by both the EPA and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Because of the relative inertness of carbon monoxide in the photochemical smog formation process, and limitations of knowledge on dispersion characteristics of other air pollutant species, carbon monoxide was selected as the indicator of impact. NOx and HC were not considered because they are unstable and will undergo changes to become secondary pollutants; therefore, the roadway's contribution to these pollutant concentrations cannot be accurately assessed. Nitric oxide (NO) concentrations can be predicted, but there is no ambient air quality standard for NO. Nitrogen dioxide (which is the major constituent of NOx) concentrations cannot be determined from conventional non - reactive models. Similarly, an accurate method to determine a roadway's contribution to local levels of SOx and particulate matter is not yet available. Secondary 75C-1 _12 pollutants are a large -scale phenomenon and should be analyzed on a regional basis rather than a local one. The "worst case" assumptions made in the Cadne 3 modeling process included: wind speed of 1 meter per second, wind direction parallel to the road, peak hour traffic volumes, and atmospheric stability class of F (most stable) for 1- hour averages and class D for 8 -hour averages. The results appear in Table 15 and represent "worst case" conditions. Actual levels would probably be less. Three scenarios were analyzed based upon traffic volumes for 1987 and for future year 2006 conditions both with and without the project. As shown in Table 15, the future design year carbon monoxide concentrations adjacent to the intersections most affected by the project will not equal or exceed the 35 ppm one -hour federal standard with or without the roadway widening proposed. Additionally, the 20 ppm one -hour state standard should not be exceeded after completion of the proposed project. Conversely, state one -hour standard exceedances may occur in the future design year under the "No- Build" condition at the intersections analyzed. Ambient CO levels in the design year (9.5 ppm) are projected to exceed the eight -hour state and federal standards (9.0 ppm) in the project vicinity. Carbon Monoxide (CO) contributions at the intersections analyzed are also projected to exceed the eight -hour standards, regardless of the alternative. The number of days exceeding applicable CO standards within the project area, however, are expected to be reduced, under the 'build" alternatives. Current CO concentrations without the project exceed the state one -hour and eight -hour standards and the federal eight -hour standards. To facilitate comparison between scenarios, Table 15 shows the projected CO concentrations directly attributable to the roadway without adding background (or ambient) CO levels. The ambient CO concentrations shown in Table 15 should be added to the levels generated by the traffic at the intersections analyzed to reflect the expected concentrations at various distances from the intersections. The carbon monoxide levels at sensitive receptor locations nearest the intersections analyzed are shown in Table 15. With the 'build" alternative, one -hour CO levels will decrease by 0.8 to 2.8 ppm. Under eight -hour conditions, CO levels will decrease by 0.3 to 1.0 ppm. Figure 18 illustrates the four intersections analyzed, the closest residential lots, and the closest sensitive receptor location. As shown therein, the closest residential land uses to the intersection of Bristol Street and Memory Lane are three single - family dwellings (SFD) and a multi - family apartment complex. The first SFD lies 200 feet east of the Bristol Street centerline and the IV -13 75C -148 second SFD lies 175 feet west of the Bristol Street centerline. Both residences lie adjacent to the Memory Lane right -of -way. The third SFD lies 175 feet south of the Memory Lane centerline, adjacent to the Bristol Street right -of- way. A multi - family attached complex lies on the northwest corner of this intersection with the closest receptor located 200 feet north of the Memory Lane centerline and 225 feet west of the Bristol Street centerline. The closest residential receptor to the intersection of Bristol Street at - Seventeenth Street is an SFD which lies 650 feet north of the Seventeenth Street centerline and 20 feet east of the Bristol Street right -of -way. Rancho Santiago Community College is considered a sensitive receptor and lies on the southwest corner of this intersection. A computer center in Building "A" lies 100 feet south of the Seventeenth Street centerline and 350 feet west of the Bristol Street centerline. The music building lies 100 feet west of the Bristol Street centerline, 300 feet south of the Seventeenth Street centerline. The land uses surrounding the intersection of First at Bristol Street are generally commercial. However, a multi - family attached four -plex at 114, 116, 118, and 120 Bristol Street lies at the right -of -way. The nearest unit to the intersection lies 150 feet north of the First Street centerline. West of and adjacent to this lot lies the Johnson Chapel AME Church, 100 feet west of the Bristol Street right -of -way and 50 feet from the First Street right -of -way. The CANO Headstart State Preschool lies 250 feet north of the First Street - centerline with the playground at the Bristol Street right -of -way. The closest SFD to this intersection lies 380 feet south of the First Street centerline at 10 feet from the Bristol right -of -way. At the Bristol /Warner intersection, the closest sensitive . receptors are residential land uses. One SFD lies 200 feet east of the Bristol Street centerline adjacent to the Warner Avenue right -of -way. A second SFD lies .. 500 feet north of the Warner Avenue centerline at 2205 Bristol Street. The Bristol Place multi- family apartment complex lies 200 feet west of the Bristol Street centerline on Warner Avenue. .. The Caline 3 model shows a substantial decrease in the 1 -hour and 8- hour average carbon monoxide concentrations at all receptors at the intersections analyzed as a result of the roadway widening proposed. The carbon monoxide concentrations with the project are lower than those - with the No- Project Alternative because the benefits of increased speeds more than offset the detrimental effects of a wider cross- section.t M 1V -14 75C -149 Table 15 Carbon Monoxide Concentrations Adjacent to Nearby Roadways No- Project With Project' !-Hour Average (ppm) Nearest Nearest Receptor Distances' (feet) -------------------------------------------- Receptor 150 200 Receptor 150 200 -------------------------------------------- 1987 CONDITIONS Bristol Street3 at - Memory Lane 2.7 2.7 1.9 - - Seventeenth Street 3.0 1.7 1.0 - - First Street 3.4 2.6 1.8 - - Warner Avenue 2.2 2.2 1.5 Background Concentration -------------------------------------------- 18.0 18.0 18.0 -------------------------------------------- 2006 CONDITIONS Bristol Street' at Memory lane 3.7 3.7 2.5 1.8 1.8 1.3 Seventeenth Street 4.6 2.6 1.6 1.8 1.0 0.6 First Street 3.9 3.2 2.3 2.0 1.8 1.4 Warner Avenue 2.7 2.7 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.3 Background Concentration 14.6 14.6 14.6 14.6 14.6 14.6 No- Project With Project 8 -Hour Average (ppm) Nearest Nearest Receptor Distances' (feet) -------------------------------------- Receptor 150 200 Receptor 150 - - - - 200 -- -------------------------------------------- 1987 CONDITIONS Bristol Street' at - Memory Lane 1.2 1.2 0.9 - Seventeenth Street 1.1 0.7 0.5 - First Street 1.5 1.2 0.9 - Warner Avenue 1.0 1.0 0.8 Background Concentration -------------------------------------------- 11.7 11.7 11.7 -------------------------------------------- 2006 CONDITIONS Bristol Street' at - Memory lane 1.5 1.5 1.1 0.8 0.8 0.6 - Seventeenth Street 1.7 1.1 0.8 0.7 0.4 0.3 - First Street 1.6 1.4 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.7 - Warner Avenue 1.2 1.2 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.6 Background Concentration 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 ' "With Project" values are identical for all three alternatives. ' Receptor distances are measured from the roadway centerline. 3 All concentrations include roadway contributions only and do not include the background levels noted (which must be added to determine state and federal standard exceedances). Source: Endo Engineering 75C -150 IV -15 3M11 NO1YM W¢ W z 3AY�N ark I—I } J �m LLQ 3AV OtlYx tlO9 —F Oz W a ui ®� U o -> cn LLI Z W P 3AV W39NI43 ¢ 05 U Z c o*. a N m U Z 1B 1Btlld "' Z W Lu 11 L— U O CD 0 Z 1. 1nNrrM V_ a 6 Z Z LL T W C) c 1. 3NId Q } C U w W 10 1nN1.3HO W I o ¢ m I I CL I I � 1. 3lINV° m O� 1. IL..Id O�N.1. tl3v 1 12 a. xo..no w N I� W �- Um 3AV N30n Vdap 2 2 'L. 2 Q � a b O ) N Q Z_ m � J W m� 3 75C -11 ,......�... �. _. 3AV YF M Yw 2 O U O w Z J U 0 a w LL } w J z Ll w Qcr 2 co O a U w 2 } J LL I y w Q W 2 N Q t w w Q w z w ❑ *.e I I I11 • an. �g e ICI "III U _ u.0 �l! Q-� L Ir� •e I C �I I I m �SSt� 75C -1 IV -,7 m � w � U O U J LL f C Q C a LL MIN U W ¢', a, Z Z LU 3 W w U) CO m co w 0 Cl) VJ Z Q J J1 FQ- 2 Q LL h U 2 a J 4 N Q W z Z W Currently, the background one -hour carbon monoxide concentration (18.0 ppm) is below the state and federal standards. However, the eight -hour average background concentration (11.7 ppm) presently exceeds both state and federal standards. Year 2006 one -hour background concentrauuns (14.06 ppm) are projected to be well below the relevant state and federal standards. Ambient eight -hour CO levels in the year 2006 (9.5 ppm) are expected to exceed both state and federal standards (9.0 ppm; see the Appendix in the separate Bristol Street Widening Technical Studies for methodology). At present, sensitive receptors in the project vicinity appear to experience carbon monoxide levels that exceed state and federal standards. Under future conditions with the project, sensitive land uses adjacent to the intersections analyzed will be setback far enough from the intersections to allow dispersion of pollutants and significantly reduce the number of receptors exposed to high concentrations of carbon monoxide. Since only "worst case" conditions were considered in Table 15, carbon monoxide concentrations during conditions which are more likely to occur should be less than those shown. The 1989 Revision of the AQMP includes projections of future carbon monoxide levels in the South Coast Air Basin. At the pollution monitoring station in Anaheim, located within a few miles of the project site, it is predicted that carbon monoxide levels will average above 10 ppm by the year 2010, without the implementation of AQMP attainment strategies. Assuming that the AQMP attainment strategies are put into effect, future background concentrations would ,. range from one to five ppm, a figure low enough to indicate a significant reduction in the number of days exceeding the eight -hour standard in the project vicinity. The 1489 AQMP assumes a level of growth in population and employment consistent with the SCAG -88 Growth Management Plan forecasts, which are .. based on a local jurisdiction's General Plan and implementation of regional jobs /housing balance strategies. The project proposal is consistent with the Circulation Element of the General Plan for Santa Ana; therefore, the project appears to be consistent with the AQMP. Moreover, the project will not adversely impact regional ambient air quality. It will improve several circulation performance characteristics which are instrumental in determining vehicle _. emission rates and thus air pollutant emissions. r The higher speeds resulting from more efficient traffic movement reduces CO emissions from each vehicle. _... rV -18 75C -153 ^ Staff representatives of both the Southern California Association of Governments and the South Coast Air Quality Management District were contacted to determine how the new AQMP applies to this project. Their response was that the AQMP addresses only transportation projects of state- wide or region -wide significance, such as freeway and highway projects, new transportation corridors, mass transit proposals, etc. Local roadway improvements, such as the proposed Bristol Street widening, are not specifically addressed in the AQMP. Conformity criteria for local highway projects, such as the Bristol Street widening project, have not yet been developed. On November 3, 1987, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion vacating and ordering disapproval of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) previous approval of ozone and carbon monoxide (CO) control measures for the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). The State Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone and CO in SCAB was disapproved by EPA on January 22, 1988. The project is in an area where there is not an approved SIP currently containing any enforceable Transportation Control Measures (TCM's) for ozone and CO. Therefore, the conformity procedures of 23 CFR 770 do not apply to this project A SIP revision has been developed for this area by the local air quality and transportation planning agencies, but that SIP revision has not been approved by EPA (Summer 1990). A Federal Improvement Plan (FIP) for the project area was approved by the. EPA on July 30, 1990. Roadway widening projects that do not specifically address existing TCM's have not been included in the FIP. However, the mobile emission analysis of the area's air quality management plan included in the proposed SIP revision is based on a Regional Transportation Plan (and Program) that includes this project. Therefore, it is expected that the project would conform to the FIP and the SIP revision, when it is approved for the project area. Mitigation Measures Measures selected for incorporation in the project include: 1. SCAQMD Rule 403 will be adhered to, insuring the clean-up of construction - related dirt on approach routes to the site. 2. Adequate watering techniques will be employed to partially mitigate the impact of construction- generated dust particulates. 3. Construction equipment will be properly maintained and serviced to minimise exhaust emissions. IV -19 75C -154 4. Consideration will be given to the provision of convenient bus shelters and bus turnouts along Bristol Street to encourage the use of public transportation. Additional mitigation measures offered for consideration and incorporation in the project if found to be feasible: S. The use of energy efficient lighting along Bristol Street (low pressure sodium vapor lights) will be considered to reduce emissions at the power plant serving the area. (AQMP control measure NIL) 6. Traffic signals along Bristol Street will continue to be synchronized. (AQMP control measures K2.) 7. Construction activities will be halted during Stage One and Stage Two smog alerts. I. NOISE LEVELS A detailed assessment of potential noise impacts was prepared for the project, under separate cover, by Endo Engineering. The following discussion is based on that study, which is available for public review at the offices of the City of Santa Ana Public Services Agency. ^., 1� Short-term increases in local noise levels will occur during construction of the ^ proposed street improvements, which is expected to continue for approximately six months. Noise impacts will result from the operation of construction equipment and from traffic to and from the project area by the construction , crew. Construction activities will be limited to those hours specified in the City of Santa Ana Noise Ordinance and will be controlled to minimize nuisance noise in accordance with noise control strategies developed by Caltrans. Future noise levels along Bristol Street were projected using the FHWA RD- 77.108 Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model. Modeling results indicate that future noise levels would be no more than one dBA higher with the project, as compared to levels without the project improvements (noise level changes of less than 3 dBA are normally inaudible to the human ear). The relationship of these projections to federal and City of Santa Ana noise criteria is discussed in the following pages. A field review of the sensitive receptors located adjacent to Bristol Street ` within the project area indicates exceedances of federal exterior noise criteria IV -20 75C -155 for approximately 167 residential front yard activity areas. Of these dwellings, 68 front onto Bristol Street with direct vehicular access and 99 have vehicular access to a rear alley or to a side street. In addition, seven of these dwellings have noise impacts in rear yard activivy areas (six yards surrounded by chair, link and one with no fencing). Some of these homes would be removed to widen the street. Future noise levels for 15 typical sensitive receptors along the Bristol Street frontage were then estimated to determine what sort of mitigation would be necessary to reduce noise to acceptable levels. In several cases, construction of a six or eight -foot high wall, at the right -of -way line, would achieve satisfactory noise attenuation. In most cases, however, construction of a sufficient noise barrier would conflict with existing driveways and pedestrian access or would reduce vehicular sight distances at comers. If such situations were avoided, the resulting non - contiguous noise barrier would not meet the Caltrans criteria for minimum effectiveness. Second line receptors are buildings that are currently acoustically shielded by a row of buildings located between them and the roadway. Since the proposed project could ultimately result in the removal of 200 existing buildings adjacent to Bristol Street, there is the potential for adverse noise impacts at approximately 200 second line receptors. Barriers should be constructed to shield the second -line receptors that will exceed the 67 Leq criteria (see Figure 19). In addition, barriers could be constructed per current Caltrans practices to shield those second -line receptors where exterior noise levels will approach the 67 Leq criteria. It should be noted that final design may not include barriers at the locations identified as approaching the 67 Leq criteria. Noise attenuation measures that will be incorporated into the "with project" alternative, if feasible, include: 1. Replacement of existing barriers that are removed to widen the street by barriers at least six feet high. 2. Construction of six-foot block walls on corner lots with access to cross streets, where adequate vehicular sight distances can be maintained. 3. Construction of solid sound barriers adjacent to school playgrounds and athletic fields to meet federal exterior noise criteria. 4. Construction of six-foot walls to shield residential rear yards, where such rear yards face Bristol Street. 5. Construction of six-foot walls at second -line receptor property lines, to meet the 67 Leq federal criteria. IV -21 75C -156 4• a 0 u 1. y Short-term acoustic impacts are those associated with construction activities necessary to implement the Bristol Street Widening Project. These noise levels will be higher than the ambient noise levels in the project area today but will subside once construction is complete. Construction is expected to begin in the year 1989, with construction activities occurring over a period of six months. Two types of noise impacts should be considered during the construction phase. First, the transport of workers and equipment to the construction site will incrementally increase noise levels along the roadways leading to and from _ each specific construction site. The increase should not exceed 1.0 dB(A), when averaged over a 24 -hour period, and should therefore be an inaudible ^^ increase to noise receptors located along the roadways utilized for this purpose. Second, the noise generated by the actual construction activities at each construction site should be evaluated. Construction activities are carried out in discrete steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment, and - consequently its own noise characteristics. These various sequential phases will change the character of the noise levels surrounding the construction site as work progresses. Despite the variety in type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow noise ranges to be categorized by work phase. The earth moving equipment category includes excavating machinery .. (backhoes, bulldozers, shovels, trenchers, front loaders, etc.) and highway building equipment (compactors, scrapers, graders, pavers, etc.). Typical operating cycles may involve one or two minutes of full power operation .. followed by three to four minutes at lower power settings. Noise levels at 50 feet from earthmoving equipment range from 73 to 96 dB(A). The Environmental Protection Agency has found that the noisiest equipment types operating at construction sites typically range from 88 to 91 dB(A) at 50 feet. Although noise ranges were found to be similar for all construction phases, the erection phase (laying sub -base and paving) tended to be less noisy. Noise levels varied from 79 dB(A) to 89 dB(A) (energy average) at 50 feet during the erection phase of construction. City Standards: The construction noise impact to the adjacent noise sensitive land uses will be a temporary nuisance. The City of Santa Ana Noise Ordinance from the Municipal Code requires that construction activities take place only during weekday daytime hours (7 AM to 8 PM, excluding federal IV -22 75C -157 holidays) when noise intrusion is less disruptive. The local noise ordinance specifies which hours each day construction activities can occur. Federal Standards: The "Federal Highway Program Manual" (FHPM 7 -7 -3) requires that land use activities which may be affected by highway construction noise be identified. In addition, the measures needed in the plans and speci- fications to minimize or eliminate construction noise impacts must be determined. However, no specific guidelines are available for assessing the significance of construction noise impacts. The 1981 California Standard Specifications Section 7- 1.0IN, Section 42 -1.02, and Section 42 -2.02 (as shown in the Appendix) and Standard Caltrans Special Provisions Section 5 -1 (Sound Control Requirements) may be referenced in the project plans and specifications when they apply to minimise or eliminate construction noise impacts. A diagram illustrating various construction noise control strategies developed by Caltrans is included on page 18 of the Appendix to the Technical Appendix. Lonaerm Acoustic Impacts Daily traffic data for future conditions with and without the project was provided by Willdan Associates. The findings of the traffic study indicate that daily traffic volumes would not change with the proposed project versus the no- project alternative. However, traffic congestion along Bristol Street would decrease, and a consistent set of improvement standards would also improve safety and other operational characteristics. Future noise levels within the project area, expressed as contour lines at varying distances from the centerline of the roadway, were projected by employing the FHWA RD -77 -108 Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model. Noise contours serve as a planning tool for local agencies to assist in future land use decisions on undeveloped sites and to help select sensitive receptor sites for analysis of traffic noise impacts. Noise emission levels were obtained from National Reference Energy Mean Emission Levels as a Function of Speed (per paragraph 14 of FHPM 7 -7 -3). The posted speed limit was assumed to be representative of future mid -block conditions with the proposed project and the no- project scenarios as a "worst case" assumption. A 2.58 percent truck mix was assumed along Bristol Street. City Standards: Table 16 shows the community noise equivalent levels which can be expected adjacent to each roadway link within the project area for design year (2006) conditions with the proposed project and the no- project alternative. As shown, future noise levels adjacent to Bristol Street will be higher with the proposed project than with the "no- build" alternative because of the wider pavement width. The increase would amount to 1 dBA or less. IV -23 75C -158 The unattenuated 70 CNEL contour will fall between 66 and 130 feet from the centerline of Bristol Street in the design year without the proposed improvements. With the proposed project, the unattenuated 70 CNEL contour will fall between 70 and 132 feet from the centerline. The unattenuated 65 CNEL contour will fall between 192 and 404 feet from the centerline, depending upon the link and scenario under consideration. Federal Standards: Table 17 details the future design year maximum hourly equivalent noise levels adjacent to each roadway link with and without the proposed widening. Under federal noise standards, traffic impacts occur when predicted noise levels approach or exceed the noise abatement criteria, or when predicted levels substantially exceed the existing noise levels. With the no -build alternative, the unattenuated 67 dBA contours will be located between 114 feet and 235 feet from the centerline. The unattenuated 62 dBA contours will be located between 351 feet and 739 feet from the Bristol Street centerline. With the build alternative, the unattenuated 67 dBA contours will be located between 116 and 236 feet from the centerline. The unattenuated 62 dBA contours will be between 352 and 739 feet from the centerline. Although only exterior noise criteria are applicable to this project, the 62 dBA contour locations are provided within Table 17 so that interior noise levels can be determined for comparison to the FHWA design criteria. Since FHWA allows a 10 dBA noise reduction factor for buildings with windows open, the location of the 62 Leq contour provides the point where interior noise levels of.52 dBA would occur when windows are open. Sensitive Receptor Analysis The 15 noise measurement locations (on 13 lots) were analyzed for future noise impacts with three project alternatives and the no- project alternative. - These locations are shown in Figures 13A - 13B (pages III -18 and 111-19) and Figures 19A - 19F (pages IV -33 through IV -38). For each of the project alternatives, exterior noise levels were calculated for the no mitigation condition and with 6 -foot and 8 -foot barriers. In addition, the barrier height for a 5 dB attenuation over the no mitigation condition (minimum 6 -foot wall), and the barrier height required to break line -of -sight to a 11.5 -foot high diesel " exhaust stack were determined. IV -24 75C -159 Table 16 Future Exterior CNEL Exposure Adjacent to Bristol Street Roadway Link A.D.T.' CNEL at Dist. to Contour (fr.)' (mph) 75 ft! 70dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA -------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- No- Project - (Year 2006) Bristol Street (35, 40mph) -N /O Warner Avenue -N /O Edinger Avenue -N /O McFadden Avenue -N /O Bishop Street -N /O First Street -N /O Santa Ana Boulevard -N /O Fifth Street -N /O Civic Center Drive -N /O Washington Street -N /O Seventeenth Street -N /O Santa Clara Avenue Proposed Project - (Year 2006)3 Bristol Street (35, 40 mph) -N /O Warner Avenue -N /O Edinger Avenue -N /O McFadden Avenue -N /O Bishop Street -N /O First Street -N /O Santa Ana Boulevard -N /O Fifth Street -N /O Civic Center Drive -N /O Washington Street -N /O Seventeenth Street -N /O Santa Clara Avenue 40,000 71 91 278 875 38,300 69 66 192 603 42,800 70 72 214 674 48,000 70 80 240 755 42,600 70 72 213 671 42,600 70 72 213 671 44,000 70 72 220 692 44,800 70 73 223 705 47,300 70 79 237 744 51,400 72 114 355 1121 58,300 73 130 403 1272 40,100 71 95 279 875 38,300 70 70 194 603 42,800 70 76 216 674 48,000 71 84 241 756 42,600 70 76 215 671 42,600 70 76 215 671 44,000 70 78 222 693 44,800 70 79 226 706 47,300 71 83 238 745 51,400 72 118 356 1122 58,300 73 132 404 1272 1 A.D.T. means year 2006 average daily two -way traffic volume. 2 All distances are measured from the centerline. All contours ignore localized shielding effects. 3 Proposed project values are identical for all three alternatives. Source: Endo Engineering IV -25 75C -160 Table 17 Future Exterior Leq Exposure Adjacent to Bristol Street Roadway (mph) Peak Leq at Leq Contour (fty VPHI 75 ft.2 67 dBA 62 dBA -------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- No- Project - (Year 2006) Bristol Street (35, 40mph) -N /O Warner Avenue -N /O Edinger Avenue -N /O McFadden Avenue -N /O Bishop Street -N /O First Street -N /O Santa Ana Boulevard -N /O Fifth Street -N /O Civic Center Drive -N /O Washington Street -N /O Seventeenth Street -N /O Santa Clara Avenue Proposed Project - (Year 2006)3 Bristol Street (35, 40 mph) -N /O Warner Avenue -N /O Edinger Avenue -N /O McFadden Avenue -N /O Bishop Street -N /O First Street -N /O Santa Ana Boulevard -N /O Fifth Street -N /O Civic Center Drive -N /O Washington Street -N /O Seventeenth Street -N /O Santa Clara Avenue 3208 71 163 508 3064 69 114 351 3424 70 127 392 3840 70 141 440 3408 70 126 390 3408 70 126 390 3520 70 129 403 3584 70 131 410 3784 70 139 433 4112 72 207 651 4664 72 235 739 3208 71 164 509 3064' 69 116 352 3424 70 129 393 3840 70 143 440 3408 70 128 391 3408 70 128 391 3520 70 132 404 3584 70 134 411 3784 70 141 434 4112 72 209 652 4664 73 236 739 t PM peak hour 2 -way vehicle volume in vehicles per hour. z Measured from the Bristol Street centerline. All contours ignore localized shielding effects. 3 Proposed project values are identical for all three alternatives. Source: Endo Engineering 75C,4rA1 w After the widening of Bristol Street, some of the measurement locations would fall within the right -of -way for some of the project alternatives. Calculations of future noise levels were not included for alternatives where the noise impacted structure is being removed. Since the front edge of the residential dwellings adjacent to measurement site No. 7 are on the right -of -way for alternative 2, there is no room for a noise barrier, and no barrier attenuation calculations were made. Finally, barrier attenuation calculations were not made for "no- mitigation" noise levels at or below 63 Leq. The noise impact from Bristol Street on residential areas falls into several categories. Many dwellings front onto Bristol Street with access directly onto Bristol Street, or with access to an alley in the back. The front yard noise impacts could be mitigated by constructing a barrier at the right -of -way, however pedestrian or pedestrian and vehicular access may be restricted by construction of a contiguous noise barrier. Dwellings with the side yard facing Bristol Streei typically have front yard impacts. However, construction of a 6 -foot block wall protecting the front yard may reduce the visibility of motorists approaching Bristol Street and may also have aesthetic impacts. Several dwellings with side yards facing Bristol Street have rear yards enclosed by chain link fencing. The noise impacts on these rear yard activity areas will be similar to front yard impacts, but access conflicts will not be a consideration. Construction of a perimeter 6 -foot block wall at the right -of -way would reduce noise levels to acceptable levels at these units. Several alternatives include taking a playgrounds. For alternatives where within the right -of -way, the measuremc ten feet behind the future right -of -way. portion of school activity fields or the noise measurement location was ats were adjusted to reflect conditions Second line receptors (i.e., receptors impacted when abutting structures are removed) are often of concern adjacent to freeways, but are generally not severely impacted in local roadway widening projects. Measurements at sites 12, 12A, 13, and 13A were made to assess the front and back yard impacts on a typical worst -case second line receptor. A field review of the sensitive noise receptors located adjacent to Bristol Street within the project area indicates exceedances of federal exterior noise criteria for approximately 167 front yard activity areas. Of these dwellings, 68 front onto Bristol Street with direct vehicular access, and 99 have vehicular access to a rear alley or to a side street. In addition, seven of these dwellings have noise impacts in rear yard activity areas (six yards surrounded by chain link and one with no fencing). IV -27 75C -162 Table 18 summarizes the noise levels at the fifteen typical locations evaluated along Bristol Street. The maximum one -hour equivalent noise levels for a 5.0- foot receptor are shown for several scenarios including: 1. Existing noise levels at the outdoor activity area (accounting for local attenuation by existing noise barriers); 2. Future design year noise levels without project implementation (no project alternative); and 3. Future design year noise levels with the three proposed alternatives, including mitigation in the form of a 6 -foot or 8 -foot barrier at the right -of -way. (Also included are the barrier heights necessary to provide a 5 dBA attenuation from the "no- mitigation" condition, and the height to break the line -of -sight between a 5.5 -foot receptor and a 11.5 - foot truck exhaust stack located at the equivalent source to barrier , distance). The locations that exceed the federal exterior noise criteria with at least one of the alternatives are discussed in further detail below. For all eight _ locations, the proposed Bristol Street right -of -way is 120 feet and the noise barrier is located 60 feet from the roadway centerline. All calculations assume level terrain, and typically address conditions located 6 feet from the front or back of the house (to represent activity areas). Measurement Site 1 was in the front yard of a single family dwelling located north of Santa Clara Avenue. All three alternatives propose to remove this dwelling. Measurement Site 2 was located adjacent to an outdoor activity area in an elementary school playground, 23 feet from the right -of -way. Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 assume that the existing 23 feet remains between the right -of -way and play area. As shown in Table 18, a 6 -foot barrier constructed at the right -of- - way will be adequate to reduce noise levels to acceptable levels. Measurement Site 3 was at a multi- family dwelling complex and a common recreational area south of Santa Clara Avenue. All three alternatives propose _ to remove this dwelling. rV -28 75C -163 ^lonoaN M N ON I rq�� � O l- [-- N N m w� .--I O O M m a nn�o�o�c-r- �c�cr- r- r- �o�oln N M71n b r- =ON •^'-1 eq N M 75C -'164 IV -29 i 13s� I I � 1 w ' i . 3 y a0\ L V cu � o .'•:i �Q L4 4 ,y I I fb C4 CD ee 1 F u z : y 1 r 1 i R a U d y fa• °/ C C ❑ L L: QI 4 I oCU 1 c o: W z v 3 L .Q h ca Ica UU] ^lonoaN M N ON I rq�� � O l- [-- N N m w� .--I O O M m a nn�o�o�c-r- �c�cr- r- r- �o�oln N M71n b r- =ON •^'-1 eq N M 75C -'164 IV -29 I I � ' 3 l � o 00 I I I 1 ee 1 a 1 1 J 1 y 1 1 � N 3 1 L T � 0,0 1 1�o •� O Im Im � 1 1 Tu ° Q � ai O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i E E E E E E E E c � O Q N N N N N N N O �� x099999 -99=z 1 1 i 1 1 I 1 I i i 1 1 1 i M 1 I I 1 L 1 1 z ; cu l i l 1 I a T co M E ^lonoaN M N ON I rq�� � O l- [-- N N m w� .--I O O M m a nn�o�o�c-r- �c�cr- r- r- �o�oln N M71n b r- =ON •^'-1 eq N M 75C -'164 IV -29 L � 3 � o w x y � N 3 T � O ° Q � V 4O y � O � C V � L z s cu a T co M E m L 0.0 u O r rn ~ — N 0 U CO W L Gq O L C y p v C v u o C a �z oj N co z a .v h O � .c4 C fa .Q y Ly rn � y O tOA c V 3 d y ; r �7a > ai L N w L G fa ca d v 0 v W n N C1 p N Vi r i i N ; r ; Y L C az� I 1 N 30� 1 I ; C x L 1L. C ctl lu d I 1 Y Q ' C i C N ; va D y QV F � G i i i I 1 ; I r r ' F �z W W cq o 0 0 �rq '2, ? . . .zzz 1 1 ' 1 1 1 I I r Q\ 1 00 .• ; h p mO 01 M In c i o h r ; o i h h '0 1 'o In i r ; O O O O a O O a U o. a• s ad U10 a �i c ° oZ � C5 ;x xx 0 � z z M i N r V1 U i M 7 N ; r r ON i 00 .. Q� j Al 'o 00 N '10 ; IO ; h �O r h r- 7591-j,65 Y � � U O V 'n w N 7 x � U � � y G a O .. y V C bap R7 z N_ Qi Q z Y y O d N G O M Gej 4.) 0 3 c it V N IL) IV a C F w Y N w b0 O A 00 N h r4 Cd O Y^ y y ba a U W o m ' ° c 9 � A N r `� •w .. cd on c Y bn� r bow c c W y a� w El Y o 0 q) M 73 ca i w 4.) a W 3 � 3 pj h K y v QV Q < Q cC ... Measurement Site 4 was located at the Rancho Santiago Community College Campus near the entrance to the auditorium. An existing 3 -foot wall located near the right -of -way would be removed for alternative 3. The distance between the measurement location and the Bristol Street centerline for alternatives 1, 2, and 3 are 127, 129, and 109 feet, respectively. As shown in Table 18, a 6 -foot noise barrier constructed at the right -of -way would reduce the projected noise levels below 67 Leq. However, a 6 -foot wall is not recommended since it may have an adverse aesthetic impact on the campus. Measurement Site 5 was located in the front yard of a single - family residence located north of Civic Center Drive, near 9th Street. The residence will be removed with alternatives 1 and 2. The measurement location for alternative 3 is located 66 feet from Bristol Street centerline (6 feet from the right -of- way). Table 18 shows that a 6 -foot noise barrier constructed in front of the residential complex would provide adequate noise attenuation. However, a contiguous noise barrier is not recommended since it would restrict pedestrian and vehicular access.' Measurement Site 6 was located in the front yard of a single family residence located south of Civic Center Drive. The residence will be removed under alternatives 1 and 3. The measurement location for alternative 2 is located 64 feet from the Bristol Street centerline (3 feet from the right -of -way). Table 18 shows that a 6 -foot noise barrier constructed in front of the residential complex would provide adequate noise attenuation. However, a contiguous noise barrier is not recommended since it would restrict pedestrian and vehicular access. Measurement Site 8 was located in the front yard of a single family dwelling located at the corner of Raymar Street. Alternative 3 has the measurement location 72 feet from the Bristol Street centerline, with the receptor 12 feet from the noise barrier analyzed. The other two alternatives propose to remove this dwelling. As shown in Table 18, a 6 -foot noise barrier could be constructed around the front of the house to provide adequate noise attenuation. A 6 -foot barrier is recommended in this location, however, it must stop 25 feet from the corner to provide adequate sight distance for motorists on Raymar Street. Measurement Site 10 was located adjacent to the Mater Dei High School Athletic track, 8 feet from the right -of -way and elevated 3.5 feet. The barrier analysis assumed that the sensitive receptor was located 10 feet behind a wall constructed at the right -of -way. The 6 and 8 -foot barriers were assumed to be constructed on the 3.5 foot elevated ground. As shown in Table 18, a 6 -foot barrier constructed at the right -of -way will be adequate to achieve acceptable noise levels. N -31 75C -166 N'1 Measurement Site 11 was located adjacent to an elementary school outdoor activity area 8 feet from the right -of -way. The barrier analysis assumed that the sensitive receptor was located 10 feet behind a wall constructed at the right -of -way. As shown in Table 18, a 6 -Foot barrier constructed at the right- _ of -way will be adequate to achieve acceptable noise levels. Measurement Sites 12, 12A, 13, and 13A were located north of St. Gertrude Place. Sites 12 and 12A represent front and back yard front line receptor locations respectively. Similarly, sites 13 and 13A represent front and back yard second line receptor locations. For alternatives 1 and 2, the house adjacent to sites 12 and 12A will be removed, increasing noise levels at site 13 (located 108 or 85 feet from the Bristol Street centerline for 104 feet from the centerline). Both first and second line rear yard receptors were sheltered by a wooden fence with visible gaps. The noise attenuation of the wooden fences was calculated to be 4 dBA. As shown in Table 18, the noise impacts at the rear yard actiyity areas do not warrant additional mitigation. As shown in Table 18, the second line rear yard receptor (site 13A) would not require additional mitigation with any of the alternatives with the existing fence. However, because of the uncertain nature of the fence, future noise levels should be addressed without that fence. In that case, this second -line receptor would have future noise impacts and require noise walls as shown in Figure 19. The front yard noise impacts for the first line receptor (site 12) and for the second line receptor (site 13) when the first line house is removed, are typical impacts associated with a house facing a side street. Although a 6 -foot block wall would reduce noise impacts, a wall extending out to the comer would reduce the visibility of motorists on St. Gertrude Place and Bristol Street. Although the noise attenuation from a 6 -foot barrier placed at the right -of- way (60 feet from the centerline) in front of dwellings fronting on Bristol Street is evaluated in Table 18, construction of a wall may prove infeasible. For most of these dwellings, noise barriers will conflict with existing driveways, pedestrian access, or reduce vehicular sight distances at comers. Construction of a non - contiguous wall would lower noise levels behind the wall but would reduce the effectiveness of the noise barrier such that the Caltrans minimum effectiveness criteria would not be met Figure 19 depicts which residences appear to be noise impacted by future traffic volumes projected for Bristol Street with or without each of the proposed project alternatives. Figure 19 also indicates whether front yard exterior impacts are anticipated, and where fast and second line noise barriers .. may be constructed. Parcels affected by the preferred alternative are outlined for emphasis. The barriers proposed will mitigate noise below the federal — IV -32 75C -167 criteria in all cases except where front -yard impacts occur on corner lots. City standards require a 25 -foot setback of noise walls from a corner to allow for adequate sight distance. For this reason, the resulting location of barriers along Bristol Street may not fully attenuate noise levels to meet the federal criteria. Second Line Receptors Second line receptors are buildings that are currently acoustically shielded by a row of buildings located between them and the roadway. Since the proposed projects could ultimately result in the removal of 200 existing buildings adjacent to Bristol Street, there is the potential for adverse noise impacts at approximately 200 second line receptors. Barriers will be constructed, where feasible, to shield the second -line receptors that will exceed the 67 Leq standards (see Figure 19). In addition, barriers could be constructed per current Caltrans practices to shield those second -line receptors where exterior noise levels will approach the 67 Leq standard. After construction of the noise walls for the second line receptors, the attentuated noise levels will range from 59 to 63 Leq. It should be noted that final design may not include barriers at the locations identified as approaching the 67 Leq standard. Attenuation due to shielding is an important mechanism by which highway sound levels are reduced. Shielding occurs when the observer's view of a highway is obstructed or partially obstructed by an object or objects which significantly interfere with the propagation of the sound waves. Shielding can be provided by rows of buildings and /or existing barriers. The amount of attenuation provided by rows of buildings is determined by the portion of the row that is occupied by the buildings. For example, a 3.0 dBA additional attenuation is provided by the first row of buildings when the structures occupy 40 to 65 percent of the length of the row. A 5.0 dBA attenuation is afforded when the buildings occupy 65 to 90 percent of the length of the row. No attenuation is allowed for rows of houses which occupy less than 40 percent of the length of the row. Each successive row provides 1.5 dBA of additional attenuation until a total attenuation of 10.0 dBA for all rows is obtained. This is the maximum attenuation that this mechanism provides.Any excess attenuation by ground effects (i.e. 4.5 dBA /DD versus 3.0 dBA /DD) is assumed to end when the sound waves reach the first row of buildings. Consequently, the shielding provided by rows of buildings is only additive to the attenuation provided by geometric spreading (3.0 dBA /DD). IV -33 75C -168 rN < V � b _ I LU W ` w m Cc Ls Lstll. xE�7 I —I N m W m LL ¢o�m N o �FII J� Q 0 d !fi 1lIMtYM ]AV-tl l- � k/ m IJ y 3nv a �no0 `IL � Lfi 3NId O _ tul Laeiha m 3 3AY tli DxID3 a6 m �Ltl nli < � 1�111Vp v I—aDN L i v m 4 ld M]tlDMV 16 C p 11V111'Jltl � q B L6 tl3n nlal •I' � � 1�] oxr v1o111 E[r�lll �— N s N ldr �� OOMN31p ^ W P 6 ODtlB a U Q t3 w I� tl h3OryVi N30ryVD W O 4 2 Oevm ' IT o z T la vxxv--- ie��^VVV I 2 i i o `o 3N♦ HY L] w i i O � ]AV iD Vilary -a ILI - N• • 1 y r i ]Dfltlltl]D '1] � 6 p u � 8 S 1 ICI I I a „i•6Dtl °J I I I 4 inV ( ih'yVM C 3AV 3bIX611M 75C-1 69 W I I'V IV_ee w .n ••1 ui cr IN m W o C Imo_ LL I) Arf IN Ij� as LL CZ a N Yj .l_ 8 3 c J � I I m I Z F if 1. 731 O 3 y LiI— a i c g w 5C -17 IV -95 N r 0 J N N ¢ U C W F 9 'L N j W ¢ c a_ 3 LL�Ie N JJ ¢ U � 1B 1fINlYM 3A l 3NY dxVl3 C s 3NIe 13 1B 1NN1B3H'J ml� � 3NV tl3 p O Y 1v b U W Aw CE � H LL ¢ S 3l0 p i Q $' U y O O 2 B U ] 3 3 ] d f© • B 3AV ( N..Wtl M I m U U a r 3 B L � N a � 3 YY c Q Z W •nI r O C g j Id BAN dONVIN B Id la x34M1Y0 ,j` _BBIIJ �i l/ 3NNV 9 � O Y 1v b U W Aw CE � H LL ¢ S 3l0 p i Q $' U y O O 2 B U ] 3 3 ] d f© • B 3AV ( N..Wtl M I m U U a r 3 B L � N a � 3 YY c Q Z W •nI r O C g FN V a i `2 C W O N � J C a9 Y a 8 LL N J ..n.:wr y.n.1. 1q y � 'w i. El � 3 s L �Y� I I� ,n I IJ II� JL G 111 ^ IM C 1. s .= o Wsa= ao=w oLLLL�o w � d w � J a W C G W O b r� r O y M m W F H F�a3 W8 N 0 7 Y a .e l6 Lptll1 T� Imo^ 3nv r3i par3•n „ 3tlIH 4lIM N Q t FLI _ Q 3nV p M1 a n � 3 � b3ON Of I I W r II W AW S a LL �1 f� •'n n q8 MOM U IV -88 ,i 1i I: 1N 0 m I 1 3n1 tliNbYM y C W e c r> V i f� •A f� r, s ° : S ° e p ° i V ° ¢ a 3 3 a n a z m ✓� I • I I 1 3n1 tliNbYM y C W e c r> V i f� •A f� — �WI J C l C LL LU ❑ q¢ N m I � i Y '� LL I 1 iL E L a �•L _I I ;7_ a '� I5 �,F IL — b 75C -174 r� 11J, o Barriers interrupt sound propagation and create an "acoustic shadow zone ", where sound levels are lower than in the respective free field. Crucial features of noise barriers include: - The barriers cannot have any cracks or breaks. The barriers must be high enough to break the line -of -sight between observer and the noise source, and long enough to prevent noise leaks around the ends. The shape of the barrier can effect the amount of attenuation. - The mass and stiffness of the barrier must be sufficient to prevent bending or buckling, and it must not vibrate easily or leak air. Noise Attenuation With Distances W In an area which is relatively flat and free of barriers, the noise level resulting - from a single "point source" of noise drops by 6 decibels for each doubling of distance or 20 decibels for each factor of ten in distance. This applies to fixed noise sources such as industries, refrigeration /air conditioning units, and bells or buzzers at schools. It also applies to individual mobile noise sources such as an airplane, train or idling motor vehicle. For a 'line source" of noise, such as a heavily travelled roadway, the noise level drops off by a nominal value of 3.0 decibels for each doubling of distance OR between the noise source and noise receiver. Environmental conditions such as the wind direction and speed, temperature gradients, the characteristics of the ground (hard or soft) and the air (relative humidity), the presence of grass, -� shrubbery and trees combine to increase the actual attenuation achieved outside of laboratory conditions to 4.5 decibels per doubling of distance. However, for a "worst- case" analysis, a 3.0 decibel reduction with doubling was assumed for arterials throughout this report.' In its "Noise Assessment Guidelines ", the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development uses a 4.5 decibel drop for each doubling of distance in -- assessing roadway noise. Thus, a noise level of 74.5 decibels at 50 feet from the highway centerline would be attenuated naturally to 70.0 decibels at 100 .. feet, 65.5 decibels at 200 feet, 61.0 decibels at 400 feet and so forth. - IV-40 75C -175 General Methods to Reduce Acoustic Impacts There are several basic techniques available to minimise the adverse effects of noise on sensitive noise receivers. Classical engineering principles suggest controlling the. noise source whenever feasible and protecting the noise receptors when noise source control measures are inadequate. Many of the noise source control mechanisms are being applied by state and federal governments. Acoustic site planning, architectural design, acoustic construction techniques and the erection of the noise barriers are all effective methods for reducing noise impacts when source control mechanisms are insufficient to achieve desired results.' The City of Santa Ana is considering the implementation of a program to require "planned water feature treatment" for individual developments in major street corridors. Such a program would require the development of "white noise" sources (i.e., rushing water) in development to mask roadway noise impacts. This treatment would not 'be part of the proposed roadway widening project. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project to minimize noise impacts: 1. Construction activities will take place only during the hours specified in the City of Santa Ana Noise Control Ordinance to reduce noise impacts during more sensitive time periods_ 2. All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, operated within 1,000 feet of a dwelling shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained muffler exhaust systems. 3. Stationary equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers such as residential areas. 4. Stockpiling and vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as practical from occupied dwellings. 5. Every effort will be made to create the greatest distance between noise sources and receptors during construction. ' A more detailed discussion of available methods to reduce noise impacts is included in the Appendix of the separate Technical Noise Study. IV-41 75C -176 6. The noisiest construction operations will be arranged to occur together in the construction program to avoid continuing periods of greater annoyance. The following mitigation measures are suggested for consideration and implementation if determined to be feasible in terms of cost vs. benefit and overall social, safety, economic, and environmental effects. It should be noted that the following noise abatement measures are preliminary and may be changed somewhat during final design, or because of the public involvement process: 1. Any residential noise barriers that are removed in conjunction with the project should be replaced with barriers at least 6 feet high. 2. For those dwellings on corner lots with access to cross streets which " experience exterior noise, impacts, a six-foot block wall could be constructed at the right -of -way to a point 25 feet from the extension of the intersecting perpendicular curb line of the cross street to reduce exterior noise impacts. 3. The construction of sound barriers in front of the homes fronting on Bristol Street would significantly restrict pedestrian or vehicular access and consequently are not proposed at these locations. 4. Sound barriers will be 'constructed, if feasible, adjacent to school playgrounds and athletic fields, to meet federal exterior noise criteria for outdoor activity areas. f 5. Future design year noise levels will be reduced to meet federal criteria by constructing six-foot noise walls, where feasible, to shield those rear yards of units with side yards facing Bristol Street as shown in Figure 19. 6. Six-foot block walls will be constructed at second -line receptor residential lots that exceed the 67 L.eq federal criteria to reduce exterior noise to acceptable levels. 7. Six-foot block walls will be constructed at second -line receptor residential lots that approach the 67 Leq federal criteria to reduce exterior noise levels. If all locations identified as requiring six-foot high noise barriers were provided with such barriers, the total length of these walls would be ., approximately 9,385 feet, at a total cost of approximately $675,720. The actual N -42 75C -177 amount and cost of noise barriers will be somewhat less, due to various access and sight distance constraints. ConseQuences The discussion of light and glare addresses the affect of increased illumination levels associated with the proposed project and the impact of intruding glare from street lighting fixtures upon neighboring land uses. Illumination levels on • surface can be quantitatively described through a unit of measure ]mown as • foot candle (equal to the amount of light on a surface that is one foot from • point source of light of one candle). Glare is a more qualitative factor which describes the harshness of the actual light source (or a reflection) when it is tmshielded to the viewer's eyes. Daytime illumination sources in the project area are minimal and consist of sun light, traffic signals, and scattered signage from businesses located along the roadway. Glare is the predominant source of light during the daytime hours. Sources of glare include reflection from the roadway, sidewalk, business, residential windows, and motor vehicles (i.e., windows and chrome). Nighttime illumination sources include street lighting, traffic lights, parking lot lighting, interior and exterior lighting from businesses and residences, commercial signage, and headlights from motor vehicles. Sources of glare are limited to reflections from vehicle glass and chrome. The widening of the existing right -of -way, in accordance with the preferred alternative, will not result in a significant increase in the daytime or nighttime illumination levels. All existing street lighting facilities will be relocated in order to accommodate the increased right -of -way width. Construction of a widened roadway along the selected alignment will have little appreciable impact on light and glare. Mitigation Measures 1. Consideration will be given to the selection of new street lighting fixtures which have cut -off shields to minimize light and glare nuisances for residential properties adjoining Bristol Street. I IV-43 75C -178 The pop.... ed widening of Bristol Street will have a positive effect upon the -os visual quality of the streetscape by providing a uniform appearance to the public improvements. Uniform improvements will provide visual continuity which is lacking in the existing streetscape. The roadway improvements will also include a substantial amount of additional landscaping within the public right -of -way which will help soften the often harsh and utilitarian appearance of an urban arterial and provide an amenity for the street. The proposed project will also present an opportunity to place existing overhead utility lines underground, thereby reducing the visual clutter of the existing streetscape. The proposed street widening project will have a significant impact upon many of the properties fronting Bristol Street, which will subsequently produce a substantial effect upon the appearance of these properties and the appearance of the streetscape as a whole. The project would require the full acquisition of . _. numerous parcels along the street under any of the widening alternatives. These properties would be removed of development, resulting in vacant, ° "leftover" parcels alongside the widened roadway. The treatment of these leftover parcels will substantially affect the visual character of the street. The larger of these parcels could possibly be redeveloped satisfactorily with new commercial or residential projects, but the smaller remnant parcels would .. likely produce substandard projects of marginal quality if they were attempted to be redeveloped. Some of these parcels might be sold to adjacent property owners and used as an expansion area for existing development. Another possibility is for these remnant parcels to be incorporated into a large landscaped parkway adjacent to the widened roadway. The creation of such a parkway would dramatically alter the appearance of the streetscape by extensively introducing a naturalistic element to the street in the form of substantial roadside landscaping. Mitigation Measures W 1. Consideration will be given to placing existing overhead utility lines .. along the street underground as part of the proposed project. 2. A coordinated theme will be developed for landscaping and improve- ments within the widened street right -of -way. 3. A strategy will be developed for the use and treatment of remnant parcels adjacent to the widened roadway, in consultation between the Project Area Committee (PAC) and City staff. IV-44 75C -179 L. POPULATION Conseauences r. 2 City of Santa Ana right -of -way acquisition policies require the purchase of whole parcels where right -of -way needs would render the parcel non- conforming due to reduced building setbacks, substandard lot size, substandard parking, etc. The proposed project would, therefore, have the effect of reducing the resident population within the project area, due to the displacement of households on parcels that are acquired to facilitate the widened roadway. The number of residents that would be displaced is as follows: 163 displaced households x 3.3 persons per household = 538 Federal criteria for property acquisition are different from the City's criteria. Due to the City's policy to acquire properties which would be left with front setbacks below standard zoning' requirements in their entirety, the federal government participation is limited to that reugired by federal criteria. It is estimated, based on field observations, that the displaced population would be divided between owners and renters in a ratio of approximately one owner to two renters. A significant percentage of the displaces, perhaps 50 percent, would be from very low to low- income households, most of which would need financial assistance to relocate into adequate, comparable, decent, safe and sanitary replacement housing. Other street and highway improvement projects in the area are planned to occur within the same time frame as the subject project. These projects and their scheduling /displacement effects include: a. Widening and Improvement of the Santa Ana Freeway (I -5) and Newport Freeway (Route 55) Interchange - All right-of-way, is to be acquired and all affected sites cleared by June of 1989. Displacements would include 113 households that would require relocation in the greater Santa Ana area. b. Widening and Improvement of I -5. between the I -5 /Route 55 and I- 5 /Route 22 Interchanges - All right -of -way is to be acquired and all affected sites cleared by June of 1990. Displacements would include 178 households that would require relocation in the greater Santa Ana area. C, Widening and Improvement of Westminster Street. in the City of Santa Ana - This project is currently in the planning stages, on approximately IV -45 75C -180 7° the same time schedule as the subject project. Potential displacements include 10 households which would require relocation in the Santa Ana area The schedule to complete right -of -way acquisition and site clearing for the ' subject project has not been finalized. The potential exists, therefore, for an overlap between the subject project and the other projects listed above, which _ would result in increased competition for relocation resources within the Santa Ana area. Since the project will be phased, the need for relocation resources will be lessened. Current residents of Santa Ana could be relocated to a neighboring community in order to find comparable and acceptable replacement housing. The population of Santa Ana and surrounding cities - would thereby fluctuate as a result of the relocation activities of all the above projects. This would be a relatively minor impact to the population base in this highly urbanized area. There will, however, be a temporary, relatively _ heavy demand for very low, low and moderate income housing, which is in short supply. An undetermined number of 'special need' residents could be displaced under the preferred project alternative. Households containing persons who are elderly, and perhaps physically or mentally handicapped may be among those - that are displaced. _ Mitigation Measures 1. All displaced residents will receive relocation assistance from the City - of Santa Ana, in accordance with the Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Regulations for Federally Assisted Programs (49 CFR, Part 24), March 1989 (a k.a. the Uniform Act), and California Department of Transportation guidelines. Assistance will include information on the availability and prices of homes for sale and for rent that are comparable, decent, safe and sanitary. As stated on Page 12, Section IV A. of the Draft Relocation Impact Study, hundreds of vacant and comparable units, both residential and non - residential, are expected to be available throughout the City of Santa Ana and the adjacent Cities of Anaheim and Garden Grove. Relocation payments' will also .. be available to help eligible displaces, in the form of paying certain costs and expenses involved in moving, purchasing, or renting ` replacement dwellings. A summary of the relocation benefits ,. established by Uniform Act is provided below: -- Owners and tenants are able to inspect the housing to which they are referred. IV-46 75C -181 Agencies can deduct a displaced person's unpaid rent, owed to the agency, from the person's relocation payment in cases where it will not prevent the person from obtaining a comparable replacement dwelling. If storage is necessary during relocation activities, the costs of moving the personal property to and from storage would be eligible for payment. A displaced person is entitled to payment for transportation of personal property, packing, crating, unpacking, and uncrating personal property. A displaced person is entitled to disconnecting, dismantling, removing, reassembling and reinstalling cost for household appliances. A displaced person is entitled to insurance for the replacement value of the property in connection with the move and necessary storage. A displaced person is entitled to the replacement value of property lost, stolen, or damaged in the process of moving where insurance covering such loss, theft, or damage is not reasonably available. . A 180 -day owner - occupant displaced from their dwelling unit is eligible to receive a replacement housing payment up to $22,500. A 90 -day tenant or owner - occupant displaced from a dwelling is entitled to a payment not to exceed $5,250 for rental assistance. No one may be required to move from a residential dwelling unit without one comparable replacement dwelling having been made available to them. An offer of just compensation for a residential dwelling unit may not be less than the amount of the agency's approved appraisal, but may exceed that amount if the agency determines that a greater amount reflects just compensation for the property. The agency shall provide advisory assistance to all displaced persons, concerning negotiations, so that he or she may enter the market as a knowledgeable buyer. IV -47 75C -182 2. Last resort housing benefits will also be provided to cover situations where displaces cannot be relocated due to the lack of available comparable replacement housing, or when their anticipated replacement housing payments would exceed the l_T of the stars I d - relocation payments program. 3. 'Special need' displaced households will be identified in the final relocation platy along with any extraordinary relocation assistance that ., will be provided. A detailed assessment of the number and type of dwelling units that would be displaced by the project can be reviewed in the Draft Relocation Impact Study „ at the City of Santa Ana, Public Works Agency. Following is a brief summary of information contained in that document. u Consequences Existing dwelling units would be demolished under the preferred widening alternative. This would occur as a result of the acquisition of additional right- _ of -way needed to accommodate the proposed 120 -foot street section. Approximately 137 single - family and 26 multiple - family units would be .� demolished. The preferred alternative would not involve the replacement of destroyed housing units. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are proposed. A detailed assessment of the number and type of businesses that would be - displaced by the project can be reviewed in the Draft Relocation Impact Study at the City of Santa Ana, Public Works Agency. Following is a brief summary of information contained in that document. Consequences City of Santa Ana right -of -way acquisition policies require the purchase of entire parcels that will be rendered non- conforming due to a widened roadway. This applies to reduced building setbacks, reduced parking and ^• UM. 75C -183 r reduced parcel sizes. Based on this policy, right -of -way needs were determined, and as a result, 101 businesses would be displaced. Most of the displaced businesses are smaii, consisting of less than 10 employees, operating out of a single structure. Assuming an average of six employees per displaced business, 606 employees would be displaced. A significant percentage of these employees are of Hispanic descent, as are the customers they serve. The businesses that would be displaced primarily serve the local project area and consist of shopping, service, office, eating, health care, and miscellaneous commercial enterprises. Estimates of the service areas and types of displaced businesses are presented in Tables 19 and 20, following: Table 19 Service Area of Displaced Businesses No. of Displaced Area Businesses Local 88 City -Wide 13 Regional 0 Freeway 0 Table 20 Types of Displaced Businesses No. of Displaced Service 24 Retail 19 Office 7 Eating Establishment 15 Day Care 2 Health Care 19 Misc. Commercial 15 IV49 75C -184 Those businesses who rely heavily on their identification with and service to - local residents will be difficult to relocate. Several such businesses may be forced to close as a result. This would be a short to long -term adverse impact .. to those business owners and their employees. In addition, if the subject project occurs concurrently with other planned street and highway projects in the area (see previous section), displaced businesses may be in competition with other such businesses for relocation sites. The project area residents would have fewer local shopping, service, health care, eating, and other business opportunities. Displaced services would include automotive repair, child care, personal care, insurance and real estate offices. All of these types of businesses can be found within a convenient (i.e., within a one -mile "zone" along each side of the project corridor) distance, however, thereby reducing the significance of the loss of local business enterprise in this particular area to a minor level. Mitigation Measures 1. The City will comply with the most current State and Federal Uniform Relocation Acts, as amended, to assist businesses that are displaced by the project. Relocation assistance available to displaced businesses, pursuant to the Uniform Act, includes the following: a. A displaced business is entitled to reimbursement for the actual - reasonable costs of moving personal property,: searching for a replacement location, storage, utilities, reconnection, licenses and permits, and other related items. - b. Costs of reestablishing a displaced business involving repairs, property improvements, installations, feasibility surveys, - advertising, professional leasing services, increased operational costs, impact fees, etc., will be reimbursed, up to a maximum of $10,000. C. If the business cannot be relocated without substantial loss of patronage (net annual earnings), a fixed payment may be made "in lieu of actual moving expense. However, this fixed payment cannot exceed $20,000. If the payment is for "Loss of Goodwill" under California Law, it should be noted that federal funds cannot participate in this payment type. These mitigation measures will reduce the impact of the proposed project below the level of significance. IV -50 75C -185 • IMPAM ON :•• ••D CHARACTER AND MINORI� GROUPS Figures A and B in Appendix A illustrate the specific right -of -way acquisition requirements and potential displacements throughout the project corridor for each of the three widening alternatives. The parcels affected by the selected alignment are outlined with a dashed line. Analysis of these illustrations indicates that the character of the project corridor would change significantly as a result of the preferred road widening project. Numerous dwelling units and commercial structures would be removed, changing both the appearance and land usage throughout the subject segment of Bristol Street. None of the removed dwelling units, many of which are non - conforming uses, are proposed to be replaced. Many of the displaced businesses would be unable to relocate on the same or neighboring parcels, due to the small size and shape of the remaining parcels, which would be inadequate to redevelop as commercial sites which meet City standards for yard areas and on -site parking. Fewer homes and businesses would result in less traffic generation from within the project corridor, although this will be negligible compared to the overall increase in traffic due to general growth trends. It is not clear at this point how the remaining portions of parcels that are acquired in full will be re- utilized. Several options are feasible, including: 1. Consolidation of parcels to create larger, developable sites, in accordance with General Plan and Zoning standards. 2. Sale of remaining pieces to adjoining land owners. 3. Expansion of the parking area along both sides of the street right -of- way, creating an extensively landscaped buffer area of meandering depths between the roadway and the abutting private properties. 4. The City is considering the implementation of a landscape /streetscape program to make use of substandard remainder properties. 5. Some combination and /or modification of the above. In areas where only portions of parcels are acquired along the street frontage ( "partial takes "), on -site parking and front yard areas will be reduced and various utility facilities, signs, light fixtures, traffic- control devices, etc., would be relocated or eliminated. Several areas presently without either sidewalks or parkways would be provided with such public amenities. No homes or businesses would be displaced in these cases. IV -51 75C -186 Due to the large percentage of Hispanic residents within the project area, it is estimated that more than half of the displaced households would contain " Hispanic residents. It is estimated that approximately 10 percent of all - displaces would be Asian households based on Santa Ana unified School District enrollment data for October of 1986, which indicated that 11 percent of all students were of Asian /Pacific Islander ethnicity. No current information is available as to the specific Asian ethnicities within the broader category. The relatively high concentration of these two ethnic groups within the project area unavoidably results in these displacement impacts. Such _ would also be the case for road widening projects in other parts of Santa Ana, where Hispanic and Asian residents are the largest component of the local .- population. The central portion of Orange County, including Santa Ana, Garden Grove, Westminster, Anaheim, and surroundings all contain well- established Hispanic and Asian communities. Displaced Hispanic and Asian ,. households could relocate to these communities if they so desire. Based on field surveys, many of the businesses that would be displaced are , Hispanic- owned, managed, or staffed. A much smaller number of potential displaced businesses are Asian - owned, managed, or staffed. These businesses are primarily neighborhood oriented, relying heavily upon local clientele, probably largely of the same ethnicity. Some of these businesses may be able to relocate within the project corridor on adequately sized remaining parcels. - Others may have to relocate out of the immediate area, into neighboring communities or elsewhere in the City. Still others may find it infeasible to relocate at all due to their inability to reestablish profitability in an unfamiliar area. The net effects of the proposed street widening with respect to neighborhood .� character and minority groups will be most evident in terms of physical appearance and a reduced influence of Hispanic and Asian minorities as components of the local population and local business community. As stated above, these are unavoidable consequences of the preferred alternative, due to the right -of -way acquisition requirements and the fact that Hispanic and Asian - minorities are the largest components of the local population. Mitieation Measures r The following measures are applicable to the preferred alternative: 1. Prior to acquisition of right -of -way, the City of Santa Ana will evaluate the desirability of alternative dispositions of all remaining portions of full-take parcels. Where feasible within the development standards of the Zoning Ordinance and in accordance with of the City of Santa Ana policy, such areas will be: ° a. assembled for redevelopment; IV -52 .- 75C -187 b. sold to adjoining land owners;or C. landscaped, thus extending the public parkway by varying depths. 2. All households and businesses that are displaced will receive relocation assistance from the City of Santa Ana, as previously described. Affected minority groups will be relocated to comparable neighborhoods, if so desired, within the City of Santa Ana and surrounding communities. 3. The Project Area Committee (PAC) will address various alternatives to keep displaced businesses within the immediate project area. Such alternatives may include establishment of a small shopping mall within the Bristol Street project area. P. IMPACTS ON RECREATIONAL FACILITIES Consequences The proposed project will not result in an increased demand for recreational facilities in the City of Santa Ana The impacts associated, with local playground facilities are discussed in Section IV.Q, following. Mitigation '_Measures See Section IV.Q, following. Q. IMPACTS ON COMMUNITY FACILITIES Schools and Related Recreation Facilities Right -of -way requirements for the selected alignment would affect school sites abutting this segment of Bristol Street, as follows: -- Santiago Elementary School. As discussed in Section II -C -3 herein, the preferred alternative would completely avoid any right -of -way acquisition or street widening along the school site frontage, since it has been determined to qualify as a 4(f) site. With construction of a six- foot block wall along the street right -of -way, noise impacts would be reduced below FHWA significance criteria for exterior activity areas. Existing visual intrusion would be reduced with the noise wall and no change in existing access to the site would occur. No proximity impacts would result that would substantially impair the use of this site. -- Jose Andres Sepulveda School - The alignment of the preferred alternative would entail acquiring 30 feet of additional right -of -way N -53 75C -188 from the school site. The strip of land is presently within a fenced _ playground area, mainly used by the school children. Use of the �. playground area by local-groups is also available, on a reservation basis. Openings in the fence allow pedestrian access to the playground after regular school hours. No joint -use agreement with the City of Santa - Ana has been established to use this site as part of the City park system. The School District is in the process of demolishing the existing classroom building and replacing it with a larger one, set further back ^� on the site. The new site /facilities plan will retain the playground area in the front of the lot. The new playground area has been designed to respect the widening of Bristol Street and no loss of playground utility would occur. The preferred alignment would result in a minor increase from existing noise levels, and would not change existing visibility or access to this playground. No proximity impacts will occur that would substantially impair the use of this playground. The City of Santa Ana loaned the School District the money for the acquisition of land for this elementary school, and the loan has now _ been paid. This arrangement occurred with the understanding that the necessary right -of -way would be reserved for the City for the Bristol Street Widening project The executed agreement, dated April 22, 1986, states the following: R "The District agrees to convey to the City, without cost to - the City, an easement for street purposes over the portion of the property which the City determines to be necessary for the widening of Bristol Street, such conveyance to be made upon the request of the City at any time after the District's acquisition of the property." A copy of the executed agreement may be reviewed in Appendix C. At _ the time of the agreement, the property was privately owned by the Bristol Street Baptist Church. The front yard area, abutting Bristol Street, was apparently used for playground purposes at that time, but not for organized athletic events and not as a part of the public playground system. Rancho Santiago Community College - This college campus is located at the southwest corner of Seventeenth Street and Bristol Street and would lose property along the frontage of 17th Street, as follows: a. Nineteen (19) feet of right -of -way would be acquired along the first 320 feet of the 17th Street frontage with ten (10) feet of right -of -way to be acquired along the same frontage, continuing for 100 feet beyond the initial 320 feet. Approximately 20 - IV -54 75C -189 ^ parldng spaces would be eliminated in the area, and the vehicular drive leading to these spaces would be eliminated or moved south to maintain the existing link to the parking areas along Bristol Street. The existing masonry wall and landscaping along this frontage would be removed. No recreational facilities exist in this area, and no access to such on -site areas would be affected. No change in existing visibility or increase in existing noise levels at any on -site, outdoor recreation area would occur from this project. Therefore no proximity impacts would result that would substantially impair the use of any outdoor recreation areas. The preferred alternative would completely avoid any rigbt -of -way acquisition or street widening along the college campus frontage on Bristol Street. Mater Dei High School - The preferred alternative would completely avoid any right -of -way acquisition or street widening along the Catholic high school campus frontage. Day Care Centers /Preschools and Related Recreational Facilities The following discussion will describe the potential impact to each Day Care /Preschool facility: Southwest Learning Center /Preschool - The alignment of the preferred alternative would entail acquiring 30 feet of additional right -of -way from the preschool. The loss of 30 feet would result in the removal of the structure. This property is privately owned and, therefore, 4(f) findings are not required. The Children' Center /Preschool - The alignment of the preferred alternative would entail acquiring 30 feet of additional right -of -way from the preschool site. The loss of 30 feet would result in the removal of the Children' Center /Preschool facility. This property is privately owned and, therefore, 4(f) findings are not required. Cano Headstart /State Preschool - The preferred alignment would require only four feet of right -of -way along the Bristol Street frontage along the site. This is a privately owned property, and the front yard area is used as playground area only by the children attending the preschool. Therefore, no 4(f) findings are required. IV -55 75C -190 w w Churches ^rh. <e churches are found within the project area. One of them would be — affected by the proposed widening of Bristol Street and /or an intersecting east -west street, as follows: .. -- Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints, 2500 N. Bristol Street - This church facility lies north of the Santiago Creek bridge, where no roadway widening is proposed. It will, therefore, not be affected by the - proposed project. -- United Evangelical Lutheran Church, 1406 S. Bristol Street - Bristol Street is proposed to be widened along both sides of the centerline in the vicinity of this church, and 20 feet of right -of -way would be needed along this frontage, which would result in a new right -of -way line abutting the east wall of the sanctuary building. This would necessitate partial removal of the building or reorientation of the building and parking areas to meet City Zoning standards. w - Johnson Chapel of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, 204 N. Bristol Street and 1301 W. First Street - The portion of the church property at 204 W. Bristol Street is at the northwest corner of Bristol Street and Second Street, and the building is used for the CANO Headstart State Preschool program discussed earlier. w The 1301 W. First Street site is located at the southwest corner of Second and Bristol Street and contains the main sanctuary building and parking spaces extending to First Street. Approximately 10 feet of right -of -way along the Bristol Street frontage of this parcel would acquired because the preferred alternative proposes to widen Bristol Street on both sides in the vicinity of First Street. The loss of 10 feet along the Bristol Street frontage would be a minor reduction in the site area and would not affect either the sanctuary building or parking spaces. ,. The First Street frontage would be affected the same way. - Approximately 12 feet of right -of -way would be acquired to facilitate the widening of First Street to provide for dual left turns from First Street to Bristol Street. This would result in the elimination or restripiug of about 15 parking spaces. This reduction of off - street .. parking would be a minor adverse effect that would not require the relocation or reconstruction of the church. IV -56 75C -191 r 111 r Library. and Other Facilities No libraries exist within the project limits. Furthermore, the proposed project will not result in an increase demand for library facilities in the City of Santa Ana. The remaining community facilities have been discussed in various sections of this document. The specific sections are as follows: Police, fire, and medical facilities are discussed in Section IV.V. Electricity, gas, telephone, Cable TV, and water and sewer services are discussed in Section IV.S. No other recreation facilities are found or planned in the project limits. Mitigation Measures Relocation assistance, in accordance with state and federal requirements will be made available to assist the displaced preschool /day care centers. R. EFFECT ON ASSESSED PROPERTY VALUES Based on preliminary estimates of the costs of acquiring the right -of -way needed to construct the preferred alternative, market values of affected taxable properties would be approximately $39.2 million. This estimate assumes that none of the acquired properties are sold or redeveloped prior to their acquisition for the street widening project. The total property tax revenues associated with the above values would be somewhat less than one percent of these values. This estimate is based on two considerations: 1. Many of the parcels in the project corridor have not changed ownership since prior to the adoption of Proposition 13, and therefore have not been reassessed at current market value. Annual property taxes from these properties, therefore are less than what would be collected if owners were paying ±1.3 percent of the current market value. 2. Nearly half of the right -of -way costs will be for acquisition of residential properties, approximately 30 percent of which currently benefit from the $7,500 Homeowners Exemption. Assuming an effective property tax rate of .0085 yields a loss of annual local property tax revenue of approximately $332,600. IV -57 75C -192 Mitigation Measures 1. To reduce the loss of property tax revenues, remaining portions of full - take parcels will be evaluated for potential assemblage and redevelopment or for sale to adjoining land owners. This will keep the affected properties in private ownership and subject to assessment of property taxes, based on current property values. 2. The City has adopted a redevelopment plan which encompasses the Bristol Street corridor and surrounding areas, which will provide the City Redevelopment Agency with tax increment financing abilities which will be used to revitalize this general area, resulting in long -tern economic benefits, including increasing property tax revenues from property improvements. • �1 _M_•t_ The proposed project will not result in any impact to utilities other than construction related impacts. These impacts are discussed in Section IV.V. It should be mentioned that an opportunity exists for the undergrounding of utilities during the right -of -way expansion. All undergrounding activities should be coordinated with the appropriate utility purveyors. Mitigation Measures None are required. T. CULTURAL RESOURCES Paleontological Consequences No significant impacts to paleontological resources are anticipated as a result of the proposed street widening project. Based on the low paleontological sensitivity of the rock units found in the Bristol Street area and the shallow nature of the excavations associated with the proposed project, it is unlikely that there will be any adverse impacts to paleontological resources in the APE. Therefore, no paleontological monitoring will be necessary during the _• widening of Bristol Street. None are required. IV -58 75C -193 Archaeological Consequences No significant impacts to local archaeological resources are anticipated as a result of the proposed project; however, it is possible that grading activities could uncover such resources. Mitigation Measures 1. If potential archaeological resources are encountered during grading, all work will be halted in that particular location until a qualified archaeo- logist can evaluate the significance of the recovered materials. Historical Consequences There are no historic structures located in the project area which are eligible for National Register listing, according to a negative Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR) and correspondence from the SHPO, as documented in Section IX. The widening of Bristol Street could potentially have an impact on subsurface level artifacts deposited some time since the recordation of human events. However, the probability of finding subsurface artifacts is considered to be low due to the highly disturbed nature of the project area Mitigation Measures The measures cited in the Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR) will be observed. U. IMPACTS TO TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES The preferred alternative would not have any impacts on rail or airborne traffic. No rail lines cross the project area and the project is not located in an area constrained by airports or airborne traffic. The proposed project, however, have a major effect on the local circulation system. As is indicated in Section L Need for Improvements. Bristol Street is extremely congested during peak travel hours at present. Future projections indicate that this condition will worsen as traffic is expected to increase. The following analysis compares the preferred project alternative (Future With Widening) to the No- Project condition (Future Without Widening). Future traffic volumes, for the target year 2006, were developed using historical and projected traffic, development and population data obtained from the City of Santa Ana Comparison of past and present traffic volumes IV -59 75C -194 along Bristol Street revealed the growth in traffic to be approximately one percent per year. In the Five -Year Transportation Study Update to 1990 Prepared by Basmaciyan- Damell, Inc., June 1985; the projected increase in area -wide traffic volumes, south of the project area, was anticipated to be greater than one percent per year. The volume of traffic on Bristol Street north of Warner Avenue is however consistent with a one percent per year - growth rate. It was assumed that in the year 2006, all roads would be built out to their - ultimate widths, as designated on the Orange County General Plan - Master Plan of Arterial Higkhways Component County of Orange, Environmental Management Agency, 1982. Future Roadway Link QUacity Without Widening Evaluation of the operating conditions Bristol Street would experience under future year 2006 traffic volumes was based upon the same methodology as was described under Section I. Table 1 in Section I summarizes the project traffic volumes on each link with their corresponding levels of service. Under the "no- project" alternative, each link of Bristol Street from Memory Lane to Warner Avenue would experience a Level of Service of "F ". Traffic on Bristol Street would be extremely congested and motorists would experience a great deal of delay at all major intersections. Due to the limiting nature of a road system, there is an upper limit to the volume of traffic which any roadway can carry. When traffic volume demand - exceeds these limits the remaining traffic will be forced onto adjoining roads in , the circulation system and affect their corresponding road capacities. The traffic projections on Bristol Street north of McFadden Avenue are expected to exceed the theoretical maximum roadway capacity for a four lane undivided highway and the remaining traffic is expected to seek alternative routes. However, because there are many variables that can affect the roadway capacity, no attempt was made to quantify the theoretical maximum. The traffic volumes projected for the future year 2006 may, therefore, be higher than the roadway can actually accommodate. Future Intersection Capacity Without Widening ICU calculations were also performed at each signalized intersection for future traffic volumes under existing lane configurations. Table 4 in Section I summarizes the anticipated V/C and intersection LOS values that are anticipated under the no widening alternative. .m 75C -195 In the future year 2006 without widening, the intersections on Bristol Street at Memory Lane, Santa Clara Avenue, 17th Street, Washington Street, Civic Center Drive, 1st Street and at Warner Avenue are anticipated to be operating at undesirable Levels of Service of "E" or worse. This is an extremely undesirable situation which would severely inhibit traffic progression causing extremely long delays to motorists. As a result of these anticipated congested conditions, many motorists can be expected to seek alternative routes through the adjoining residential neighborhoods. The intrusion of this bypass commuter traffic into the surrounding residential neighborhoods is extremely undesirable. The residential neighborhoods would experience an increase in the air and noise pollution as a result of the additional traffic. Although these residential roads can physically accommodate the increase in traffic volume, the overall residential atmosphere in these areas would be compromised. Residents in these neighborhoods may perceive a greater sense of exposure and a reduction in overall safety. The projected V/C ratio of 0.89 at the Bristol Street /McFadden Avenue intersection, the V/C ratio of 0.90 at the Bristol Street /Edinger Avenue intersection and the V/C ratio of 0.90 during the AM peak hour at the Bristol /Civic Center Drive intersection, and during the PM peak hour at the Bristol /5th Street intersection are higher than the City's desired V/C ratio of 0.85. Although these V/C ratios correspond to intersection LOS of "D ", these values are at the upper threshold of the desired level of service. Future Roadway Link Capacity with Widening The added capacity, which this six lane divided roadway will provide, will greatly aid traffic circulation by reducing congestion and delay. The Level of Service on each link of Bristol Street would greatly improve with widening. Projected link volumes and their corresponding LOS values are shown in Table 1 in Section I (page I -11). Projected traffic volumes on Bristol Street north of Washington Avenue result in undesirable levels of service on each link; with an LOS of "F" anticipated on the Memory Lane to Santa Clara Avenue link and a LOS of "E" on the Santa Clara Avenue to 17th Street link. In addition, an LOS of "D" would occur between 1st Street and Bishop /Willits Streets. While these values are above the desired LOS of "C', the anticipated volumes can be accommodated on the proposed six lane divided roadway due to the conservative nature of the capacity values. Motorists may continue to experience delay; however the length of delay would greatly diminish with roadway widening. All other links on Bristol Street would experience a Level of Service of "C" or better. IV -61 75C -196 Future Intersection Capacity With Widening As previously mentioned, intersection controls have a limiting effect upon the performance of any road network. ICU calculations were therefore performed for future year 2006 with widening and improvements. These results are summarized in Table 5 of Section I (page I -18). All intersections along Bristol Street except Memory Lane and 17th Street are anticipated to operate at intersection Levels of Service of 'D" or better. Projected traffic volumes can generally be accommodated on the proposed six - lane roadway. Good traffic progression is anticipated with some motorists experiencing moderate delays. The anticipated V/C ratios on Bristol Street at its intersection with Memory Lane and 17th Street are expected to exceed the City's desired V/C ratio of 0.85. The anticipated V/C ratios of 1.01 at Memory Lane and 0.92 at 17th Street exceed the City's desired V/C ratios and correspond to LOS "E" and "F". To reduce the V/C ratios to an acceptable LOS, the acquisition of additional right -of -way is necessary to accommodate proposed mitigation measures. Y Bristol Street is designated as a major arterial highway in the Orange County General Plan - Master Plan of Arterial Highways Component, County of Orange, Environmental Management Agency, 1982. In the General Plan, a major arterial highway is designated as a six lane divided roadway, with a typical right -of -way width of 120 feet, and a curb -to -curb width of 102 feet. Bristol Street is similarly designated in the City of Santa Ana's Circulation Element with an overall curb -to -curb width of 100 feet. This project therefore proposes widening Bristol Street, from Santiago Creek to Warner Avenue, to -� its full right -of -way width as designated on the City of Santa Ana's Circulation Element. In addition to the 100 -foot wide six lane roadway, the proposed improvements on Bristol Street include continuous sidewalk improvements along each side of the street, improved street lighting that meets current lighting standards, and a — raised landscaped median. A ten -foot wide continuous sidewalk will be provided along each side of Bristol Street. This will provide pedestrians easier and safer access along the corridor. Continuous sidewalks will also help to augment the existing bus service along Bristol Street, making it easier for riders to get to and from bus stop locations. IV -62 75C -197 The proposed upgraded street lighting system will also greatly enhance traffic and pedestrian safety along Bristol Street. Providing lighting levels in accordance with the Illuminating Engineering Society standards will assure good roadway visibility for motorists on Bristol Street. Pedestrians would also greatly benefit from the security of a well lit roadway and sidewalk area. Raised center medians are recommended on Bristol Street in accordance with both the Orange County General Plan and the City of Santa Ana's Circulation Element. Raised center medians greatly enhance traffic operating conditions by decreasing the traffic accident potential and increasing roadway capacity. Raised center medians also afford the opportunity for landscaping to improve the overall aesthetics along the corridor. A substantial reduction in the accident frequency can be expected through the use of raised medians. Medians effectively eliminate left turn movements from mid -block locations and serve to concentrate left and U -tum movements at signalized intersections 'where right -of -way is controlled. During the previous sixteen month period ending May 11, 1987 there were 106 reported mid -block accidents between Memory Lane and Warner Avenue which could have been prevented by raised center medians. A twelve percent reduction in reported accidents could have been realized between Memory Lane and Warner Avenue through the use of raised center medians. Experience indicates that this elimination of left turns at random locations along a major highway can have a positive effect on traffic safety through the reduction in accident potential. Raised center medians also serve to better channelize traffic along the corridor. By reducing the number of locations which movements can be made across the major through street, medians also aid in improving the flow of traffic. The improvement to these operating conditions serves to increase the overall traffic capacity which a roadway can accommodate. The construction of a raised center median on Bristol Street will, however, alter Circulation patterns and access to land uses that front on to Bristol Street and to neighborhoods that adjoin it. At minor streets through which the median is constructed and at driveway locations along Bristol Street, turning movements will be restricted to right -in and right -out maneuvers. The raised median will divert and concentrate turning movements at the median breaks. To evaluate the extent of this impact on circulation along Bristol Street as well as on the adjoining minor side streets, the restricted movements were redistributed to adjoining intersections which will retain median breaks. These turning movement volumes were based upon current turning movement counts, adjusted by a one percent per year growth factor for twenty years, and assignment based upon natural gravitational characteristics. In most cases IV -63 75C -198 traffic was assigned to the nearest open street in the general direction of M original travel. The yellow school crosswalk markings on the north leg of Bristol Street at St. Andrews Place will be removed in conjunction with the traffic signal installation at Glenwood Place. Pedestrians will be directed to use the signalized intersection as a safer crossing location. The traffic signal at the Bristol Street /Glenwood Place intersection is currently under construction. Left turn and through maneuvers can be made more easily and safely from signal controlled intersections than from adjoining minor streets that are stop controlled. Traffic volumes are therefore expected to be _ attracted to Glenwood Place from adjoining minor streets. An ICU analysis was performed projecting anticipated peak hour turning movements for this intersection. In no situation will motorists wishing to cross Bristol Street be inconvenienced more than two blocks (800 feet between Memory Lane and First Street and 1,500 feet between First Street and Warner Avenue). Counts indicated that straight across moves were very light at most non - signalized intersections. The additional left and U -turn movements at median breaks which result from the altered circulation pattern were also taken into account in estimations for left turn storage lengths and left turn phasing recommendations. These recommendations are discussed in greater detail in following portions of the text. In conjunction with the raised median, the City of Santa Ana is considering the , closure of 10 minor street closures at their intersection with Bristol Street through the use of cul -de -sacs (see Figures 20A and 20B, following). The impact which minor street cul -de -sacs would have on adjoining signalized intersections was also evaluated. Traffic volumes entering or exiting minor streets where redistributed and ICU calculations reevaluated. These results are also shown in Table 5 in Section I (page I -18). Minor street cul -de -sacs will impact traffic operating conditions at adjoining signalized intersections. Traffic access to and from Bristol Street were redistributed from cul -de -sac streets to adjacent intersections in a manner similar to that which was used in the medians. This redistributed traffic resulted in slightly higher V/C ratios at many intersections. In most cases _ however, the levels of service associated with these higher V/C ratios remain unchanged. Minor street cul -de -sacs can aid traffic progression along Bristol Street by concentrating cross street traffic movements at adjacent intersections that RM 75C -199 retain median breaks. Circulation in the residential neighborhoods that utilize these streets to access Bristol Street would however, be affected. In all cases the farthest distance residential traffic would be diverted is 1,850 feet. The negative effect of these additional travel lengths would be offset by the reduction in conflict potential realized at their intersections with Bristol Street. Residents on these streets may even find that these cul -de -sacs add to the safety and security of their neighborhood by substantially reducing the flow of traffic on their street. These residents may find the moderate inconvenience to be well worth the added security. The potential benefits to traffic on Bristol Street would be realized by a far larger volume of traffic than would be penalized in surrounding residential neighborhoods by the minor street cul -de -sacs. For these reasons, cul -de -sacs are recommended on 10 minor street legs, at their intersection with Bristol Street, as shown on Figure 20, and are summarized in the Mitigation Measures section. The lane configuration and storage lengths at a signalized intersection directly affect its operational characteristics. Proposed lane configurations and storage lengths were developed based on anticipated future turning movement volumes and theoretical length requirements as shown in the Willdan Traffic Study. These proposed lane configurations and storage length requirements are shown in Table 21. Implementation of these proposals will help to optimize operating efficiency at the respective signalized intersections. Dual left turn lanes were proposed on many of the approaches of the intersections of Bristol Street and other major arterial highways. Major arterial highways, by design, carry larger volumes of traffic. The intersection of two major arterial highways is therefore expected to experience heavy turning movement volumes. Dual left -tum lanes reduce the storage length required by increasing capacity with an additional lane. They were therefore recommended on those intersection approaches where the anticipated left -turn volume is expected to near 300 vehicles /hour. Dual left turn lanes are recom- mended on all approaches of the Bristol Street /17th Street intersection and the Bristol Street /First Street intersection.— Dual left -rum lanes were also recommended on the south and west approaches of the Bristol Street/ Memory Lane intersection and in the north -south direction at the Bristol Street /Warner Avenue intersection. Santa Ana Boulevard is designated as a major arterial highway between Rain Street and 6th Street. Dual left -tum lanes were not, however, proposed at the Bristol Street /Santa Ana Boulevard intersection because turning movement volumes did not justify them. Single left -turn lanes will adequately accommodate projected turning movement volumes in all directions. IV -65 75C -200 m a O N m WILLITS ST. i Y1 RICH-AND S �- FIRST ST- 17 111 F PINE ST. GHESTNUT ST, MYRTLE ST. CAMIL_ ST. BISHOP ST. 1f11 R YMAR ST. Legend --e Proposes! Cul —De--Sac W 4 V m T N H ¢ CUBSON ST. I` m MCFADOEN AV. F HIGHLAND ST. RUSSFLL AV, 1 1 L EAINGE9 AV. ST. ANDREW PL. GLENWOOD PL. 1Ifi1 ST. GERTRLIDE PL. 1111 ILL.. WARNER AV. 7111 FIG URE 20A Proposed Street Closures WILLDAN ASSOCIATES BRISTOL STREET WIDENING PROJECT aWJEStS AND "MMm575C -201 CITY OF SANTA ANA r w• R r IIIIII �_ J Y i l M Y LN. --j 1 ly I` [Santiago Cmgx Bndge ` SANTA CLAHA AV. 1 1 L r 177H 57, a JL 7 WASH[NGTON AV. 1J . I Legend --a Proposed Cui- De-Sac CENTER DR. vTH STS_ 111I� lr,l_ 5TH F— SANTA ANA 9L. IJ1 III 2ND ST. J 111 L FIRST ST. FIGURE 20B Proposed Street Closures WILLDAN ASSOCIATES BRISTOL STREET WIDENING PROJECT EHGRIEERS AND PLANNERS 75C -202 IV -87 CITY OF SANTA ANA Table 21 Proposed Intersection Lane Configurations Northbound Southbound Eastbound Wesioound L T R L T R L T R L T R Memory Lane # of lanes 2 3 0 1 3` i° 2 1 Z °'b 1 1 1 storage lengths 300 - - 300 - 300 300 - 200 300 - 200 Santa Clara Avenue # of lanes 1 3 0 1 3 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 storage lengths 150 - - 150 - - - - - - - - 17th Street # of lanes 2 3 lb 2 3` lb 2 3 Ib 2 3 1' storage lengths 300 - 200 300 - 200 300 - 200 300 - 220 Washington Avenue # of lanes 1 3 0 1 3 0° 1 1 0 1 1 0 storage lengths 200 - - 100 - - 150 - - 150 - - Civic Center Drive # of lanes 1 3 0 1 3 0 1 2 0 1 2 1 storage lengths 150 - - 220 - - 150 - - 200 - 200 5th Street # of lanes 1 3 0 1 3 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 storage lengths 90 - - 100 - - - - Santa Ana Boulevard # of lanes 1 3 0 1 3 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 storage lengths 100 - - 100 - - ]50 - - 150 - 0 L - Left Turn Lane T - Thru Lane R - Right Turn Lane 1 - Signal Under Construction 2 - Fourth westbound thru lane would lower PM V/C ratio to 0.79 ' - Curb lane is right -turn trap lane and second lane is right thru optional lane. n - Right turn overlap. - Fourth thru -lane would reduce V/C ratio as shown in Table 5, page I -18. a - Right -turn lane would reduce anticipated PM peak hour V/C ratio to 0.82. MrM r w Table 21 (Coat.) Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R 1st Street # of lanes 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3' 1 storage lengths Bishop Street/ Willits Street # of lanes 1 3 0 1 3 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 storage lengths 225 - - 225 - - 160 - - 160 - - McFadden Avenue # of lanes 1 3 0 1 3 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 storage lengths 250 - - 250 - - 160 - - 160 - - Edinger Avenue # of lanes 1 3 0 1 3 0 1 2 1 1 2 0 storage lengths 300 - - 250 - - 200 - 200 220 - - Glenwood Placem # of lanes 1 3 0 1 3 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 storage lengths 200 - - 200 - - 100 - - 100 - - Warner Avenue # of lanes 2 3 0 2 3 0 1 3 0 1 3 0 storage lengths 300 - - 300 - - 300 - - 300 - - L - Left Turn Lane T - Thru Lane R - Right Turn Lane t - Signal Under Construction Z - Fourth westbound thru lane would lower PM V/C ratio to 0.79 a - Curb lane is right -turn trap lane and second lane is right thru optional lane. - Right tarn overlap. ` - Fourth thru -lane would reduce V/C ratio as shown in Table 5, page 1 -18. d - Right -turn lane would reduce anticipated PM peak hour V/C ratio to 0.82. IV -69 75C -204 Exclusive right -turn lanes were also recommended on approaches where right - turn volumes are anticipated to be extremely heavy. Exclusive right -turn lanes improve intersection operations by providing increased capacity as well as improving upon traffic flow. The additional capacity which the exclusive right - turn lane provides is augmented by the improved traffic flow which is acquired through the separation of through and right -turu vehicles into different lanes. - Exclusive right -turn lanes were recommended on all approaches of the Bristol ^ Street /17th Street intersection and the Bristol Street /First Street intersection. Exclusive right -turn lanes were also recommended on the east approach of the Bristol Street /Civic Center Drive intersection.Exclusive right -turn lanes allow for right turn movements to be made concurrent with the non - opposing left - turn movements on the cross street through the implementation of a right -turn overlap. The right - turn movements at the Bristol Street /First Street intersection were not, however, critical in the ICU calculations for the future Year 2006 with widening. Implementation of a right -turn overlap therefore does not improve upon the expected LOS or V/C ratio et this intersection. Right -tum overlaps also require the prohibition of the U -turn movement from the left lane. They do, however, enhance traffic signal operations through the more efficient use of signal green time. At intersections where right -turn overlaps were proposed, the ICU calculations reflect adjusted turning movement volumes. The right-turn volumes were reduced by the volume of non - opposing left-turn traffic. Right -turn overlaps also require the prohibition of the U -turn movement from the left-turn lane. Where the proposed right -turn movement was overlapped with a dual left -turn Jane, the left-turn traffic was assumed to split evenly between both lanes. The right-turn volume was therefore reduced by half the non - opposing left -turn volume. Right -turn overlaps are recommended on all approaches of the Bristol Street /17th Street intersection and on the north and west legs of the Bristol Street /Memory Lane intersection. At the Bristol Street /First Street intersection, the anticipated V/C ratio of 0.87 is slightly higher than the Citys desired V/C ratio of 0.85. This V/C ratio does, however, correspond to an acceptable LOS of "D ". A fourth - westbound through lane could provide additional capacity that would reduce the anticipated V/C ratio to 0.74 at this intersection. This additional lane would require 12 feet of additional right-of -way on the south side of 1st Street for a distance of approximately 420 feet on each side of Bristol Street. Due to the extensive additional right -of -way required and the anticipated acceptable IV -70 75C -205 w LOS of "D ", a fourth westbound through lane was not recommended at this intersection. The proposed lane configuration on the east approach of Memory LAne at Bristol Street consists of a left -turn lane, a through lane, an optional dtrough- right -tarn lane, and an exclusive right -turn lane. The projected eastbound right -turn movement is anticipated to be heavier than either the left or through movements during both the AM and PM peak hours. The proposed lane configuration and eastbound right -turn overlap with northbound left -turn movement will greatly aid traffic signal operations at this location through the efficient use of the signal cycle. The existing east -west, split -pbase operation at the Bristol Street/ Memory Lane intersection regulates the flow of intra- regional traffic traveling towards Flower Street. The proposed widening of Bristol Street will provide additional capacity that will adequately accommodate most of this intra - regional traffic. The traffic demand on Flower Street will therefore be substantially reduced, and the need for the east -west, split -phase diminished. An eight - phase, fully- - actuated operation is therefore recommended at this intersection The anticipated V/C ratios at the Washington Avenue and First Street intersections along Bristol Street are higher than the City's desired V/C ratio of 0.85. As indicated in Table 5 (page 1 -18), however, these V/C ratios correspond the acceptable Levels of Service of "D ". A southbound right -anti lane at the Washington Avenue intersection, and a fourth westbound through lane on First Street at its intersection with Bristol Street would reduce the anticipated V/C ratios at these intersections to 0.85 or better. These additional lanes would, however, require the acquisition of substantial amounts of right -of -way. The fourth southbound and westbound rhru lanes would require twelve feet of additional right -o£ -way on the west side of Bristol Street at Memory Lane and at 171h Street and on the south side of First Street at Bristol Street. This additional right -of -way would be required for a distance of approximately 420 feet on each side of the intersection. The southbound right -turn lane at Washington Avenue would require an additional five feet of right -of -way on the west of Bristol Street for a distance of 220 feet north of Washington Avenue. Due to the extensive additional rights -of -way required at each intersection and the anticipated acceptable LOS of "D ", the additional lanes were not recommended at these intersections. Protected left turn phasing warrants were evaluated at all signalized intersections under projected year 2006 traffic volumes. Protected left Turn TV -71 75C -206 phasing is effective in reducing left rum accidents but may increase overall intersection delay, Protected left rum analysis was solely based upon volume. It should be noted _ that this analysis only identifies those locations where left tam phasing may be warranted in the year 2006. Left turn phasing should only be implemented at those signalized locations when left turn warrants have been satisfied. These w intersections should therefore be monitored at regular intervals and left tam phasing provided only when these warrants have been met. Protected left-mm phasing is currently provided in all directions at the Bristol Street/Warner Avenue intersection, a the Bristol Street /17th Street intersection, and the Bristol Street /Memory Lane intersection, with the east- west direction being split - phased. Protected left -turn phasing is also provided in the east -west direction at the Bristol Street /First Street intersection and in the north /south direction at the Bristol Street /McFadden Avenue intersection. Based upon volume warrants, protected left -turn phasing should also be considered in the north -south direction on Bristol Street at the Bishop Street /Willits Street, First Street, Santa Clara Avenue, Washington Avenue, Civic Center Drive, 5th Street, and Santa Ana Boulevard intersections for the Year 2005. It is the City of Santa Amt's general policy to prohibit parking along all major arterial highways. The prohibition of parldng: improves operating conditions along the arterial by increasing capacity and improving traffic safety. Prohibiting parking at curb side locations along the arterial eliminates the conflict between vehicles entering or exiting the traffic stream from these locations. The roadway capacity is thereby increased through the improvement in traffic flow which is a result of the reduction in vehicle conflicts. The reduction in vehicle conflict also improves traffic safety along the arterial through the reduction in accident potential. Traffic safety is also enhanced by parking prohibition through the retention of sight distance at all intersections and driveway locations along the arterial. Vehicles parked at curb side locations in the vicinity of intersections or adjacent to driveways along the arterial restrict the visibility of motorists trying , to enter the traffic stream. Parking prohibition assures that vehicles will not be parked at these locations, thus sight distance is not hindered. Parking prohibition is therefore recommended along the entire length of Bristol Street _ from Memory Lane to Warner Avenue. Far -side bus turn -out areas are recommended on Bristol Street at major _ intersections where bus transfers are expected to occur. Buses which stop in a through lane of travel to drop off or pick up passengers impede the flow of ` N -72 75C -207 traffic, reduce the lane capacity, and add to the congestion of the roadway. At transfer locations, the frequency and length of delay experienced will be greater due to the larger number of passengers serviced. Bus turn -out areas were therefore recummended to entrance the flow of traffic: by remU --V g' stopped buses from the through lane of travel. Far-side bus turn -outs are therefore recommended at the following locations: Warner Ave. - northbound and southbound Edinger Ave. - northbound and southbound McFadden Ave. - northbound and southbound First St. - northbound Santa Ana Boulevard - southbound In its definition of a major arterial highway the Orange County Master Plan allows for a right -of -way width of 100 -feet in developed areas where a 120 -foot right -of -way is not feasible due to existing structures or topography. Six through lanes of traffic with a raised center median could be provided through the prohibition of on -street parking. Lane widths which could be provided on the 84 -foot wide roadway would be adequate for circulation. However, wider lanes are desired on roads that are established truck routes and substantial amounts of additional rigbt -of -way would still be required at major intersections to provide dual left turn lanes and adequate transition lengths in the roadway alignment. 'Proposed lane geometrics at the Bristol Street /First Street intersection would v require a minimum curb -to -curb width of 103 feet. Left -turn and right -turn lane storage requirements as well as transition lengths result in additional right -of -way being required over a total distance of 840 feet along Bristol Street. The 84 -foot wide roadway therefore requires an additional 19 feet of right -of -way for a distance of 610 feet and an additional 10 feet of right -of -way for a distance of 230 feet. Similar lane geometrics at the Bristol Street /17th Street intersection require an additional 19 feet of right -of -way for a distance of 640 feet and an additional 10 feet of right -of -way for a distance of 200 feet. Right -of -way requirements at the Bristol Street /Memory Lane intersection are similar in either the 84 -foot or 100 -foot typical roadway widths. Proposed lane geometrics require 14 feet of additional right -of -way from the west side of Bristol Street. The proposed lane geometrics at the intersection of Bristol Street and Warner Avenue would also require additional right -of -way. The 94 -foot curb -to -curb IV -73 75C -208 roadway width requires an additional 10 feet of right -of- way for a total distance of 420 feet. The standard lane widths provided on a 100 -foot wide roadway within a 120 - foot right -of -way will more adequately accommodate traffic flow. Truck traffic would be better accommodated on the wider traffic lanes. Traffic would flow more freely due to the higher comfort level motorists experience on these wider lanes. The wider roadway also allows for the opportunity of providing two additional lanes of through traffic on each link by restriping the road, should traffic growth exceed expectations. This width alternative also accommodates dual left turn lanes at those major intersections where they are required. Proposed lane configuration at the intersection of Bristol Street at its intersections with 17th Street and with First Street will still require additional right -of -way even under this proposed width alternative. The proposed exclusive right turn lanes will require an additional 9 feet of right -of -way for a total distance of 640 feet and 620 feet respectively. The additional lanes which the proposed widening project would provide would greatly increase the road capacity. Projection of the anticipated future traffic volumes onto the proposed six lane roadway results in favorable operating conditions. As a result of the added capacity, Bristol Street will be able to service the future traffic needs of the City of Santa Ana efficiently and safely well into the year 2006. w It is extremely important to adhere to the Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) as developed by the County of Orange. The MPAH serves to encourage the development of a coordinated county wide arterial highway system that provides safe, convenient, and efficient movement of people and ^" goods. This highway network plays a major role in inter - and intra- regional _ travel in Orange County by complementing both the freeway system and local street network. - The major arterial highway serves a large volume of intra - regional through traffic not carried by the limited - access, high- volume freeway system. This facility has geometric design and traffic control measures to expedite through traffic with possible restriction of access to abutting property. Traffic volumes have already reached capacity levels on most links of Bristol Street. As a result, commuter traffic has been found to spill over onto the adjoining local road system utilizing their capacity and adding to their congestion. Efficiency, safety and convenience are compromised by this intYa- regional traffic utilizing the lower classification local street system that is not designed to accommodate the higher volume of traffic. Projection of the IV -74 75C -209 future traffic volumes on the existing road system further aggravates this congested condition. Developing Bristol Street to its fuU six-lane divided major arterial highway designation will increase capacity and accommodate future traffic needs. This increased capacity will serve to reduce the influence intra- regional traffic has on the local road system by adequately accommodating it on the major arterial highway- Traffic volumes will continue to increase whether or not Bristol Street is improved to a major arterial highway. Without road widening, congestion will continue to grow with its effects being felt over a far larger area. With the widening, Bristol Street will be able to accommodate existing as well as future traffic needs safely and efficiently. Intra- regional traffic would no longer realize any time savings benefit by utilizing the local street system and would find the major arterial highway better suited to their needs. The intrusion of commuter traffic into the residential neighborhoods would therefore be substantially reduced. Widening Bristol Street to a six lane major arterial roadway as designated in the Orange County Master Plan was also recommended in the Bristol Street Corridor Stud- Final Re oo Mohle, Grover & Associates, 1983; and in the Arterial Highway Elcment - Santa Ana Transportation Corridor Stage 11 Alternative Analysis, Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade and Douglas, Inc., 1985. This proposed widening is also in agreement with the recommendation found in the Intercity Liaison Committee - Five -Year Transportation Study Update to 1990 Basmaciyan - Darnell, Inc., 1985. MitiWion Mea,5ure5 The proposed widening of Bristol Street to six through lanes will greatly improve operating conditions along this corridor. The additional mitigation measures mentioned below will further enhance traffic progression by aiding in the reduction of congestion and delays. 1. Provide a 100 foot wide roadway on a 120 foot wide right -of -way from the Santiago Creek to Warner Avenue. 2. Provide intersection lane configurations as shown in Table 21. 3. Prohibit U -turns and provide right -turn overlaps with left -turn phasing at the intersection of Bristol Street with Memory Lane and 17th Street. 4. Provide protected left -tum phasing in all directions of the intersections along Bristol Street at Memory Lane, 17th Street, First Street, Edinger IV -75 75C -210 Avenue, and Warner Avenue. Provide protected left -tarn phasing on Bristol Street in the north -south direction at the Bishop Street /Willits Street and the McFadden Avenue intersection. ~ 5. Provide protected, left -turn phasing on Bristol Street in the north -south direction at the Santa Clara Avenue, Washington Avenue, Civic Center Drive, 5th Street, and Santa Ana Boulevard intersections. 6. Widen the bridge over Santiago Creek to a 100 -foot right -of -way with three through lanes in each direction 7, Remove yellow school crosswalk markings on the north leg of Bristol Street at St. Andrews Place and direct pedestrians to use the traffic signal at Glenwood Place to cross Bristol Street. Reestablish safest route to school utilizing signalized intersection. 8. Provide dual left -turn Panes on all approaches of the Bristol Street/ First Street intersection and in the north -south direction at the Bristol Street /Warner Avenue intersection. 9. Cul -de -sac the following minor streets at their intersection with Bristol Street. a. Pine Street - east and west leg b. Chestnut Street east leg U. Camille Street - east leg d. Raymar Street - east and west legs e. Richland Street - west leg f. Highland Street - east leg g. Cubbon Street - east leg h. Russell Avenue - east leg _ L 7th Street - west leg j. 2nd Street - east and west legs ` 10. Construct a raised center median on Bristol Street through the following minor street intersections. ` a. Walnut Street b. Tolliver Street C. Elder Avenue d. Carlton Place C. Camden Place f. St. Anne Place g. St. Gertrude Place h. Park Lane IV -76 75C -211 R V i. 22nd Street j. 18th Street k. 9th Street 11. Provide a far -side bus turn -out on the west side of Bristol Street south of Santa Ana Boulevard. 12. Provide far -side bus turn -out areas on Bristol Street in both northbound and southbound directions at the following intersections: a. First Street (northbound only) b. McFadden Avenue C. Edinger Avenue d. Warner Avenue e. Santa Ana Boulevard (southbound only) 13. Prohibit parking along both sides of Bristol Street from Memory Lane to Warner Avenue. 14. Provide signal coordination system along the Bristol Street corridor to maximize operating efficiency of traffic signals. GJ VLORE 1UT l' 4 Various short -term impacts will occur during the period of project construction which will adversely affect adjoining properties and constrict traffic along Bristol Street. Businesses 'and residences abutting Bristol Street will be temporarily affected to various degrees by construction noise, dust, vehicle emissions, possible utility service disruption, and restrictions to access. Construction activities are carried out in discrete steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment, and consequently its own noise characteristics. These various sequential phases will change the character of the noise levels surrounding the construction site as work progresses. Despite the variety in type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow noise ranges to be categorized by work phase. The earth moving equipment category includes excavating machinery (backhoes, bulldozers, shovels, trenchers, front loaders, etc.) and highway building equipment (compactors, scrapers, graders, pavers, etc.). Typical operating cycles may involve one or two minutes of full power operation followed by three to four minutes at lower power settings. Noise levels at 50 feet from earthmoving equipment range from 73 dB(A) to 89 dB(A) (energy average) at 50 feet during the erection phase of construction. N -77 75C -212 The construction noise impacts to the surrounding community could be significant, albeit short -lived. Residences, schools and other noise - sensitive land uses are most likely to be adversely affected by construction- related noise. Construction activities will take place only during daytime hours to avoid evening and nighttime noise nuisances and minfi i impacts to residential properties. Noise will subside to normally expected levels once construction is complete. While the impact of project construction activities upon ambient air quality is considered to be insignificant, the localized effects of fugitive dust and odors may present a nuisance to adjacent properties during the period of construction. Large dust particles (30 -100 microns in diameter) that may settle to earth within a few hundred feet of the construction area could create a _ temporary localized nuisance problem. Additionally, fine- grained particulates (less than 30 microns in size) may be emitted and dispersed over greater distances, occasionally annoying adjacent receptors, especially during Santa Ana wind conditions. Dt1st generation is usually only a problem in construction activities which involve substantial site grading or require vehicles to travel over unpaved roadways. Construction of the proposed project should require very little earth movement at any one location and virtually no travel over unpaved roadways. Dust generation is expected to be minimal. �^ Diesel construction equipment constitutes approximately 90 percent of the heavy construction machinery in use today. It emits on the average about one- half pound of NOx (and smaller amounts of CO and THC) for each gallon of fuel burned (EPA, AP -42). Construction equipment emission rates on very active days may total several hundred pounds of contaminants per hour. The concentration of carbon soot in the exhaust of diesel engines makes the smoke plume highly visible and acts as a minor contributor to the nuisance caused by particulates. The odor associated with diesel emissions is believed to be caused by combinations of unburned fuel and a 'number of various chemicals _ in the exhaust gas. Exhaust emissions during the construction activities will vary from day -to -day as construction activity levels change but should be minimal and dispersed without significant impact on sensitive receptors, w The construction activities required to widen the roadway may temporarily restrict traffic flow along Bristol Street. While the roadway will remain open _ to through traffic, the number of available travel lanes will probably be reduced during various phases of construction, thereby reducing the capacity and efficiency of the roadway. For this reason, the volume of traffic which Bristol Street can handle efficiently will be decreased during the period of project construction. Since this would result in an increase in travel time along Bristol Street, some motorists will probably choose to take an alternative route when convenient. Access to property fronting along Bristol Street will also be intermittently disrupted as work progresses adjacent to individual IV -78 75C -213 w parcels and temporarily blocks driveway access. Provisions will be made for interim access whenever necessary. ff the construction of the project is undertaken in phases, the disruption of circulation along the roadway will be reduced since only certain segments of the street would then be affected at any one time. In order to enhance traffic flow and minimize hazards, traffic control plans will be prepared prior to each step in the construction process. The disruption of traffic and restriction to access along Bristol Street during project construction could affect the mobility and responsiveness of emergency vehicles which commonly utilize the street. The fire department has indicated that stations 1, 3, 4, 5, and 7 will be impacted during construction of the proposed project since these stations typically utilize Bristol Street in route to an emergency call. Similarly, police vehicles and ambulances commonly utilize Bristol Street as a travel route in emergency situations and, as a result, will be adversely impacted by any restrictions to travel caused by construction activities. Even though movement may be hampered by construction activities, Bristol Street will remain open to through traffic and access to property along the street will be maintained. Following is a discussion of the detouring activity which will occur during the coustruction phase of the project. The Bristol Street road widening project will be divided into six separate phases. This work is anticipated to begin in 1992 with each phase requiring between 9 to 12 months to complete. During construction, it is proposed that a 35 -foot wide roadway be provided to accommodate one lane of travel in each direction and a two -way left turn lane. This lane configuration will accommodate approximately 20,000 vehicle /day along this corridor. The remainder of the through traffic on Bristol Street will divert onto alternate routes. North -south commuter traffic may divert to Flower Street or Main Street depending on their relative congestion level in relation to Bristol Street. Advance warning and information signs will also be used to reduce the confusion motorists may experience during the construction process. To minimize the impact on the adjoining properties, the construction work in each phase should be limited to sections of sufficient length as to allow efficient progression of work. Sections of excessive length could result in areas on which active construction work would not be performed for extended periods of time. This would be an unnecessary inconvenience to the adjoining properties and could result in numerous complaints. IV -79 75C -214 It is equally important, however, not to liruit these sections to lengths that are m too short to allow the efficient progression of work. Breaking the construction work up into too rnamy sections will increase both costs and time to completion. The number of detours along the project length must also be minimized to maintain the safe and efficient passage of traffic. For these reasons, the work areas should be separated into sections between signalized intersections. Except between the Civic Center Drive, 5th Street, and Santa Ana Boulevard intersections, the distances between signalized intersections should be of sufficient length to allow the efficient progression of ' work. The construction work can also be phased to alternate sections on which work is performed to further reduce the impact on the adjoining properties. The area wide congestion that will be experienced in the City of Santa Ana will be even further exacerbated by the proposed widening of the Santa Ana Freeway (I -5) through the City of Santa Ana. This freeway widening project is anticipated to begin in the 1989 -90 fiscal year with the estimated time to completion being 3 to 4 years. ` Although the congestion in the City of Santa Ana will increase in the short term period during construction upon completion the added capacity gained by these widening projects will greatly reduce congestion and aid circulation in the long term. To help mitigate congestion during the construction period, the City of Santa Ana should consider various Transportation Systems Management (TSM) and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) techniques. Some TSM ` techniques that the City should consider are peak hour truck prohibition, - traffic signal coordination along Bristol Street, and coordination of the transit service with the construction phases. The City should also consider promoting — TDM techniques to area wide businesses and residents such as staggered work ., hours, ride- sharing, and telecommunications. The various TSM techniques mentioned will help to increase capacity and improve the progression of traffic along Bristol Street. Peak hour truck prohibition and the coordination of transit service will minimizc the conflicts and congestion these larger vehicles have on the high volume commuter .. traffic. Traffic signal coordination along Bristol Street will minimize the stops and delays experienced by commuter traffic. By getting area businesses and residents to participate in TDM techniques, the ~ City will experience a reduction in area wide congestion. Ride sharing and ' IV-so 75C -215 telecommunications reduces congestion through the reduction and /or elimination of vehicle trips. Staggered work hours helps to spread the demand on the road system, reducing peak hour congestion and delay. Continued support and promotion of these TDM techniques will greatly aid circulation and progression of traffic throughout the City of Santa Ana not only during the construction phases but also into the future. It is possible that there may be some temporary disruption of utility service during construction of the proposed project. No disturbance of underground utilities is anticipated in order to construct the widened roadway; however, since overhead utility lines will need to be relocated, the project may cause temporary disruption of electrical and telephone service to some area businesses and residences. It should be possible to minimize any disruption to service during the construction process through coordination with local utility companies. Construction activities will result in the consumption of certain energy resources. These will basically consist of petroleum products consumed as fuel for construction vehicles and vehicles' used in the transport of workers, equipment and materials to and from the project site. In general, the amounts of fuel to be consumed represent irretrievable quantities of energy resources and, therefore, will contribute to a diminished supply. Mitigation Measures 1. SCAQMD Rule 403 will be adhered to, ensuring the clean up of construction- related dirt on approach routes to the site. 2. Adequate watering techniques will be employed to partially mitigate the impact of construction- generated dust particulates. 3. Construction equipment will be properly maintained and serviced to minimize exhaust emissions. 4. Activity involving heavy equipment will be halted during Stage One or greater smog alerts. 5. Construction activities will only take place during daytime hours, Monday through Saturday, in order to reduce noise impacts during sensitive time periods. 6. All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, operated within 1,000 feet of a dwelling will be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers. WTEllI 75C -216 7. Stationary equipment will be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers such as residential areas. 8. Stockpiling and vehicle staging areas will be located as far as practical from occupied dwellings. 9. Construction will be staged so that only limited segments of the roadway are affected at any one time. 10. Traffic control plans will be prepared prior to each phase of construction. All traffic warning and control devices should comply to the provisions of the State of California Manual of Traffic Controls. 11. The Orange County Transportation District will be notified prior to the initiation of project construction so that arrangements can be made for alternative bus routes and interim bus stop locations, if necessary. 11 The police and fire departments will be notified of construction at least one (1) month in advance, as to the particulars of the project (i.e., project time schedule, and areas to be disrupted, etc.). This action would give the police and fire departments sufficient time to notify its personnel of any significant impediments to traffic. • 13. The City will notify the police department at least 48 hours in advance of any turning changes. A minimum of three (3) signs are required for each indicated change and /or prevention of movement. 14. Project plans and construction activities will be closely coordinated with local utility purveyors in order to make the necessary arrangements for the relocation of facilities and avoid or minimize any disruption to - service. It is also recommended that the utilities provide adequate notice to its customers of any service disruptions. 15. Consideration will be given to the undergrounding of overhead electrical and telephone lines as part of the project. 16. If feasible, construction activities and lane closures will occur primarily during non -peak driving periods. 17. The City of Santa Ana's Public Works Director will coordinate closely with all agencies and companies which maintain underground or at- grade utility or energy facilities within the areas to be disturbed by project construction activities. Preliminary and final design plans will be made available to such agencies for review and comment. At least 48 hours prior to commencement of any excavation activities, the City 1V -82 - 75C -217 w will contact the Underground Service Alert to notify the affected utility /energy purveyors who can place their personnel at the excavation site to assist in the location of underground facilities during the exploratory digging immediately preceding excavation. In this manner, the risk of line rupture to natural gas, petroleum, and sewer facilities, which might release hazardous substances and odors into the air, can be minimized. 18. Should any unidentified substances, odors, leaking underground tanks, or other mysterious and potentially hazardous materials be encountered during project construction, work in that area will be halted and the Santa Ana Fire Department's Hazardous Materials Team will be contacted to evaluate the materials and to define appropriate remedial measures. 19. The removal. of any underground storage tanks will be in accordance with all applicable regulations. For any service stations that will be partially acquired or displaced, the City will request that the owners remove the underground gasoline tanks prior to property acquisition. If the owners do not remove the underground tanks, the City will include the following statement in the right -of -way agreement: "It is understood that the property being acquired in this transaction may contain hazardous waste which must be removed or otherwise treated, under state or federal law, to protect the public health. If the hazardous waste is found to exist on the property, the state may exercise its right to bring an action, if necessary, to recover clean-up costs from the grantors or any others who are ultimately determined to have responsibility for the hazardous waste condition of the property." W. CONSUMPTION OF RENEWABLE AND NON- RENEWABLE RE- SOURCES Construction of the proposed project will involve the consumption of both renewable and non - renewable resources. The materials utilized in the construction of the widened roadway (i.e., sand, gravel, concrete, asphalt, street fixtures) will, for all practical purposes, be permanently and irretrievably committed to the project. Once the street improvements are complete, a substantial amount of fuel will be consumed on a daily basis by vehicles traveling along the roadway. The project would improve several circulation performance characteristics inherent in determining fuel consumption by automobiles. Since traffic volumes on Bristol Street are projected to increase substantially, the proposed improvements should significantly improve IV -83 75C -218 circulation characteristics along the roadway in the future, thereby producing a beneficial effect on future vehicular fuel consumption. - Mitigation Measures None are required. 1 •t �C�� u: Article 1, Section 66088 of Title 22, Chapter 30, Division 4, of the California Administrative Code, defines a hazardous waste as: "Anv waste material or mixtwe of wastes wbich is toxic, corrosive, flammable, an irritant, a strong sensitizer, or which generates pressure through decomposition, heat, or other means; r. if such a waste or mixture of wastes may cause substantial injury, r, seridus illness, or harm to humans, domestic livestock, or wildlife. Hazardous waste includes extremely hazardous waste." Consequences Right -of -way impacts to businesses that may generate hazardous waste or sites that contain underground storage tanks will occur with implementation of the preferred alternative. Businesses that would be affected by the preferred - alternative are listed in Table 22. Several of the properties identified in Table 22 contain underground storage tanks containing gasoline and vehicle motor oils. Other identified properties may have chemicals stored in surface level containers of various sizes. It is likely, therefore, that implementation of the preferred alternative will require - the removal of underground or aboveground tanks, or modifications to sites which have historically been handling, processing or storing hazardous materials. Such activities have the potential to release hazardous wastes into the air or into the ground, but standard construction practices, which will involve careful coordination of project design plans and prior notification of construction - activity, are expected to minimize these risks and to minimize any disruptions. Owners of facilities which are abandoned as a result of this project will be - My compensated for the fair market value of such facilities, including the loss of income related thereto. w IV -84 75C -219 Table 22 Potential Hazardous Materials Sites to be Displaced by Preferred Alignment [V -85 75C -220 Potential Business Hazardous Material 1. Metal Polishing and Plating Chemicals 207 N. Bristol Street 2. Gas Station Gasoline 106 S. Bristol Street 3. Gas Station Gasoline 2040 S. Bristol Street 4. Medical Clinic Cheuilcals /infectious Waste 217 -223 S. Bristol Street 5. Medical Clinic Chemicals /infectious Waste 1147 S. Bristol Street 6. Pest Control Service Chemicals 1143 S. Bristol Street 7. Copy (print) Shop Chemicals 1127 S. Bristol Street R. Gas Station Gasoline 1228 McFadden Street 4. Dental Office Chemicals 2105 S. Bristol Street 10, Gas Station Gasoline 1441 S. Bristol Street 11. Dentai Office Chemicals 1423 -1425 S. Bristol Street 12, Medical Clinic Chemicals /Infectious Waste 2101 S. Bristai Street [V -85 75C -220 Table 22 (Cont.) B_tS 13. Hair Salon 2010 N. Bristol Street 14. Gas Station 802 N. Bristol Street 15. Doctor's Office 716 N. Bristol Street 16. Gas Station 708 N. Bristol Street 17. Gas Station 2641 N. Bristol Street 18, Doctor's Office 1601 N. Bristol Street 19. Dentai Office 1417 N. Bristol Street 20. Dental Office 1311 N. Bristol Street 21. Gas Station 801 N. Bristol Street 22. Auto Service 509 N. Bristol Street 23. Auto Service 417 N. Bristol Street 24. Auto Service 1747 Santa Ana Boulevard 25. Medical Clinic 1250 W. 3rd Street 26. Auto Service 1249 W. 1st Street IV -86 75C -221 Potential Hazardous Material Chemicals Gasoline Chemicals Gasoline Gasoline Chemicals /Wectious Waste Chemicals Chemicals Gasoline Chemicals /Vehicle Motor Oil Chemicals/ Vehicle Motor Oil Chemicals /Vehicle Motor Oil Chemicals /Infectious Waste Chemicals /Vehicle Motor Oil affrOMMUMMM Please refer to Section IV.V. for additional construction- related mitigation measures to reduce hazardous waste impacts. 1. The City of Santa Ana's Public Works Director will coordinate closely with all agencies and companies which maintain underground or at -grade utility or energy facilities within the areas to be disturbed by project construction activities. Preliminary and final design plans will be made available to such agencies for review and comment. At least 48 hours prior to commencement of any excavation activities, the City will contact the Underground Service Alert to notify the affected utility/energy purveyors who can place their personnel at the excavation site to assist in the location of underground facilities during the exploratory digging immediately preceding excavation_ In this manner, the risk of line rupture to natural gas; petroleum, and sewer facilities, which might release hazardous substances and odors into the air, can be minimized. 2. Should any unidentified substances, odors, leaking underground tanks, or other mysterious and potentially hazardous materials be encountered during project construction, work in that area will be halted and the Santa Ana Fire Department's Hazardous Materials Team will be contacted to evaluate the materials and to define appropriate remedial measures. 3. The removal of underground storage tanks will be in accordance with all applicable regulations. For any service stations that will be partially acquired or displaced, the City will request that the owners remove the underground gasoline tanks prior to property acquisition. If the owners do not remove the underground tanks, the City will include the following statement in the right -of -way agreement: "It is understood the property being acquired in this transaction may contain hazardous waste which must be removed or otherwise treated under state or federal Law to protect the public health. If hazardous waste is found to exist on the property, the State may exercise its right to bring an action, if necessary, to recover clean -up costs from the grantors or any others who are ultimately determined to N -87 75C -222 have responsibility for the hazardous waste condition of the property." _ y, --Ml . -rM v Z�r rr u t r Implemeatation of the preferred aitemative would likely have a long -term m impact on the land use and population of Santa Ana, and perhaps the Cities of Orange and Costa Mesa which are also served by the Bristol Street Corridor. An increase in the traffic carrying ability of the roadway may provide an impetus for increased redevelopment and land use intensification in Santa Ana. The project would enhance the long -term productivity of the region as ,. well as improve the redevelopment potential of residential and commercial areas in Santa Ana. The primary short-term adverse effects to the community are: 1. Air quality will be temporarily degraded due to exhaust and dust generated by construction equipment; 2. Visual blight will occur from the temporary storage of construction materials and equipment on site; 3. Construction noise will occur temporarily; 4. The proposed project would displace residential and business uses; 5. Traffic congestion, access restrictions, and delays would occur during construction. I149 :►rI :RIO- W17>•\vuZ9WO311141�l��S K•I I�L�fMr [= f`►YI<�T • This section summarizes the impact of the use of non - renewable and irretrievable resources, and discusses any irreversible damage that would result from the environmental impacts of the project. The project is located in a highly urbanized area. The land uses adjacent to _ Bristol Street are devoted to predominantly residential and commercial purposes. The preferred alternative would commit a large number of parcels currently used for residential /commercial uses to automotive transportation and related uses. Since the area is heavily urbanized and fully built out, the preferred alternative would not involve the consumption of any non- urbanized _ land resources, agricultural lands, or open spaces. Im1:1 75C -223 A commitment of resources associated with construction activities, including concrete, steel, asphalt, base material, and additional energy in the form of gas and electricity would be used during construction. � � u :: uio • .r I • � Impacts of the preferred alternative on the natural, physical, and social environment have been discussed in the preceding sections. Mitigation measures to reduce these adverse impacts have been identified, however, not all adverse impacts can be reduced to an insignificant level. The remaining insignificant and significant adverse impacts are summari zed below: Insignificant Impacts Which Cannot be Fully Mitigated Temporary construction detours would cause 'added congestion to Bristol and local streets adjacent to the detour. Businesses within the detour area would experience a drop in business activity affecting, to various degrees, the sales tax revenue. A considerable amount of inconvenience to the travelling public would occur in the immediate vicinity of the project. Air quality surrounding the high activity areas during construction would suffer a temporary degradation. Noise and vibrations would also be an unavoidable adverse impact in the same areas. Temporary disruption of utility services may occur during construction. Although these impacts cannot be fully mitigated, with the measures cited in Section IV.V, the impacts would be mitigated to insignificant levels, particularly given the temporary nature of construction- related impacts. 2. Air Quality Although the preferred alternative, on an overall basis, will have a beneficial impact on air quality by increasing speeds and reducing delays, the increased speeds will result in greater emissions of nitrogen dioxide (NOx). The increase in NOx over the No- Project alternative, however, is an insignificant one percent (525 pounds per day as opposed to 520 pounds per day). IV -89 75C -224 3. Noise ,.e project : mirior increases in aoise 1P.P_IQ , which, m general, already exceed commonly accepted standards. This minor impact will occur with or without the project. The preferred alternative would result in the displacement of 99 businesses and 163 residences. Although substantial relocation benefits are available to assist residents and business operators in relocating, the net impacts represent a significant disruption to the community. BB. GROWTH INDUCING AND Ci.1MUI..ATIVB IMPACTS Increasing the capacity of existing transportation facilities generally influences and accommodates growth. The preferred alternative to improve Bristol Street may influence locational development decisions and stimulate increased urban growth, particularly land use intensification and redevelopment. Other factors, however, have equal or greater influence on urban growth; economic trerids, municipal policies, local plans, location image, land availability, and development financing practices. Section I.D discusses travel demand to the Santa Ana Civic Center, This demand is expected to increase, particularly with additional traffic that may R result from new redevelopment projects. Roadway improvements, such as the Bristol Street project, will increase the ability of the local circulation system to .. transport people to and from the Downtown core, thereby facilitating additional intensified development. The preferred alternative, when combined with other factors however, may stimulate urban growth. For example, residential development in the study area may be influenced by major transportation improvements that reduce -- congestion and travel time. There is no empirical evidence to clearly support this potential influence, however. It\ 't 75C -225 Y 75C -226 W COMMENTS AND COORDINATION 75C -227 Introduction An interdisciplinary approach involving governmental agency coordination and public participation in transportation planning is an important state and federal requirement. Agency and public input has been solicited since the early stages of the Bristol Street widening study. 'These efforts are described below. I. EARLY CONSLT TAON Sc in During the initial scoping phase of the Bristol Street project, planning efforts were undertaken to satisfy federal and state procedural guidelines regarding public notification and consultation. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) pursuant to CEQA was sent to the appropriate local, state and federal agencies in May of 1987 and a Notice of Intent (NOI) was published in the Federal Register in October of 1987. Environmental scoping meetings were held on November 18, 1985 and Decem- ber 18, 1986 for the purpose of insuring that all public agencies and interested individuals had an opportunity to be involved early in the planning process. These meetings allowed the consultant team to define the various project alternatives, identify any significant environmental issues and allow the public to voice their concerns and offer suggestions about the project. Meeting notices were distributed to the concerned agencies, published in regional and local newspapers, and [nailed to residents in the project area. A copy of the minutes for each meeting as well as public distribution materials are contained in Appendix B. The minutes contained in Appendix B provide the reader with a summary of the issues and concerns voiced by local residents and business owners and operators. Responses to the NOP and NO( by responsible agencies are contained in Section X of this document. 11. PUBLIC HEARINGS CONCERNING DRAFT EIS Daring and following circulation of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), the City of Santa Ana held three public hearings concerning the project and the adequacy of the DEIS, as follows. The Planning Commission V -1 75C -228 held a public hearing on July 10, 1989, (see public hearing transcript following page VI -22). The City Council also held public hearings on November 6, 1989 and November 20, 1989. The Council approved the DEIS for transmittal to FHWA at the November 20, 1989 meeting, by Resolution No. 89 -11. m lur�[7_[s3�l►C�I�IZ�]�111�[ ] ►I_���ZKtt7►6��1.N.1►:q.M.(�]sl In order to carry out the activities of developing and studying project _ alternatives, which reflected concern for the human and natural environment, an interdisciplinary team consisting of people with a variety of backgrounds in the natural sciences, humanities, planning and engineering was developed. This Project Development Team was principally responsible for preparing this document. The members of this team are listed in Section VIII of this document. Information and input was solicited from a large number of public agencies. The distribution list for the Environmental Impact Statement /Environmental Impact Report (EIS /EIR) contained in Section VII of this document lists the agencies and individuals who received a NOP and Draft EIS /EIR for review and comment. Finally, a large number of individuals representing the pertinent City and other local and regional agencies were consulted in the preparation of this document, as listed below: — Ms. Joyce Amerson, Project Manager, Santa Ana Public Works Agency. r -- Mr. Michael Betts, Project Manager, Santa Ana Public Works Agency. W -- Mr. George Alvarez, Traffic Engineer, Santa Ana Public Services Agency. -- Mr. David Grosse, Director, Santa Ana Public Services Agency. — Mr. Robert Howes, Senior Civil Engineer, Santa Ana Public Services Agency. r Mr. Dave Michaelson, Planner, Environmental Land Use Section, Orange County Transit District. Mr. Cliff Seward, Police Officer, Traffic Division, Santa Ana Police Department. Mr. Mack Magdalena, Sergeant, Santa Ana Police Department. V -2 75C -229 r - Ms. Joan Stone, Principal, Santiago Elementary School. Mr. Anthony Dalessi, Assistant Superintendent, Santa Ana Unified School District. - Mrs. Diane Robson, Executive Secretary, Rancho Santiago College. Mrs. Irene Leonard, Administrative CIerk, Research Office, City of Santa Ana. Mr. Jim Montgomery, Deputy Fire Chief, Santa Ana Fire Department. — Mr. Jim Livingston, Paramedic Supervisor, Santa Ana Fire Department. Mr. Ferrell Morgan, Head of Public Services, Santa Ana Public Library. Mrs. Patty Moreno, City Clerk, City of Santa Ana. Mr. Tom Pondsford, Assistant Planner, City of Santa Ana Planning Department. Ms. Sandra Massa- Lavitt, Associate Planner, City of Santa Ana Planning Department. Mr. Ron Ono, Landscape Architect, City of Santa Ana. Mr, Bill Liebel, Facilities Manager, City of Santa Ana. Mr. Tom Smith, Customer Service Planner, Southern California Edison Company. Mr, Dennis Moore, Technical Supervisor, Southern California Gas Company. Mr. Rudy O'Claray, Technical Supervisor, Southern California Gas Company. Mr. Bob Hecker, Engineer, Pacific Bell Telephone. Mrs. Theresa Simons, Construction Supervisor, Comcast Cablevision Company. Mr. Jim Morgan, Owner, Morgan Ambulance. Mr. Dave Meslovich, Regional Manager, Schaeffer Ambulance. V -3 75C -230 Mr. Sherman Ninburg, Vice President, Southland Ambulance. Mr. Michael Dimas, President, Media Ambulance. Mrs. Joyce York, Collection Manager, Doctor's Ambulance. Mr. Ken Lindsay, Manager, Seal's Ambulance. Mrs. Mary Jo Cooper, Emergency Department Supervisor, Coastal Community Hospital. Mr. Ed Deanniere, Chief of Transportation, Achison Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad. Mr. Mike Chilson, Train Master, Southern Pacific Transportation Company. Ms. Pat Meserly, Right -of -Way Agent, Caltrans. Ms. Rene Schulte, Analyst, County of Orange, Forecast and Analysis Division. Ms. Leila Jensen, Housing Authority Supervisor, Santa Ana Housing Authority. Mr. Ben Barrolotto, Construction Industry Research Board. Ms. Nancy Edwards, Santa Ana Housing Services Department. Ms. Margaret Cavignano, Administrative Office, Santa Ana Unified School District. Mr. Mark Durham, United States Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch, Los Angeles, California. Mr. Jack Faucher, United States Army Corps of Engineers, Permits and Endangered Species, Section 7 Coordinator. Ms. Margaret Hogan, South Coast Air Quality Management District. Mr. Rob Selway, Orange County Historical Society. Mr. George Casen, California Department of Transportation, District 12, Environmental Branch. V-4 75C -231 r r • i .r • r • �.� IN ; • • A �rl _�l1Lia A. Comments trade at City of Santa Ana Planning Commission Public Hearing, held July 10, 1989. A complete transcript of that hearing is presented in Subsection C herein, page V -. .ypp�, rol of . 1. 'Let me assure you that the worst carcinogen that is put into our atmosphere today are the fumes stemming from diesel fuels. Had the commission been aware of the voluminous amounts of carcinogens that had been emitted and sent into the school grounds, you would have taken some action not to perpetrate an engineered increase in traffic along Bristol Street." Response The traffic impact study indicates that there will be no change in the traffic loading on Bristol Street with any alternative. The impact assessment demonstrates that in the future design year 2006, the increase in average route speeds along Bristol Street will cause a decrease in carbon monoxide emissions (3,666 pounds /day) and total hydrocarbon emissions (376 pounds /day) and a slight increase in nitrogen dioxide emissions (5 pounds /day). No change is expected in sulfur oxides and particulate emissions. 2. "Let's also' consider the noise level and the decibels which are far in excess, which should not be withstood by any human being, particularly school children." Response Harmful effects of noise are discussed in detail on pages 4 -1 and 4 -2 of the noise impact report (under separate cover). They are also summarized in Table 4 -1. Figure 10 illustrates how speech communication is affected at various distances as noise levels rise. The noise study also presents federal and local noise criteria that relate to noise increases at schools and other noise sensitive land uses affected by the Bristol Street Widening Project, The impact assessment indicates that noise levels will increase by less than one decibel with each alternative (an inaudible increase) and emphasizes the effects on noise sensitive receptors located adjacent to Bristol Street. The mitigation discussion details twelve mitigation strategies designed to reduce potential noise impacts to acceptable levels as defined by federal and local noise criteria. LM 75C -232 1- P' 1 I 1. 1 "Has there been a study made as to the effect that center dividers (raised medians) will have on currently established businesses that are , on Bristol Street ?" As part of the overall circulation analysis the traffic impacts of limiting left -turn movements to businesses along Bristol Street were considered. _ The intersection capacity evaluations and operational improvements address the need for additional capacity and tarn lane storage lengths to accommodate traffic that will be redirected to adjacent intersections _ with the median_ No specific assessment of the economic impacts was conducted. However, past experience has shown that the benefits of exposure to higher traffic volumes generally offsets the loss of left -turn access that will result with a raised median. Comment by: J.L. McGowan 1. "How much are we going to increase the pollution on Bristol Street ?" In the future design year (2006) the increase in average route speeds along Bristol Street will cause a decrease in carbon monoxide emissions (3666 pounds /day) and total hydrocarbon emissions (376 pounds /day) and an increase in nitrogen dioxide emissions (5 pounds /day). No change is expected in sulfur oxides and particulate emissions. Comments by: Miles Leach (paraphrased) 1. "Will cul -de -sacs improve safety or will the additional distance that vehicles have to travel expose them to additional accidents, off- setting the benefits ?" W fn all cases the farthest distance residential traffic would be diverted is 1,550'. This is a negligible distance traveled on local streets, which in — nearly every case, have much lower accident incidences than arterial /local street intersections. For a complete discussion and ME 75C -233 analysis of the benefits and relatively minor impacts of the cul -de -sacs, see page IV -57 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, "Proposed Operational Improvements." 2. "As I understand it, widening Bristol Street, they are more or less getting ready for more traffic, which will mean that they will have to put barriers for sound and smog. And it is going to create more smog by malting a fancy, wide street." Res The traffic impact report findings indicate that the loading in terms of vehicle miles of travel will not change on any link as a result of the project, but average route speeds will increase as congestion is alleviated. It is this increase in average speeds that will reduce carbon monoxide emissions and hydrocarbon emissions but slightly increase NOx emissions. Changes in the roadway width and average route speeds will increase adjacent noise levels by less than one decibel. This is an inaudible increase. Comment bv- Martin John Eaton (Paranhrased 1. "Wouldn't Bristol Street benefit from removal of turn restrictions from Memory Lane to Flower Street and 17th and Flower ?" Response_ The Flower Street turn restrictions are not related to the Bristol Street project, as addressed by this report. However, in light of the fact that Flower Street is only one lane in each direction, removal of the restrictions would provide little or no benefit in reducing traffic on Bristol Street. 2. "Would the proposed Santa Ana River extension of the Route 57 Freeway eliminate the need to widen Bristol Street in light of the discussion to speed up the project ?" ..1 The Route 57 Freeway extension down the Santa Ana River is a long - range (10 -20 year) transportation improvement that will be difficult to construct, due to lack of funding and an anticipated cost of 1 billion dollars. Also, traffic projections indicate that the Route 57 extension will be needed even with the widening of Bristol Street. The Route 57 V -7 75C -234 Freeway is a regional improvement that is expected to relieve the congestion of the Route 55 Freeway through Costa Mesa. 3. "If I had known about possible redevelopment, I would not have bought my house. I have found that the price of my house will decrease." Response Mr. Eaton's property is north of the proposed Redevelopment Project Area and is not impacted by it. The north boundary of the project is 21st Street. 4. "1 have been told that there is some type of consensus that is being done near the streets of the area. However, I have asked residents if any person has talked to them in the last two or three years about the project, and have received information that no one has at all." Response The area where Mr. Eaton lives received notification of a public meeting ibat was held in October of 1988, at Rancho Santiago College. At that meeting the staffs proposal for the street widening was discussed at length. Comments by: Florence Leach 1. `Phis is about the impacts on the existing land uses. They say in the E.I.S. that they do -- are not known at this time, so that is W some of the things that the staff should consider and also include in the information that will be future coming." The DEIS contains an extensive discussion of impacts on existing land uses and mitigation measures therefore, under the topics of Housing Displacement (p. IV -43), Business Displacement (pp. IV-43 to N -46), _ Neighborhood Character and Minority Groups (pp. IV-46 to IV-48), and Community Facilities (pp. IV -48 to IV -52). From 133 to 236 housing units would be displaced, depending on the widening alternative selected. Between 41 and 99 businesses would be displaced, depending on the alternative selected. The neighborhood's physical character would change substantially, due to the removal of V-8 75C -235 numerous buildings and improvements and the construction of a wider, extensively landscaped street corridor. The local population would be reduced by several hundred people, many of whom would be of Mpanic or Asian ethnicity. The City would provide relocation assistance including direct payments, to all displaced households and businesses. In addition, the Project Area Committee will evaluate alternatives for keeping displaced businesses within the project area. Several community facilities sites would lose portions of their street frontage, due to a widened section of Bristol Street. These facilities included public schools, day care centers, churches, and Mater Dei High Scbool. No 4(f) properties would be acquired. 2. "Also, that there is medium /high density residents on both sides of Third Street — this is page 111 -47 -- east side of Bristol Street, Third Street, and west side of Bristol Street. So the impact on the traffic situation in Santa Ana is being compounded tremendously by multiple housing, apartment complexes." Response The DEIS discussion on page M-47 simply refers to the City's current General Plan land use designations in the project area, which include medium and medium -high density residential along Third Street, near Bristol Street. 3. "Also, that if there is higher density redevelopment projects -- and this is III -26 -- but the City says it has no such plan at this time for higher density redevelopment if there is a redevel- opment project" Response The City's Redevelopment Plan, by law, must be in conformance with the City's General Plan. The Santa Ana General Plan does not designate high density residential along any portion of the project corridor. 4. "And 1 know Mr. Casteix spoke about the height on fences and a fencing ordinance; therefore, I would suggest that sound barrier walls be no higher than 4 feet. So if we are going to make a uniform ordinance about fences, then to me, a sound barrier wall is more or less a fence. It's a wall. So we should limit the height of fences. That would -- the sound barrier walls, the air V -9 75C -236 pollution confined in that area, someone who has to stop at a stoplight is going to be — it is really going to be pretty bad." Noise barriers must be a minimum of 6' tall adjacent to at -grade lots to be effective at brealting the line -o£- -sight exposure of individuals standing behind the barrier. Given that the average receptor has ears located 5.5' above the ground, a shorter wall would be ineffective. 5. "Also, the 14' wide raised median — that is more than the width of a — one of the lanes, so it seems to me that space is being wasted." Response The proposed street geometrics, including the 14' wide raised center median, are consistent with the Orange County and City of Santa Ana standards for a major arterial roadway. 6. "Will the proposed cul -de -sacs create congestion on other east /west street that cross Bristol Street? !: The impacts of traffic diverted as a result of the cul-de -sacs was considered by the traffic analysis and the adjacent intersections will be designed so that the east /west streets will not be overloaded. These impacts and the evaluation of the locations impacted by the traffic that will be diverted by the cul -de -sacs is discussed in detail, beginning on page IV -57, the Proposed Operational Improvement section. 7. "What about the proposed extension of the 57 Freeway to the I- 405 Freeway ?" R Response "' Please see the previous response to the same comment by Martin John Eaton. Comments by: Jan Lind 1. "I do not believe the impact statement addresses those issues (noise level and air quality concerns) sufficiently within the study. National impact people are -- there just is not enough V -10 75C -237 documentation to the effect of this on my children and my family." The air quality and noise technical studies are very detailed and lengthy technical documents that have been summarized within the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). They have been submitted for review by the technical staff of the City of Santa Ana, Caltrans, and the Federal Highway Administration. They follow adopted procedures and guidelines in an effort to serve as full disclosure documents which objectively identify the potential short-term and long -term impacts on noise and air quality associated with the Bristol Street Widening Project. 2. The other thing is that it may help tend to prevent some of the smog drifting over into all of our backyards, that sort of thing. So I would like to see those issues addressed more." Response The project will decrease emissions of carbon monoxide (colorless odorless toxic gas) and hydrocarbons (unburned fuel) without increasing particulate and SOx emissions. The 5 pounds /day increase in NOx emissions, when spread over the entire length of the widening area, will be insignificant. With or without barriers along the roadway, the project will significantly reduce emissions of CO and THC and thereby improve air quality adjacent to the roadbed. W . IM-11 � . 1. "If the street is widened on the west side of the street, our property will back up directly to Bristol Street. There is a proposed sound barrier wall, and it is only listed as a little over 6'. That is not high enough to protect from sound as it is now with the houses that are in back of us if they are taken out." RMonse Generally, at second line receptors, noise levels will increase. The removal of the &st line receptors will cause noise levels at the second line receptors to increase. The proposed 6' noise barrier is designed to reduce ambient noise levels after the removal of the first line receptors to acceptable levels based upon federal and local criteria. V -11 75C -238 W 2. "Is the proposed raised median going to prohibit northbound Bristol Street left -turn access to 21st Street "? If so, I would be co*ncemed abornit emergency (police or fire) access to the 600 homes in the area." The proposed widening and median installation will not result mi limited access to 21st Street. Full left -tam access to and from Bristol Street will be maintained. 1. "1 think that's because they are trying to use the Bristol Street .� widening to lead to a redevelopment on the City of Santa Ana." " Response The widening of Bristol Street is a major goal of the Bristol Corridor Redevelopment Project Area. However, it is not the only goal of the project area. w B. Written Comments Received w 1. "Can a sound attenuation wall be installed prior to the widening w of Bristol Street, along the edge of my condo complex (Shadowood, at 615 North Bristol Street)? The noise from the traffic and boom boxes is rather disquieting for our bedroom." ` Response w The complex currently has a perimeter wall that would be removed in conjunction with two of the Bristol Street widening alternatives. A new perimeter wall will be constructed as quickly as is feasible to replace it, f if it is removed. Construction of the new wall, as a 6' noise barrier, would reduce the noise levels behind the wall, but any gaps to allow access would reduce its effectiveness to the extent that the minimum Caltrans effectiveness criteria could not be met. Consequently, Caltrans may not elect to install a 6' noise barrier in place of the existing _ perimeter wall; however, the City may elect to do so at their discretion. 2. "Another concern I have is the potential asbestos risk. As cars _T stop at the intersection of Bristol Street and Civil Center Drive, V -12 75C -239 w asbestos quite naturally will scratch off their brake pads, creating a potential health hazard, provided anyone were to inhale this airborne dust /toxic. Living only a hop, skip, and a jump from an already bustling Bristol Street, 1 shoulder at the thought of extra cars, noise, asbestos, and dust." Exposure to airborne asbestos has been shown to be hazardous to public health, and the threat of toxicity is chronic. Asbestos has been identified as a toxic air pollutant pursuant to the provisions of AB 1807. Final rules have been issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding asbestos sources. The EPA recently published a statement outlining the phase out of asbestos products, including brake pads, beginning in 1992 (Federal Register Volume 54, #132, July 29, 1989). L "After reviewing the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the widening of Bristol Street, I would like to make several comments on behalf of the District, As you might expect, we were pleased with the comment on page 11 -14 concerning the acquisition of 4(f) properties. On behalf of the Board of Education and District staff, we encourage the City of Santa Ana and the other agencies associated with the project to honor section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act (80 State 941; public law 89 -670) with respect to the acquisition of public agency property for the Bristol widening project. In several sections of the report, when the topic of Community Facilities is being addressed, the EIR has discussed the impact on existing schools only. Since the District has either acquired or initiated condemnation proceedings for the acquisition of property needed for the Martin Luther King, Jr. Elementary School project, it is very important that this school in the 1000 block of S. Bristol be included in the comments on page III -29 and IV -48. There is also a concern with the comment made on page IV-48 concerning property "donated" by the City to the School District, with respect to Jose A. Sepulveda Elementary School. The City loaned the money for the acquisition for the property at 1818 S. Bristol and that loan has now been repaid. At the time the loan was made several years ago, there was a stipulation that a 5trip approximately 15 feet wide along Bristol V -13 75C -240 on the south had of the property would be made available for the widening of Bristol at some time in the future, but that was the limit of the understanding concerning the right -of -way to be reserved for the City's Bristol Street widening project." Response Thank you for the Santa Ana Unified School District's Resolution of Support for the widening of Bristol Street from Memory Lane to Warner Avenue. As you know, this project is of major significance to the City of Santa Ana. We do, however, offer the following comments regarding your July 18, 1989 letter: — The EIS /EIR will be modified to reference the Martin Luther King Jr. Elementary School in the 1000 block of South Bristol Street. - The document will also be changed to indicate the City loaned the School District the money for property acquisition for Jose A. Sepulveda Elementary School, and the loan has now been repaid. We do have some concern with your interpretation regarding the amount of land required for the widening of Bristol Street. Section 9, of the executed agreement, states as follows: "The District agrees to convey to the City, without cost to the City, and easement for street purposes over the portion of the Property which the City determines to be necessary for the widening of Bristol Street, such conveyance to be made upon the request of the City at any time after the District's acquisition of - the Property." There is no stipulation in the agreement regarding the amount of property needed for the widening of Bristol Street. Until the .� City Council makes a decision on the Specific Plan Street Alignment, the City won't know what property will be required to widen Bristol Street, V -14 75C -241 Comments hy7 Deanna M, Wieman. Director. Office of External Affairs, United States Environmental Protection Agengy. Region IX San Francisco 1. 'The list of alternatives fails to consider options that do not include widening the roadway, such as signal synchronization and other transportation systems management techniques." 1.1 Page 11 -14 of the DEIS discusses the Transportation System Management (TSM) alternative, which would involve modifications to the existing roadway that would increase its traffic carrying efficiency without acquiring additional right -of -way. Examples of TSM measures include traffic signal synchronization, provision of additional bus stops, and restriping to add lanes. Traffic signals throughout the subject segment of Bristol Street are already synchronized. Insufficient roadway width exists to enable restriping to add additional through lanes or additional turn lanes at the intersections. The addition of bus stops was not suggested by the Orange County Transit District, and without acquiring right -of -way to establish a bus turnout, additional bus stops would only add to congestion at the approaches to the bus stop. TSM measures, alone, were deemed insufficient to achieve the City's goals for upgrading Bristol Street to a six -lane, divided roadway, consistent with the Orange County Master Plan of highways and the City of Santa Ana Circulation Element. Page H -15 of the DEIS also discusses the alternative of establishing a one -way couplet with Flower Street, a parallel roadway located approximately 1/2 mile east of Bristol Street. This alternative was rejected because of several significant constraints related to right -of -way impacts, redirection of travel patterns through residential neighborhoods, and disruption to efficient northwest travel between State Route 22 and the I -405 Freeway. 2. 'Tbe DEIS includes a discussion of the 1982 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), but does not discuss the 1988 AQMP. While the more recent plan has not been approved by the EPA for inclusion in the State Implementation Plan, it has been adopted by the Southern California Association of Governments, the South Coast Air Quality Management District, V -15 75C -242 and the California Air Resources Board. Therefore, the FEIS should describe how the new plan relates to this project." - Response Staff representatives of both the Southern California Association of Governments and the South Coast Air Quality Management District were contacted to determine how the new AQMP applies to this project. Their response was that the AOMP addresses only transportation projects of statewide or region -wide significance, such as freeway and highway projects, new transportation corridors, mass transit proposals, etc. Local roadway improvements, such as the proposed Bristol Street widening, are not specifically addressed in the AQMP. Conformity criteria for local highway projects, such as the Bristol Street widening project, have not yet been developed. 3. "EPA's scoping letter of 21 January 1986 recommended that for each alternative the DEIS address potential changes in -- population and commercial growth and changes in Vehicle Miles Traveled (VNM associated with growth. The DEIS does briefly mention that 'Increasing the capacity of existing transportation - facilities generally influences and accommodates growth (V -3)." However, the traffic and air quality analysis fails to take potential increases in VMT into account. Predictions of improved air emissions for all pollutants examined (except NOX) are based on increased travel speeds alone. The FEIS should factor projected increases in VMT into the analysis of potential - impacts to air quality." Response The traffic prediction model, upon which the assessment of air quality impacts was based, assumed that future traffic volumes along Bristol Street would be approximately the same, with or without the proposed improvements. The proposed improvements will expand the traffic R carrying capacity and efficiency of Bristol Street and for a short period of time, local commuters may experiment with the improved Bristol Street as an alternate north /south route. Such changes in normal commuting patterns are possible, but cannot be quantified with any acceptable level of accuracy, and may, in fact, not occur. It is acknowledged that, should commuters temporarily or even permanently alter their normal north /south travel to drive greater distances in order to use an improved Bristol Street, total VMT' would increase, and traffic speeds may not increase as much as predicted. These effects would alter the future air quality conditions projected in the DEIS. ." V -16 75C -243 4. "The DEIS states the project is included in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and that therefore it would conform with the proposed SIP revision. The FEIS must describe exactly how and where this project was included in the R c and whether the traffic and growth projections used in the DEIS are the same as those used in the RTP. Consistency with the RTP, however, does not guarantee conformity with the 1988 proposed SIP revision - The FHWA should consult with the South Coast Association of Governments and the South Coast Air Quality Management District to apply their newly adopted SIP conformity procedures to this project. These procedures require that the FEIS address issues such as growth - related and corridor -level impacts of the proposed project," RVIT, Page IV -17 of the DEIS indicates that 'Tbe mobile emission analysis of the area's air quality management plan included in the proposed SIP revision is based on a RTP (and Program) that includes this project. Therefore, it is expected that if a SIP revision is approved in the project area, this project would conform to it." This statement was included, verbatim, at the direction of the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Region Nine, in their October 17, 1988 letter to Mr. Robert K, Best, Director, at Caltran's Sacramento office, concerning the Pre -Draft Environmental Impact Statement. With regard to this project's consistency with the proposed SIP revision, which is based on this regions new AQMP, please refer to Response to EPA, Comment No. 2, above. 5. "The technical study for the project by Endo Engineering assumes that traffic volumes would be the same with and without the project. The study concludes that congestion would be reduced and traffic speeds would increase. On this basis, the DEIS predicts that air emissions for carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons would decline with construction of the project. Given that existing levels of services are very poor this may not be an accurate assumption. Without the project, some of the future traffic might travel at alternative times, by alternative modes, on alternative routes, or not at all. By assuming the traffic volumes would be identical, the DEIS potentially V -17 75C -244 overstates the projected air quality benefits. 'The FEIS should discass the impact the improved flow of traffic might have on encouraging traffic beyond that forecasted." See previous response to EPA, Comment No. 3 6. "All three alternatives involve widening the existing bridge over Santiago Creek. The DEIS states that bridge reconstruction would entail "encroaching into further portions of the Santiago Creek streambed (IV -4);' The DEIS contains a characterization of the biological resources in the streambed which concludes that no wetlands resources are at risk. However, Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) regulates all waters of the United States and therefore EPA recommends that FHWA consult the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to determine whether a 404 permit is required for the project. The FEIS should identify the - dimensions of the fill required for each alternative and assess potential impacts to water quality and beneficial uses." Rest See letter, dated October 3, 1989, to the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angles District, describing probable effects of bridge construction, and letter from the Army Corps, dated October 4, 1989, responding that this project is covered under the Nationwide Permit, Y- pursuant to Section 330.5(a)(26)(i) of the Clean Water Act, in Section X of the FEIS. R Comments by- U.S. Department of Transportation. Memorandum dated October 2. 1989. 1. "We have reviewed the Bristol Street Widening Environmental Impact Statement, and we have the following comment regarding .� Impacts on Community Facilities, Section Q, page IV-48. The project's Centerline and East alternatives will require additional right -of -way from the Mater Dei High School. The - additional right -of- -way will reduce the school's football and baseball fields and running track. The .taking of this land, if it is used by the entire public, will require a Section 4(f) review. The EIS document needs to clarify the status of the usage of these R recreational facilities and state whether Section 4(f) is applicable. It would appear that the urban Bristol Street area V -18 75C -245 needs recreational facilities, and we would encourage the preservation of the Mater Dei High School's facilities. inank you for the opportunity io review this project." Response The preferred alternative will = affect the Mater Dei High School site, as explained on page N -52 of the FEIS. V -19 75C -246 July 191 1989 CITY OF COSTA MESA CALIFORNIA 125:61200 P O. 50K I ma OEVELOPMER4 8EAVICES ^viF- RTtf4? Joyce Amerson City of Santa Ana Public works Agency 101 West Fourth Street _ P.O. Box 1988 M -21 Santa Ana, CA 92702 suoji Ti ARIATOL ATREST glnElflNa•pR0TECT pagn EIR /EIS Dear Ms. Amerson: _ Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft EIR /EIS on the - Bristol Street project. Specifically, I sent the document to our Transportation Services Department. The City of costa Mena hae no particular comments on the environmental document but does support this project as it will significantly improve regional traffic - circulation. If you need any information, please call me at 754 -5136 or Dennis — Johnson in Transportation Services At 754 -5334. Sincerely, f�iGQ.LP� CaQ�P -to .. KRISTEN A. CASPERS — Associate Planner RAC:jl(AMRSN.KAC) RESPONSE T This letter contains no comments on the ➢EIS and no response, therefore, is required. •� V -20 77 PAR ORIYe gAleryq nhWm (7141 ?$4-Ma • Cud, UftWIM 17111 MAW PlmnlnE Wlian (711) 754.UO _ MX (771) E4-79M 0 r— - United States Department of the Interior r o OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT REVIEW + WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240 AUG 7 1989 ER 89/649 mr. Bruce E. Cannon Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration P. 0. Box 1915 Sacramento, California 95809-1915 Dear Mr. Cannon: This is in regard to the request for the Department of the Interiar's comments on the draft environmental statement /report concerning Bristol Street, City of Santa Ana, Orange County, California, This is to inform you that the Department will have comments, but will be unable to reply within the allotted time as we have just received your transmittal. Please consider this letter as a request for an extension of time in which to comment on the statement. Our comments should be available about mid- September. Sincerely, ! / onathan P. Deason it ec for C Joyce Amerson / City of Santa Ana V Public Works Agency 10t W. Fourth Street P. Q. Box 1988 M -21 Santa Ana, California 92702 RESPONSE This letter contains no comments on t5e DEIS and no response, therefore, is required. Mt248 n � to S Q a `r TAM OF ULfflGAMA --0ftCE Of 711 t30` P*M QUAGR DMWJIA)W. Ge• OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH i.m Ti" MW 5ACMAgNT0, G "NIL � Joyce Amerson Ctiy of Santo Ana 101 W. 4th Street Santa Ana, CA 92101 Subject: Bristol Street Widening - S( :H! 87071509 Dear Ms. Anderson: Sertember 1I, 19A9 Tice State Cleoxingheuse submitted the &hove named environmental doenment to selected state agencies for review. The review period is now closed and now of the state agencies have ecameats. This letter arknrmledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft ., environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Qaallty Act . Please call Garrett Ashley at '919/445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. When contacting the Clearinghouse in this Patter, please use the eight -digit State Clearinghouse number so that we may respond promptly. r Sincerely, David C. NunCCenk&mp, Chief Office of Permit Asaistance RESPONSS This letter contains no comnents on the DEIS. No response, therefore, is required_ Mr949 y United States Departin9ju 9ajTXh#AInterior fUSLIC WORKS AOENOy OFFICE Of ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT RE'6'IEW ,. PDX 76098.00 Go* f�A4E31V • e9 IAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 941 2 September 15, 1969 ER89/649 Mr. Bruce Z. Cannon Division Administrator Eederat Highway Administration P. 0. Box 1915 Sacramento, California 99809 -1915 Dear Mr. Cannon: The Department at the Interior hag reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Bristol street, City Of Santa Ana, orange county, California and has no comments. Thank you for the opportunity to review this document. sincerely / e�� Pstrieia Sanderson Fort Regional Environmental officer cc: Director, OEPR (w /orig. incoming) Reg., Dir., IIPS AIs. Joyce Amerson City of Bents Ana Public Works Agency 101 W. Fourth Street P. 0, Box 1988 M -21 Santa Ana, California 92702 RESPONSE This letter contains no corents on the LEIS and no response, therefore, is required. 7500 C. Public Hearing Transcript The following is a certified transcript of comments concerning this project made at the public hearing held before the City of Santa Ana Planning Commission on July 10, 1989. Many of these comments generally addressed the Bristol Street project, but did not relate specifically to the DEIS or to environmental effects of the project. No responses are therefore provided for these comments. Those comments that did specifically address the DEIS or specific environmental effects of the project were listed and responded to in Subsection A of this Section IV. Those comments are underlined here so that the reader may refer to Subsection U to read the responses to those comments. 75C -�91 75C -252 m LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS WHO RECEIVED COPIES OF THE EIS/EIR 75C -253 VI DISTRIBUTION LIST FOR DRAFT AND FINAL EIS Each of the persons and agencies listed on the following pages was sent a copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). Asterisks next to any of these denotes that a written comment on the DEIS was received from that person /agency. All persons /agencies who commented on the DEIS will also receive a copy of the Final Environmental Impact Statement. Following the DEIS distribution list is a copy of the Notice of Availability published by the City of Santa Ana. VI -1 75C -254 a DISTRIBUTION LIST FOR BRISTOL STREET DRAFT ENVIF40NM2TM IMPACT Environmental Protection Agency 215 Fremont Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Urban Mass Transportation Administration, Region 9 Two Fhbarcadero Center, Suite 620 San Francisco, CA 94111 9156 Flair Dr.Y EL Monte, CA 91731 Environmental &pact Coordinator California Native Plant Society P.O. Box 669 Aromas, CA 95004 *Director California Wildlife Federation Office of Environmental Project Review 1 California Street, Room 1115 U. S. Department of interior San Francisco, CA 94111 18th 5 "C" Streets, NW Washington, DC 20242 Director Division of NEPA Affairs U. S. Departiresit of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue, SW Roan 46085 Washington, DC 20585 Friends of the Earth State Capitol office 717 K Street, Suite 209 Sacramento, CA 95814 Director Sierra Club office of Environmental Affairs 2410 Beverly Boulevard, Spite 2 Department of Health and Human Services Las Angeles, CA 90057 200 Independence Avenue SW, Roan 537 F Washington, DC 20201 *District Engineer U. S. Corps of Engineers 300 N. Los Angeles Street Lcs Angeles, CA 90012 Environmental Clearance officer Department of [-busing and Urban Dev. 450 Golden Gate Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102 U. S. Sail Conservation Service Area Conservationist, Area VI 3619A Conyon Crest Drive Riverside, CA 92507 Business Manager Operating Engineers ioc-.al #3 474 Valencia Street San Francisco, CA 94103 State Clearinghouse 1400 Tenth Street, Rm. 121 Sacramento, CA 95814 75C -2552 w r - - - Assemblyman John Lewis Assemblyman Nolan Frizzelle 1940 N. Tustin, 8102 17195 Newhope, #201 Orange, CA 9266s Fountain valley, CA 92708 Congressman Christopher G3x Senator Edward Place 4000 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 470 1661 N. Raymond Ave., #211 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Anaheim, CA 92801 Congressan Fbbert Llornan Senator John Seymur 12387 Lewis St., #203 2150 Towne Center Place, #205 Garden Grove, CA 92640 Anaheim, CA, 92806 75C456 California Regional County of Orange +:star puality Control °r rd IranSpnrtation Planning Division 6809 Indiana Avenue, Suite 200 901-civic Center Drive Riverside, CA 92506 Santa Ana, CA 92703 - County of Orange California Department of Fish and Game - Envircrmental Management Agency 245 hlst Broadway, Suite 350 P.O. Box 4048 Long Beach, CA 92802 Santa Ana, CA 92702 -4048 Santa Ana Unified School District 1405 French Street Santa Ana, CA 92701 Orange County Transportation Commission 1055 North Main Street, Suite 516 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Orange County Transit District 11222 Acacia Parkway Garden Grove, CA 92642 Mater Del High School 1202 west Edinger Santa Ana, CA 92707 City of Garden Grove Development Services Department P.O. Box 3070 Carden Grove, CA 92642 City of Costa Mesa Development Services Department P.O. Box 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92628 -1200 City of Anaheim Development Planning Department P.O. Box 3222 Anaheim, CA 92803 75C -9 -57 w w r MAYOR Dan Young MAYOR PRO TEM John Acosta COUNCILMEMBERS Daniel E. Cnset Ron May ::rnci: A. f1ti`- .,uigar. Rick Norlon Miguel A. Pvhdo June 13, 1989 Mr. Gene Huey Environmental Branch Caltrans, District 12 2501 Pullman Street Santa Ana, CA 92705 9N CITY OF SANTA ANA PUSUC WORKS AGENCY Un W. Fourth street. M21 P -O. Bow 19M Santa Ana, California 9UUZ ALL - AMERICA CITY 1902 -87 CITY MANAGER David N, Ream CITY ATTORNEY Edward I. Cooper CLERK OF THE COUNCIL Janice C. Guy !II'V 1 0 l °83 y'yl: i i,titi i7SSnf: SUBJECT: BRISML STREET MIIDENING EWIX(MMMAL IMPACT STATEMENT (PROJECT 1441) Dear Mr. Huey: on June 7, 1989, I forwarded to you a copy of the Notice of Availability for the Environmental Impact Statement for the Bristol Street Widening. Enclosed for your use and information is the Proof of Publication which serves as verification from the Orange County Register newspaper that the ad was run on May 21 and 22, 1989. A separate notice of public hearing will be adver- tised to announce the July 10, 1989, public hearing. If you have any questions, please contact Joyce Y. Peterson, (714) 647 -5655. Sincerely, Michael C. Betts Project Manager MCB /29Hmlm Enclosure cc: Paul Gheen, Caltrans 75C -215$ -T H E -Heg er T Y Ow$ N Woo M. SrN9 A,u. aA 93101 PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2015.5 C.C.P.) STATE OF.CALIFORNIA, 55. County of Orange, Juanita Folkerts I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I om over the age of eighteen years, and not a party 10 or interested in the above entitled matter. I am the princiaW clerk of the printer of The Orange County Register, a newspaper of generai circulation, published in the City of Santa Ana, County of Orange, and which newspaper has been aaiudged a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Orange, State of Californio under the dote of November 29, 1905, Case Number A21W that the notice of which the annexed is a Printed copy, has been Publlshed in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to wit; May 21, 22, 1989 I certify (or declarel under penality of periury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at Santo Ana, California. Date .... Aa.y..22 .. ....... . ...19....a9..... anita Folkerts / Signature This space is for the County Clerk's filing Stamps l. NJALK N WK1 . Ci Proof of PROOF OF PUBLICA' 75C -259 IM IW oeH1�H�G pO�jy� rl WIaeW H6 Room ]1 WIOENING FROM w ] ,M �ING TNE,. „ A,. Rw \ftftu..;. .n pall- . I •• T ntAYOR Oan Young MAYOR PRO TEM John Acosta COUNCtl-MEMBERS Daniel E. Gnset Ron May Patricia A. MdtlWgan Rick Norton Miguel A. Pulltlo June 7, 1989 Mr. Gene Huey Envircxvrental Branch Caltrans, District 12 2501 Pullman Street Santa Ana, CA 92705 CITY OF SANTA ANA PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY im W. Fourth 5treet. M21 P,O. Boa 1998 Santa Ana, [aliEarnia 92702 ALL-AMERICA CITY 199, 87 CITY MANAGER E)aI N Ream CITY ATTORNEY Edward J. Cooper CLERK OF THE CDUNCIL lames I: Guy Ji li I U ) lu-n� I'VILLitA ly FiSair. SUESJ=: BRISTOL SCRk'ET WIDaTTNG ENVIRaZ=AL IMPACT SPATEvENT (PR0LT£C7 1441) near Mr. Huey: Ehclesed for your infor ation and use is a copy of the Notice of Availability, wh ch was printed to announce the 70 -clay public revie,v of the c'itvirontnental Impart Statement (EIS) for the widening of Bristol Street, between Warner Avenue and Al Lane. The Notice of Availability was run on Kay 21 and 22, 1989, in the Orange County Register newspaper. The public reviev period began on May 22, 1989, 'and will end on July 31, 1989. The public hearing for the project is tentatively scheduled for July 10, 1989. A separate notice of public hearing wiLl be advertised once the location for the hearing is determined, and as we get closer tri the hearing date. If ycu have any questions, please contact Joyce Y. Amerson (714) 647 -5655. Sincerely, Michael C. Betts Project Manager Enclosure cc: een, ltrans 75C -260 CITY OF S4EiIA ANA, NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY BRISTOL STRtXT WIDENING, BETWEEN WARNER AVENUE AND MEMORY LANE DRAFT ENVIRUL`MNTAL IMPACT STATEMENT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Santa Ana Public Works Agency is releasing for a 70 --Dal' PUBLIC REVIEW, the EWIF014E TTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS) for the proposed widening of BRISTOL STREET, FROM WARIER AVENUE TO ME?DRY LANE. The PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD will begin on MAY 22, 1989, and end on JULY 31, 1989. The project proposes to widen Bristol Street Fran an existing varied right- of-way width of 70 to 115 feet, tc a proposed total right -of -way width of 120 feet. The proposed project will add one additional travel lane in each direction. Other improvements include a raised landscaped center median, median openings, left- and riot - turn -only lanes at signalized n ntersections, bus turnouts, curbs gutters, sidewalks, storm drains, street Lights, and the widening of the Santiago Creek Bridge. THE EIS mNSIDERS FOUR STREET WIDENING ALTERNATIVES: 1) WIDENING FROM THE FAST SIDE OF THE STREET 2) WIDENING FROM THE WEST SIDE OF TIE S'T'REET 3) WIDENING FROM BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET 4) NO PF43= THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT DOCUMESPI IS AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW BEGINNING MONDAY, MAY 22, 1989, AT THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS: CITY OF SAETL'A ANA CITY OF SANTA ANA Public 6brks Agency Ceatxal Library First Floor Reference Desk 101 West Fourth Street 26 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, California 92701 Santa Ana, California 92701 CITY OF SANTA ANA RANCHO SANTIAGO COLLEGE Clerk Of The Council Nealey Library, Building #I. 20 Civic Center Plaza, 8th Floor 17th at Bristol Santa Ana, California 92701 Santa Ana, California 92701 SANTA ANA UNIFIED SCHOJL DISTRICT MATER Da HIGH SCHOOL Room 131 Principal's Office 1405 French Street 1202 West Edinger Avenue Santa Ana, California Santa Ana, California 75C -9q1 THE CITY WILL tUrI@Y RESIDENTS AND PROPERTY C07NEP., ABOUT T[E DATE FOR PUBLIC.. EFARING 8Y DIRECT MAIL AND BY PUBLIC gUrICING IN THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER NEWSPAPER. TF 'Y"; KNVF ANY flip -`f T(M OR WDITUD TTKP In -MBMIT WRr -"I'_N CY RETTABDI.r, THE DOCUMEUr, PLFASE CCWACT: MR. MICHAEL BE.'P1S CITY OF SANTA ANA Public Works Agency 101 W, Fourth Street P.O. Hox 1988, M-21 Santa Ana, CaliEorua 92702 (714) 647 -5606 75C -252 75C -263 w 1w w w .rr A ` N s 75C -264 VII LIST OF PREPARERS 75C -265 W i. 1!_ Mr. Ernest Egger AICP, B.S., U.P., Cal Poly Pomona; Project Manager; nine years experience preparing environmental documentation. Mr. Randy Nichols AICP, B.S., U.R.P., Grand Valley State College, Michigan; Assistant Project Manager; nine years experience preparing environmental documentation. Mr. Jon Davidson AICP, B.A., U.P., University of Washington, M.U.R.P., Cal Poly Pomona; Project Planner; eight years experience in preparing environmental documentation. Mr. Carl MorHan B.A., Geographic/ Urban Studies, Cal State Fullerton; four years experience in preparing environmental documentation. Mr. Vireio Vita B.S., U.P., Cal Poly Pomona; Planning Technician; 12 years experience in graphics. WILLDAN ASSOCIATES - ENGINEERING Mr. Victor Martinez P.E., B.S., Engineering, Cal Poly Pomona; Supervising Engineer, ten years experience in engineering and roadway alignment studies. Mr. Michael Green B.4., Economics, Cal State Fullerton; Right -of -Way Agent, with 18 years in real property services and property acquisition. • ►L I !' • t Imunwommitelmm Vick' Ley Endo R.E., B.S., Civil Environmental Engineering. University of California, Irvine; Principle; 13 years experience in civil engineering, air quality, and noise studies. Mr. Gregory Endo B.A., Physics, University of California, Irvine; Principle; seven years experience in physics and engineering. Ms. Christine BgZosh B.S., Kinesioiogy and Economics, University of California, Los Angeles; M.BA, Cal State Fullerton; Project Manager; four years experience. VII-1 75C -266 a RMW PALEO ASSOCIATES - CULTURAL RESOURCE STUDIES Mr. Ronald Bissell B.A., Geology and History, San Diego State University; M.S., Cal State Fullerton; MA, Anthropology, Cal State Fullerton; Staff Archaeologist /Historian; 11 years experience in archeology, geology, anthropology; and history. Mr. Rodney Rashke BA, Geology, Cal State Long Beach; M.S., Paleontology, Cal State Long Beach; Consulting Paleontologist; 15 years experience in paleontology, geology, and geologic mapping. ul: :• a 15 E, P 1i L Mi 1,1MM i I y11:�_ .f • BA, History, Brown University; MA, History, University of California, Los Angeles; Consulting Architectural Historian; ten years experience in cultural resource management. CITY OF SANTA ANA T Mr, Michael Betts B.A., Sociology, University of California, Santa Barbara; M.U.P., University of California at Los Angeles; Project Manager; six years of experience in transportation planning and two years experience in housing planning. _ Mr. George Alvarez B.S., Civil Engineering, Cal State University, Long Beach; City Engineer; 15 years experience in engineering. w Mr. David Crosse B.S., Civil Engineering; San Diego State University; M.S., Transportation Planning, Cal State University, Long Beach; w M.B.A., University of California, Irvine; Executive Director of Public Works; ten years experience. Ms. Sandra M ssa -L v tt B.S., Cal State University, Long Beach; Land Use Planning and Development, University of California, Irvine; Senior Planner; eight years experience in city planning. B.S., Biology, Marquette University; M.S., Biology, Marquette University; Ph.D. in Plant Ecology and Wildlife Management, University of Wisconsin; Wetland Biologist, 30 years experience. 75C -`267 VAR BIBLIOGRAPHY 75C -268 w r. 75C -269 YRI - BIBLIOGRAPHY The following textuai resources were consulted in the preparation of this environmental document: Bristol Street Traffic and Circulation Impact Analysis, Willdan Associates, May 1987 Bristol Street Historic Property Survey ReporL Willdan Associates, May 1987 Bristol Business and Housing Relocation IM pact Anal Willdan Associates, May 1987 Bristol Street Air Quality and Noise Technical Studies, Endo Engineering, May 1987 Bristol Street Bioloeical Assessment for Santiago Creek Channel, Dr. Richard Vogl, March 1987 Section 4lfl Pubtic Recreational Lands irnnact Annlvsis for Santiaeo Willdan Associates, May - Evaluation of Existing Bristol Street Bridge at Santiago Creek, Willdan Associates, December 1986 City of Santa Ana General Plan, The Arroyo Group, Date Unknown Cily f Santa Ana Zoning Ordinance 1975 Orange County General Plan - Master Plan_ of Arterial Highways, Orange County EMA, 1982 Caltrans Local Programs Manual, Volume iII, Caltrans, Division of Local Assistance, 1987 Update Five -Year Transportation Study Update to 1990, Basmaciyan- Darnell, June 1985 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Route S Between Route 22 and Route�55• Caltrans, December 1986 City of Santa Ana General Plan Housing Element, June 1984 VIII -1 75C -270 Design Guidelines for Bus Facilities, OCTD, August 1981 — Real Estate and Construction Report First Quarter 1986, Real Estate Research Council of Southern California Population and Housing Estimates. January 1. 1987. California Department of Finance — The Register. April 26, 1987 Selected Demographic Statistics for Santa Ana. June 1986. Urban Decision Systems Draft Air Quality Management Plan. September 1988, South Coast Air Quality Management District/ Southern•California Association of Governments II 75C -271 w w, w Y Iii CORRESPONDENCE 75C -272 75C -273 RCV BY WiLLOAN ASSOCIATES 111 -20 -89 10125 1001ST 12 PLANNING 2136952120;4 2 FICE OF FlISTORIC PRESERVATI , IA RTM6HT OF PARKS AND RKCRlATIQN roar OFFICE bOSC a�xaee 1ACAAMYNYd, CA tIFOmNIA a /118 -0001 isle] 445.9006 REPLY T0:FHWA670804A File: M-MO17 Hay 9, 1988 Mr, Bruce E. Cannon Division Administrator Federal HIghway Administration Region Hine - California Division P,O. Sox 1915 Sacramento, California 95809 Re: Addendum to the Historic Property Survey Report for the proposed wtdaning of Bristol Street from Warner Avenue to Santiago Creek in the City of Santa Ana, Dear Mr, Cannon: The Office of Historic Preservation (CHP) has reviewed and would like to comment on the above - referenced document. The evaluation of the Walker residence,located at 1246 West Bishop Street in Santa Ana, California, is satisfactory to demonstrate that the property fails to meet the criteria of eligibility to the Natlonal Register of Historic Places, The OHP letter of September 9, 1987'also raised three concerns regarding the archaeological survey. These questions were not addressed in your recent letter. Since our September letter, we have learned that the ' '- "Certified Professional Archaeologist" credential referenced in the report for Mr. Bissell refers to Society of Professional Archaeology accreditation. The other concerns that we raised remain unanswered, but are not so critical as to require further communication. In the future, please ensure that all review Questions are addressed, In summary, the OHP concurs that the proposed project will not affect Historic properties. Thank you for considering cultural resources during project planning. If you have any questions please oo nt Mr. Robert Jackson of my staff, at (916) 322-9602. ff aELO MAY 13 1988 Sincerely, Kathryn rue tiers 01V ho State Historic Preservation Officer COORO e 0.vl 75C -274 IX -1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA— RUSINESS ANo £RANSPORTATQN AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN - DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 7, PO. BOX 2304. LOS ANGELES KOM Vie' TDD (713) 6763330 (2131 520 -5335 January 26, 1987 Mr. Michael Betts ?roject Manager Public Works Agency P. 0. Box 1988 M -21 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Dear Mr, Betts: CITY OE SANTA ANA JAN 2(J 13V ?UBLIC WORKS City of Santa Ana Bristol Street Widening 11 -MO 17 Willdan Associates by letter dated January 9, 1987, presented information on the recreational uses of the Santiago Elementary School which ajoins the Bristol Street project. FHWA and our office have consulted and agree that from the information presented a Section 4(f) Evaluation will need to be prepared if the Santiago School is impacted by any of the alternative alignments proposed. Attached for your information and inclusion in the EIS are responses to the Notice of Intent from the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Fish and wildlife Service. If you have any ouestions, please contact Sue McCullough of my staff. Very tv'ull yours, A Chief Environmental Planning Branch Attachments 75Cn275 4 - IA7 WILLDAN ASSOCIATES ENG[NEE?S & PiANNEPS January 9, 1987 Mrs. Sue McCullough Caltrans - Environmental Branch 120 S. Spring Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 Dear Sue: We have received a letter from the Santa Ana Unified School District in regard to the recreational usage of Santiago Elementary School which adjoins the Bristol Street project. The letter from Mr, Anthony Dalessi, Assistant Superintendent, is enclosed for your reference. The letter states that the school grounds are not used for organized recreational events, but are used only for practices by Little League and —Pup Warner teams and for general unorganized recreation by area residents. Based on our previous conversations, these characteris- tics would appear to allow us to forgo a 4(f) statement for this property and we would request the concurrence of Caltrans and FHWA on this interpretation. With regard to the other concerns stated in the District's letter, we feel we can address these within the framework of our study. We look forward to your prompt response. Sincerely, WILLDAN ASSOCIATES Ernest A. Egger, AICP Principal Planner EA E :,sd JN 55869 cc: Mr. Michael Betts 12900 CROSSROADS PARKWAY SOUTH • S19�2002�STRY • CALIFORNIA 91746-3499-(213) 695 -0557 V lx -a Santa Ana Unified School District s. Edward 5, Krasa, Ed -D., Superintendent January 2, 1987 Mr. Randy A. Nichols, AICP Willdan Associates 12900 Crossroads Parkway S., Ste. 200 Industry, CA 91746 -3499 Dear Mr- Nichols: lOINU OF EGUCAMN Sol* M. Rmld FIm,Mxt Mile •r, c �. YI,m a.mv!.- JO wUklnwn, Clerk Mxy 1 Pryer, Mmmpx Jame A. RIChWo. W-Off aa Thank you for your recent letter concerning the environmental impact statement for the proposed widening of Bristol Street from Warner Avenue to Memory Lane. In response to your question concerning the impact, if any, of the proposed street widening on recreational activities at Santiago Elementary School, we would like you to know that, depending on the extent of the widening, the District would have to remove and relocate exercise aparatus which is located just inside the fence line an the Bristol side of the campus. While the Santiago playground is used by the surrounding neighborhood for recreational activities, it is not a home for organized recreational events, such as Little League. However, you should know that the fields are consistently used by Little League teams, Pop Warner football, and soccer teams for practice purposes. These practices occur after school hours and on weekends. We would also like to point out that consideration should be given to the treatment of the northwest entry to the school playground and its relationship to the signalized intersection at Santa Clara and Bristol. While there is both a signal and a crossing guard at this intersection. the traffic volume does present a potential hazard for young students on their way to and from school. Anything that might be done that might reduce such a potential hazard during remodeling of the sidewalk would be greatly appreciated. Should you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (714) 558 -5578. Sincerely.,, �� A thon Dalessi, Ed.D. Assist nt Superiatendent AJD:ims cc: Mrs. Joan Stone g,Ca hnac.9271TV Telphaw U14) 558 -550T 75C- AID r Office of the Chief Regulatory Branch DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY LOS ANGELES DISTRICT_ CORPS OF ENGINEER£ R,0 BOA 27 to LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 500M5 MZS October 4, 1989 Willdan ASSOCiateS ATTN: Randy A. Nichols 12900 Crossroads Parkway South, Suite 200 Industry, California 91746 -3499 Gentlemen: This is in reply to your letter permit authority over your proposal Bristol Street Bridge over Santiago California, dated October 3, 1989 concerning our to construct the new 100' wide by 91' long Creek in Santa Ana, Orange county, Regulations for our permit program, published in the Federal Register, include Part 330 - Nationwide Permits (see the enclosure). Your proposed activity is covered under the nationwide permit for discharges of dredged or fill material into non -tidal rivers, streams and their lakes and impoundments, including adjacent wetlands, that are located above the headwaters, which would cause the loss or substantial adverse modification of less than one acre of such waters (Section 330.5 (a)(26)(1)). As long as you comply with the nationwide permit conditions (Section 330.5 (b)), an individual permit is not required. This Nationwide Permit verification is valid for a period not to exceed two years. It is incumbent upon the permittee to remain informed of any changes to Nationwide Permits, This letter does not convey any property rights, either in real estate or material, or any exclusive privileges. Also, it does not authorize any injury to property or invasion of rights or any infringement of Federal, State, or local laws or regulations, nor does it obviate the requirement to obtain State or local assent required by law for the activity. If you have any questions please call Mark Durham, Regulatory Branch, at (213) 894 -5606 any workday before 3:00 PM. Enclosure Sincerely, Richard Harlacher Chief, Southern Section 75Cs2,78 41254 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No, 219 1 Thursday, November I3. -Lsw / Rules and Regulations w PART 330— NATIONWIDE PER3aITS Sec, 330.1 General. 330.2 Defimuons. 1909 AceviOes occunns before cenam dates. 330.4 Public notice. 330.3 Nationwide permits. 33110 Management pnrnces- 330.1 Nouacauon procedures. 330.8 Olacnncnary Aumonty. 330.0 State water quality ar00uuon. 330,I0 [0291411 Zan41 Management canaetancy deterwnauon. =.It Nationwide permit ven6cation. 330.72 Itapuearn eF tieeetlw4d0 parmtLL Au"lly: 33 U.S.0 401 at mq- 33 USC IYA: 33 U&C 1413. 13391 ONNOL The pwpoee of this regulation is to describe the Department of the Armys IDA) nationwide permit program and to list all current nationwide penmts which have been issued by publication heroin. A nationwide permit is a form of general permit which may authorize actividn throughout the nation. (Another type of general permit is a 'reoi n it permit" and is issued by division or district engineers an a regional basin in accordance with 33 CFR Part 375). Copts of regional conditions and 75C -279 modifications, if arty. to the nationwide pertatts can be obtained from the appropriate district engineer. Nationwide permits we designed to allow certain activities to occur with little, if any, delay or peperwnre- Natiomatds permits are valid only if the oonditions applicable to the nationwide pernuts are met Failure to comply with ■ condition don not necessarily mean the activity cannot be authorsed but rather that the activity can only be authorized by an individual or regional permit SMMI of the nationwide Permits require notification to the district engineer prior to commencement of the authorised activity. The procedures for thin notification are located at 1330.7 of this part. Nationwide permits can be issued to ististy the requiramenta of sectioc 10 of the Riven and Harbors Act of 1899. section 404 of the Clean Water Am. and /or section 103 of the Manna Protection. Research and Sanetuanes Act. The applicable authority is mcitcated at the end of each nationwide permit. 13302 0afsausna (a) The definitions of 33 M parts 321 -329 are applicable to the tenses used in this Part. (b) The term " headwaere" means the point on a non -tidal stream above which the average annual flow in less then five cubic feet per second. The district engineer may estimate this point from available data by using the mean annual area precipitation. area drainage basin maps' and and the average r coefficient. or by similar tens. For streams that are dry for long periods of the year. district engineers may establish the "headwaters" as that point on the stream where a flow of five cubic feet per second is equaled or exceeded So percent of the tune. (c) Discretionary authority means the authority delegated to division engineers in 1 330.E of this pan to override provisions of nationwide permits. to add regional conditions. or to require individual pernut application. 13202 ACNVMM aeeuttay before eartam The following activities were permitted by nationwide permits issued on July IL I077. and unless modified do not require further Permittittg: III Disci argea of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States outside the limits of nnvtgable watem of the United States that occurred before the phasic -to dates which begin July 23. 1875, and extended section 404 jurisdiction to all water of the United w w. re ew Folderol Register / VOL $1- No. 219 ) Thursday. November 13. 1998 / Ruder and Regufetions 41255 State. (Thee Phase -m dales are: After July Z5, 1975. discharges .nto navigable waters of the United Slates and adid"no watlarair after September 1. 1976. discharges cord, navigable waters of the United Slates sod their primary tributaries. including adjaaeot wetlands. and into natural lakes, pester than 3 aces in surface ere& and after July 1. 11177. discharges into all waters of the tinned Slates.) (Section 4041 Ib) Structures or work completed before December 141aee, m in wetarbudies over which Use district engineer had not asserted jurisdiction at the time the activity oecw7*d provided. in both instances. then is no (nterferance with navigation. (Section 10) !) 30.4 Oppose resume. to) Chief of Engineers. Upon proposed issuance of new nationwide permits. modification to. or retssuence of. ezintng nationwide perinols the Chief of Engineers will publish a notice in the Federal Registarseeking public comments and including the cppuretnity for a public hearing. Thin notice will state the availability of information at the Office of the Chief of Enrnmrs and at all district offices which most& the Corpi provisional determination that the proposed an3vuies comply with the requirements for issuance under genets permit authority. The Chief of Engineers will prepare this information which will be supplemented of appropriate. by division engineers. (b) Dfarrtct engineers. Concurrent with publication in the Federal Regulate of proposed new, or reissued nationwide parmu by the Chief of Engineers. district engineers will so notify the known interested public by an apprapnate notice. The notice will inrJude regional conditions, if any. developed by the division engineer. 9 seas Nationwide p.rnes , (a) Authorised Ocavities. The following activities are hereby permitted provided they meet the conditions listed in paragraph (b) of this mcdon and where required comply with the notification procedures, of i 390.7. (1) The placement of agde to navigation and regulatory markere which m approved by and Installed in accordance with the requirements of the U.S. Coest Guard (33 CFR Part En Subrheptor q. (Section 10) (2) Structural constructed in artificial canal within principally residential developments where the coenemtian of the canal to a navigable water of the United Stales his been prewioGoly authorized (am 33 CFR Pan 322.S(91)• (Section 10) (31 The repair. rehabilitation. at replacement Of any previously oulhoiaad, currently serviceable. structure or fill or of any currently serviceable structure at nu constructed prior to the ngateoment for authonzanon. provided such repair. rehabdisflan, or replacement don not result in a deviation from the plans of the anginal swctars or ftlL and further provided that the structure or fill hap apt been put to uses diffenng from wet apaeilied far it in Ray permit sulhoeigrg its original construceoa. Minor deviations due to changes in materials or ci nswetion taehnigves and which are neceasry to make repair, rehabi4talion. or nplacsment are permitted. Maintenance dredging and beach restoration am not authansed by this nationwide permit. (Section 10 and 4041 (4) Fish and wildlife harvesting devices std activities such as pound nets. crab traps. eel pats, )obstercape, duck blinds. and clam and oyster diggung. (Section 10) (51 Staff gages. title gages. water recording devices. water quality testing and improvement devices. and similar scientific structures. (Section ]01 10) Survey activities including con sampling. ssismic exploratory operations. and plugging of imsmuc shot holes and other exploratory-type ban holes. Drilling of exploration -type bore holes foz of and gas exploration is not authorized by this nationwide permit: the plugging of rich holes in auhorizeci. (Sections 70 and 4041. (71 Outfall structure; and associated intake structures where the effluent from that outfall has been permitted under the National Pollutant Dtsehaege Mimmation System progra m ISection 402 of the Clean Water Act) (see 40 CFR Part 1221 Provided that the district or division engmaar makes a dedermmatlon that the Individual and cumulative ■diverse envtrvomealal effects Of the structure itself tie minimal m accordedicawith I My lc11:1 and (d). intake structures par an are not meluded -only those diroady associated with an Pei structure aw covered by this nationwide permit. this peewit indudim minor oxravation . fining and Oldster work associated lailith hemaltatlm of the Intake add ouden straewrse. (Sections 10 and ON) (a) Struotmu for the exploration, production. and tnaeportatsre of afL gas. and mmeeda se the cause wndnani A& within ""a Implied far such purposes by the Depaetmwt of Interior, Mists cal M ma met Servrrw. provided ths>N druc arm in amt placed within the Hods of any desemL W shipping safaty fairway or i afHo 75C -x-80 sepambon sckeme (when such limits have not been designated or when changes set 91111109ated. district engineers will consider recommending the discretionary authority provided by 330.8 of two Pert, and further subm tc the provisions of the fairway regulations in 33 CFA $ZLtil1) (Section 10). (9) Structures placed within anchorage or flooding &ran m facilitate, moorage of vemle when much areas have been established for that Purpoas by the U.S. Coast Cussed. (Section 10) (101 Non-Domm wJaL single -boat- mooring buoys. (Section 10) 171) Temporary, buoy$ and markers Placed for recreational use such as water skiing and boat rating provided that the buoy or marker is removed vnthm 3e, days after its an hap basil discontinued. At Corps of Engineers reservoirs, the rnervoumanager must Approve each buoy Or marker indvidually. (Section 10) (121 Dlsrbargs of maensl for backftll or bedding for utility lines. mcludinS outfall and intake structures. provided there is no change is preconstrucdon bottom contours (excess m■tenal must he removed to an upland disposal moat. A "utility line" is defined as any pipe or pipeline for the transportation of any gassots, liquid liquifiablc or slurry subatanra_ for any purpose. and any cable. line. or wire for the tra lion for any purpose of electrical energy, telephone end telegraph message$. and radio sued talevsion communication. (The utility Lino and o%*H and intake structures will esquire a Section 10 permit d in navigable warn of the United Slates. See 33 CM pan 372 See also paragraph 1a)(71 of this section). (Section 4041 (131 Bulk stabilization activities provided! IL) The hank ssbilisstloa activity is less than 500 feat in length: (it) The activity is necessary for ato$iw prevadcoa: (iii) The activity is limited to lose than an avenge of tae cubic yard per owning foot placed LION the bank wihin waters of this United Slane: (fv) Nn material is plead in ezcass of tha minim= seeded for erasion protaedos: (vl No reatOial is placed in Lay vrodand ants fvl) No materw is pscod in any location or to say manner an All to impair &office water flow late or Out of any Wetland awe: (vii) Only al■am material free of waste metal Products ■■gamed Mani" itmighriy d■bns. eta is Goad And (Vill) The activity IS • rog6 and Complete Prelecr, (Sections 10 and 404) 42250 Falmod RoOdar i Vol. 51. No 219 / Thtueday, November 13, iM ( Rules and Regulations (141 Mme lead ana nag Sea lmdmd me au 40WAS It tsisters both woman and P+>MbmeeL that ace pats of a somple and OMP&ft pro ieot for moaning of ■ eon -tidal wahrhody. ptavmdsd that the training is ttefvat mL bedptd or Otherwise damped to Parent the restriction d trod to witimdad. stgaetd high flows and pro huther that tie main any watlmds idlaemt to the wasorbody do not a cbmd bey ad 100 &a m sia6e aide of the mdlnary ill* wear apt& of that watmbody. A'=am road iaveoog fill" o defined as a ate" mat lovelies the di■cho rge Of lee than 200 cubic yards of fill matinad below the piano of ardiosry, high water. The cm " require a permit hum ths US Cast Guard if located in aavtgeble waists of *a Uattad State Soma trod nW may be "Owe for an exemption, from the and for a Section 404 permit altogether (m 33 CFR 323.4$. District aagmems an m0kn m d, when local Cucommum ee ind cm the need to Jollies the tam -expected high flowm" for the pnepaee of ntabia&ing applicability of thb wboaMCis permit. (Sectioen 10 and W41 f151 Discharges of dredged or till maoetal Incidental is the tawa4 me on of bridg a across eatriphle waters of the United Sass. including wmadmm& abue n CL foundation ssels. pies. sod trmperary omtrvmim and amen fills provided soiW discharge hen Iona motherland by the US Coast Guard as pan of the bridge permit Causeways end appromah filte am son Included In this entimadds permit and will mean m mAtVidoal er tegimnal .Section 401 permit (Section 4041 (101 Return n water from as upland. contained dredged mmrial disposal area (sae 33 Mt 773.24dil provided the state has mow a into epaciflc er gseenc certification node mown 401 at We Clew Wale Act (en also 73 CFR 1252(6)(1)). The dredgaig itself regatta a Section 10 ymrt if Ismaili m saviaabfe wamram of the Uetad dfteasu The mrom water or nmeE from a omuubw aWpeel am As ai*moim etivdy do& d as a dLrlomge of dredged aaeadmi by ca CPR 33i7(d1 eve though the disposal Radf wets an the upiod and Mas don sat ammtre a .action 404 permit Thin mdomeli permit ennafise the mminied nquumd fir a Oaefm 4M past for be refuse mseler whin the 4eethlr of the retore water is contmMed by stn min tI i the mom em t wtomLa m pracedaa (fiKOMSIK) (17) PM eseode t ed with eo011 hy*opm "Own d modeling eseveim whom W4 pia(era W" Includes this 59 is homeland by the Federal Fast Regulatory Commtsaian (FERq under the Fadatul Power Act of lam, an amended; has a total 14neratng o•perity of not mom then 1500 kw (2.000 horsepowert qualifies for the short fame iiceenu I Procedure of the FR C (an 1n. CFR 4At): and the dt4nic1 or division engineer mains a detergematlan that the individual and cmdative edve e effect on das *nvitonment an minimal in a.. Once With 133111.7 (cl(21 add Id). (Sore 404) (29) Dleahurgsa of dredge} or RU material Into all watom of the United States other than wetlands that do not exceed tan cubic yards M pan of a ■ogle and complete project provided the material is not placed far the purpose of arrest i ivanioa 15ections to and 4041 (191 Dredging of no mom than Iron cuhic yards from navigable watem of the United States an pen of it single and Complain project. This permit owe tot authorise the cannation of canals or other artificial waterways to navigable waters of the Unied States (an Section 33 GFR ZZLIg1L (Sezuam 10) (m) SOnatiums. work. std discharges far the containment and cleanup of oil and haaedoes substances which om subject to the National Off and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan. (40 CFR Pen 3001. provided the Regional Reeparm a Team which is madvated under the plan coawa with the proposed attainment and cleanup action. (Secdom 10 and 406) 1211 SMWRML work. dLcherge asancsted with surface cod mining activities mavided they were authorized by the Department of the Interior. Office of Surface Mmtn& or by states with approved programs under Title V of the Surf's Mining Central and Reclamation Act of 1977: We appaopriate district ettgltaa to given the oppommily to review the Title V permit application and aid relevant Mm of Surfaca Muria' er sate (se the case may bei daeamentanom prior to any dedaion an Wet eppliwnom and the district or division esg&ivar makes a detawipstim that We mdfvidaat sod aimntlative adverse 4ffede an the eavkum t flow 111911 SWAOMMA WML or 413cho rgr are minimal to mcwfdatae with j! 530.7 (c) (2) a" (A) and (dE Pectinate 1n. and 404) 1231 Miller temic, 4" W WAMM" atructune required for W reignwmi of wrec&od abmdmad ortlimMild Weems. or** ramteed of mm-mwde obetraetl0m in aaeystlm Thin poems' mass not aeWown meutonea dmdgmg, shenl removal, a sloe bank snagging. (Sactiate f0 end 491) 75C „2AS 1 (231 Activton. work mad discharges mdateien. &eeuted. authorized. regulated draded. Or lineman, to whale or in pan, by another federal &pricy or department where that agency or department sam aaamined, pursuant to We CEQ Regulation for Impieme tiring the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Polley Act (40 CFR pen IBM at seq.), that 1(n linvity, woi, or discharge is m leptricaily uctded from etviroamental dota ntrummea became it is included within a ca'agory of actions which neither indlvidvally nor tvmulativaly have a significant edlect on the human environment and the Office of the Chief of Engineers (ATfN: VAIN -CWO-N) has been furnished nonce of the agency's or deparumeat's application for the categorical exclusion and cancan with that determination. Prior to approval for purposes of this nationwide permit of any agency's categorical exlcusimu. the Chief of Engineers will solicit comment through publication m the Fadeat Register. (S4ccions 10 and 4041 (24) My activity permitted by a state adms4aaternig its ovum Section am permit program for the dimakatge of dredged or M nutaried ■uthoi nand at 33 U.S.C. 1344(gHil is permuted pursuant to section 10 of the Riven and Harbors Act Of 3090. Those activtthe wbiah do not tavolve a mcdca 404 stale permit are not included is thin nationwide pernut but many will be exempted by mention 154 of hub. 4 96-W. (See 17 CFA =310211, (Sochon wl (251 Discharge of concrete into tightly sealed forma or cells where the concrete Is used as a structural member which world not odmwin be mb(ect to Clean Water Act jurisdiction ( Section 4041 (201 Disdtatgere of dmdgrd w nit material into the waters listed in paragraphs fall2a) (1) and (ill of this section except than which Cause ids loss or substantial adverse modificatiou of 10 acres or more of such war War of the United Stave, including wetlands. For discharges which muse the Ions or substantial adverse modsfication of 1 to 20 acres of much minimum. including wetlands. notification to the idlstni t engineer is required to ■ccurd nom with Motion 730.7 of thin section. (Section 404). M Nan -tidal rivers. strmeme, and thou lake and iwpoundmeats. including adlasi ant wedisads, that are located above the bmdwetara (i) Other am-tidel Ovate m of the United state& kKbd q adjacent wetlands, that are not pan of a surface tributary sy4lam to interstate watam at w M rte an w an r an M w w se w Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 219 / Thursday, November 13. 1938 / Rules and Regulations 41257 navigable waters of the Unitad States (1.1- iaoiaud waters). (bl Candtlans. The following special conditions must be followed in order for the nationwide permits identified in paragraph (a) of this section to be valid: itt) That any discharge of unrolled or fill material will not *=or in the proximity of a public water supply miake. (2) That any discharge of dredged or fill material will not occur in areas of concentrated shellfish production unless the discharge is directly related to a shellfish harvesting activity authorized by paragraph (a)(4) of this section. 131 That the activity will not jeopardize a threatened or endangered species as identified under the Endangered Species Act (FSA), or destroy or adversely modify the critical habitat of such species. In the case of federal agencies. it is the agencies' responsibility to comply with the requirements of the ESA. 31 the ectivnv may advenely affect any listed species or cnticai habitat. the disir.ct engineer must initiate Section 7 consultation in accordance with the ESA. in such cases. the district engineer may, (1) Initiate section 7 conauhation and then. upon completion. authorize the acuvny under the nationwide permit by adding. if appropnee. activity specific conditions. or (im) Pror to or concurrent with section consultation he may recommend discretionary aulhority f5ee sect:an 330.0) or use modification suspension, or revocation procedures ISee 33 CFR 3257). 141 net the activity shall not significantly disrupt the movement of those species of aquatic life indigenous to the welerbtdy (unless the primary purpose of the fill is to impound water): 15) That any discharge of dredged or fill' material shall consist of suitable material free from toxic pollutants (see section 30; of the Clean water Act) in toxic 4mounis: J11) That any structure or fill mathartxtd shall be praper)y maintained 171 That the activity will nuroccur in a component of the National Wild and Scenic River System.. nor in a river officially designated by Congress as a "study river" for passible Inclusion in the system. while the inter is in an official study atatuc (a) Shat the activity shall not case an anaWptablo interference with navigation: (0) That, if the activity may adversely affect historic properties which the National Park Service has used as or datartained eligible for listing am the National Register of f otoric (Haws. the permittee will notify the district engineer. If the district engineer determines that such historic properties may be adversely affected. he will provide the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation an opportunity to comment om the effects on such historic properties or he will consider modification. suspension. or revocation in accordance with 33 CFR 325.7. Furthermore. thaL if the permittee before air daring prosecution of the work authorized. encounters a historic property that has not been listed or determined eligible for had" on the National Register, but which may be eligible for listing in the National Register. he shall immediately notify the district engineer, (10) That the construction or operation of the activity will not impair reserved tribal rights. including, but not limisd to, reamed water rights and treaty fishing and hunting rights: (111 That in certain states, an individual state water gaslrry certification must be obtained or waived (See 1330-91: 1121 That in certain statss. an individual start coastal zone management consistency concurrence must be obtained or waived (See 1330.10): 1131 That the activity will comply with regional conditions which may have been added by the division engineer (See 1 330.alalh and - (141 That the management practical listed in 6 330.5 of this part shall be followed to the maximum extent practicable. (c) Further information. (11 District engineers are authorized to determine if sal activity complies with the terms and conditions of a nationwide permit unless that decision must be made by the divinan engineer in accordance with (2) Nationwide Portrait do not obviate the need to obtain other Federal. state or local authorisations required by law. (3) Nationwide permiui do not grant any property rights at exclusive privileges, 141 Nationwide permits do not authorise any injury to the property or rights of others. (3) Nationwide permits do not auL`ty iza interference with any existing or proposed Federal project. (d) Modifttvd'on. Suepasizi or Revaeation of Nationwide Permits. The Chief of Engineers cosy modify. suspend or revoke nationwide Permits in atxmrdams with the relevant procedures of 33 CFR 323.7. Such Authority includes. but is mot limited to: addidg individual. regional. or nationwide conditions: revoking suthurizenon for a category of activities 75C -282 or a category of waters by requiring individual or regional perotiis: or revoking an authorization on a ease -by. case basis. This authority is not limited to concerns for the aquatic mvieonment to is the discretionary authority in 1 33aa. 1=A rwtgatrwm wmun (a) la addition to the conditions specified In 1330.3 of this Part. the following management practical shall be followed to the maximam extent practicable. in order to mmissize the adverse effects of these discharger an the aquatic environment. Failure to comply with theme practices may be cause for the district engineer to recommend, or the division engineer to take, discretionary, authority to reguiate the activity on an individual or regional basil punuant to 1330.9 of this part. (il Discharges of dredged or 511 material into waters of the tinted States @hall be avoided or minimized through the use of other practical alternatives. (21 Discharges in spawning areal during spawning seasons shag be avoided. (31 Discharges sheil not restrict or impede the movement of aquatic species indigenous to the waters or the passage of normal or expected high flows or cause the relocation of the water (unless the primary put"& of the till is to impoudd waters). (4) if the discharge create► an impoundment of water. adverse impacts an the aquatic system caused by the accelerated passage of water and /or the restriction of its flow shall be minimized. f5) Discharge in wetlands areas shall be avoided. (a) Heavy equipment working in wetlands shall be placed an mate. (7) Discharges into breeding area for mlgrstory wawifox! shall be avoided. (8) A:! :amp =tarry fun shall be mmoved in their entirety. f 330.7 Meaaeation wastoaer (aJ the general permitter shall not begin discharges requw ty pal- discharge notification pursuant to the nationwide permit at 13303(01129): (1) UntLL notified by the district engineer that the work may proceed under the nationwide permit with Any special conditions imposed by the district at division engineer: or 121 if notified by the district or division engineer that an tndividuat permit may be required: ar (3) unless 20 days have paved from receipt of the notification by the district engineer and no nonce het been 4 ZU lttedmdl psplalr / Vol. 31, No. 219 / Thursday. November 13. IM / Rolm and Raiqltdatlous received Sam the the district w driamen {hj =65mboo pursuant to the snelanwwo Parent at 133O.5 U211) must be is writing mud include the tafcemstioa listed below. Nod5caboa is not an admission the( the proposed work would result In mom than minimal impacts to I NJ of the United states: It simply allows the dieffict or division 'eapmer to Grant agte+pacific activi ties for aompliame with general permit criteria. 41) Nurse. address. and phew number of the minnow permittee; (71 Motion of the dsoagd work: (31 Brief description of the proposed work its parltem. and the approximate sire of the water, including wetlands. which would be lost or substantially adversely modified an a result of tae wmic sod (41 AaY specific information required by the nationwide pence. and any other information that the permittes believes is appropriate. (cI District engineer review of naft6rr ion. Upon receipt of notification. the district engmer will promptly review the general pamittee's notification to determine which of the following proadmee should be followed: (11 If the nationwide permit at 13gos(al(rel is involved ad the district enermr detetemisa either. (il the Proposed activity falls wtthm a claw of discharges or will scar in a category of waters which has base previously iced by the Aeponal Administrator. Envtrann=W Fie an Agency-. the Ragtooal Obectr. Fish and Wildlife Service: the Regional Director. National Mriae Fisheries Service. or the heads of Lie appropriate state natural teaooru agencies as being of partladar interest to these sgandr; or id) the particular discharge has not been previously Identified but he believes it may be of importance to thou agencies, he will prom sty forward the notification to the division engineer and the head and appropn" staff officials of thou agencies to afford those agencies an adequate opportunity before such discharge amore to coosidir such notification and express their views, U any, to the district enginar manernins whether individual permits should be required. (21 if the nationwide permits at 4 330.5Ial (7). (17), in (21) acv involved and the Environmental Protection Agency. the Fish and Wildlife Service. the Natwnd Marine Fisheries Service or the appropriate state nativai rescrome or wets quality agencies forward concerns to the disiract gnphiser. he will forward thong concern, to the division enpnser together with a statement of the hectare pu dow m ■ detehamtlue of the amrimmanW affects of the pteI I to the b 1](11l and his viewa m the specific paints raid by those agenda& 131 If the n Brame tda permit at 1330II(a1(211 is iaralnd the district Unsimr will give natter to the Environmental Pfcomdm Agency end the appropriate state water grmtlty ■sage). This notice will include an a miadmam the information tegahad by Paragraph (b) of this section. (dl Dirnwn aagrsrranew of notfficaboa. The division enetneer will review all sotifiratioag reirtad m h® in ascotdanae with prsereph (cp) m (cN21 of We inaction. The division sogioeer will require an Individual permit when be determines that an activity does not amply with the terms or conditions of a ttanonunda permit or does not meat the datiattian of a emrsi permit (ace 33 CFR 3222(f) and 3i.9.1(n11 including discharges under the nationwide per att at 139a3(a)(26) which have more than minimal adverse envtra>mectd effects on the aquatic environment whom viewed anther cumulatively or separately- in Machias Ids decision. he will review factors patinant to a determination of the euvwmoemel effects of the proposed discharge. including those met forth to the 404(b)(1) guidelines, and will give toll oonsidention to the views, U any. of the federal and state naturid neaomca agencies identified in paragraph (CI of two section. If the division eagena r deddes that an individual permit is not required. and a federal or appropriate state natural Memnne agency has indicated in wetting that an activity may result in mom than minimal adverse mvwamental hnpacts, he will prepare ■ written statement, available to the public on request, which arm forth hie response to the specific points mead by the commentmi; agency. When the dinefon engineer reaches his decision he will notify the district eveamr, who will immediately notify the general permitter of the division ath11 decision. 17aw ateredanwyasdrerity Except an provided in parapnpha (e) (21 and (dl of this mctlm division eagesses on their awn i sitlatln or upon recommendation of • disbdct ageimer an sutherised to modify natimwde permits by adding regional mumbeag or to override nationwide permits by ngalrung individual pnmil appbnatims ea • caeaby -case basis. fr a fatsgory of activities. IN m specific geographic areas. Dismadonary authority will be 75C -M bead as enaerrares for Me aquatic environment es sxummd in the tlWdelhtw puNbhsd by NPl► parennt to .eamtiogb)f1► Ea r]iR gMl mgt (el ACENn y Spew is comfidon& Divieltia eegjears as eatiaelued to madly iseNeaMde pmmlte by adding indlvidtrl coodftleaa an a rass-by -case basis applicable Mortain activities within their division Activity specific tmdifloaa may be added by the District Eagiamr tn thsta t when there is me al uramt ®l betimire the district e°> and the pirr attim. Furthermore. disk*, ener and wilt condition WWPs with emufidana which have been Imposed on a sUta section 401 water quality catiRpdon issued paramat to 1 330.11 of this Part. (b) Regional conditions. Division atgineeta am authorised to modify nationwide permits by adding conditions on a generic basis applicable to certain activities or specific geographic areas within their divisions. In developing regional condition. division and district engineers will follow standard permit processing procedures as prescribed in 33 CFR Part 325 applying the evaluation criteria or 33 CFR Pan 320 and appropriate parts of 33 CFR Parts 32L 322. 323. and 324. Division and district engineer+ will take appropriate measures to inform the public of the additional conditions. (c) ladiridual peratip—•(1) Caae -b) - Case. In nationwide parmit rums where additional individual or neponsl conditioning may tom be sufficient to address concerns for the aquatic envbaneam" or when there us out sufficient time to develop such coedldom ender paragraphs (a) w (bl of this merman the division aoemier may suspend use of the nationwide perts,i and require an individual permit appfiauen on a ease- bytssa Basta. The disoim mpmer will evaluate the application and will either issue or deny a permit However, if at any time the Moon for taking duicationary authority In mbsfis3 Lkm rkodivwmis aapwer may negative the ampaesim reactivating authoeiq under the mtionwade permit. Where taw is of the eaeeeos. the district ang ow may tdepkameally rsmmmend am the davieion enema against dUmedanmgy =the" to regcite an Individual permit appliwum fair a specific fictively. If the dtvteba engineer concern. he may onily authoress she district eoghwr to implement that nationality. Ord smlunmtian should be followed by wtdeag amf rondo . (2) Caapgc Additionally. mf r aetlos and mpatlrmiry for palie hsesfts, a" ' ' measure. may decide that imfiviuimi permit a I P , an M v. an M w M NO Federal Raglssar / Vol. SL No. 219 1 Thursday, November 23. 100 / Rulm and Aegtiladnns 42259 should be required for categones of activities, or in specific geogmi hic areas. However. only the Chief of Ettgataan may modify, suspend. or revoke nationwide permits on ■ statewide at nationwide baste. The division! eaPaaer .:O a,- alias t.`.a decision to persons affected by the action. The district enguteer will then regulate the activity or activities by processing an app icatioe(B) for an individual permttU) purouanl to 33 CPR Pan 32a. (d) Far the nationwide permit found at 1 3304ja)(251, after the applicable provisional of F 330.7(a) (1) and (3) have been satisfied the parenjun's right to proceed under the general permit may be modifted. suspended. or revoked only in accordance weds the procedure set forth in 33 CFR 323.7. (e) A copy of all modifimians or revocations of ach%nues covered by nationwide permits wi0 be forwarded to the Office of the Chief of Engineers. AM DAF-N;-C C)-N. 1330.9 Slat weir goWty e.eMlradon. la Stele water quality certification is required far nationwide permits which may result in any diecharye into waten of the United States. If a state issuer a water quality certification which includes special conditions, the district engineer will add these conditions as conditions of the nationwide permit in that state. However. if such conditions do not comply with the provisions of 33 CFR 329.4 or if a state times a required 4Ot certification for a particular nationwide permit, authorisation for aft discharges covered by the nationwide permit widna the state is denied without prejudice until the state issues an individual or generic water quality certification or waives its nght to do so. A district e:.pneer will not process an individual permit application for an activity for which euthanzadon has been denied without prejudice under the nationwide permit program. However. if the deviaon engineer dnarminea that It would otherwise be appropriate to exercise his disaettanary authority. pursuant to 1330-11. to overvids the nationwide permit or permit m quastiozi he may do am and the district angmew may proceed with the Processing of individual permit applications. in imtances where a state has denied the 401 water quality certification for discharges under a particaker natiopwide permit. applicants must fumfsh the district enginaa with an individual or genetic 401 certification or a copy of the application to the state for the rarti9eatioo. It a testa fella to act within a reasonable pwiad of time tame 1 W.21[b)(1)(d)), a waiver will bg pmumed Upon receipt of an individual or genane ct7tUfution or a waiver of certthcadon. the proposed work Is authorised under the nationwide pamiL If a mute issues a conditioned individual certification. the district engineer will c tide ..oN Watdltlon: teat comply with 33 CFR 325.4 as special conditions of the nationwide permit (see 33 CFR Pan 330.5(0I and notify the applicant that the work in authorized under the nationwide par0ut provided ail ctmdlbunm N met. (b) Certification requiremeou for nationwide permits fall into the following general categonee: (1) No certification raquomd. Nationwide permits cumbervd 1.2.4. S. & & 10. 11. and 19 do not involve activities which may result in ■ discharge and themfora 401 certification is not applicable. f21 Certification samerines re4mrvd. Nationwide permits numbered 3.6. 1. 13. 20. 21. 22, and 23 each mvalve venous activities. same of which may result in a discharge and retinue certification, and others of which do not. State denial of certification for any specific natonwde permit in this category effecs on!y those acuvtues mvolvmg discharges. Those not involving discharges remain in effect - J31 Certification menitrd, Nationwide permits numbered 12.14. 15.1& 17. 1& 2A. 75. and 211 involve activities. which would result in discharges and therefore 401 certification is required. (cl District engineer will take appropnate measures to inform the public of which watwbodfes or region* within the jute, and for which nationwide pennies, an individual 401 water quality cal"cation is required. 1730.1* C"fitNSUr'nata0atsra t olarmo att[y daurritmadaie In Los tances where a state has not concurred that a particular nationwide permit is consistent with an approved coastal zone management plan. authorisation for ali activities subject to inch nationwide permit within at affecting the state Mattel zone agency's AMA of authority is denied without prejudice sir. W the applicant has furnished to the district engineer a coastal zone management consistency determination pursuant to sactiod 307 Of the Coastal Zone Mansgament Act and the state has Nocurred in it U a mute does not act on an applicant's consistency sutemaot within mix months after receipt by the meta, comatetmcy *half be presumed District m abn will take appropriate measures to 'form the public of which waterhodi" or regions within the state. and for which nationwide parmita, much individual 75C -284 masiatency determination L regained. Dlstretn eeigiomosm will not process any pe t-aporadoe for an activity which Itaa been demad without preludlae ender the astianwide posit Pious. However, if the division aogmear determines that it would odeerwne be Appropifti■ to eaardw hie dimatimary a athtrnty, pansaat to 1 38oA to avermis the nationwide permit of Peeples in questlan he may do w, and the district engineer may proceed with the processing of Individual permit applications. 1 330.11 Maderrsrlaa pelele eermkmd a. (a) General permittees may, and in same uses must. request from a district engineer confirmation that an activity complies with the terms and conditions of a nanonwtde permit. District engineers will mapandpromptly to such requests. The response will @tale that the verification is valid for a period of no mom than two years or a lesser period of time if deemed appropriate. Section 330.12 takes precedence over this section, therefore. it is incumbent upon the permittee to remain informed of changes to nationwide permits. iN If the district engines decides that an acnnty does not comply with the terms or conditions of a nationwide permit by will so notify the person destring to do the work and indicate that an Individual permit is required (unlade covered by a regional petmrt)- ic) If the district engineer decides that an activity dons comply with the terns and conditions of a nationwide permit he will me notify the general permittee. In such wee. as with any activity which qualifies under a nationwide permiL The general permilleei'm right w proceed with the actantles under the nationwide permit may be me"ed, mu■pended, at revoked only in accordance with the proceduiea of 33 CFR 325.7. 1 330.13 Emisoenan ar trder wAs pertnae. The Chief of E tednem will review natonwide permits an a continual basis, and will decide to either modify. rnmsue (extend) or revoke the permits at least every five year+. If a natimurlde permit is met modified or rmseued within live yawn of publication in the Faderd 2spole, it autamallea ly axptres and becomes null and void Authotfzabon of activitin which have commenced or are under smart to conscience in rallanee Span a mtionwida permit will remain in affect provided the activity is completed within twelve months of the data a nationwide permit bas expired or we- revoked uden dismrtionary permit authority has been asitmeed in ±lid Rawbr / VaL SL No. rig / Thursday. November 13. IM / Raier asd Rmplabeme aapr1601 wMh 1 sau of tbk last or .. aedid at" n01paewod or taseaatan poradaw N odtlatad Y atsordaaee with ie talaamt p twhaaa aitlS QR =9 ActOWaa aovpinW uadar the .. authurbutoon of a aatlaaadda Vomit whiff wa in tow at the am iha *Cdvilh was aomou"d oo01tRteu to ht — aothotsad by that nationwide parent. API DOL aEimrt POW 11 -1166 a" �i EL.r 60101 M. 75C- 29112 r • —�� �� �—�<S P ;DI�dE��v LANA� Process+cncrCcrsun;ngSLN,c_s =rote 1964 October 3, 1989 Mr. Mark Durham U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Branch P. O. Box 2711 Los Angeles, CA 90053 Subject: Section 404 Considerations for Modifications to Bristol Street Bridge at Santiago Creek Dear Mr. Durham: Pursuant to my telephone conversation with Mr, Chuck Holt, Chief of the Regulatory Branch, this letter is sent to obtain a determination concerning the Section 404 permit requirements, if any, that are applicable to the above - referenced project. The proposed modifications to the Bristol Street Bridge, at Santiago Creek, would involve widening the existing bridge structure from 53' to approximately 100' wide over the total bridge length of 97'. This bridge modification would occur as Phase 2 of a proposed three -phase effort to widen Bristol Street, from Memory Lane to Warner Avenue, to achieve a six -lane arterial roadway throughout this entire segment of Bristol Street (see enclosed map). No specific engineering has yet been prepared con- cerning the design and construction of the widened bridge structure. Based upon a preliminary evakuation of the live toad carrying capacity of the existing bridge structure, it appears that the existing bridge will not have to be rebuilt as part of the total bridge widening effort. An addi- tionai bridge span, adjacent to the existing bridge, is presently contem- plated as the probable means of widening the bridge. This would be accomplished by either a single -span or double -span bridge structure; neither bridge design would require any fill within Santiago Creek. A single -span bridge would be supported by abutments located atop the creek banks on either side of the creek. A double -span bridge would include a central pier support, within the creek bottom, in addition to the two abutments atop both sides of the creek. The central support would be sunk deep below the level of the Creek bottom and would require no fill. Any minor reduction in the creek capacity resulting from the expansion to the bridge would be replaced by either raising the level of the bridge or by widening the sides of the creek. 75C -gpl§ w r`u+ n October 3, 1989 Page 2 Our firm is currently preparing the Final EIS for this Bristol Street project and would appreciate an immediate written response to this letter. If you require further information in order to determine Section 404 permit requirements for this project, please contact me at f213) 695 -0551, Thank you. Very truly yours, WILLQAN ASS AT _ ?A. Nichols, AICP Principal Planner Enclosure RAN:yn 55869104041065 L21 /Plan .w w 75C -2811` DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY LOS RNGELE5 OiSTRICT. CORPS Of ENGINEERS y� PO 80 ynf LO S An0ELE5. C�lIFO Rnd WD-23" August 31, 1989 • ie nl�oN ar Office of the Chief Environmental Resources Branch Ms. Joyce Amerson City of Santa Ana Public Works Agency 101 West Fourth Street P.O. Box 1988 M -21 Santa Ana, California 92702 Dear Ms. Amerson: 1 �i y lIu JJ We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement/ Report (DEIR /EIS) for the Bristol Street Widening Project, as requested in a letter from your office, dated July 10, 1989. Work in waters of the United States might require a permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act or Section id of the Rivers and Harbors Act. We cannot determine from the submitted information the extent of the Corps' jurisdiction over this project. Please give our Regulatory Branch documentation that clearly describes the area and extent of any proposed work in watercourses and adjacent wetlands to help us make that determination. If the proposed project involves any Federal assistance through funding or permits, compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 u.s.c. 470f) and implementing regulations, 36 CFR 800, will be required. The proposed plan does not conflict with navigation, flood control, or existing or authorized plans or programs of the Corps of Engineers. We have no comments on the DEIR /EIS. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this document. Sincerely, •� Robert S. Joe Chief, Planning Division 75C -289 i A UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY �., REGION Ix 215 Fremont Street San Francisco, Ca. 94105 2 1 JAN 1986 Glenn Clinton District Engineer Federal Highway Administration P. 0. Box 1915 Sacramento, CA 95809 Dear Mr. Clinton: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed the Notice of Intent (NOI) for the project titled BRISTOL STREET, ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. Our review is based on the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500 - 1508). We suggest that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (OEIS) address the issues described in the enclosed comments. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed project. Please send three copies of the DEIS to this office at the same time it is officially filed with our Washington, D.0 office. We also request notification of any public hearings or workshops to be held on this project. If you have any questions please contact Juli Jessen, Federal Activities Branch, at (415) 974 -8193 or FITS 454 -8193. i REi' Enclosure (2 pages) Cc: Sydney Thornton, ARg Sincerely yours, Loretta Kahn Barsamian, Ch Federal Activities Branch 75C -2$9 r JAN 23 19BFw T— CI:C;G i i GY n ,I o � r; rt: =r— I W -I- AIR DUALITY COMMENTS Air Quaff Analysis 1. The DEIS should provide baseline air quality data, including recent ambient air quality levels. It should also provide a quantitative projection of ambient air quality in the project area with and without the project. orange County is a non - attainment area for carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (03), parti- culates (TSP) and nitrogen dioxide (NOZ). Therefore, the DEIS should discuss these pollutants. Specifically, the DEIS should project TSP levels during construction and NOZ, CO and 03 levels during operation. The baseline information can be obtained from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Existing and projected ambient levels should be compared to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards MADE) and to the California Standards. For each alternative, as appropriate, the assessment of project impacts'should include the following: a) Changes in population and potential commercial growth; b) Changes in vehicle miles travelled (VMT) associated with the growth; c) VMT changes associated with modified travel patterns caused by or related to the project; d) Projected changes in emissions of hydrocarbons, CO and NOx; and e) Maximum projected ambient air quality impacts and levels for each pollutant. Air Quality Modeling 2. The DELS should specify which air quality models are used for determining project impacts. This discussion should include inputs and assumptions used to tun the models. Either the California Air Resources Board or the EPA Regional Office, Air Management Division, can provide guidance on modeling. The 03 analysis should be based on Level C highway service. Air Quality Planning Consistency 3. The DEIS should document contact with SCAQMD and include a letter certifying that the project conforms to the District's nonattainment area plan (NAP) and thus satisfies Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act. The following issues should be discussed with SCAQMD and described in the DEIS: 75C -290 IX -,7 -z- a. Whether project emissions have been considered in formu- lating the NAP, and are consistent with emission reduction requirements of the State Implementation Plan (SIP); b. Project consistency with the transportation control measures _ in the SIP and the Regional Transportation Plan; and c. Whether any project- associated population growth is consistent with the population projections in the NAP. - 4. We suggest that you use the Air Quality Handbook for Environ- mental Impact Reports published by the SCAQMD for further - guidance on air quality analysis. Alternatives and Mitigation 5. Existing mass /public transit available in the project area should be discussed. The DEIS should analyze potential mass /public transit options and identify means to encourage their use. 6. For each alternative, the DEIS should discuss appropriate mitigation measures for air quality impacts associated with use of the modified highway and with project construction. The DEIS should analyze the effect of mitigation measures and make clear commitments to implement mitigation. .. WATER QUALITY COMMENT W For each alternative, the DEIS should discuss the project's compliance with State and local water quality management plans and State- adopted, EPA- approved water quality standards. If water quality impacts are identified, the DEIS should also iden- tify appropriate measures to avoid or mitigate for these impacts, both during and after project construction. Comments Nos. 1 through 4 are addressed in Sections III. A. 6. and IV. H. of the FEIS. Comment No. S is addressed in Section II. C. of the FEIS. Comment No. 6 is addressed in Section IV. H. of the FEIS. _. Waterer Comment- Comment is addressed in Section IV. F of the FEIS. W 75C -x°99 r ',�__� -�.. United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERME � LACUNA NIGUSi, Fii:'i.D OFFIr, 'd.,,"e 24000 Avila Road Laguna Niguel, California 92677 December 3, 1985 Federal Higbvay Administration P.C. Box 1915 Sacramento, California 95809 Re: Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for Bristol Street, Santa Ana, orange County, California (ER 85 -1672) Dear Sirs: We have examined the subject document, provided to us ou November 20. 1985 and offer no comments. sincerely yours, W v - im Nancy H. Kaufman Project Leader 75C -?92 O. United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WIWLIFE SMVICE urUKA N-1= FIELD OFFICE 2600o Avila Road Laguna Niguel, California 92656 January 12, 1987 Federal Righvay Administration P.O. Box 1915 Sacramento, California 95809 Attn: Glen Clinton Re: Notice of Preparation, Bristol Street Widening, Santa Ana, California (ER 86/1469) Dear Mr. Clinton: We have examined the subject document dated December 18, 1986 and offer no comments. Sincerely yours, at `,1. Nancy M. Kaufman Project Leader 75C -293 X -20 w w 4 n r4 r United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS ♦ WASHINGTOkN, D.O. 20245 IN etPL• L A M Environmental Services MS -4558 .7anuary 6, 1987 Memorandum 7c: Sacramento Area Office Attn: Don Knapp From: Chief, Environmental Services Staff Subject: Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Stace- ment for Bristol Street, Santa Ana, Orange County, California (ER 86/1469) Provide technical assistance and /or participation from your area of special expertise and /or jurisdictiontto the person listed in the notice. If involvement appears significant, your office should participate in the followup activities. If you agree to participate as a joint Lead or as a cooperating agency, provide this office and the Director, Office of Environmental Project Reviev with a copy of that commitment. NO INDIAN LAW =0 ilk i, � qe Farsiif' OF TNLS OFFICE AM NO" g�r,^ hment r] NO COMI{F.mri , c ,nEAV OF WMAN AFFAIlq - &NDRAIGM AREA OFFICE .�LJJW .$ACRAMW%GUJ0%AZ0 DATE NATURAL RESOURCES MWIALIST " 75C -4 -4 5C'fE- .OF -iAUKX Mw -�7PnC� OF P49 OOVONOR 6[ORO! O&MME9A4, r. OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH $0 V" romp mnsr as $AQI�MQJTO, G 9784 5+s DA�r: Jul" 1 .6, 1987 M'. Reviewing Agencies RE: The City of Santa Ana's NOP -for Widening of Bristol Street SCH# 87071509 Attached for'your comment is the City of Santa Ana's Notice of Preparation of a draft Environmental impact Report (EIR) for the Widening of Bristol Street Project. Responsible agencies must transmit their concerns and comments on the scope and content of the EIR, focusing on specific inlormatioa related to their own statutory responsibility, within. 30 days of receipt of this notice. We encourage commenting agencies to respond to this notice and express their +� concerns early in the envisommeatal review process. Please direct yeur ccmMeMts to: George Alvarez City of Santa An 101. W: 4th, Street /P.O-. Box 1988 M -21 Santa-Ana, CA 92702 M with a copy to the Office of P11 a nnJ n and Research. Please refer to *fie SCH .. number noted above iz all correspondence concerning this project. If you Save any questions about the review process, call Glenn Staber - at 916/445.0613. Sincerely, David C. :ftmenkamp - CMef Ottice of Permit Assistance Attachments =' George Alvarez 75C -29Z2 -X4+cLtm- Vlckit r M1l9c'. at porn c-v t4LA 4tnth Str±et, FR n 1.516-2 Saarfi ca, Cl !MA14 'l l . /972 -112.9 J.v Har;rbre .3etc, of rvnemL vrru.s O +0% P SCT2!t-, iuL:- .14Rq 5a4C4 . M. CA WL-4 918/224�Mn Lhertotb* 14k" '7pt. of HekLih 7L4 7 $tract, anon I:TT SLCt za, CA W14 75C6 1X -23 -red Alkunhtt sttn (y=s rc,mllsaton 0 IM7 - Mth street v Secr. m, CA l."15 91Al222 -�13 vadeLL CLyou /1 Oeyc. of 'Xacer Resa=es LAW Pinch StMt, Room 215•-1 iao [st�nin, C,A 9SR14 9Inf3M5.741fl -4mb Ho Ldetmun 0 Snte 6uca1 CansflrV T L.1T0 lroed' y. Saiw Lion rAkland', ''.A 94613 4L3'/464 -LOLS OISI 15WEOR. L.3T iM 3CN • 7 So 9 $ _ .%int ry WMI %amcv- [ _ 34nc dY CUmrvwho ae . - - .lnnr- Garagl;tY - $z. rlw Qmft rn Air RP!AUrCCI Board 111t S Stmt `{1 {`�j(�] :aLLrncnln Mgh. y 7icra1 LOWK R"* Pl�mlml %s Cwd l^,•W,nf,.lm, A. o RI, ' Ptannitl`, and IIIkl LY3L* Otytllan 916f.'L^- :IGl. P.O. Rm RIR 5semaarmco. Ca 9wK . 9lfl(MR' -19.41 6artAm KLG, X, rtl Llnm 4. .7ohrs Q :tope. ni' Hpnetml S'rn wr+nya IA39'$'5mr c O UrLe. vwrtc" lhrimgR Cam. iL5 captcol %Wt. Born 2Se $ICr4 mto, rA Wt•S SaCTIeOenca, C4 HSf414 9LA14AS- tl 9lfl(32Y -7791 Ka lCmutzber[ Gtry L. Roltthay Ot Lt,,r HLSmrlc Cal Liorn4a fbnaul funaissicn Pntsorecton a 911 li-, M SCrV 401 Ftmr P.f1. %OS- 94:0NR Stn Prnnctsco. r.L. 94tOA Saersa+„ur, Gt w2iF OOOL 4L4fSA7 -itL15 9 t4ll=- ri21 .AlureG4- rayloe James- V. •'*_• °Le O G11L1CMtA PAWW Crmetstiw LSLF nach Strert, ft. M3 OApt. or darlca 1111 Re rvr%%ton P.O. FG 942+t1R 3scr>.h . GL 9SRL4 0 Sne. nw, C4 942FM-4MI 9161324•,112.11 `1Lfll324 -.v11L 3Kmiy lieamcd ltlke aurke _ OLLtraas - GtVASLOM at A�tten P.O. Ros 942374 PublLc Utilittes Cc mL siren SOS Van 4aaa- Arena ... _ .� �9er•snlettto'. CA • 947.!3 -0OOI _ - San Praneisco, Gi 9&102 dIFfT34-07fi1 3L6l557'- -2905. Ron HeLZeecn VtLlime P. V"m. Jr. Gxitr - 4l.•snninq ///^^^ttt Tub Lta 7arlu 304fd O P.O. Bot 94 '2374 1 ? LMS P qtr c. 3cn Floor Sac�nstn Co. CA •9427N_ ML v $ocramRnLO. CA y!5841 9Vi /SYS..i-5'R -. Q1614'VS �.T:77 .. Oxnl9 O'Arpoa .. . 'L.... . 17LYY] 9.13c.';L rAneervatinn 14VR +Itarn SLt'eec, 4non L.'1''5 -Z O Wtcla rim pvard 14LS vtnM Stx t Ran ?44.3 Sanr4ea.nCO, Ct 9.314 Sleraecnta, M Aa,,3 91///6 /yyy33'! 1fl7.S %61445 -24" [ OLV. of Nines vef C�Lngy c Tarr L3L ALi Liken Ole. at Ott erd Gas. O 30 Van `has We", Rona 20L1 Q San FrAcctsco, CA 941D2 Otens Re naxeea Plocect_ UnLt 41nl:.a7 --395 Vamwk CJlrvin/z Qr c N4her '.iapC- ai ftod. x d AgrtcuL UM Ch1Lf. saate wnA,e , c NlacH 12?p- Y +tr4 t', "Arm 111'1 t020 Ylftm Strest. P[ l 300 S.crvmnea. CN WL4 O Sa3rtialntn, GA MAIN Atfl /'rsz•.T 9t61328-7.67.t -X4+cLtm- Vlckit r M1l9c'. at porn c-v t4LA 4tnth Str±et, FR n 1.516-2 Saarfi ca, Cl !MA14 'l l . /972 -112.9 J.v Har;rbre .3etc, of rvnemL vrru.s O +0% P SCT2!t-, iuL:- .14Rq 5a4C4 . M. CA WL-4 918/224�Mn Lhertotb* 14k" '7pt. of HekLih 7L4 7 $tract, anon I:TT SLCt za, CA W14 75C6 1X -23 -red Alkunhtt sttn (y=s rc,mllsaton 0 IM7 - Mth street v Secr. m, CA l."15 91Al222 -�13 vadeLL CLyou /1 Oeyc. of 'Xacer Resa=es LAW Pinch StMt, Room 215•-1 iao [st�nin, C,A 9SR14 9Inf3M5.741fl -4mb Ho Ldetmun 0 Snte 6uca1 CansflrV T L.1T0 lroed' y. Saiw Lion rAkland', ''.A 94613 4L3'/464 -LOLS STAU Gf CAL#GW'YA- -W9MEL AM rWHVMAnOM AGUKY GfORGe ORIRMEJIAK Gowenx ... DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIOIilry ORn1CY 7, P.O. eal 23U, LCS A"GemS 9=1 G! tANTA ANA TQ?15 f'M -5335 hQLIC WORKS A Julv 21, 1987 Ja Z1 H 49 AM 187 Mr. George Alvarez City of Santa Ana ?1!blic Services Agency 101 W. Fourth Street P.O. Box 1988 M -21 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Dear Mr. Alvarez: Widening of Bristol Street _ w� CALTRANS has reviewed the Notice of Preparation (NOP) Environmental Impact Report for the widening of Bristol Street in the Ciy of Santa Ana. g1 CALTRANS will not be a Responsible Agency for this project. We are concerned about potential impacts to the Santa Ana Freeway (Route 5) and the Garden Grove Freeway (Route 22). We would anticipate continued coordination between our agencies regarding land use development and their relationship to our Transportation System. Thank You for the opportunity to comment. Any future correspondence should be referred to Ronald Kosinski at " (213) 620 -3755. Sincerely, W. B. BALLANTINE, Chief Environmental Planning Branch 75Cm297 CITY OF COSTA MESA CAUFORN1A 9262&1100 P. O. BOX 1200 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT George Alvarez City of Santa Ana Public Services Agency 101 W. Fourth Street P.O. Box 1988 M-21 Santa Ana, CA 92702 - RE. NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF EIR FOR BRISTOL STREET WIDENINGR Dear Mr. Alvarez: L 7 Oe w O � a 4 7+ f � a a m z f o The City of Costa Mesa has reviewed the above referenced document which addresses the potential environmental impacts associated with widening portions of Bristol Street. The City would appreciate receiving the Draft EIR and traffic study when they become available. Comments from the City may then be forthcoming. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the EIR. Sincerely, Kristen Caspers Associate Planner Code Enforcement /Business License (7141 754 -5234 Building Oivision 17141754-5626 77 FAIR DRIVE 759 -298 Planning Division 1714) 754 -5245 Ma ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT Dear Mr. Alvarez: SUBJECT: NOP EIR /EIS BRISTOL STREET WIDENING We have reviewed this project as described in the NOP and have the fol- lowing comments: a OCTD presently offers service along the entire project length, as indicated on the attached route maps and schedules, with a number of bus stops within the project area, as shown on Table 1. • As shown on Table I, OCTD has a number of on- street stops lo- cated in the vicinity of several intersections along the project length. It appears that the aid -black cross sections would be sufficient to accommodate on- street stops, but our concern is that this travel lane may narrow as it approaches an intersection. If this is the rase, turnouts may need to be provided in order to insure smooth traffic flow through these areas. • In order to minimize construction related disruption and delays to the District's fixed route service, the maximum number of lanes should remain open during the widening project. In addi- tion, we would appreciate coordination of the construction period with our Bus Operations staff. Please contact the fol- lowing staff person during final design and prior to beginning construction, to coordinate access to bus stops and bus vehicle movements through the project area during construction: Mr. Mannie Thomas Supervisor, Communications and Operations Orange County Transit District P.O. Sox 3005 Garden Grove, CA 92642 (714) 530 -5910 11222 ACACIA PARKWAY • P O, SOX MAM29F)VE. CALIFQRNIA 92642 • 171 41 971 -6200 _ IVY �.fO � � A July 23, 1987 N O M Mr. George Alvarez o City of Santa Ana, Public Services Agency P,O. Box 1988 M -21 a Santa Ana, CA 92702 Dear Mr. Alvarez: SUBJECT: NOP EIR /EIS BRISTOL STREET WIDENING We have reviewed this project as described in the NOP and have the fol- lowing comments: a OCTD presently offers service along the entire project length, as indicated on the attached route maps and schedules, with a number of bus stops within the project area, as shown on Table 1. • As shown on Table I, OCTD has a number of on- street stops lo- cated in the vicinity of several intersections along the project length. It appears that the aid -black cross sections would be sufficient to accommodate on- street stops, but our concern is that this travel lane may narrow as it approaches an intersection. If this is the rase, turnouts may need to be provided in order to insure smooth traffic flow through these areas. • In order to minimize construction related disruption and delays to the District's fixed route service, the maximum number of lanes should remain open during the widening project. In addi- tion, we would appreciate coordination of the construction period with our Bus Operations staff. Please contact the fol- lowing staff person during final design and prior to beginning construction, to coordinate access to bus stops and bus vehicle movements through the project area during construction: Mr. Mannie Thomas Supervisor, Communications and Operations Orange County Transit District P.O. Sox 3005 Garden Grove, CA 92642 (714) 530 -5910 11222 ACACIA PARKWAY • P O, SOX MAM29F)VE. CALIFQRNIA 92642 • 171 41 971 -6200 _ IVY �.fO Mr. George Alvarez ,luly 23, 1987 Page 2 We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this NOP, and would like to receive a copy of the DEIR /EIS when it is released for public review. If you have any questions or require additional information, please call me or Dave Michaelson at (714) 971 -4349. Sincerely, �nnhne, �u d — *in cQ- V Christine Huard - Spencer Environmental Coordinator CHS:PLN -45CDC v Attachments: Route Maps and Schedules for OCTD Routes 49, 56, and 59 Table 1: Bus Stop Locations within Bristol Street widening Project Area cc: Mr. Manny Thomas, OCTD Bus Operations These comments are addressed in Sections I. C. and IV. U. Proposed bus turn -out locations are illustrated on Figures 6A through 6I, and the proposed bus turn -out design is illustrated on Figure 7. South Coast AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT of Gn GI AIR DRIVE, Fl MONTE, CA 91731 181 8) 572 -8200 C C O � Qf N N � July 14, 1987 � m ? x� s m � Mr. George Alvarez City of Santa Ana, Public Services Agency 101 W. Fourth Street P.O. Box 1988 M -21 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Dear Mr. Alvarez: Notice of Preparation Widening of Bristol St.- -Santa Ana, CA SCAQMD # C70714S The Planning Division has reviewed the above environmental document and we offer the following comments: 1. The Notice of Preparation should include an environmental checklist which lists environmental impacts not found to be significant as well as those to be addressed in the draft EIR. This would greatly help us adequately review your documents in the future. 2. Number Four (j) indicates that an air quality analysis section will be included in the draft environmental impact report for this proposed project. The air quality section should include construction related emissions, mobile source emissions, emissions from energy consumption, and all feasible mitigation measures to offset any adverse air quality effects. Refer to the Air Quality Handbook for Preparing Environmental Impact Reports, 1987 Revision for assistance in preparing this section. 750 --401 r Mr. George Alvarez -2- July 14, 1987 If you have any further questions please contact Gay Muttersbach of this division at (818} 572 -6305. veiy truly yours, Sohn E. Grisinger Acting Director Planning Division JEG: GM: es This is a fiill scope EIS. An Environmental Significance Checklist was, therefore, not necessary. ..T- �� This is addressed in Sections M. A. 6. and IV. H. 75C -302 IX -24 NOV i 5 1985 -, `'- s i United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WUZLIFE SERVICE LAS 1'A '..^.GV£L FIELD ngcrrg 24000 Avila Road Laguna Niguel, California 92677 November 7, 1985 C.J. Kelly, Chief Program Management Branch California Department of Transportaton 1129 N Street Sacramento, California 95814 Re: Endangered Species Information for the Proposed Widening of Bristol Street, City of Santa Ana, Orange County, California (A1- 6- 86- SP -15) Dear ,Mr. Kelly: This is in response to your letter, dated October 23, 1985 and received by - us on October 25, 1985, requesting information on listed and proposed endangered and threatened species which may be present within the area of w the subject project in Orange County, California. Your request and this response are made pursuant to Section 7(c) of the _ Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. To the best of our present knowledge there are no listed or proposed species .. occurring within the area of the subject project. Should a species become ae officially listed-or proposed before completion of your project, CALTRANS will be required to reevaluate its responsibilities under the Act. We appreciate your concern for endangered species and look fo rverd to con- tinued coordination with you and the Federal Nighway Administration. If you have further questions, please contact Jack Faucher or me at (714) 643 -4270. Sincerely yours, Nancy M. Rau an Project Leader _ 75C -303 _ I% -30 STATE Of CALIFORNIA —THE RESOURCES AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION JJJJ� PO SOX 2390 SAC RAMAm E SAC U NTO O 9561�����Rf�f (916) 445 -8006 J AN 0 2 1986 Mr. Randy A. Nichols, Senior Planner Willdan Associates 12900 Crossroads Parkway, South, Suite 200 City of Industry, CA 91746 -3499 Dear Mr. Nichols: FAU, (Widening of Bristol Street, Santa Ana This is in reply to your recent request for National Register property information pertaining to the referenced undertaking. Enclosed please find complete National Register listings for California, Your area of interest will be Santa Ana, Orange County. In addition, I would advise that, for further information, you consult Mr. Rob Selway, Orange County Historical Society, at (714) 834 -4741, Mr, Ed Henning of Santa Ana's Redevelopment Agency, and Ms. Lois Webb of Caltrans District 1's Environmental Branch. Archeological site data can best be obtained from the appropriate information center listed on the enclosure. Your efforts on behalf of cultural resource identification early in the project planning process are appreciated. Sincerely, Kathryn Gual ti ri State Historic Preservation Officer Office of Historic Preservation Enclosures D- 340ZH 75C -3QF4 INFORMATION CENTERS OF THE CALIFORNIA ARCHEOLOGICAL INVENTORY Coordinator: William C. Seidel, Staff Archeologist Office of Historic Preservation P -u, Box 2390 Sacramento. CA 95811 19161322.9623: ATSS 492 -9623 The following institutions am under agreement with the Office of Historic Preservation Cc: 1. Integrate newly discovareld sites and information on known sites into the California Archeological Inventory; 2. Supply information on known sites and archeological surveys to government, 4nstitutinns, and individuals who have a iustifiable need to know: and 3. Supply a list of Consultants who are qualified to do archeological field work within their sires. INFORMATION CENTERS COUNTIES INFORMATION CENTERS Da David A. Fradria Won, Coordinator Abmede, Cohnve, Contra Cosu, 0t. Mlahmi A. Giauaw, Coordinator Northwest Information Canter Dal Norte, NumbOldt, Lake, Central Caeftal nfamaITIOn Center Department of Anthropology Morin, liendocirc. MontMy, Oep +rtmant of Anthropology Sonoma State University Nape. So' Renha, San Franeico, University of California, Sena Barbara Rohnert Park, CA 94928 $eri Mateo, Serve Cleat, Santa Santa BuNre, CA 93106 Attn: Mapleton Steiner Cruz, Solari, Sonoma, yolo Artm Larry Wilcaaan (7071 864 -2494; ATSS SM -2494 1809) 961 -2474: ATSS 649 -2474 Or. Mark Kowa, Coordinator Butte, Glenn, Lasmn, MO80c. Or. Lorry L. Leech, Coordinator Northaat Information Center Plumes, Sheets, Sierra, Siiklyou, Soum Copal lnfopnannn Can tar Department of Anthropology lunar, Tehems,Thn.w. Yuba Department of Anthropology California Sate University, Chico San Diego State University Chico, CA 95926 San 01e90, CA 92182 Ann; William Dreyer Arm- Fred Kidder 191 BI 6956256; ATSS 4596256 (619) 2666300; ATSS 636-6100 Mr. Jerald J. J4hne0n, Coordinator Amador. El Dorado. Nevada. Dr. Gerald A. Smith, Coordinator North Central I0foweatl4rn Center Pieper, Socranentp Son Bernardino Information Center Department of Aniolmi logy San Barnadino County Museum Association California Siam Uniwnity, Sacramento P.O. Bow 2258 Boou J Street Redlands, CA 92373 Sts nlrraena, CA 95819 Ann: Michael Larch Ann. Marianne Russo 1714) 7936345, 825.3281 19161 454 -8217; ATSS 4336217 Or L. Kvla Nopeon. Coordinator Alpine. Caleuares, Mariposa, Or. Phillip J. Wilke, Coordineror Cargill] California Information Canter Merced, Son Joaquin, Sups aus, Eastern Information Canter Glilprnia Stan College, Sanialeus Tuolumne Archeological Rmear4h Unit Tun4ck, CA 96360 University of Califomia. Rlverntle Ann: Mi. E. GrM[hors- Riverside. CA 92521 1209164173307; ATSS 427.3307 Arm: Daniel McCarthy 17141 787aeB6; ATSS 681 -3885 04 Jane Grenrkag, Coardinamr Fresno. Kings, Matlera Control San Joaquin Valley Mr. Jay Von Werlhof, Coordinator l ninrmatieln Center Southeast Information Center Department of Socialogy /Annempology Impenal Vdloy College Museum California Stem College, Bakersfield 442 Main Street 9001 Stocxdaa tlighynv El Centro. CA 92243 Bakanfind, CA 93309 Ann: G. Fdwand Collin. Ann + Gtherlre Lew, (619) 352.1667 16051 833.2289 Nonroffluated AnAclegidal Dart Raptions ryt Dr. Accent, ScnlHmen, Coordinator Kern, Tulare South Cantnl Information Center Dr. Clamant Maighon Bakersfield College Amhoological Survey 1801 Panorama Drive Institute of Archeology Bakersfield. CA 93305 University of Californis, Los Angeles, (805) 3964391 ., 398-4011 Los Angela%, CA 90024 1818) 825 -1720: ATSS 7251720 75C -305 IX -33 .a COUNTIES San Luis Obirpo, Santa Barber W San Diego w r San Bernardino = r f nyo. Mono. Rlvenidet as mpmel Loa Angeles, Orange. Ventura r WILLDAN ASSOCIATES ❑ ENGNEERS & PG,NNEPS April 17, 1986 Dr. Clement Meighan Archeological Survey Institute of Archeology UCLA Los Angeles, CA 90024 Attention: Ms. Susan Colby Dear Ms. Colby: Enclosed are maps of two road - widening project areas, one in the City of Santa Ana and one in the City of Fullerton. Our firm is under contract with each City to prepare an environmental impact assessment of these proposed projects. We are requesting your assistance in this effort, by conducting a records search concerning the existence of known or potential resources of historical and archeological significance in these project areas. to: Please mail your research results and a billing statement for your costs Mr. Ernest A. Egger, AICP Willdan Associates 12900 Crossroads Parkway South, Ste. 200 Industry, CA 91746 -3499 Sincerely, WILLDAN ASSOCIATES 16A' I Ernest A. Egger, AICP Principal Planner Thank you EAE: sd JN 55645 Enclosures 12900 CROSSROADS PARKWAY SOUTH • SIIftU- 1A6TRY• CALIFORNIA 91746- 3499 • (213) 695.0551 �X -aa �32JS7—OL 57- . W10Enlinlq -- 5,4rIi -�E fF.�L�4� CA scale ee, BASE MAP: USGS NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 7.5 MINUTE QUADRANGLE, 1965, PHOTOREVISE0 1981 75C -307 IX -34 r m! T� r Y.. W SIX tjjj�wf sJS..uy- f VJ 6 s �e DIY ���. q�p: C 'r �•� � �BOII ii ISIt�L.T�� X4111 y sr IL riil�d •-Jr--- nil �, I� } 1. 1 J w'P BRISTOL STREET IMPROVEMENT ` . PROJECT AREA ' • s • W'. Y f _.� ^ - FM Fm bS/ir. n �x / '•Irb i U 5 mvERNYP�i y .^C� �• - F REsZ?.v Am0N 1^ In i ^ate ` 22 - ��� �. �• .yy�� �� __.• • �G'CN on .: G r Pnr ' i •r p • � �YIM1S k I �j� 1 ■ P7 .tifl u _ � A ■ �G��_:� � r •� r- �• '����i� °��'r ppP �� r I 1��� Ir. -r i scale ee, BASE MAP: USGS NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 7.5 MINUTE QUADRANGLE, 1965, PHOTOREVISE0 1981 75C -307 IX -34 r m! T� r Y.. W SIX ..�4`�..v -m F..tTas ° ^w .' WIL,LDAN ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS & PLANNERS November 10, 1986 Ms, Susan Colby The Institute of Archaeology Southern California Archaeology Survey U. C. L. A. Los Angeles. CA 90024 Dear Ms. Colby: Several months ago we asked you to conduct a maps and records search to determine whether any known archaeological resources exist within the Bristol Street (Santa Ana) corridor, between Warner Avenue and First Street. We appreciate your letter of response, dated May 14, 1986. Since that time, the project area has been expanded to include the first row of properties on both sides of Bristol Street, from First Street to Memory Lane (map attached). This letter is sent to request additional research to determine the sensitivity of this added project area. Please conduct this research at your earliest convenience and mail your findings to: Randy A. Nichols, AICP W111dan Associates 12900 Crossroads' Parkway South, Suite 200 Industry, CA 91745 -3499 Thank you, WILLDAN ASSOCIATES Randy Nlc els, AICP enior Planner RAN:sd JN 55869 Attachment �±±.. 12900 CROSSROADS PARKWAY SOUTH • SL7JG%3ftTRY• CALIFORNIA 91746 -3499 • (213) 695 -0551 Ft, - 1452 Edinger PACIFICBSELL cae r. Ca.dorma 92690 April 17, 1987 Willdan & Associates ~ 12900 Crossroads Parkway South Suite 200 Industry, California 91746 - 3499 Attentions Mr. Carl Morgan Re: Preliminary planning for Bristol Street widening between Memory Lane S Warner Avenue. Dear Mr. Morgan: This letter is in response to your request for regarding location of our existing telephone plant with this future street widening project. Attached notes: one for aerial plant and one for underground These should give you a general idea of the extent of plant facilities in the area. information associated r are my field facilities. -' our outside In response to your question about procedures and regulations for street widening projects, there really are hone. The City of wn Santa Ana will send us a copy of their street widening plans which show what facilities have to be relocated. Engineering will design a work order to relocate our plant as needed in conjunction with the power and CATV companies. Our construction forces will perform the work. Generally no billing takes place .� unless the city declares an undergraunding district. If you have any questions please call me an (714) 259 -4484. Sincerely, Bob Hecker Engineer .. Enclosures: 2 75C -309 I% -38 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 0 COMPANY MANOF rMUNTY DIVISION • P O ROK MU ANAHEIM. CALIFORNIA 925M tW4 April 21, 1967 Willdan Associates 12900 Crossroads Pkwy. South Suite 290 Industry, CA 91745 -3499 Attn: Carl S. Morgan, Planning Associate Subject: EIR Proposed Bristol Street Widening, City $ante Ana This letter is not to be intervreted as a contractual commitment to serve the proposed project but only as an information service. Its intent is to notify you that the Southern California Gas Company has facilities in the area where the above -named project is proposed. Gas service to the project could be served by ar existing main as srown or the attached atlas sheet without any significant impact on the environment. The service would be in accordance with thee Company's policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission at the time contractual arrangements are made. The availability of natural gas service, as set forth in this letter, is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility, the Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. We can also be affected by actions cf gas supply or the condition under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with revised conditions. stimates of gas usage for non- residential projects are developed on an individual basis and are obtained from the Commercial- Industrial Market Services Staff by calling (714) 534 -3173. We have developed several programs which are available, upon request, to provide assistance it selecting the most energy efficient appliances or systems for a particular project. If you desire further information on any of our energy conservation programs, please contact this office for assistance. LA: du attachment 75C -419 Sincerely, C 0. C. Moore Technical Supervisor oCTn ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT ,ro: C-ty-L Dar. i 7� �� LEITER OF TRANSMITTAL P Project: raj' -IS ter_ `�'�if =c7 � _�i^ '•y� (N�F_M �Ar/� 3ub)ectc SUS r5J DES ANA "I Ai liv sent by: 4 mail s mcml delivery meavnser We ate cnas mltnng lenetaeed_opantidy other Mw matarieia dowihed Y (ollows: HmmQica: UgFd THE N`)r is ,nrs txt.� =J is Lr� era C si� tAw NiIiTj - -- Avb N) Foryour sipatuty x use rlin— mmmemt eodretum approval and return Capiea to: I rliia ACACIA PARKWAY .Ro. BOA ]0aa. M�smal 4LVORMIA•Za•G reyrMOwa: 191 +V /]t-eeaa � eaM PD. ol•Yar.l I VVVV IV-90 V�%1� �l�r. �F I`��• ���.l ilc� I. ��•i11�- I—: P� �� if� :I �_ HmmQica: UgFd THE N`)r is ,nrs txt.� =J is Lr� era C si� tAw NiIiTj - -- Avb N) Foryour sipatuty x use rlin— mmmemt eodretum approval and return Capiea to: I rliia ACACIA PARKWAY .Ro. BOA ]0aa. M�smal 4LVORMIA•Za•G reyrMOwa: 191 +V /]t-eeaa � eaM PD. ol•Yar.l I VVVV IV-90 75C -312 UWAZI 1101 75C -313 SUMMARY OF RIGHT -OF -WAY IMPACTS 75C -314 v W l o o w V, LLI o Z N — o w J LL z LU O s - r FA G Z — C7 s 2 F e� i6n r oT r as as oT i 5 u � LL W O O r� u wW U> e Y q ,,xQ�J Cam, Irow Ir y,T o ti Q ~w `J Z x 0 ��d Imo_; °,r•� 75C -315 N U w 0 a z 4 w W W H GO F- H Q X Q z a z a Q } V CO W Q U= O/�¢ /��/ V/� J d {!J _ Q y Z w Q Z _j z w J G °r' o W aS W Z LL d Z Z rQ r Pti C i0 o.° O LL Z ro — o r °I ¢ TU w LU �. J ar v 0 _ v (n x^ o cr in + Y11 of p r .n yy W •� O! 0 YA WOWw F an °I LL4? u wa a � m m ---- -� jad W Un 0=. CA Q ¢ ? � uA CFI Ou JJ v^ I v VJ Z o" of o+ I } h tl F r -4 � e 75C -316 w!1 i 9 D z i T a u a A. Z a \ 7 �1 m N n z n n z n m [4 m m m m m z z M !11 IF 5 L! 5 z m �m om R N m NI YI�ENIP[ T NATCx ONE 11YE r O II PAVM[P 1 iIa NOP � 1< II o 0 0 i0 M1 � o C POSE LL P v an ^ u NYPT E En i� w On , YefA AY vM1 0 PAVM[P O�i 0 iIa NOP •T� o 0 0 cAMi_F IT o C NYPT E En i� ^T ` On , CNFYTNNT [T 0 " o -I-I PINEM1 07_ oI WALNUT IT fIPaT [T r a 75C -317 On cm z5 m my0 X , � �O m 2 !n `{ C >>3 m m p0M zoo mm mom CJ —1 C 0 31 -rt m 0 r w• r. AIR OR X111 iW w� Y RNO Nn1Yx �o 0 p 3A• ax•NDxpd vo e w w vo a O VO RAY ORON-O yT e, 3, = _ e 2 y xYtl ONY 16 � U C W U W ww Q S ° OW K �+ xelia•p mZ w O H C m } Q 4 ltl OOpMM310 Z N V) LLi O� 2 itl Ago a. Z Oz N30w Y7 w ° tl RNNr LO O]x NY ld 0 tl 30fltlttldp 'ld I r7 O ye w yo oJ le� O Yo iA• diw tl•M 75C -318 ti LLI 0 LL 05`` z 3Lu z rrt� Y i r,or'-d'i a Z a a z a O } W U V `a d w 2 i1 � w J �ti R m r `a m z m a i O V♦ 9 r O a z n m N m CD n O T (n ➢ z D z m CD Q r LO m m m mm z p O m 5. m v0 Z m>< z mm m EP M ((n a i Wa�eiy n ,I �D u e fli \ � FJI I I Ea TI n I r 75C -319 L� O t u vC 9oz : S c e � <m MOM Z z ymOT 3 to m n m ml D� s m 0 m r z N D D VI 0 CO O m m t O T a Y Z a W m cn O r 1 m m m m m Z Z 77 O n m G7 96 �T Z::E S { L� Z (Q m ppO fli In m P ° ° e o vo ° e..m e v I w e e a �r e T e „f7---TT 1� " E7- ul' le I 75C -320 O z i5 mm v =z ENO ti0y 2 m `SC m m =Qa >mM m mom 0� � Q m a r r a • m J 7 W � 3 4 44G 000 • (bc ■aE tNll O,Y" 3AV a • it i o � Y ➢ONIOi 6 � o � a d F 0 0 — M � a ld OUOYN3,v O ld Nsenr� � a NsaN.� O li iMMV y8 O In NV 18 a -16 L 4 J �r1 e d � a � �3ir Y3NYNM 75C -321 U 2 V] e � e � a w i i- e � W 3 — H 4 O u O Q H a z �N N N e b z Z LL 0 LU 7 � i m � H U W m W N ~ m m J O m U 2 V] e � e � a w i i- e � W 3 v e m a m J M ��� ispWp /4 C 000 •00 ■v0 75e itl 19 WJ Tl a. a �° 3L L4 yntllYM ° o � 0 is 3�MIp ��3■ L�nmasvm7 Lb i1_�tlI.X 0 •I p 1Y IIIXYO O _ L9 yo evi■ 1j MI.Iv. l O e I1 lAY � CNYIX OItl O 3Alll of LC GxYlX91X r� a 0 F � is "Owl 1- ��JJys Xvvtlno ° v LU Q 7 Q) U L C) N W 0 Z z 3 Q •� r m }� m W LLI cc H N J 2 0 x m z 4 d r z Id VJ LL O W er r h Ls. �s F /\ C �YZJI Z •w a MQi p � W G • • J iT, 44 4Q 0Jp 0 s s � •00 MIN 4 w� �I4 a d e I M4 cilI-a-I- 4I a L T r---77- maou aI • • • • l � � I I s` IL I 75C -323 I h H ^ � � r D e O 9 W e a 3 1 ca N m U LJ s CL c z z W 3 W W Q r N J O 1- N lI] N LLI f- Q a Z Q a Z Q Q r z a O r H Q N W a s N w6 2 c� W a 444 030 II1011 $ •oo ■vC Q, I� 4 IV I I p I f Y � V i ■ — E 0 ■ A J AL a � ` 0 0 y � V -2j La 75C -324 � N - w t c b � m U N W, C C � m - m W t d N m Q T U Z LLI Q r � Q a Z m" Z LL W C U F W -' W c N J s U7 Cl Cl -• CO .� W 4� O'^ CO J o€ 0 w LL 0 D ~ C wUQ w ui LLQS � OMz fr or Y w�F s Z i N i N�2 LU c ¢ s o ~w zoo E¢rz) s n 3Ml1 woa.w ioj C7 fn F- Q I —o I O�I U Z uj LU aS 5 4 Y� H I ¢ Z I a co LL LL 3n. adrw oe'o� LL_ O Q ? I w I LU I Ir �s ro 3o I C 75C-3� a °s ry e F- flJ Q m W Q U� a Ztl ¢¢ �? J W J O U1 Q 5 5 CY W Ow m s� L ,X 0 w N LLF i w O y O=w zoo 3 c LU Qm r { oN 7 10 At YI I le 1qH lYM 0 � I (� ae iYl� fi ;: rf I � I �n � X11- 1II;Ma9 iM] I � • I�l � I : •• I '�j� It 3 —�atlAw IN A O ❑ uj Z r= d �Z cc Q Z a d r 2 4 W 0 } H u Y ONO Y W_ U� 2 �a 2 � 1 W J Y b0� U LLI j oad k z = o a w 0 T� cr LL co Er co 7 i c� 2 I 01 I T OI LU cc EILI O I� LUw LL Omz �€ ''llI '( I• I I w � w ui zN a W L e z x p c� a� s` co o I — Q H I O I Z T�I i e ll�Fr � 75C -327 a Z a LL Y N t n' z z 4 J L a 6 N W W 2 Z W M" F [y LU W 0 z m�w S<a 7 w F cc o=w z ❑ woz CS ¢ a On 75C -328 c 0 Cl) 'm W ❑ z Y = 4~ �m OW i ❑ =3 c? w ul Z Ly Q CL z Z p LLJ❑ > w W .� cc F- 0 cn y 11 co i r � w LLJ 4 " V= pa N a z w ZZ W Z W J .M � t i t5 s i o; III ___jjjftl p �s M r "wwa rii 6 A :Iy C e. !i J 75C -328 c 0 Cl) 'm W ❑ z Y = 4~ �m OW i ❑ =3 c? w ul Z Ly Q CL z Z p LLJ❑ > w W .� cc F- 0 cn y 11 co i r � w LLJ 4 " V= pa N a z w ZZ W Z W J .M � t i t5 s i o; III ___jjjftl p �s e. !i J � rye tizn.. 75C -328 c 0 Cl) 'm W ❑ z Y = 4~ �m OW i ❑ =3 c? w ul Z Ly Q CL z Z p LLJ❑ > w W .� cc F- 0 cn y 11 co i r � w LLJ 4 " V= pa N a z w ZZ W Z W J .M � O LL w 0 S 5 LLJ -x O mZ i u 3 C co Z I LU $ LULL= v wC)~ 4 Zoo J OGO `e J mall NOLYN N W y n W p M e b IjY�J Z / 1b � Yp O O ~ b o ■er aaTrwollom e � n I " o ae e 1 v 1R 31C 3B iNNY 13 ,d vo 3andib3o �ie Jo 0 o� e i�0 iAV b9M bYM Ir 75C -329 L a 0 s w e 15� Z to Z LL w 0 3FT r U LLI r rein 2 Q nu c7i e N u QZ l7 J W 3 W D¢ hQ LL4} z �mz jr x WI— W mYJ i4G Z y CIO O F N z_ wOz o ¢a c� .N: 7 le 1! 1��H 1vM W � p 1! lxly W le 1! l�M 1B 3N9 a 2 f = e e •• air ann el! 1! ]llriv0 ra IN C ¢ as z, LU a 'p¢ i w ¢� aZ 3 — z w Q O W cJ �' U W W H U) J Q H co E m w am, 4Y a,. W r a U a c e � w Q i u J z - 7 v 0 d J v t ■■ i 1,4 9 •oo ■vo i i o i 75C -331 • N ^ Ir O m U ° N a� N � y m m 10 c m N m H w O Cc d z ujZ lfJ 1- w Ll.I s M M J O 1— m Q z Q z O } F- U co LW r Q � (} z Oa N� fA Q N Z¢ W Q = 0 � Z J W J !: S� o °- 134 •lp 0 v t ■■ i 1,4 9 •oo ■vo i i o i 75C -331 • N ^ Ir O m U ° N a� N � y m m 10 c m N m H w O Cc d z ujZ lfJ 1- w Ll.I s M M J O 1— m Q z Q z O } F- U co LW r Q � (} z Oa N� fA Q N Z¢ W Q = 0 � Z J W J !: CM � o z5z z b Z e D a S o'C/)'w q VJ r O a z n m �zm o m I � � N o � a I D p 4 7 o I D j • O I a 0 O m. ► o � D i D � rr ► D � D 9� �D 75C -332 Ga■ oog a►�s 4rd �O� DD► g[� r m m m a r m O -� Umi O C r CD cn 7 m m a -� n � c —1 O — to O Z a N � H U) n °m m mO zn a 7D T — N u I � � N o � a I D p 4 7 o I D j • O I a 0 O m. ► o � D i D � rr ► D � D 9� �D 75C -332 Ga■ oog a►�s 4rd �O� DD► g[� r m m m a r r ° �v a e w 9 � p O z (A T lV1 D o N I IN 1 111 D nusu �� f Noy +DOin D FPD I �I •rE �P r�l WALNUT elPI,+ I 7-0I ST s� • I T IT IT Iy ., EW- !i f�T 75C -333 9. LIME ❑EN JQ� g.� DUID �>C► ggqn n r m m m CL CL D � a m. m m � 1 G O m Z my Z aN n� m� a O m(D a m o zn tam I IN 1 111 D nusu �� f Noy +DOin D FPD I �I •rE �P r�l WALNUT elPI,+ I 7-0I ST s� • I T IT IT Iy ., EW- !i f�T 75C -333 9. LIME ❑EN JQ� g.� DUID �>C► ggqn n r m m m CL CL r =r m z a N P �y v Vr� >f- z Yom Z 9 m N :ti -i cn D z 3 z n,Iv A N C 7 6' c N_ O � N �9 m� m n `n N m O � 7 O j h _ I I WARNER AVE [D ► 1 D ' ► C a� o D I 0 D D i D III-, D 9T. DFRTRyD[ ► I ID IL R ET ANNE_ • • CAMDEN � c•MOeN PL p •�• LteNwomm r-p�L • CAR LTm1 O i RT ANDREW 1 p J J F g s � E I I= F�c]i p1 i LGIN OIR ��AY F:��� D D s D 'm D D D t D� � O 3 �- RORCX RP AVE D ►J EIDER AVE OFT • O�• J Fr "' E ATOM LIRE 75C -334 11 sr D u M 000 nQi [r e 8 coo >C► ?Fc -Fe A O 6 NN r NN w v c m m J r ¢ i s m U Z LU v t ¢ z m a ¢ 0 cn ■� ~ a a ? LL Z O LU m w v g uj zi 6 J rn m ■ ■ I O �■ — �' ?fir uj cn a o U aZ5 X2 €�0 rL L a l 75C -335 C r m r" n D m s Z a v CO i 0^ 2l) m N m w i .TY • ► -TM IF-UT • a I • Y I • e _ II I • • J r • 3 I► a I ► I► � { I o m� J IL.J I r.m I ► y E - '� -336 CUR _-co 9; 7 5 a w all SJ m C a CC• DD► N gggn n n Q - r 3 U3 Q m 1 m O Z f „z a� n m� n o CD D L m m Z n - i .TY • ► -TM IF-UT • a I • Y I • e _ II I • • J r • 3 I► a I ► I► � { I o m� J IL.J I r.m I ► y E - '� -336 CUR _-co 9; 7 5 a all m C a CC• DD► y gggn n n f - t 4 r. _ m m C CL - t r. _ i JuI'�� y � U � 6 44C400 zap �tQa� •ao ■a� I V I 3x11 xplvN Fo I' •1 I 3n . I �1 JAY "..,Woe •l I I{O IL II �: I V I � E W fl, 4 n •I • I _ • I • td w30w Y7 Td 3NNY 1• 10.1 'La td: + 1OOb1Y3O I � I S � I + I e I —ems I I � 3AY b3NtlYM MG-=3V I W a O N � �m U v � N o m a 6 a' U Z s w N Q m W lL C m m I"' Cl) N J 2 O Q m MPIF Q Z Q Q r Z Q N O } H .r cn W u� O ¢ Z I_QN Z l d 6 ♦� Z J W m m m a�¢ 444 !00 •OO ■30 �J I .• awl�i 1 artxirM 75C 3x11 xol w N r o R c e m m m c �y m Q ONE a I I 111 z z w 0 3 M w w u7 J O H 'a m Q z Q 4 Q y F- f- U W tz U. �z a w z 3 J W r w �r APPENDIX B MINUTES AND DISTRIBUTION ITEMS FROM SCOPING MEETINGS 75C -339 .. -. - . .4 '. n' 21 mnm .i...v.tquyn • ...I L" .., v.., r .. .n .. I I ... .... _ . vA1oR Dan,al F G,,,el cIC'_ M.A1 OR P Lee Johnson COL'NCiLMEm BERS John Acosta R. W., Lu.embau,ge, Palma A. McGuigan oan Young November 27, 1985 wr r�iTV nc r A K17 Rr.i L I I I 111 -Y/ -%l V I 1 V/ 20 CIVIC CENTER FLAZA • P o. BOX 1988 SANTA ANA CALIFORNIA 92702 Ms. Susan McCullough Department of Transportation District 7, 120 South Spring Street Los Anaeles, CA 90012 Dear Ms. McCullough, ALL - AMERICA C IIY IYtlJb] CITY MANAGLR Robed C Bohb CITY .ATTORNEY Edward I. Coupe, CLERK OF THt COU%CL lance C CmY Attached for your review is a copy of the minutes, public notices and hand out materials that were provided at the November 13, 19H5, Scoping Meeting for the widening of Bristol Street in Santa Ana, California. The scoping meeting was a procedure required by the State of California Environmental Review criteria, to allow residents who may be impacted by this project to observe the preliminary design and study for a potential project. The Scoping meeting was attended by twenty six residents /property owners who asked the questions attached. Their concerns seemed more related to the actual market value of their property on Bristol Street rather than disapproval of the project. Both pro and con arguments were mentioned. Other concerns were the increase in noise, dust and traffic, the reduction in lot sizes due to the acquisition of right -of -way required for this project. Smoother traffic flow, a better aesthetic appearance and fair compensation for Bristol street property owners was well received. Please contact me at (714) 834 -4995 should any problems /questions arise. Thank you for your participation. Sincerely, c Michael C. Betts Project Manager Public Services Agency Attachment MCB/ rm 75C -340 '.:.: ;.. I....N1ry ", rc.,Y x". ,n -: .. k.,. '..,:'4" , .r.. — _._,. _ "•.•N..gnflYl.l'.... _ .. M•. .._. �. , :,1r� , .... ­.y. ... WLV.v- sw— �..... ..._ ft ft BRISTOL STREET WIDENING' w SCOPING MEETING WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1985 MINUTES FROM MEETING r Question and Answer Question (Q) , Answer (A), and Comment (C) session with general ., public: Q How much of a widening are we talking about? A About 10' from each side of the street, dependent on alternative selected. Q What if the property take is too close to the structure? ► A The City would make a full take of the property. Q What size lots are required by City code? A 6,000 sq. ft. with proper setbacks. K. Q Can I request a full take by the City if the noise is too great? �. A If noise impacts make a residence uninhabitable the resident may request a study of noise levels and may also request a full take /financial compensation, at market rates to be determined by a real estate appraiser. Q Is this project within an assessment district? A No it isn't. ^^ Q Is Caltrans planning to do more bus routes /more sophisticated travel methods on Bristol Street? A We are not aware of any such plans. There are bus routes /connector routes on Bristol Street. - Q My business is at 1425 So. Bristol, we already have parking problems for local businesses. what amount of down time will occur for local businesses during construction? A Because Bristol Street is so heavily traveled it can't be closed down entirely. There will be temporary closures during construction but through traffic will be allowed during most of the construction phase. Q Can residential property be used for parking for businesses? A Yes, if rezoned by the Planning Department. Right -of -way acquisition is not a fixed process. There is the potential to acquire some of this additional property as additional parking. r 75C -341 Q What kind of tax "break can I get for my rental property on Bristol Street? A The City would compensate for partial /full takes. Fair market V- ..r,.1 Occupant _..ner is not Co^persatarf for reassessed differential. Q Is it Feasible to keep a building that is already within the right -of -way line? A You'd be paid for property taken /your building could be relocated out of the right -o£ -way. Q Is there a cap on the cost for this project? A Only funds for the Environmental Study Ear this project have been allocated to the City. Q You are takina 10$ of my property. Will you award me 10% of the market value for my property? A The county assessor will determine the amount for you to be compensated. This compensation may be more or less than 10% Q How close to the sidewalk can a structure be? A There must be a 20' set back between the structure and right -of -way line. If the structure is any closer it may be a full take. Q Bristol Street is ugly. I don't care if it meanders or not. Will it look like Edinger when it's.finished? A We intend to create a nicer aesthetic appearance for Bristol. This will positively effect property value in the area. Q Indecision about whether prevented many residents improvements. Has a dec Street? A At this time the project Environmental Study must be made. Bristol Street will be widened has from making street and property ision been made to actually widen the is only under consideration. The be completed before any decision car. Q Is Bristol being rezoned from residential to retail and commercial? A The widening is to improve circulation and aesthetics not to change zoning. Q Will phased construction ruin my business? A Construction may be done from intersection to intersection. The whole street will not be ripped up all at once. Q Why stop the widening improvements at First Street? A Phased widening may occur as far north as Seventeenth Street. Q what if I've dedicated land to the City already? A Easement would be granted to the City and no additional right -of -way can be taken. 75C -342 Q Did anyone ever consider making Bristol Street "One- Way "? M A No. Q If plans proceed on schedule, when would appraisal and acquisition occur? A Appraisal would come after environmental approval is granted, about 1987, and dependent on State and Federal approvals. Q Will additional signals and intersections be included? I - suggest you look at accident reports for Bristol and Wilshire Streets. A it has not been determined whether new signals /intersections will be included in the plan. The project alternative has not been selected yet. Q I have a business located at 1127 So. Bristol, I donated 10' of property to the City in 1984. An additional 10' is to be taken by the City for this project. Will I have to rebuild or -^ will the City build another sidewalk for my property? Will the City relocate my structure if I live and work in the same building? A The taking of additional right -of -way may not be necessary, however if relocation is necessary it will be paid for by the City. Q is there a limit to set backs from the street? Do I have the " option of staying? Can I entice you to take my whole lot if I have an undersized lot? Can damages to property value be added to the assessed value? A It will be flexible and a variance of 408 is allowed, this can - become standard for the area. The property take options leave alot of the decision up to the property owner. State law determines habitability of property based on noise levels. , Displeasure with market value is determined by law /court, based on appraiser's assessment it may be challenged in court. - Q if you're widening and repairing the street, why not repair the alleys also? A We have restricted use of these funds. Alley improvements are not included in this project's budget. rnmmPnt5 C Noise, dust and air polution is already bad on Bristol Street. Street widening will kill everybody on my block, it will attract more traffic and these conditons will get worse. A It's important to remember that land use is more of a traffic - generator than the physical widening of a street /arterial. The object of widening Bristol Street is to reduce travel time, make travel safer. 75C -343 i think Bristol widening should be a full take straight down the middle of the street and not meander. Widening Bristol Street is the easy solution to our problem. Widening will make structures too close to the street. I have a dental office at 1345 So. Bristol. I just remodeled and put in new windows. Being so close to the street will force me to block out my windows to provide patient /doctor privacy and reduce noise. I don't think it's right to widen the street. Let commuters find another route if traffic on Bristol is too slow. Enlarging the street will only encourage more traffic. I suggest alternatives like carpools, flexible work hours be used to reduce traffic. Presently, Bristol Street is not widened to its full potential. Land use improvements and population increases have necessitated this widening. Local /residential streets already absorb much of the arterial traffic in the City. We are trying to reduce this usage. Other arterials in the City are at wider widths and full use. Bristol also has a Sot of traffic accidents. Our effort is to keep traffic moving without impacting adjacent areas. C The City has a 12 1/2' alley behind our property that it will not sell. A If the alley is needed for circulation /fire access it will not be sold. MB /rm 11/27/85 75C -344 :.... n' 4. N....:' J` nIW !I.MI�`.��.r4t1(�TI %�i�^ITrf. �n S.l,..f .ENV. .n `-frt i,.. 1.. .. ..�.•...�.. .. .. r... �,.., .... v... ♦� • w w OCTOBER 17, 1985 NOTIFICATION OF SCOPING MEETING BRISTOL STREET vii DENiNG PROJECT w THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE WIDENING OF BRISTOL w STREET, BETWEEN FIRST STREET AND WARNER AVENUE WILL BE DISCUSSED AT A PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HELD ON WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1985, AT 7:00 P.M.-AT CARR AUDITORIUM LOCATED AT 2120 WEST EDINGER, ` SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA (CARR INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL). PLEASE NOTIFY MICHAEL C. BETTE, AT THE CITY OF SANTA ANA, PUBLIC SERVICES AGENCY, PHONE NUMBER (714) 834 -4995 IF YOU HAVE ANY ^+ OUESTIQNS ABOUT THIS MEETING. Translation: Elena Rojas (714) 540 -1014 2221 S. Lowell Street Santa Ana, California 92707 Annalea Riggle (714) 897 -5734 Newspapers: - The Register (714) 835 -1234 - 6 25 North Grand Oct 31 - Nov 8, 1985 '- Minlondas Editor: Sergio Velasquez (7141 547 -0701 1742 South Main Street November 6, 1985 Rumores Editor: Able Torres 1714) 547 --8253 517 North Bristol 92703 October 24, 1985 12 noon 75C -345 17 de octubre de 1965 Reunion publica para discutir el proyecto de amplificacion de la Calle Bristol (desde la Calle Primera hasta la Avenida Warner) E1 Environmental Impact en asocxacion con el Proyecto para Ampliar la Calle Bristol, entre Is Celle Prinera y la Avenida Varner, llevaran acabo una reunion, publica el mie'rcoles, 13 de noviembre de 1985, a las 7:00 p.m. en el Auditorio de la Escuela Carr Intermediate localizada er. el 2120 W. Edinger, Santa Ana, CA_ Pate mayor infermacion acerca de e'sta reunion, favor de ponerse en contacto con el senor Michael C. Betts, Ayuntamiento de Santa Ana, Agencia de Servicios Pubiicos - i714) 834 -40195. 75C -346. i n e a W a E /C 0 T 9 T T PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2015.5 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, SS. County of Orange, JOY BEECH I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above entitled matter. I am the princ(paf clerk of the printer of Orange County Register, a newspaper of general circulation, Published IntheCttyof Santa Ana, County of Orange, and which newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation bythe Superior Court of the County of Orange. State of California, under the date of November 29, 1905, Case Number A21044; that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in each regular and entire issue of as Id newspaper anc not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to wit: October-31, November 1. 4. s r- 7, 8, 1985 I certify (or declare) under penalty of Perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at Santa Ana, California. Date -JOY KEECA 'PUBLIC NOTICES 19 ... `�....... Signature •,;t c.c:r ft �,,. •�• CC, ^a)' (. �e�L'c Ci!'nC Cl aan�, w PUBLIC NOTICES Proof of Publication of 4 SCOping Meeting Bristol Street Widening Project (First Street to Warner Avenue) 7 *UIl C f40TIC1 ' r nilw � r w ww w PROOF & - PUBLICATION MA1OZ Daniel E. Gnret VICE PAAYOR P. Lee lohnson COVNCILMEMBERS John Acosta Wilson S. flan R. 1A'. Luxembourger Pairncia A. McGuigan Dan Young October 17, 1985 CITY OF SANTA ANA 20C1ViC CEKTER PLAZA a RO BOX 1985 SANTA ANA, CALIEORI.'IA 92702 Mr. Ernest Egger Principal Planner Willdan Associates 14714 Carmenita Road, Suite 300 Norwalk, CA 90650 Dear Mr. Egger: ALMA + +I FiI. A CI11 1951.[; CITY MANAGER Robes C. Bobb CITY ATTORNEY Ed,,a.d I. (:oop &T CLERK OF THE COUNCIL lanic& C. Gm Attached is a copy of the revised Draft Notice needed to initiate the environmental process for the Bristol Street Widening Project. This draft reflects changes made to your original submittal of October 7, 1985, after consultation with Susan McCullough of Caltran's Environmental Division. The attached draft has been signed and forwarded to the National Registry. I have contacted Elena Rojas to translate newspaper notices about the scoping meeting into Spanish, and to serve as an interpreter for the November 13th meeting. I am now in the process of notifying three local newspapers (one english and two spanish), the Register, Miniondas and Rumcres, about the upcomino meetine. A list of property owners for Bristol Street has been generated so that we may mail notices about the scoping meeting to them directly. These notices will be mailed beginning Monday, November 4, 1985. Please contact me at {714) 834 -4995 if any problems arise. Sincerely, Michael C. Betts Project Manager Public Services Agency cc: Sue McCullough /Caltrans George Alvarez /Public Services Agency Rob McCann /Orange County Transportation Commission Attachments MCB /rm 75C -34$ NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (CEQA) � AND NOTICE OF INTENT TO PREPARE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (NEPA) 13RISTOL STREET WIDENING PROJECT TO: FROM: CITY OF SANTA ANA PUBLIC SERVICES AGENCY 20 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA P.O. BOX 1988 M -21 SANTA ANA, CA 92702 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Santa Ana will be the lead agency for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report /Environmental Impact Statement for the Bristol Street - Widening Project. The project involves the widening of Bristol Street to an ultimate right -of -way of 100 feet between First Street and Warner Avenue (see enclosed map). The environmental document will be a full scope analysis which will - be prepared pursuant to both the California Environmental Quality Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. A list of topical areas which will be addressed is enclosed herein. M A public meeting will be held on Wednesday, November 23, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. at Carr Auditorium, located at Carr Intermediate School, 2124 west Edinger, Santa Ana, California, for the purpose of r refining the scope of the environmental document. W This notice shall serve as a request to solicit your agency's views as to the precise scope and content of the EIR /EIS which is germane to your agency's statuatory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Due to the time limits prescribed by State law, your response must be sent at the earliest possible date but not later that 30 days after receipt of this notice. Please send your response to Mr. Michael C. Setts at the address , shown above. We will need the name of a contact person in your agency. �� Signature: Date,. lCj � t�Gj Title: Project Manager Telephone: (714) 834 -4995 75C -349 w �#RIUIf')R,b►JI"1111C�... __ _ ,e�i e CvLtrell, Ex utive DS �1 10- Commynl-cations 6 Marketing f Date: Nov. 4, 198 Mi ?ael C. Betts From: pudic Services Menc -- c1: Attached for yor review is information pertaining to the Bristol Street Widening Scoping Meeting, scheduled for Wednesday, November 13, 1985. it is my understanding that all press releases are to he edited and approved by your office prior to their release to the public. Peel free to review.and reformat this information as needed. Please contact me at ext. 4995 should any problems or questions arise(._�c_� Michael Metts MC9:mp 75C -350 \1A1 OA Daniel E. G,set VICE NSAYOR P, Lee Iohnson COUNCILMEMBERS lohn Acosta l'ifieun u. Y: R. W. Luxembourger Palri Cla A. M[Gmgan Dan Young November 6, 1985 sueIXft r2r-ry r,i= cANT e AEI e X CIVIC CENTER FLAZA• P 0.90k 19DO SAS � A ANA, CAW ORNIA 927W Resident /Property Owner ALL-4M,KILAC17115�. r C11Y MANAGER -� Roben C. Babb CITY ATIORNO, r Edward J. Cooper CLERK OF THE COL�NCII lamce C. eug SUBJECT: BRISTOL STREET WIDENING FROM 1ST STREET TO WARNER AVENUE The City of Santa Ana is proposing to widen Bristol Street between 1st Street and Warner Avenue. Prior to making a decision on the widening project, the City is required to prepare an environmental document addressing all the impacts. On Wednesday November 13, 1985, the City of Santa Ana will host a neighborhood scoping meeting to discuss the widening of Bristol Street. This project is funded by a combination of 86% Federal Highway Administration Funds and 148 local matching funds. The meeting will be held at 7:00 P.M. at Carr Auditorium located at 2120 west Edinger, at Carr Intermediate School. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the environmental impacts associated with the proposed street widening. It is a question and answer session open to the general public. We welcome your participation. Sincerely, George Alvarez City Traffic Engineer Public Services Agency GA /MB /mp 75C -351 ar r r WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER I3, 1985 NAME a�1 SIGN IN SHEET .ADDRESS ------------ PHONE J� ILL V� � ryr7J SSr!y�� tryo< _ ---------- / r S. t - --- — % ii { � ? FG ✓I �'f iz� r I1I ,, 1�- 121-5 ;)Y -;7Ess- Sera --1 -� �a_8y�zy il-5 1-6 �a5- WEDNESDAY, ENO 1 SIGN IN SHEET NAME ADDRESS fHCJNE • � f -;G � f3C5 D� - -------- - - - -- - S� i9/ f ulr-fP •/n � 93/� 0 7 a- - =_zz 7 - - - - - -- - - - -- -- ---------- - ----------------- - ------------- - --- - --------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- ---- ---- ----------------------------------- ------------------ ----------- -- --- ------- ------- -------- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- ------------- ,----- - - - - - -- w 75C -353 BRISTOL STREET WIDENING (FIRST STREET TO WARNER AVENUE) Wednesday, November 13, 1985 SCOPING MEETING AGENDA ITEM PRESENTER I. OPEN REMARKS George Alvarez - Introduction of Personnel - Purpose of the Meeting II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Michael Betts III. ENGINEERING STUDIES Victor Martinez - Definition of the Study Area - Alternative Solutions 100' Right -of -way Meandering centerline No project - Project Time Schedule IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS Ernie Egger - The Environmental Process V. AGENCY AND PUBLIC COMMENTS George Alvarez fi - Additional Alternatives to be Studied Michael Betts - Impacts That need to be Addressed VI. QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION VII. CLOSING REMARKS George Alvarez OTHER AGENCIES CalTrans City of Santa Ana Neighborhood Improvement Planning Dept. Public Services Agency Consultants - Willdan Associates Interpreter Federal Highway Administration 75C -354 Susan McCullough Darl Incledon Thomas Childress George Alvarez Michael Betts Ernest Egger Michael Green Victor Martinez Elena Rojas 1. Q A 2. Q A 3. Q A 4. Q A QUESTIONS MOST FREQUENTLY ASKED BY THE PUBLIC AND THE ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS Why is Bristol Street going to be widened? Because the road is presently subject to excessive traffic and congestion. The improvement of the street is neces- sary to carry traffic safely and efficiently. It is projected that even greater amounts of traffic will be carried in the future. How will the widening of Bristol Street be accomplished? In phases, all at once, or by intersection? This has not been determined. Each of these approaches will be evaluated through the course of the environmental and engineering studies. The phasing of the project may aiso depend on the availability of funds. What is an "environmental impact statement "? This is a report which is prepared for informational pur- poses to inform decision makers and the public regarding the environmental consequences of a project. What specific issues will be looked at in the environmental impact statement? The possible impacts of the street widening will be analyzed by looking at the following topics: 1 . Project description 2. Purpose and need 3. Alternatives to the proposed project 4. Environmental impacts a. Topography b. Soils and Geology C. Hydrology /Water quality d. Biological resources e. Land use f. Population /Housing g. Pubfic facilities h. Cultural and Historical resources I. Traffic and Circulation 75C -355 W.. r j. Air quality k. Noise !. Energy M. Construction impacts n. Right -of -way considerations o. Topical issues Short -term versus long -term impacts Significant unavoidable adverse impacts Irreversible environmental changes 5. Q How long will the construction take? A This will depend greatly on the alternative selected. If the entire widening was conducted as a single project, a six to nine month time frame can be considered reasonable. 6. Q What types of precautions will be taken to protect us from the noise, dust and traffic disruption caused during con- struction? A The hours during which construction can take place will be limited to normal daytime working hours. Dust will be lim- ited as water trucks will be used to keep any dirt areas wet to reduce wind -blown dust. The construction will likely be organized so as to keep the road open at all times. 7, Q If my home is to be acquired, will I receive full market val- ue for my home? A An appraisal would be conducted by a qualified independent fee appraiser and just compensation will be offered of not less than the appraised value. 8. Q What is the procedure used to acquire property from pri- vate residents? A The first step is to appraise the property. Subsequently, a personal contact is made with the owner, by the City where an offer is made and negotiations are initiated. 9. Q What happens if I refuse to sell my home? A The City can exercise its power of eminent domain to ac- quire property; however, just compensation must be paid by the City. If no negotiated settlement can be reached, the final compensation will be established in court by a judge or jury. 75C -356 10. Q A 11. Q A 12. Q A 13. Q A 14. Q A 15- Q A 16. Q A 75C -357 Will the -City, State, or federal government help pay relo- cation costs? If so, how much per household? Relocation costs will be paid by the City. Businesses would be paid actual moving costs. Owner - occupied residential units will receive moving costs up to 5500 or actual moving costs and differential payments up to $15,000 maximum. Rental occupants can receive similar moving reimbursement - plus up to $4,000 in rental supplements. 4 If we are unhappy with any aspect of the project, do we call the consultant or the City? All inquiries should initially be directed to the City staff. If the question cannot be answered by the City, the City - staff will call the consultant. r What stage of the environmental process is still incomplete? This scoping meeting is only the beginning of the environ- mental process which will include detailed studies conducted by specialists. When will the final environmental impact report/ statement be presented to the community? .. It is estimated that the final study will be ready for public hearing in approximately one and one -half years. If we think of issues later, how do we make changes to the focus of the report after this meeting is over? Please provide any additional comments in writing to the City at the earliest possible opportunity. What is our course of action if the majority of residents op- r pose the project? The opportunity to comment on the project will be available after the completion of the environmental study and prelimi- nary engineering. These studies will be presented to the City Council at a public hearing. After hearing all of the - public testimony the City Council will decide on whether or not to move forward with the project. - Who will make the final decision on the alternative to be se- lected? This decision will be made by the City Council at the public hearing stage. 75C -357 ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING MEETING BRISTOL STREET WIDENING PROJECT FIRST STREET TO WARNER AVENUE DATE: Wednesday, November 13, 1985 TIME: Open House - 6:00 P.M. - 6:45 p.m. Presentation - 7:00 P.M. - 9:00 P.M. PLACE: Carr Auditorium Carr Intermediate School 2120 West Edinger WHAT IS A SCOPING MEETING? Scoping meetings are often the first contact between supporters of a proposal, project opponents, and the concerned public. Hopefully, people on both sides of an issue will be present at the meeting and will speak on those issues. The Scoping Meeting has limited objectives: 1) To identify the affected public and agency concerns. 2) To define the issues and alternatives that will be examined in detail. 3) To save time in the overall process by helping to ensure that the environmental document adequately focuses upon the relevant issues, reducing the possibility that new comments will cause a document to be rewritten or supplemented and thereby delay the Project's progress. In some cases, the scoping process can also enable early identification of serious environmental problems which can be avoided by redirecting engineering efforts. Essentially, the goal of scoping is to lay a firm foundation for the rest of the decision making process. At this time, no decision has been made regarding the Bristol Street Widening. Further studies will determine which properties need to be acquired for street widening purposes. The public hearing process is the time for the community to raise environmental conerns. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION. 75C -358 MEMORANDUM 0 David H. Grosse, Exec. Dir. To:Public Works Agency Michael etts From: Project Manager Subject: BRISTOL STREET PEOjFrT onxirrC CONTACT 48cember 29, 1986 ` w On Wednesday, December 10, 1986 a public meeting was held to dis- cuss the Bristol Screet project and to solicit public input in preparation of the draft Environmental Document /Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Attached for your information are minutes taken by Willdan Associates during the December 10, L986 public meeting. Also attached is a list of residents who attended the meeting, as well as a list of the notices that were returned to the City. On Thursday, December 18, 1986, Public Works Agency staff met with Mater Bet High School's Vice Principal James Goldman and members of his staff, at their request, to discuss the progress of the Bristol Street Project's tnvironmental Impact Statement. Mr. Goldman requested information about the status of the Tempo- rary Setback Ordinance, concerns discussed at the December 10 meeting, and specifics regarding proposed alignment alternatives. Mater Dei staff was concerned about the impact the Bristol Street widening would have on the school's existing parking lot and track. They also recommended that a traffic light at St. Andrew Place be incorporated into the Bristol Street design. This crossing light would provide safe pedestrian crossing for stu- dents at both Sepulveda Elementary School and Mater Dei High School. Mater Dei faculty are in support of the widening of Bristol Street from the west side of the street only and have volunteered to provide the City with a letter stating their support. City staff was also able to use this meeting as an opportunity to gather additional information about Mater DeL's student enroll- ment and campus parking needs. Public Works Agency Staff recorded Mater Dei-s concerns for inclusion into the draft EIS. Please contact me at 647 -5657 should any problems or questions arise. Michael Betts cc: Mayor and City Council David N. Ream, City Manager Rex Swanson, Deputy City Manager, Development Laurie Howard, Council Support Staff Cindy Nelson, Exec. Dir., Community Developement Melanie Fallon, Planning Manager, Planning Department Me /lkv 75C -359 w w w w w w CITY OF SANTA ANA BRISTOL STREET WIDENING PROJECT SCOPING MEETING WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1996 MINUTES Introductory Remarks Meeting Convened: 7:05 p.m. Mr. Kim Schultz (moderator) - Introduction Mr. Michael Betts (project coordinator) - Purpose of meeting, overview Mr. George Alvarez (traffic engineer, City of Santa Ana) - Description of the necessity for the project (safety). The project will improve signaliza- tion, lighting, access and relieve congestion. Mr. Victor Martinez (traffic engineer, Willdan Associates) -- Description of the project alternatives and the 100' and 120' roadway cross sections. Details and costs to be developed at a later stage and incorporated into the EIS. Ms. Sandra Massa - Lavitt (planner, City of Santa Ana) - statement that the temporary setback ordinance was no longer under consideration by the City. Mr. Ernie Egger (planner, Willdan Associates) - Description of the environ- mental review process including topics under consideration, project phasing and EIS time table. Mr, Michael Green (real property agent, Wilidan Associates) - Description of property acquisition procedures. Also present: Patti Nunn (City of Santa Ana), Barry Dee (Willdan Associates). Public Comment Period Question (Q), Comment (C), Response (R). Q: Is the appraisal for fair maket value? R: (Green) Yes. Q: How are appraisers chosen? R: (Green) Bid to the City by independent contractors. Q: What percentage of people are satisfied with their settlement? R: (Green) 90 -95 percent in his experience. C: The purpose of the restrictions on Flower Street was to divert traffic to other nearby streets such as Bristol Street. The City Ignored resident's concerns on this previous issue. The issue is whether north -south streets should be restricted at all. Aliowing commercial development on Flower Street is the cause of traffic problems. 75C -360 Q: How many people on the panel live in the City of Santa Ana? R: (Panel members responded with a show of hands). Q: Who hired Willdan Associates and when? R: (Betts) The City hired Willdan in April, 1985. The cost of the project is too high for the benefit received. Widening Bristol Street will not help relieve congestion on the street. The Ei5 should address the Flower Street restrictions and the safety of school crossings. The cheapest remedy should be considered as well as the impact of regional transportation projects - new freeway and rail line. - R: (Egger) Costs, pedestrian safety and R.O.W. alternatives will be considered. r C: The proposed widening will worsen congestion and safety. Opposes the - taking of property for roadway purposes. The widened street will not - improve the quality of life as stated by Mr, Alvarez. C: Pollutant fumes seep into homes along the street. The Flower Street situation should be considered in the EIS. A possible solution would be one -way traffic on Bristol and Flower Streets. �- R: (Egger) Air Quality will be addressed in the EIS. C: Many people did not receive notice of the meeting. The quality of the neighborhoods will be degraded by the project, The emphasis should be .. to move through- traffic to the freeways. R. (Alvarez) The project attempts to remove traffic from local streets and facilitate north -south traffic on arterials instead. Q: What will happen to property north of Santiago Creek? R: (Alvarez) No major acquisitions are planned in this area. - Q: How will traffic noise affect residences? R: (Egger) Noise impacts will be addressed for the entire project area. _ C: Concern expressed about noise, air pollution and property value. The cheapest alternative in terms of property acquisition should be .. investigated. What will happen to property values? R: (Betts) An alternative has not yet been selected and no details about property values and acquisition costs are available. Q: Will noise buffers be constructed? R: (Schultz) Methods to reduce noise impacts will be addressed. C: It is difficult to discriminate between people on each side of the street. The property acquisition should be equal on each side. C: The project is a disguise for increased development and the taking of property is for eventual redevelopment purposes. The most cost - effective and least disruptive alternative should be chosen. Q: What happened to the trolley proposal for Bristol Street? R: (Alvarez) Proposition A. which was to fund such projects, failed at - the polls. Q: Why is property being taken at new school sites along the route? R: (?Bunn) The sites were needed quickly and were acquired with the , Bristol Street widening in mind. 75C -361 '� Njilfil1 C. The project had not been adequately described. There is confusion between the temporary setback ordinance and street widening issues. R: (Martinez) Described R.O.W. alternatives for each side of the street. Q: What will happen to street width south of Warner? Will a bottleneck be created? Widening for new trees and landscaping is a bad idea. R: (Betts) No alternative has been selected. There may or may not be landscaped medians. Q: What happens when the project substantially affects a property? R: (Green) The City may acquire the entire parcel in that case. Q: Had the City ever considered widening Bristol Street in previous years? R: (Betts) The widening has been a long- standing goal of the City. C: The people had previously been told that the EIS had not yet been started, but tonight it was stated that the EIS was started last May. Q; How wide will the travel lanes be? R: (Egger) A standard lane is 12' wide. Narrower .lanes are sometimes used. R. (Dee) Roadway design will be addressed in the EIS. Q: The project will not be an adequate solution to the traffic problem. Does the sale of property with knowledge of the proposed project place a legal liability on the seller? P.: (Massa- bavitts) The panel is not qualified to answer legal questions. Q: Is the landscaped median being considered with limited access to prop- erty along the street? R: (Alvarez) Access points and possible limitations on access are not known yet in the median alternative. C: Businesses need slow traffic speeds, not faster through traffic. Fast traffic is also dangerous to slow- driving patrons attempting to access businesses on Bristol. Opening other streets which are now closed should be considered as an alternative. Fairview should be widened to help distribute traffic amongst streets. C: Widening the street will not reduce traffic congestion. Schools along the street will be less safe for children. Traffic options on Flower and other streets should be addressed. Properties will be difficult to sell due to the impending project. The appraised value of the property will be reduced. R: (Green) The dedication of needed R.O.W. is already required with the development of property. Property value does not change because of such a project. C: A socio - economic study should be undertaken for the proposed project. Q: When there is little income from a property, how will the appraisal be affected? R: (Green) The appraisal is based upon the income potential of the property at its highest and best use. C: Properties will be difficult to lease or rent in the interim due to the impending project. 75C -362 Q: How Is the decision on the project made? ^ R: IEggerl The EIS is an objective report Incorporating voiced concerns. Final decisions are made by the City Council at a public hearing. Public _ testimony will be considered. Q: What compensation is there for potential lost income over time? R: (Green) Capitalization is considered. Relocation assistance and loss of -^ income payments are also available. - Q: Costs of acquisition are more expensive because of the businesses on Bristol. Why not chose another street? R: (Alvarez) Widening Bristol is a fulfillment of the Master Plan of Streets. Q: Can the Master Plan of Streets be amended? R: (Alvarez) Yes, C: It would make more sense to disturb only one side of the street with the widening project. Adjournment: 9:30 p.m. 75C -363 r Y -- AWV BRISTOL STREET WIDENING MEETING ATTENDANCE SIGN -IN LIST December 10, 1986 The following persons signed in and /or completed a Comment Card ( *) : *BELLETICH, Jack & Mary 608 N. Bristol Street Santa Ana, CA 92703 Ph. 536 -5404 BROADBENT, Sara Ph. 973 -4878 BYRD, B. G. 1326 S. Bristol Street Santa Ana, CA Ph. 549 -3375 CALRIAN, Felix 1117 S. Bristol Street Santa Ana, CA 92704 *CAVIGLI, Alice 2606 N. Baker Santa Ana, CA Ph. 953 -6866 *CLARK, Dwight E. 2090 N. Lincoln Street Orange, CA 92665 Ph. 639 -45L7 *DASKALAKIS, Gus C. 2533 N. Hesperian Street Santa Ana, CA 92706 Ph. 558 -0344 DE LA RIVA, Ezegniel & Vicenta 2210 & 2212 N. Bristol Street Santa Ana, CA 92706 *DECKER, James, M.D. 1346 S. Bristol Street Santa Ana, CA 92704 Ph. 556 -4740 DUARTE, Lila A. 908 N. Bristol Santa Ana, CA *DUNKLEMAN, Don McDonald's L439 N. Bristol Santa Ana, CA EULEN, Erik 1212 S. Bristol Santa Ana, CA FLORENCE, Robert PH. 667 -8163 FLOWERS, Dwight 23571 Treviso Santa Ana, CA GONZALEZ, Elisa 309 S. Bristol Santa Ana, CA *COTHIRSCH, Dick 2606 N. Louise Santa Ana, CA Street 92703 Street Street, ►L 92653 Street 92703 HAM, Steve R. 2222 S. Bristol Street Santa Ana, CA 92704 HANNA, George 2221 Victoria Drive Santa Ana, CA Ph. 542 -0813 HOPSON, Daniel Ph. 667 -8163 75C -364 ATTENDANCE SIGN -IN LIST PAGE 2 *HUFFER, George 1902 N. Greenbrier Santa Ana, CA Ph. 834 -1902 KIM, Benjamin 2235 S. Bristol Street Santa Ana, CA LABANICA, Helen 2236 N. Bristol Street Santa Ana, CA 92706 LANDIS, Mary 1009 N. Bristol Street Santa Ana, CA 92703 *LEACH, Miles R. 5 Florence E. 2025 W. 10th Street Santa Ana, CA 92703 Ph. 953 -8511 LEE, Thomas B. 1247 S. Bristol Street Santa Ana, CA 92705 *LOWMAN, Jim 2314 N. Bristol Street Santa Ana, CA Ph. 558 -7552 *MACKENZIE, Virginia Lee 414 S. Bristol Street Santa Ana, CA 92703 Ph. 558 -8289 MERINO, Jorge H. Ph. 979 -1262 *MESSICK, Richard 6 Maria Own: 2104 N. Bristol Street Santa Ana, CA Res: 2125 N. Spinnaker Street Santa Ana, CA Ph. 750 -0739 MORAGA, Ernie Own: 2122 6 2124 Bristol Street Santa Ana, CA Res: 23650 Birdsong Moreno Valley, CA 92308 *MORAGA, Susana 3916 'A' prospeect Avenue Culver City, CA 90232 Ph. (213)839 -1636 *MC COY, Mary -Ellen 2534 N. Hesperian Santa Ana, CA 92706 Ph. 542 -8459 *MC GOWAN, V. L. 1405 S. Bristol Street Santa Ana, CA 92704 Ph. 557 -5735 MC INTYRE, Gerald D. S Alice Ph. 835 -8533 *NEDDORFFER, Evelyn own: 1409 S. Bristol Street Santa Ana, CA Res: 918 W. Alpine Santa Ana, CA 92707 Ph. 546 -0851 NGUYEN, Vu 1123, 1127 S 716 S. Bristol St. Santa Ana, CA 92704 O'CONNELL, Jim Ph. 385 -2849 OCHIAI, Tod Ph. 542 -9696 *PHAN, Soang 1405 N. Bristol Street Santa Ana, CA 92706 Ph. 638 -2822 (B) 75C -365 ATTENDANCE SIGN -IN LIST PAGE 3 *?Opp, Mr. 4 Mrs, Andrew L302 W. Carlton Place Santa Ana, CA 92704 ph. 545 -8859 RAMONI, Cesar A. 1306 S. Bristol Street Santa Ana, CA 92704 *RHODES, Mrs. M. 314 S. Bristol Street Santa Ana, CA 92703 Ph. 835 -1698 or 558 -8289 *ROBINSON, Dorothy V. 2128 N. Bristol Street Santa Ana, CA ROJO, Haaay 2111 N. Ross Santa Aaa. CA *RUST, P. M. 1530 W. St. Anne Place Santa Ana, CA Ph. 546 -5803 *SCHIENO, Kathy 2542 N. Hesperian Santa Ana, CA 92706 *SCHILLING, Kathryn L301 W. L2th Street Santa Ana, CA 92703 SENA, Sam S Alice 1305 S. Bristol Street Santa Ana, CA 92704 *SHANNON, Richard W. 2240 S. Bristol Street Santa Ana, CA 92704 Ph. 751 -4537 SMITH, Gerald McDonald's Restaurant 1439 N. Bristol Santa Ana, CA VECCHIO, Anthony J. 1901 N. Bristol Street Santa Ana, CA 92706 VECCHIO, Joe Ph. 541 -3813 *WONG, David 2306 N. Bristol Street Santa Ana, CA 92706 ph. 5422574 YANG, Ted T. YOON, Hyun Mo Ph. 543 -3081 *ZIMPELMANN, Jahn 2302 Alone Santa Ana, CA 92706 Ph. 542 -0881 *ZIMPERMAN, Bob L310 Louise Santa Ana, CA 92706 Ph. 836 -9588 r T.r.Fr T RT.RC B. W. ? 1180 S. Bristol Street Santa Ana, CA Demetrius ? Ph. 953 -5424. Robert B. ? 418 N. Bristol Street Santa Ana, CA 75C -366 BRISTOL STREET WIDENING SCOPING MEETING RATLYRNEn NOTICES (Revised 12/17/86) Balls, Payl K. (NA) 619 N. Bristol Street, Unit 15B Santa Ana, CA 92703 Cusack, Carolyn A. (IA) 10101 Slater Avenue #10 Fountain Valley, CA 92705 Be Torre, Rocco Fran (FE) 611 N. Bristol Street, #5B Santa Ana, CA 92703 Deese, Diane J. (FE) 2098 N. Tustin Avenue Orange, CA 92666 Franstar Inc. (NA) 9701 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 850 Beverly Bills, CA 90212 Hook, John D. (NA) 1217 Via Catalina San Clemente, CA 92672 Hwang, Shih -Tsung Lo, Paul N. (RTS) 7130 S. Linda Way Santa Ana, CA 92704 Jenkinoon, Peter G. (IA) 627 N. Bristol Street Santa Ana, CA 92703 Jones, Pamela M. (NA) 9393 Emery Court, 0202 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Raczorowski, John J. (IA) 639 N. Bristol Street Santa Ana, CA 92703 KEY: FE - Forwarding Order Expired NA - No Forwarding Information RTS - Return to Sender 75C -367 Kirklin, Robert B. (NSA) 8 Shadow Drive Dover, Na 03820 Lee, Christopher T. H. (IA) 631 N. Bristol Street Santa Ana, CA 92703 Leonard, Rodney W. (FE) %Crown Royal Properties 505 City Parkway West, Suite 900 Orange, CA Leong, Lawrence Y. C. (FE) 624 Shasta Lane Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Levesque, Stephan L. (NA) 619 N. Bristol Street, 055 Santa Ana, CA 92703 Mathys, Guy P. (NA) P.O. Box 1871 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Minter, Esther L. Tr (RTS) 1420 W. Memory Lane Santa Ana, CA 92706 Parsons, Patricia F. (NA) 700 Thalia Street Laguna Beach, CA 92651 Ragusa, Ron S. (FE) 3042 Enterprise Street, Suite B Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Sandoval, Isidor (NA) ZADC Mortgage Corp. 3250 Wilshire Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90010 IA - Insufficient Address NSA - No Such Address VAC - Vacant w 4 T r .r r PAGE 2 Sturgis, Wilma J. (RTS) 623 N. Bristol Street Santa Ana, CA 92713 Summer, misty U. (IA) 635 N. Bristol Street Santa Ana, CA 92703 Thompson, Ellen (NA) 1321 N. Bristol Street Santa Ana, CA 92706 Wilson, Jerry E. (FE) 9949 Peralta River C Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Zoldos, Jeffrey A. B. (NA) 3250 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2000 Los Angeles, CA 90010 The following notices were sent to "OCCUPANT" at the listed addresses: 1 N. Bristol Street (NSA) Santa Ana, CA 92703 310 N. Bristol Street (NSA) Santa Ana, CA 92703 701 N. Bristol Street (IA) Santa Ana, CA 92703 820 N. Britol Street (NSA) Santa Ana, CA 92703 824 N. Bristol Street (NSA) Santa Ana, CA 92703 829 N. Bristol Street (VAC) Santa Ana, CA 92703 1217 N. Bristol Street (NSA) Santa Ana, CA 92703 1302 N. Bristol Street (NSA) Santa Ana, CA 92706 L501 H. Bristol Street (VAC) Santa Ana, CA 92706 1509 N. Bristol Street (VAC) Santa Ana, CA 92706 75C -368 1606 N. Bristol Street (NSA) Santa Ana, CA 92706 2403 N. Bristol Street (NSA) Santa Ana, CA 92706 7071 N. Bristol Street (NSA) Santa Ana. CA 92703 L06 S. Bristol Santa Ana, CA 123 S. Bristol Santa Ana, CA 218 S. Bristol Santa Ana, CA 302 5. Bristol Santa Ana, CA 418 S. Bristol Santa Ana, CA 701 S. Bristol Santa Ana, CA Street (NSA) 92703 Street (NSA) 92703 Street (VAC) 92703 Street (VAC) 92103 Street (VAC) 92703 Street (VAC) 92703 - - "OCCUPANT" Listing, cont'd 810 S. Bristol Street (RTS) 2138A S. Bristol Street (VAC) Santa Ana, CA 92703 Santa Ana, CA 92704 1010 S. Bristol Street (VAC) 2231 S. Bristol Street (VAC) " Santa Ana, CA 92703 Santa Ana, CA 92704 1204 S. Bristol Street (VAC) 2606A S. Bristol Street (NSA) -- Santa Ana, CA 92104 Santa Ana, CA 92704 1318 S. Bristol Street (VAC) 2711 S. Bristol Street (NSA) Santa Ana, CA 92704 Santa Ana, CA 92704 1342 S. Bristol Street (NSA) 3007 S. Bristol Street (NSA) .. Santa Ana, CA 92704 Santa Ana, CA 92704 .. 1501 S. Bristol Street (VAC) 3041 S. Bristol Street (NA) Santa Ana, CA 92704 Santa Ana, CA 92704 1533 S. Bristol Street (VAC) 3115 S. Bristol Street (NSA) Santa Ana, CA 92704 Santa Ana, CA 92704 1602 S. Bristol Street (NSA) 3131 S. Bristol Street (RTS) Santa Ana, CA 92704 Santa Ana, CA 92704 - 1605 S. Bristol Street (NSA) 3315 S. Bristol Street (VAC) Santa Ana, CA 92704 Santa Ana, CA 92704 2100 1/2 S. Bristol Street (NSA) 3670 S. Bristol Street (NSA) Santa Ana, CA 92704 Santa Ana, CA 92704 2102 S. Bristol Street (PAC) 3731 S. Bristol Street (NSA) Santa Ana, CA 92704 Santa Ana, CA 92704 2110 S. Bristol Street (VAC) Santa Ana, CA 92704 2119 S. Bristol Street (NSA) Santa Ana, CA 92704 2134 S. Bristol Street (VAC) Santa Ana, CA 92704 2138 S. Bristol Street (VAC) Santa Ana, CA 92704 '- 75C -369 75C -370 AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF SANTA ANA AND THE SANTA ANA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, RESERVING STREET RIGHT -OF -WAY ALONG FRONTAGE OF JOSE SEPULVEDA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SITE 75C -371 REL ., k -3 04/17/86 AGREEMENT n / THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this .{( �^� day of ,�T e Z—, 1986, by and between the rammunity.Redevelopment Agency of the City of Santa Ana, a public body, corporate and politic ("Agency"). the City of Santa Ana, a municipal corporation ('City`) and the Santa Ana Unified School District ( "District"). W- I- T- N- E- S- S -E -T -H Recitals A. The District desires to acquire certain real property, located at 1818 South Bristol Street in the City of Santa Ana (the 'Property -) to improve and maintain the same as a public elementary school. B. District has entered into an escrow to purchase the Property for a purchase price of $4,300,000, of which purchase price, the amount of $500,000 shall be paid in advance and the balance pursuant to a promissory note in the principal amount of $3,800,000 with interest at prime rate or no less than nine percent per annum and payment in equal annual installments of $1,000,000 beginning one year from close of escrow. C. The City desires to provide financial assistance to the District for the public purpose of promoting adequate schools for the school -age population residing within the jurisdictions of the city and t -1- �. �•_�_ ate, � �, �_ . i 75C -372 d x:Odld 989E1Z -gzas its ?LL : oO:AL : RA -47-A L! Ali WTIACtV eiym -17s•:d nnu e D. In pursuit of this public purpose City desires to provide funds to District for District's acquisition of the property. WHEREFORE, in Consideration of their mutual and respective promises, and subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter met forth, the parties hereto do hereby agree as followsi 1. Subject to the limitations set forth in Sections 2 a+ and 3 hereinbelow, the City shall pay to the District, funds equal to the amounts the District must ply-On the purchase of the Property, such payments to he made quarterly prior to the T date that District's payments are due. 2. The City's obligation hereunder is subject to the condition that the terms and conditions upon which the District purchases the Property are in substantial accord with those set forth in the recitals to this Agreement. " 3. The City's obligation hereunder to make the payments specified in Section 1 is limited solely and exclusively to F revenues received by the City from the Agency in the form of M• repayment of loans previously made by the City.to the Agency and is not a charge on City revenues derived from any other source. Nothing herein shall ' preclude City, at City's sole option, from appropriating funds derived from any other source - to make such payments. 4. The Agency shall, on an annual basin, repay its outstanding indebtedness to the City in not less than such amounts and at such times as shall allow the City to make the payments to District specified in Section 1 in full in a 75C -373 E 0!0ZLZ989ELZ -ZZ94 09 ILL 0t% RA- C7. -11: ca +�rnnceH rexm�rM•�a n�u - timely manner using such Agency debt repayments exclusively; provided, however, that in the event City, in any year, appropriate* funds from any other source to make all or any part of .such payments to the District, the Agency's obligation hereunder shall be reduced by the amount of such appropriation, 5. The City's City Manager, the Agency's Executive Director, and the Diatriat'a Associate Superintendent are hereby authorised and directed to establish procedures to assure accurate and timely payment of the Agency and City obligations pursuant to this Agreement. 6.• The District agrees to use the revenues received from the City pursuant to this Agreement solely for the purpose of acquiring the Property, 7. The District shall make a good faith effort to obtain funds from the State of California for the District's acquisition of the Property. In the event the District does obtain such State funding, the City and the Agency shall be relieved of any further obligation to make payments under this Agreement, except to the extent of any deficiency 1n such State funding, and the District shall reimburse the City for the amounts paid by the City to the District pursuant to this Agreement, exclusive of any portion thereof necessary to cover any deficiency in state funding. In the event the City 3- K;. 9 If:OZLZ5B9Eil «Zd99 699 VU v_��O�SL t E0- 9Z -OL; HiVI30SSY NYa7WAA AO� receives any reimbursement proceeds from the District pursuant to this section, the City shall deposit such proceeds into the special account established pursuant to section 8 of this Anreerne nt > 8. The City shill establish a special account Consisting of City and Agency monies reserved for the purpose of assisting the District to fund the cost of acquisition, and /or improvement of school sites within the City of Santa Ana. $p long as such special account is maintained by the City, the City may expend monies out of said special account solely for such purpose. Monies in said special account shall be accounted for separate and apart from other City revenues. Such monies shall be invested by the City in the same manner as other City revenues. M Any and all interest earned on monies in the special account shall accrue to the special account and be subject to the same limitations. herein set forth for the principal deposit in said account. The City shall maintain said spacial account -until such time as its termination is mutually agreed upon by the City and the District. 91 The District agrees to convey to the City, without coat to the City, on easement for street purposes over that portion of the Property which the City determines to be necessary for the widening of Bristol Strssto ouch conveyance to be made upon the request of the City at any time after the - -4- S k:0i1i589£1Z -MZ 679 Pl6 % 5 C -37 51 ! SS- SS -OI: S31VIGOSSY N1071IM A9 AOd District's acquisition of the Property. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto haw executed this Agreement the date and year first above written. CITY 0„ P 9AqTA ANA ATTEST: t rtn, By Dent E. Gr set, Mayor A 0100 C. Guy Clerk of the Council COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT ACENCY TTS$T OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA By Daniel E. Griset, Chairman — PAX swepson . - Executive Director APPROVED TO FORMc war C agar City tto ey Agency Legal Counsel BANTA ANA UNIFIED CHO DISTRICT 2. �y t Edward S. Erass, ecratary 75C -376 9 1!,0MG69SLZ 4Z99 679 9lL i0:s� : ®9- 5Z -W 531+/I0055tl N70'IIIM;l9 Ada r r v. r W r r r KGV by ;WILLLAI4 A65QGiAiL4 tu-c ;-be a ua 4 O4i �oiz� claoaacicu a 996T 'TZ 1111dY 99T 53ingim 70Nnoz A113 w r ST'01f 9114 such ;SN391Y fuON IS70N fiuoox 'ue6Tn0ak '1&6anOqusxrn 'uo964or ' ;21N ' ;99T2D '% ;BODY ISMAY :3,1OA ;66720 :ON0238 uvbTn*ZW :NO130N '004000'9so o; do ;unOmt ut ut (UOT ;tsusdmeO ,61042011) Buy 1;u1S ;0 x470 'vA 922Tn6Y ;o ;u941fT ;ire 027204 ;nY INOISON ST'OI► 3114 t;socY :03NIYS99Y fuON :SNII99Y BUM :880N - NOVA 'u00701)004 '2fb20ogIuvxnl . 'uosugor '42v9 ' ;0072D t89xY :3SOA - uUSTUDOW IGH033B 2eb2nOcw&xnI7 1g012.0Y .. '00'SZ1'LZ� -- ;0 Who" 144 uT uol ;w7nd7 ;s '(ue7 ;vsusds0a ,wx&42oAj •uY s;u1S ;0 A ;T9 '9A 300119 ;0 ;usouT4 ;t9 •z72og;nY :NOISON � 55 ton n 3'IV suON :,T03sev -r.0) 0 -01.6 - V suoN MOM Sunox 'u1bTn1)0N 120fixnogutxnl 'uosugor ' 43WH '366121) 'VI900r MAY :MA usb7nbaN ;QNM29 ;fs72: :NOILON ':1,7173 Put 2oA*W Aq ;usW9s2b1 ;o uo7;n0sxs bZT20Q4n* Put 402M 4661 ;9 TO ;9729 •q; ;o 011VInd 04; o; RAT 41TOS 40721970 TOegoS POTI7u0 1uV own sq; Put '1uv 1 ;uvs go A ;T] tq; 7e AOusfiY ;ustudolo6ap6N A;7unucOD +q; 'X279 +VZ uaaN ;ag ausme6269 aAO1ddY :802108 SMDd9FT NO 8838 635011 SO'OTE SO'CT9 3144 suov :SNROW vvoN :9IION bunax 'u1fiTn0aN '2tb2no=sxn'I 'uosugor ' ;219 ' ;99710 't4fc0Y 9 92Z :3SOA 2862aogms :n7 :090939 u9synDow :NoISOH )'69 ;oA 1A7 ;vu1;77 ;1 sal; cv;)nba6) ';a402d a ;TS 3u9WdOT9A*PsH 9- Y- TT9- 9C6-TTS o; Pun4 T12su40-TTI- CT0-TT woe) 00.1)OVERCO fiuT228;furs; 'ZZZ -ON ;uolu ;9nGPY uc7 ;vT2do244Y ano2ddY locTiON 3,119 2N3N407aA2C3 -d 9 -Y 3Nt N19,II14 ASH3d0pd 30 NOI.I;SIQCJr - Z2I 'ON SNzwlsn rQY NOISYI ovadv '2'09 75C -377 w 7 : :IvG: YG_G: SLR :p17: JaY.nron VG':: AYES: AcaSt a, 6c+se., Hat., Johnson. LdxeACo a rse: Mc;.digar„ Young NOTES: Ntne ABSENT: Kc-e F1'.0 625,55 430 J NISCELLAN£OJ9 ' 601A. APPAOFAI ATION ADJUSTMENT NO. 246 - SCHOOL SITE ACQUISITION MOTION; Approve Wp Opriation Adjustment No. 249, transferring 4500,000.00 from 544- 936 -3. Harbor Tax Allocation Bond to 057- 501- schoel Site Acgwimition 6 Improv. Fund. (Requires five affirmative va'_es.l AOTION: McGaigen SECONDt Johnson VOTE: AYES: ACOS`-a, Griset, Hart, Johnson, Luselebourger McGuigan, Young NOES: None ABSENT: None PILE 310.05/ 615.55 At this point in the meeting, the Mayor recognized Yr. Robert Reed, Chairperson of the Citizens Cable Commission. 'Mr. Hied Rpoke in support of the passage of item 19C. The Mayor reoognized the City Manag K , Robert C. Babb who informe? Council that in reference to Itec. 19A on the Consent Calendar, the Loga1 Aid Society had collected $4,400 On renters leans to date. This information Satisfied the provision placed on the peerage Of Ite= 19A earlier in the even :ng. CLOSED SESSION The Mayo: announced that the City Council Mould adjowcn to Closed Session and instructed the Clark to inform the public of the authority and reasooa therefore as advised by the City Attorney. The Assistant Clers of the Council announced that the council was recessing to closed session purs.ant to Government Code Section 54516.9(A) to confer with the Cty Attorney regarding pending 1it1ga :1on .vier ham been tnit :a =ed formally, and to which the Ci'.y 15 A party, to wit, JAti;d Gasps- vs, City at Santa Ana and Clayton groan vs. City of Santa Ana. At 6:02 p.m., the Council recessed to dinner in Roor„ 831, City Heil, ao: reconvened at 7;4: -,-., � %%- all reaoars present. 75C -378 9 conzagm -Mg 699 9LL , Fo:cl , 90 -e7 -ni - CMIWT nnenw wun "T U.in AA, w r r r r 4 1 i CERTIFIED COPY IN RE. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE C —ITY OF SANTA ANA COUNTY OF ORANGE STATE OF CALIFORNIA JULY 10, 1989 BRISTOL STREET WIDENING PROJECT, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PUBLIC HEARING. SMITH & GREGOR COURT REPORTERS 19oo EAST FOURTH STREET. SUITE io4 350 S. FIGUEROA STREET. SUITE 296 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92705 LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90071 (71 4) 647.9099 (213) 631 -A004 75C -379 IN RE: PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA COUNTY OF ORANGE STATE OF CALIFORNIA JULY 10, 1989 BRISTOL STREET WIDENING PROJECT, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PUBLIC HEARING. PUBLIC HEARING OF THE BRISTOL STREET WIDENING PROJECT, TAKEN ON BEHALF OF THE STAFF IN FAVOR OF SAIO PROJECT, COMMENCING AT 7:30 P.M., MONDAY, JULY 10, 1989, AT 20 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA, COUNCIL CHAMBERS, SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA, BEFORE PATRICK R. BREZNA, CSR 5288, CP, A NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. w F i I y t t W w 75C -382 i t L r i i r LAW_YER,'S MTt,iYjl;�K7 NOTES 75C -382 i t L r i i r 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 �- 20 21 22 w 23 24 w 5 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA - MONDAY, JULY 10, 1989 7:30 P.M. (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD IN OPEN FORUM:) MR. CASTEIX: ITEM 2. KATHY POUNDS: ITEM NUMBER 2 IS THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WITH REGARD TO THE BRISTOL STREET WIDENING PROJECT FILED BY THE CITY OF SANTA ANA. JOYCE AMERSON: CHAIRMAN, COMMISSIONERS, GOOD EVENING. TONIGHT STAFF I5 REQUESTING THAT YOU HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE BRISTOL STREET WIDENING PROJECT FROM WARNER AVENUE TO MEMORY LANE. WE SPENT SEVERAL YEARS PLANNING THIS PROJECT, AND WE ARE ABOUT TO BRING IT CLOSER ON ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS. AT THIS TIME I'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE SOME OTHER COWORKERS WHO HAVE BEEN INTIMATELY INVOLVED WITH THE PROJECT. WE HAVE GEORGE ALVAREZ. HE'S OUR CITY ENGINEER. AND ALSO, RANDY NICHOLS. HE'S THE WILLDAN PROJECT ENGINEER FOR THE BRISTOL STREET PROJECT. WE ALSO HAVE BOB HOFFMAN. HE'S HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ON RELOCATION. AND JEFF RILES, WHO IS THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE ON THE PROJECT. WE ALSO HAVE ALBA JONES. SHE IS OUR SPANISH INTERPRETER FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO DO THE TRANSLATION. NOW I'D LIKE TO GIVE MY PRESENTATION. I DO HAVE SLIDES. "WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS HEARING ?" WE'RE 25 r r a. 5 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA - MONDAY, JULY 10, 1989 7:30 P.M. (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD IN OPEN FORUM:) MR. CASTEIX: ITEM 2. KATHY POUNDS: ITEM NUMBER 2 IS THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WITH REGARD TO THE BRISTOL STREET WIDENING PROJECT FILED BY THE CITY OF SANTA ANA. JOYCE AMERSON: CHAIRMAN, COMMISSIONERS, GOOD EVENING. TONIGHT STAFF I5 REQUESTING THAT YOU HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE BRISTOL STREET WIDENING PROJECT FROM WARNER AVENUE TO MEMORY LANE. WE SPENT SEVERAL YEARS PLANNING THIS PROJECT, AND WE ARE ABOUT TO BRING IT CLOSER ON ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS. AT THIS TIME I'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE SOME OTHER COWORKERS WHO HAVE BEEN INTIMATELY INVOLVED WITH THE PROJECT. WE HAVE GEORGE ALVAREZ. HE'S OUR CITY ENGINEER. AND ALSO, RANDY NICHOLS. HE'S THE WILLDAN PROJECT ENGINEER FOR THE BRISTOL STREET PROJECT. WE ALSO HAVE BOB HOFFMAN. HE'S HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ON RELOCATION. AND JEFF RILES, WHO IS THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE ON THE PROJECT. WE ALSO HAVE ALBA JONES. SHE IS OUR SPANISH INTERPRETER FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO DO THE TRANSLATION. NOW I'D LIKE TO GIVE MY PRESENTATION. I DO HAVE SLIDES. "WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS HEARING ?" WE'RE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 WERE FOR Two PRIMARY PURPOSES TONIGHT. WE WANT TO DISCUSS THE PROJECT AND A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE BRISTOL STREET WIDENING PROJECT. FOR THOSE PEOPLE WHO HAVEN'T HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR ABOUT THE PROJECT, IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE DOING, WE WANT YOUR INPUT. WE WANT TO TRY AND FINISH THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESS. AND IN DOING 50, WE WANT TO COVER ALL ISSUES RELATED TO THE PROJECT. "WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ?" THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT IDENTIFIES SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED PROJECT, AND ALSO WAYS TO MITIGATE THESE ADVERSE IMPACTS, FOR EXAMPLE, AT LOCATIONS ON BRISTOL WHERE NOISE 5TANDARDS ARE EXCEEDED, WE WOULD IDENTIFY MITIGATION MEASURES TO BUILD SOUND BARRIERS AT THAT PARTICULAR LOCATION. THESE ARE THE TYPES OF MITIGATION MEASURES THAT WE INCLUDE IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. "WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE ON THE PROJECT ?" THIS PROJECT WAS INITIATED IN 1985, AT THAT TIME THE CITY HIRED WILLDAN CONSULTANTS TO HELP US PREPARE THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. WE'VE HELD NINE PUBLIC MEETINGS. THE FIRST TWO WERE SCOPING MEETINGS WITH THE COMMUNITY, AND WE WENT OUT AND ASKED WHAT THEIR CONCERNS WERE WITH THE PROJECT AND ASKED WHAT THEY THOUGHT WERE IMPORTANT ISSUES WITH RESPECT TO THE BRISTOL STREET WIDENING PROJECT. WE ALSO HELD FIVE PUBLIC MEETINGS LAST SUMMER. THIS IS PART .r F- a R r r r 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 7 OF THE BRISTOL CORRIDOR PROJECT. AT THIS POINT WE'VE COMPLETED OUR DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. BEFORE WE GO ANY FURTHER, WE WANT TO GET ADDITIONAL INPUT. AND THERE MAY BE CHANGES THAT WE NEED TO MAKE TO THE DOCUMENT. "WHAT ALTERNATIVES ARE BEING CONSIDERED ?" THE DRAFT DOCUMENT DISCUSSES FOUR ALTERNATIVES; WIDENING FROM THE EAST SIDE ONLY; WIDENING FROM THE WEST SIDE ONLY; TAKING AN EQUAL AMOUNT OF PROPERTY FROM BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET; AND THEN THE NO- PROJECT ALTERNATIVE. "WHAT ALTERNATIVES WERE WITHDRAWN FROM CONSIDERATION ?" 100 FEET OF RIGHT -OF -WAY. COUNTY AND CITY STANDARDS REQUIRE 120 -FOOT RIGHT -OF -WAY FOR A SIX -LANE DIVIDED ROADWAY. 100 FEET OF RIGHT -OF -WAY WOULD BE INSUFFICIENT, ACTUALLY, TO ACCOMMODATE THE EXCLUSIVE LEFT- AND RIGHT -TURN LANES THAT ARE PROPOSED WITH THE BRISTOL STREET WIDENING PROJECT. RIGHT NOW THE EXISTING AND PROJECTED TRAFFIC ON BRISTOL STREET REQUIRES THAT AT LEAST -- REQUIRES EXCLUSIVE RIGHT- AND LEFT -TURN LANES TO PROVIDE FOR FREE -FLOW TRAFFIC. 04(F) ACQUISITION." A 4(F) ACQUISITION WOULD BE THE ACQUISITION OF ANY LAND OWNED BY A FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL AGENCY THAT IS USED AS PUBLIC PARKS, RECREATIONAL PURPOSES OR AN HISTORICAL SITE OF CITY, STATE OR NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE. AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH NATIONAL LAWS, SAID PROPERTY CANNOT BE ACQUIRED UNLESS THERE 1S PROOF OF FEASIBILITY ALTERNATIVES. "A ONE -WAY COUPLET WITH FLOWER STREET." THIS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1? 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I 4LTERNATIVE WAS ALSO THROWN OUT EARLY ON IN THE SCOPING 'ROCESS AND WAS WITHDRAWN, BECAUSE-AN ADDITION TO PROVIDING ACCESS FOR LOCAL RESIDENTS, BRISTOL STREET PROVIDES REGIONAL ACCESS WITH THE NORTH AND SOUTH CONNECTIONS TO THE FREEWAY. FLOWER STREET DOES NOT HAVE THE NORTH AND SOUTH ACCESS, FREEWAY ACCESS CONNECTIONS. ALSO, BRISTOL STREET IS DESIGNED AS A MAJOR ARTERIAL. THIS MEANS THAT IT CARRIES ANYWHERE FROM 30- TO 45,000 VEHICLES PER DAY. FLOWER STREET IS DESIGNED AS A SECONDARY ARTERIAL. IT CAN ONLY CARRY FROM 10- TO 20,000 VEHICLES PER DAY. ALSO, A ONE -WAY COUPLET WITH FLOWER STREET WOULD CREATE MAJOR IMPACTS ON DISTANCES DUE TO THE DISTANCE BETWEEN FLOWER STREET AND BRISTOL. "WHAT I5 THE PROPOSED PROJECT ?" WE'RE PROPOSING TO WIDEN AND RECONSTRUCT BRISTOL STREET FROM WARNER TO MEMORY LANE. THIS 15 A DISTANCE OF APPROXIMATELY 3.9 MILES. WE'LL BE ADDING ONE LANE IN EACH DIRECTION AND CONSTRUCTING BUS TURNOUTS, EXCLUSIVE LEFT- AND RIGHT-TURN -ONLY LANES AT MAJOR INTERSECTIONS SUCH AS SANTA ANA BOULEVARD, FIRST STREET, MC FADDEN AVENUE, EDLNGER AVENUE AND WARNER AVENUE. WE'LL ALSO BE CONSTRUCTING SIDEWALKS. CURBS, GUTTERS, STORM DRAINS AND MEDIANS. "WHY WIDEN BRISTOL STREET ?" THE EXISTING AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 15 FROM 32,000 TO 49,000 VEHICLES PER DAY; PROJECTED A.D.T.'S FROM 40,000 TO 60,000 VEHICLES PER DAY. IF WE DON'T WIDEN BRISTOL STREET, MOTORISTS WILL CONTINUE TO USE ri L. I i i i t i i 1 2 3 A 5 6 7 6 9 le 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 16 19 20 21 22 23 44 25 RESIDENTIAL STREETS BECAUSE OF THE STOP - AND -GO TRAFFIC ON BRISTOL STREET, AND FOR THOSE OF 1'OU WHO DON'T KNOW WHAT A.D.T.'S ARE, IT'S THE NUMBER OF CARS OR VEHICLES THAT PASS A GIVEN LOCATION WITHIN A 24 -HOUR PERIOD. ALSO, RIGHT NOW WE HAVE A BOTTLENECK AT SANTIAGO CREEK BRIDGE. NORTH OF THE BRIDGE WE HAVE FIVE LANES AND SOUTH OF THE BRIDGE WE HAVE FOUR LANES. WE ARE PROPOSING TO WIDEN THE BRIDGE FROM ITS EXISTING 53 -FOOT WIDTH TO 100 FEET. AND THIS WILL ALLOW FOR THREE LANES IN EACH DIRECTION. AND IN WIDENING BRISTOL STREET, THIS WOULD MAINTAIN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY AND THE COUNTY'S MASTER PLAN OF ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS. "WHAT IMPACT DOES THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ADDRESS ?" UNDER PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS, WE'RE LOOKING AT TOPOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY, SOILS, HYDROLOGY, VEGETATION, AIR QUALITY AND NOISE. UNDER SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS, WE'RE LOOKING AT POPULATION, HOUSING, RECREATIONAL FACILITIES, COMMUNITY FACILITIES, EMERGENCY SERVICES. UNDER ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS, WE'RE LOOKING AT LAND USE, TAXATION, HOUSEHOLD INCOME, LABOR FORCE, INDUSTRY AND SERVICES AND UTILITIES. UNDER CULTURAL RESOURCES, WE LOOK AT PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES, ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES, HISTORICAL RESOURCES. AND THEN FOR TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES, WE LOOK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 a 10 I1 12 13 '-4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 10 AT OUR EXISTING CITY CIRCULATION SYSTEM. THIS INCLUDES OUR LOCAL STREETS, OUR MAJOR ARTERIALS, THE FREEWAYS WITHIN THE CITY, AS WELL AS BUS AND RAIL TRANSIT. IN DISCUSSING THE EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT, THE MAJOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ARE COST AND DISPLACEMENT. WITH AN EAST - SIDE -ONLY WIDENING, WE'RE LOOKING AT A $51,000,000 PROJECT. THIS INVOLVES THE DISPLACEMENT OF 567 RESIDENTS. THIS ASSUMES 3.3 RESIDENTS PER HOUSEHOLD. 73 BUSINESSES AND 43P EMPLOYEES DISPLACED. THIS ALSO A55UMES SIX EMPLOYEES PER BUSINESS. WITH A WEST- SIDE -ONLY WIDENING, WE'RE LOOKING AT A COST OF $45,000,000. THIS WOULD BE 439 RESIDENTS DISPLACED, 41 BUSINESSES DISPLACED, AND 347 EMPLOYEES DISPLACED. WITH ACQUIRING PROPERTY FROM BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET, WE'RE LOOKING AT A COST OF $73,000,000. THIS INCLUDES DISPLACEMENT OF 779 RESIDENTS, 99 BUSINESSES AND 594 EMPLOYEES. "WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE ?" ON Jlil_v 31, 1989, THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WILL END. IN AUGUST AND SEPTEMBER, STAFF WILL PREPARE RESPONSES TO THE COMMENTS. THAT WILL INCLUDE VERBAL AND WRITTEN RESPONSES THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS. WE'LL THEN COME BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND ASK FOR CONFORMANCE FOR THE GENERAL PLAN, AND WE'LL GO 70 COUNCIL IN OCTOBER OF 1989. T L i i i" 1 l l l r r w w 1 2 3 a 5 6 7 9 le 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1F 19 20 21 22 23 �d 25 11 AT THAT TIME WE'LL ASK COUNSEL TO CERTIFY THE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT, AND ALSO TO ADOPT A PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE. IN NOVEMBER OF 1989, WE'LL ASK FOR AN E.I.Z, CERTIFICATION FROM THE STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. AND THEN IN MID— JANUARY 1990, WE'LL COME BACK AND ASK FOR S.P.S.A. ADOPTION. AT THIS TIME 1'D LIKE TO CONCLUDE MY PRESENTATION. AND I AM AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. A:R. CASTEIY.: ANY QUESTIONS OF THE SPEAKER? MR. SPEVACEK? MR. SPEVACEK: WHAT'S S.P.S.A. ADOPTION? JOYCE AMERSON: SPECIFIC PLAN STREET ALIGNMENT. IT TELLS US EXACTLY HOW WIDE WE ARE GOING TO ENLARGE THE STREET; HOW MUCY WIDER IT WILL BE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET. AT THIS POINT WE'LL GO TO THEM IN OCTOBER AND ASK THEM TO ADOPT A PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE WHICH PRETTY MUCH IDENTIFIES A CORRIDOR ITSELF; WHETHER WE'RE WIDENING ON THE EAST SIDE, WEST SIDE OR BOTH SIDES. 50 WHEN WE COME BACK TO YOU IN JANUARY, WE'LL KNOW AT WHICH POINT THE CENTER LINE OF THE STREET WILL BE LOCATED. MR. CASTEIX: ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? MR. HANNA: EXCUSE ME. WHAT ALTERNATIVE? WHEN WILL WE DECIDE THAT, OR DID YOU JUST ASK AND ANSWER THAT QUESTION, IN A SENSE? WE HAVEN'T FIGURED OUT WEST SIDE, EAST SIDE, BOTH SIDES. WHEN WILL THAT BE DETERMINED? 1 2 z e c c i E a 1^ 11 iz it lE 1? 1S Ic 2C 21 22 23 21 r 12 � JOYCE AMERSON: THAT WILL BE DONE IN OCTOBER. STAFF WILL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO COUNSEL FOR THEIR MID — OCTOBER MEETING. WE HAVE NOT DECIDED ON OUR ALTERNATIVE AT THIS PARTICULAR TIME IN THE PROCESS. WE'RE STILL TRYING TO GET ALL THE INPUT ON THE PROJECT. MR. HANNA: SO THAT HASN'T BEEN DETERMINED YET? JOYCE AMERSON: NO, IT HAS NOT BEEN DETERMINED. MR. CASTEIX: ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.) MR. CASTEIX: I GUESS NOT. THANK YOU, JOYCE. ANY FURTHER STAFF COMMENTS? (NO AUDIBLE RE5PON5E.) MR. CASTEIX: WE WILL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM. THE PURPOSE OF THIS HEARING 15 TO SOLICIT PUBLIC TESTIMONY REGARDING THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE BRISTOL STREET WIDENING PROJECT. YOUR STATEMENTS WILL BE RECORDED, AND ALSO ARE BEING TAKEN VERBATIM BY THE COURT STENOGRAPHER WHO IS UP MERE SO THAT WE CAN FACILITATE GETTING THE ANSWERS BACK TO YOU. AT TH15 TIME I WOULD ASK THOSE WHO WISH TO MAKE COMMENT TO PLEASE OCCUPY THE FRONT SEATS AND BEGIN. JIM LOWMAN: HERE WE GO AGAIN, GENTLEMEN AND WOMEN. JIM LOWMAN. 2314 NORTH BRISTOL STREET, SANTA ANA. MR. CA57ElX: COULD WE HAVE THE LIGHTS, PLEASE, THE J e r 1 3 4 S C 7 F 9 1O 1� 12 ?3 1c 1c ,6 1p '_9 20 ^1 22 23 74 25 I3 SPEAKER'S LIGHTS? JIM LOWMAN, I'M NOT GOING TO BE THAT LONG, BUT I'LL WAIT. MR. CASTEIX: SORRY, MR. LOWMAN. JIM LOWMAN: THERE 15 NOBODY IN THIS ROOM OR IN THIS CITY THAT 15 MORE AWARE OF THE NEED TO WIDEN BRISTOL STREET THAN I AM AS I STAND HERE TONIGHT, BUT THE WAY IT IS BEING DONE IS BEYOND MY COMPREHENSION. I LOOK AT YOU PEOPLE HERE. YOU'RE ALL BUSINESS PEOPLE AND YOU'RE ALL SUCCESSFUL, OR 1'N SURE YOU WOULDN'T BE THERE. NONE OF YOU LOOK LIKE IDIOTS. I COMMEND YOU FOR YOUR PUBLIC SERVICE HERE, BUT I QUESTION, I QUESTION IF YOU OWNED A FACTORY THAT NEEDED A. FOUR —MILE DRIVEWAY INTO IT, WOULD YOU TURN IT OVER TO YOUR EMPLOYEES TO DECIDE HOW IT'S GOING TO BE DONE? THEY'RE SELF — PERPETUATING IN THEIR JOB. THEY'RE GOING TO CREATE THE FANCIEST, WIDEST STREET IN THE WORLD. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S ALREADY BEEN DONE WAS $60,000 SPENT FOR THE DESIGN OF THE SHRUBBERY ON BOTH SIDES OF BRISTOL STREET. CAN YOU IMAGINE THAT; $60,000? WOULD YOU SPEND YOUR MONEY THAT WAY? DEFINITELY NOT, ESPECIALLY WHEN DOWN AT CIVIC CENTER WE'RE USING AGENT ORANGE ON THE SHRUBBERY TO KEEP THE HOBOES FROM SLEEPING THERE. WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO, PUT A MILLION DOLLARS' WORTH OF SHRUBBERY IN AND THEN TEAR IT DOWN BECAUSE SOMtElODY HIDES BEHIND ONE OF THE BUSHES? I DON'T THINK THIS WHOLE PLAN IS VERY REALISTIC 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 B a 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1e 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 14 AS TO HOW THE MONEY IS BEING SPENT. I'M TOLD THAT THIS PROJECT WILL COME IN AT SOMEWHERE AROUND $130,000,000. AND I GUARANTEE YOU, IF YOU TELL THIS STAFF RIGHT HERE TO GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD AND COME IN WITH ONE THAT IS 50 PERCENT OF THAT, $65,000,000, YOU'LL MOVE JUST AS MUCH TRAFFIC, YOU'LL DISPLACE LESS PEOPLE, AND YOU'LL DO IT WITH A SPIRIT OF COOPERATION. THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN SANTA ANA CHOSE SANTA ANA AS THEIR HOME. THEY BOUGHT THAT PLACE; THEY PUT THEIR BUSINESS THERE BECAUSE THEY LIKED IT. THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT DON'T LIVE IN SANTA ANA BY ANYTHING OTHER THAN CHOICE ARE THOSE PEOPLE THAT WE HOUSE DOWN IN THE JAIL. THE REST OF US ALL CAME HERE BECAUSE WE WANTED TO. WE TRY TO BE GOOD CITIZENS, AND WE DON'T WANT TO BE STEPPED ON _"D PUSHED AROUND NOW BY PEOPLE WHO ARE SUPPOSEDLY HERE TO REPRESENT US. MR. CA5TEIX: MR. LOWMAN -- JIM LOWMAN: NOW, JUST A MINUTE. I HAVE A FEW THINGS TO SAY, AND THEN YOU CAN ASK ME ANY QUESTION YOU WANT. MR. CA5TEIX: I'M NOT ASKING A QUESTION. I WOULD LIKE -- THE IDEA OF TONIGHT'S SESSION 15 TO TAKE COMMENT REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ON THE WIDENING OF BRISTOL. JIM LOWMAN: ALL RIGHT, YOU'LL HEAR 1T. MR. CASTEIX: PLEASE GET TO IT. JIM LOWMAN; AND I'M COMING HACK TO TH15 STORY LATER S� I' i w 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S a 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 15 ON, TOO. BUT AS FAR AS THE WIDENING OF BRISTOL, YOU JUST SAW THE FOUR PROPOSALS THAT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED. THE ONE THAT HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED IS THE CHEAPEST WAY OF DOING IT, AND THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN LEADING UP TO. THERE IS ALREADY MUCH PROPERTY DOWN THROUGH THAT CORRIDOR THAT 15 OWNED BY EITHER THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, THE C17Y FOR THE RESERVOIR PROPERTY AND SO ON, AND THE COLLEGE PROPERTY. THERE IS THREE ENTITIES, BUT THEY'RE ALL PART OF ONE; THEY'RE ALL PART OF SANTA ANA. AND A LITTLE COOPERATION BETWEEN THEM COULD DO WONDERS. THE ONLY THING 15, YOU CAN'T GET ANY REDEVELOPMENT MONEY OUT OF USING THo- PROPERTY. THAT SHOULDN'T BE A CONSIDERATION. YOU START AT MEMORY LANE TAKING THE RESERVOIR, TAKING A HALF ACRE OFF OF SANTIAGO SCHOOL, TAKING HONER PLAZA, TAKING THE WALL DOWN ON SANTA ANA COLLEGE AND THE SHRUBBERY OUT OF THERE THAT NOW EXISTS AND USE THAT AS YOUR WIDENING FOR THAT AREA. AND GET ALL THE WAY DOWN TO WASHINGTON STREET WITH LESS BUILDING DEMOLITIONS AND SEE WHAT YOU DO TO THE COST OF THE PROJECT. I SAY YOU LOOK AT THIS THING IN A SLIGHT JOG FROM THE EAST SLOE TO THE WEST SIDE. LOOK AT FAIRVIEW STREET IF YOU WANT TO SEE JOGS. THEY'VE GOT CURBS IN THERE THAT WOULD PUT ANY ONE OF US, IF WE COULD THROW A BASE °_ALL THAT WAY, IN THE MAJOR LEAGUES. AND YOU CAN HAVE THE SAME THING ON BRISTOL STREET AND YOU CAN DO IT AND SAVE HALF OF THIS MONEY THAT YOU'RE PROPOSING TO SPEND, 1 2 3 4 5 E 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 AND THAT'S MY MAIN PURPOSE OF BEING HERE TONIGHT IS TO TELL THIS GROUP, THIS BODY TO STOP PARTICIPATING IN THE CURRENT GOVERNMENT'5 ATTEMPT TO EMPTY THE FUTURE OF SANTA ANA. SOMEWHERE, SOME DAY, SOMEBODY HAS TO PAY TH15 BILL, AND THEY WON'T HAVE TO PAY HALF OF IT IF YOU DON'T SPEND IT. AND I'M RECOMMENDING THAT THIS COMMISSION TELL THE STAFF, "GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD. COME UP WITH AN ALTERNATIVE THAT 15 HALF AS MUCH,' AND SEE WHAT THEY DO FOR YOU. YOU'LL BE AMAZED, AND YOU'LL BE SERVING YOUR FELLOW CITIZENS IN THI5 CITY IN SO DOING, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, MR. CASTEIX: THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER. GEORGE HUFFER: MY NAME IS GEORGE HUFFER. 1 LIVE AT 19L2 NORTH GREENBRIER STREET, AND I'VE LIVED THERE FOR THE PAST 15 YEARS. MANY, MANY YEARS AGO, DR. PETTIKER CAME BEFORE ThIS BODY, THE CITY COUNCIL, AND TALKED THEM OUT OF MANY PR05LEMS THAT THEY HAD CREATED ON BRISTOL STREET. HOWEVER, LET'S GO BACK TO 1984 WHEN THE CITY ELECTED TO GIVE JOE FASTS, FORMER CITY EMPLOYEE, A FAIR AMOUNT OF MONEY TO CARRY OUT A STUDY FOR WHICH YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, WERE VERY MUCH AWARE OF. MR. CASTEIX: PLEASE, COULD YOU PLEASE LIMIT YOUR STATEMENTS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WITH THE WIDENING OF BRISTOL? GEORGE HUFFER: WE'LL DEAL WITH I7, BECAUSE I WANT TO 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 - 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1° 21 ` 22 23 w 24 25 17 BRING OUT THE MOST SIGNIFICANT PART THAT WAS OMITTED DURING THAT STUDY, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER YOU ARE ALL AWARE OF THE MOST DAMAGING CARCINOGEN THAT'S EMITTED INTO THE ATMOSPHERE ON A DAILY BASIS. HAVING BEEN IN THE ENGINEERING INDUSTRY FOR SO YEARS AND HAVING GONE THROUGH THERE AND HAVING DONE STUDIES ON IT, LET ME ASSURE YOU THAT THE WORST CARCINOGEN THAT'S PUT INTO OUR ATMOSPHERE TODAY ARE THE FUMES STEMMING FROM DIESEL FUELS. THE RESULT OF YOUR ACTIONS IN 1985, AS I REFERRED TO AS 1984 -- AND I'M SURE THAT IF YOU HAD BEEN AWARE OF THE CHILDREN WHO GO TO SANTIAGO SCHOOL EVERY DAY WHO HAVE TO PUT UP WITH ALL THESE CARCINOGENS. AND I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY OF YOUR CHILDREN HAVE GONE TO THAT SCHOOL, BUT THESE ARE FACTS. LET'S ALSO CONSIDER THE NOISE LEVEL AND THE DECIEELS WHICH ARE FAR IN EXCESS WHICH SHOULDN'T BE WITHSTOOD BY ANY HUMAN BEING, PARTICULARLY SCHOOL CHILDREN. THESE ARE THE FUTURE TAXPAYERS. THESE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE GOINC TO PROVIDE OUR SOCIAL SECURITY. AND I'M SURE, MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT HAD THE COMMISSION BEEN AWARE OF THE VOLUMINOUS AMOUNTS CF CARCINOGENS THAT HAD BEEN EMITTED AND SENT INTO THE SCHOOL GROUNDS, YOU WOULD HAVE TAKEN SOME ACTION NOT TO PERPETRATE AN ENGINEERED INCREASE IN TRAFFIC ONTO BRISTOL STREET, I WISH TO STRESS THIS, AND I THINK YOU SHOQLD ASK THE CITY. I'VE A5KED M]CHAEL BETTS. WE DO THIS PU5LIC 1 2 3 h 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 18 4EARING IN THE ANNEX NEXT DOOR AND THEY SAID, YES, THEY WERE ;DING TO DO IT, BUT THEY MUST THINK THAT WE CAN'T R. MEMBER. 4ND 1 URGE YOU TONIGHT TO ASK FOR THE EM15510N LEVELS IN THERE 4ND SEE WHAT DAMAGE IT HAS DONE, CONSULT THE E.P.A., CONSULT THE SCHOOL, CONSULT THE HEALTH DISTRICT AND FIND OL'T WHAT THE INCREASED TRAFFIC ALONE HAS BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR lh DAMAGING PERMANENTLY THE HEALTH OF OUR NEXT'GENERATION. AND 1 HOPE THAT YOU WILL TAKE THIS INTO ACCOUNT WHEN YOU CONSIDER THE 'ACTION THAT YOU TOOK IN SEPTE "BER THE 17TH, 1965, AT LEAST THE CITY COUNCIL DID WHEN THEY ELECTED TO PUSH ALL THE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC ONTO FLOWER STREET. WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY AS CITIZENS OF THIS CITY TO SEE Tht7 THE BEST 15 DONE FOR THE FUTURE GENERATIONS. OUR FOREFATH.ERs DID IT. AND I HAPPEN TO HAVE SELECTED THIS COUNTRY 30 —SOME YEARS AGO TO COME HERE TO LIVE, AND I'VE BEEN PROUD OF IT. AND HAVING NOW TO BE INVOLVED IN THE E.P.A. REQUIREMENTS ANV GETTING MORE INVOLVED WITH THIS PROBLEM OF NOISE AND POLLUT10t, =ND CARCINOGENS. PARTICULARLY, WE HAVE TO BE VERY, VERY CAREFUL THAT WE DON'T CONDEMN OUR FUTURE GENERATIONS TO TC? HAZARDS OF CANCER. AND THAT WILL BE MY COMMENT THIS EVERING. AND I HOPE WE WILL HAVE FURTHER D15CUSSIONS ON THE NOISE LEVELS AND THE POLLUTION LEVELS THAT ARE BEING SPEWED INTO THE CITY OR INTO THE BRISTOL CORRIDOR FOR THE PAST FOUR YEARS. THEY'VE BEEN INCREASED BY ABOUT, WHAT, 10 OR 11 PERCENT. THEY WEREN'T 1 Z I 3 _ � 2 3 4 5 6 7 _ 9 - 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 19 ACCEPTABLE IN THE OLD DAYS, AND THEY'RE CERTAINLY LESS ACCEPTABLE ACCORDING TO THE STUDIES AND THE REPORTS THAT WE'VE RECEIVED. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. MP., CA5TEIX: THANK YOU, MR. HUFFER. NEXT SPEAKER, PLEASE. KAROL VANZANT: YES. MR, CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONERS, MY NAME IS KAROL VANZANT, AND I RESIDE AT 1518 FREEMAN STREET IN SANTA ANA. MY MAJOR CONCERN -- WELL, FIRST OF ALL, ANYONE THAT'S HERE TONIGHT, AND 1'M SURE YOU FOLKS, TOO, AGREE THAT WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING WITH BRISTOL STREET. THERE 1S NO DOUBT ABOUT IT. IF YOU DRIVE THE STREET ONCE A WEEK, YOU KNOW IT HAS TO BE DONE. MY MAJOR, CONCERN IS THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT'S BEING SPENT ON IT, LIKE SOME OF THE PREVIOUS SPEAKERS HAVE MENTIONED, AND WHAT IT'S BEING SPENT ON. ONE OF THESE THINGS IS THE MEANDERING PARKWAYS WE PLAN TO PUT DOWN BRISTOL STREET WITH SHRUBBERY, TREES, PARK BENCHES, WE CAN'T CONTROL THE TRANSIENT POPULATION THAT WE HAVE IN THE CITY TODAY. WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH POLICE OFFICERS ON THE STREET TO TAKE CARE OF THEM, MOVE THEM ALONG, AND WE'RE TALKING ABCUT SPENDING MONEY PUTTING NEW PLACES FOR THEM TO STAY IN OUR STREETS. THE PEOPLE LIVING ALONG THE CITY STREET TODAY CAN'T EVEN GO OUT AND WALK DOWN THE PARKWAYS THAT WE HAVE BECAUSE OF THESE PEOPLE. NOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 E 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 20 (SPENDING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ADDING MORE PLACES FOR THEM. THIS DOESN'T SEEM TO BE PRUDENT, IN MY MIND, THE OTHER THING I HAVE THAT'S A MAJOR CONCERN WITH THIS PROJECT 1S THE CENTER DIVIDERS. I'VE ASKED THE QUESTION OF CITY STAFF AT OTHER TIMES. I'M ALSO ON THE PARK COMMITTEE FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT AREA, AND I'VE ASKED OF THEM, HAS THERE BEEN A STUDY MADE AS TO THE AFFECT THAT CENTER DIVIDERS HAVE ON BUSINESSES, CURRENTLY ESTABLISHED BUSINESSES THAT ARE ON BRISTOL STREET? YOU'RE PLANNING TO COME ALONG AND TAKE AWAY TURF! LANES, ENTRANCES AND EGRESSES FROM THEIR BUSINESSES. HAS THERE BEEN A STUDY MADE TO SEE WHAT AFFECT 17'S GOING TO HAVE ON THOSE PEOPLE, OR 00 THEY CARE? WELL, I THINK MY ANSWER, IF I GOT ONE, WASN'T A VERY FOOD ONE. 1 BELIEVE, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, I WAS TOLD THAT THEY REALLY HAVEN'T DONE A STUDY ALONG THOSE LINES, BUT THE GAIN FAR OUTWEIGHED THE LOSS. WELL, I GUESS THAT'S A QUESTION AS TO WHO'S LOSING AND WHO'S GAINING. THE PERSONAL BUSINESS GUY DOWN THESE IS THE ONE IdHO 15 LOSING, AND I DOUBT THAT HE WOULD AGREE THAT THAT LOSS IS WORTH THE GAIN. AND THEN THE LAST CONCERN IN THAT AREA IS ALSO THE FUTURE MAINTENANCE. WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT TREES, WATER, MANY, MANY DOLLARS ARE GOING TO RE SPENT OVER THE YEARS TO MAINTAIN TH05E CENTER DIVIDERS, THE SHRUBBERY AND THE GRASS AND 50 FORTH. IT JUST SEEMS TO ME, LIKE THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER SAID, THAT WE COULD ACCOMPLISH THIS STREET WIDENING WITH THE I all 7 i 1 2 3 4 5 F 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 lE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 21 END RESULT OF BEING ABLE TO MOVE DOWN BRISTOL STREET FOR A LOT LESS MONEY AND STILL GET THE JOB DDNE. THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. THANK YOU. MR. CASTEIX: THANK YOU. MR. VANZANT, WHILE YOU'RE HERE, DIDN'T YOU ADDRESS THIS COMMISSION ABOUT A MONTH AGO REGARDING SOME CONCERNS YOU HAD ABOUT YOUR BUSINESS OR THE AREA AROUND YOUR BUSINESS? KAROL VANZANT: RIGHT, I DID. MR. CASTEIX: WERE YOU EVER CONTACTED BACK, OR DID WE EVER GET IN TOUCH WITH YOU? KAROL VANZANT: NO. MR. CASTEIX: I BELIEVE WE WERE GOING TO WHEN THE ITEM CAME UP FOR DISCUSSION. WE HAVEN'T FORGOTTEN YOU. THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO SAY. KAROL VANZANT: WELL, THE TWO QUESTIONS I ASKED, 1 KNEW JUNE CATALANO WAS PROBABLY GOING TO ANSWER ONE OF THEM, AND PROBABLY WAS GOING TO ANSWER ONE OF THEM THE OTHER NIGHT. MR. CASTEIX: I JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT WE HAVEN'T FORGOTTEN ABOUT You. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COMMENTS. KAROL VANZANT: BUT THE ONE I DIDN'T GET ANSWERED AND I DON'T THINK I'M GOING TO IS ABOUT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. MR. CASTEIX: WELL, THEY HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE HERE. I'M SURE YOU CAN TALK TO HIM TONIGHT. KAROL VANZANT: IF YOU RECALL WHAT THE QUESTION 'WAS, IT 75C -399 _--A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1° 20 21 22 23 24 25 22 OAS CONCERNING THE OCCUPANCY ALLOWED -- MR. CASTEIX; YES. KAROL VANZANT* -- AND THE COMMISSIONER. MR, CASTEIX: I REALLY DON'T WANT TO GET INTO THAT. KAROL VANZANT: WELL, I HAVEN'T BEEN ANSWERED. MR. CASTEIX: WE'LL GET BACK TO YOU. THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER, PLEASE. J.L. MC GOWAN- MY NAME I5 J.L. kC GOWAN, AND I RESIDE AT 1405 SOUTH BRISTOL STREET. I'VE BEEN DEALING WITH THIS BRISTOL STREET` WIDENING AND REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NOW FOR ABOUT THREE YEARS, AND I'M GETTING PRETTY DAMN DISGUSTED WITH IT. NOW, YOU PEOPLE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE BUSINESSMEN. NOW, IF I WERE YOUR ACCOUNTANT AND YOU SAID, "WELL, I WANT TO BUILD A BUILDING," AND I SAID, "GOOD, IT'S GOING TO COST US $130,000,000." AND YOU SAID, "OKAY. WHERE ARE WE GOING TO BUILD THERE ?" "I DON'T KNOW." "WELL, WHAT ARE WE GOING TO BUILD THERE ?" "I DON'T KNOW," WOULD YOU ACCEPT THAT? NOW, HERE WE HAVE BEEN DEALING WITH THIS BRISTOL STREET WIDENING FOR OVER TWO YEARS AND WE SAY, "YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE AND YOU'RE GOING TO MOVE THE PEOPLE ON THE LEFT SIDE ?" "I DON'T KNOW." "YOU'RE GO1 ":� TO MOVE THE PEOPLE ON' THE RIGHT 75C -400 r 1 2 3 4 5 F 7 F 9 1Q 11 12 13 14 23 SIDE ?' "I DON'T KNOW." "ARE YOU GOING JO MOVE PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES ?" "I DON'T KNOW." AND WE'RE GOING TO SPEND $130,000,OCO? NOW, IF 1 CAME TO YOU, YOU WOULD FIRE ME RIGHT AWAY. IF YOU DIDN'T, I'D OWN YOUR BUSINESS TOMORROW, BECAUSE I SWEARV D WIPE YOU OUT. I'M A PRETTY GOOD ACCOUNTANT. I THINK THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT'S GOING ON AROUND HERE NOW. PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO MAKE A DECISION WHAT THEY WANT,TO DO BECAUSE THEY'RE AFRAID TO MAKE A DECISION. I THINK THAT'S BECAUSE THEY'RE TRYING TO USE THE 8RISTOL STREET WIDENING TO LEAD A REDEVELOPMENT ON THE CITY OF SANTA ANA. NOW, THAT'S MY OPINION OF IT. AND IF YOU PEOPLE SIT -HERE AND YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE REPRESENTING US AND WE'VE LIVED HERE WITH THIS FOR THREE YEARS, WE CAN'T SELL OUR PROPERTY BECAUSE EVERYBODY IS AFRAID TO BUY OUR PROPERTIES BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW WHETHER YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE THE WEST SIDE, THE EAST SIDE OR DOWN THE MIDDLE BECAUSE SOMEBODY DOESN'T KNOW, BUT THEN THEY GO SPEND $130,000,000 TO DO IT. ALSO, THEY HAVEN'T EVEN LOOKED AT WHAT IT'S GOING TO DO TO INCREASE THE POLLUTION ON BRISTOL STREET, BECAUSE WHEN I WA5 INVOLVED IN THIS, WE STARTED ASKING QUESTIONS OVER A YEAR AGO AND IT STILL HASN'T BEEN ADDRESSED YET. HOW MUCH ARE WE GOING TO INCREASE THE POLLUTION ON BRISTOL STREET? ARE THERE ANY ALTERNATIVES TO GO UP NORTH AND SOUTH AND MOVE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 w 25 w 23 SIDE ?' "I DON'T KNOW." "ARE YOU GOING JO MOVE PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES ?" "I DON'T KNOW." AND WE'RE GOING TO SPEND $130,000,OCO? NOW, IF 1 CAME TO YOU, YOU WOULD FIRE ME RIGHT AWAY. IF YOU DIDN'T, I'D OWN YOUR BUSINESS TOMORROW, BECAUSE I SWEARV D WIPE YOU OUT. I'M A PRETTY GOOD ACCOUNTANT. I THINK THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT'S GOING ON AROUND HERE NOW. PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO MAKE A DECISION WHAT THEY WANT,TO DO BECAUSE THEY'RE AFRAID TO MAKE A DECISION. I THINK THAT'S BECAUSE THEY'RE TRYING TO USE THE 8RISTOL STREET WIDENING TO LEAD A REDEVELOPMENT ON THE CITY OF SANTA ANA. NOW, THAT'S MY OPINION OF IT. AND IF YOU PEOPLE SIT -HERE AND YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE REPRESENTING US AND WE'VE LIVED HERE WITH THIS FOR THREE YEARS, WE CAN'T SELL OUR PROPERTY BECAUSE EVERYBODY IS AFRAID TO BUY OUR PROPERTIES BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW WHETHER YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE THE WEST SIDE, THE EAST SIDE OR DOWN THE MIDDLE BECAUSE SOMEBODY DOESN'T KNOW, BUT THEN THEY GO SPEND $130,000,000 TO DO IT. ALSO, THEY HAVEN'T EVEN LOOKED AT WHAT IT'S GOING TO DO TO INCREASE THE POLLUTION ON BRISTOL STREET, BECAUSE WHEN I WA5 INVOLVED IN THIS, WE STARTED ASKING QUESTIONS OVER A YEAR AGO AND IT STILL HASN'T BEEN ADDRESSED YET. HOW MUCH ARE WE GOING TO INCREASE THE POLLUTION ON BRISTOL STREET? ARE THERE ANY ALTERNATIVES TO GO UP NORTH AND SOUTH AND MOVE m 24 1 TRAFFIC FROM THERE? WHAT ABOUT THE OPENING OF FLOWER STREET, 2 NORTH FLOWER STREET, WOULD THAT HELP US ANY? WOULD THAT HELP 3 DISSIPATE SOME OF THE TRAFFIC UP AND DOWN BRISTOL RIGHT NOW? 4 1 THINK YOU PEOPLE OUGHT TO ASK THESE PEOPLE 5 BEFORE YOU SPEND $130,000,000 AND BEFORE YOU MAKE UP YOUR 6 MINDS AS TO THE E.I.S., TO ACCEPT IT LIKE IT IS, OR TO LET 7 PEOPLE GIVE YOU SOME DEFINITE PLANS AS TO WHETHER OR NOT 8 THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE IT OFF THE LEFT SIDE, THE RIGHT SIDE OR 9 DOWN THE MIDDLE, AND HOW THEY'RE GOING TO DO THIS PROJECT. 10 THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 11 MR. CASTEIX: THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER, PLEASE. 12 HELLO, MILES. ARE YOU GOING TO YELL AT US, TOO? 13 MILES LEACH: WHAT'S THAT? I GUESS EVERYBODY KNOWS MY 14 NAME ?Y THIS TIME. 15 MR, CASTEIX: WOULD YOU GIVE IT, PLEASE, FOR THE 16 RECORD, MILES. 17 MILES LEACH: MILES LEACH, 2025 WEST 10TH STREET, SANTA 18 ANA, CALIFORNIA. I'M NOT RUBBING ELBOWS WITH BRISTOL STREET. 19 AND I KNOW BRISTOL STREET NEEDS WIDENING, JUST LIKE MAIN 20 STREET NEEDS WIDENING TO HANDLE TRAFFIC ON IT, BROADWAY NEEDS 21 WIDENING TO HANDLE THE TRAFFIC ON THAT. FOURTH STREET GETS 22 KIND OF JAMMED UP. 23 THE FACT IS, WHEN I MOVED INTO THE HOUSE I WAS 24 LIVING 1N, THERE WAS A HALF A STREET IN FRONT OF MY HOUSE AND 25 IT WAS QUITE COMFORTABLE. WE HAD NO TRAFFIC PROBLEMS AT ALL. 0 1 IT I� �1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 F 9 .0 I1 12 13 14 15 1� 18 ,g 20 21 22 23 24 25 25 NOW IT'S A FULL STREET, AND EVEN IT COULD STAND WIDENING SOMETIMES, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT GETS--DOUBLE- PARKED. AND I'VE NOTICED THAT THEY ALLOWED THE -- I DON'T KNOW WHO ALLOWED .T, BUT THEN THERE'S BEEN MANY APARTMENT BUILDINGS BUILT ON WASHINGTON AND ROSS STREET, FLOWER STREET. AND IT SEEMS LIKE EVERY TIME THEY PUT UP AN APARTMENT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THEY PUT UP STOP SIGNS TO MAKE THE TRAFFIC SLOWER. SO WHAT LITTLE I'VE BEEN ABLE TO GLEAN OUT OF THE IMPACT REPORT, I THINK THERE IS A LOT OF IMPACT THAT THEY HAVEN'T STUDIED. NOW, WHERE I LIVE, 1 USE WASHINGTON TO COME OVER TOWARDS THE BANK OR IN THAT AREA. I'M N07 A WORKING MAN ANYMORE_ I HAVE NEIGH80RS THAT ARE, AND THEY USE ALMOST THE SAME STREETS THAT I DO. SO WHEN YOU CREATE MORE CUL-DE-SACS, FORCE THEM TO USE OTHER STREETS, THE OTHER STREETS BECOME FEWER AND FARTHER IN BETWEEN. YOU MAKE MOPE RIGHT-TURN-ONLY, YOU GO FURTHER, YOU'RE ON THE ROAD LONGER, NOW, THEY CLAIM THAT THE MEDIANS CREATE A SAFETY FACTOR, BUT I THINK IF YOU'LL REALLY STUDY IT, YOU'LL FIND THAT DRIVING TIME OF AN AUTOMOBILE AND TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS HAS A GREAT HAS A PRETTY MUCH DIRECT RELATIONSHIP. SO IF 13Y PUTTING THOSE MEDIANS IN, AND YOU'RE GOING TO INCREASE MY DRIVING TIME TEN MINUTES AND 2,DDO NEIGHBORS OF MINE THE SAME AMOUNT, THAT'S QUITE A BIT OF DRIVING TIME YOU'RE GOING TO ADD. 50 I THINK THAT'S ONE THING THAT THE IMPACT REPORT HAS NOT BROUGHT FORTH. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 10 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ANOTHER ITEM. AS 1 UNDERSTAND IT, WIDENING BRISTOL, THEY'RE MORE OR LESS GETTING READY FOR MORE TRAFFIC, WHICH WILL MEAN THAT THEY'LL HAVE TO PUT BARRIERS FOR SOUND AND FOR SMOG. AND IT'S GOING TO CREATE MORE SMOG BY MAKING A FANCY, WIDE STREET. 1 DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT'S WORTH MENTIONING OR NOT, BUT REPRESENTATIVE DORNAN HAS TALKED THE ARMY ENGINEERS INTO STUDYING THE POSSIBILITIES OF EXTENDING THE ORANGE FREEWAY ON DOWN TO THE COAST, OR DOWN TO THE 60 -- DOWN THERE TO COSTA MESA. NOW, THE BRISTOL STREET WIDENING, THE WAY THEY'RE PLANNING IT, WILL COST VERY CLOSE -- OR A BIG CHUNK, ANYHOW, OF WHAT 17 WOULD COST TO CREATE A FREEWAY. IT WILL ALSO CREATE REQUIREMENTS LIKE A FREEWAY POR SOUND BARRIERS. AND IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE WE'RE SPENDING TOO MUCH MBNEY FOR WHAT WE'RE GOING TO GET, BECAUSE IT'S NOT GOING TO CUT THE DRIVING TIME DOWN. YOU'RE STILL GOING TO HAVE YOUR SPEED LIMITS JUST ABOUT THE SAME; YOU'RE 571LL GOING TO HAVE TRAFFIC LIGHTS; AND THEN, OF COURSE, 1 SUPPOSE THEY'RE GOING TO CALL THEM COMPUTERIZED LIGHTS, BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW THE PERSON THAT DRIVES THE CAR KNOWS WHAT SPEED TO GO TO PLEASE THE COMPUTER. NOW, IF THEY HAVE SYNCHRONIZED LIGHTS LIKE 1 HAVE SEEN IN OTHER PLACES WHERE THERE IS A SIGN THAT SAYS, 'DRIVE 25 MILES AN HOUR TO THE NEXT LIGHT," THAT'S SYNCHRONIZED LIGHTS. AND I APPRECIATE THOSE KINDS OF LIGHTS, BUT 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 DON'T -- I THINK THERE IS A LOT OF ITEMS LEFT WITH A BIG QUESTION MARK ON THE IMPACT REPORT;-AS MUCH AS I'VE READ OF IT. THANK YOU. MR. CASTEIX: THANK YOU, MILES. NEXT SPEAKER, PLEASE. MARTIN JOHN EATON: GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIRMAN, COMMISSION MEMBERS. MY NAME IS MARTIN JOHN EATON. I RESIDE AT 1402 WEST MARION WAY. IN NOVEMBER LAST YEAR I BOUGHT MY HOUSE OFF MARION WAY, WHICH IS JUST WEST OF BRISTOL. IF I HAD KNOWN ABOUT TH1S POSSIBLE REDEVELOPMENT, I WOULDN'T HAVE BOUGHT MY HOUSE. I HAVE FOUND OUT THAT THE PRICE OF MY HOUSE WILL DECREASE. ALSO, AS I'M NOW IN THE.PROCESS OF RAISING CHILDREN, I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THEM. EVEN WITH THE POSSIBLE SAFETY MONITOR THAT IS THERE, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT CHILDREN HAVING TO WALK THAT FAR. ALSO, I WOULD HAVE -- I'VE RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM A PERSON NAMED PATTY NUNN. I BELIEVE 5HE'S INVOLVED WITH THE PROJECT. AND I'VE BEEN TOLD THAT THERE 15 SOME TYPE OF CONSENSUS THAT'S BEING DONE NEAR THE STREETS OF THE AREA. HOWEVER, I HAVE ASKED RESIDENTS IF ANY PERSON HAS TALKED TO THEM IN THE LAST TWO OR THREE YEARS ABOUT THE PROJECT, AND HAVE RECEIVED INFORMATION THAT NO ONE HAS AT ALL. ALSO, I KIND OF QUESTION! WHY THERE 15 A PROBLEM i, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1B 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 28 ON BRISTOL. WOULD THERE, INDEED, BE A NO TURNOFF OF MEMORY LANE ONTO FLOWER, AND ALSO 17TH 5TR -EET? IT SEEMS LIKE IF THERE 15 A PROBLEM ON BRISTOL WITH TRAFFIC, YOU WOULD WANT TO OPEN THAT UP. AND THEN FINALLY, THE QUESTION 1 WOULD HAVE WITH RESPECT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT IS, WOULD THE ADDITION OF THE SANTA ANA RIVER PROJECT EXTENDING THE 57 FREEWAY DISQUALIFY THE NEED TO EVEN WIDEN BRISTOL IN LIGHT OF THE RECENT FOUNDATION AND THEIR PROPOSAL TO SPEED UP JHE PROJECT? IT SEEMS IN REGARDS TO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT IS INCOMPLETE. WHY DOES THIS NEIGHBORHOOD HAVE TO ENDURE THE WRATH OF THE COUNTY AND THE CITY? AND SO BEFORE WE ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF WIDENING BRISTOL, WE NEED TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE, WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN, IN FACT, WITH THE RECENT WIDENING FOUNDATION PROCESS? MR. CASTEIX: THANK YOU. WHERE 15 MARION WAY? I'M TRYING TO FIND IT ON TnE MAP HERE. MARTIN JOHN EATON., IT'S WHERE SANTA CLARA IS. AND IF YOU LOOK AT SANTA CLARA, YOU GO OFF POPLAR, MAKE A RIGHT, AND MAKE AN IMMEDIATE RIGHT AND YOU SEE MARION WAY. MY STREET 15 APPROXIMATELY, MAYBE 100, 200 FEET OFF OF BRISTOL. SO IF YOU LOOK AT IT, HOPEFULLY YOU CAN SEE ON YOUR MAP THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE BASICALLY RIGHT ON THE NEW STREET. IF I HAD KNOWN THAT INFORMATION, 1 WOULD NOT HAVE BOUGHT MY HOUSE. so ,.�" L r fJ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 29 AND I THINK YOU, BEING BU51NE55MEN WANTING GOOD INVE5TMENTS FOR YOU AND FOR YOUR FAMILY, THAT THAT INFORMATION WAS NOT GIVEN TO ME, AND NOW I'M IN A POSITION, AS I THINK OUR RESIDENTS ARE, THAT THEY WOULD WANT TO POSSIBLY SELL THE HOUSE. THAT WOULD NOT BE MY FIRST CHOICE, AS I'M AN EDUCATOR FOR THE SANTA ANA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT AND ENJOY BEING CLOSE TO MY STUDENTS 50 THAT I CAN HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO INTERACT WITH THEM AFTER SCHOOL AND AT OTHER PLACES. AND IF I HAVE TO RELOCATE, THAT'S EVEN LESS TIME THAN I HAVE RIGHT NOW. ARE WE INVESTING IN OUR FAMILY, OR ARE WE INVESTING IN TRANSPORTATION? MR. CASTEIX: THANK YOU. MARTIN JOHN EATON: THANK YOU. MR. CASTEIX: NEXT 5PEAKER, PLEASE. FLORENCE? FLORENCE LEACH: I HAVE A WEIGHTY SUBJECT. COMMISSIONERS, MR. CHAIRMAN, MY NAME I5 FLORENCE LEACH. 2025 WEST 10TH STREET IN SANTA ANA. WE'VE LIVED IN SANTA ANA SINCE 1957. WE'VE USUALLY ENJOYED ALL OF OUR NEIGHBORS AND THE DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES IN SANTA ANA. AND I'LL START REFERRING TO SOME NUMBERS HERE. AND I HOPE YOU WILL POSSIBLY CONSIDER SOME OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS. MR. CASTEIX: FLORENCE, COULD YOU TELL US 'WHAT PAGE YOU'RE ON? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ri FLORENCE LEACH: OKAY. THE FIRST ONE IS 347. MR. CASTEIX: OKAY. _ FLORENCE LEACH: AND THIS IS ABOUT THE IMPACTS ON THE EXISTING LAND USES. AND THEY SAY IN THE E.1.5. THAT THEY DO -- ARE NOT KNOWN AT THIS TIME, SO THAT 15 SOME OF THE THINGS THAT THE STAFF SHOULD CONSIDER AND ALSO INCLUDE IN THE INFORMATION THAT WILL BE FUTURE COMING. ALSO, THAT THERE IS MEDIUM /HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTS ON BOTH SIDES OF THIRD STREET -- THIS,IS 347 -- EAST SIDE OF BRISTOL, THIRD STREET, AND WEST SIDE OF BRISTOL. SO THE IMPACT ON THE TRAFFIC SITUATION IN SANTA ANA IS BEING COMPOUNDED TREMENDOUSLY BY MULTIPLE HOUSING, APARTM °_NT COMPLEXES. THEY JUST COMPOUNDED THE TRAFFIC ON ROSS STREET, AND YET YOU CAN'T GO THROUGH ON ROSS STREET, AND YET, THERE 1S ALL KINDS OF APARTMENTS. ON WASHINGTON BETWEEN BRISTOL AND FLOWER STREET, THE APARTMENT COMPLEXES IN THERE ARE -- IT LOOKS LIKE SOMEONE COULD LEARN A LESSON BY SOME OF THESE THINGS. ALSO, THAT IF THERE 15 HIGHER DENSITY REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS -- AND THIS I5 326 -- BUT THE CITY SAYS IT HAS NO SUCH PLAN AT THIS TIME FOR HIGHER DENSITY REDEVELOPMENT IF THERE 1S A REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT. ALSO, THE TRAFFIC PATTERNS 15 GOING TO COMPOUND THE AIR POLLUTION IF THERE ARE SOUND BARRIER WALLS PLACED ON EACH SIDE OF BRISTOL. ONE THING I'D LIKE TO HAVE CONSIDERED, D y I 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 ,2 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 31 AND I KNOW MR. CASTEIX SPOKE ABOUT THE HEIGHT ON FENCES AND A FENCING ORDINANCE; THEREFORE, 1 WOULD SUGGEST THAT SOUND BARRIER WALLS BE NO HIGHER THAN FOUR FEET. SO IF WE'RE GOING TO MAKE A UNIFORM ORDINANCE ABOUT FENCES, THEN TO ME A SOUND BARRIER WALL IS MORE OR LESS A FENCE. IT'S A WALL. AND SO WE JUST SHOULD LIMIT THE HEIGHT OF FENCES. THAT WOULD -- THE SOUND BARRIER WALLS, THE AIR POLLUTION CONFINED IN THAT AREA, SOMEONE WHO HAS TO STOP AT A STOPLIGHT IS GOING TO BE -- IT'S REALLY GOING TO BE PRETTY BAD. ALSO, WE'LL START BACK ON 2, AND THE FIRST PAGE WHERE THEY START WITH THE PROJECT'S ALTERNATIVES. THE ALTERNATIVES UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE NEW STREET WOULD HAVE TO BE 120 FEET, SANTIAGO CREEK TO WARNER. ALSO THE 14 -FOOT WIDE RAISED MEDIAN, THAT 15 MORE THAN THE WIDTH OF A -- OF ONE OF THE LANES, 50 IT SEEMS TO ME THAT SPACE IS BEING WASTED. AND ALSO, WE KEEP CONSIDERING THAT THERE IS A DROUGHT CONDITION, WATER SUPPLIES ARE LOW, AND POSSIBLY NOT. EVERYONE SAYS THAT SANTA ANA HAS PLENTY OF WATER BECAUSE THEY'RE DRILLING DEEPER AND BETTER WELLS. AND THE LANDSCAPING -- WELL, THAT WAS ONE OF THEM, ALSO, THAT THE STREET WOULD BE -- WOULD HAVE TO BE WIDENED -- WELL, 120 FEET EXPANDED INTERSECTION, LEFT AND RIGHT TURNS FOR BUSES; TEN EAST AND WEST STREETS WOULD BE CUL -DE -SACS. THE PILE UP OF TRAFFIC ON OTHER EAST AND WEST STREETS IF THEY COME UP TO BRISTOL AND WAITING FOR A LIGHT TO G 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1', 1B 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 r 32 CHANCE, THERE IS QUITE A BIT OF BACKUP ON THE EAST AND WEST STREETS. THERE I5 120 FOOT BOTH SfDES OF THE STREET. THE EAST SIDE WOULD BE 937,000,000; THE WEST SIDE $31,000,000. IF THESE WERE TAKEN OFF THE EAST SIDE, IT WOULD BE $37,000,000; THE WEST SIDE WOULD BE 531,000,000. THEY HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT THE COMBINATION. 1 DIDN'T SEE ANY FIGURES ON THAT. THE COURT: COULD YOU SUMMARIZE, PLEASE? YOUR TIME IS UP. FLORENCE LEACH: MAY I'JUST SAY ONE MORE THING? MR. CASTEIX: PLEASE. FLORENCE LEACH: 1 WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST ONE OTHER r ALTERNATIVE. AND IF EVERYONE 1S INTERESTED IN THIS ALTERNATIVE, IT WASN'T MENTIONED IN THE E.I.S., THAT WE WOULD LIKE THE COUNTY, THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AND EVERYONE TO GET BEHIND -- OR ANYWAY, SUPPORT MR. DORNAN AND THE EXTENSION OF THE 57 FREEWAY. BECAUSE ONE THING THAT WAS QUOTED IN THAT E.I.S. 15 REGIONAL TRAVELERS -- AND THIS HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH FLOWER STREET -- REGIONAL TRAVELERS USE FLOWER STREET TO N CONNECT FROM THE 57 FREEWAY TO THE 405. SINCE FLOWER WAS THE STREET, THEN WORK WITH MR. ROBERT DORNAN TO CONNECT THE SANTA ANA FREEWAY RIVER BED TO THE 405. THE COURT: THANK YOU, FLORENCE. AND THANK YOU FOR USING THE REPORT IN REFERRING TO SPECIFIC PAGES. WE APPRECIATE THAT VERY MUCH. r i� .I .I .I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 16 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 •2 e 25 33 FLORENCE LEACH: THANK YOU. I'M GLAD I HAO IT TO REFER 70. MR. CASTEIX: $0 AM 1. NEXT SPEAKER, PLEASE. ,IAN LIND: MY NAME IS JAN LIND. 1102 NORTH LOUISE. I'M JUST SOUTH OF WASHINGTON ONE OLOCK OFF OF BRISTOL. 1, TOO, RECENTLY MOVED INTO SANTA ANA WITH MY FAMILY. 'AND HA1Z I KNOWN OF THIS PROJECT, WOULD NOT HAVE BOUGHT MY PROPERTY THERE BECAUSE OF MY CONCERN OF.THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ON MY CHILDREN FOR THE NOISE LEVEL AND THE AIR QUALITY CONCERNS THAT THIS PROJECT WILL BRING IN. I DON'T BELIEVE THE IMPACT STATEMENT ADDRESSES THOSE ISSUES SUFFICIENTLY WITH THE STUDY. NATIONAL IMPACT PEOPLE ARE -- THERE JUST ISN'T ENOUGH DOCUMENTATION AS TO THE EFFECT OF THIS ON MY CHILDREN AND MY FAMILY. AND 1'M DEEPLY CONCERNED ABOUT THAT. AND PEOPLE HERE ARE L.DDRESSIN CONCERNS REGARDING THE LANDSCAPINS. ONE OF THE REASONS WHY THEY'RE INCLUDING THAT 15 BECAV5E OF THE VISUAL AESTHETIC PLEASURES; THAT'S GREAT. THE 0Th,= =. THING IS THAT IT MAY HELP_ TEND TO PREVENT SOME OF THE SMOG DRIFTING OVER INTO ALL OF OUR BACKYARDS, THAT SORT OF THING. SC 1 WOULD LIKE TO SEE THOSE [$SUES ADDRESSED MORE. BECAUSE I'M A BLOCK C"F OF BR15TOL STREET, UNFORTUNATELY, 1 WON'T HAVE THE PLEASURE OF BEING DISPLACEO. i� 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 34 I WOULD LOVE TO SEE YOU BUY MY PROPERTY NOW AND MOVE ME OUT, BUT I WON'T BE. AND I'M CONCERNED' =ABOUT THE INVESTMENT LOSS THAT I MADE. WE WORKED HARD TO PURCHASE OUR PROPERTY THERE, AND WE WON'T HAVE THAT PRIVILEGE. AND THAT'S ALL i HAVE TO SAY. MR. CASTEIx: THANK YOU, MR. LIND. NEXT SPEAKER. THEODORE KIRK: CHAIRMAN, MY NAME 1S THEODORE KIRK. I LIVE AT 2109 NORTH HESPERIAN. WE ARE ONE BLOCK WEST OF BRISTOL STREET BETWEEN 21ST AND SANTA CLARA. IN THIS LITTLE BROCHURE BOOKLET WE HAVE HERE (INDICATING), IF THE STREET IS WIDENED ON THE WEST 510E OF THE STREET, OUR PROPERTY WILL BACK UP DIRECTLY TO BRISTOL STREET. AND THERE IS A PROPOSED SOUND BARRIER WALL, AND IT IS ONLY LISTED AS A LITTLE OVER SIX FOOT. AND TO ME, THAT 15 NOT HIGH ENOUGH TO PROTECT FROM SOUND AS IT 15 NOW WITH THE HOUSES THAT ARE IN BACK OF US IF THEY ARE TAKEN OUT. ALSO, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THERE WILL BE NO LEFT TURN ON TO 21ST STREET GOING NORTH ON BRISTOL, AND THE ONLY WAY WE CAN GET INTO OUR HOMES WILL BE SANTA CLARA OR ALONA STREET. AND IN THAT AREA, THERE IS CLOSE TO 600 HOMES. AND MY CONCERN IS EMERGENCY AND FIRE TO GET INTO THAT AREA IF THEY COULD NOT MAKE A LEFT TURN ONTO 21ST STREET GOING NORTH ON BRISTOL. AND I UNDERSTAND THERE ARE THREE STREETS THAT ARE r r w r I� - I� I L 35 1 GOING TO BE BLOCKED OFF GOING INTO HONER PLAZA IF THAT PROJECT 2 EVER TAKES Orr, SO THAT WILL BE LESS ACCESS TO OUR .", °EA. 3 AND THAT WILL TAKE CARE OF IT. 4 MR. CASTEIX: THANK YOU, MR. KIRK. 5 NEXT SPEAKER, PLEASE. 6 FLORENCE 15 TRYING TO GET SOMEONE TO GO UP THERE. 7 SEEING NONE. I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. B YOUR COMMENTS HAVE SEEN RECEIVED AND THE 9 NECESSARY AND PROPER RESPONSES WILL BE GOTTEN BACK TO YOU, 10 WE REALIZE THAT THIS IS A RATHER EMOTIONAL ISSUE 11 WITH A LOT OF PEOPLE. I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT. I THANK YOU FOR 12 YOUR PATIENCE FOR COMING DOWN. WE'RE NOT TRYING TO SLEIGHT 13 YOU. WE TRIED TO KEEP THE DISCUSSION TO THE WIDENING BECAUSE 14 THAT WAS GOING TO BE THE IDEA OF THIS HEARING HERE TONIGHT. 15 IF I OFFENDED ANY OF YOU, I APOLOGIZE TO YOU. 16 THAT WAS NOT MY INTENT. 17 (ADJOURNMENT OF PUBLIC HEARING.T 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 75C -4 I I 3� I 'I CERTIFICATE OF CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER f The undersigned Certified Shorthand Reporter of the State of California does hereby certify: That the foregoing proceedings were taken before me at the time and place therein set forth; That the foregoing proceedings were recorded stenographically by me and were thereafter transcribed, said transcript being a true copy of my shorthand notes thereof. Dated: ;I I In witness whereof. I have subscribed my name. JUL 17 1989 VJn ".. T 2 r� 2 rl T 7 5C -414 AlYL�A 75C -415 Pie) i uLS wuen wCiu�w a ii` of .:::^Yv;:.^.�ut $u-j°�"�.S ?.^..�. 3re.°. -1 -?-jOT L^`.paCtS in alphabetical order, and directs the Environmental Impact Statement /Environmental Impact Report reviewer to where information can be found on a specific subject or impact. Subiect Fagc Vo� Abstract Adverse Impacts Aesthetics Air Quality Air Quality Plan Conformity Alternatives Appendices Archaeology Beneficial Impacts Bibliography Biology Business Displacement Circulation List Climate Comments Community Facilities Construction Impacts Coordination Correspondence Costs Cultural Resources Description of Project Dust Emergency Services Employment Displacement Energy Environmental Consequences Environmental Impacts Environmental Setting Erosion Existing Transportation Facility Flood Encroachment Geology Growth Inducing Impacts Hazardous Materials Historical Resources I- 75C -416 i vi, IV -89 iv, IV-44 III -10 through III -13, N -89, V -15 111 -13 II -19, IV -28 Appendix A, Appendix B III -61, I-9 -59 iv IX -I III -9, V -18, VII -2 VI -90, V -8 VII-2, VII-3, VII -4 III -10 VI -1 III -32, rff -33 W-77, IV-99 V -2 X -1 through X -38 II -2, II -19, IV -50 IV -58 I -1 vi, IV -8 V -12, IV -4, TV-79 vi, II -3, IV-48, IV -51, IV -90, V -8 N -83 IV -1 through IV -90 IV -1 through IV -90 III -1 through 1II -63 IV -3 I -14 IV-4 III -1, III -61 IV -90 IV -84 III -62, IV -59 (Cont.) u ' ct Page NQ.. Household Income III -56 Housing III -29, IV-48, IV -51, IV -90 Hydrology III -7, IV-4 Landscaping N -1, IV-44, IV -62 Land Use III -35 through IV -56 Light and Glare IV-43 List of Preparers V11 -1 Location Map 1-2,1_3 Mitigation Measures IV-1 through IV -90 Need for Project 1 -1 through I -19 Neighborhood Character IV-51 through IV -53 No Project Alternative II 23 Noise 111-16, IV -20 Notice of Availability VII-5 through VII -10 Notice of Intent X -16 through X-21 Notice of Preparation X -22 through X -29 Operational Deficiencies 1 -5 Preferred Alternative II-3 Public Facilities III-32 Public Utilities 111-57, 1V -58 Paleontological Resources M-61, IV -58 Parks III -31 Population III -29 Property Values viii, IV -57 Recreational Facilities III -31, IV -53 Relocation IV -51 through IV-53 Right -of -Way Impacts IV-43, IV-54, Appendix A Schools III -31, IV-51 Scoping Meetings Appendix B Section 4(f) Correspondence X -2 through X -4 Seismicity III -1, IV -2 Soils III -4, IV -1 through IV-4 State Historic Preservation Officer Letter X -1 Streambed Modification IV -4 Summary ii Tax Base III -56 Topography III -1, IV -I Traffic Impacts v, viii, IV -59 through IV -82 -2 75C -417 R R T (Cunt.) Su_,, bjTct Transportation Demand Transportation System Management (TSM) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Correspondence Utilities Vegetation Visual Environment Water Quality Wetlands Wildlife -3- 75C -418 Pave No. I -14 II -19 X -5 through X -14 III -32 I11 -9, N -6 III-26 IV-6 V -18 111 -10, IV -6, IV -84 EXHIBIT 1 75C -419 Bristol Street Widening Technical Studies Endo Engineering Traffic Engineering Air Quality Assessments 75C -420 Noise Studies 006711 1 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................... 1 -1 1.1 Air Quality Summary ......................... 1 -1 1.2 Acoustic Summary ............................ 1 -2 2.0 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ............ 2 -1 3.0 AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS ........................ 3 -1 3.1 Existing Ambient Air Quality ................ 3 -1 - Climate and Meteorology - Ambient Air Quality - Effects of Pollutants on Receptors - Air Quality Management Plan 3.2 Air Quality Impact Analysis ................. 3 -6 - Short -Term Impacts - Long -Term Pollutant Emissions - Long -Term Air Quality Projections - Air Quality Management Plan 3.3 V/4. 0 Air Quality Mitigation Measures ............. 3 -14 NOISE ANALYSIS .............................. 4 -1 4.1 Existing Acoustic Environment ............... 4 -1 - Fundamentals of Noise - Harmful Effects of Noise - Community Response to Noise - Land Use Compatibility with Noise - On -Site Noise Measurements - Noise Modeling Results 4.2 Acoustic Impact Analysis .................... 4 -13 - Short -Term Acoustic Impacts - Long -Term Acoustic Impacts - Sensitive Receptor Analysis 4.3 Acoustic Mitigation Measures ................ 4 -25 - Noise Attenuation with Distance - General Methods to Reduce Acoustic Impacts - Specific Recommendations 75C.421 006712 [1 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) ----------- --- - - - - -- - Section Title Page 5.0 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED ......... 5 -1 APPENDIX Air Quality Appendix - Climate and Meteorology ..................... 1 - Ambient Air Quality Standards and Data ...... 2 - Effects of Pollutants on Receptors .......... 7 - Emission Inventory Assumptions .............. 8 - Caline 3 Assumptions ........................ 9 - SCAQMD Rule 403 ............................. 10 Noise Appendix - Fundamentals of Noise ....................... 11 - Harmful Effects of Noise .................... 13 - Noise Measurement System and Procedures ..... 14 - RD -77 -108 Assumptions ....................... 15 - General Methods to Reduce Acoustic Impacts .. 16 - California Standard Specifications to Reduce Noise Impacts ..................... 17 - Construction Noise Control Strategies ....... 18 - Potential Residential Impacts and Barriers .. 19 75Cf422 ILIST OF FIGURES -------------------------------------- Number f---- ----------------- - Title Following - -- -- Page 1 Regional Location . ............................... 2 -1 2 APEI Vicinity Map (Southerly Segment) ............. 2 -1 3 APEI Vicinity Map (Northerly Segment) ............. 2 -1 4 Existing Land Uses (Southerly Segment) ............ 2 -1 5 Existing Land Uses (Northerly Segment) ............ 2 -1 1r 1 6 Air Pollutant Analysis Locations (Southerly Segment) ..................... 3 -11 7 Air Pollutant Analysis Locations (Northerly Segment) ..................... 3 -11 8 Typical Noise Levels of Familiar Sources ......... 4 -1 9 Speech Communications Versus Background Noise .... 4 -2 16 Noise Measurement Locations (Southerly Segment) ... 4 -6 11 Noise Measurement Locations (Northerly Segment) ••• 4 -6 12 ----------------------------------------------- Construction Noise ...................... I........ ---- -------- - 4 -13 - - - -- 1 T I 1 75C -3 LIST OF TABLES ------------------------------------------- Number ------- ---- --- -'-- Title - --- -- Page . 9-.- S--. S-_- 5--- 6-- ��----- •- ••- •--- .- .- �- .��G= ��A =»F == ASV -�S V �C�w - - -�- a' r 2 -1 Bristol Street Roadway Improvements .............. 2 -2 2 -2 Average Route Speeds and VMT ............... I..... 2 -2 r` L 3 -1 LLLL Health Effects of Air Pollutants .................. 3 -4 3 -2 Construction Equipment Emissions ................. 3 -7 3 -3 Project - Related Motor Vehicle Emission Inventory Comparison .................... 3 -8 3 -4 Carbon Monoxide Concentrations Adjacent to Nearby Roadways ...................... 3 -10 4 -1 Harmful Effects of Noise ......................... 4 -2 4 -2 esign Noise Level /Activity Relationships ........ 4 -5 4 -3 Land Use Compatibility with Noise Matrix ......... 4 -6 4 -4 Noise Measurements At Sensitive Receptors ........ 4 -9 4 -5 Current Exterior CNEL Exposure Adjacent to Bristol Street . ............................... 4 -11 4 -6 Current Exterior Leq Exposure Adjacent to Bristol Street . ............................... 4 -12 4 -7 Future Exterior CNEL Exposure Adjacent to Bristol Street . ............................... 4 -15 4 -8 Future Exterior Leq Exposure Adjacent to Bristol Street . ............................... 4 -16 4 -9 Noise Analysis for Sensitive Receptors ........... 4 -19 f 75C -44 T 75C -425 0 a 0 0 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMARY 1.1 Air Quality Summary Existing Air Quality 1. The South Coast Air Basin has been designated a nonattain- ment area because of violations of the national ambient air quality standards for carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen diox- ide and total suspended particulates. 2. Of all the air pollutants monitored at the Anaheim moni- toring station, sulfur dioxide, sulfate, and lead did not equal or exceed the state or federal ambient air quality standards between 1983 and 1985. 3. Ozone and particulates represent the major ambient air qual- ity problems standards in the project vicinity. 4. Carbon monoxide levels monitored from 1983 to 1985 showed ambient air quality standard exceedances on only one percent of the days monitored and a maximum one -hour value of 19.0 I ppm. I Air Quality Impacts I 1. Implementation of the project will generate exhaust emis- sions from construction equipment and the automobiles of the construction crew, as well as fugitive dust during soil movement. Sensitive receptors near the project site will find these air pollutant emissions a temporary nuisance. 2. According to the traffic impact study, the vehicle miles of travel on each link will not change; however, as a result of the project, the average route speeds on Bristol Street will increase with the project. 3. In the future design year (2006) the increase in average route speeds along Bristol Street will result in a decrease in carbon monoxide emissions (3666 pounds /day) and total hydrocarbon emissions (376 pounds /day) and an increase in nitrogen dioxide emissions (5 pounds /day) and no change in SOx and particulate emissions. 4. Caline 3 modelling indicates that the one -hour and eight - hour state and federal ambient air quality standards for carbon monoxide are currently exceeded at 50 feet from the intersections in the project vicinity. 5. Caline 3 modeling indicates that the one -hour State and federal ambient air quality standards will not be exceeded for the future design year (2006) with the "build" alterna- tive. 75C 4�6 6. Future background carbon monoxide concentrations are pro- jected to exceed the 8 -Hour state and federal standards. Consequently, regardless o£-the alternative, Caline 3 mode- 1 ling indicates that carbon monoxide levels at the intersec- tions analyzed will exceed the 8 -hour standards at the intersections analyzed. 7. The project is consistent with the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) and the State Implementation Plan (SIP) Air Quality Mitigation Measures Measures selected for incorporation in the project include: [ 1. SCAQMD Rule 403 (see page 10 of the Appendix) will be ad- hered to, insuring the clean up of construction- related dirt on approach routes to the site. 2. Adequate watering techniques will be employed to partially mitigate the impact of construction - generated dust particu- lates. 3. Construction equipment will be properly maintained and ser- viced to minimize exhaust emissions. 4. Consideration will be given to the provision of convenient bus shelters and bus turnouts along Bristol Street to en- courage the use of public transportation. Additional mitigation measures offered for consideration and incorporation in the project if found to be feasible: 5. The use of energy efficient lighting along Bristol Street (low pressure sodium vapor lights) should be considered to reduce emissions at the power plant serving the area. (AQMP control measure Nll) r 6. Traffic signals along Bristol Street should be synchronized l if feasible. (AQMP control measure K2) 7. Construction activities should be halted during stage One and Stage Two smog alerts. 1.2 Acoustic Summary Existing Acoustic Environment 1. Ambient noise levels in the project area are affected pri- marily by motor vehicle noise emanating from Bristol Street. 2. The project site is far removed from public, military and private airports, railroads, and other significant noise generators. ' 1 -2 75C -427 3. Ambient peak one -hour equivalent noise levels monitored at typical residential receptors ranged from 54 dBA Leg to 73 L dBA Leg. l 4. Ambient peak one -hour equivalent noise levels were 71 dBA Leg at a high school athletic area and 70 dBA Leg two ele- mentary school playgrounds. 5. The FFWA noise modeling predicts that noise levels at 75 feet from the Bristol Street centerline are currently 72 dBA Leq or less. 6. The FHWA noise modeling predicts that noise levels at 75 feet from the Bristol Street centerline are currently 72 CNEL or less. Acoustic Impacts 1. Construction activities will generate short -term increases in noise levels adjacent to site access routes and the areas under construction at any given time. 2. Motor vehicle noise resulting from year 2006 traffic volumes 1 on Bristol Street with or without the proposed widening project will constitute a long -term acoustic impact in the immediate vicinity. 3. Roadway widths will change along Bristol Street after proj- ect implementation causing changes in adjacent noise levels ! for future design year conditions. 4. Future noise contour locations (with respect to the center- line) will be identical with all project alternatives. 5. Computer noise modeling shows that future -plus- project noise levels will be I dBA Leq or less above future noise levels i under the no -build condition. 6. Noise levels with the "build" alternative will range from 69 to 73 dBA Leq within the APEI. 7. Noise level increases with the "build" alternative at sensi- tive receptors (in the absence of mitigation) will be 6 dBA Leg or less above future "no- build" conditions. S. Maximum one hour Leq values projected for the future design year are detailed in Table 4 -9. Noise levels at sensitive receptor locations will range from 55 to 71 dBA Leq regard- less of the alternative. S. Future design year noise levels will exceed federal criteria at first line residential receptors with or without any proposed project alternatives. 75CIQU 1 10. Second line receptor exterior noise levels will exceed 67 l Leg with each alternative as detailed in the Appendix. 11. Second line receptor exterior noise levels will approach 67 ` Leq with each alternative as shown in the Appendix. 12. Noise measurements taken at two school playgrounds and a high school athletic area exceeded the FHWA design noise levels for current conditions and will exceed the criteria for future conditions with or without any of the proposed project alternatives. Acoustic Mitigation Measures 1, The following mitigation measures have been recommended for in- corporation in the project to minimize noise impacts: 1. Construction activities will take place only on the hours specified in the City of Santa Ana Noise Control Ordinance to reduce noise impacts during more sensitive time periods. 2. All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, operated within 1000 feet of a dwelling shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained muffler exhaust systems. 3. Stationary equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers such as residential areas. 4. Stockpiling and vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as practical from occupied dwellings. 5. Every effort should be made to create the greatest distance between noise sources and receptors during construction. 6. The noisiest construction operations should be arranged to occur together in the construction program to avoid contin- uing periods of greater annoyance. The following mitigation measures are suggested for consideration and implementation if feasible. I 1. Any residential noise barriers that are removed in conjunc- tion with the project should be replaced with barriers at least 6 feet high. 2. For those dwellings on corner lots with access to cross streets which experience exterior impacts, a six -foot block wall could be constructed at the right -of -way to a point 25 feet from the extension of the intersecting perpendicular curb line of the cross street to reduce noise impacts. 75429 i I 3. Construction of sound barriers in front of the residences fronting on Bristol Street would restrict pedestrian or vehicular access and consequently are not proposed at these locatons. 4. The construction of sound barriers adjacent to school play- ` grounds and athletic fields would meet federal exterior ■l noise criteria for outdoor activity areas. 5.. Future design year noise levels could be reduced to meet federal criteria if a six -foot noise wall is constructed to shield those rear yard areas of units with side yards and rear yards facing Bristol Street as shown in the Appendix. 6. Six -foot block walls should be constructed at second line receptor residential lots that exceed 67 Leq (see the Appen- dix) to reduce exterior noise to acceptable levels. I T T 75{0 -430 2.0 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ■ The Bristol Widening Project includes the widening and improve - ]L ment of a 4 mile portion of Bristol Street, between warner Avenue and Memory Lane, in the City of Santa Ana. The project will be partially funded through the Federal Aid Urban (FAU) Program. The project will require CEQA and NEPA clearances as well as review by CalTrans for compliance with their Local Programs Manual. Thus, City, State and Federal requirements must be met. Figure 1 depicts the project location in its regional context. Figures 2 and 3 illustrate the Area of Potential Environmental Impact (APEI) with a dashed line. The APEI generally extends one lot depth on either side of Bristol Street. The land uses abut- ting Bristol Street in this area are shown in Figures 4 and 5. Bristol Street presently exists as a 4 -lane or 5 -lane divided roadway within the project limits. Right -of -way acquisition and roadway widening will be accomplished in conjunction with the proposed project. Three alternatives for right -of -way acquisi- tion are under consideration. They include: (1) even acquisition from both sides of the roadway, (2) acquisition only from the east side of the roadway, and (3) acquisition only from the west side of the roadway. Additional land acquisition will occur at the intersections of Bristol Street with Memory Lane, Seventeenth Street, Civic Center Drive, and First Street, to accommodate i exclusive right turn lanes. The proposed cross - sections will provide a fully improved divided major highway per City standards with: sidewalks, curbs and gutters, six through lanes, and a raised landscaped median. Additionally, there are planned modifications of traffic signals and relocation of other improvements at existing intersections. The proposed improvements will comply with the provisions of the Circulation Element of the Santa Ana General Plan. Along the entire length of the project a 102 -foot curb -to -curb width is proposed within a 120 -foot right -of -way. Table 2 -1 provides the existing and proposed roadway improvements, lane geometrics, and rights -of -way along Bristol Street within the APEI. r Table 2 -2 shows the anticipated changes in average route speeds (i.e. running speeds as opposed to posted speed limits or spot speeds) and vehicle miles travelled (VMT) along the 3.75 mile roadway segment under study. As shown therein, future design year (2006) running speeds without the project will be signifi- cantly lower than current and future "build" runnin4 speeds because of the increased traffic demands. The proposed widening project will improve running speeds and thereby, reduce conges- tion. F 2 -1 it 75C -431 I l T I; I 7. S 1 L q 1 I CERRITOS • FIGURE I REGIONAL LOCATION FULLERTON . BUENA PARK • 91 ANAHEIM L06 • STANTON ALLAMI TOS HIGH WAY 22 GARDEN GROVE WESTMINSTER B EA NEWPORT • FOUNTAIN VALLEY • YOR$A LINDA* . PLACENTIA ORANGE Site * \ • SANTA ANA • VILLA PARK • TUSTIN • IRVINE _\ HIGHWAY NORTH ��Endo Engineering M SCALE: Y" = 2.5 ML TABI.e 2 -x BRISTOL STREET ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS -----------------------------------------'------------___-------- Roadway Existing Existing z Future w /�roject Link Lanes Pavement ROW s -N /O Warner Av. 4D 56/102 76/120 -N /O St. Gertrude P1. 5D 70/102 90/120 -N /O First St. 4D 58/102 79/120 -N /O Sixth St. .4D 60/102 80/120 -N /O Washington Av. 5D 82/102 100/120 -N /O 21st St. 4D 58/102 80/120 -N /O Santiago Creek 5D 84/102 100 /120 ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Format: Number of Through Lanes and D= Divided, U= Undivided. 2. Pavement width and right -of -way (ROW) distances are in feet. TABLE 2 -2 AVERAGE ROUTE SPEEDS AND VMT1 ------------------------------- ---- -------------- ---- - - - - -- - -- Scenario Average Route Speed VMT2- (mph) (Miles /Day) Existing Condition -1987 -N /O Warner Av. 18 69,555 -N /O First St. 20 78,670 Future Design Year -2006 No- Project -N /O Warner Av., 10 83,475 -N /O First St. 9 94,425 Build Condition -N /O Warner Av. 1B 83,475 -N /O First St. 31 94,425 r ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Source: Willdan Associates, May 1987. 2. VMT= Vehicles Miles Travelled IF 2 -2 75C -433 �z- w N � n Q V -Y _ 16 16HId 1 1— 1_ 3A 11iN 1r3 aW � 16 llNlVm iw 'I i 3NItl 1 p— 16'n4L6.HO u6_n�p —1 Q le plIV1Yp 1 I Ill JJ, I 1 Y 1 _ � 6 JOIIfiIO 1 � I I �d1 i mY �� tl -IAVN �� —ir "�M3UCNV 1B d� 1 - 1� pNVIIIJIN lS N3All i0i —1 IJ ( 1 C ON bIHpIN �tl pOOMN aIp I �J CI_ i6 Np6p(Ip Id 6NNV ,NJ_ ]AV N]U E J.Vfory LS— LI, II�Y 11130 'is I — FII I I _I 1 I I 1 y _1 Jy -1 JO I 1 m l_l-]66_NY ¢IILII _ 111 E—AY NtlVM _3AV 3111116: IM '\ pC WG w 75C -434 r�V o =� o_ E Ull -_I YF ... .... �� -- - W w r> w Z O oy IGy W J LM 5 F O J .N. a �C a I LL w m Is usi i i� =9— 15HI3 J L� 15 1(1 INltlM i TL _ LS r�IIJ 13 1I1NLS3H0 N m 18 ]�l1tl A_W Ls 3llw vD dO HBl6_ N 3YIA V_tl NNVIYIOIN 'N300 YJCW 0 C i `m 5 p anv N d Q C 3 31tl L_ tlSDNID3 Ntl 13 _. lJ DOD M_N 3lo lJ N30Y1 M1'3 aW VD ld ]NN VV 1�T ]NqY 1S �T IT- n LL- 3011.ldav '16 r I� W —_ p 3AV D3NNVM v I wr C I N % O RO a c g Z LL O � F1F1Flµ ¢ 2 � Y N S 2 ¢ C O 6 WU E R b io n �W D. C �l a r V I 75C -439 0 Q U a 3.0 AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS 3.1 Existing Ambient Air Quality Primary pollutants are those emitted directly from a source and 1 include carbon monoxide (CO), nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide (NO and NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulates (TSP), and various hydrocarbons (THC). Secondary pollutants are created with the passage of time, in the air mass, and include ozone (03), photochemical aerosols, peroxyacetylnitrate (PAN), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). The area of potential environmental impact (APEI) is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). The air quality of the basin is determined by the primary pollutant emissions added daily, and by the primary and secondary pollutants already pres- ent,in the air mass. Oxidants (90% of which are ozone) represent the major air quality problem basinwide. iAmbient air quality in the vicinity of the proposed project is a function of the primary pollutants emitted locally and the exist- ing regional ambient air quality. It is also determined by the meteorological and topographic factors which influence the intru- sion of pollutants into the area from sources outside the im- mediate vicinity. Climate and Meteorology 1 The study area has a mediterranean climate with warm summers, 1 mild winters and moderate rainfall. The land /sea breeze is the primary factor affecting the region's mild climate. The daytime winds are sea breezes predominantly from the west which flow at Irelatively low velocities. These sea breezes exhibit velocities below 15 mph approximately 96 percent of the time, and below 4 mph about half of the time, with an average velocity of 5 to 7 mph. During the night, the winds across the basin usually reverse direction. These land breezes flow from the east at 1 to 2 miles per hour.l Average monthly temperatures recorded in the vicinity of the APE1 at the Santa Ana Fire Station range from 57 degrees Fahrenheit in I January to 75.8 degrees Fahrenheit in July. Temperature extremes range from a high of 101 degrees during August to a low of 36 degrees in December. Precipitation averages about 12.49 inches r annually in the vicinit with nearly 90 percent occurring be- tween November and March.y l 1. Source: SCAQMD, "Air Quality Handbook ", December 1983. Refer to page 1 of the Appendix for additional information related to meteorological conditions affecting the disper- sion and transport of air pollutants. 2. Source: NOAA, "Climatological Data Annual Summary ", 1965. 3 -1 75C -440 l Ambient Air Quality The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAOMD) main- tains ambient air quality monitoring stations at numerous loca- tions, the closest of which is in Anaheim. Ambient air quality data from this station is given in terms of state and federal standards which were adopted to protect public health with a margin of safety (see pages 2 and 3 of the Appendix). In addi- tion, California has adopted episode criteria for ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and sulfates in combination with ozone. Episode criteria represent short -term exposures at concentrations that threaten public health (see page 4 of the Appendix). The South Coast Air Basin has been designated a nonattainment area because of violations of the national ambient air quality standards for carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen dioxide and total suspended particulates. Air quality trends which have developed at the Anaheim air quality monitoring station between 1983 and 1985 are detailed on page 5 of the Appendix and summarized below. It can be seen that sulfur dioxide, sulfate and lead have not equalled or exceeded the relevant state or federal standards. Oxidant (ozone), particulates, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen dioxide have exceeded the ambient air quality standards. Of all the pollutants monitored, ozone equals or exceeds the state and federal standards most often. The California one -hour ozone standard (0.10 ppm) was equalled or exceeded on 19 percent of the days monitored in Anaheim. The less stringent federal one -hour standard (0.12 ppm) was exceeded on 10 percent of the days monitored. The maximum one hour concentration measured was 0.30 ppm. Nineteen Stage One ozone episodes were called at the j Anaheim station: 10 in 1983, 5 in 1984, and 4 in 1985. There ` were no Stage Two episodes declared for ozone. Suspended particulates exceeded the California 24 -hour standard 1I of 100 micrograms per cubic meter on 4 percent of the days moni- tored at the Anaheim station during 1983 and 1984. Suspended particulates were not monitored at this station during 1985. The less stringent federal 24 -hour standard of 260 micrograms per cubic meter was not exceeded. The highest 24 -hour concentration measured was 215 micrograms per cubic meter (more than twice the state standard). The state and federal 8 -hour carbon monoxide standard (9 ppm) was equalled or exceeded on 1 percent of the days monitored at the Anaheim station. The 1 -hour state standard (20 ppm) and federal standard (35 ppm) were not exceeded on the days monitored at this station. The maximum 1 -hour CO concentration measured at the Anaheim station was 19 ppm (compared to the 20 ppm state stan- dard). 1 3 -2 75C -441 The state and federal lead standards were not exceeded at the Anaheim station. The one -hour state nitrogen dioxide standard (25 ppm) was exceeded on less than one percent of the days monitored at this station. The 24 -hour state sulfate standard (25 ug /m ) was not exceeded at the Anaheim station. Effects of Pollutants on Receptors Demonstrated effects of air contaminants on health and vegetation are detailed on page 7 of the Appendix and summarized in Table 3- 1. Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) The federal Clean Air Act and the state Lewis Air Quality Act require the preparation of a plan for the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) which will demonstrate the attainment of both the federal and state air quality standards, at the earliest date achievable (1987) using all reasonably available control measures. The AQMP, originally adopted in 1979 and revised by the 1982 Draft (adopted in October 1982), is a basin -wide plan which defines the I: nature and source of air contaminants and quantifies the'reduc- tions neccessary to bring the SCAB into compliance with federal and state air quality standards. A revision to the AQMP is expected in late 1988. The "Draft AQMP 1982 Revision ", identifies the control measures available for implementation by 1987 as well as long range stra- tegies to bring the basin into later compliance. These measures will meet the federal standard for 'nitrogen dioxide and for lead by 1987 and the state standard by 2000 (for both). There will be continuous attainment of federal sulfur dioxide standards, state sulfate standards and state CO standards; however, violations will continue for particulates. and ozone after the 1987 attain- ment deadline. Federal carbon monoxide standards are expected to be met by the year 2000. In conjunction with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), the South Coast Air Quality Management Dis- trict (SCAQMD) prepares an annual "Reasonable Further Progress Report" which evaluates the AQMP's progress toward the reduction and control of pollutant emissions to acceptable levels. This report is presented to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for review. The report: describes basin -wide progress in reducing total hydrocarbons (THC) and carbon monoxide (CO) levels. Pro- gress in reducing nitrogen dioxide levels was required in this report until a plan revision was submitted to the EPA in Septem- ber, 1985. 1 Telephone conversation with the SCAQMD information officer, I' August 20, 1987. 3 -3 75C -442 I A TABLE 3 -1 HEALTH EFFECTS OF AIR POLLUTANTS1 1 Source: SCAOMD, "1983 Annual Summary" 2Smoke is a British measure of particulate matter concentration. 3 -4 75C -443 Concentration/ Observed Health Effects Pollutant Exposure Time at Specified Concentrations Ozone 0.25 pprn/l hour Increased frequency of asthma attacks. 0.30 ppnvl hour Cough, chest discomfort and headache. 0.37 ppnV2 tour Decline in pulmonary tuncton in healthy individuals. Carbon Monoxide 15 -18 ppm/8 hour Can cause decreased exercise capacity in patients with angina pectoris. 50 ppmH hour Can cause impairment of time interval estimation and visual lunction. Nitrogen Dioxide 0.11 ppnvfew minutes Sensory responses may be elicited or altered. Daily peak exceeds May cause some impairment of pulmonary 0.45 ppm on 10% of function and increased incidence of days for 12 months acute respiratory disease. 1.50 ppmishcrt term Can cause dificufty in breathing in healthy as well as bronchitic groups. Lead Increase in blood lead levels which 3.2 uglm317 weeks may impair or decrease hemoglobin synthesis. Sulfur Dioxide/ 0.037 ppm SO May cause higher frequencies of Total Suspended annual average acute respiratory symptoms and Particulate association with diminished ventilatory function` (TSP) 100 ugrm3smoke 2 in children. 1 Source: SCAOMD, "1983 Annual Summary" 2Smoke is a British measure of particulate matter concentration. 3 -4 75C -443 There have been inprovements in air quality despite the growth in population, motor vehicles, and fuel consumption in the four- county basin. Stage 1 ozone episodes have been declining at a rate of four per year since 1976, with an overall reduction of 33$ between 1976 and 1985. The improvements can be directly attributed to the control measures required on both stationary I' and mobile air pollutant sources. One of the most important and significant control measures, an annual vehicle inspection and maintenance program, was signed into law on September 10, 1982. Of the 33 Transportation, Energy and Land Use Control Measures implemented, the inspection and maintenance program produced the largest cummulative reduction for both THC and CO. This program decreased THC emissions per day and was responsible for 86% of the total THC emission reductions. Co emissions were decreased by 95.6 tons per day with this prog- ram (768 of the reductions attributed to control measures). l After the first year of vehicle, inspection, the CAAB estimated that a 178 reduction in total Cd and THC emissions was acheived as a direct result of this program. Based upon the adoption of an annual vehicle inspection and maintenance program, the EPA re- moved constraints affecting federally funded transportation and sewage treatment projects in California. l. ----------------- Source: Air Quality Digest, July- August 1986; page 10. 3 -5 75C -444 J i .J 3.2 Air Quality Impact Analysis Two types of air pollutant sources must be considered with re- spect to the proposed project: stationary sources and mobile sources. Stationary source considerations include emissions on- site from construction activities as well as emissions at the a power plant associated with the electrical requirements of the project. Mobile source considerations include exhaust emissions resulting from short -term construction activities and long -term traffic changes associated with the project. Short -Term Impacts Short -term impacts on air quality will occur during the construc- tion activities required to implement the proposed project. These temporary impacts will include: 1) particulate (fugitive dust) emissions from construction activities on -site; 2) exhaust emissions from the construction equip- ment used on -site as well as the vehicles used to transport the equipment to and from the site; and 3) exhaust emissions from the motor vehicles of the construction crew. On a short -term basis, large dust particles (30 -100 microns in diameter) that settle to earth within a few hundred feet of the construction area could create a temporary localized nuisance problem. Additionally, fine - grained particles (less than 30 microns in size) may be emitted and dispersed over greater dis- tances, occasionally annoying adjacent receptors especially dur- ing Santa Ana wind conditions. An average particulate emission factor for heavy construction activities of 1.2 tons of dust per month of activity per acre disturbed has been cited by the EPA in AP -42. Fugitive dust generation can be reduced by half through dust suppression tech- niques such as regular watering during construction (particularly l on unpaved areas used by construction vehicles). Diesel construction equipment constitutes approximately 90 per- ( cent of the heavy construction machinery in use today. It emits on the average about one -half pound of NOx (and smaller amounts of CO and THC) for each gallon of fuel burned (EPA, AP -42). Con - struction equipment emission rates on very active days may total several hundred pounds of contaminants per hour. Construction of the proposed project is expected to begin in 1989, although no start -up date has been firmly established. It has been estimated that completion of the project could require an estimated 24 construction vehicles over a 6 month period, with construction activities occurring continuously. 75%C#2 = -45 i J Based upon this estimate, Table 3 -2 provides the vehicle emission J projections from diesel construction equipment. As shown there- in, over the construction period the following could be emitted: 38 pounds of CO, 15 pounds of HC, 178 pounds of NOx, 13 pounds of SOx, and 11 pounds of particulates, daily. TABLE 3 -2 CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT EMISSIONSI - ----------------------------_--------------------------------- Primary Pollutant Pounds per Day � CO 38.1 { THC 15.0 NOx 178.4 sox 13.1 I Particulates 10.7 ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. See page 8 of the Appendix for assumptions and calculations. Exhaust emissions during the construction activities will vary from day to day as construction activity levels change but should be minimal and dispersed without significant impact on sensitive receptors. The construction crew will generate an insignificant amount of air pollutants along the various site access routes. { Long -Term Pollutant Emissions Long -term impacts are those associated with the change in usage of Bristol Street that will result from the roadway widening. Emission projections can be made for current conditions (1987) and future design year conditions (2006) by multiplying antici- pated motor vehicle usage rates with and without the project by the appropriate emission factors. The emission factors used (see page 8 of the Appendix) were taken from the ARB EMFAC6D model which adjusts the EPA "Mobile Source Emission Factors" to reflect the more stringent emission requirements of California vehicles. Vehicle miles of travel (VMT) and average route speeds are typi- cally the basis for estimating the change in air pollutant emis- sions associated with a roadway improvement project. Traffic data provided by Willdan Associates representing current and future conditions indicated changes in average route speeds but no change in design year VMT values with and without the project. The average route speeds for both current and future conditions are detailed in Table 2 -2 on page 2 -2. 75(:=446 Table 3 -3 provides the air pollutant emission projections antici- pated for existing conditions and future conditions in the design year (2006) with and without the project. As shown therein, there will be a decrease in future carbon monoxide emissions of 3666 pounds /day with versus without the project in 2006. There will also be a decrease in hydrocarbon emissions with the project (376 pounds /day in 2006). There will be an increase in nitrogen dioxide emissions of 5 pounds /day in 2006. There will be no change in the emissions of sulfur dioxides and particulates with versus without the project. The widening of Bristol Street will relieve congestion which will lead to slightly higher speeds and shorter travel times. The increase in speed will cause a significant reduction of carbon monoxide and total hydrocarbon pollutant emissions from the vehi- cles using the road. However, higher speeds increase emissions of oxides of nitrogen from each vehicle on the roadway. Thus, on a short and long term basis, the proposed project will have a beneficial impact on ambient air quality in terms of CO, THC and the secondary pollutants formed as a result of these primary pollutants. The project will, however, increase the localized effects of NOx by accommodating more vehicles at higher speeds within the roadbed and thereby increasing the concentra- tion of this pollutant adjacent to the roadbed. TABLE 3 -3 PROJECT - RELATED MOTOR VEHICLE M419SION INVENTORY COMPARISONI (Pounds /Day) ---------------------------- Scenario co THC Nox sox Parts. 1987 (Current Year) - No-Project 7792 790 583 69 108 - Project NA NA NA NA NA - Change with Proj. NA NA NA NA NA 2006 (Future Year) - No- Project 9162 947 520 90 122 - Project 5496 571 525 90 122 r - Change with Proj. -3666 -376 +5 0 0 _- Note: NA = Not Available. -- - - -- -- --- -- - - - - -- 1. Values are the same for all three alternatives, 3 -8 75C -447 Long -Term Air Quality Projections Microscale analyses were made at four intersections within the project limits where typical sensitive receptors were located. Carbon monoxide concentrations were estimated adjacent to these intersections using "worst case" assumptions and the California Department of Transportation Line Source Dispersion Model Caline 3. This model is approved for use by both the EPA and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Because of the relative inertness of carbon monoxide in the photochemical smog formation process, and limitations of know- ledge on dispersion characteristics of other air pollutant spe- cies, carbon monoxide was selected as the indicator of impact. NOx and HC were not considered because they are unstable and undergo changes to become secondary pollutants; therefore, the roadway's contribution to these pollutant concentrations cannot be accurately assessed. Nitric oxide (NO) concentrations can be predicted but there is no ambient air quality standard for NO. Nitrogen dioxide (which is the major constituent of NOx) concentrations cannot be determined from conventional non - reactive models. Similarly, an accurate method to determine a roadway's contribution to local levels of SOx and particulate matter is not yet available. Secondary pollutants are a large -scale phenomenon, and should be analyzed on a regional basis rather than a local one. The "worst case" assumptions made in the Caline 3 modeling pro- cess included: wind speed of 1 meter per second, wind direction parallel to the road, peak hour traffic volumes, and atmospheric i stability class of F (most stable) for 1 -hour averages and class I D for 8 -hour averages. The Appendix (page 9) provides additional details and Caline 3 assumptions. The results appear in Table 3 -4 and represent "worst case" condi- tions. Actual levels would probably be less. Three scenarios were analyzed based upon traffic volumes for 1987 and for future year 2006 conditions both with and without the project. As shown in Table 3 -4, the future design year carbon monoxide r concentrations adjacent to the intersections most affected by the i project will not equal or exceed the 35 ppm 1 -hour federal stan- dard with or without the roadway widening proposed. Addi- tionally, the 20 ppm 1 -hour state standard should not be exceeded after completion of the proposed project. Conversely, state 1- hour standard exceedances may occur in the future design year under the "No- Build" condition at the intersections analyzed. F Ambient CO levels in the design year (9.5 ppm) are projected to exceed the 8 -hour state and federal standards (9.0 ppm) in the project vicinity. However, CO contributions at the intersections 3 -9 75C -448 I TABLE 3 -4 CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS ADJACENT TO NEARBY ROADWAYS - 1 -Hour Average (pps �s) y- - -y so- Project - y--- - - - - -- ~ -- With Projectl Receptor Distance Nearest 150 200 Nearest 150 200 (Feet) Receptor Receptor 3.7 3.7 1987 CONDITION, 1.8 1.8 1.3 - Seventeenth Street Bristol Street at 1.6 1.a 1.0 0.6 - Memory Lane 2.7 2.7 1.9 - -- - -- - -- - Seventeenth Street 310 1.7 1.0 - -- - -- - -- - First Street 3.4 2.6 1.8 - -- - -- - -- - Warner Avenue 2.2 2.2 1.5 - -- - -- - -- Background Concentration 18.0 18.0 18.0 - -- ---- - -- I 2006 CONDITION Bristol Street at - Memory Lane 3.7 3.7 2.5 1.8 1.8 1.3 - Seventeenth Street 4.6 2.6 1.6 1.a 1.0 0.6 - First Street 3.9 3.2 2.3 2.0 1.8 1.4 - Warner Avenue 2.7 2.7 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.3 Background Concentration 14.6 14.6 14.6 14.6 14.6 14.6 ----------------------------------------------------------------- 8 -Hour Average (ppr�) go-Project With Project Receptor Distances Nearest 150 200 Nearest 150 200 (Feet) Receptor Receptor 5- SAC- �---- �--_ J-- �-- 3-------- 9-- S-- a------- �-- S-- S - -a -� �C� =4F =�= 1987 CONDITIONS I Bristol Street 3 at - Memory Lane 1.2 1.2 0.9 - -- - -- - -- - Seventeenth Street 1.1 0.7 0.5 - First Street I 1.5 1.2 0.9 - -- - -- - -- - Warner Avenue 1.0 1.0 0.8 - -- - -- - -- Background Concentration 11.7 11.7 11.7 - -- - -- - -- r { 2006 CONDITION Bristol Street at - Memory Lane 1.5 1.5 1.1 0.8 0.8 0.6 - Seventeenth Street r 1.7 1.1 D.a 0.7 0.4 0.3 - First Street 1.6 1.4 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.7 - Warner Avenue 1.2 1.2 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.6 I Background Concentration ` 9.5----- 9.5 5-- 9.5 I. "With Project" values - are identical - -9.5 for Y_- _9--- - - -9_5 all three alternatives. 2. Receptor distances are measured from the roadway centerline. 3. All concentrations include roadway contributions only and do not include the background levels noted (which most be added tto determine state and federal standard exceedances). 75C 344'9 analyzed will be lower with than without the proposed project. Therefore, with the "build" condition, the number of days excee- ding applicable CO standards within the APEI should be reduced. Current CO concentrations without the project exceed the state 1- hour and 8 --hour standards and the federal 8 -hour standards. To facilitate comparison between scenarios, Table 3 -4 shows the projected CO concentrations directly attributable to the roadway without adding background (or ambient) CO levels. The ambient CO concentrations shown in Table 3 -4 should be added to the levels generated by the traffic at the intersections analyzed to reflect the expected concentrations at various distances from the inter- sections. The carbon monoxide levels at sensitive receptor locations nearest the intersections analyzed are shown in Table 3 -4. With the "build" alternative, I -hour. CO levels will decrease by 0.6 to 2.8 ppm. Under 8 -hour conditions, CO levels will decrease by 0.3 to 1.0 ppm. Figures 6 and 7 illustrate the four intersections analyzed, the closest residential lots, and the closest sensitive receptor location. As shown therein, the closest residential land uses to the intersection of Bristol Street and Memory Lane are three single family dwellings(SFD) and a; multifamily apartment complex. The first SFD lies 200 feet east of the Bristol Street centerline and the second SFD lies 175 feet west of the Bristol Street centerline. Both residences-lie adjacent to the Memory Lane right -of -way. The third SVD lies 175 feet south of the Memory ,lane centerline, adjacent to the Bristol right --of -way. A multi - family attached complex lies on the northwest corner of this intersection with the closest receptor located 2D0 feet north of the Memory Lane centerline and 225 feet west of the Bristol Street centerline. I The closest residential receptor to the intersection of Bristol at Seventeenth Street is an SFD which lies 650 feet north of the Seventeenth Street centerline and 20 feet east of the Bristol right -of -way. Rancho Santiago Community College is considered a sensitive reoept6i, and lies on the southwest corner of this intersection. A computer center in Building "A" lies 100 feet south of the Seventeenth Street centerline and 350 feet west of r the Bristol Street centerline. The music building lies 100 feet L west of the Bristol, Street centerline and 300 feet south of the Seventeenth Street centerline. rThe land uses surrounding the intersection of First at Bristol Street are generally commercial. However, a multifamily attached four -plex at 114, 116, 118, and 120 Bristol Street lies at the right -of -way, The nearest unit to the intersection lies 150 feet north of the First Street centerline. West of and adjacent to this lot lies the Johnson Chapel AME Church, 100 feet west of the 1 3 -11 75C -450 I b �I v TII� EL J - N 4 C I I d I <— I U - _- Ll 2 LL O i __ _i O J —J J I �I— 41 s�. „, z �L — =IJ • L IJ w Bristol right -of -way and 50 feet from the First Street right -of- way. The CANO Headstart State Preschool lies 250 feet north of the First Street centerline with the playground at the Bristol right -of -way. The closest SFD to this intersection lies 380 feet south of the First Street centerline at 10 feet from the Bristol right -of -way. At the Bristol /Warner intersection, the closest sensitive recep- tors are residential land Uses. One SFD lies 200 feet east of the Bristol Street centerline adjacent to the Warner Avenue right -of -way. A second SFD lies 500 feet north of the Warner Avenue centerline at 2205 Bristol Street. The Bristol Place multifamily apartment complex lies "00 feet west of the Bristol Street centerline on Warner Avenue. The Caline 3 modelling shows a substantial decrease in the 1 -hour and 8-hour average carbon monoxide concentrations at all recep- tors at the intersections analyzed as a result of the roadway widening proposed. The carbon monoxide concentrations with the project are lower than those with the No Project Alternative because the benefits of increased speeds mire than offset the detrimental effects of a wider cross - section. Currently, the background 1 -hour carbon monoxide concentration (18.0 ppm) is below the state and federal standards. However, the 8 -hour average background concentration (11.7 ppm) presently exceeds both state and federal standards. Year 2006 1 -hour background concentrations (14.6 ppm) are projected to be well below the relevant state and federal standards. Ambient 8-bour CO levels in the year 2006 (9.5 ppm) are expected to exceed both state and federal standards (9.0 ppm; see Appendix for methodolo- gy). At present, sensitive receptors in the project vicinity appear to experience carbon monoxide levels that exceed state and federal standards. _.Under future conditions with the project, sensitive land uses adjacent to the intersections analyzed will be setback far enough from the intersections to allow dispersion of pollu- tants and significantly reduce the number of receptors exposed to high concentrations of carbon monoxide. Since only "worst case" conditions were considered in Table 3 -4, carbon monoxide concen- trations during conditions which are more likely to occur should be less than those shown. rAir Quality Management Plan The 1982 Revision of the Final AQMP includes projections of future carbon monoxide levels in the South Coast Air Basin. The second highest 8 -hour average forecast is 9.5 ppm by the year 2000. Based upon these projections (which assume that the AQMP 1. The higher speeds resulting from more efficient traffic 3 -12 75C -452 attainment strategies are implemented), future background conc trations should be low enough to reduce the number of days ceeding the 8 -hour standard, in the project vicinity. The AQMP assumes a level of growth in population and employm r. consistent with the SCAG -82 forecast (based on a local juriso..Z_ tion's General Plan). The project proposal is consistent w t') the Circulation Element of the General Plan for Santa Ana, there- fore, the project appears to be consistent with the AQMP. Mo:^- over, the project will not adversely impact regional ambient it quality. It will improve several circulation performance chary= - teristics which are instrumental in determining vehicle emiss -3r rates and thus air pollutant emissions. On November 3, 1987, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued opinion vacating and ordering disapproval of Environmen _ Protection Agency's (EPAs) previous approval of ozone and cari monoxide (CO) control measures for the South Coast Air Bae (SCAB). The State Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone and CO SCAB was disapproved by EPA on January 22, 1988. This project in an area where there is not an approved SIP current containing any enforceable Transportation Control Measures (TCM-) for ozone and CO. Therefore, the conformity procedures of 23 C 77o do not apply to this project. A SIP revision has be developed for this area by the local air quality a; transportation planning agencies, but that STP revision has n been approved by EPA. The mobile emission analysis of the area air quality management plan, included in the proposed S revision is based on a Regional Transportation Plan (and Progra that includes this project. Therefore, it is expected that if SIP revision is approved for the project area, that this projec would conform to it. 3 -13 75C -453 3.3 Air Quality Mitigation Measures Measures selected for incorporation in the project include: 1. SCAQMD Rule 403 (see page 10 of the Appendix) will be ad- tiered to, insuring the clean up of construction - related dirt on approach routes to the site. 2. Adequate watering techniques will be employed to partially mitigate the impact of construction - generated dust particu- lates. 3. Construction equipment will be properly maintained and ser- viced to minimize exhaust emissions. 4. Consideration will be given to the provision of convenient bus shelters and bus turnouts along Bristol Street to encou- rage the use of public transportation. Additional mitigation measures offered for consideration and incorporation in the project if found to be feasible: 5. The use of energy efficient lighting along Bristol Street (low pressure sodium vapor lights) should be considered to reduce emissions at the power plant serving the area. (AQMP control measure N11) 5. Traffic signals along Bristol Street should be synchronized if feasible. (AQMP control measure K2) 7. Construction activities should be halted during Stage One and Stage Two smog alerts. 756454 I I R V cc 4.0 NOISE ANALYSIS 4.1 Existing Acoustic Environment Various noise fundamentals are introduced below followed by a discussion of (1) the harmful effects of noise, (2) guidelines for achieving land use compatibility with noise, and (3) the current and future noise environment in the vicinity of the proposed Bristol Street Widening Project. Fundamentals of Noise Noise levels are measured on a logarithmic scale in decibels which are then weighted and added over a 24 -hour period to re- flect not only the magnitude of the sound, but also its duration, frequency, and time of occurrence. In this manner, various acoustical scales and units of measurement have been developed. A- weighted decibels (dBA) approximate the subjective response of the human ear to a broad frequency noise source by discriminating against the very low and high frequencies of the audible spec- trum. They are adjusted to reflect only those frequencies audi- ble to the human ear. Examples of the decibel level of various noise sources are shown in Figure B. They include: the quiet rustle of leaves (10 dBA), a soft whisper (20 to 30 dBA), the hum of a small electric clock (40 dBA), ambient noise outdoors or a house kitchen (50 dBA), normal conversation (60 dBA), or a busy street (70 to SO dBA). Equivalent sound levels are not measured directly but are calcu- lated from sound pressure levels typically measured in A- weighted decibels (dBA). The equivalent sound level (Le q) is the constant level that, over a given time period, transmits the same amount of acoustic energy as the actual time- varying sound. Equivalent sound levels are the basis for both the day -night average sound level ) and the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) scales. Harmful Effects of Noise Approximately 20 million people in the United States currently have some degree of hearing loss. In many of these cases, expo- sures to very loud, impulsive or sustained noises caused damage to the inner ear which was substantial even before a hearing loss was actually noticed. To prevent the spread of hearing loss, a desirable goal would be to minimize the number of noise sources which expose people to sound levels above 70 decibels. ------------ - ---- 1. The Appendix provides additional information on the funda- mentals of noise (refer to pages 11 and 12). 75C Id- 456 1 1 I Figure 8 Typical Noise Levels of Familiar Sources Physically Painful Extremely Loud Discomforting Very Loud Loud Quiet Threshold of Hearing Endo Engineering dBA Sonic Boom Jet Takeoff at 200' Oxygen Torch Discotheque Motorcycle at 15' (Unmutiled) Power Mower at 3' Newspaper Press Freight Train at 50' Food Blender Electric Mixer, Alarm Clock Heavy Truck at 50' Busy Street Traffic at 50' Average Traffic at 100', Vacuum Cleaner at 10' Electric Typewriter at 10' Dishwasher at 10', Air Conditioning Unit at 15' Normal Conversation at 5' Typical Daytime Suburban Background Refrigerator at 10' Bird Calls Library Motion Picture Studio Leaves Rustling IBut hearing impairment is only one of the harmful effects of noise on people. Table 4 -1 summarizes the potentially harmful effects of noise on sensitive noise receptors. The Appendix provides additional details on physical and psychological re- sponses of humans to noise (see page 13). TABLE 4 -1 IHARMFUL EFFECTS OF NOISE ------------------------------------------------------------------ Effect Noise Levels At Which Harmful Effects Occur Prevention Or Interruption Of Sleep 35 - 45 dB(A) I Speech Interference 5o - 6o dB(A) Extra Auditory Physiological Effects 65 - 75 dB(A) Hearing Loss 75 -- 85 dB(A) ----------------------------------------------------------------- Source: Calif. Dept. of Public Health Report to 1971 Legislature Figure 9 illustrates how excessive background noises can reduce the amount and quality of verbal exchange and thereby impact education, family lifestyles, occupational efficiency and the quality of recreation and leisure time. Speech interference begins to occur at about 40 to 45 decibels and becomes severe at about 60 decibels. Community Response To Noise Approximately 10 percent of the population has such a low toler- ance for noise that they object to any noise not of their own making. Consequently, even in the quietest environment, some complaints will occur. Another 25 percent of the popul ?tion will not complain even in very severe noise environments. Thus, a variety of reactions can be expected from people exposed to any given noise environment. Despite this, the population as a whole can be expected to ex- hibit the following responses to changes in noise levels: an increase or decrease of 1.0 dBA cannot be perceived except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments; a 3.0 dBA increase is considered just noticeable outside of the laboratory; an increase of 5.0 dBA is often necessary before any noticeable 1. "Literature Survey for the FHA Contract on Urban Noise ", iii Report No.1460, BB&N, January, 1967. 4 -2 75C -458 %VX b` i «� changelin community response (i.e. complaints) would be ex- pected. Recent studies have shown that changes in long -term noise levels, measured in units of Ldn or CUED, are noticeable and that people respond. About 10 percent of the people exposed to traffic noise of 60 Ldn will report being highly annoyed with the noise, and each increase of one Ldn is associated with approximately 2 percent more people being highly annoyed. When traffic noise exceeds 60 Ldn or aircraft noise exceeds 55 Ldn, people begin complaining. Group and legal actions to stop the noise should be expected to begin at traffic Noise levels near 70 Ldn and air- craft noise levels near 65 Ldn. Land Use Compatibility with Noise CSome land uses are more tolerant of noise than others. For example, schools, hospitals, churches and residences are more sensitive to noise intrusion than commercial or industrial I activities. As ambient noise levels affect the perceived amenity noise impacts impair the economic health and growth potential of a community by reducing the area's desirability as a place to live, shop, and work. For this reason, land use compatibility with the noise environment is an important consideration in the planning and design process. There are two sets of noise criteria that apply to the Bristol Street widening project. These include the federal noise stan- dards (promulgated by the Federal Highway Administration) and the City of Santa Ana noise standards established in the Noise Ele- ment of the General Plan. Each set of criteria uses a different noise metric and a unique methodology to assess noise impacts. Federal Standards! The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has developed a series of design noise levels for various activity r categories which are expressed in terms of equivalent sound I{ levels (Leg) or L1p value5.3 These design noise levels are commonly used on federally funded projects or projects for which federal review or CalTrans review is anticipated. The FHWA design noise levels represent maximum values and incor- porate trade -offs between desirable and feasible noise levels {recognizing -that -in many cases lower noise exposures would 1. "Noise Manual "; Caltrans, 1980 and "National Cooperative t Highway Research Program Report 117 ", HRB, 1971. 2. State of California, Department of Health Services, Dr. Jerome Lukas, Memo dated July 11, 1984. 3. L1() values are noise levels exceeded ten percent of the time. They are commonly used to express peak hour noise levels (since peak hour traffic volumes are typically 10 percent of the daily traffic volume). r 1 750414 I result in even greater community benefits). The Federal -Aid Highway Program Manual, Volume 7, Chapter 7, Section 3 (FHPM 7.7.3) has established design noise levels for different activity categories. Residences, schools, and recreation areas are in activity Category a which specifies an exterior design noise level of 67 dBA (Leg). Most commercial areas are in activity Category C with a corresponding design noise level of 72 dBA (Leq). The design noise levels for all activity categories appear in Table 4-2 and are to be applied to: - those undeveloped lands for which development is planned, designed and programmed on the date of public knowledge of the highway or other federally funded construction project; - those activities and land uses in existence on the date of public knowledge of the project; and - those areas which have regular human use and in which a lowered noise level would be of benefit. The FHW A noise abatement criteria establish an exterior noise level for residential uses of 67 Leg. An interior level of 52 Leg applies where: (1) no exterior activity area is identified or (2) the exterior activities are either remote from the highway or shielded in some manner so that they will not be significantly affected by the noise (but the interior activities will). The criteria apply to private yard areas and assume that typical wood frame homes provide a 10 dB (outdoor to indoor) noise reduc- tion with windows open and a 20 dB reduction with windows closed. Under federal noise standards, traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted noise levels approach or exceed the noise abatement criteria, or when the predicted traffic noise levels substantial- ly exceed the existing noise levels. City Standards: The City of Santa Ana General Plan Noise Ele- ment, includes a series of goals, implementation policies, and implementation programs related to land use compatibility with noise. Table 4 -3 lists the "desirable maximum" and "acceptable maximum" noise levels for various land uses, as noted in the General Plan. As shown in Table 4 -3, the desirable maximum noise level for residential uses ranges from 55 to 65 CNEL depending upon density, and the maximum acceptable noise level ranges from 65 to 7o CNEL. Commercial and office uses have a desirable maximum noise level of 65 CNEL and a maximum acceptable noise level of 75 CNEL. Industrial land uses have the same maximum acceptable noise level as commercial uses (75 CNEL) but a higher desirable maximum noise level (70 CNEL). In addition to the noise compatibility guidelines specified in the Noise Element, the City has adopted a Noise Control Ordinance (August 21, 1978) which specifies maximum noise levels which can be generated at the property line of residences. churches, 750461 C Q' F I 75C -462 I I'•' +1 ! ro u +1 I b o i 0 1 ! W ro r, 0 ul I I I � F 7 i w I ro ro t 7 !~ I C I ro m I v E > 5 Io 0! I SI •-1 r 0 f M }.� m 5 � O I m C 1 0 b I •rl .N S + W t ro o I H 0 1 +1 I OD 1 .,S C yc1 o E R 0 1 C I R I � 7 1 t, R 1 1 x a I L I ry G I .O O I 07 I W O I .-a I 0 9 I ;1 I H I ry F I W H I y •-I taw I I r to I d' 1 II I U m 1 - W I H •0 V 4 -'0 C (a - °I i II k •,1 -.f 'O W 0 --4 O C 'C > O W C •'i to 6 i N N .-1 C >~ W m -A C -4 m I II I II m m 0) W W '� 0) 4j -1 m 'O m >r V a) U 01 a1 00 'O W m 0 7 O •.1 0 0, •.I G ro O r4 +1 rb H O 0f a O O I 11 ! II y a' 'H N •.V S4 ro •rl m A •� .4 ay u m A U ;~ tn;H I II I N C 4 ym U 0) N y m -.1 "i A W •.Ci b 0 II 0 .O •.U.I I-Wi A ro V 4' 6' W m m X J1 ro o N O > O N -k Q. 7+to3 44 4 p ++mr N G al 11 z E a0 m E m d II W•.a p W a xl I U If C ro 11 •.� .-I •.i rf !� 0) U }1 m ..7 .-I m W U ro t, 41 O U C, •1I 10 14 m >. II 0l d 0 V 10 u A r y II ?�> =1 ((0 4J 00) •a .•1 I -.f 11 41 14 C ••i •-r m ro m to u 41 .4 04 PL 04 C m 1, IS .i m ro IO O ,0 m Sir I U II W b y 0 7 ro ••E O .i 14 G WIC W I Q II I 0/ G it 0> N N m m p 0 III I i 0 W > u •.i p..v 1 � N� p ° 0) m I•I m ,0 A d Qm OO b u 0! > O' 0 II U U m m N Sa F >� m C 0) "Ui Q m 0) 10 F w i+ ii 3u0.mm °OCO, 0RQ Ste+ a0 ax Sroi mA cG 01 $4 U+ 0 •r•1 U a 0 O NW ° ,a-' .0 U t+ t H II .,i ••t A m F •"� W N 1.+ U W O, 0 ro O. O C +1 H I u N C� •� 0) ..1 •.1 0) C A O 0 F4 C R1 01 m G4 N O H I N II m w u C 7 ru .,a 01 ,L IA O ro Ir V A ro A T - m N 4j R p A U A L m a1 A. m 0 v U I II m u %4 m+ •Cf m C° 0i Sui 3 4 W "a 0) .-I y IC ►7 I II 0) W ro N ro 01 -� k 01 ro y, QI m FWi ..V 07 U 1 If ° •C1 �%1 A, 7 0 m a E d -.ro{ 7 C L ►7 1 11 m 10 ro y1 $a U •.r U m 10 U +1 0 0 y~ N H 'a I II +1 l4 C O .' m u > 41 7 • 4 .'1 w O, >w U O U O 117 0) O1 +1 X N •.i a, .� I.s .-i . C1. v 01 * 0 fA 1 11 rd m S., m m i. 41 +1 . J A m OUR > 41 H v m F H ll w %+ 0) m TJ m t0 cc U 7 7 0 N to O C W U i EF 41 C 01 M CL 0, U m tT 0, m 0.4 A U W ro C4 m "OL 11 tN $ I m II C7 rl _ N I> ,C II m en I m to R7 C ! ,4 011 $4 la H 1 �4 r -4 H 0 0 O O In O 1 N O I m ,.r 11 l0 •.V n •.a n •.i In •H mi m 11 m 0 m 0 i z 1 t l x x x .4 c 1 F 11 m 0) m N m 0) r M •'1 I C +•- 11 a— 10 I 10 -- t m I t •-1 C)" n n N I N w a in `o r In li I A II t li t !l 1 u I J> II I 11 lr li I •> O II > 11 0 1 -*+ N as Q m U A w r u +I u I U ro It 1 Q V I! 75C -462 I I'•' +1 ! ro u +1 I b o i 0 1 ! W ro r, 0 ul I I I � F 7 i w I ro ro t 7 !~ I C I ro m I v E > 5 Io 0! I SI •-1 r 0 f M }.� m 5 � O I m C 1 0 b I •rl .N S + W t ro o I H 0 1 +1 I OD 1 .,S C yc1 o E R 0 1 C I R I � 7 1 t, R 1 1 x a I L I ry G I .O O I 07 I W O I .-a I 0 9 I ;1 I H I ry F I W H I y •-I taw I I r to I d' I schools, and hospitals, as well as the procedure for identifying and resolving noise violations. The amount of exterior noise that can legally be generated is 55 dBA between 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM, and 50 dBA between 10 PM and 7 AM. Land Use Residential - Low Density - Medium Density - High Density Schools Commercial, Office TABLE 4 -3 USE COMPATIBILITY WITH NOISE ---------------- - - ---- Desirable Max. CNEL 55 dBA 60 dBA 65 dBA • 65 dBA Acceptable Max. CNEL 65 dBA 65 dBA 70 dBA 70 dBA 75 dBA Industrial 70 dBA 75 dBA --------------------------------------------------------- Source: City of Santa Ana General Plan Noise Element. On -Site Noise Measurements Ambient noise levels in the project area are currently affected primarily by motor vehicle noise emanating from Bristol Street. The project site is far removed from public, military, and pri- vate airports, railroads, and other significant noise generators. However, the project area is subject to the sight and sound of aircraft utilizing the John Wayne /Orange County Airport. Fifteen noise measurements were taken by Endo Engineering (Decem- ber 1986) using the system and procedures discussed on page 14 of the Appendix at thirteen representative locations along Bristol 1 Street within the APEI. The measurement locations are illus- trated in Figures 10 and 11. The measurement sites were selected as being representative of the noise sensitive receptors nearest to the roadway and there- fore most likely to be affected by the proposed project. All of ■ the measurement sites are classified as Category B activity areas Iin Table 4 -2, where exterior design noise levels of 67 dBA (Leg) apply- The measurement sites include a high school track /field, a commu- nity college auditorium, two elementary school playgrounds, two rmultifamily attached dwellings and seven single family residen- t 4 -6 75C -463 N b O_ m n r � � G _ 6 LLI W T > — ��t N � � BnV ti3p3 IL (n 'YJ L 16 1(1NlbM —rte — _ N E a nnr auil _ G 1 s 3 NN I dd__ _ — > y is 1ON193110 N anv tl9FlNlaa I 16IIWtlD � s 16 d011618 $1r h •O L is H]WA \'tl • � �SO 3Atl �— In2tl ONb 16 OIIVIH'J ltl j� 16 8jA11101 N011ll b',1 1S ONbIHOIN ,IIILLllllll Illlllll� ld OOOMN3lO 19 HOOUG L ld N]O4VV =' \ 0Wb s Noeeno 3NNtl 16 J �I _311Ntl 1S BAY N 300 VJaW ld N• ^r3a0UlU]0 '15 I. ti m 1 =399Ntl o N J = BAY UJNtlVM a C W 3Atl 3HIII01IM ap V N O N LLQY N �g w W d N_ ry O � z Z E Fo rte. ELIE- 3X11 1 �X. LIC d W c m v c in L -L G ji _ -- I J LL�I c �y N G w 0 a �i V ces. Sites 1 through 12 lie adjacent to Bristol Street, whereas site 13 is one lot removed and therefore a second line receptor. All measurements were located with respect to the existing right - of -way. Single family residences at sites 1, 5, and 6 have front yards facing with direct driveway access onto Bristol Street. Both multifamily residential sites (3 &7) and single family sites B, 9, 12, & 13 take access from side streets and have front yards facing away from Bristol Street. Traffic on Bristol Street was free flowing during all measure- ments with the exception of sites adjacent to major intersections where vehicle delay was significant. Measurement 7 is considera- bly affected by this situation due to its proximity to the inter- section and location adjacent to the southbound approach lane. Also note that noise levels midblock are significantly greater than levels closer to the intersections since higher travel speeds are prevalent and noise generated from vehicles is highly speed dependent. Figure 3 depicts the existing land uses adjacent to Bristol Street. Table 4 -4 provides the ambient noise measurements at each site in decibels on the A- weighted scale, using the Leq noise descriptor. It also includes comments on the type of adjacent land use. j Ten minute noise level recordings were used to represent the maximum noise level for a typical weekday evening peak hour period. Traffic counts were made during the noise measurements and the maximum Leq values shown in Table 4 -4 include adjustments to reflect the peak hour traffic conditions. Measurement site 1 was located in the front yard of a single family residence. This residence lies midblock on Bristol Street, 200 feet north of Santa Clara Avenue and is affected by changes in noise level due to the signal at this intersection. The measurement was taken 15 feet from the Bristol Street right - of -way and 5 feet from the front entryway of the house. This residence is representative of 10 other houses in the vicinity. Measurement site 2 was located in the playground area of the Santiago Elementary School. The playground lies adjacent to Bristol Street and has full street exposure. There is an exis- ting chain link fence separating the school grounds from the roadway. This fence provides no noise attenuation and is broken at two ends of the property for pedestrian access. The closest classroom to Bristol Street lies 275 feet from the Bristol Street right -of -way. Measurement site 3 was selected at a multifamily detached dwel- ling complex in a common recreational area. The site was adja- cent to a gazebo in an outdoor activity area, between two of the 75C =466 TABLE 4 -4 NOISE MEASUREMENTS AT SENSITIVE RECEPTORS ----------------------------------------------------------------- Site Leql Time of Day Date Comments (dBA) (PM) (1986) «1 71 5:00 12/17 Front yard of midblock SFD. 2 70 4:40 12/17 Elementary school playground. 3 66 5:17 12/17 Recreational area MFD. 4 67 5:40 12/17 Community College auditorium. 5 72 6:00 12/30 Front yard of SFD, full street exposure. 6 72 6:07 12/17 Front porch of midblock SFD. 7 73 5:25 12/30 MFA at Bristol R0ll 8 68 4:48 12/30 Corner SFD 9 64 5:03 12/30 Rear yard of SFD; 5' block wall. 10 71 3:15 12/18 Track field at high school; 3.5' above grade. 11 70 3:57 12/18 Elementary school playground. 12 70 5:40 12/18 Front yard of corner SFD. 12A 63 4:45 12/18 Rear yard of corner SFD; wooden fence. 13 63 4:57 12/18 Front yard of second line receptor. 13A 54 5:25 12/18 Back yard of second line receptor. l 1. Adjusted to reflect maximum one hour Leq values based upon the peak hour traffic volume compared to the traffic volume during the noise measurement period. 75C42(67 Ifront residential units and 39 feet west of the Bristol Street right -of -way. A chain link fence, gated for pedestrian access, r exists at the right -of -way. This noise measurement is represen- ttative of the noise level at 33 residences on Bristol Street between Santa Clara Avenue and Seventeenth Street. Measurement site 4 was taken on the Rancho Santiago Community College Campus adjacent to the auditorium. The site was 70 feet from the Bristol right -of -way. A three foot block wall at the �j right -of -way provides some noise attenuation but allows complete line of sight exposure to truck exhaust stacks. This block wall is also broken directly in front of the measurement site to allow for pedestrian access. The noise level measured at this site also reflects volumes on Seventeenth Street adjacent to this intersection. Measurement site 5 was taken in the front yard of a midblock SFD at 5 feet from the Bristol Street right -of -way. This front yard area has full exposure to the roadway. The noise level at this residence is expected to be representative of noise levels at 16 l similar residences along Bristol Street in the project vicinity. 4 Measurement site 6 was selected at an SFD that is a "worst case" receptor in this area. The site lies 3 feet from the Bristol Street right -o£ -way at a point 80 feet south of Seventh Street. 1 The measurement was taken adjacent to the front porch. This outdoor activity area has full exposure to Bristol Street. Measurement site T was taken adjacent to a 4 -unit multifamily attached dwelling at 114 Bristol Street. The residence lies at the right -of -way and an outdoor activity area is only possible in the side yard area. This area receives full street exposure from Bristol and First Street since it is separated from First Street by a vacant lot. The site was located 60 feet from the First Street right -of -way. The intersection has a phased signal and traffic queues in front of this residence. Measurement site 8 was selected in the front yard of a single family dwelling on the southeast corner of Bristol Street at Raymar Avenue. The measurement was taken 11 feet from the Bristol Street right -of -way adjacent to a front porch. This residence is similar to eleven other houses in the project vici- nity. Measurement site 9 was taken in the rear yard of a corner house at Richland Avenue and Bristol Street. The site was located at an outdoor activity area on the patio in the rear yard which lies adjacent to Bristol street. The site was 30 feet from the Bristol Street right -of -way and 5 feet from the rear entrance. The rear yard is separated from the roadway by a 5 -foot high block wall. This noise level measurement was assumed to be repre- sentative of sound levels in the vicinity that are currently attenuated by a 5-foot block wall. 750468 Measurement site 10 was selected at the Mater Dei High School track field which lies adjacent to Bristol Street, just south of [ Edinger Avenue. The track is raised 3.5 feet above grade and lies seven feet from the right -of -way. The measurement was taken when this field was in use to reflect the greatest noise impact on sensitive receptors. The measurement site was located at the edge of the track and separated from the roadway by a chain link fence. A bus stop on Bristol Street, located directly in front of this track/field, will contribute to the ambient noise level at this site. Measurement site 11 was selected at the Jose Andres Sepulveda Elementary School on the west side of Bristol Street, opposite Mater Dei High School. The site was at a playground for younger children, situated between a chain link fence at the right -of -way and the school media center. The measurement was taken 16 feet from the right -of -way. The media center, the closest building to the roadway, is situated 62 feet from the right -of -way. Current plans include the relocation of this playground as a safety precaution (to increase the distance to Bristol Street). Measurement sites 12 and 12A are located at an SFD on the north- ` east corner of Bristol at St. Gertrude. Site 12 was taken in the I front yard, 18 feet from the Bristol Street right -of -way. There is a stop sign on St. Gertrude in front of this site where vehicles queue during the peak hour. Site 12A was situated in the rear yard at an exterior living area, 30 feet from the right -of -way. The yard is enclosed with a 5.5 foot wooden fence I that provides some noise attenuation. Measurement sites 13 and 13A are located at an SFD which is one house removed from the corner of Bristol at St. Gertrude. This residence is considered a second line receptor since the corner house provides shielding which would be eliminated if the house was removed after right --of -way acquisition. Site 13 is located in the front yard at 70 feet from the Bristol Street right -of- way. Site 13A is located in the rear yard at an exterior activi- ty area 84 feet from the Bristol Street right -of -way. A 5.5 foot 4 high wooden fence separates this rear yard from the corner resi- dential lot. From Table 4 -3, it can be seen that noise levels at measurement sites 13 and 13A are significantly lower than Levels at the first line receptor. Noise Modeling Results Noise from motor vehicles is generated by the engine vibrations, the interaction between the tires and the road, and the exhaust system. Reducing the speed of motor vehicles reduces the noise exposure of listeners inside the vehicle and those located adja- cent to the roadway. The highway traffic noise prediction model developed by the Federal Highway Administration (RD --77 --108) and currently being 750.4669 applied throughout the nation was used to evaluate current noise conditions at various points along Bristol Street within the Area of Potential Environmental Impact (APEI). This model accepts various parameters including: the traffic volume; vehicle mix and speed; and roadway geometry in computing equivalent noise levels during typical daytime, evening, and nighttime hours. The resultant noise levels can then be weighted, summed over 24 hours, and output as the CNEL value. Various CNEL contours are subsequently located through a series of computerized iterations l designed to isolate the critical contour locations. Noise contours were developed as a planning tool for local agencies. Tables 4 -5 and 4 -6 provide the predicted current CNEL and Leg levels adjacent to Bristol Street in the APEI. Assuming a noise reduction with distance factor of 3.0 dBA with each doubling, and assuming no adjustment for local attenuation (houses, buildings, noise barriers, etc.) the distance to various noise contours used for land use compatibility purposes have also been determined and shown. TABLE 4 -5 CURRENT EXTERIOR CNEL EXPOSURE ADJACENT TO BRISTOL STREET Roadway Link- -- -- - Current CNEL at- -Dist. to Contour -(ft)2 (Speed) A.D.T. 75 ft. 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA I Bristol Street (35,40 mph) -N /O Warner Avenue 33,400 70 78 232 729 -N /O Edinger Avenue 31,900 69 57 161 502 -N %O McFadden Avenue 35,700 69 62 179 562 -N /O Bishop Street 40,000 70 68 201 630 -N /O First Street 35,500 69 62 178 559 -N /O Santa Ana Blvd. 35,500 69 62 178 559 -N /O Fifth Street 36,700 69 61 183 577 -N /O Civic Center Drive 37,300 59 62 186 587 -N /O Washington Street 39,400 70 68 198 620 -N /O Seventeenth Street 42,800 71 95 296 934 -N /O ------------------------------------------------------------------ Santa Clara Avenue 48,600 72 110 336 1060 1. A.D.T. means 1987 average daily two -way traffic volume. 2. All distances are measured from the centerline. All contours ignore localized shielding effects. The FHWA RD- 707 -108 noise model predicts noise levels based upon average traffic volumes, speeds, roadway width, truck mix, and distance to observers. Noise measurements reflect the actual conditions on one particular day at the location monitored. 75C470 Noise measurements can be strongly affected by weather, placement of traffic control devices, design and condition of the roadway, and topography. A comparison of the noise model predictions and the noise measurements can provide additional information about the affect of localized conditions on traffic noise. ------------------------------------------------------------------- I. PM peak hour 2 -way vehicle volume in vehicles per hour. 2. Distance was measured from the Bristol Street centerline. All Icontours ignore localized shielding effects. I 7501471 TABLE 4 -6 CURRENT EXTERIOR LEG EXPOSURE ADJACENT TO BRISTOL STREET ■ ■■ ----------------------------------------------------------------- Roadway Pea Leq at Leq Contour (ft)2 (Speed) VPH 75 £t, 67 dBA 62 dBA Bristol Street (35,40 mph) -N 10 Warner Avenue 2672 70 136 424 -N /O Edinger Avenue 2552 66 96 293 -N /O McFadden Avenue 2856 69 107 327 -N /O Bishop Street 3200 69 119 367 -N 10 First Street 2840 69 106 326 -N /O Santa Ana Blvd. 2840 69 106 326 -N 10 Fifth Street 2936 69 108 336 -N 10 Civic Center Drive 2984 69 110 342 -N /O Washington Street 3152 69 117 361 -N 10 Seventeenth Street 3424 71 172 542 -N10 Santa Clara Avenue 3888 72 197 616 ------------------------------------------------------------------- I. PM peak hour 2 -way vehicle volume in vehicles per hour. 2. Distance was measured from the Bristol Street centerline. All Icontours ignore localized shielding effects. I 7501471 4.2 Acoustic Impact Analysis Short -Term Acoustic Impacts Short -term acoustic impacts are those associated with construc- tion activities necessary to implement the Bristol Street Widen- ing Project. These noise levels will be higher than the ambient noise levels in the project area today but will subside once construction is complete. Construction is expected to begin in the year 1969, with construction activities occurring over a period of 6 months. Two types of noise impact should be considered during the con- struction phase. First, the transport of workers and equipment to the construction site will incrementally increase noise levels along the roadways leading to and from each specific construction site. The increase should not exceed 1.0 dB(A), when averaged over a 24 -hour period, and should therefore be an inaudible increase to noise receptors located along the roadways utilized for this purpose. Second, the noise generated by the actual construction activities at each construction site should be evaluated. Construction activities are carried out in discrete steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment, and consequently its own noise charac- teristics. These various sequential phases will change the char- acter of the noise levels surrounding the construction site as work progresses. Despite the variety in type and size of con- struction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow noise ranges to be categorized by work phase. Figure 12 illustrates typical construction equipment noise ranges at a distance of 50 feet. The earth moving equipment category includes excavating machinery (backhoes, bulldozers, shovels, trenchers, front loaders, etc.) and highway building equipment (compactors, scrapers, graders, pavers, etc.). Typical operating cycles may involve one or two minutes of full power operation followed by three to four minutes at lower power settings. Noise levels at 50 feet from earthmov- ing equipment range from 73 to 96 dB(A). The Environmental Protection Agency has found that the noisiest equipment types operating at construction sites typically range from 88 to 91 dB(A) at 50 feet. Although noise ranges were found to be similar for all construction phases, the erection phase (laying sub -base and paving) tended to be less noisy. Noise levels varied from 79 dB(A) to 89 dB(A) (energy average) at 50 feet during the erection phase of construction. City Standards: The construction noise impact to the adjacent noise sensitive land uses will be a temporary nuisance. The City of Santa Ana Noise ordinance from the Municipal Code requires that construction activities take place only during weekday day- 4_1 i i r r r I. I �r r Front Loader NNL�gm ■1 Ell"imJEN �S_ t —ImErw"', Concrete Pumps W���N M"'M MotorCrane Pumps Generators .. jM� WREN ri i time hours (7 AM to 8 PM, excluding federal holidays) when noise intrusion is less disruptive. The local noise ordinance speci- fies which hours each day construction activities can occur. Federal Standards: The "Federal Highway Program Manual" (FHPM 7- 7-3 requires that land use activities which may be affected by highway construction noise be identified. In addition, the mea- sures needed in the plans and specifications to minimize or eliminate construction noise impacts must be determined. Howe- ver, no specific guidelines are available for assessing the significance of construction noise impacts. The 1981 California Standard Specifications (Section 7- 1.01N, Section 42 -1.02, and Section 42 -2.02 (shown on page 17 of the Appendix) and Standard Caltrans Special Provisions Section 5 -1 (Sound Control Requirements) may be referenced in project plans and specifications when they apply to minimize or eliminate construction noise impacts. A diagram illustrating various con- struction noise control strategies developed by Caltrans is in- cluded on page 18 of the Appendix. Long -Term Acoustic Impacts Daily traffic data for future conditions with and without the project was provided by Willdan Associates. The findings of the traffic study indicate that daily traffic volumes would not change with the proposed project versus the no- project alterna- tive. However, traffic congestion along Bristol Street would de- crease, and a consistent set of improvement standards would also improve safety and other operational characteristics. Future noise levels within the APEI were projected by employing the FHWA RD -77 -108 Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model. Noise contours were developed as a planning tool for local agencies. Noise emission levels were obtained from National Reference Ener- gy Mean Emission Levels as a Function of Speed (per paragraph 14 of FHPM 7 -7 -3). The posted speed limit was assumed to be repre- sentative of future mid -block conditions with the proposed pro- ject and the no- project scenarios as a "worst case" assumption. A 2.58 percent truck a mix was assumed along Bristol Street as shown on page 15 of the Appendix. _ C� Standards: Table 4 -7 shows the community noise equivalent levels which can be expected adjacent to each roadway link within the APEI for design year (2006) conditions with the proposed project and the no- project alternative. As shown, future noise levels adjacent to Bristol Street will be higher with the pro- posed project than with the "no- build" alternative because of the wider pavement width. The increase would amount to 1 d8A or less. The unattenuated 70 CNEL contour will fall between 66 and 130 feet from the centerline of Bristol Street in the design year 7 5C4 t4 without the proposed improvements. With the proposed project, the unattenuated 70 CNEL contour will fail between 70 and 132 1 feet from the centerline. The unattenuated 65 CNEL contour will fall between 192 and 404 feet from the centerline, depending upon the link and scenario under consideration. TABLE 4 -7 FUTURE EXTERIOR CNEL EXPOSURE ADJACENT TO BRISTOL STREET - Roadway Link A.D T.1 - CNEL a+2 - Dist. to Contour (ft)2 (mph) 75 ft. 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA No Project -(Year 2006) Bristol Street (35,40 mph) -N 10 Warner Avenue 40,100 71 91 278 875 -N 10 Edinger Avenue 38,300 69 66 192 603 -N /O McFadden Avenue 42,800 70 72 214 674 -N 10 Bishop Street 48,000 70 80 240 755 --N /O First Street 42,600 70 72 213 671 -N /O Santa Ana Boulevard 42,600 70 72 213 671 -N /O Fifth Street 44,000 70 72 220 692 -N /O Civic Center Drive 44,800 70 73 223 705 -N /O Washington Street 47,300 70 79 237 744 -N10 Seventeenth Street 51,400 72 114 355 1121 -N /O Santa Clara Avenue 58,300 73 130 403 1272 Proposed Project- (Year 2006)3 Bristol Street (35,40 mph) -N 10 Warner Avenue 40,100 71 95 279 875 --N /O Edinger Avenue 38,300 70 70 194 603 McFadden Avenue 42,800 70 76 216 674 -N /O Bishop Street 48,000 71 64 241 756 -N /0 First Street 42,600 70 76 215 671 -N /O Santa Ana Boulevard 42,600 70 76 215 671 -N /O Fifth Street 44,000 70 78 222 693 -N /c> Civic Center Drive 44,800 70 79 226 706 -N /0 Washington Street 47,300 71 83 238 745 ' -N /0 Seventeenth Street 51,400 72 118 356 1122 -N 10 Santa Clara Avenue 58,300 73 132 404 1272 ---------------------'----------------------------------------------- 1. A.D.T. means year 2006 average daily two -way traffic volume. 2. All distances are measured from the centerline. All contours ignore localized shielding effects. 3. Proposed project values are identical for all three alterna- tives. 75G =ifT5 t r Federal Standards: Table 4 -8 details the future design year maximum hourly equivalent noise levels adjacent to each roadway link with and without the proposed widening. Under Federal noise standards, traffic noise impacts occur when predicted noise le- vels approach or exceed the noise abatement criteria, or when predicted traffic noise levels substantially exceed the existing noise levels. TABLE 4 -8 FUTURE EXTERIOR LEO MCPOSU" ADJACENT TO BRISTOL STREET ---------------------------------------- -------- ------------ - - - - - Roadway (mph) Peal Leg at Leq Contour (ft) 2 VPH1 75 ft. 2 67 dBA 62 d9A No Project -(Year 2006) Bristol Street (35,40 mph) -N /O Warner Avenue -N10 Edinger Avenue -N 10 McFadden Avenue -N(O Bishop Street -N /O First Street -N 10 Santa Ana Boulevard -N 10 Fifth Street -N 10 Civic Center Drive -N /0 Washington Street -N /O Seventeenth Street -N 10 Santa Clara Avenue Proposed Project -(Year 20003 Bristol Street (35,40 mph) 3208 71 163 508 3064 69 114 351 3424 70 127 392 3840 70 141 440 3408 70 126 390 3408 70 126 390 3520 70 129 403 3584 70 131 410 3784 70 139 433 4112 72 207 651 4664 72 235 739 -N /O Warner Avenue 3208 -N /O Edinger Avenue 3064 -N /O McFadden Avenue 3424 -N /O Bishop Street 3840 -N /O First Street 3408 -N /O Santa Ana Boulevard 3408 -N /O Fifth Street 3520 -N 10 Civic Center Drive 3584 -N /O Washington Street 3784 -N /O Seventeenth Street 4112 -N /O Santa Clara Avenue 4664 - - - - 1. PM peak hour 2 -way vehicle 2. Measured from the Bristol ignore localized shielding 3. Proposed project values are tives. 71 164 509 69 116 352 70 129 393 70 143 440 70 128 391 70 128 391 70 132 404 70 134 411 70 141 434 72 209 652 73 -------------------- 236 739 - - - - -- volume in vehicles per hour. Street centerline. All contours effects. identical for all three alterna- 7501476 With the no -build alternative, the unattenuated 67 dBA contours will be located between 114 feet and 235 feet from the center- line. The unattenuated 62 dBA contours will be located between 351 feet and 739 feet from the Bristol Street centerline. With the build alternative, the unattenuated 67 dBA contours will be located between 116 and 236 feet from the centerline. The unattenuated 62 dBA contours will be between 352 and 739 feet from the centerline. The 62 dBA contour locations are provided within Table 4 -8 so that interior noise levels can be determined for comparison to the FHWA design criteria. Since FHWA allows a 10 dBA noise reduction factor for buildings with windows open, the location of the 62 Leq contour provides the point where interior noise levels of 52 dBA will occur when windows are open for those situations where there are no exterior activity areas and interior noise criteria apply. Sensitive Receptor Analysis The fifteen noise measurement locations (on thirteen lots) were analyzed for future noise impacts with three project alternatives and the no- project alternative ( see Figures 10 and 11 following page 4 -6). For each of the project alternatives, exterior noise levels were calculated for the no mitigation condition and with 6 -foot and B -foot barriers. In addition, the barrier height for a 5 dB attenuation over the no mitigation condition (minimum 6- foot wall), and the barrier height required to break line -of- sight to a 11.5 -foot high diesel exhaust stack was determined. After the widening of Bristol Street, some of the measurement locations will fall within the right -of -way for some of the project alternatives. Calculations of future noise levels were not included for alternatives where the noise impacted structure is being removed. Since the front edge of the residential dwel- lings adjacent to measurement site f7 are on the right -of -way for alternative 2, there is no room for a noise barrier, and no barrier attenuation calculations were made. Finally, barrier attenuation calculations were not made for "no- mitigation" noise levels at or below 63 Leq. The noise impact from Bristol Street on residential areas falls into several categories. Many dwellings front onto Bristol Street with access directly onto Bristol Street, or with access to an alley in the back. The front yard noise impacts could be mitigated by constructing a barrier at the right -of -way, however pedestrian or pedestrian and vehicular access may be restricted by construction of a contiguous noise barrier. Dwellings with the side yard facing Bristol Street typically have front yard impacts. However, construction of a 6 -foot block wall protecting the front yard may reduce the visibility of motorists 75C -477 4 -17 approaching Bristol Street and may also have aesthetic impacts. Several dwellings with side yards facing Bristol Street have rear yards enclosed by chain link fencing. The noise impacts on these rear yard activity areas will be similar to front yard impacts, but access conflicts will not be a consideration. Construction of a perimeter 6 -foot block wall at the right -of -way would reduce noise levels to acceptable levels at these units. Several alternatives include taking a portion of school activity fields or playgrounds. For alternatives where the noise measure - ment location was within the right -of -way, the measurements were adjusted to reflect conditions ten feet behind the future right - of -way. Construction of a perimeter 6 -foot block wall at the right -of -way would reduce noise impacts to acceptable levels at outdoor activity areas. Second line receptors (ie. receptors impacted when abutting structures are removed) are often of concern adjacent to free- ways, but are generally not severely impacted in local roadway widening projects. Measurements at sites 12, 12A, 13, and 13A I were made to assess the front and back yard impacts on a typical worst -case second line receptor. A field review of the sensitive noise receptors located adjacent to Bristol Street within the project area indicates exceedances of federal exterior noise criteria for approximately 167 front yard activity areas. Of these dwellings, 68 front onto Bristol Street with direct vehicular access, and 99 have vehicular access to a rear alley or to a side street. In addition, 7 of these dwellings have noise impacts in rear yard activity areas (six yards surrounded by chain link and one with no fencing). Table 4 -9 summarizes the noise levels at the fifteen typical locations evaluated along Bristol Street. The maximum one -hour equivalent noise levels for a 5.0 -foot receptor are shown for several scenarios including: 1. Existing noise levels at the outdoor activity area (account- ing for local attenuation by existing noise barriers), 2. Future design year noise levels without project implementa- tion (no project alternative), and 3. Future design year noise levels with the 3 proposed alterna- tives, including mitigation in the form of a 6 -foot or 8- foot barrier at the right -of -way. Also included are the barrier heights necessary to provide a 5 dBA attenuation from the "no- mitigation" condition, and the height to break the line -of -sight between a 5.0 -foot receptor and a 11.5 foot truck exhaust stack located at the equivalent source to r barrier distance). 75CPA- 78 I a N E ti y z W y O ON W fa t0 6 >1 N H am 4 W y M 0 z r-1N -- �Ow PQ +� roux In I I I _ I I N W G1 1 1 y a I 1 x m — I I I I w I I Q1 I s Cj 1 s4 , 44 w CI I fro aI 1 m to �- I I • +I I 1 N 17 I 0— I z :. 1 N +1 I > U !-- I +j 7 I 1 r O G c >a a I u a -- I Wi z 1 � I I I '-I m> C GJ -- •P a a Y W ' N al a x .W w o z G i E O I N •.1 1 54 1 4 7 ro I N U ro 0 I N a I $ I 51f1 V 1 I 5 V 1 I� I I co I m I I I I I to tD I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 I i I I l l l l 11 I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I 1 1 I W I tD I I I I r tD W I I W N I V I!! i l 5 5 >♦ .may v v wroa 0 ro ro ro 0 W Q) m m 0 0 00000 00 x IV N Q7 0 QI Q1 Gf N N . .i Q1 N 0 G7 into 04 to C4 III a m, Z io tD a: a: tD CO I I ! 1 1 1 1 I I z 1 l ! 1 5 1 5 l l I I 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I ! I I I I I I r I I U r W I 1 1 1 1 to to I r tD I I I l l t l I V I I I I I I I I 14 1 i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I l ! 1 I l Im rf r ltl' C 0 r-OC N NC� V' Nrl '-I It IT nr-0Iz r- r- r, w 0 r- rr 0 le -+O r- r- N Nm CO--t - 0 C m m T r- I- tD tD r- r- r` tD tD r- 1- r- tD 0 L Q � Nm-TIn to r- m O. -INNm m 75C -479 I C N 1 O U c if 0 U ro 1 b C +' Ch 0 ro N +J C ! N ro I r1 Il1 I i d ro Q I 0 O..i N ..C-1 N c ,C 4 i H m Gl O j W ti y 54 G N 0 I m tH I4 U I L _ I Gra f m b r0 A tT rU ro Lf) 0 b .a y > 0 y a 0 ro4-1 +j ; 7 I Q7 I N 5r Q1 W 4J IT CI 41 W .i I C 4y 0 C •� 5 provOw�N 1 J Sa A W W 74 m a 1 ro 10 4-1 Q7 aj W I 7 •-I rQ Qf G 0 1 C N .rl W -H Q G I C N ro v 1 +i 0 Noi 1 ++ 044 41 r- sa 0 I ro p m 0 C sa m 0 >1 R >1 ro U ro ro 3�,y "�mmo°C0 m ^ I� 4j C ,� I*4 N x ,1 6r -mil U I 0 4' n -,q 14 , Q) a$g4J0 I N b N I ro'�A.c d� m I Q/ 1 .o � �r v � v •a O4 W. C y.l 3 N N w + l4 I rn N ro Q) N � off" w 0 �4° y S+ Q ro O 4 p u ro 4 it p 3•4J 3wvE•.N+� I b N p I Gl C _..1 U U 0 U: ❑ C C 1 .0 0 ,rn..i O N O 4 N m G 1f1 .1 t <I' y c u° QI I 67 F r to CA 0 C-4 a m 43 a �7 H F H IA w -- y � ao WN JV 11 In H h] m H 7. I 1! r —N �• u tq O W II Ira --II k N II II I al + • II 1 �£5 II 1 In n I II 1 n W e N x co lu n I N •^ fl I •�i4 O'11 � W a 11 � 1i I M II I +J II 1 m [I I 0 a II I z -- II m " 3044 -H y ,nix y W N a xW„ >4 4J p y w r u N .N 04 Z -- I 1 I +j I C I E C I y 0 I � L I N ro I U f I va I � I I Ln In I I In I to I I I I C I tT M1 I ! M1 I lfl M1 M1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l I I I I I I I I I I I I I- I -- I r I- 1 3 I I k I b b a I I I 1 FI la N 61 N N N 41 7 7 7 0W E�o ko E E In 0 i0%D 10 a as z z A4 a 0)Gc 1 m i Nln 1 1 1 m�mzzz02 t4 I I I I I I I I I I l i I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I E I I I I I I I I E f t I I I I I I I I 1 co m 10 1 IDI- I I I h I C OIDmmM Ln 1 va 1 ID I- I 15v I rr -���In I ILn IV1 I I I ! Im I I W 1 0 E i l E w r, 1 1 0 1 I ! 1 I ! I ! t I ! I 1 3 I I 1 I I I I I 1 I [ I 1 I R3 I I I l 1 1 u7 t0 I �O 4J I I %C i0 I I W I I 1 7 1 rO I I b 1 I L4 1 N I I Gl aJ N N N (k7 v C v 7 N N > N > N > O 0 > U, - 1-1 > > q Q' E °E� E Du Eko ° EE °a a a a a wam as m C C I 1 1 O 0 i I O I m I N l N 0 1 z m a[ I N Z I iD 50 I 5D C I iD 11 I 1 I C I I r k I i ! ro 1 1 1 I r 1 E U I I I I i I I I 1 l V 5 V I 1 V i V 5 I ! 1 1 I I I 1 0 1 co I .-1 tT I m 0 0 I I 40 N I W I i0 I h iD I io r N I I lD 50 75C -480 I G Fa 1 0 D U 4� tl E 4-J C6 i1 In •.I Ln 61 -1 p1 ! > .4 O IV H t z Z O u.G +1 t F 0 �4 ­4 4J M N N 1 .a 0 N C o .-1 0 0 0 In 1 m4,4 .-1 C1 N y O W Up3em to m 4 F > 0 � I O U C U N 3 a N N I N 1+ 111 4 + G� I •rI N '3 4a C v I G4 a� m I C U O C-Q I o '6 Q U1 l4 N aj L. N ro N 47 U N ��j N +j %W I C cc N "� W -c N N 9 N I 11 O IH N O v F I � U r- 4 41 1 ro Oro 0 0 1 Sr G O >. C G 1 ¢� v •� .� ro 0 >, Ln N O G CC A i4J N ;l C .� I F N l4 lax A, rna m m Lo C; w 1 N N K C N C 1 0 -P v .,., 0 x E�jy4� I C ro 3 U 0 ro i 3 {A 54 w 0 Ca N 1 0) ,4 4 d ro N N ..1 C •'I N > .,1 C W 0 ti C I F F F E ti U 1 O 4 I ti p^ 0 I ro •. ro o lc N m id I y 3 1W 0 u M m E 3 •.I , +) E •. ;- I '6 U) N ro H 0 4J I Q1 G •.•{ U N c N 1 F 0 ,L --I 0 m N I E uE..,a�c 4 m E I In 4 N I IThree of the locations monitored (measurement sites 9, 12A, and 13A) were located at rear yard activity areas and do not require additional mitigation. The front of the dwelling at location 7 is on the right -of -way with the front entrance exiting onto the ■* sidewalk. There is no room to construct a wall at this location. f The remaining eleven locations that exceed the federal exterior noise criteria with at least one of the alternatives are dis- cussed in further detail below. For all eleven locations, the proposed Bristol Street right -of -way is 120 feet and the noise barrier is located 60 feet from the roadway centerline. All calculations assume level terrain (except at Mater Dei High School), and typically address conditions located 6 feet from the front or back of the house (to represent activity areas). Measurement site 1 was in the front yard of a single family dwelling located north of Santa Clara Avenue. All three alterna- tives propose to remove this dwelling. Measurement site 2 was located adjacent to an outdoor activity area in an elementary school playground, 23 feet from the right - of -way. Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 assume that the existing 23 feet remains between the right -of -way and play area. As shown in Table 4 -9, a 6 -foot barrier constructed at the right -of -way will be adequate to reduce noise levels to acceptable levels. Measurement site 3 was at a multi- family dwelling complex and a common recreational area south of Santa Clara Avenue. All three alternatives propose to remove this dwelling. Measurement site 4 was located at the Rancho Santiago Community College Campus near the entrance to the auditorium. An existing 3 -foot wall located near the right -of -way would be removed for alternative 3. The distance between the measurement location and the Bristol Street centerline for alternatives 1, 2, and 3 are 127, 129, and 109 feet, respectively. As shown in Table 4 -9, a 6 -foot noise barrier constructed at the right -of -way would reduce the projected noise levels below 67 Leq. However, a 6 -foot wall is not recommended since it may have an adverse aesthetic impact on the campus. Measurement site 5 was located in the front yard of a single family residence located north of Civic Center Drive, near 9th Street. The residence will be removed with alternatives 1 and 2. The measurement location for alternative 3 is located 66 feet from the Bristol Street centerline (6 feet from the right -of- way). Table 4 -9 shows that a 6 -foot noise barrier constructed in front of the residential complex would provide adequate noise attenuation. However, a contiguous noise barrier is not recom- mended since it would restrict'pedestrian and vehicular access. Measurement site 6 was located in the front yard of a single family residence located south of Civic Center Drive. The 75"81 residence will be removed under alternatives 1 and 3. The measurement location for alternative 2 is located 64 feet from the Bristol Street centerline (3 feet from the right -of -way). Table 4 -9 shows that a 6 -foot noise barrier constructed in front of the residential complex would provide adequate noise attenua- +ion. However, a contiguous noise barrier is not recommended since it would restrict pedestrian and vehicular access. Measurement site 8 was located in the front yard of a single family dwelling located at the corner of Raymar Street. Alterna- tive 3 has the measurement location 72 feet from the Bristol Street centerline, with the receptor 12 feet from the noise {1 barrier analyzed. The other two alternatives propose to remove this dwelling. As shown in Table 4 -9, a 6 --foot noise barrier could be constructed around the front of the house to provide I adequate noise attenuation. A 6 -foot barrier is recommended in this location, however it must stop 25 feet from the corner to provide adequate sight distance for motorists on Raymar Street. Measurement site 10 was located adjacent to the Mater Dei High School athletic track, 8 feet from the right -of -way and elevated 1 3.5 feet. The barrier analysis assumed that the sensitive recep- tor was located 10 feet behind a wall constructed at the right - of -way. The 6 and 8 -foot barriers were assumed to be constructed on the 3.5 -foot elevated ground. As shown in Table 4 -9, a 6 -foot barrier constructed at the right -of -way will be adequate to I achieve acceptable noise levels. Measurement site li was located adjacent to an elementary school outdoor activity area 8 feet from the right -of -way. The barrier analysis assumed that the sensitive receptor was located 10 feet { behind a wall constructed at the right -of -way. As shown in Table 4 -9, a 6 -foot barrier constructed at the right -of -way will be adequate to achieve acceptable noise levels. Measurement sites 12, 12A, 13, and 13A were located north of St. Gertrude Place. Sites 12 and 12A represent front and back yard front line receptor locations respectively. Similarly, sites 13 and 13A represent front and back yard second line receptor loca- tions. For alternatives 1 and 2, the house adjacent to sites 12 and 12A will be removed, increasing noise levels at site 13 4 (located 108 or 85 feet from the Bristol Street centerline for Alternatives 1 and 2, respectively) and site 13A (located 127 or 104 feet from the centerline). Both first and second line rear yard receptors were sheltered by a wooden fence with visible K gaps. The noise attenuation of the wooden fences was calculated to be 4 dBA. As shown in Table 4 -9, the noise impacts at the rear yard activity areas do not warrant additional mitigation. f* As shown in Table 4 -9, the second line rear yard receptor (site 13A) would not require additional mitigation with any of the alternatives with the existing fence. However, because of the uncertain nature of the fence, future noise impacts should be 1 75"82 addressed without that fence. receptor would have future noise as shown in the Appendix. In that case, this second line impacts and require noise walls The front yard noise impacts for the first line receptor (site 12) and for the second line receptor (site 13) when the first line house is removed, are typical impacts associated with a house facing a side street. Although a 6 -foot block wall would reduce noise impacts, a wall extending out to the corner would reduce the visibility of motorists on St. Gertrude Place and Bristol Street. ` Although the noise attenuation from a six -foot barrier placed at the right -of -way (60 feet from the centerline) in front of dwellings fronting on Bristol Street is evaluated in Table 4 -9, construction of a wall may prove infeasible. For most of these dwellings, noise barriers will conflict with existing driveways, pedestrian access, or reduce vehicular sight distances at cor- ners. Construction of a non - contiguous wall would lower noise levels behind the wall but reduce the effectiveness of the noise barrier such that the Caltrans minimum affectiveness criteria would not be met. A map included as pages 19 through 24 of the Appendix indicates which residences appear to be noise impacted by future traffic volumes projected for Bristol Street with or without each of the proposed project alternatives. The map also indicates whether front yard or rear yard exterior impacts are anticipated, and where first and second line noise barriers may be constructed. The barriers proposed will mitigate noise below the federal criteria in all cases except where frontyard impacts occur on corner lots. City standards require a 25 -foot setback of noise walls from corners to allow for adequate sight distance. The resulting location of barriers along Bristol Street may not fully attenuate noise levels to meet the federal criteria. I Second Line Receptors } Second line receptors are buildings that are currently acous- tically shielded by a row of buildings located between them and the roadway. Since the proposed project could ultimately result in the removal of 200 existing buildings adjacent to Bristol Street, there is the potential for adverse noise impacts at approximately 200 second line receptors. Barriers should be constructed to shield the second line recep- tors that will exceed the 67 Leq standard (see the Appendix). In addition, barriers could be constructed per current Caltrans practices to shield those second line recptors where exterior noise levels will approach the 67 Leq standard (i.e. 65 Leq to 67 Leq exposures as illustrated in the Appendix). After construc- tion of the noise walls for the second line receptors, the atten- uated noise levels will range from 59 to 63 Leq. It should be 75C -483 4 -23 noted that final design may not include barriers at the locations identified as approaching the 67 Leq standard. Attenuation due to shielding is an important mechanism by which highway sound levels are reduced. Shielding occurs when the observers view of a highway is obstructed or partially obstructed by an object or objects which significantly interfere with the propagation of the sound waves. Shielding can be provided by rows of buildings and /or existing barriers. The amount of attenuation provided by rows of buildings is deter- mined by the portion of the row that is occupied by the buil- dings. For example, a 3.0 dBA additional attenuation is provided by the first row of buildings when the structures occupy 40 to 65 percent of the length of the row. A 5.0 dBA attenuation is afforded when the buildings occupy 65 to 90 percent of the length of the row. No attenuation is allowed for rows of houses which occupy less than 40 percent of the length of the row. Each successive row provides 1.5 dBA of additional attenuation until a total attenuation of 10.0 dBA for all rows is obtained. This is the maximum attenuation that this mechanism provides. Any excess attenuation by ground effects (ie. 4.5 dBA /DD versus 3.0 dBA /DD) is assumed to end when the sound waves reach the first row of buildings. Consequently, the shielding provided by rows of buildings is only additive to the attenuation provided by geometric spreading (3.0 dBA /DD). Barriers interrupt sound propagation and create an "acoustic shadow zone" where sound levels are lower than in the respective free field. Crucial features of noise barriers include; - The barriers cannot have any cracks or breaks. - The barriers must be high enough to break the line -of- sight between observer and the noise source, and long enough to prevent noise leaks around the ends. - The shape of the barrier can affect the amount of atten- uation. - The mass and stiffness of the barrier must be sufficient to prevent bending or buckling and it must not vibrate ■ easily or leak air. 7PC 484 I4.3 Noise Mitigation Measures Noise Attenuation With Distance In an area which is relatively flat and free of barriers, the noise level resulting from a single "point source" of noise drops by 6 decibels for each doubling of distance or 20 decibels for each factor of ten in distance. This applies to fixed noise sources such as industries, refrigeration /air conditioning units, and bells or buzzers at schools. It also applies to individual mobile noise sources such as an airplane, train or idling motor vehicle. For. a "line source" of noise, such as a heavily travelled road- way, the noise level drops off by a nominal value of 3.0 decibels for each doubling of distance between the noise source and noise receiver. Environmental conditions such as the wind direction and speed, temperature gradients, the characteristics of the ground (hard or soft) and the air (relative humidity), the pres- ence of grass, shrubbery and trees combine to increase the actual 1 attenuation achieved outside of laboratory conditions to 4.5 decibels per doubling of distance. However, for a "worst- case" analysis, a 3.0 decibel reductin with doubling was assumed for arterials throughout this report. General Methods to Reduce Acoustic Impacts There are several basic techniques available to minimize the adverse effects of noise on sensitive noise receivers. Classical engineering principles suggest controlling the noise source when- ever feasible and protecting the noise receptors when noise source control measures are inadequate. Many of the noise source control mechanisms are being applied by State and Federal governments. Acoustic site planning, archi- tectural design, acoustic construction techniques and the erec- tion of noise barriers are all effective methods for reducing noise impacts when sourc� control mechanisms are insufficient to achieve desired results. --------------------- 1. In its "Noise Assessment Guidelines ", the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development uses a 4.5 decibel drop for each doubling of distance in assessing roadway noise. Thus, a noise level of 74.5 decibels at 50 feet from the highway centerline would be attenuated naturally to 70.0 decibels at 100 feet, 65.5 decibels at 200 feet, 61.0 decibels at 400 feet and so forth. 2. A more detailed discussion of available methods to reduce noise impacts is included in the Appendix (refer to page 16). 75C -485 Specific Recommendations The following mitigation measures have been recommended for in- corporation in the project to minimize noise impacts: 1. Construction activities will take place only on the hours specified in the City of Santa Ana Noise Control Ordinance to reduce noise impacts during more sensitive time periods. 2. All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, operated within 1000 feet of a dwelling shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained muffler exhaust. systems. 3. Stationary equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers such as G residential areas. 4. Stockpiling and vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as practical from occupied dwellings. ` 5. Every effort should be made to create the greatest distance j1 between noise sources and receptors during construction. 6. The noisiest construction operations should be arranged to occur together in the construction program to avoid contin- uing periods of greater annoyance. The following mitigation measures are suggested for consideration and implementation if feasible. 1. Any residential noise barriers that are removed in conjunc- tion with the project should be replaced with barriers at least 6 feet high. 2. For those dwellings on corner lots with access to cross streets which experience exterior noise impacts, a six -foot block wall could be constructed at the right -of -way to a point 25 feet from the extension of the intersecting perpen- dicular curb line of the cross street to reduce exterior noise impacts. 3. Construction of sound barriers in front of the residences I fronting on Bristol Street would restrict pedestrian or q vehicular access and consequently are not proposed. 4. The construction of sound barriers adjacent to school play- grounds and athletic fields would meet federal exterior noise standards for outdoor activity areas. f 5. Future design year noise levels could be reduced to meet !! federal criteria if a six -foot noise wall is constructed to shield those rear yard areas of units with side yards and rear yards facing Bristol Street as shown in the Appendix. 7506 1 Six -foot block walls should be constructed at second line receptor residential lots thht exceed the 67 Leq federal standard (see the Appendix) to reduce exterior noise to acceptable levels. 7. Six -foot block walls could be constructed at second line receptor residential lots that approach the 67 Leq federal ■ standard, to reduce exterior noise levels. 1: 750 -487 d 1 5.0 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED The following organizations and persons were consulted during the preparation of this report. Caltrans (District 7) ..................... Mr. Satish Chander Mr. Joe Hecker Ms. Sue McCullough Mr. Bill Minter Mr. Doug Stroup City of Santa Ana ......................... Engineering Dept. Willdan Associates ........................ Mr. Ernie Egger Ms. Masscumeh Estiri Mr. Robert Miyasaki Mr. Randy Nichols T� ro I 75C -489 OWN I� a a Q CLIMATE AND ` Throughout the basin, the vertical dispersion of air pollutants is restricted by the presence of a persistent temperature inver- sion near the surface (when temperature increases with increasing altitude, it reduces the mixing height). Winter inversions frequently weaken and erode by mid - morning, thereby preventing the accumulation of contaminants. On hot summer days, however, the inversion layer often remains, trapping pollutants in a limited mixing area until middle or late afternoon when the inversion layer lifts, erodes, or surface winds are sufficient to disperse the pollutants horizontally. Thus, a combination of low wind speeds and low inversions creates the highest pollutant concentrations. Four key elements are required to specify the meteorological conditions affecting the transport and dispersion of air pollut- ants. These include the wind direction, wind speed, atmospheric stability, and mixing height. Although regional meteorological conditions (such as temperature inversions, Santa Ana wind condi- tions, etc.) will dominate localized conditions for the most part, wind direction, wind speed, and localized turbulence gener- ated by site specific topographical conditions can play a key role in determining site specific ambient air quality. Wind direction and speed (which in turn affect atmospheric sta- bility) are probably the most important climatological elements affecting the ambient air quality on -site. The on -shore dominant daytime wind pattern occurs between noon and 7:00 pm, following the peak travel period (6 am through 9 am) in the Los Angeles/ Orange County area. Consequently, during periods of low inver- sions and low wind speeds, the photochemical smog formed in these areas is transported downwind into Riverside County and San Bernardino County. During the fall and winter months the APEI is subject to moderate and strong Santa Ana winds. These dry warm northerly and north- easterly winds typically last for several days and exhibit vel- ocities which exceed 40 mph at times. 75C -490 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS AND DATA The four pages that follow present: (1) the currently adopted ambient air quality standards, (2) episode criteria, (3) avail- able episode data, and (4) ambient air quality data from the most representative monitoring station for the most recent three years in terms of both state and federal standards. Irregularities caused by changes in the standards are discussed below. The California Air Resources Board (GARB) periodically reviews the state's ambient air quality standards considering new health effect studies and recommendations by the Department of Health Services. On September, 1982, new sea level carbon monoxide standards were adopted by the GARB. The one -hour standard was revised downward from 40 to 20 ppm. The 12 -hour standard of 10 ppm was dropped in favor of an 8 -hour standard of 9.0 ppm. These revised standards were designed to prevent carboxyhemoglobin concentrations from exceeding 2% in the blood and thereby avoid adverse health effects in persons with heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, anemia or pregnant women and their unborn fetuses. The national ambient carbon monoxide standards are also under review by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). They are currently set at 35 ppm for one -hour averages and 9.0 ppm for an eight -hour average. The state 24 -hour standard for total suspended particulates (TSP1 was changed (effective July 1, 1983) from 100 ug /m to 50 ug /m for particulate matter with an aerodynamic dirmeter equal to or less than 10 microns. In addition, the 60 ug /m annual geometric mean (AGM) standard for TSP was replaced by a 30 ug /m3 standard for total thoracic particulates (TTP). Both of these changes reflect health concerns related to smaller particles that pene- trate deeply into the human respiratory tract and the effect of these particles on visibility. 75C -491 AMBIENT AIR OUAUTY STANDARDS APPLICABLE ONLY IN THE LAKE TAHOE AIR BA,SIN1 d..mn xenane 11a . 6PP• .01. - - _ — nmgrm,l NOTES - 1- Gaanu sundvm, PlNr dtH Pnbon md,,A,d[. p,I fur d;...d, Il hdurl and Pnh[.4tr m.ltav - PM,�, ,, ryYX INA, , net .o R .,.Am or ! tt[d,6 Th. u,v thpn n,nPM,. va.[sdulelrw ds dwia+ snsdPs , so ds u..dle.d d [Pd 7 X- Utukme Napanal sundard,, OA.r Than .,wx end h. bead P ann V,l iw•agm m .Moil gepme,riG T[iM. F! no, W b e..NAd mme INn mt. a vn,, The plan, "An" is ."aided w dw eapectea rwmblr of tl+Ys PA, W.POa, yur ninth m[.imum ewrly Xmq. p..n "At'" aW, I,,r SlAndnd is [ply to w I,x Ihan An, 3. Cpncvvivahpn ,Ppnsed hrsl in m wbid, i, w Groenulpwd. Egeiv.l.n, un,u 4ve^ n aFMlhnm At. Weed upon a Wn.nw umpen,w, PI 756C Add A ulmmw wXSwe .1 760 mm AI m .,. All en[Xw[ m,ny of 0.1 p.hdr ar< to be [dr,ded b a wf,r. epnprtatw, 01 75 -6 and'a r,hanw mmsw[ of 760 min of HQ 11.013.7 ma1,1AFI: pons in this table r.fws to 00n, N . Vn,A. a m,aomw" of POiWmnl sin ensile of qal, a Any <Q,A -.s,nt wptld.,e oM1,[h ein b, sheam to the .nnlacnon of she Aa P,Ad,tt, Emrtl lsi q,w mu,ryenl 'AW1, a1 0 Men rh. I,w el try x1 tr ml o.ynv standard may al 5 Na.ow Pr.man Ssand.1ch Tn, 11' 11 It nr gwlgY V Endo Engineering nA M[ +.Y..14 ,n /do.At, m r,. of vl[,v. [p pra Xtt M[ yuWC hA.hh iade stale mPSI ax n ,N pnmLv Aanpa,dl 10 IAIF rhan Alb" Ye +rl Atom Chit slate's mp „s,mwrlon pan [I +Pmor[d by ,N EnV.,mmern I Ihelrm,m, Aq[na IEPAI. 6, NaFM,I $laMd+ry ellmdmdl TP! 11W, 1111, 1u11,1 Mv,ury le arprlcl th. li.bb +.iIf.. from., m,dwn a anuup+ud +dwrm .11em of . pdWml. E,a. Mau must ,tmm Ih! 1,tond., rmnmrd, In soon • men. .W! Iim1' A[,., Ih! im0llmrnmi,m Midi n +umw.d by the EPA. 1. P[I.nua meIhW „ de.lnllM I m. EPA An ^100,. r,J,, "lh.d-' a, OYa.ur.mmf ms, b, , d d.l .,ill hI.,,'bonlniwlg1,11 yh., 1e1h 1.111.m,Med' and mum m,pmo•,d by this EPA 8. Prrvadng u�loh , 1, d,in[d n IN gr[mesl m,bbly vA th [s xmnvd de swP +n.. , rcA.1 ]t lain NII of th„ hml,w, arena, out rot nem3u Jy ,n td,nn.,d, ueewr- 9. Armuuan..Mne IN nua n,npardl b, pa. d,m F,dlw ,inp,ndtd P „eCulalt ma[Ip ar, ndl,lld Nanpnll ,landa,d, N5.1, 111 , A,m....a•, psm. SOURCE: ARB FACT SHEET (REVISED 1985) j 4LImri, P1•M•.i� MnwM SUN•rd, Mlnllm A.,Fmn, A— Cpe,nrx,w, I,Y•,ytl• Mi,wn,.! e,a� a 5y,,,ly• On,Nm`� lapn fpO W /m,l rmlman�V dam Inpw - - O,7Pmn ymn FinarV EMrlx, tYaa w1m11 l,nm,.e Gxm..m.n.P,ne! ['rmn Nona.. a[w.a *soon, lsdsa m, ' zaeon wax Ildnplmll nsns ,ep,wm,•l M:wr I.,rrm blxOl0.lm mmexd• �Ivo.p1 V 1mP "As, 150[m ,tbgw•ISa,s dmuY Gx Phm ro0s PP•al sr•a n.dmxv Sussman, Lx.Fne QxYI,1,rnMP,,.1 on. nits. AM Wma1 F,IIP (In W, a,u, u,l0.,er,W - 15 u!/„•1 - i001 pm,] S, Iw.r 003. 765 Y1xa _ 1171 wlmaP ulrvmeMe O.0 pPni b�mpaw FuP mn 7bur - _ IMp uyma ros.cml ,.nr 0 - mSSuym,l Snun<,A nnww,. WF 3pwlms ,mvn Lx,al Pu,e ],nmr SOW /m° $..pmpm ea Wis. ,•wdllnme.w dn! - - 73,Mm, 1 w„ym, i x,pr. 06.m! Sun4�m 3Wr•m '[i bu, ]S Uplmf lu.m.•tm[ - � W...m $u[IPe Lem w0,r 15wlma Mans p. aawX An �p; { _ I - ,SYlm. I �aPa4ry AXwe,F I•N•W,n 3.uia! Il,n,n 00Jlum lu w/T,I al SS0.Ai,a. - ! Yn![alaa, IUhmlan.na1 ], np„r polo awn T6 wlm• aml G,,,eu.nLx - _ _ �MPn„egmn. V�.GU[Y 0.,d.a�nq valalF Inppniw^ In wn.eant �.xun.mnl rltlu{, [nePMJirq rni Pal • n 10 mnn .xF _ T v+M4 - 1 APPLICABLE ONLY IN THE LAKE TAHOE AIR BA,SIN1 d..mn xenane 11a . 6PP• .01. - - _ — nmgrm,l NOTES - 1- Gaanu sundvm, PlNr dtH Pnbon md,,A,d[. p,I fur d;...d, Il hdurl and Pnh[.4tr m.ltav - PM,�, ,, ryYX INA, , net .o R .,.Am or ! tt[d,6 Th. u,v thpn n,nPM,. va.[sdulelrw ds dwia+ snsdPs , so ds u..dle.d d [Pd 7 X- Utukme Napanal sundard,, OA.r Than .,wx end h. bead P ann V,l iw•agm m .Moil gepme,riG T[iM. F! no, W b e..NAd mme INn mt. a vn,, The plan, "An" is ."aided w dw eapectea rwmblr of tl+Ys PA, W.POa, yur ninth m[.imum ewrly Xmq. p..n "At'" aW, I,,r SlAndnd is [ply to w I,x Ihan An, 3. Cpncvvivahpn ,Ppnsed hrsl in m wbid, i, w Groenulpwd. Egeiv.l.n, un,u 4ve^ n aFMlhnm At. Weed upon a Wn.nw umpen,w, PI 756C Add A ulmmw wXSwe .1 760 mm AI m .,. All en[Xw[ m,ny of 0.1 p.hdr ar< to be [dr,ded b a wf,r. epnprtatw, 01 75 -6 and'a r,hanw mmsw[ of 760 min of HQ 11.013.7 ma1,1AFI: pons in this table r.fws to 00n, N . Vn,A. a m,aomw" of POiWmnl sin ensile of qal, a Any <Q,A -.s,nt wptld.,e oM1,[h ein b, sheam to the .nnlacnon of she Aa P,Ad,tt, Emrtl lsi q,w mu,ryenl 'AW1, a1 0 Men rh. I,w el try x1 tr ml o.ynv standard may al 5 Na.ow Pr.man Ssand.1ch Tn, 11' 11 It nr gwlgY V Endo Engineering nA M[ +.Y..14 ,n /do.At, m r,. of vl[,v. [p pra Xtt M[ yuWC hA.hh iade stale mPSI ax n ,N pnmLv Aanpa,dl 10 IAIF rhan Alb" Ye +rl Atom Chit slate's mp „s,mwrlon pan [I +Pmor[d by ,N EnV.,mmern I Ihelrm,m, Aq[na IEPAI. 6, NaFM,I $laMd+ry ellmdmdl TP! 11W, 1111, 1u11,1 Mv,ury le arprlcl th. li.bb +.iIf.. from., m,dwn a anuup+ud +dwrm .11em of . pdWml. E,a. Mau must ,tmm Ih! 1,tond., rmnmrd, In soon • men. .W! Iim1' A[,., Ih! im0llmrnmi,m Midi n +umw.d by the EPA. 1. P[I.nua meIhW „ de.lnllM I m. EPA An ^100,. r,J,, "lh.d-' a, OYa.ur.mmf ms, b, , d d.l .,ill hI.,,'bonlniwlg1,11 yh., 1e1h 1.111.m,Med' and mum m,pmo•,d by this EPA 8. Prrvadng u�loh , 1, d,in[d n IN gr[mesl m,bbly vA th [s xmnvd de swP +n.. , rcA.1 ]t lain NII of th„ hml,w, arena, out rot nem3u Jy ,n td,nn.,d, ueewr- 9. Armuuan..Mne IN nua n,npardl b, pa. d,m F,dlw ,inp,ndtd P „eCulalt ma[Ip ar, ndl,lld Nanpnll ,landa,d, N5.1, 111 , A,m....a•, psm. SOURCE: ARB FACT SHEET (REVISED 1985) j I I i 1 �r 1 N 3 Q. a a w g IR m IpC W O! L 1 I 1 E m e t a a a a m P I > d 1 w Y 6 w � •� n o R O q O e O i ILLe i N W O O O m m N Oi Y n ry n a ; 4 i I 1 I I A r I N � YI M O N N S i IY O n O N O O O i w A 1 " i 1 1 1 1 . N 0 1 1 1 1 � 1 n C Y 1 1 V19 9 P9 PSR PC 9C dJ I . G C C � C � C �C ✓ ry C e ^ Y q ^ Y N I I e 9Y q Y _ R 9 u R 9uV, VN+✓ EN 9N Y J E Um U ME K.i 1 . Vm m EdN YN5 Ev \K \Pie 1 a U _YO E � P U e W'I tl e d`1 1 V . 6 U n .y V •I •+ ` A 9 V.-u E u aF V 6 +I a P! qt 9 P uP.m l u Y +1 m 9 [-9 a C• e g R q 9 R Y .+ n C 9 e d a N 6 d C K H I -a p m K 'r Y a. Y a O N •h Y a R N %� Y n e N M N >• 1Y R e R E R e e F I C J A R KgefL Cq q6 ]9 K R tl YER O EOc 1 0 L 1 Clio Cfi0 N OEP N OAP v OKCY a GEG YQ Y mLO OC . IS 6 1 0 LT `2GWL LM Hii L4 L LN 44LLL C64U M F" P4w1 �4 Yro F L On F I lu iJ 1 9 . F V• F I n ✓ L 0 0 W d 0 L 0 1 n V K F R Q• v l O .. 0 Q 0 1 1 0 1^ 1 0 i� 1 C 1 mv�r r 1 r• I Wv p�YwYi L 1 N_ [Ip 'I 1 W 9•+ " OF 0 CW +IN N I tl Y 8 O I I q O I 0 1 L I 1 O I ✓ t z 4 O 1 ,■ >L 1 Llz Iz alz ✓.+w I Lr eIZ I 1 1 K II rl O m N m v W O O � Q 2 V 1 I N W n � •. N Q 1 I q 1 ry •• N I 1 T s 1 1 1 i 1 m 1 1 r d n i a 1 P n N r •L 1 y 1 Y YI I m I m • O N v O m O O Y O 1 O O I✓ 7Y � 1 Y N N + n r0•+ l y 1 1 i d 1 Y L F1e I 1 19 •1 IE/I II Y bl L 4 C 9 I u iC 1 1 9 C 9 R P q ••� Y I q O I I blY H TY• PL Pq N 9 q C G Vq �] 1 A J IE m C tl p C 9 A Y q R .a C ] 1 b 9 9 9 N G q UC w � ✓ Uq I 1 1 9 L C 9 C 9 C q q C �- U q N •- V m N J I J I 1 V✓ Y YY mH YYl J = NVI•+Y EKU^ \ •� 1 q 1 1 E V m m E 4 V 1 E V M E V W L^ \ Pl u"1 P m V •f a I A 1 1 Y 1 Y QU v Y.LYx Y -EV OLR% E t31 ^uE ] a E 6 Meym u dM\E vIM E P G muq\ E _ C YUe\ E IN a u F ••1 6 ✓ F Y R R K F •-• R P rv\ - V rn P a u P I QI I I I— dRERaL— .RaN- mga9- -YJLea a ✓� P L •ENS ,c 1 Y N T✓ 6Y RC >.V 6Q i.J 6M 7. YI n✓ 6i QN 'O 'J CF N q I N IY n O mN aN 0 -a M•RN 0xa RI/I VXq oV IC 1 I. OOXP OP XP JIOx04 0 Vm 40'0 qt C, fiNl I R 1 q H?•4N`••q 4- R GN•�R LN GV1gE LntiN E On I I •• i •I 1 C 4 0 —•-1 �• C L n L ��. L G N_�_�L N -4- 1 •• Y OF qF F OG • 1 4 O 1 12 1 0 A L I o 1 1 ^ I 0 I 4 1 0 1 w I 0 I 1 ✓ Q o 1 a w N$ t ILL I Lnx n5 ✓/'Iz r'1 . -15 LN•d qN2 r f i v o 715C-493 ' 6 a w i .. v C C w r ■ WV T b T P > }} q q y 9 C q 01 q q +• i 6� Y L L L N E d ' L L G 1 1 L}•� y L • L • w` 1 pt qr GI •" ••1 a 9 V V E EE E o � w S 6 •C+ L o n oo ••1 �9c -N us e e a KI z 6 a w C O\ O• D C p• } T } r O 1 T w ♦ w y r OI > q L L UY Lx 9 g w q w •L L �' wOL ;y L L L L V 1 N 1 N N 4 Y M L p¢ O p J 1 L •W N 1 1 L IL 1 006 m 4 N Y 6- • 4 E p O P VAL LY G E P 1 w m } b• a a T w } q r C L T L O O N w • L L' L L L LL LV L d 1 N O.�yV rnY L.Ci m E E en" c Z e p el P4 O \pr d C 6 N- O a • U b q C9r �Y JI •O d p.0 6 9 m a bb wf OT >LU W iii r • L _ r � cc } P � a} } w > yd u C � w u N O •C •� q T> O q q w • Y N O d N w N N 6 Q L • • Lr L YdY �66L LN Q t s`t 1 AKdodgr y a N .r 1• 1 .1.� N 1 I •-1 w W i[ u • V w •i^ w K 6 x w wJy LOU O OO O b Tru -� �a 0 W 10 • S O Opt N CwY wCw f� V L C Y L w w+ W O '.N NO O �F•qP +VIAL. �.9 • ws d r y Pu > •• > w C W d p w 10 L Lr O u O 6 O N O L • Nr V d 1 L L ! e 4 V D O u y+ L 1 1 .••1 N 1 1 q .d L q p = y N E Ffi E 9 9 C¢� O i c V E E 6 egiy e.'+ by P O� E uY c. I•f V1N • O .Vi CDwpp r C L L 1 w q n f O O > •i q } q q p r 6 Y q C• f q w• L E L L L L Y C q +? y J+ 6E � LL Z I • LO - N I 1 O N N.rwM�i.Y LCLLy r �'� O p O. . p VL U 1 N > N L b •� y N w d d N 6 E~ EE I.1 q p N >• p C LW y W K L E E 00 . of d- •d0-�C yr uY� Ln C• O N O o N Y w L u C r N Y g N p p L d 9 L D r d d v N N K J p K K y L y p O E = y J •J' p q p w Y 6 6 i C W O G.-U p .� p N d N Vy •j C p• L L V L U L C O N q ■ WV T b qt r I K ti r a a a W O O a W LO O 0 U N W U 0 o N YE r_C .4- ie^ d Y.YT-R� i SL i " - :dd s8_{9�a 5= r= ZZ gl e s S_IR - - R . _ S _ _ s C _ " - JR X LO O 0 U N W U 0 o N EFFECTS OF POLLUTANTS ON RECEPTORS Oxidants at high enough concentrations can cause eye irritation; aggravate respiratory disease; suppress the body's capacity to fight infection; impair athletes' performance and cause growth retardation in sensitive trees. Hydrocarbons in the presence of ■ other primary pollutants (particularly oxides of nitrogen) lead [! to the formation of oxidants. Hydrocarbons also damage plants by inhibiting growth and causing flowers and leaves to fall. Carbon monoxide is essentially colorless, odorless and toxic to humans. It enters the blood stream and interferes with the transfer of fresh oxygen, thereby depriving sensitive tissues in the heart and brain of oxygen. At high enough concentrations it can impair visual function, psychomotor performance and time discrimination. Nitrogen dioxide at high enough exposures can cause fibrotic lung changes, bronchostriction, and acute bronchitis among infants and school children. In sensitive plants over several months, it can cause collapsed lesions near the leaf margin and moderate injury, Lead at high enough concentrations impairs hemoglobin synthesis I by increasing the lead levels in the blood. Whereas sulfur 9 dioxide and suspended particulate exposures cause higher frequen- cies of acute respiratory symptoms and diminished ventilatory function in children. Sulfur oxides, in combination with mois- ture and oxygen, can yellow the leaves of plants, dissolve mar- ble, and erode iron and steel. F 75C -496 IEMISSION INVENTORY ASSUMPTIONS r FugityLve Dust on Unpaved Roads -- was estimated using the t eguatiaDn from AP -42 (Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factorls), Section 11.2.1. Variables utilized included k - 0.6 and 0.45, s = 248, S = 30 mph, W = 25 tons, w = 16 wheels, and p = 40 days /year. Construction Equipment Emissions -- estimates of the type and 1 numberficof construction equipment required, for roadway 1 construction were provided by Poss Construction. Equipment emissicaL factors are from AP -42 Section 3.2.7 Table 3.2.7 -1. Veihiclit Miles 'travelled -- the project will result in an increase in VMT�*or future design year 2006 based on traffic data provided by Wilkdan Associates in April of 1987 (see Table 2 -2 on page 2- 2). Emission Factors -- motor vehicle emission were provided by the OCEMA firom 1984 and 1985 runs using the California ARE ENV028 program based upon EMFAC 6D emission rates as shown in the fol- lowing table. ICALIFORNIA CORRECTED MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSION ?ACTORS ------- - -------------------------------------------------------- Pollutant 1967 (gm /mi) 2006 (gm /mi) 18 mph 20 mph 9 mph I8 mph 31 mph CO 24.88 22.97 30.25 17.31 11.12 I THC 2.51 2.34 3.16 1.76 1.19 NOx 1.78 1.79 1.39 1.27 1.40 Sox 0.21 0.21 0.23 0.23 0.23 - Partic Particulates 0.33 0.33 0.31 ---- 031------ 0 -31 - -- ------------------------------- These facctors assume the Orange County vehicle mix (77.6% LDA, 10.68 LDT, 5.38 MDT, 2.08 HDG, 3.68 HDD and 0.98 MC). They also assume acs ambient temperature of 75 degrees Fahrenheit and 288 cold start, 198 hot start and 538 hot stabilized operation. They t are utilized for all projects located within Orange County. JI Average Route Speeds -- along Bristol Street were provided by Willdan Associates as shown in Table 2 -2 on page 2 -2. i 75C -497 CALINE 3 ASSUMPTIONS Traffic Data -- was provided by Willdan Associates in April 1987. Current, future, and future + project daily and peak hour volumes were provided. f Roadway Speeds -- were provided by Willdan Associates. Along L Memory Lane, Seventeenth Street, First Street and Warner Avenue 30 mph was assumed. Along Bristol Street, 18 and 20 mph were I assumed for existing conditions, 9 mph for 2006 no project condi- tions, and 18 and 31 mph for 2006 plus project conditions. I Meteorological Conditions -- included 1 m.p.h. winds, stability class D with a persistance factor of 0.70 for eight -hour values and stability class F for "worst case" one -hour values and wind directions parallel to the highest traffic volume leg to insure I that CO concentrations are maximized (worst case for the nearest receptor). Highway Widths -- were derived from roadway cross - sections pro- vided by Willdan Associates. The widths included 3 meters per side as specified for the Caline 3 model input. Emission Factors -- were taken from ENV028A EMFAC 6D runs for Orange County by the OCEMA in 1984 and 1985, as shown on page 4 of the Appendix and below. l----------------------------------------------------------------- Background Concentrations -- for carbon monoxide were derived from ambient air quality data for 1985 taken at the Anaheim station and assembled by the CARB. The second highest hourly concentrations were used (11.7 ppm for the 8 -hour average, 18.0 ppm for the I -hour average). The year 2006 8 -hour background I concentration was derived from the 1982 Draft AQMP. The future 1 -hour average was determined by the ratio between the 1985 one and eight -hour averages. i� l 75C -498 CALIFORNIA CORRECTED MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSION FACTORS I------------..------------------ Speed ------------------------- CO Emission Factor -- - - -- (gm /mi) 1987 2006 9 mph -- 30.3 18 mph 24.9 17.3 20 mph 23.0 -- 30 mph 16.3 11.5 31 mph -- 11.1 l----------------------------------------------------------------- Background Concentrations -- for carbon monoxide were derived from ambient air quality data for 1985 taken at the Anaheim station and assembled by the CARB. The second highest hourly concentrations were used (11.7 ppm for the 8 -hour average, 18.0 ppm for the I -hour average). The year 2006 8 -hour background I concentration was derived from the 1982 Draft AQMP. The future 1 -hour average was determined by the ratio between the 1985 one and eight -hour averages. i� l 75C -498 SCAQMD RULE 403 FUGITIVE DUST Rule 402. Nuisance A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. The provisions of this rule shall not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals. Rule 403. Fugitive Dust (a) A person shall not cause or allow the emissions of fugitive dust from any transport, handling, constriction or storage activity so that the presence of such dust remains visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source. (Does not apply to emissions emanating from unpaved roadways open to public travel or farm roads. This exclusion shall not apply to industrial or commercial facilities.) (b) A person shall take every reasonable precaution to minimize fugitive dust emissions from wrecking, excavation, grading, clearing of land and solid waste disposal operations. (c) A person shall not cause or allow particulate matter to exceed 100 micrograms per cubic meter when determined as the difference between upwind and downwind samples collected on high volume samplers at the property line for a minimum of five hours. (d) A person shall take every reasonable precaution to prevent visible particulate matter from being deposited upon public roadways as a direct result of their operations. Reasonable precautions shall include, but are not limited to, the removal of particulate matter from equipment prior to movement on paved streets or the prompt removal of any material from paved streets onto which such material has been deposited. (e) Subsections (a) and (c) shall not be applicable when the wind speed instantaneously exceeds 40 kilometers (25 miles) per hour, or when the average wind speed is greater than 24 kilometers (15 miles) per hour. The average wind speed determination shall be on a 15 minute average at the nearest official air - monitoring station or by wind instrument located at the site being checked. (f) The provisions of this rule shall not apply to agricultural operations. WEndo Engineering 75C -4990 (Adopted May 7, 1976) PUNDAMMALS OF NOISE Noise levels are measured on a logarithmic scale in decibels which are then weighted and added over a 24 -hour period to re- flect not only the magnitude of the sound, but also its duration, frequency, and time of occurrence. In this manner, various acoustical scales and units of measurement have been developed such as: equivalent sound levels M ), day -night average sound levels (Ldn) and Community Noise Equivalent Levels (CNEL'S). A- weighted decibels (dBA) approximate the subjective response of the human ear to a broad frequency noise source by discriminating against the very low and high frequencies of the audible spec- trum. They are adjusted to reflect only those frequencies audi- ble to the human ear. The decibel scale has a value of 1.0 dBA at the threshold of hearing and 140 dSA at the threshold of pain. Each interval of 10 decibels indicates a sound energy ten times greater than before, which is perceived by the human ear as being roughly twice as loud. Therefore, a 1.0 decibel increase is just audible whereas a 10 decibel increase means the sound is per - ceived as being twice as loud as before. Equivalent sound levels are not measured directly but are calcu- lated from sound pressure levels typically measured in A- weighted decibels (dBA). The equivalent sound level (Le ) is the constant level that, over a given time period, transmit the same amount of acoustic energy as the actual time - varying sound. Equivalent sound levels are the basis for both the Ldn and CNEL scales. Day -night average sound levels are a measure of the cumulative f noise exposure of the community. The Ldn value results from a l summation of hourly Le 's over a 24 -hour time period with an increased weighting fa0tor applied to the nighttime period be- tween 10:00 pm and 7:00 am. This noise rating scheme takes into account those subjectively more annoying noise events which occur during the normal sleeping hours. Community Noise Equivalent Levels (CNEL) also carry a weighting penalty for noises that occur during the nighttime hours. In addition, CNEL levels include a penalty for noise events that occur during the evening hours between 7:00 pm and 10:00 pm. Because of the weighting factors applied, CNEL values at a given location will always be larger than Ldn values, which in turn I will exceed Le values. However, CNEL values are typically within one deci011 of the day -night average sound level. For a "line source" of noise such as a heavily travelled roadway, the noise level drops off by a nominal value of 3.0 decibels for each doubling of distance between the noise source and noise receiver. Environmental factors such as the wind direction and I speed, temperature gradients, the characteristics of the ground (hard or soft) and the air (relative humidity), the presence of 75C -500 grass, shrutybery, and trees, combine to increase the actual attenuation achieved outside laboratory conditions to 4.5 deci- bels per doubling of distance. 1 In an area which is relatively flat and free of barriers, the l sound level resulting from a single "point source" drops by 6 decibels for each doubling of distance or 20 decibels for each r factor of ten in distance. This applies to fixed noise sources I and mobile noise sources which are temporarily stationary such as an idling truck or other 'heavy duty equipment operating within a confined area. The noise levels adjacent to line sources increase by 3.0 dBA with each doubling in the traffic volume (provided that the speed and truck mix do not change). From the mathematical expression relating increases in the number of noise sources (motor vehi- cles) to the increase in the adjacent noise level, it can be shown that a 26 percent increase in the traffic volume will cause a 1.0 dBA increase in adjacent noise levels. 1 1 75C -5121 AAR"01. E"EC-TS OF BOISE Exposure to noise can cause temporary physical and psychological responses in humans. The chronic recurrence of these physical reactions has been shown to aggravate headaches, fatigue, diges- tive disorders, heart disease, circulatory and equilibrium dis- orders. Moreover, as a source of stress, noise is a contributory factor in stress - related ailments such as ulcers, high blood pressure and anxiety. l Two other harmful effects of noise which are commonly of concern involve speech interference and the prevention or interruption of sleep. Figure 6 illustrates how excessive background noises can reduce the amount and quality of verbal exchange and thereby impact education, family lifestyles, occupational efficiency and the quality of recreation and leisure time. Speech interference begins to occur at about 40 to 45 decibels and becomes severe at 1 about 60 decibels. Background noise levels affect performance ` and learning processes through distraction, reduced accuracy, increased fatigue, annoyance and irritability, and the inability 1 to concentrate (particularly when complex tasks are involved or in schools where younger children exhibit imprecise speech pat- terns and short concentration spans). t Several factors determine whether or not a particular noise event will interfere with or prevent sleep. These factors include the noise level and characteristics, the stage of sleep, the individ- ual's age, motivation to waken, and so forth. Tll or elderly people are particularly susceptible to noise - induced sleep inter- ference, which can occur when intruding noise levels exceed the typical 35 -45 decibel background noise level in bedrooms. Sleep prevention can occur when intruding noise levels exceed 50 dHA. 75C -db2 NOISE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM AND PROCEDURES l 1. Sound bevel Meter I The sound level meter utilized was a Model BOOB Precision Sound Level Meter and Analyzer manufactured by Larson & Davis Labora- tories. This meter meets ANSI and IEC Standards (ANS 51.4 -1971 Type I precision) and was calibrated before field measurements were taken. 2. Procedure One integrated noise measurement was taken at each location illustrated on Figures 10 and 11, with the exception of sites 12 and 13 where two measurements were taken. Ten minute noise level recordings were used to represent the average noise level for the maximum 1 -hour period. Any measurements made during off -peak traffic were adjusted to peak traffic as specified in the Cal - trans Noise Manual. 75C -501 NOISE ASSSR3PTIONS FOR RD -77 -108 MODW.LING I. Temporal Traffic Distribution Assumed (Percent) ----------------------------------------------------------------- Type of Vehicle Day Evening Night Automobile 75.51 12.57 9.34 Medium Truck 1.56 0.09 0.19 I'Heavy Truck 0.64 0.02 0.08 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Note: Orange County EMA representing 31 arterial intersections throughout the County. II. Road Grade Assumptions -- level terrain and roadway. 1 III. Roadway Widths -- for existing and future conditions were provided by Willdan Associates. Typical roadway cross - sections along Bristol Street are shown in Table 2 -1 on page 2 -2. IV. Speeds Assumed -- for a worst case analysis, the posted speed limits were assumed for the noise modelling. Posted speeds along Bristol Street is 40 mph from Memory Lane to Seventeenth Street and from Edinger Avenue to Warner Avenue. Between Seven- teenth Street and Edinger Avenue the posted speed limit is 35 mph. These speed limits are not expected to change under future ` conditions with or without the project. 1 r 75C -594 GENERAL METHODS TO REDUCE NOISE IMPACTS Acoustic site planning involves the careful arrangement of land l uses, lots and buildings to minimize intrusive noise levels. The ` placement of noise compatible land uses between the roadway and more sensitive uses is an effective planning technique. The use of buildings as noise barriers, and their orientation away from the source of noise, can shield sensitive activities, entrances and common open space areas. Clustered and planned unit devel- opments can maximize the amount of open space available for landscaped buffers next to heavily travelled roadways and thereby allow aesthetic building setbacks in place of continuous noise barriers. Acoustic architectural design involves the incorporation of noise reducing strategies in the design and lay -out of individual structures. Building heights, room arrangements, window size and placement, balcony and courtyard design, and the provision of air conditioning all play an important role in shielding noise sensi- tive activities from intrusive noise levels. Acoustic construction is the treatment of various parts of a building to reduce interior noise levels. Acoustic wall design, r doors, ceilings and floors, as well as dense building materials, the use of acoustic windows (double glazed, double paned, thick, non-- openable, or small with air -tight seals) and the inclusion of maximum air spaces in walls are all available options. Ideally, noise barriers incorporate the placement of berms, wails or a combination of the two in con }unction with appropriate landscaping to effect an aesthetically pleasing environment. Where space is available (clustered developments) a meandering earth berm is both effective and pleasing. Where space is re- stricted, a wall is effective, In either case, however, thick landscaping (without deciduous plants) should be specified to reduce the visual impact of the barrier and retain the rural ambiance. I 75C -505 CALIFORNIA STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS TO REDUCE NOISE IMPACTS Section 7 -1.019 Sound Control Requirements The Contractor shall comply with all local sound control and noise level rules, regulations and ordinances which apply to any work performed pursuant to the contract. Each internal combustion engine , used for any purpose on the job or related to the job, shall be equipped with a muffler of a type recommended by the manufacturer. No internal combustion engine shall be operated on the project without said muffler. Section 42 -2.02 Construction The noise level created by the combined grooving operation shall l not exceed 86 dBA at a distance of 50 feet at right angles to the l direction of travel. SSection 42 -2.02 Construction The noise level created by the combined grinding operation shall r not exceed 86 dBA at a distance of 50 feet at right angles to the t1 direction of travel. ---------------- I. Source: Caltrans, "Standard Specifications ", January, 1981. 75C -'806 2 /} k o< z > k2 #e «« /\ E C> F- _ �m R )� ) 0 9 - \% { es ) ao= } ad j/ k r )@ G \ # k ) ) i | :2 $f {_ * = E a ow cn C k k§ m§ _- $f E5 ] }� \\ co 750.507 0 M ww fn 16 1Sul, m m¢ a -- `m do _ 11 L- inl.'I V.N \UJ =I_J Q_ � 3 s �LtZ o :nN Nuvllnuo6 a c is 3uiJ � F -- m —_ m is ii6u calm _ N N gpy e3onINJ 16 ]11tlAW _ I___ wr ' Is ]lll \V� L Im _ L 6 0 1616 IS 4 � N —�,a uJlvevu- •� m �V - - -- - �_ E ld h'.3l1n NV 1C u uvvlolu �—, m 16 tl3A1'l01 f -Id NO1lGVJ I S O N V I I E1111 lJ UOOMN3ltl C z N c a a _ z m c z lJ IId 0V1Y0 z u � —J-- ° o _6 fro leJnn _ _ w J — J O O ]NNV 16 f O O ¢ J 0 T anv 913navJ'w nd �• • ~ w w n ¢ °z °z z � a c III JAV UJNUVM W ]i \V ]I1111G_IIM � lV 75C -508 r� S2 t- t WN Cf) W mz 00 Iwo fIfII L at �- �_•__ VIII_ � -�- A1,17. 11 r a Tr. ...... Q -T 75C-5C4'- o m �. aaaxae IiW)i�i�an.. N W� W FN t N —_�. J 1 Q Q Q9 N vain S 1_CA � -[ — u,.� ♦kxa PT TF -74 G d r $3 � S 1011 O � N W *w 0 a= w a o w g a = 1 s LL o O N 2 6 W Q W W W H L-11 �o= z u z J a � W W 75C -510 NF 0 LL )I Lk W11W ml, ow US m m 0 I—E EU cc 0 UJ M P Lo InNlvm ........... V IINI93HD m is 9N[d I aAV .3DNlag tr TL is dllu_w wr T 10 31 NV,, i's d041619 ma,", RAV 71 1 Nd m3uawy 14 UNY1 H I H LS tl3AIDl01 '� Ids molluvO Id ODOMN3l0 0 z 16 N.10F,1-0- N3O.Y. VN c IV NtiUOnO Id IV RAv N3caVi-h 30 nuia3u is VP ll]suflu 0 2 aAY URNUVIA RAV ]tlJLLG�IM 75C-511 c v I I z F� ¢ti s N ZpZ aX a O ; O N N 3 � It dY vWrs d -33UIS V131 EAlm 41. —� xvrn N u I G `f -- c c W b W 75C -512 �� Ef! 4 T ez 0 zFQ w w 9 Ul w 3 S w IL 0 d a N s N E�c Is L_UA j I _ is 3se13 — 16 LI OJN IV M1\ FID f - LE 15 3NId Jm� �m 1 -1 �16 3�tl CL 5 moQu. !N c 3AV l�3 U,i N _ O 3nv nuJilo eoa i a _ m 3 _ 31M1Y J _Itl11 I`��nVI Ja 1 la N30YIVJ a :� ,d 3NNV yE ,a Sal -ice I - d/�Y 3tlIH531M J�I 75C -513 113 UN14] <I z zL tl3Ptlb M11 r 0 r 6 s � a ¢ w r e i z rc o LL L O F N Z U O O O w z O V O W w x w i 0 M �W J N C a C 4i ti rV EXHIBIT 1 75C -514 CITY OF SANTA ANA Traffic Study for Bristol Street Specific Plan pnpamd for City of Santa Ana Santa Ana, CA i. I. by DKS Associates May 1991 r p 75C -515 r l 1 DKS Associates 2700 Nor rn 10a Suet, Swle 91':. �. Santa k4 a, Ci-- 27L! Phone_ (7141 543 9607 TFan 7141 648 0402 May 20, 1991 Mr. Dave Biondillilo City of Santa Ana 101 West 4th Street P.O. Box 1988 M -21 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Subject: Traffic Study for Bristol Street Specific Plan P90223A Dear Mr. Biondillilo: DKS Associates is pleased to submit the revised traffic report for the Bristol Street Specific Plan. The report includes all review comments and encompasses an evaluation of existing conditions, followed by a comparison of general plan and project conditions. The ICU calculation sheets are all included in the Appendix for reference. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, DKS Associates \ /UzG AAA 14� Abi Mogharabi, P.E. Senior Transportation Engineer AXM:kk attachment 28e57P9022sx0eet R 1 75C -516 9 1 i 7 CITY OF SANTA ANA Traffic Study for Bristol Street Specific Plan prepared for City of Santa Ana Santa Ana, CA DKS Associates May 1991 75C -517 I r DKS Associates Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. INTRODUCTION ............... ............................... 1 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .......... ............................... 2 21 Bristol Street Widening Project ............................... 2 2.2 Bristol Street Specific Plan ... ............................... 4 3. EXIS'T'ING CONDITIONS .......... ............................... 6 3.1 Major Street Characteristics .. ............................... 6 3.2 Midblock Capacity Analysis .. ............................... 10 3.3 Intersection Capacity Analysis . ............................... 10 3.4 Bus Transit ............................................ 16 4. GENERAL PLAN CONDITION (YEAR 2006) WITH AND WITHOUT WIDENING .................. ............................... I8 5. SPECIFIC PLAN IMPACT ......... ............................... 23 5.1 Trip Generation .......... ............................... 23 5.2 Trip Distribution and Assignment ............................. 23 5.3 Midblock Operation ...................... . ...... . ........ 28 5.4 Intersection Operational Analysis ....................... . ..... 28 6. RESIDENTIAL IMPACT ........... ............................... 7. GUIDELINES FOR DESIGN STANDARDS ............................ 8. MITIGATION MEASURES ......... ............................... 8.1 Proposed Bus Turnout Locations ............................ . 8.2 Signal Installation ........ ............................... . APPENDIX Figures 32 35 40 40 41 Figure 3 -1 Vicinity Map ................... . Figure 3 -2 Existing Lane Configuration .. ............................... 13 Figure 4 -1 Future Lane Configuration (General Plan, Year 2006) ............... 22 Figure 5 -1 Traffic Analysis Zones ...... ............................... 24 Figure 6 -1 Peak Hour Warrant Future With Specific Plan .................... 34 Figure 7 -1 75C -518 i DKS Associates 4 Tables Table 3.1 Roadway Capacity Values .... ............................... 11 Table 3 -2 Existing Average Daily Traffic and Capacity Analysis . . .............. 12 Table 3 -3 Level of Service Interpretation ............................... 15 Table 3-4 Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary - Fisting Traffic and Intersection Lane Configurations ......................... 17 Table 4-1 Roadway Links Levels of Service - Year 2006 With and Without Widening Project . ............................... 19 Table 4 -2 Year 2006 Intersection ICU and LAS Values Without Widening ........ 20 Table 4 -3 Year 2006 Intersection ICU and LAS Values With Widening .......... 21 Table 5 -1 Land Use Type by Zones .......... . . . . .......... . . . ...... . . 25 Table 5 -2 Trip Generation Rates - San Diego Traffic Generators .. . ............ 26 Table 5 -3 Total Trip Generation by Zones .............................. 27 Table 5-4 Summary of Midblock Capacity Analysis ......................... 29 Table 5 -5 Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary - Proposed Redevelopment Impact (AM Peak) ................... 30 Table 5-6 Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary - Proposed Redevelopment Impact (PM Peak) .................... 31 Table 6-1 Approach Peak Hour Volumes Future With Specific Plan ............ 33 Table 8 -1 Bristol Corridor Specific Plan - Proposed Farside Bus Turnouts ........ 42 v P 75C -519 I �t `I �I ,t I T T- I L i 75C -520 Executive Summary I DKS Associates Executive Summary This report analyzes the traffic impacts associated with the implementation of the Bristol Street Specific Plan compared with the impacts associated without implementation. The study also discusses the guidelines for establishing design standards for the spacing of driveway access locations and street intersections. The report also discusses the residential impacts due to traffic i congestion on Bristol Street. The study area is comprised of a north/south corridor centered around Bristol Street within the City of Santa Ana. The proposed plan involves upgrading land uses along this corridor with parks and landscaping, along with several new commercial developments. The traffic impacts associated with the proposed specific plan represent a net decrease in projected traffic volumes compared to the General Plan. The traffic generation for the site accounts for both the reduction in traffic due to the lane reconfiguration according to the General Plan as well as the decrease in traffic attributable to the proposed land uses such as parks and landscaping. For the entire study area, approximately 7,000 daily trips are generated by the site which is a reduction from the 16,350 daily trips generated by the General Plan. Approximately 700 trips are projected to be generated during the PM peak hour for the Specific Plan compared to the 1,600 trips without the Specific Plan. Analysis Thirteen intersections have been included in the analysis. Operating conditions have been analyzed at these intersections based on the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Operational Analysis Methodology for the following scenarios: 1, Existing traffic and existing lane configurations (Figure 3 -2). 2. General Plan traffic for the year 2006 with approved future lane configuration (Figure 4 -1). 3, Specific Plan traffic and trip generation with the future lane configuration. Table ES -1 provides a comparison of total trip generation by zones for the future condition with and without the Specific Plan, while Table ES -2 presents a summary of levels of service for the three scenarios. i For the existing condition, the intersections of Bristol Street at Memory Lane, 17th Street and 1st Street are not functioning at acceptable levels. The intersection of Bristol Street at Memory Lane functions at a level of service E during both peak hours, The intersection of Bristol Street at 17th Street functions unsatisfactorily during the PM peak hour at level of service F. In contrast, the intersection of Bristol Street and 1st Street does not function satisfactorily iP during the AM peak hour at a level of service E. i 28657.P9022WRpt FS -1 75C -521 9 F s i i, 1 DKS Associates Table ESd PM Peak Total Trip Generation by Zones 28 Future Without 0 Specific Plan Zone AM Peak PM Peak 1 69 113 2 19 20 3 211 382 4 76 154 5 108 172 6 67 178 7 42 127 8 39 87 9 142 183 10 128 131 11 35 48 12 14 17 Total: 2b657P9022ic12Rpi 950 1,612 Future With Specific Plan AM Peak PM Peak 10 28 0 0 148 199 39 100 87 112 0 0 0 0 28 82 24 70 46 97 0 0 0 0 ES -2 75C -522 382 688 Net Reduction AM Peak PM Peak 59 85 19 20 63 183 37 54 21 60 67 178 42 127 11 5 118 113 82 34 35 48 14 17 568 924 1 a DKS Associates a 2 a I V I d S a tR R, Table ES -1 Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary Proposed Redevelopment Impact (AM Peak) Future Without EAstin¢ Specific Plan Specific Plan Intersection: Bristol St. ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS 1, Warner Ave. 0.63 B 0.50 A 0.53 A 2. Glenwood PI. 0.43 A 0.40 A 0.44 A 3_ Edinger Ave. 0.73 C 0.63 B 0.61 B 4. McFadden Ave. 0.61 B 0.67 B 0.65 B 5. Bishop St. 0.52 A 0.47 A 0.48 A 6, 1st St. 0.91 E' 0.73 C 0.72 C 7. Santa Ana Blvd. 0.43 A 0.57 A 0.53 A 8. 5th St. 0.59 A 0.70 B 0.65 B 9. Civic Center Dr. 0.50 A 0.80 C 0.76 C 10. Washington Ave. 0.70 B 0.77 C 0.73 C 11. 17th St. 0.72 C 0.68 B 0.79 C 12. Santa Clara Ave. 0.77 C 0.84 D 0.81 D 13. Memory Ln. 0.96 E- 0.88 D 0.78 C • Deficient imerneclion e zaen.rvozzarztnpr ES -3 75C -523 a i I J DKS Associates Table ES -3 Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary Proposed Redevelopment Impact (PM Peak) 28657.P90223;WRp ES -4 75C -524 Future Without Existing Specific Plan Specific Plan Intersection: Bristol St. ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS 1. Warner Ave. 0.84 D 0.50 A 0.68 B 2, Glenwood Pi. 0.61 B 0.50 A 0.56 A 3. Flinger Ave. 0.86 D 0.63 B 0.73 C 4. McFadden Ave. 0.89 D 0.69 B 0.58 A 5. Bishop St. 0.72 C 0.50 A 0.66 B 6. 1st St. 0.84 D 0.83 D 0.80 C 7. Santa Ana Blvd. 0.60 A 0.67 B 0.50 A S. 5th St. 0.67 B 0.74 C 0.58 A 9. Civic Center Dr. 0.59 A 0.80 C 0.77 C 10. Washington Ave. 0.66 B 0.82 D 0.79 C 11. 17th St. 1.04 F' 0.89 D 0.85 D 11 Santa Clara Avc. 0.77 C 0.77 C 0.73 C 13. Memory Ln. 0.96 E` 0.88 D 0.85 D •DCndenl interaxtion 28657.P90223;WRp ES -4 75C -524 DKS Associates I All intersections are found to be functioning at a satisfactory level of service for both the future Without Specific Plan and future with Specific Plan scenarios. General Plan Designation Bristol Street is expected to be constructed to its ultimate width as a six -lane arterial with raised median islands in accordance with the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Bristol Street Specific Plan. The ultimate lane configurations of the 13 intersections in the study area are shown on Figure 4-1. BRISTOL STREET WIDENING PROJECT The proposed Bristol Street widening to a six -lane divided major arterial as submitted in the final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been previously approved for implementation. Recommended improvements under the EIS are: 1. Provide a 100 foot wide roadway on a 120 foot wide right -0f - -way from the Santiago Creek to Warner Avenue. 2. Provide intersection lane configurations as shown in Figure 4 -1. 3. Prohibit U -turns and provide right -turn overlaps with left -turn phasing at the intersection of Bristol Street with Memory Lane and 17th Street. 4. Provide protected left -turn phasing in all directions of the intersection along Bristol Street at Memory Lane, 17th Street, First Street, Edinger Avenue and Warner Avenue. Provide protected left -turn phasing on Bristol Street in the north -south direction at the Bishop Street/Willits Street and the McFadden Avenue intersection. i 5. Provide protected, left -turn phasing on Bristol Street in the north -south direction at the Santa Clara Avenue, Washington Avenue, Civic Center Drive, 5th Street and Santa Ana Boulevard intersections. a 6. Widen the bridge over Santiago Creek to a 100 -foot right -of-way with three through lanes in each direction. 7. Remove yellow school crosswalk markings on the north leg of Bristol Street at St. Andrews Place and direct pedestrians to use the traffic signal at Glenwood Place to cross Bristol Street. Reestablish safest route to school utilizing signalized intersection. zac57PVOazrxo.api ES -5 75C -525 I DKS Associates S. Provide dual left -turn lanes on all approaches of the Bristol Street/First Street intersection ' and Bristol Street/17th Street and in the north -south direction at the Bristol Street/Warner Avenue intersection. 91 Cul -de -sac the following minor streets at their intersection with Bristol Street. 1 a. Pine Street - east and west leg r b. Chestnut Street - east leg C. Camille Street - east leg d. Raymar Street - east and west legs e. Richland Street - west leg f Highland Street - east leg g. Cubbon Street - east leg h. Russell Avenue - east leg i. 7th Street - west leg j. 2nd Street - east and west legs 10. Construct a raised center median on Bristol Street through the following minor street intersections: a. Walnut Street b. Tolliver Street C. Elder Avenue d. Carlton Place e. Camden Place II St. Anne Place g. St- Gertrude Place h. Park Lane i. 22nd Street j. 18th Street k. 9th Street 11. Provide a far -side bus turn -out on the west side of Bristol Street south of Santa Ana Boulevard. 11 Provide far -side bus turn -out areas on Bristol Street in both northbound and southbound directions at the following intersections: a. First Street (northbound only) i b. McFadden Avenue C. Edinger Avenue f d. Warner Avenue e. Santa Ana Boulevard (southbound only) I2a657.rgo2_IA -ORpI ES-6 75C -526 r I 1 f { DKS Associates 13. Prohibit parking along both sides of Bristol Street from Memory Lane to Warner Avenue. 14. Provide signal coordination system along the Bristol Street corridor to maximize operating efficiency of traffic signals. BRISTOL STREET SPECIFIC PLAN The proposed Bristol Street Specific Plan, in addition to the improvements recommended under the EIS, suggest the following improvements: Local Street Cul-de -Sacs: a. Walnut Avenue - east leg b. 9th Street - west leg C. 10th Street - west leg d. 11th Street - west leg e. 12th Street - west leg f. 19th Street - east leg Street Closure: a. Russell Street - east leg (EIS recommended cul-de -sac) Street Opening: a. Cubbon Street - east leg (EIS recommended cul-de -sac) Bus Turnouts: The following locations are proposed for the installation of bus turnouts and concrete pad stops. a. St. Gertrude Place - northbound farside bus turnout and southbound padstop. b. St. Andrews Place - southbound farside bus turnout and northbound pad stop. C. Wilshire Avenue - northbound farside bus turnout and southbound pad stop. d. Tolliver Street - southbound farside bus turnout. e. Richland Street- northbound farside bus turnout. E Bishop/Willits Street - northbound /southbound farside bus turnouts. 2ecs7F9o223Aa pr E5 -7 75C -527 DKS Associates g. Myrtle Street - northbound /southbound farside bus turnout-,. h. Civic Center Drive - northbound /southbound farside bus turnouts- i. Washington Avenue - northbound /southbound farside bus turnouts. r j. 17th Street - northbound /southbound farside bus turnouts. k. 21st Street - southbound farside bus turnout. I. Santa Clara Avenue - northbound /southbound bus turnouts. Median Break: Median breaks are proposed only for the following locations: a. Warner Avenue b. Glenwood Place C. Wilshire Avenue d. McFadden Avenue C. Cubbon Street f. Richland Strcet g_ BishoplWiihts Street h. Myrtle Street i. First Street j. Santa Ana Blvd. k. 5th Street I. Civic Center Drive m. Washington Street n. 17th Street o. Santa Clara Avenue SIGNAL INSTALLATION r In order to control the additional traffic volumes at the unsignalized intersections of Pacific Avenue with Washington Street and Civic Center Drive, as a result of cul- de- sating 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th Streets, traffic signals are recommended to be installed at the following two intersections: t r 28657 P90223xltRpt FS-8 75C -528 I DKS Associates a. Washington Street and Pacific Avenue b. Civic Center Drive and Pacific Avenue As an alternative to signalization of Washington Street/Pacific Avenue. Pacific Avenue at Washington Street could be cul- de -saced. c F r 28657Y9022A0.4i 0 ES -9 75C -529 I T 75C-530 1. Introduction DKS Associates 1. Introduction This report analyzes the traffic impacts associated with the proposed Bristol Street Specific Plan. The study area is comprised of a north/south corridor centered around Bristol Street within the City of Santa Ana. The proposed plan involves upgrading land uses along a 3.9 -mile segment of this corridor from Memory Lane on the north and Warner Avenue on the south (see Figure 3 -1). It is anticipated that the entire project will be implemented in a phased manner and completed by the year 2006. Bristol Street is designated as a major arterial highway in the Orange County General Plan. In the General Plan, a major arterial highway is classified as a six -lane divided roadway, with a typical right-of-way width of 120 feet and a curb -to -curb roadway width of 100 feet. Together and concurrently with the implementation of the proposed Specific Plan, Bristol Street will be widened from an undivided four -lane arterial to its ultimate right -of -way width as designated on the Orange County General Plan. The traffic impacts associated with the proposed Specific Plan represent the net increase in projected traffic volumes over existing conditions. Thirteen intersections are included in the capacity analysis. Three scenarios are considered for impact analysis. These are: 1.) existing traffic conditions, 2.) future land use (General Plan) traffic conditions, and 3.) future land use (Proposed Specific Plan) traffic conditions. A guideline is developed for locating the driveway access points along Bristol Street. The specific impacts of the proposed plan on adjacent residential communities are evaluated and appropriate mitigation measures are recommended T where necessary, Background information and the majority of assessments of existing traffic conditions were taken from the traffic study previously performed for the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed widening of Bristol Street from Warner Avenue to Memory Lane 1 �- t Final Environmental Impact Statement Report Number: FWHA -CA- EIS- 89 -01 -D by Federal Highway Administration and City of Santa Ana Public Works Agency. 28657P9022 XO Rpt 1 75C -531 i i 2. Project Description I P. t i W' i y, r 75C -532 I DKS Associates 2. Project Description The proposed Bristol Street Specific Plan entails upgrading land uses along a corridor centered around Bristol Street from Memory Lane to Warner Avenue in the City of Santa Ana. The upgrading is predominantly comprised of developing parks along Bristol Street accompanied with some new commercial and mixed -use redevelopment projects. The main concept of the Bristol Street Specific Plan is to strengthen commercial nodes, repackage Specific Plan parcels and to accentuate Bristol Street with trees and various landscaping. The focal point of this study is to topsider this Specific Plan along with the approved Bristol Street widening project to account for the net change in traffic volume generated in comparison to the General Plan. t i i 2.1 BRISTOL STREET WIDENING PROJECT i The proposed Bristol Street widening to a six-lane divided major arterial as submitted in the final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been previously approved for implementation. Recommended improvements under the EIS are: 1. Provide a 100 foot wide roadway on a 120 foot wide right -of -way from the Santiago Creek to Warner Avenue. 2. Provide intersection lane configurations as shown on Figure 4 -1. 3. Prohibit U -turns and provide right -turn overlaps with left -turn phasing at the intersection of Bristol Street with Memory Lane and 17th Street. 4. Provide protected left -turn phasing in all directions of the intersection along Bristol Street at Memory Lane, 17th Street, First Street, Edinger Avenue and Warner Avenue. Provide protected left -turn phasing on Bristol Street in the north -south direction at the Bishop Street/Willits Street and the McFadden Avenue intersection. 5. Provide protected, left -turn phasing on Bristol Street in the north -south direction at the Santa Clara Avenue, Washington Avenue, Civic Center Drive, 5th Street and Santa Ana Boulevard intersections. ` 6. Widen the bridge over Santiago Creek to a 100 -foot right -of -way with three through lanes in each direction. j 7. Remove yellow school crosswalk markings on the north leg of Bristol Street at St. Andrews Place and direct pedestrians to use the traffic signal at Glenwood Place to cross Bristol Street. Reestablish safest route to school utilizing signalized intersection - i 2B657P90221W Rpt 2 75C -533 DKS Associates 8. Provide dual left -turn lanes on all approaches of the Bristol Street/First Street intersection I and Bristol Street /17th Street and in the north -south direction at the Bristol Street/Warner Avenue intersection. 9. Cul-de -sac the following minor streets at their intersection with Bristol Street. a. Pine Street - east and west leg b. Chestnut Street - east leg C. Camille Street - east leg d. Raymar Street - east and west legs e. Richland Street - west leg f. Highland Street - east leg g. Cubbon Street - east leg h. Russell Avenue - east leg i. 7th Street - west leg j. 2nd Street - east and west legs 10. Construct a raised center median on Bristol Street through the following minor street intersections: a. Walnut Street b. Tolliver Street C. Elder Avenue d. Carlton Place e. Camden Place f. St. Anne Place g. St. Gertrude Place h. Park Lane i. 22nd Street j. 181h Street lc_ 91h Street 11. Provide a far -side bus turnout on the west side of Bristol Street south of Santa Ana Boulevard. 12. Provide far -side bus turnout areas on Bristol Street in both northbound and southbound directions at the following intersections: a- First Street (northbound only) b. McFadden Avenue C. Edinger Avenue d. Warner Avenue e. Santa Ana Boulevard (southbound only) 2e657PW223z0lrpe 3 i 75C -534 I 1 i 1 a W a DKS Associates 13. Prohibit parking along both sides of Bristol Street from Memory Lane to Warner Avenue. 14. Provide signal coordination system along the Bristol Street corridor to maximize operating efficiency of traffic signals. 2.2 BRISTOL STREET SPECIFIC PLAN The proposed Bristol Street Specific Plan, in addition to the improvements recommended under the EIS, suggest the following improvements: Local Street Cul -de -Sacs: a. Walnut Avenue - east leg b- 9th Street - west leg C. 10th Street - west leg d. 11th Street - west leg e. 12th Street - west leg E 19th Street - east leg Street Closure: a. Russell Street - east leg (EIS recommended cuI -de -sac) Street Opening: a. Cubbon Street - east leg (EIS recommended cul -de -sac) Bus Turnouts: The following locations are proposed for the installation of bus turnouts and concrete pad stops. a. St. Gertrude Place - northbound farside bus turnout and southbound padstop_ b. St_ Andrews Place - southbound farside bus turnout and northbound pad stop. c. Wilshire Avenue - northbound farside bus turnout and southbound pad stop. d. Tolliver Street - southbound farside bus turnout. e. Richland Street- northbound farside bus turnout. 28657 P90223r0 Rpt 4 75C -535 i DKS Associates 1 f Bishop/Willits Street - northbound /southbound farside bus turnouts. g. Myrtle Street - northbound /southbound farside bus turnouts, h. Civic Center Drive - northbound/southbound farside bus turnouts- i. Washington Avenue - northbound /southbound farside bus turnouts. j. 17th Street - northbound /southbound farside bus turnouts. k. 21st Street - southbound farside bus turnout. 1. Santa Clara Avenue - northbound /southbound bus turnouts. Median Break: Median breaks are proposed only for the following locations: a. Warner Avenue b. Glenwood Place c. Wilshire Avenue d. McFadden Avenue e. Cubbon Street f. Richland Street g. Bishop/Willits Street h. Myrtle Street i. First Street j. Santa Ana Blvd. k. 5th Street 1. Civic Center Drive m. Washington Street n. 17th Street o. Santa Clara Avenue I 7F657.P90223xaRpr 5 75C -536 �r 3. Existing Conditions r cr t k pr c 75C -537 DKS Associates 3. Existing Conditions 3.1 MAJOR STREET CHARACTERISTICS Bristol Street Bristol Street serves as the main arterial in the study area. Although numerous smaller, local roadways currently intersect Bristol Street within the study area, several larger primary and secondary arterial roadways intersect Bristol Street providing primary access from the easterly and westerly directions. These roadways are Warner Avenue, Edinger Avenue, McFadden Avenue, 1st Street and 17th Street. The vicinity map of the project site is shown in Figure 3 -1. Bristol Street is designated as a major arterial highway (120 -foot right-of-way) in the Orange County Master Plan of Streets and Highways and is a designated truck route through the City of Santa Ana. Bristol Street has an existing right -of -way varying from 70 to 115 feet, while curb -to -curb width varies from 58 to 89 feet. The area adjoining Bristol Street varies in existing land use with a mixture of both commercial and residential developments. The number of through travel lanes varies from four to six, excluding left -turn lanes at major intersections and right -turn lanes at Bristol Street's intersection with Warner Avenue, McFadden Avenue, 1st Street, 17th Street and Memory Lane. Bristol Street varies from a four -lane undivided road to a five -lane undivided road between Memory Lane and Warner Avenue. Bristol Street has an estimated average daily traffic that varies from 50,500 vehicles south of Memory Lane to 33,200 vehicles south of McFadden Avenue. Warner Avenue Warner Avenue is designated as a major arterial highway in the Orange County Master Plan. East of Bristol Street, Warner Avenue has a roadway width of 70 feet and is striped for four through lanes and a two -way left -turn lane. West of Bristol Street, Warner Avenue is 90 feet wide with three eastbound lanes, two westbound lanes and a raised center median. The eastbound curb lane on Warner Avenue becomes a right -turn lane at Bristol Street. The average daily traffic volumes on Warner Avenue are estimated to be 28,500 vehicles east of Bristol Street and 27,600 vehicles west of Bristol Street. Warner Avenue has a posted speed limit of 35 MPH. Edinger Avenue lw Edinger Avenue is designated as a primary arterial highway on the Orange County General Plan- West of Bristol Street, Edinger Avenue has a roadway width of 74 feet and is striped for two zaeszrvozzJbratra 6 i 75C -538 DKS Associates CHAPMAN AVE ♦ W 9 H w > > > FWY GARDEN GROVE BLVD�y MEMORY LN ON 6 GP 2 c GARDEN Q SEVENTEENTH 5T FIRST PRO JECT 5T LIMITS Mc FADDEN FWy AVE EDINGER AVE s 7 WARNER a AVE P T J Q r W =r pt TALBERT 4 �Qo MAC ARTHUR BLVD S = ,N c 0 /fir' O i m w O i > a A'wr x ¢ a <` o Figure 3 -1 75C -539 VICINITY MAP I DKS Associates westbound lanes and three eastbound lanes with a two -way left -turn lane. At Bristol Street, the eastbound curb lane becomes a right -turn lane. East of Bristol Street, Edinger Avenue is 70 feet wide and striped for four through lanes with a raised center median. Average daily traffic volumes on Edinger Avenue are estimated to be 26,100 vehicles west of Bristol Street and 26,700 vehicles east of Bristol Street. Edinger Avenue has a posted speed limit of 40 MPH. i McFadden Avenue McFadden Avenue is designated as a secondary arterial highway in the Orange County General Plan. West of Bristol Street, McFadden Avenue has a roadway width of 60 feet and is striped for two through lanes in each direction with a dedicated left -turn pocket. Average daily traffic volume on this portion of McFadden Avenue is estimated to be 16,000 vehicles, and the posted speed limit is 35 MPH. East of Bristol Street, McFadden Avenue is 40 feet wide and striped for only one lane in each direction with a dedicated left -turn pocket at Bristol Street. Traffic volume on McFadden Avenue east of Bristol Street is estimated to be 14,300 vehicles per day, and the posted speed limit is 30 MPH. Willits Street/Bishop Street Willits Street west of Bristol Street is a 40 -foot wide residential road that is striped for one lane in each direction with a dedicated left -turn pocket at Bristol Street. This road is signal controlled at its intersection with Bristol Street. The speed limit on Willits Street is posted at 30 MPH. Fast of Bristol Street, this intersection becomes Bishop Street which is a 40 -foot wide residential road that is also striped for one lane of traffic in each direction with a dedicated left- turn pocket at Bristol Street. 1st Street lsl Street has a roadway width of 84 feet and is a major arterial highway with six through lanes and a two -way left -turn lane. Average daily traffic volumes on this road are estimated to be 37,650 vehicles west of Bristol Street and 36,000 vehicles east of Bristol Street. 1st Street has a posted speed limit of 35 MPH in each direction, and is designated as a truck route through the City of Santa Ana. Santa Ana Boulevard Santa Ana Boulevard has a roadway width of 56 feet, and is designated as a major arterial highway in the Orange County General Plan. It is striped for two through lanes in each direction separated by a double yellow center line. Average daily traffic volumes on Santa Ana Boulevard are estimated to be 10,500 vehicles west of Bristol Street and 11,900 vehicles east of Bristol Street. Santa Ana Boulevard has a posted speed limit of 35 MPH. 28657P90223XV 4W 8 75C -540 I DKS Associates Sih Street 5th Street is a 40 -foot wide road that is striped for one lane in each direction. It is controlled by a two -phase traffic signal operation at its intersection with Bristol Street. Traffic volumes on 5th Street are estimated to be 8,300 vehicles per day west of Bristol Street and 5,500 vehicles per day east of Bristol Street. Civic Center Drive i Civic Center Drive is designated as a secondary arterial highway in the Orange County General Plan. This road is 64 feet wide and is striped for two through lanes in each direction. The speed limit on Civic Center Drive is 35 MPH and it is posted "No Trucks Over 3 Tons." Average daily traffic volumes on Civic Center Drive are estimated to be 17,000 vehicles west of Bristol Street and 20,900 vehicles east of Bristol Street. Washington Avenue Washington Avenue has a roadway width of 49 feet and is striped for one lane in each direction with a two -way left -turn lane west of Bristol Street. Traffic volume on this section of Washington Avenue is estimated at 10,400 vehicles per day. East of Bristol Street, Washington Avenue is 32 feet wide and is striped for one lane in each direction. The speed limit on Washington Avenue is 25 MPH. 17th Street 17th Street is a major arterial highway that is striped for three through lanes in each direction with a two -way left -turn lane in the middle. 17th Street is designated as a truck route and has a posted speed limit of 35 MPH. West of Bristol Street, 17th Street is 82 feet wide and is estimated to have 38,800 vehicles per day. East of Bristol Street, 17th Street is 86 feet wide and striped for a left -turn lane, two through lanes and a right -turn lane at Bristol Street. The traffic volume on this section of 17th Street is estimated at 40,100 vehicles per day. Traffic signal phasing at this intersection provides for a westbound right -turn overlap with the southbound left -turn phase. Santa Clara Avenue Santa Clara Avenue is a residential collector that is striped for one lane in each direction and has a posted speed limit of 25 MPH. West of Bristol Street, Santa Clara Avenue is 36 feet wide and is estimated to have an average daily traffic volume of 6,300 vehicles. East of Bristol Street, Santa Clara Avenue reduces from 38 feet wide to 24 feet wide at Bristol Street. Traffic volume on this section of Santa Clara Avenue is estimated at 4,800 vehicles per day. There are yellow school crosswalks on all legs of this signalized intersection. W657.P90123r0.Rpe 6 75C -541 DKS Associates Memory Lane West of Bristol Street, Memory Lane is an 84 -foot wide primary arterial highway that is striped for two lanes in each direction with a two -way left -turn lane. At Bristol Street, the west I approach of Memory Lane is striped with a left -turn lane, an optional left and through lane and two right -turn lanes. This section of Memory Lane has a posted speed limit of 40 MPH and is a designated truck route. It has an estimated average daily traffic volumes of 30,800 vehicles. IEast of Bristol Street, Memory Lane is also 84 feet wide and striped for two lanes in each direction with a continuous two -way left -tum lane. At Bristol Street, the east approach of Memory Lane is striped with a left -turn lane, a right -turn lane and two through lanes. Traffic volume on this section of Memory Lane is estimated at 12,300 vehicles per day, and the posted speed limit of 40 MPH. Trucks over three tons are not allowed on Memory Lane, east of Bristol Street. Traffic signal phasing at the Bristol Street/Memory Lane intersection is split in the east -west direction. Signal phasing also provides for an eastbound right -turn overlap with the northbound protected left -turn phase. Pedestrian crossing is prohibited across the south leg of Bristol Street. 3.2 MIDBLOCK CAPACITY ANALYSIS The existing average daily traffic volumes for various segments of Bristol Street are based primarily upon the volumes provided in the Bristol Street Widening Project (EIS) and its associated traffic study. Using roadway capacity standards developed by the Orange County Environmental Management Agency, levels of service were determined. Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative description of midblock operating conditions which ranges from A (excellent) to F (failure). Table 3 -1 provides a detailed explanation about roadway capacity values. The existing average daily traffic volumes for various segments of Bristol Street within the study area and the results of the capacity analysis are shown on Table 3 -2. All segments of Bristol Street within the study area, except south of St. Gertrude Place to Warner Avenue, are currently functioning at level of service F. 3.3 INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS Intersection capacity analyses utilizing the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology are performed on 13 major intersections along Bristol Street. The most recent traffic volumes (1990) at each intersection were gathered from the City of Santa Ana for typical AM and PM peak traffic periods. The existing lane configurations used for the 13 intersections analyzed are shown in Figure 3 -2. 286s7.P9o223xaRpt 10 75C -542 1 DKS Associates Table 3 -1 Roadway Capacity Values Freewavl ransoortation Corridors Freeway Sizes At Level of Service D 4 lanes 65,000 6 lanes 115,000 8 lanes 145,000 10 lanes 175,000 Arterial 1-1i¢hwa Level of Service Tae of Arterial A B C D E F 6 lanes divided 36,000 40,400 45,000 49,500 54,000 ' 4 lanes divided 24,000 27,000 30,000 33,000 36,000 4 lanes (undivided) 16,000 18,000 20,000 22,000 24,000 ' 2 lanes (undivided) 5,000 7,500 10,000 12,500 15,000 ' ' Maximum average daily traffic (ADT) Ilse roadway capacities are We of thumb" figures only, to be used at the General Plan keel. They are affected by such factors as intersections (numbess and conGguralion), degree of aoens control, roadway grades, design geomelrics (horizontal and vertical alignment standards), sight di5tanre, level of Huck and bas traffic, and Invel of pedestrian and bicycle IrafGc. Source: Orange Comfy Grn al Plan - Masts Plan of An I HiAway Componi=, County of Orange, Environmental Agency, 1982 22657 P902ZW RM 11 75C -543 i DKS Associates Table 3 -2 Existing Average Daily Traffic and Capacity Analysis Bristol Street ADTO) LOS Memory Lane to Santa Clara Avenue 50,500 F Santa Clara Avenue to 17th Street 44,500 F 17th Street to Washington Avenue 41,000 F Washington Avenue to Civic Center Drive 38,800 F Civic Center Drive to 5th Street 38,200 F 5th Street to Santa Ana Boulevard 37,000 F Santa Ana Boulevard to 1st Street 37,000 F 1st Street to Willits Street/Bishop Street 41,600 F Willits Street/Bishop Street to McFadden Avenue 37,100 F McFadden Avenue to Edinger Avenue 33,200 F Edinger Avenue to slo St. Gertrude Place 34,700 F slo St. Gertrude Place to Warner Avenue 34,700 D (t) Souror. 13mcol Street widening EIS extrapolated la 1990. 28657.P90223A )R H 12 75C -544 DKS Associates L Y-- MEMORY LANE SANTA CLARp -- 1 AV NOT t TO SCALE } } }�� 1 17TH 1f #� ST }� r WASHINGTON lit AV r CIVIC CENTER Ilr DR y 5TH S7 SANTA ANA BLVD r FIRST } }r ST F ui r BISHOP 1 ST J O F N m m } �1- M,FADDEN AV r EDINGER �} AV - GLENWOOD PL } r WARNER AV --y Figure 3 -2 75C -545 EXISTING LANE CONFIGURATION I DKS Associates The ICU method of analyzing intersection operations is one of several parallel methods j developed in the last two decades that allows the traffic engineer to perform a simple calculation of operating conditions at a signalized intersection. The end result, the overall intersection capacity utilization, is defined as the sum of the ratios of approach volume divided by approach capacity for each leg of intersection which controls overall traffic signal timing plus an allowance for clearance times. Thus, an ICU value of 1.00 corresponds to a condition where the sum of the approach volumes controlling the signal exactly equals the sum of the approach capacities servicing these volumes. The method requires data related to the following intersection characteristics: • Approach lane geometries and capacities, • Turning movement volumes, and • Signal control characteristics. The first data requirement pertains to intersection geometry and driver characteristics. It is necessary to determine the number of lanes available on each approach to the intersection, which turning movements utilize each intersection, and the number of vehicles per hour of green time that a particular lane can carry. This last value is heavily dependent on driver behavior, and has been shown to range from 1,500 -1,800 vehicles per hour of green time. The analysis contained in this report is based on a capacity of 1,600 vehicles per hour of green time for through lanes and 1,500 for turn lanes. The traffic volumes used in ICU analysis can be either actual traffic volumes counted under existing conditions, or projections of existing volumes combined with expected traffic generated by new development in the area. Both types of traffic volumes are analyzed in this report. Finally, the ICU analysis assumes that the signal at an intersection is ideally timed for the approaching traffic volumes. It is thus possible to have an acceptable ICU value and have one or more approaches to the intersection experience poor operations because of signal timing problems. The ICU method does not take interactions with other nearby intersections into account either, so queues from nearby congested locations can also lead to a situation where the ICU calculation indicates acceptable conditions, while severe congestion occurs as a result of interactions with other Iocations. Once all of the necessary information has been assembled, the actual ICU analysis consists of determining the volume -to- capacity (V /C) ratio for each signal phase /approach and summing the individual ratios_ To arrive at the overall ICU, a clearance lost time will be finally added to the calculated V/C ratio. A clearance lost time of 0.02 has been considered in this analysis. Table 3 -3 provides a detailed explanation of level of service for signalized intersections. 28657.P90223xOJRpi 14 75C -546 I DKS Associates Table 3 -3 Level of Service Interpretation Delay Range Volume -to- Level of (Sec. per Capacity Service Description Vehicle) Ratio A Excellent operation. All approaches to the intersection <5 0.50 appear quite open, turning movements are easily made, and nearly all drivers find freedom of operation. B Very good operation. Many drivers begin to feel 5.1 -15.0 .61 -.70 somewhat restricted within platoons of vehicles. This represents stable now. An approach to an intersection may occasionally be fully utilized and traffic queues start to form. C Good operation. Occasionally drivers may have to 15.1 -25.0 .71 -.80 wait more than 60 seconds, and back -ups may develop behind turning vehicles. Most drivers feel somewhat restricted. D Fair operation. Cars are sometimes required to wait 25.1 -40.0 .81 -.90 more than 60 seconds during short peaks. There are no long-standing traffic queues. This level is typically associated with design practice for peak periods. E Poor operation. Some long- standing vehicular 40.1 -60.0 .91 -1.00 queues develop on critical approaches to intersections. Delays may be up to several minutes. F Forced flow. Represents jammed conditions. Backups >60 Over 1.00 from locations downstream or on the cross street may restrict or prevent movement of vehicles out of the intersection approach lanes; therefore, volumes carried are not predictable. Potential for stop and go type traffic flow. Source: High4wy Capacity Manual, Transponation Research Board, Special Report No. 209, Washington, D.C., 1985 28657P90223r0. Rpr 15 75C -547 DKS Associates Table 34 provides the existing ICUs as well as their corresponding levels of service for both the morning and evening peak hours for each of the 13 study intersections. The most critical intersection, which is currently operating at an unacceptable level of service of E during both the AM and PM peak hours, is the intersection of Bristol Street at Memory Lane. During the PM peak hour, the intersection of Bristol Street at 17th Street operates at an unacceptable level of service F. however, it functions at an acceptable level of service C during the AM peak hour. Similarly, the intersection of Bristol Street at Ist Street functions at an unacceptable level of service E during the AM peak hour but functions well with an acceptable level of service D during the PM peak hour. All other intersections are currently operating satisfactorily. Detailed ICU worksheets can be found in the appendix at the end of this report 3.4 BUS TRANSIT Public transportation, mainly bus service along Bristol Street, is provided by the Orange County Transit District (OC IJ). There are currently three main transit routes being served by OCIDD along Bristol Street. They are Route 49, Route 56 and Route 57. Route 49 serves Bristol Street from 5th Street to Memory Lane. Route 56 serves 17th Street to Garden Grove Boulevard on Bristol Street. Finally, Route 57 serves Bristol Street from 5th Street to Warner Avenue. Currently, there are 40 bus stops (20 northbound and 20 southbound) located along Bristol Street. 2e65Zr902230rrPr 16 75C -548 1 i i i r� DKS Associates Table 3-4 Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary Existing TraMc and Intersection Lane Configurations Intersection! Bristol St. and PM Peak Hour 1. Warner Avenue 2. Glenwood Place 3. Edinger Avenue 4. McFadden Avenue 5. Bishop Street 6, 1st Street 7. Santa Ana Boulevard 8. 5th Street 9. Civic Center Drive 10. Washington Avenue 11. 17th Street 12. Santa Clara Avenue 13. Memory Lane 28657P90223iO.Rpt AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ICU LOS ICU LOS 0.63 B 0.84 D 0.43 A 0.61 A 0.73 C 0.86 D 0.61 B 0.89 D 0.52 A 0.72 C 0.91 E 0.84 D 0.43 A 0.60 A 0.59 A 0.67 B 0.50 A 0.59 A 0.70 B 0.66 B 0.72 C 1.04 F 0.77 C 0.77 C 0.96 E 0.96 E 17 75C -549 L T 4. General Plan Condition (Year 2006) With and Without Widening � w- d+�, `` 75C -550 I DKS Associates 1 4. General Plan Condition (Year 2005) With and Without l Widening Future traffic volumes, for the target year 2006, were taken from the Bristol Street Widening Environmental Impact Study report. The Bristol Street widening EIS has assumed that in the year 2006 all roads would be built out to their ultimate widths, as designated on the Orange R County General Plan - Master Plan of Arterial Highways Components, County of Orange, Environmental Management Agency, 1982- It has furthermore assumed that the volume of traffic on Bristol Street north of Warner Avenue is consistent with a 1% per year growth rate. Midblock Capacity Analysis Table 4 -1 summarizes the projected traffic volumes on each link with the corresponding levels of service with and without widening of Bristol Street. In the future year 2006 without widening, each link of Bristol Street from Memory Lane to Warner Avenue would experience level of service F. Traffic on Bristol Street would be extremely congested and motorists would experience excessive delay. The added capacity which the widening project will provide will greatly aid traffic circulation by reducing congestion and delay and accommodating projected future traffic increases. As Table 4 -1 indicates, projected traffic volumes on Bristol Street north of Washington Avenue result in undesirable levels of service on several links while those values are above the desired LOS of C. The anticipated volumes can be accommodated on the proposed six-lane divided roadway due to the conservative nature of the capacity values. Motorists may continue to experience delay; however, the length of delay would greatly diminish with roadway widening. Intersection Capacity Analysis An intersection capacity analysis using the ICU methodology has been done for the scenario of future traffic conditions (General Plan, year 2006) with and without the widening project. Thesc results are summarized in Table 4 -2 and 4 -3. Traffic conditions in the year 2006 without the widening project would experience undesirable levels of service along Bristol Street at Warner Avenue (PM peak), Civic Center Drive (PM peak), 1st Street, and the segment north of ' Washington Avenue up to Memory Lane. With the Bristol Street project widening, all intersections along Bristol Street will be functioning at an acceptable level of service D or better. The ultimate lane configurations on which these analyses are based are shown in • Figure 4 -1. • 28657.P90227s0.Rpr 18 P 75C -551 e I DKS Associates Table 4 -1 Roadway Links Levels of Service Year 2006 With and Without Widening Project Year 2006 Year 2006 w/o Widening w/ Widening Bristol Street ADT LOS ADT LOS Memory Ln. to Santa Clara Ave. 58,3W F 58,300 F Santa Clara Ave. to 17th St. 51,400 F 51,400 £ 17th St. to Washington Ave. 47,300 F 47,300 D Washington Ave. to Civic Center Dr. 44,800 F 44,800 C Civic Center Dr. to 5th St. 44,000 F 44,000 C 51h St. to Santa Ana Blvd. 42,600 F 42,600 C Santa Ana Blvd. to 1st St. 42,600 F 42,600 C 1st St. to Willits St./Bishop St, 48,000 F 48,000 D Willits SLBishop St. to McFadden Ave. 42,800 F 42,800 C McFadden Ave. to Edinger Ave. 38-3W F 38,300 B Edinger Ave. to s/o St. Gertrude PI, 40,100 F 40,100 B s/o St. Gertrude Pl. to Warner Ave. 40,100 F 40,100 B 28657P90223xaRpi 19 75C -552 DKS Associates Table 42 Year 2006 Intersection ICU and LOS Values Without Widening AM Peak PM Peak Bristol Street at: ICU LOS ICU LOS Memory Lane 1.26 F 1.14 F Santa Clara Avenue 1.11 F 1.00 E 17th Street 1.00 E 1.18 F Washington Avenue 0.95 E 1.00 E Civic Center Drive 0.90 D 1.01 F 5th Street 0.87 D 0.90 D Santa Ana Boulevard 0.72 C 0.85 D 1st Street 0.98 E 1.15 F Bishop Strmt/Willits Street 0.59 A 0.82 D McFadden Avenue 0.89 D 0.85 D Edinger Avenue 0.75 C 0.90 D Glenwood Place 0.50 A 0.66 B Warner Avenue 0.71 C 0.96 E 28657.p90z23zaRpr 20 75C -553 of L Ly t DKS Associates Table 4-3 Year 2006 Intersection ICU and LOS Values With Widening AM Peak PM Peak Bristol Street at: ICU LOS ICU LOS Memory Lane 0.88 D 0.88 D Santa Clara Avenue 0.84 D 0.77 C 171h Street 0.68 B 0.89 D Washington Avenue 0.77 C 0.82 D Civic Center Drive 0.80 C 0.80 C 5th Street 0.70 B 0.74 C Santa Ana Boulevard 0.57 A 0.67 B 1st Street 0.73 C 0.83 D Bishop Slreet/Wil1iLS Street 0.47 A 0.50 A McFadden Avenue 0.67 B 0.69 B Edinger Avenue 0.63 B 0.63 B Glenwood Place 0.40 A 0.50 A Warner Avenue 0.50 A 0.50 A 28657P90223x0RPr 21 75C -554 a s e r DKS Associates I., MEMORY } LANE " SANTA CLARA —� )Itt AV NOT TO SCALE )���"� 17TH }5 r ST WASHINGTON AV L CIVIC CENTER DR 5TH ST r1 SANTA ANA 11 BLVD t J u r FIRST ST w r BISHOP �I ST J N ` MCFAODEN AV r ERINGER GLENWOOD fit PL WARNER } ' AV Figure 4 -1 FUTURE LANE CONFIGURATION 75C -555 (GENERAL PLAN, YEAR 2006) MT i. 5. Speciflk' Plan Impact 75C-556 I DKS Associates 1 5. Specifc Plan Impact L 5.1 TRIP GENERATION t The Bristol Street Specific Plan recommends redeveloping the land uses along Bristol Street in both upgrading and slightly decreasing the intensity of the existing land use by developing parks and landscaping along the study area. The overall trip generation for the recommended plan must account for the removal of the existing land uses, and the improvement of new land uses. Trip generation rates are used to relate the type and size of a specific development to the number of person and vehicle trips originating at or destined for the study area without regard for directional orientation_ The trip generation itself estimates the number of trips originating from or destined to the proposed study area by land use for each traffic analysis zone. Each traffic analysis zone structure and its respective parcel numbers are shown in Figure 5 -1. The individual land use types by zones are shown in Table 5 -1. The following trip generation rates were used in the analysis as shown in Table 5 -2. The rates used in Table 5 -1 are based upon the observed tripmaking characteristics of each land use type documented in San Diego Traffic Generators published by the San Diego Association of Governments. In order to adequately represent the change in traffic volume, the total trips generated by the Bristol Street Specific Plan were estimated and then deducted from the total trips generated without the Specific Plan. Thus, the difference in traffic volume due to the redevelopment was calculated representing the net change in projected future growth in tripmaking under the proposed scenario. These results are shown in Table 5 -3. For the entire study area, approximately 7,000 daily trips are generated by the site which is a reduction from 16,350 daily trips generated without the Specific Plan. For the PM peak hour, which is the critical of the two peak hours involved, the projected difference in total trips was a reduction of 924 trips compared to the future condition without Specific Plan. For the AM peak period, the difference in total trips was a reduction of 568 trips. Thus, the Specific Plan actually enhances the operation level by reducing the total morning and afternoon peak hour traffic volumes by 1,492 trips. 5.2 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT The net difference in total trips estimated due to the Bristol Street Specific Plan redevelopment was estimated, distributed and assigned to all 13 intersections in the study area_ 2b657.P90223x0..Rpr 23 75C -557 DKS Associates Figure 5 -1 75C -558 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONES MEMORY LANE SANTA CLARA AV NOT 6t 1 : 596062 TO SCALE 17TH ST WASHINGTON AV 5 5 5 5 F52Tq 1. CIVIC CENTER DR 7 5 6 9 5TH ST 44 SANTA ANA BLVD FIRST 57 323 39 0313 343 3 BISHOP ST 2 2 29 .p �: 22242 2 6 McFADDEN 4 Stfi � AV t31B2 171621 EDINGER AV z e FsT, o� OOD tz TRAFFIC A NALYSIS ZONE R ® PARCEL NUMBERS AV Figure 5 -1 75C -558 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONES DKS Associates Table 5 -1 Land Use Type by Zones Zone Land Use Tvnc 1 7.4 TSF Commercial 1.0 DU Residential 61.2 TSF Park 2 46.8 TSF Park 3 26.8 TSF Commercial 39.2 TSF Office 359.6 TSF Park 1.0 DU Residential 4 25.8 TSF Commercial 2.8 TSF Office 108.7 TSF Park 5 13.1 TSF Commercial 22.2 TSF Office 7.0 DU Residential 127.4 TSF Park 6 48.1 TSF Park 7 11.5 TSF Park 8 22.4 TSF Commercial 1.0 DU Residential 2.0 TSF Park 9 19.2 TSF Commercial 1.0 DU Residential 156.9 TSF Park 10 22.2 TSF Commercial 6.5 TSF Office 11 166.5 TSF Park 12 63.4 TSF Park 28657P90223x0Rpr 25 75C -559 DKS Associates Table 5 -2 Trip Generation Rates San Diego TraiTic Generators Daily AM PM Land Use (2 -way) In Out In Out Commercial 40 0.72 0.48 1.80 1.80 Office 20 2.52 0.42 0.52 2.08 Church 15 0.48 0.12 0.60 0.60 Residential 10 0.16 0.64 0.70 0.30 Gas Station 40 0.72 0.48 1.80 1.80 `For new redevelopmcni areas: 35% of the gross area was taken as commercial development. 28657.P90223z0.Rpr 26 75C -560 DKS Associates Table 5 -3 PM Peak Total Trip Generation by Zones 0 Future Without 148 Specific Plan Zone AM Peak PM Peak 1 69 113 2 19 20 3 211 382 4 76 154 5 108 172 6 67 178 7 42 127 8 39 87 9 142 183 10 128 131 11 35 48 12 14 17 Total: 950 1,612 28657.P90223ARpr Future With Specific Plan AM Peak PM Peak 10 28 0 0 148 199 39 100 87 112 0 0 0 0 28 82 24 70 46 97 0 0 0 0 382 688 27 75C -561 Net Reduction AM Peak PM Peak 59 85 19 20 63 183 37 54 21 60 67 178 42 127 11 5 118 113 82 34 35 48 14 17 568 924 DKS Associates The directional orientation of trips to and from the study area was based on overall peak hour area wide circulation patterns and the project location in relationship to regional service and employment concentrations. About 29% of the total traffic is distributed northbound toward the SR -22 and 1 -5 and another 29% is distributed southbound toward SR -55 and SR -405. The easterly and westerly portions were assigned 21% each. Trips to and from the project study area were assigned to logical access routes based upon the trip distribution percentages discussed above. 5.3 MIDBLOCK OPERATION The estimated future daily operational analysis summary for the existing, future without Specific Plan and future with Specific Plan is shown in Table 54. There are no significant changes in levels of service along Bristol Street in the study area with Specific Plan in comparison to without the Specific Plan. 5.4 INTERSECTION OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS The intersection operational analyses were done for peak hour conditions. The PM peak hour represents the worst case situation, although the level of service does not differ drastically from AM peak hour conditions. This might be due to a good balance in land use that exists between residential and commercial development. The impacts on the intersections along Bristol Street due to the Specific Plan in comparison with the existing, future without Specific Plan, and future with Specific Plan are shown on Table 5 -5 and Table 5-6- For the 13 study intersections, there will be no significant changes in quality of traffic operation on any of the intersections in comparison with the future condition without Specific Plan. All intersections are found to he functioning at a satisfactory level of service. 28557P9022kO Rpt 28 75C -562 DKS Associates Table 54 17th St. to Summary of Midblock Capacity Analysis Washington Ave. Existing Location ADT LOS 1. Memory Ln. to 5, Santa Clara Ave. 50,500 F 2. Santa Clara Ave. to 6. 17th St. 44,500 F 3. 17th St. to Washington Ave. 4. Washington Ave. to Civic Center Dr. 5, Civic Center Dr. to 5th St. 6. 5th St. to Santa Ana Blvd. 7. Santa Ana Blvd_ to 1st St. 8. 1st St. to Willits St./Bishop St. 9. Willits St./Bishop St. to McFadden Ave. 10. McFadden Ave. to Edinger Ave. 11. Edinger Ave. to s/o St. Gertrude Pl. 12. s/o Gertrude Pl. to Warner Ave. 41,000 F 38,800 F 38,200 F 36,900 F 36,900 F 41,600 F 37,200 F 33,200 F 34,700 F 34,700 D 2e657.P90223x0.Rpt 29 75C -563 Future Without Specific Plan ADT LOS 58,300 F 51,400 E 47,300 D 44,800 C 44,000 C 42,600 C 42,600 C 48,000 D 42,800 C 38,300 B 40,100 B 40,100 B Future With Specific Plan ADT LOS 58,100 F 50,900 E 47,200 D 43,900 C 44,000 C 41,200 C 40,600 C 47,300 D 42,200 C 36,200 B 39,900 B 39,300 B DKS Associates Table S -5 Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary Proposed Redevelopment Impact (AM Peak) Future Without Future With 26657P96224s0.Rpr 30 75C -564 Existing Specific Plan Specific Plan Intersection: Bristol St. ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS 1. Warner Ave. 0.63 B 0.50 A 0.53 A 2 Glenwood Pl. 0.43 A 0.40 A 0.44 A 3. Edinger Ave. 0.73 C 0.63 B 0 -61 B 4. McFadden Ave. 0.61 B 0.67 B 0.65 B 5. Bishop St. 0.52 A 0.47 A 0.48 A 6. 1st St. 0.91 E 0.73 C 0.72 C 7. Santa Ana Blvd. 0.43 A 0.57 A 0.53 A 8. 5th St. 0.59 A 0.70 B 0.65 B 9, Civic Center Dr. 0.50 A 0.80 C 0.76 C 10. Washington Ave. 0.70 B 0.77 C 0.73 C 11, 17th St. 0.72 C 0.68 B 0.79 C 12. Santa Clara Ave. 0.77 C 0.84 D 0.81 D 13. Memory Ln. 0.96 E 0.88 D 0.78 C 26657P96224s0.Rpr 30 75C -564 DKS Associates Table 5 -6 Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary Proposed Redevelopment Impact (PM Peak) 28657.P90223r0.Rpt 31 75C -565 Future Without Future With Existing Specific Plan Specific Plan Intersection: Bristol St. ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS 1. Warner Ave. 0.84 D 0.50 A 0.68 B 2. Glenwood P1. 0.61 B 0.50 A 0.56 A 3. Edinger Ave. 0.86 D 0.63 B 0.73 C 4. McFadden Ave. 0.89 D 0.69 B 0.58 A 5. Bishop St. 0.72 C 0.50 A 0.66 B 6. 1st St. 0.84 D 0.83 D 0.80 C 7. Santa Ana Blvd. 0.60 A 0.67 B 0.50 A 8. 5th St. 0.67 B 0.74 C 0.58 A 9. Civic Center Dr. 0.59 A 0.80 C 0.77 C 10. Washington Ave. 0.66 B 0.82 D 0.79 C 11. 17th St. 1.04 F. 0.89 D 0.85 D 12. Santa Clara Ave. 0.77 C 0.77 C 0.73 C 13. Memory Ln. 0.96 £' 0.88 D 0.85 D •Dchd"t iMcr Lion 28657.P90223r0.Rpt 31 75C -565 r F F r r .- s 4 !- r 75C -566 6. Residential impact DKS Associates 6. Residential impact The current intrusion of commuter traffic into the surrounding residential neighborhood as a result of the existing congested conditions along Bristol Street is extremely undesirable. Commuter traffic has been found to spill over onto the adjoining local road system utilizing their capacity and adding to their congestion. Projection of the future traffic volumes on the existing road system further aggravates this congested condition. With the Bristol Street widening project, Bristol Street will be capable of accommodating existing as well as future traffic needs safely and efficiently. Traffic volumes will continue to increase whether or not Bristol Street is improved and the Specific Plan is implemented. With the proposed Specific Plan, total generated trips will be less than that of without the Specific Plan. For the PM peak hour, which is the most critical of the two peak hours involved, the projected difference in total trips is a reduction of 924 trips compared to the future condition without the Specific Plan. With the Specific Plan and Bristol Street widening, the intrusion of commuter traffic into the residential neighborhoods would, therefore, be substantially reduced. On Pacific Avenue, for example, commuter trips will reduce by more than 80 %. The amount of through traffic on this street will decrease from 95 vehicles per hour (during the AM peak) to less than 20 vehicles per hour. The construction of a raised median on Bristol Street will, however, alter circulation patterns and access to land uses that front Bristol Street and to neighborhoods that adjoin it. At minor streets through which the median is constructed and at driveway locations along Bristol Street, turning movements will be restricted to right in and right out maneuvers. The raised median will divert and concentrate turning movements at the median breaks. In conjunction with the raised median, the widening project is considering the closure of 10 minor streets at their intersection with Bristol Street through the use of cul-de -sacs. Additionally, the Bristol Street Specific Plan recommends cul- de- sacing several other streets as described in the project description. Four of those additional cul -de -sacs are proposed between Washington Street and Civic Center Drive at 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th Streets. Turning minor streets feeding Bristol Street into cul -de -sacs would cut off easy access to some commuters and divert them to a longer route to reach Bristol Street, The HIS concluded that, in all cases, the farthest distance residential traffic would be diverted is 1,850 feet. The negative effect of these additional travel lengths would be offset by the reduction in conflict potential at their intersections with Bristol Street. The impact which minor street cul-de -sacs would have on signalized intersections along Bristol Street was evaluated by redistributing the traffic volumes entering or exiting minor streets and reevaluating ICU calculations. However, circulation in the residential neighborhoods that utilize these streets to access Bristol Street would be affected. Traffic volumes on Pacific Avenue, parallel and cast of Bristol Street in particular, would be increased during the morning and evening peak hours. This increase in traffic is a result of cul -de- sacing 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th streets at Bristol which will add a total of approximately 800 vehicles per day to the average daily traffic volumes of Pacific Avenue between Civic Center Drive and Washington Street. However, Pacific Avenue has sufficient capacity to accommodate this additional traffic, 2A657.P90223sA.Rpt 32 75C -567 I DKS Associates 7 but due to this increase in traffic volumes, it is anticipated that the following two intersections would warrant a traffic signal. a. Washington Street/Pacific Avenue b. Civic Center Drive(Pacific Avenue The intersection of Pacific Avenue and Santa Ana Boulevard will not, however, be significantly impacted by the proposed additional cul -de -sacs. A peak hour signal warrant analysis was performed for the two intersections of Pacific Avenue with Washington Street and Civic Center Drive. Approach volumes were estimated from the turning volumes at the intersections of Bristol Street with Washington Street and Civic Center Drive as are presented below in Table 6 -1. Table 6 -1 Approach Peak Hour Volumes Future With Specific Plan NB SB EB WB Intersection AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Washington Street at Pacific Avenue 257 211 (1) - 300 310 447 727 Civic Center Drive at Pacific Avenue 206 169 257 21t 869 829 395 1,142 (1) No SB approach. Figure 64, the peak hour volume warrant, indicates that both intersections will warrant a signal should additional cul- de- sacing at 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th Streets be implemented. However, if the intersection of Civic Center Drive at Pacific Avenue is to be signalized, it is possible, as an alternative to the signalization of the intersection of Washington Street/Pacific Avenue, to cul-de -sac Pacific Avenue at Washington Street and divert traffic toward Civic Center Drive. Cul -de- lacing Pacific Avenue will eliminate the signal need at Washington Avenue and preserve the residential character of Pacific Avenue north of Civic Center Drive_ According to the EIS, cross street movements are anticipated to be low and will be lower with the implementation of the Specific Plan. It is anticipated that under no circumstances do motorists have to travel more than two blocks to make a U -turn_ An increase in U -turns was -" taken into account both in the intersection capacity analysis and in designing the storage bay lengths_ 2aa5ZPQ022.#zo.xpr 33 75C -568 .i i .a Z U 0 O T � a� mMa cc W = y w3 a W LL U r o o co 2W U i 0 ¢ IL O i mommolloo <0 0 ¢ w co to xx CL o Z 0� p y i 3 4 0 a w w a_ o0Lj� � d yaw W 3a NO o� uj WW o >az o> Na¢a �c 0 0 0 IC zpw00 0 ¢ 1a o LL mx? rzxx >a Qom x�ww m o C 2 0 G a n =O= O - L U S d 7 g f 3oaa 3: < IEEE o � d w a 3 o■ Y AWA f H w z r a ¢ a W o N w w RL w° ¢¢w O o J Q a 00 ¢ r a z C) a ¢ o m > x s u0 0 0 o N F MEME07=70 O o Z 00 00 0 00 0 0 O 0 N V 7 N HdA— HOVObddV 3wnlOA Hai" 133li1S HOHIW T � a� mMa cc W = y w3 a W LL i 'r �1. 1 R 1 Y 7. Guidelines for Design Standards `` 75C -570 DKS Associates 7. Guidelines for Design Standards Guidelines for design standards for the spacing of driveway access locations and street s intersections along Bristol Street have been established. These guidelines are discussed below in detail. The goal of the Bristol Street widening and Specific Plan project is to improve efficiency and safety along this major arterial. Currently, vehicular congestion exists along Bristol Street as a result of cross traffic between intersections and uncontrolled driveway access points. The _ impacts of driveways on arterial street capacity and safety make it apparent that it is in the Santa Ana community's best interest to: 1) limit the number of driveways to those which are actually needed to safely accommodate the traffic generated by the Specific Plan project, 2) provide adequate spacing between driveways so conflicts (and resulting accidents) between vehicles maneuvering at adjacent driveways do not arise, and 3) ensure proper design to accommodate driveway traffic and minimize vehicle conflicts without significantly reducing roadway capacity. The guidelines and proposed standards outlined below have been developed to identify acceptable access spacing and location for the Bristol Street Specific Plan project. Multiple Driveways By law, each parcel of land must be granted access (restricted or full) to a public roadway, except under certain special conditions. Consolidation of parcels and shared - driveway policy may be implemented to satisfy this requirement while reducing the number of driveways. Spacing or Signalized Intersections If a proposed driveway warrants a signal, its location may need to be reassessed based on minimum acceptable spacing for a progressive signal coordination along Bristol Street. Spacing Between Driveways The spacing between two driveways and intersections in the guidelines refers to the distance between the inner curbs of those two driveways or intersections. 26657.PW223XOFF9 35 75C -571 DKS Associates Design Standards for the Spacing of Driveway Access Locations and Street Intersections for Bristol Street Specific Plan 1. Recommended spacing between signalized intersections and a full driveway (median opening) along Bristol Street at: - Major Arterials - Other Streets 2. Recommended spacing between signalized intersections and a restricted driveway (no median opening - see notes) 3. Recommended spacing between full driveways (median openings) or a full driveway and unsignalized intersection 4. Recommended spacing between a full driveway (median opening) or an unsignalized intersection and a restricted driveway 5. Recommended spacing between restricted driveways 6. Recommended spacing between signalized intersections and a full driveway on: Major Arterials Other crossing signalized intersections 7. Recommended spacing between signalized intersections and a restricted driveway on: 28657.p90223 o.Rp 36 75C -572 Approach Leave •11 .11 450' (desirable) 300' (desirable) 300' (minimum) 150' (minimum) .11 .11 `450' 300' (desirable) 300' (minimum) 150' (minimum) 450' (desirable) 450' (desirable) 300' (minimum) 300' (minimum) 600' 600' 600' 450' DKS Associates - Major Arterials - other crossing signalized intersections 8. Recommended spacing between unsignalized intersections and a full driveway on crossing streets 9. Recommended spacing between unsignalized intersections and a restricted driveway on crossing street 450' (desirable) 300' (minimum) 300' (desirable) 150' (minimum) M 150' (desirable) 100' (minimum) 1S0' Figure 7 -1 schematically shows these guidelines. There are a number of locations which do not conform with these guidelines. A brief discussion of these locations and recommendations is presented below: 1. The Proposed Driveway South of 17th Street: Combine and relocate the two planned driveways to have a minimum of 300 feet distance to 17th Street. 2. The Proposed Drivewav on Edinger Avenue West of Bristol Street: Provide a deceleration lane and design for a right turn out only driveway. 3. The Proposed Driveways on Wilshire Avenue West of Bristol Street: Provide a deceleration lane for the driveway on the leave side of Wilshire Avenue and close the one on the approach side. 4. The Proposed Driveways on McFadden Avenue East of Bristol Street: Provide a deceleration lane for the driveway on the leave side and relocate the one on the approach side to the east to have a distance of 100 feet to the intersection. 5. The Proposed Driveway on Washington Street East of Bristol: Close the driveway. 26657,M223 Jc v 37 75C -573 DKS Associates sTRE�r —ter A! AeoALH !�' IrtS —+V -ID MAJOR Are7SL /.OLS GLO' 70 N-WOk A&Yr.44(,5 r O Zs ffa= 0Y7N6q 6 600' 7D 67;e&-&-2'S FU6C �+i055 /NV zk-ew �WGV /AITERS�CTlO,C/ PPi ✓E 1J4Y SPACAU4L 6SrW0GXJ /A/l- RSEC77CR15 A",C A Fin.. ZW /VEWAY ae /57Z)L_ S7XEET � ArT°fCOACH LE.d ✓& �t 4SO' DES.) 9M CGes 3aa'UrrcJ.) /SOl� .PE57RK7ClJ ,QPi✓Ew.aY �'+fa55 /N!+ l2EST.�lOf7� J^i7�.v- SS+- '7i0� -r Rf/v�w.CY Z. 5J°AG /.L/L- BETM/EEA1 /A17EZ, 5aC- 770415 ANO A RESJRlCM;0 AWiLASWAY Bf/STIX- 572.E� 45o'Co�s. ) 30o'CMU1.) =10� vp J`. SPACW& /BE W,2 E J RES77FfCTEaD ESPtvEw4Y5 Figure 7 -1 DES�1�DARDS FOR ACCESS LOCATIONS DKS Associates HA�pl2.d(T6�EL�L /CQ) DV pMEQ STP.EC7S FULL - t>2rvE.w4Y Lfi:4V6 -+� ' AJ AR MRtA[. 430' dv O 3JR�OTS F e L (o, S3PAUA L- BE7WE6A/ 6 F /S7n[ S�R�srs :3 14.1/AL /Z50 /M1E�PSEC- 774K/5 AA14D A ) [4V" rDRJV6HWAYCUI CROSS /w/G S77eE�15 -+a .�fPOACN o' asst n00'CMw. � M OTN�e �TRa6 R63TR/ pervaw4y ay 9R2SML- Om6j �STR1CJl � GQl1EwRY 4 e 7 SPAUA/!4 B6-7W6EAJ (3o.5,roL zmaa'TS Z1&AjdL 1zso /"MRSSC7700-15 .4A/O A eES7R/G-EO aR /V6w4 YOA/CR65S /A/& SMSI iYS g SI PAUA.,/Ce ,B E77a/EEM .f.�F /S7YJL aSTREEJ�j UNS /f..A.GCLJ2EiD /NTERSECTlGXlS ANA A FULL dQ1VEN/AY Q+V CROSSI.Vb V.�EEF.S BR /5T[K- �e�T -.� AiI�PL.IK.N /SO�C /00' NON Z.,�av� — Piq F-- 9 MIUCZAA, a67W6EAJ .6R/a7 -V- 5M6675 UAJS/bN.d( - /2�ip /At7�i2SC`t�/OnJS �W/v A R tM7 r- 7-M0 ZRA16WAY (3,J CROS&M, S7&a 75 Figure 7 -1 DE -cur. �� ARDS FOR ACCESS LOCATIONS F 1 -, x 8. Mitigation Measures 75C -576 1 DKS Associates S. Mitigation Measures Specific Plan The study agrees with all the recommendations made in the EIS in regard to Bristol Street. The intersection capacity analysis does not warrant any mitigation measures as all intersections have a satisfactory level of service. Some of the mitigation highlights recommended in the EIS report are as follows: the construction of raised median islands on Bristol Street is recommended as a mitigation measure. It will eliminate left -turn movements at midblock locations and concentrate left and U -turn movements at signalized intersections. A reduction in accident frequency can also be expected through the use of raised median islands. The continuous raised median island may, however, alter circulation patterns and access to residential and commercial developments along Bristol Street. At minor streets where median islands will be constructed, turning movements will be restricted to right in and right out maneuvers. Thus, the traffic circulation pattern might be altered and traffic may be directed to other available routes. However, the negative effect of this additional travel length would be offset by the reduction in conflict potential at a full intersection with Bristol Street_ Signal coordination should be provided along Bristol Street from Warner Avenue to Memory Lane to improve traffic progression. Parking should be prohibited along both sides of Bristol Street from Warner Avenue to Memory Lane. The prohibition of parking will improve traffic operation and capacity of Bristol Street by eliminating the potential conflicts between parking and unpacking maneuvers with through traffic. It will also enhance traffic safety along Bristol Street through the reduction of accident potential. Parking prohibition will also improve sight distance availability at the intersections or adjacent driveways, thus, reducing accident potential at these locations. In addition, bus turnouts along Bristol Street should be provided_ Bus turnouts would not impede through traffic lanes while loading and unloading passengers. This would further enhance the capacity of the roadway as there are no bus stops on each side of Bristol Street in the study area. The bus turnouts are most critical at major intersections such as First Street, McFadden Avenue, Edinger Avenue, Warner Avenue and Santa Ana Boulevard. 8.1 PROPOSED BUS TURNOUT LOCATIONS In order to maintain unrestricted traffic flow along the corridor, several bus turnout locations are proposed. In addition to proposing new far side bus turnouts within the Bristol Street 28657.P9022JW J. t 40 75C -577 M Associates project area, the elimination of certain existing bus stops and consolidation of others is proposed resulting in (northbound), Raymar Street (northbound) and 10th Street (southbound) are identified as potential stops to be eliminated. Table 8 -1 provides the locations for both bus turnouts and concrete pad stops. 8.2 SIGNAL INSTALLATION In order to control the additional traffic volumes at the unsignalized intersections of Pacific Avenue with Washington Street and Civic Center Drive, as a result of cul- de- sating 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th Streets, traffic signals are recommended to be installed at the following two intersections: a. Washington Street and Pacific Avenue b. Civic Center Drive and Pacific Avenue As an alternative to signalization of Washington Street/Pacific Avenue, Pacific Avenue at Washington Street could be cul- de- sated. 28657.P90223x0.Rpi 41 75C -578 DKS Associates Table 8 -1 Bristol Corridor Specific Plan Proposed Farside Bus Turnouts Farside Turnout Location Intersectine Street Northbound Southbound ' Warner Avenue X X St Gertrude Place X St. Andrew Place x • Edinger Avenue X X Wilshire Avenue X • McFadden Avenue X X Tolliver Street X Richland Street X Bishop/Willits Streets X X Myrtle Street X X '• 1st Street X X '• Santa Ana Boulevard X X Civic Center Drive X X Washington Avenue X X (southbound turnout located at 12th Street) 17th Street X X 21st Street X Santa Clara Avenue X X • Farside bus lumout locations proposed in EIS •• Farside bus lumout locations proposed in HIS in one direction only. First Street (northbound) and Santa Ana Boulevard (southbound). 2865ZP90223XOMI 42 75C -579 Proposed Concrete Pad Stems (Southbound) (Northbound) (Southbound) n :k "S 75C -580 APPENDIX ICU Worksheets INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION LOCATION: Bristol & Warner Ave. Existing NIS compnt. E/W compnt. RT compnt. Clearance ICU Critical movement identified by """ Right turn adjustment identified by 'a" Filename: BRWAREXT 1125191 0.33 No. 0.49 AM Peak PM Peak Mvmn Lanes Cap. Vol. VIC Vol. VIC -- -- NL - - - -- 1 - - - - -- - - -- 1500 - - - - -- 75 - - - ---- - - - -- - 0.05 - -- -- - - -- 262 - - - - - -- - 0.17 NT 2 3200 614 0.19 1186 0.37 " NR _ 1 1500 43 0.03 175 0.12 SL 1 1500 213 0.14 182 0.12 ' ST 3 4800 844 0.18 758 0.18 SR 0 1500 35 0.00 84 0.00 EL 1 1500 76 0.05 140 0.09 ' ET 2 3200 586 0.18 530 0.17 ER 1 1500 139 0.09 73 0.05 WL 1 1500 142 0.09 165 0.11 WT 2 3200 328 0.11 658 0.23 ' WR 0 1500 37 0.00 93 0.00 NIS compnt. E/W compnt. RT compnt. Clearance ICU Critical movement identified by """ Right turn adjustment identified by 'a" Filename: BRWAREXT 1125191 0.33 NIS compnt. 0.49 0.28 ENV compnt. 0.33 0.00 RT compnt. 0.00 0.02 Clearance 0.02 0.63 ICU 0.84 MXR 75C -581 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION TION: Bristol & Glenwood Place Existing 75C -582 No, AM Peak PM Peak Mvmn Lanes Cap. Vol. VIC Vol, VIC NL 1 1500 19 0.01 ' 23 0.02 NT 2 3200 896 0.29 1426 0.45 ' NR 0 0 19 0.00 19 0.00 SL 1 1500 14 0.01 38 0.03 ' ST 2 3200 1031 0.32 ' 1252 0.40 SR 0 1500 8 0.00 29 0.00 EL 0 0 28 0.00 " 12 0.00 ' ET 1 1600 21 0.04 20 0.03 ER 0 0 10 0.00 11 0.00 WL 0 0 86 0.00 86 0.00 WT 1 1600 17 0.08 ' 42 0.11 ' W R 0 1500 18 0100 50 0.00 NIS compnt. 0.34 NIS compnt. 0.48 EIW compnt- 0.08 F/W compnt. 0.11 RT compnt. 0.00 RT compnt. 0.00 Clearance 0.02 Clearance 0.02 ICU 0 -43 ICU 0 -61 Critical movement identified by "'° Right turn adjustment identified by •a° Filename: BRGLEXT 1125191 MXR 75C -582 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION TION: Bristol & Edinger Ave. Existing 75C -583 No. AM Peak PM Peak Mvmn Lanes Cap. Vol. VIC Vol. VIC NIL 1 1500 99 0.07 ' 196 0.13 NT 2 3200 585 0.21 831 0.30 ' NR 0 1500 87 0.00 127 0.00 SL 1 1500 208 0.14 159 0.11 ' ST 2 3200 885 0.30 ' 759 0.27 SR 0 1500 65 0.00 103 0100 EL 1 1500 100 0.07 155 0.10 ' ET 2 3200 811 0.25 ' 743 0.23 ER 1 1500 98 0.07 109 0.07 WL 1 1500 137 0.09 ' 120 0.08 WT 2 3200 669 0.23 996 0.33 ' WR 0 1500 78 0100 67 0.00 NIS compnt. 0.36 NIS compnt. 0.41 E/W compnt. 0.34 EIW compnt. 0.44 RT compnt. 0.00 RT compnt. 0.00 Clearance 0.02 Clearance 0.02 ICU 0.73 ICU 0.86 Critical movement identified by "'" Right turn adjustment identified by "a° Filename: BREDEXT 1/25/91 MXR 75C -583 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION TION: Bristol & McFadden Ave. Existing 75C -584 No. AM Peak PM Peak Mvmn Lanes Cap. Vol. VIC Vol. VIC NL 1 1500 49 0.03 0 181 0.12 ` NT 2 3200 757 0.24 1120 0.35 NR 1 1500 24 0.02 72 0.05 SL 1 1500 39 0.03 64 0.04 ST 2 3200 944 0.32 " 1108 0.39 " SR 0 1500 75 0.00 132 0.00 EL 1 1500 107 0.07 ` 72 0.05 ` ET 1 1600 317 0.20 437 0.27 ER 1 1500 156 0.10 112 0.07 WL 1 1500 39 0.03 81 0.05 WT 1 1600 242 0.17 • 456 0.31 " W R 0 1500 22 0.00 46 0.00 N1S compnt. 0.35 NIS compnt. 0.51 E/W compnt. 0.24 E1W compnt. 0.36 RT compnt. 0.00 FIT compnt 0.00 Clearance 0.02 Clearance 0.02 ICU 0.61 ICU 0.89 Critical movement identified by "`" Right turn adjustment identified by "a" Filename: BRMCFEXT 1125191 MXR 75C -584 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION LOCATION: Bristol & Bishop St. Existing 75C -585 No. AM Peak PM Peak Mvmn Lanes Cap. Vol. VIC Vol. V!C NL 1 1500 30 0.02 ' 82 0.05 ' NT 2 3200 1009 0.32 1265 0.41 NR 0 1500 15 0.00 39 0.00 SL 1 1500 31 0.02 77 0.05 ST 2 3200 1128 0.36 ' 1305 0.42 ' SR 0 1500 14 0.00 54 0.00 EL 1 1500 69 0.05 77 0.05 " ET 1 1600 73 0.07 " 164 0.12 ER 0 0 35 0.00 34 0100 WL 1 1500 85 0.06 ' 71 0.05 WT 1 1600 70 0.07 204 0.17 ' WR 0 1500 42 0.00 74 0100 NIS compnt. 0.38 NIS compnt. 0.48 EIW compnt. 0.12 EIW compnt. 0.23 RT compnt. 0.00 RT compnt. 0100 Clearance 0.02 Clearance 0.02 ICU 0.52 ICU 0.72 Critical movement identified by '*" Right turn adjustment identified by "a" Filename- BRBiSEXT 1125191 MXR 75C -585 1 r INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION LOCATION: Bristol & 1st St. Existing 75C -586 No. AM Peak PM Peak Mvmn Lanes Cap. Vol. VIC Vol. V!C NIL 1 1500 82 0.05 147 0.10 ' NT 2 3200 1178 0.37 " 995 0.31 NR 1 1500 129 0.09 141 0.09 SL 1 1500 241 0.16 ' 160 0.11 ST 2 3200 1261 0.41 968 0.33 ' SR 0 1500 55 0.00 101 0.00 EL 1 1500 156 0.10 176 0.12 " ET 3 4800 1311 0.29 ` 922 0.22 ER 0 1500 85 0.00 138 0.00 WL 1 1500 111 0.07 ' 217 0.14 WT 3 4800 754 0.18 1087 0.27 ' WR 0 1500 121 0.00 196 0.00 NIS compnt. 0.53 NIS compnt. 0.43 E(W compnt. 0.36 EIW compnt. 0.38 PIT compnt. 0100 RT compnt 0.00 Clearance 0.02 Clearance 0.02 ICU 0.91 ICU 0.84 Critical movement identified by "'" Right turn adjustment identified by "a" Filename: BRi STEXT 1125191 MXR 75C -586 75C -587 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION LOCATION: Bristol & Santa Ana Blvd. Existing No. AM Peak PM Peak Mvmn Lanes Cap. Vol. VIC Vol. Vic - - -- NL - - --- 1 - --- -- - - -- - - - - -- 1500 18 - - - - - -- - - - -- 0.01 - - -- - - - - -- 33 - - - - - -- - 0.02 NT 2 3200 899 0.30 ' 1212 0.40 " NR 0 0 49 0.00 60 0.00 SL 1 1500 79 0.05 " 57 0.04 ' ST 2 3200 1051 0.33 1152 0.38 SR 0 0 11 0.00 66 0.00 EL 0 0 35 0.00 16 0.00 ' ET 2 3200 133 0.06 167 0.07 ER 0 0 17 0.00 35 0.00 WL 0 0 36 0.00 80 0.00 WT 2 3200 89 0.05 297 0,15 " WR 0 0 45 0.00 89 0.00 NIS compnt. 0.35 NIS compnt. 0.44 E!W compnt. 0.06 E!W compnt. 0.15 RT compnt. 0.00 RT compnt. 0.00 Clearance 0.02 Clearance 0.02 ICU 0.43 ICU 0.60 Critical movement identified by "'" Right turn adjustment identified by "a" Filename: BRSANAEXT 1125191 MXR 75C -587 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION TION: Bristol 8 5th St. Existing 75C -588 No. AM Peak PM Peak Mvmn Lanes Cap. Vol. V/C Vol. VIC NL 1 1500 28 O.02 80 0.05 NT 2 3200 1145 0.37 1459 0.47 ' NR 0 0 28 0.00 30 0.00 SL 1 1500 32 0.02 34 0.02 " ST 2 3200 1290 0.42 ' 1354 0.43 SR 0 0 43 0.00 29 0.00 EL 0 0 52 0.00 92 0.00 ET 1 1600 107 0.13 " 103 0.16 ' ER 0 0 49 0.00 64 0100 WL 0 0 6 0.00 ' 24 0.00 " WT 1 1600 24 0.03 176 0.15 W R 0 0 16 0.00 37 0.00 N/S compnt. 0.44 N/S compnt. 0.49 E/W compnt. 0.13 E/W compnt. 0.16 RT compnt. 0.00 RT compnt. 0.00 Clearance 0.02 Clearance 0.02 ICU 0.59 ICU 0.67 Critical movement identified by ff " Right turn adjustment identified by "a" Fiiename: BRSTHEXT 1/25191 MXR 75C -588 75C -589 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION LOCATION: Bristol & Civic Center Dr. Existing No. AM Peak PM Peak Mvmn Lanes Cap. Vol. VIC Vol. V!C NIL 1 1500 97 0.06 ' 107 0.07 ' NT 2 3200 291 0.09 632 0.20 NR 1 1500 135 0.09 195 0.13 SL 1 1500 103 0.07 83 0.06 ST 2 3200 418 0.17 ' 477 0.19 ' SR 0 0 124 0.00 116 0.00 EL 1 1500 82 0.05 119 0.08 ' ET 2 3200 465 0.18 ' 511 0.19 ER 0 0 105 0.00 102 0.00 WL 1 1500 103 0.07 " 113 0.08 WT 2 3200 418 0.17 629 0.23 " WR 0 0 124 0.00 104 0.00 NIS compnt. 0.23 NIS compnt. 0.26 EIW compnt. 0.25 EIW compnt. 0.31 RT compnt. 0.00 RT compnt. 0.00 Clearance 0.02 Clearance 0.02 ICU 0.50 ICU 0.59 Critical movement identified by °'" Right turn adjustment identified by "a" Filename: BRCCTREXT 1125/91 MXR 75C -589 e R INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION LOCATION: Bristol & Washington Ave. Existing 75C -590 No. AM Peak PM Peak Mvmn Lanes Cap. Vol. V/C Vol. V/C - - -- NIL - - - -- 1 - - - - -- 1500 - - -- - - - - -- 175 -- - - -- - - - -- 0.12 - -- -- - -- 85 - - -- - -- -- 0.06 NT 2 3200 1222 0.40 1191 0.40 " NR 0 0 46 0.00 77 0.00 SL 1 1500 22 0.01 76 0.05 " ST 2 3200 1265 0.40 1224 0.38 SR 1 1500 69 0.05 155 010 EL 1 1500 78 0.05 102 0.07 ` ET 1 1600 77 0.06 115 0.10 ER 0 0 23 0.00 40 0100 WL 1 1500 57 0.04 59 0.04 WT 1 1600 142 0.12 132 0.13 ' WR 0 0 45 0.00 72 0.00 N/S compnt. 0.51 NIS compnt. 0.45 E/W compnt. 0.17 E/W compnt. 0.20 RT compnt 0.00 RT COmpnl. 0.00 Clearance 0.02 Clearance 0.02 ICU 0.70 ICU 0.66 Critical movement identified by " ff Right turn adjustment identified by "a" Filename: BRWSHEXT 1/25/91 MXR 75C -590 u INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION LOCATION: Bristol & 17th St. Existing 75C -591 No. AM Peak PM Peak Mvmn Lanes Cap. Vol. VIC Vol. VIC ---- N L - - - -- 2 - - - - -- 3000 - - -- - - - - -- 122 - - - - - -- - - - -- 0.04 ' - - -- - - - - -- 247 - -- - - -- - 0.08 ' NT 2 3200 647 0.20 943 0.29 NR 1 1500 122 0.08 53 0.04 SL 2 3000 349 0.12 297 0.10 ST 3 4800 1209 0.29 ` 1213 0.31 ' SR 0 0 201 0.00 293 0.00 EL 1 1500 185 0.12 278 0.19 ' ET 3 4800 924 0.22 ' 882 0.21 ER 0 0 110 0.00 136 0.00 WL 1 1500 227 0.15 ' 284 0.19 WT 2 3200 643 0.20 1389 0.43 ' WR 1 1500 146 0.10 389 0.26 NIS compnt. 0.33 NIS compnt. 0.40 E/W compnt. 0.37 EIW compnt. 0.62 FIT compnt. 0.00 RT compnt. 0.00 Clearance 0.02 Clearance 0.02 ICU 0.72 ICU 1.04 Critical movement identified by no ' Right turn adjustment identified by "a" Filename: BR17THEXT 1125191 MXR 75C -591 i INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION LOCATION: Bristol & Santa Clara Ave. Existing NIS Compni. EIW compnt. RT compnt. Clearance ICU Critical movement identified by " "" Right turn adjustment identified by "a" Filename: BRSCLREXT 1125191 0.61 No. 0.63 AM Peak PM Peak 0.12 Mvmn Lanes Cap. Vol. VIC Vol. VIC NL 1 1500 14 0.01 ' 34 0.02 ' NT 2 3200 1018 0.32 1514 0.48 NR 0 0 20 0.00 21 0.00 SL 1 1500 177 0.12 106 0.07 ST 2 3200 1859 0.60 ' 1745 0.61 " SR 0 0 65 0.00 199 0.00 EL 0 0 118 0.00 107 0.00 ' ET 1 1600 79 0.14 46 0.11 ER 0 0 23 0.00 19 0.00 WL 0 0 21 0.00 25 0.00 WT 1 1600 27 0.06 77 0.12 " WR 0 0 44 0.00 88 0.00 NIS Compni. EIW compnt. RT compnt. Clearance ICU Critical movement identified by " "" Right turn adjustment identified by "a" Filename: BRSCLREXT 1125191 0.61 NIS compnt. 0.63 0.14 E/W compnt. 0.12 0.00 RT compnt. 0.00 0.02 Clearance 0.02 0.77 ICU 0.77 MXR 75C -592 y INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION TION: Bristol & Memory Lane Existing NIS compnt. E/W compnt. RT compnt. Clearance ICU 0 movement identified by '* 0 turn adjustment identified by 'a" .me: BRMLNEXT 1125/91 0.72 No. 0.69 AM Peak PM Peak Mvmn Lanes Cap. Vol. VIC Vol. V!C - NL - - - -- 2 -- - - -- - - -- 3000 - - -- -- 449 - - - - - -- - --- -- - 0.15 - -- - - - - -- 596 - - - - - -- - 0.20 ` NT 2 3200 921 0.30 1354 0.43 NR 0 0 36 0.00 29 0.00 SL 1 1500 51 0.03 102 0.07 ST 2 3200 1830 0.57 1585 0.50 ' SR 1 1500 173 0.12 548 0.37 EL 1 1500 240 0.16 186 0.12 " ET 1 1600 140 0.09 214 0.13 ER 2 3000 464 0.15 322 0.11 WL 1 1500 49 0.03 67 0.04 WT 2 3200 175 0.05 399 0.12 ' WR 1 1500 111 0.07 172 0.11 NIS compnt. E/W compnt. RT compnt. Clearance ICU 0 movement identified by '* 0 turn adjustment identified by 'a" .me: BRMLNEXT 1125/91 0.72 NIS compnt. 0.69 0.21 EIW compnt. 0.25 0.00 RT compnt. 0.00 0.02 Clearance 0.02 0.96 ICU 0.96 MXR 75C -593 i A 1 i 1 3 t 4 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION TION: Bristol & Warner Ave. Specific Plan 75C -594 No. AM Peak PM Peak Mvmn Lanes Cap. Vol. VIC Vol. V!C - -- NL - - - -- 2 - - - - -- 3000 - - -- - - - - -- 85 - - - - -- - - - -- 0.03 - - -- - - - - -- 296 - - - - - -- - 0.10 NT 3 4800 645 0.15 " 1301 0.32 ` NR 0 0 71 0.00 226 0.00 SL 2 3000 230 0.08 • 182 0.06 ` ST 3 4800 919 0.20 787 0.18 SR 0 0 23 0.00 62 0.00 EL 1 1500 63 0.04 127 0.08 ET 3 4800 664 0.17 ' 600 0.14 ' ER 0 0 157 0.00 83 0.00 WL 1 1500 173 0.12 " 204 0.14 " WT 3 4800 371 0.08 745 0.17 WR 0 0 31 0.00 91 0.00 NIS compnt. 0.23 NIS compnt. 0.38 EJW compnt. 0.29 E/W compnt. 0.28 RT compnt. 0.00 RT compnt. 0.00 Clearance 0.02 Clearance 0.02 ICU 0.53 ICU 0.68 Critical movement identified by '*' Right turn adjustment identified by 'a" Filename: BRWARSP 1/25/91 MXR 75C -594 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION LOCATION: Bristol & Glenwood Place Specific Plan 75C -595 No. AM Peak PM Peak Mvmn Lanes Cap. Vol. V/C Vol. V!C NL 1 1500 15 0.01 " 23 0.02 NT 3 4800 762 0.17 1495 0.32 ' NR 0 0 36 0.00 54 0.00 SL 1 1500 39 0.03 60 0.04 ' ST 3 4800 1423 0.30 " 1198 0.26 SR 0 0 26 0.00 39 0.00 EL 1 1500 4 0.00 8 0.01 ` ET 1 1600 116 0.08 90 0.07 ER 0 0 12 0.00 20 0.00 W L 1 1500 41 0.03 54 0.04 WT 1 1600 39 0.09 116 0.17 ' WR 0 0 104 0.00 152 0.00 NIS compnt. 0.31 NIS compnt. 0.36 EIW compnt. 0.11 E/W compnt. 0.17 RT compnt. 0.00 RT compnt. 0.00 Clearance 0.02 Clearance 0.02 ICU 0.44 ICU 0.56 Critical movement identified by "'" Right turn adjustment identified by 'a" Filename: BRGLSP 1125191 MXR 75C -595 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION TION: Bristol & Edinger Ave. Specific Plan 75C -596 No. AM Peak PM Peak Mvmn Lanes Cap, Vol. VIC Vol. VIC NL 1 1500 83 0.06 181 0.12 NT 3 4800 664 0.15 970 022 " NR 0 1500 34 0.00 94 0.00 SL 1 1500 142 0.09 161 0.11 ST 3 4800 1018 0.22 ` 788 0.18 SR 0 1500 19 0.00 71 0.00 EL 1 1500 70 0.05 144 0.10 ET 2 3200 676 0.21 ' 756 0.24 ' ER 1 1500 159 0.11 123 0.08 WL 1 1500 155 0.10 ' 216 0.14 " WT 2 3200 419 0.14 818 0.28 WR 0 1500 16 0.00 90 0.00 NIS compnt. 0.27 NIS compnt. 0.33 EIW compnt. 0.31 FJW compnt. 0.38 RT compnt. 0.00 RT compnt. 0.00 Clearance 0.02 Clearance 0.02 ICU 0.61 ICU 0.73 Critical movement identified by "•" Right turn adjustment identified by "a" Filename: BRSDSP 1125191 MXR 75C -596 Y INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION TION: Bristol & McFadden Ave. Specific Plan 75C -597 PM Peak Vol. No. 157 AM Peak Mvmn Lanes Cap. Vol. V/C NL 1 1500 117 0.08 " NT 3 4800 974 0.22 NR 0 0 61 0.00 SL 1 1500 83 0106 ST 3 4800 1327 0.29 " SR 0 0 58 0.00 EL 1 1500 90 0.06 ET 2 3200 491 0.22 ' ER 0 0 215 0.00 WL 1 1500 71 0.05 ' WT 2 3200 235 0.09 W R 0 0 48 0.00 N/S compnt. 0.37 E!W compnt. 0.27 RT compnt. 0.00 Clearance 0.02 ICU 0.65 Critical movement identified by "'" Right turn adjustment identified by "a" Filename: BRMCFSP 1/25/91 MXR 75C -597 PM Peak Vol. VIC 157 0.10 " 841 0.19 75 0.00 78 0.05 810 0.19 " 118 0.00 79 0.05 570 0.22 ' 138 0.00 62 0.04 " 419 0.15 49 0.00 N/S compnt. 0.30 E!W compnt. 0.26 RT compnt. 0.00 Clearance 0.02 ICU 0.58 s q w 0 4 r 9 e INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION riON: Bristol & Bishop St. Specific Plan 75C -598 No. AM Peak PM Peak Mvmn Lanes Cap. Vol. Vic Vol. Vic NIL 1 1500 45 0.03 ' 108 0.07 ' NT 3 4800 960 0.21 1215 0.26 NR 0 0 25 0.00 54 0.00 S1- 1 1500 35 0.02 88 0.06 ST 3 4800 1160 0.26 " 1216 0.28 " SR 0 0 80 0.00 148 0.00 EL 1 1500 99 0.07 116 0.08 " ET 1 1600 86 0.11 ' 189 0.18 ER 0 0 86 0.00 101 0.00 WL 1 1500 96 0.06 " 80 0.05 WT 1 1600 83 0.09 241 0.21 ' WR 0 0 54 0.00 92 0.00 NIS compnt. 0.29 NIS compnt. 0.36 E/W compnt. 0.17 E1W compnt. 0.29 RT compnt. 0.00 RT compnt. 0.00 Clearance 0.02 Clearance 0.02 ICU 0.48 ICU 0.66 Critical movement identified by " ♦N Right turn adjustment identified by "a" Filename: BRSISSP 1125191 MXR 75C -598 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION LOCATION: Bristol & 1st St. Specific Plan 75C -599 No. AM Peak PM Peak Mvmn Lanes Cap. Vol. Vic Vol. VIC - - -- NL - - - -- 2 - - - -- 3000 - - -- - - - - -- 140 - - - - - -- - - - -- 0.05 - - -- - - - - -- 186 - - - - -- - 0.06 " NT 3 4800 1132 0.24 1236 0.26 NR 1 1500 237 0.16 200 0.13 SL 2 3000 116 0.04 78 0.03 ST 3 4800 1272 0.27 1241 0.26 " SR 1 1500 85 0.06 157 0.10 EL 2 3000 153 0.05 234 0.08 ' ET 3 4800 1551 0.32 1388 0.29 ER 1 1500 116 0.08 253 0.17 WL 2 3000 188 0.06 253 0.08 WT 3 4800 773 0.16 1839 0.38 " W R 1 1500 139 0.09 177 0.12 NIS Compnt. 0.31 NIS Compnt. 0.32 EIW Compnt, 0.39 E/W compnt. 0.46 RT compnt. 0.00 RT compnt. 0.00 Clearance 0.02 Clearance 0.02 ICU 0.72 ICU 0.80 Critical movement identified by "'" Right turn adjustment identified by 'am Filename: BRISTSP 1125191 MXR 75C -599 75C -600 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION LOCATION: Bristol & Santa Ana Blvd. Specific Plan No. AM Peak PM Peak Mvmn Lanes Cap. Voi, VIC Vol. VIC NIL 1 1500 26 0.02 40 0.03 NT 3 4800 1302 0.29 ' 1281 0.28 ' NR 0 0 75 0.00 72 0.00 SL 1 1500 145 0.10 ' 68 0.05 " ST 3 4800 1441 0.31 1144 0.25 SR 0 0 32 0.00 79 0.00 EL 1 1500 54 0.04 19 0.01 ' ET 2 3200 286 0.10 ' 200 0.08 ER 0 0 23 0.00 42 0.00 WL 1 1500 47 0.03 96 0.06 WT 2 3200 140 0.06 356 0.14 ' WR 0 0 62 0.00 107 0.00 NIS compnt. 0.38 NIS compnt. 0.33 E1W compnt. 0.13 E/W compnt. 0.16 RT compnt. 0.00 RT compnt. 0.00 Clearance 0.02 Clearance 0.02 ICU 0.53 ICU 0.50 Critical movement identified by "'" Right turn adjustment identified by "a" Filename: BRSANASP 1/25/91 MXR 75C -600 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION LOCATION: Bristol & 5th St. Specific Plan 75C -601 No, AM Peak PM Peak Mvmn Lanes Cap. Vol. Vic Vol. V/C NL 1 1500 77 0.05 96 0.06 NT 3 4800 1445 0.31 1604 0.34 ' NR 0 0 26 0.00 36 0.00 SL 1 1500 41 0.03 41 0.03 ' ST 3 4800 1543 0.33 1414 0.30 SR 0 0 56 0.00 35 0.00 EL 0 0 163 0.00 110 0.00 ET 1 1600 150 0.25 124 0.19 ' ER 0 0 87 0.00 77 0.00 W L 0 0 21 0.00 29 0.00 ' WT 1 1600 22 0.05 211 0.18 WR 0 0 32 0,00 44 0.00 NIS compnt. 0.38 NIS compnt. 0.37 E/W compnt. 0.25 E/W compnt. 0.19 RT compnt. 0.00 RT compnt. 0.00 Clearance 0.02 Clearance 0.02 ICU 0.65 ICU 0.58 Critical movement identified by ff " Right turn adjustment identified by "a" Filename: BR5THSP 1/25/91 MXR 75C -601 r r 3 1 r s r 1 r l INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION TION: Bristol & Civic Center Dr. Specific Plan 75C -602 No. AM Peak PM Peak Mvmn Lanes Cap. Vol. VIC Vol. VIC - -- NIL - - -- 1 - - - - -- 1500 - - -- - - - - -- 62 - - - - - -- -- - -- 0.04 - - -- - - - - -- - - - 133 - - -- - 0.09 NT 3 4800 1201 0.28 ` 1468 0.33 " NR 0 0 154 0.00 128 0.00 SL 1 1500 250 0.17 " 90 0.06 ` ST 3 4800 1615 0.34 1341 0.29 SR 0 0 31 0.00 70 0.00 EL 1 1500 93 0.06 96 0.06 ` ET 2 3200 706 0.24 " 362 0.14 ER 0 0 68 0.00 101 0.00 W L 1 1500 77 0105 ` 203 0.14 WT 2 3200 302 0.09 939 0.29 ` WR 1 1500 90 0.06 250 0.17 NIS compnt. 0.45 NIS compnt. 0.39 E/W compnt. 0.29 E/W compnt. 0.36 RT compnt. 0.00 RT compnt. 0.00 Clearance 0.02 Clearance 0.02 ICU 0.76 ICU 0.77 Critical movement identified by "`" Right turn adjustment identified by "a" Filename: BRCCTRSP 1125191 MXR 75C -602 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION TION: Bristol & Washington Ave. Specific Plan No. AM Peak PM Peak Mvmn Lanes Cap. Vol. V/C Vol. VIC NL 1 1500 208 0.14 ' 159 0111 ` NT 3 4800 1191 0.26 1491 0.32 NR 0 0 62 0.00 57 0.00 SL 1 1500 42 0.03 48 0.03 ST 3 4800 1825 0.38 • 1.543 0.32 ` SR 1 1500 114 0.08 214 0.14 EL 1 1500 108 0.07 ' 128 0.09 ' ET 1 1600 142 0.12 136 0.11 ER 0 0 50 0.00 46 0.00 WL 1 1500 75 0.05 71 0.05 WT 1 1600 125 0.12 ' 305 0.26 ' WR 0 0 62 0.00 107 0.00 NIS compnt. 0.52 NIS compnt. 0.43 E/W compnt. 0.19 E!W compnt. 0.34 RT compnt. 0.00 HT compnt. 0.00 Clearance 0.02 Clearance 0.02 ICU 0.73 ICU 0.79 Critical movement identified by "' ff Right turn adjustment identified by "a" Filename: BRWSHSP 1125191 MXR 75C -603 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION LOCATION: Bristol 8 17th St. Specific Plan 75C -604 No. AM Peak PM Peak Mvmn Lanes Cap. Vol. V/C Vol. VIC NL 2 3000 204 0.07 ' 374 0.12 ' NT 3 4800 998 0.21 1124 0.23 NR 1 1500 258 0.17 47 0.03 SL 2 3000 534 0.18 381 0.13 ST 3 4800 1760 0.37 ' 1476 0.31 ' SR 1 1500 94 0.06 78 0.05 EL 2 3000 224 0.07 330 0.11 ' ET 3 4800 1181 0.25 ` 1103 0.23 ER 1 1500 38 0.03 32 0.02 WL 2 3000 258 0.09 ' 265 0.09 WT 3 4800 809 0.17 1360 0.28 ` WR 1 1500 59 0.04 242 0.16 NIS compnt. 0.43 NIS compnt. 0.43 EIW compnt. 0.33 E/W compnt. 0.39 RT compnt. 0.00 RT compnt. 0.00 Clearance 0.02 Clearance 0.02 ICU 0.79 1CU 0.85 Critical movement identified by " "" Right turn adjustment identified by "a" Filename: BRI7THSP 1125191 MXR 75C -604 75C -605 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION LOCATION: Bristol & Santa Clara Ave. Specific Plan No. AM Peak PM Peak Mvmn Lanes Cap. Vol. Vic Vol. VIC - - -- NL - - - -- 1 - - - - -- - - -- - - - - -- - 1500 136 - - - -- - - - -- 0.09 - - -- - - - - -- 65 - - - - - -- - 0.04 NT 3 4800 2602 0.57 " 1763 0.37 NR 0 0 135 0.00 24 0.00 SL 1 1500 22 0.01 " 113 0.08 ST 3 4800 1248 0.27 2175 0.49 " SR 0 0 50 0.00 177 0.00 EL 0 0 201 0.00 196 0100 ET 1 1600 100 0.20 " 76 0.18 ER 0 0 23 0.00 18 0.00 WL 0 0 60 0.00 ' 33 0.00 WT 1 1600 36 0.09 104 0.16 W R 0 0 46 0.00 118 0.00 NIS compnt. 0.58 NIS compnt. 0.53 E/W compnt. 0.20 E/W compnt. 0.18 RT compnt. 0.00 RT compnt. 0.00 Clearance 0.02 Clearance 0.02 ICU 0.81 ICU 0.73 Critical movement identified by " "" Right turn adjustment identified by "a" Filename: BRSCLRSP 1/25191 MXR 75C -605 L L L L i INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION TfON: Bristol & Memory Lane Specific Plan 75C -606 No. AM Peak PM Peak Mvmn Lanes Cap. Vol. Vic Vol. VIC NL 2 3000 532 0.18 ' 709 0.24 " NT 3 4800 1007 0.22 1462 0.31 NR 0 0 41 0100 33 0.00 SL 1 1500 81 0.05 150 010 ST 3 4800 2022 0.42 " 1727 0.36 ' SR 1 1500 60 0.04 511 0.34 EL 2 3000 278 0.09 219 0.07 ET 1 1600 159 0.10 243 0.15 " ER 2 3000 514 0.17 348 0.12 WL 1 1500 98 0.07 121 0.08 ` WT 2 3200 198 0.06 452 0.14 WR 1 1500 126 0.08 195 0.13 NIS compnt. 0.60 NIS compnt. 0.60 E/W compnt. 0.16 E/W compnt. 0.23 RT compnt. 0.00 RT compnt. 0.00 Clearance 0.02 Clearance 0.02 ICU 0.78 ICU 0.85 Critical movement identified by ff *' Right turn adjustment identified by "a" Filename BRMLNSP 1125191 MXR 75C -606 �:I:i : 1 75C -607 HISTORIC PROPERTY SURVEY REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED WIDENING OF BRISTOL STREET FROM WARNER AVENUE TO SANTIAGO CREEK CITY OF SANTA ANA ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA May 27, 1987 Prepared by: Willdan As!>06at435 Planning Services Department 12900 Crossroads Parkway South, Suite 200 Industry, California 91746 -3499 (213) 695 -o551 75C -608 006716 HISTORSC PROPERTY SURVEY REPORT Widening of Bristol Street, from warner Avenue to Santiago Creek, in the City of Santa Ana File 07- 0ra -0 -5A Federal No. M -M017 t Pra}ect Description The proposed project would entail the widening and recanstruct'snn of Bristol Street, from Warner Avenue to Santiago Creek, in the City of Santa Ana. A 110` right -of -way is proposed throughout the entire project corridor, in accordaszce vAth both Orange County and City of Santa Ana Master Plans. Six lanes of through traffic, within a curt -to -curb roadway width of 100 feet, would be provided, with dual. Seft -turn pockets, right turn only lanes and bus turnouts at the major intersections. Outside of the roadway, the right -of -way will be improved with a sidewalk and landscaped parkway, an Loth sides a1 the street. The purpose of the proposed street widening is to improve the flow of vehicular traffic, as well as the safety and quality of pedestrian and vehicular circutatun thraug'nout the project area. Three widening alternatives are under consideration. The first alternative would entail widening evenly from the centerline. A second alternative would widen Bristol Street only on the east side. A third alternative would widen the street uniiy on the west side. A fourth possible alternative could consist of a combination of even and one side widening, as determined by the City of Santa Ana. Based on present right -nf -way dimensions in the project corridor, up to 50' of right -of -way may be acquired to facilitate the selected widening alternative in a given area. Project Location See Figure 1, following. Area of Potential Environmental impact (APEI) See Figure 2, following. 11 Resume of Survey A. Methodology At the request of Wifidan Associates, registered professionals in the fields of archaeology, architectural history and paleontology were retained to investigate the existence at any significant historical and cultural resources within the APEI. This summary report is based upon the research efforts of Mr. Ronald M. Bisset, a Certified Professional Archaeologist, Mr. Rodney E. 75C;-609 Raschke, an Orange County Certified paleontologist, and liatheway & McKenna, experts in historical architecture. Their complete reports, based on extensive research involving 4�,oth field reviews and a review of historical records at various locations are appended hereto as Attachments ❑ and E and are on fife with the City of Santa Ana, Public Services Agency. 75C -610 ..sue` , 7 5� . . . . . . . . . . Memwy Lane Ez di i MM I Tth StnW X n. zz- 15 AIWA ii i Ld Project Limits I 41 First S"Gt SL Ir 1 —1h '. Fdlngar Avenue, 7 ;2 NORTH FGURE A Project Location MLLDAN ASSOCIATES BRISTOL STREET WIDENING PROJECT ENGINEERS AND PLANNEM CITY OF SANTA ANA 75C-611 ' I 1 1 3AY H]Qls —1 am oer Rptl09 y� L q —I R Pig' 3nY H]OHIO] A! 1 A K• II 1 - I L a M3HpHY 16 � NOiTtl Yp `r L- L lA� 9opMN3l0 1 N30ri YI 1a 'J�nnn rill, �— I H39wY] Ir� l A 3NNV 10 Id a Lt �sa__r aanaivao •is A i 1 1 �1 q o lr,l 1! a 1 A 1 anY Hares rui 75C-,612 Ill r�r IL W C F— — J aLL z Lij Q LLJ Z CC O Q� y� �L1 W F- V 7 O J IM Q z Q Q t- z N LL Q w W M O e UN oz 7 a � T LO o � ° f J a b c w z z o J w J Igh MF] !S lStlli I 1- L a_ 1S 1�HlrM Ls aN id j1 i 'jJ b i LS LA N18aa'J -�1 15 r311tl AM 1 LS 3liWV0 f: J r Ls aOXSltl ° tl3rvA.a l �3.1.Y I Ila I ILLL1111aa_N OI tl rr--Il � ■ Le ainmva _ i —r ON rlaoIH • as xoaaa Ls nosano l J L! _ 3AY H306VJ�W p r �II I 1 F C r 71 1 -1! 9 � a�911m 3NI3 N01Vr✓ -" ter_ W ti M _ 0__r 3 0 a a < o {� !� O to Z a W U3 z� ❑ jr oe Z1,' W W Y Q LL I w LU f 11 IRPIF Z a Q F- 2 Q N LL Q E N W �0. b c N o � W W o no x x,71 -...!- I j I —ri r rELr t- 1 r 1 r - -F! i Fl i I 1 � F_ r F � I r 1 s�4 r 1 ay J Fo �W �r CC w 2= W� J „ 4 > 2 W c r= 0 a IL 0 LU ¢ LU ti Q LUw 0 Q LU O F w LU tr F Ul .J Q EE m z ¢ F` } F U LLI Q w U= 0 Cl) co a d Q wi Oz W rJ I I - -- - � E i 1 I • r. _, I -I- I I� IJ� 1 � F r 1— 75C -615 LL N w ca i U w rz a L7 Z z w 0 w Li co(r I- J I-- CL m Q Z F- Q D ❑ LU a_y T 0 a VJ CI 2 a +� N L � w a z Q B . Historical or Cultural Resources Mr. Bissell reviewed the south half of the project area, between Warner Avenue and First Avenue, during July 1985. Following the City of Santa Ana's decision to expand the project limits north to Memory Lane, he reviewed the north half during October T986. Numerous sources of historical data were reviewed to determine the presence of any known significant historical or cultural resources within the APE], in accordance with National Register criteria. These sources included: - The Federal Register of Historic Places at the Orange County Law Library -- The 1975 California Inventory of Historic Resources, published by the California Department of Parks and Recreation -- Local area histories at the Sherman Library, Corona Del Mar Older maps of the project area at the Map Library, University of California, Los Angeles Building permit fifes at the Planning Department, City of Santa Ana -- Parcel Maps at the Orange County Assessor's Office Deeds and other records at the Offrce of the County Clerk, County of Orange -- Old insurance maps, general area histories, directories and newspaper clippings on file at the Santa Ana Public Literary -- Heritage Orange County, Incorporated, Santa Aria, California -- Orange County Historical Commission -- Orange County Historical Society None of the structures within the APEI are listed in the National Register or the California Inventory of Historic Resources. Most of the development in the APP occurred subsequent to 1950. Numerous structures, however, were found to be over 50 years old, one aspect of National Register consideration. Of these, only the Walker Residence, located at 1248 West Bishop, was determined to possess sufficient architectural and historical significance to merit Further review in accordance with National Register criteria. No other structures less than 50 years old were found which would be eligible for listing in the National Register. 75G -616 The Walker Residence appears to be eligible under National Register criteria, based on architectural style and association with a person of local historical significance. The home is a fine example of the Meditorranean /Mission influenced Classical Box style and may be the largest such example in Santa Ana. The structure has been well maintained and has been preserved, without alteration, in its original condition. This home and the three nondescript accessory buildings which also occupy the site, are the only remnants of a once larger farm - estate owned by Mr. Bdward A. Walker, between 1922 and 1950, Mr. Walker was one of a handful of successful poultry farmers in this area during the early 1900's. Sometime prior to 1929 he purchased the name and mi iirsg equipment from the Uid Banner Mill, and reestablished the business at this site. Mr, walker continued to operate the mill, supplying local poultry farmers until sometime in the late 1940's. To help determine whether the Walker Residence is eligible for listing in the National Register, a Request for Determination of Eligibility was prepared and is found in Attachment A. The preliminary recommendation is that the structure is eligible under the National Register criteria, at the local level of significance. The final determination will be made following further review in accordance with Section 106 requirements. The African Methodist Episcopal Church located at 202 N. Bristol Street is also noteworthy from a historical standpoint. Originally established in Santa Ana in 1933 at a different location, it is reputed to be the first black church officially established in Orange County. This church continued to flourish following its origination, and in 1947 the church purchased a chapel building located at the Santa Ana Array Air Base and moved it to the present location at 202 N. Bristol Street. The structure itself has been modified several times and exhibits none of the characteristics established in the National Register criteria. C. Archaeological Resources In addition to a field review of the entire project corridor, to observe the Thnited undeveloped surface areas, Mr. Bissell conducted an extensive research of available archeological literature for this area. References consulted included: -- Site recording forms and reports of past excavations at the Archaeological Survey, University of California at Los Angeles Site recording forms and reports of past excavation at the Anthropology Museum, California State University, Fullerton Ms. Susan Colby and Mr. John Parker, Survey Archaeologists with the UCLA Archaeological Survey, also conducted research of the maps and records on file at the lnstitute of Archaeology, Southern California Archaeological Survey, UCLA, Their findings are presented in Attachment B, herein. 75C� 617 The result of this research was the determination that the subject project area has never been examined for archaeological remains and that no archaeological sites have been recorded in the immediate vicinity of the project area. Due to this lack of information, it is recommended that construction activities be monitored by a qualified archaeologist, to properly document any such resources which may be uncovered during construction activities. D. Paleontological Resources 141 r, Raschke reviewed both published and unpublished records on file at the Museum of Natural History of Los Angels County and the Natural History Foundation of Orange County, This research determined that the project area is underlaid by quaternary alluvium, a rock unit considered to have low paleontological sensitivity, He therefore. cancluded that there is no need for field review or paleontological monitoring during the proposed widening of Bristol Street. E. Ustin of Identified Properties In order to determine whether there are any properties of cultural or historical significance within the APEI, Building Evaluation Forms were prepared for all structures found to be at least 50 years of age, along with two others considered locally significant (the A.M.E. Church discussed earlier and the Bristol Drug Company store, located at 1302 W. Santa Ana Boulevard). These forms were prepared by Mr. Bissell and are presented in Attachment C, herein. As stated earlier, only the Walker Residence was determined to have sufficient significance to merit further review in accordance with National Register criteria. III History of Development of the Area Bristol Street first appears as a functional route in an 1877 work entitled "Map of the County of Los Angeles ". Bristol Street existed in 1877 only to the south of the current intersection with First Street. There were three property owners within the area which would become ROstm Street north of First Street. Two of the property owners were J. Chaves, who owned the southern most parcel immediately north of First Street, and J. Ross, who owned property north of the Chaves parcel. The name of the third property owner is very difficult to read, but could possibly be Maybury. Mr, i31sse11`s review of local history records revealed that the area immediately east of Bristol Street, between what is now Edinger Avenue and McFadden Avenue, was the site of a locally important race track during the 1890s. The track was built principally for horse racing and contained a 1,500 capacity grandstand as well as piped water in the stable area. For several years, the Orange County Fair held stock shows and races at the track. 75k M The popularity of the track declined rapidly, however, and the track was sold in 1897. When the track buildings were razed is unknown, but the facility appears on insurance maps prepared by Sanborn in 1906, These same maps indicate that the only construction then existing along Bristol Street, other than the race track, was concentrated in the first few blocks South of First Street. None of these buildings have survived to the present day. Growth along Bristol Street between First Street and Warner Avenue was quite slow. In 1941, only four addresses were in use on South Bristol. These residences beSonged to Mr. E. S. Garrett, F. R. 14or5tley, S. S_ Kearns, and J. Willits. The latter is the same Mr. Willits who owned the famous race horse, Silkwood. A street was named in honor of Mr. Willits, it extends west fPom Bristol Street across from Bishop Street. None of these buildings have survived to the present day. In addition, the 1901 United States Coast and Geodetic Survey, Anaheim and Santa Ana sheets, reveal that Bristol Street was opened between First Street and Memory Lane by that date. Some 11 structures were adjacent to Bristol Street at the time. Five of these, two on the west and three on the east side of Bristol are between First and Fifth Streets. It is interesting that near Fifth Street there is an approximate 100 foot offset in Bristol Street, with the portion north of Fifth Street being further to the east. Three structures were located at widely spaced intervals on the west side of Bristol Street between Ninth Street and Washington Street. Seventeenth Street terminated from the east at Bristol Street. One structure was located just north of Seventeenth on the east side of iirisbM. The two remaining structures were located east of Bristol and just south of Santiago Creek. None of these structures have survived to the present day. By 1937, some 26 residences existed along Bristol Street in the project area. All of the residences listed in Mr_ Bissell's report as potentially significant were in place by 1937. A 1937 directory indicates that E. A. Walker, owner /constructor of the Walker Residence discussed in Section lI B, was at that time operating a feed mill, known as Banner Mills, at 605 South Bristol Street. The mill continued to operate until at least 1947. The 19112 maps of the project area indicate that the area along Bristol, between First and Seventeenth, was entirely built -up by that date, except for a small parcel immediately southwest of the Bristol Street/ Seventeenth Street intersection. This is the parcel which eventually became Santa Ana Community College, Six buildings were located along Bristol north of Seventeenth Street. None of the buildings north of Seventeenth Street depicted on the 1942 maps have survived to the present day, but many from this era exist in the southerly portion of the APEI. 75G }619 During the first post war decade, 1946 to 1956, the APEf undervaent mayor development. The decade saw tht, construction of Abater Dei High School, two (2) churches and seven (7) tract homes. In addition, Santa Ana Community College became operational during the early part of this decade to meet the educational needs of the returning servicemen. Originally, Santa Ana Community College utilized buildings which had been purchased from the Santa Ana Army Air Fuse and moved to the college site, None of these buildings survived to the present day. South of Seventeenth Street, many small commercial establish- ments, such as gasoline stations, restaurants and general offices, were erected. In addition, many of the existing residential structures were converted to commercial office use. The development north of Seventeenth Street was somewhat different, This had been largely devoted to citrus groves with only a Few scattered structures. All of these structures were removed and the bulk of the area was devoted to tract duplex housing, Horner Shoppinq Plaza to the northwest of the intersection of 8risto4 and Seventeenth was built, as was Santiago Elementary School east of Bristol. The bridge spanning Santiago Creek was installed in 1947. 75C� -620 ATTACHMENT A Request for Determination of Eligibility 75C -621 REQUEST FOR DETERMtNATiON OF ELIGIBILITY Bristol Street widening, from Warner Avenue to Santiago Creek, in the City of Santa Ana. File 07- Ora -0-SA Fed. o. M -MOT Property Name Historic Name: Walker Residence Common Name: Walker Residence Original Owner /Builder: Mr. Edward A. Walker of Santa Ana Location 1248 West Bishop Street, at the southeast corner of Bristol Street and Bishop Street. Classification Residential building. Ownership Catholic Bishop of Orange 2811 East Villa Real Drive Orange, CA 92677 Presentation in Existing Surveys None. Description of Property The subject property measures 164 feet by 154 feet, for a total area of 2,255 square feet. The primary 'mprovement is a large, two -story residence consisting of plaster aver wood frame construction, with a hipped, tile roof (see Exhibit B). This home is a fine example of a Mediterranean /Mission influenced - Classical Box style of architecture. Accessory structures include a garage east of the home, a summerhouse located southeast of the home and a greenhouse located south of the home. Building permit records are unclear as to the exact date of construction of the summerhouse, while permit records indicate that the greenhouse was built in 1935_ The main residence is presently occupied by several Fathers of the Norbzrtime Order, who are instructors at the nearby Mater Del High School. From field observations, it appears that the summerhouse and greenhouse are not presently used. 75C -622 Integrity This site is all that remains from a once larger poultry farm and a later feed mill operation developed by the original ownerlbuilder, Mr. Edward A. Walker. The main residence and the accessory structures are the only remaining improvements. The main residence has not been altered and has been well maintained to this day. Based on local building permit records, the summerhouse may have originally been constructed in 1923 as a poultry house, which was later expanded with an incubator puilding. If so, the present summerhouse represents an extensive modification of those earlier facilities, and it now exists as a one -room building, with kitchen and bath facilities. The greenhouse appears to be in its original condition, but it is deteriorated and is no longer in use. Significance The primary residence is a well- maintained and unusually large example of the Mediterranean/Mission influenced Classical Box style. While this style is not unique in Santa Ana or Southern California, the Walker Residence is probably the best example of iris style in Santa Ana, in terms of its size, Integrity and condition. From a historical standpoint, the Walker Residence is locally significant, as one of the few remnants of the agricultural economy that was predominant in the history of Santa Ana. Mr. Edward A. Walker, the original owner of this property was a successful poultry farmer in this area for Several years during the early 1900's. Sometime prior to 1929 he purchased the Banner Mills, a large local feed mill facility which had been inoperat've for several years and revived the feed mill operation at this site. Mr. Walker operated the feed mill, supplying local poultry farmers, until at least 1945, when reference to it is dropped from City directories. In 7950, this property was purchased by the Catholic Church of Orange County, in conjunction with the development of Mater Del High School, the first Catholic High School in Orange County, Bibliography Fiathen•ay E McKenna, Supplemental information: Request for Determination of Eligibility far the Wa Iker esidence, ay -2-6-.-1987 onald istoric r— pert �urve— Bristol Street Between First Street and arrner Avenue, Cit v v onto na, range ounty, a ❑rnia, Geographical Data and Map See Exhibit "A" Photographs See Exhibit "B ". 75C -623 Recommendation The Edward A. Walker residence is eligible at the local level to the National Register of Historic Places in accordance with Criteria A, B, and C. First, the property is associated with the development of the agricultural industry in both Santa Ana and Orange County. Walker's estabMshment aS his Model poultry Farm and his subsequent establishment of Banner Mills spans an unusually long period extending from the late 19th Century (the original Banner Mills) to circa 1950, and it accordingly qualifies under Criterion A. Second, the house was the residence of Edward A. Walker, a prominent local businessman. The house was built at the beginning of Walker's rapid expansion of his business interests in Santa Ana, Despite the fact that W jlker never achieved regional significance, his local significance qualifies the property under Criterion B. Finally, the residence is an excellent and unaltered example of a variation of the Classical Box as carried out in the Mediterranean /Mission style. It is a large example of its type, and it retains several important associated Features including a garage, "summerhouse ", and a greenhouse. As such, it is the best documented example of its type in the City of Santa Ana, and is potentially eligible under Criterion C. 75C -624 -�—� -ISM p L.+ri1�.� i 'ray •.fir � of a- a '+r :D ANA .. .... a "'. =— u i,', m._ I I Yi • `- i I 1 it s �iqy�• / ^ �.swn r rm� g�ml Memory Lane 17th St %t First Street The Walker Residence 1248 W. Bishop St. Edinger Avenue, Wwner Avenue NORTH EKHOT A WILLDANASSDCWES BRISTOL. STREET WIDENING PROJECT ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS CITY OF SANTA ANA 75C -625 EXHIBIT 8 Photos of Walker Residence 75C -626 I i s s f Walker house as soon from Bishop Street. Vies is to the South. Walker house as seen from aczoss Bristol Street. View is to southeast_ 75C -627 LIM :T�.iTc1, • .r1 I aw m ? USE ATTACHMENT B Archaeological Records Search 75C -630 UNIVERSITY OF UkLiFORNUk, LOS ANTGVI,FS BERKELEY • I M1Y is • imt rrvg Lus k.SC P.I E% - H v.B N CrE • iAN UU:f:u •AN FM aKC[5CO J-S 'UCLA t ANTA 0 F BAR N • SAN 'IA [ R 11 r[iL l ?5MUIL OF ARC E46EO I OOY Sill''['y Y-RN UkLl FOB N[A 4BCI1AE0T,OCrC.AT St-Ekb] Willdan Associates Mn AvrrLr-% CAU Fn rr N 1A XRJV 1290b Crossroaas Parkway South Suite 200 industry, CA 91746 -3499 May 14, 1986 Attn: Ernest A. Egger Re: Archaeological Records Search: Bristol Street and Euclid Ave. road - widening projects Dear Mr. Eggers Pursuant to your request of April 17, we have searched all maps and records on file at the UCLA Archaeological Survey relevant to the above- referenced projects. our records show both project areas were completely surveyed for historic, archaeological and paleontological resources by R.M. Bissell and R.E. Raschke (see references listed below). No new information has Come to light since these reports were prepared. These reports adequately reflect the cultural sensitivity of the project areas and clearance can be recommended if their recommendations are followed. Please feel free to call me at (213) a25 -1720 if you have any questions or require further information. sincerely, Susan Colby i Survey Archaeologist References 0 -789 Historic Property Survey Report: Bristol Street Between First Street and Warner Avenue, City of Santa Ana, Orange County, California by R.M. Bissell and R.E. Raschke, September 1985 0 -800 Historic Properties Survey Report: North Euclid Street Between Chapman Avemue and the Northern City Limits of Fullerton, Excepting the area between Bastanchury Road and Rosecrans Avenue, City of Fullerton, orange County, California, by R.M7 Bissell and R.E. Raschke, Feb. 1986 75C -631 UNIVERSITY OF (,AI.IFORNIA, LOS ANCELES HER LEI • DAi {S - IHS {NE • Lu1 ANG. iF.h H1� EHSI DY SAN DlFI.O SAS FRANCISCO Randy Nichols Willdan Assoc. 12900 Crossroads Parkway South, Suite 200 Industz:y, CA. 91746 -3449 UCLA Snl Tn xnHHixA snN3'A 6RLL �n 1H INSTITUTE OF ARC HAFOLpCY XUL I IIERN CALIECRNIa AH[ F {RMOLLN:ICAL SO H4 EY LOO AN[; L'LF.S• CALIFORNIA YLi 12 -1 -86 RE: Archeological Record Search for Bristol Street between Warner Ave, and First St., Santa Ana. Bear Mr. Nichols, A review of our files has indicated that Ron Bissell has conducted a Historic Properties Survey of the above referenced project area. As a part of his survey, he conducted an extensive document review and records search at this facility. His report (see reference below) is on file with your company. Our office has not received any new information regarding cultural resources in this area and cannot provide any additional information beyond that which is already outlined in Mr. Bissell's report. We recommend that you accept the background information listed in Mr. Bissell's report as the most up -to -date data on what is currently known about this section of Bristol Street. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us at (213) 825 -1720. Sincerely, K"/ Jahrker Survey Archeologist Bissell, R. 1986 "Historic Properties Survey Report, Bristol Street Between First Street and Memory Lane, Santa Ana," Unpublished, 91 page report on file, UCLA. F r -,F I v'A0 75C -632 -vi � A,kJ ASSOC. ATTACHMENT C Building Evaluation Forms 75C -633 BUILDING EVALUATION FORM 1. Common Name: Walker Residence. 2. Historic Name: Walker Residence. 3. Address: 1248 West Bishop Street, Santa Ana, California 92703. 4. Parcel Number: Unknown. 5, Present Owner_ Catholic Bishop of Orange, 2811 Fast Villa Real Drive, Orange, California 92677. Ownership is prlvate. 5. Present Use: The residence is presently utilized by several Fathers of the Nobertine Order, instructors at Mater Del Nigh School. Original Use: Private Residence 7a, Architectural Style: The plaster on wood frame, gently sloping, hipped the roof, suppressed heavy set chimney, broad veranda and heavy columns all reveal the influence of the Mediterranean /Mission influenced - Classical Box style, which was popular in Southern California at the time it was built. b, The Walker Residence is a two story, plaster over wood frame building with a hipped, tile roof. There are three outbuildings. One ig a garage located east of the house. A "summerhouse" is located southeast of the main house. This structure is a one roam affair with bath and kitchen facilities. The other outbuilding is to the south of the house. It is a greenhouse which has a closed room with fireplace at its west end. So far as is known, the main residence has not had any major alterations. Tile date of construction of the "summerhouse" is not known, Dut in 1923 building permits were issued for a poultry house and an incubator house. One of these structures may have been converted to the "summerhouse ". If not, then the "summerhouse" was probably constructed concurrently with the main residence, since no additional building permits were issued. The greenhouse was built in 1935. 8. Construction Date: 1922 [Building permit issuance}. R. Architect: Unknown. 10. Builder: Unknown. 11. Frontages= Approximately 110 feet on Bristol Street. Approximately 424 feet on Bishop Street. 75C -634 12. Dates of Enclosed Photographs: July 1885. 13. Condition: Excellent. 14. Alterations: No major alterations are known to have been made. 15. Surroundings: Densely built up residential and commercial. 15. Threats to Project: Public works project (Bristol Street widening). 17. The structure is on its original site. 18. Related Features: See 7b, above. 19. Significance: The Walker Residence is probably the largest, well preserved example of the Mediterraneanlhlission influenced - Classical Box style in Santa Ana. It has not been altered since it was originally constructed in 1922, Its significance i5 enhanced due to its association with Mr. Edward A. Walker, the original owner, who was a prominent local poultry farmer and feed mill operator in this area for many years. This site is all that remains of Mr. Walker's original farm estate, which was much larger. Based on its architectural integrity and the local historical significance of the original owner, the walker Residence has been preliminarily determined to be eligible for listing under National Register criteria, at the local level of significance. A Request for Determination of Eligibility has therefore been prepared. 20. Main Theme of Historic Resource: Architecture / History. 21. Sources: The major source document for the Walker House is the puiiding permit file maintained at the City of Santa Ana, Planntr%q and Development Services, 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, California 92702. Other information Came from the census schedules maintained at the National Archives, Chet C. Hollifield Federal Building, Laguna Niguel, California. Information was also found in local histories and directories maintained at the Santa Ana Public Library. 22. Date Form Prepared: 10 September 1985 6y: Ronald M. Bissell 25762 Via Del Rio El Toro, California 92630 (774) 837 -9582 75C -635 Walker house as seen from Bishop Street. View is to the south. Walker house as seen from across Bristol Street. View is to southeast. 75C -636 A3 Ju 7 �G5 it r_ r �, �nw��. -.: I - f M T Ila MMU nZ .. .... .... !S, ,,Opt 4V BUILDING EVALl1ATION FORM 1. Common name: 2. Historic name: 3. Street or rural address: 401 South BrlstOl Street City: Santa Are, Califorria Zip: 92703 County: Orange 4. Parcel number: 10271 -23 5. Present owner: Ethel Drennan Address: As above. City: Zip: Ownership is: Public: Private: X 6. Present use: Dwelling Original use: Dwelling 7a. Architectural style: Workman's Cottage. 7b. Briefly describe the present physical description of the site or structure and describe any major alterateans from its original condition: Frame construction with vertical siding. Hipped roof. There is nothing especially outstanding about the structure. The building is not well maintained. The building is located over 50 feet from the Bristol Street curb. S. Construction date: Estimated: 1925 Factual: 9. Architect: Unknown la. Builder: Unknown il. Approximate property size (in feet): Frontage: 63 feet. Depth: 90 feet. or approximate acreage: l2. Date(s) of enclosed photograpo(s): August 1995 13. Condition: Excellent: Good: Fair: X Deteriorated: No Langer in existence: 14. Alterations: None known. 1 75C -639 15. Surroundings: (Lheck rr,Dre than one if necessary) Upen land; Eicattered buildings: Densely [3uiIt up: X Ressdential: X Im+iustrial: comw', ' ■a1: Uther: 16. Threats to site: Nnne knawna Private development: Zoning. Vandalism: Public works project- Street improvements other: 17. Is the structure: On its original site? X Moved? Unknown? 19. Related features: SIGNIFICANCE 19. Briefly state historical andior architectural importance (include dates, event, and persons associated with the site.): The only significance of this building is its age. The architecture iS not unique in any way and research in local histories failed LU reveal that any person of his to is al note Was ever as TnOE sated with the house. It is felt that the features of this structure are not of sufficient merit to rrarrdnt consideration for inclusion in the National Register of HiSt071C Places. B0. Main theme of historical resource: (If more than one is checked, number in order of impvrtance.l Architecture: X Arts and Leisure: Economic /Industrial: Exploration /SPttlement: GDVernme1rt: ,`9il�tary: Religion: Social /Education; 21. sources: (List hook, dnCU44ent5, surveys, personal interviews and their dates.): wiftrn 1981, City of Santa Ana building permit Files, Orange County Tan Assessor's records. 2B. Date form prepared: 7 OctobLer 1996 By ({Name): Ronald H. Bissell Organization; I,idependent cunsultant Address: 2476 Ulu Dni ��i❑ City: E1 Toni, California Zip: (2630 Phone: (71 .'+) 9J. -9532 75C -640 Location sketch map (draw and label site and surrounding streets, roads and prominent kandmarksY: � Iiaaal� srQ�tr ,r y 9G1 SeuT�l �3I�15r�� a Photographs: 3 75C -641 BUILDING EVALUATION FORM 1. Common name: Contreras house 2. Historic name: Jackson house 3. Street or rural address; 305 South Bristol Street City: Santa Ana, California Zip: 72703 County; Orange z }. Parcel number: 8- 231 -27 5. Present owner: Ramon Contreras Address: 2661 West Cerritos Avenue City: Anaheim, California Zip: 92t304 Ownership is: Public: Private: K 6. Present use: Dwelling Original use: Dweltiny 7a. Architactural style: WUrkman's Cottage. 7b. Briefly describe the present physical description of the site or structure and do�r_cribe any major alterations from its ❑riglnal Condition: This small frame example of the Workman's Cottage style has Been well maintained. Its two chimneys are somewhat unusual, But by no means unique, exceptional, ❑r outstanding. A bed- room was added in 1953, B. Construction date: Estimated: Factua3: 2E3 July 19 ,25 bldg permit, 9. Architect: Unknown 10. Builder: Unknown 11_ Approximate propKrty :JZP fin feet): _ Frontage: 45 feet. Depth: 109 feet. or approximate acreage: 12. Datc(s) of enclosed photograph(s): August 11?B5 13. Condition: Excellent: X Gaud: Fair: Deteriorated; No longer in existence: 14. Alterations: Bedroom added in 1953. 1 75C -642 15. Surroundings: (Check more than one if neces5ery) Open land: Scattered buildings: Densely ba ilt up: X Residential.; 1( Industrial: Commercial: Other: 16. Threats to site: None known: Private development: zoning: Vandalism: Public works project: Street improvements Other; 17. Is the structure: On its original situ X MoveW Unknown? to. Related features: SIGNIFICANCE 19. Briefly state historical and/or architectural importance {include dates, events and persons associated with the site.); The only significance of this building is its age. The architecture is not unique in any way and research xn 10,61 hlwtoriws %allred to reveal that any person of historical note was ever associated with the house. It is felt that this house is not eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. 20. Main theme of historical resource: (If more than One is checkedt number in order of importance,) Architecture: X Arts and Leisure: EcancamiclLndustriai: Exploration /Settlement: Government: Military: Religion: SDCial /Education: 21. Sources: (Last books, documents, surveys, personal interviews and their dates.): Wiffen 1981, City of Santa Gana [wilding permit fxlea, County pf Orange Tax Assessor's recorder, 22. Date form prepared: 7 October 1986 By (Name): Ronald M. Bissell Organization: Independent consultant Address; 24762 Via Del Rio City: E1 Toro, California Zip: 92630 Phone: (714) 027 -95EP C? 75C -643 Location sketch map (draw and label site and surrounding streets, roads and prominent landmarks): pw ✓E Photographs: r a Sigh cr 0 703 56vrd!l2ISr61- 1�36S SGvn9 3 75C -644 8 RLfII_DING EVALUATION FORM 1. Common name: Contreras house 2. Historic name: Icing house 3. Street or rural address: 303 South Bristol Street City: Santa Ana, California zip: 92702 County$ Orange 4. Parcel number: B- 231 -26 S. Present owner: Ramon Contreras Address: 266L West Cerritos Avenue City: Anaheim, California Zip: 92804 Ownership is: Public: Private: X 6. Present use: Dwelling Original use: Dwellinq 7a. Architectural style: Workman's Cottage_ 7b. Briefly describe the present physical description of the site or structure and describe any major alterations from its original condition: This small stuccoed residence has no outstanding architectural features, and is only moderately well kept. The building is about 20 feet from the Rristol Street curb. No extensive modifications are known. S. Construction date: Estimated: Factual: 1925 building permit 9. Architect: Unknown 10. Builder: Unknown ll. Approximate property size tin fentIl Frontage: 45 feet. Depth: 1D9 feet. Or approximate acreage: 12. Date(sk of enclosed photograph(s): August 1985 l3. Condition: Excellent: Good: Fair: X Deteriorated: No lenger in existence: 14. Alterations: None known, 1 75C -645 15. Surroundings: (Check innre than one if necessary) Open land: Scattered buildings; Densely built up: X Residential: X industrial: Commercial: Other: 16. Threats to site: Nord known: Private development: toning: Vandalism: Public works. Project: Street improvements Other: 17. Is the structure: On its original site? X Moved? Unknown? 18. Related features: SIGNIFICANCE 19. Briefly state historical and /or archctectural importance (include dates, events and persons associated with the site.): The only sigrificar ;ce [sf this building is its age. The architecture is not unique in and way and research in local histories failed to reveal that any person of historical note was ever associated with the house. It is felt that this structure is not eligible for inclusion i,1 the National Register of Historic Places. 20. Main theme of historical resource: (If more than one is checked, number in order of importance.) Architecture: K Arts and Leisure; Economic /Industrial: Emploration /Settlement: Government: Military: Religion: .cast= ialrEdueation; 21. Sources: [List troDks, documents, purveys, personal interviews and their date`.): WiPfen 1981, City of 5arit6 Ana ❑uildinq permit files, Grange County Tax Asse =_s ❑r'� rocords. 22. Date form prepared: 7 October 1906 By (Name): Ronald N. Bissell Organization: Independent consultant Address: 24762 Via Del Pic City: El Toro, California Zip: 92630 Phone; (714) 837 -9562 75C -646 Location sketch map (draw and label site and surrounding streets, roads and prominent landmarks): P I rJt Phutograpli5: �u a r .W s rat t i T" 3o.3 5o1,7.4 B41S5 -Ot- 3 75C -647 BUILDING EVALUATION FARM 1_ Commor name: 2. Historic name: None 3. Street or rural address: 309 South Bristol Street City: Santa Ana, California Zip: 9E702 Cauaty: Grange 4. Parcel number: B- 231 -23 5. Present owner: Dora S. Hanning Mora's Liquor Store) Address: 2917 South Rene Drive City: Santa Ana, California Zip: 92704 ownership is: Putlit: PTZVatei X h. Present use: Dwelling Original use: Dwelling 7a. Architectural style: Workman's Cottage. 76. Briefly describe the present physical description of the Site nr structure and describe any major alterations from its original condition: This small Workman's Cottage is in good exterior condition. The most noticeable feature of the house is a low front entry porch. The exterior OF the house is stucco. The house was originally located at 312 North Bristol Street. e_ Construction date: Estimated: 1925 Factual: 9. Architect: Unknown 10. Buildar: Unknown 11. Approximate property size fin feet): Frontage: 45 feet. Depth: 110 feet. Or approximate acreage; i2. Date(s) of enclosed photograph(s): August 1985 13. Condition: Excellent: Good: X Fair: Deteriorated: No longer in existence: 14. Alterations: House was moved from its original location at 312 North Bristol Street in 1947. 1 75C -648 I 5. Surroundings: (Choclq more than ❑no If necessary) Open land; Scattered buildings: Densely built up: X Residential: X Industrial: Commercial: Other: 16. Threats to site: None known; Private development; Coning: Vandalism: public works project: Street improvements Other: 17_ Is the structure: On its original site? Moved? X 1lnknpwn? 18. Related features: SIGNIFICANCE 19. Briefly state historical and/or architectural importance (include dates, events and persons associated with the site.): The only significancy of tnis building is its age. The architecture is not unique in any way and research in local histories failed to reveal that any person of historical note was ever associated with the house. Due to its lack of important architectural features and the fact that it is not in its original location, it is felt that this house 35 not eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic PlareS. 20. Main theme of historical resource: {If mare than One is checked, number in order of importance.) Architecture: X Arts and Leisure: Economic /industrial: Explgration /SettlamFnt: Guvernmant: Military; Religion: Social /£dur_ation: at Sources: (List books, decumuu-n,s, survey5i personal interviews and their dates.): Wiffen 1981, City of Santa Ana building pFrmit files. 22. Date Form prepared: 7 Octobor 19136 By (Name): Ronald M. Bissell Organi Cation: Independent c'7r.sultant Address: 24762 Via Del Rio City; El Taro, California Zip: 92630 Phone: ( "714 ) 837 -9.3BE 2 75C -649 Location sketch map (draw and label site and surrounding streets, roads and prominent landmarks): Ald�i S ric'ci Photographs: h CI3aa s� r+9 r3�JSTUJ- D3os 601Yrl M3AL- M Say SO G�- 3 75C -650 BULLDlI'JG EVALUATION FORM 1. Common name: Johnson Cnapel, African Methodist Church 2. Historic name. Chapel, Santa Ana Army Air Base 3. Street or rural address: 202 North Bristol Street CiLy: Santa Ana, California Zip: 92703 County: Orange 4. Parcel number: 7- 192 -E9 5. Present owner: African Methodist Church Address: Post Office UbK 3715 City: manta Ana. California Zip: 92703 Ownership is: Public. Private: X 6. Present use- Church Original use: Church 7a. Architectural style: 76. Briefly describe the present pnysical deS�Criptiorn of the site or structure and describe any major alteratLOns from its original condition: Thies church was one of four chapels constructed at the Santa Aria Army Air Base ISAAABI during World War 1I. The building was purchased by the African Methodist Church and moved to its present location in 1947, The building originally had clapboard siding: now replaced by stuvco. TnTFV of the four chapels originally erected at the SAAAB are still in existence. one is located in Cocta 1111Qsa c,rrJ the other two in Santa Ana. B. C❑nstl uctlDll date: Estimated: Factual: 1943 9. Architect, Unknown 10. Builder- The Griffith Construction Company, Los Anqeles, accomplished the bulk r)f the Cunstruction at the SAAAI3. 11. Approximate property sizo Iin feet): Frontage: 132 feet Depth: 130 feet Or approximate acrcyge: 12. Gateis] of Pnclosed pliotographls7: September 1966 13. Condition: £xcallent: Dodd: Fair: X Deteriorated: No longer in eY.IStence: i 75C -651 14. Alterations: Clapboard siding replaced by stucco at some unknown date after 1447. 15. Sufroundings: (Check more than one if necessary/ Open land: Scattered buildings: Densely built up: X Residential: X lndusLrial: Commercial: X Other; 16. Threats to site: Nanp known: Private development: Zoning: Vandalism: public works project: Street improvements Uther: 17. Is the structure: on its original site? Moved? X Unknown? 18. Related features, SIGNIFICANCE 14. Briefly state historical and/or arcnitectural importance (include dates, events and persons associated with the siue.r: This building was moved From the SAAAB in 1447 and any significance it might enjoy derives from its World War 11 role. As indicated in Item 20, the architecture is not significant. The SAAA13 became operational in 1442 and was used for pilot and navigator training throughout World War II. Many of the buildings From Lhe SAAAH facility were later used for other purposes. For example, some buildings were moved to the intersection of 17th Street and Bristol Street. within the current project area, where they served as classrooms and administrative facilities for Santa Ana Community College. ,None of these buildings survive. The African Nothodist Phowch is reputed to be the first Black church organized in Orange /:aunty. The building is less than Sa years of aye, has been moved and has been entensively modified. IL is believed that these factors render the structure ineligible for inclusion in the Natiooal Register of Hinturic ,Places. 20. Bain theme of historical resource: (If more than one is checked, number in order of importance.) Architecture: Arts and Leisure: E=conomic /Tndustrial: Explwrat!on /aetLlemYnt: Govrrnment: Military: 1 Religion: 2 Social /EdunaLion: 2 75C -652 21. Sources: (List books, dnzuments, s'ur'veys, personal interv1 L-"sa and their mates.)' Wiffen 1981, City of Santa Ana b«ald7nq per risat tiles, Orange County Tan Assessor's recflrds, ❑range County Recorder re(-Ords. 22. ]late form prepared: 21 September 1966 Lay ['lame): Ronald M. 9iuse11 Organization- Independent cOnsultanL Address: 24762 Via Gel Rao City: E1 Toro, California 2ipi 926nO Phone: 47147 e37 -9582 Location sVeti:h map (draw and label �itc and surrounding streets, roads and prominent landinar4s3: 2a7. dBQii� 'a ,3R757LL � y s 7'do r` Photographs: . v_.m BUILDING EVALUATIOid FORM 1. Common name: Bristol ❑rug Company 2. Historic name: Bristol Drug Company 3. Street or rural address: 1302 Santa Ana Boulevard City: Santa Ana, California 21p: 42703 County: Orange 4. Parcel number: 7- 193 -24 5. Present owner: Robert G. Schmierer Address: As above City: Zip: Ownership is: Public: Private: X 6_ Present use: Drug store Original use: Drug store 7a. Architectural style: Commercial 7b. Briefly describe the present physical description of the site or structure and describe any major alterations from its original condition: This commercial building is an excellent example of late 1940s commercial architecture. It used variously colored materials, translucent glass bricks and copious neon. The building is in excellent condition and hs undergone very little change from the original construction. Q. Construction date: Estimated: Factual: 1947 9. Architect: Unkoown 10. Builder: The Allison !-loner Company Lt. Appram mate property size (in feet): Frontage; 124 feet Depth: 52 feet Or approximate acreage: 12. Date(s) of enclosed photograph(s): September 1986 1 75C -655 13. Condition: Excellent: X Grind! P=air: Deteriorated: No longEIr in existruncL,: 14. Ai ter aticns: No major alter•atiDTis known. 15. Surroundings: (Check more than one if neces5ary) pperti Iand: Scattered buildings: Densely guilt up: X Residential: X Industrial: Commercial: X Other: ]6. T hreats to site., Nr)np known; Private deve]❑pment: ?oninq: Vandalism: Public works project: Street impr ❑vemeTrts Other; 17. Is the structure: Dn its original site? X Muved? Unknown? 19. Related features: SIGNIFICANCE 14. Srlefly state historical and /or architectural importance (include date,—, events and persons associated with the site.): The structure is an excellent example of period commercial architecture, but since it was constructed 7-ass than 50 years ago, its historical value. is reduced. Research in local Histories indicate(lthat no person of historic note was ever associated with the structure. It is felt that the features of this building are: nDt sufficiently important to warrant Consideration for inclubiori in the National Register of Historic Places. 20. Main theme of historical resource; (If" more than one is checked, number in order of importance.) Architecture: 1 AT-t•� and Leisure: Economic /Industrial: 2 Exploration /Settlement: Government: Nil 3 tor y: Religion: Soc i..I /cd ur= .�tion: 21. Sources: (List oonLs, documents, surveys, personal interviews and their dater.): Wiffen 19B1, City of Santa Ana building permit tiles, Orange County Tax Assessor's recoro -„ ❑r-angc- County Recorder records, Miller 1991. 2 75C -656 22_ Data farm prepared: 21 September 19 @6 By {Name}; Ronald M. Bissell Organization: Independent consultant Address: 24762 Via Del Rio City: E1 Torn, California Zip: 92630 Phvne: (7141 837 -9582 Location sketch map (draw and label site and surrounding streets, roads and prominent landmarks): !- SAr'TA 4,1A LlLuicvARO i= h [3R i %L ogdG J 13" s 4-VT4 46Jij�- Vail D n Photographs: 3 75C -657 BUIUDING EVALUATION FORM i- Common name: Villalobos house 2. Historic name: None 3. street or rural address: 111 North Bristol. May be listed as rear of 1252 2nd Street. City: Santa Ana, California Zip: 92703 County: Orange 4. Parual number: 8- 131 -27, which also includes a 1950% house. 5. Present owner; Ramon Villalobos Address: 19 Trout Farm Lane CitV: Dumbury, Massachusetts Zip: 62302 ownership is: Public: 5, Present use: Dwelling Frivate: X Original use: Dwelling 7a. Architectural style; Workman's Cottage. 7b. Briefly describe the present physical description of the site or structure and describe any major alterations from its original condition: Two houses are located on this parcel. One appears to be Qf 145ow construction and has the address 1252 2nd Street. The older house is at the rear, but fronts on Bristol Street. The building Permit files at the City of Santa Ana indicate another address, 1254 2nd Street, but the context which would associate this address with the older house is not clear. The address 111 North Bristol is embossed in the zuvz7ate of a step just north of the house. The actual construction date of the rear house is not known, but the vertical clapboard aiding and the narrow windows argue that it is a product of the 1920%. The house appears to be in fair condition. B. Construction date: Estimated: Mid to late L920s, Factual-, Y. Architect: Unknown 10. Builder: Unknown 75C -658 11. Approximate property F;i:e (in feet): Frontage: 122 feet (for both houses) Depth: 42 feet Or approximate acreage: 12. Date(s) of enclosed photograph(s): September 1986 13_ Condition: Excellent: Good: Fair: X Deteriorated; No longer in existence: 14. Alterations: An addition was made to the residence in 1945, but the nature and extent of this work is unknown. 15. Surroundings: (Check more than one if necessary) Open land: Scattered buildings; Densely built up: X Residential: X Industrial: Commercial: k Other: 16. Threats to site: None known; Private development: coninq: Vandalism: Public works project' Street improvements Other: 17. Is the structure: On its original site? k /Moved? Unknpr+n? 18. Related features: SIGNIFICANCE lil. Briefly state historical and/or architectural importance {include dates, events and persons associated with the site.): This structure i� c1¢arly in excess 0 S6 years old, but is of common architecture. Research in local histories failed to PLtablish that any person of note was ever associated with the home. It is felt that this hou,v lucks features of SuffiCLent importance to make it eligible far inclusion in Ole Natirrnal Register of Histuric Places. 20. Main theme of historical resource: (if more than One is checked, number in order of importance_) Architerture: X forts and Leisure: Econ71nic/ 1ndl15tr10l1 Exploration /Settlement: Government: Military: Religion: SoGlal /tdur_ation: 21. Sources: (List books, surveys, personal interviews and their' dates.): Wiffen 19RI, City of Santa Ana buildiriq permit files, Orange County Tax Aasessar's records, Charge L'Ounty Recorder records. 2 75C -659 22. Bate farm prepared: 21 September 1926 By (Name): Ronald M. Bissell Organization: Independent consultant Address: 24762 Via Del Ric City: El iorop California Zip: 92630 Phone: (114) 837 -95$2 Location sketch map (draw and label site and surrounding streets, roads and prominent landmarks): FAR sr photographs: t4 [a M N. a ?ISrU y RAO�AYGR 6nGP r- s MEk7 J 75C -660 BUILDING EVALUATION FORM 1. Common name: Cabrera House 2. Historic name: None 3. Street or rural address: 1249 2nd Street City: Santa Ana, California Zip: 92703 County: Orange 4. Parcel number: a- 092 -30 5_ Present owner: £liswQ Cabrera Address: 207 North Hrlstol Street City: Santa Ana, California zip: 93703 Ownership is: Public: Private: X 6. Present use: Dwelling original use: Probably a commercial establishment. 7a. Architectural style: Workman's Cottage. 7b. Briefly describe the present physical description of the site or structure and describe any major alterations from its original condition: This structure was probably a commercial structure when first built and only later converted to dwelling use. The north end of the structure has a large second story door which may have been used as access to storage. The building is on the same parcel as 207 North Bristol, an old store front. It is felt that these two buildings formed part of the same commercial complex. On 9 December 1927 a permit was issued for the installation of a " spraying machine." since " spraying" could not be found in any dictionary it is felt that a spraying machine of some sort is indicated. Building permits are present back to 1921, but not for the original building, which must therefore be older. The rear door of the structure is framed with used brick. This may be a modern alteration, but is not indicated in the building permit files. 9. construction date: Estimated: Pre -1921 Factual: 9. Architect: Unknown 1 75C -661 19. Builder: unknown. 11. Approximate property size (in feet): Frontage: 124 feet Knclrrdznrj P07 North Bristol) Depth: 42 feet Or approximate acreage: 12. Date(s) of enclosed photogr•aphls): September 1986 13. Condition: Excellent: Good: X Fair: Deteriorated: No longer in emistenLe: 14. Alterations: Building may have been extensively altered through conversion from commercial structure to private dwelling and by installation of brick around rear door, but therw is on indication of thnsa alterations in the City of Banta Ana Building Permit files. 15. Surroundings: (Check more than one if necessary) Open land: Scattered buildings: Densely built up: X Residential: k Industrial: Commercial: X Other: 16. Threats to site: None known: Private development: Zoning: Vandalism: Public works project: Street improvements Other: 17. Is the structure: On its original zite? X moved? Unknown? 18. Related features: BCGNIFICANCE 19. Briefly state historical and /or architectural importance 4include dates, events and persons associated with the site.): The building is a commercial structures from the early period of Br:stol street. Research in area histories failed to establloh that any person of historic note was ever associated with the structure. It is felt that the features of this building are not sufficiently significant to render it eligible for inclusion in the National RegLSter of Historic Places. 75C -662 20. Main theme of historical resource: (If more than one is checked, number in order of importance.) Architecture: 2 Arts and Leisure: Economic /Industrial: 1 EKploration /Settlement: Government: Military: Religion: Social /Education: 21. Sources: (List hooks, documents, surveys, personal interviews and their dates.): Wiffen 1981, City of Santa Ana building permit files, Crange County Tax Assessor's records, Orange County Recorder records, Interview with Mr. Cecil Marks, 19 September 1986. 22. Date form prepared: 21 September 19e6 By (Name): Ronald M, Hissell organization: Independent consultant Address: 24762 Via Del Rio City: El Toro, California Zip: 92630 Phone: (714) e37 -9582 Location sketch map Sdraw and label site and surrounding streets, roads and prominent landmarks): h 1Nn 3`Rt�`r a r LQ 3 75C -663 i OR BEIILDING EVALUATION FORM 1. Common name: Cabrera storefuunt 2. ))iwtorlc dame: None 3. Street or rural address: 207 North Bristol. City: Santa Ana, California zip: 92703 County: Orange 4. Parcel number: 8- 092 -30 5. Present owner: Eliseo Cabrera Address: As above City: tip: Ownership is: Public: Private: X b. Present use: Metal polishing and plating shop Original use: Unknown. Was a plating shop in 1960s 7a. Architectural style: Store front 71b. Briefly describe the present physical description of the site or structure and describe any major alterations from its original condition: This small commercial structure was probably constructed at the same time as the adjacent building, 1249 End Street. The building is single story, has corrugated metal walls and is flat roofed. The building is in poor condition, and has undergone several alterations. Ten feet of the front of the building was removed in 1951. The structure was damaged by fire in 1979. B. Construction date: Estimated: Pre --I4cF Factual: 9. Architect: Unknown 10, Builder: Unknown 11. Approximate property size Sin feet): Frontage: 124 feet (including 1249 2nd Street) Depth; 42 feet Or approximate acreage: 12. Date(s) of enclosed photcgraph(s): September 1986 13. Condition: Excellent: Good: Fair: Deteriorated: X No longer in existanca: 1 75C -665 14- Alterations; 14 feet of front of building removed in 1951. Damaged by fire to an unknown extent in 1979_ 15. Surroundings: (Check more than one if necessary) Open land: Scattered buildings; Densely built up; X Residential: X Industrial: Commercial; X Other: 16. Threats to site: Nona known; Private development: Zoning: Vandalism: Public works project: Street improvements Other: 17. Is the structure: On its original site? X Moved? Unknown? 18. Related features: SIGNIFICANCE 19. Briefly state historical and /or architectural importance (include dates, events and persons associated with the site.): This building i5 an early Bristol Street commercial structure, but is of quite common architecture. In addition the building has been extensively modified over the years. Research in local histories indicates that no person of historical note was ever associated with the building. This structure is not eligible for the National. Register. 20. Main theme of historical resource: (If more than one is checked, number in nrder of importance.) Architecture: Farts and Leisure: Ecanamicllrvdustrial: X Exploration /Settlement: Government: Military: Religion: Social /Education; 21. sources; (List books, documents, surveys, personal interviews and their dates.): Wiffen 1901, City of Santa Ana [wilding permit files, Orange County Tar. Assennor's records, Oranye County Recorder records. 22. Date form prepared: 21 September 1986 By (Names): Ronald M. Bissell Organization: Independent consultant Address: 24762 Via Del Rio City: Cl Toro, California Zip; 92630 Phone: (714) 837 -9592 75C -666 11 Occation sketch map (draw and label site and surrounding streetsp roads and prominent landmarks): 7..ra s1Rtir+ Photographs: Ij J.a7 N.QRiSYG! v !7. f9 xNO r7 ro h 4i i 3 75C -667 9UILDING EVALUATION PORK 1. Common name: Neal house 2. Historic name; Deunbaugh house. T. Street or rural address: 515 North Bristol Street City: Santa Ana, California Zip: 92703 County: Orange 4_ Parcel number; 8- 081 --33 5. Present owner; Louisa Neal Address: 6765 East Swarthmore Avenue City; Anaheim, California Zip: 92807 Ownership is: Public: Private; X 6. Present use: Dwelling Original use: Dwelling 7a. Architectural style! Workman's Cattage. 70. Briefly describe the present physical description of the site or structure and describe any major alterations from its original condition: This small dwelling has a columned front porch with some scroll work as its most noticeable architectural feature. The building was reroofed in 1936, a furnace was installed in 1958 and the porch was repaired in January of 1986. S. Construction date: Estimated: Factual: 1923 9. Architect: Unknown IV. Builder: C.E. Deunbaugh, original owner 11. Approximate property site Sin feet]; Frontage; 4b feet Depth: 135 feet Or approximate acreage: 18. Date(s) of enclosed phvtvgraphAsl: September 1786 13. Condition: Excellent: Good: X Fair: Deteriorated: No longer in existence: 14. Alterations: Reroof 1936, furnace 1959, porch repairs 1986. 1 75C -668 15. Surroundings: (Checi more than one if necessary) Open land: scattered hwildxngs: Densely built up: X Residential: X Industrial: Commercial: X Other: 16. Threats to site: None known: Private development: Zoning: Vandalism: Public works project: street improvements Other: 17. Is the structure: On its original site? X Moved? unknown? 18. Related features: SIGNIFICANCE 19. Briefly state historical and/n7 architectural importance [include dates, eventm and persons associated with the :>ite.]: This small structure displays only common architecture and research in local histories indicates that no person of historical note was ever associated with the house. It is -felt that the features of this structure are not sufficiently unique to warrant its inclusion in the National Register Of Historic Places. 20. Main theme of historical resource: [If more than one is checked, number in order of importance.} Architecture: X Arts and Leisure; Economic /Industrial; Enpluration /Settlement: Government: Military: Religion: Social /Education; 21. sources: (List books, documents, surveys, personal interviews arid their dates.): Wiffen 1981, City of Santa Ana building permit files, Orange County Tax Assessor's records, orange County Recorder records. 22. Date form prepared: al SepteMher 1996 ey (Name): Ronald M. Ilissell organization: Independent consultant Address: 24762 Via Del hio City: LI Toro, California Zip: 92630 Phone: (714) (337 -4592 2 75C -669 Location sketch map Sdraw and label site and surrounding streets, roads and prominent landmarks); 5 rn s7gjteT Photographs: �VS H. Jualsrol- � �cgRrrd� .a 7- C 3 75C -670 BUILDING EVALUATION FORM 1. Common name: Draganaa house 2. historic name: cochems house 3_ Street or rural address: 517 North Bristol Street City: Santa Ana, California Zip: 92703 County: Orange 4. Parcel number; 9-- 061 -28 S. Present owner: William P. Draganxa Address: 395 Santa Isabel Avenue City: Costa, Mesa, California Zip: 92627 Ownership is: Public: Private: X 6. Present use: Office Original use: Dwellinq 7a. Architectural style: Mission Revival 7b. Briefly describe the present physical description of the site or structure and describe any major alterations from its original condition: This small stucco structure has a flat roof, trick trim and an arched entry characteristic of the Mission Revival style, The building is well cared for and was converted to office use in 1971 by M. L. Standsberry, the then current owner_ A garage was added to 1929 and the building was reroofed in 1954. The garage was demolished in 1971 and $3000 of fire damage was sustained in 1972. 6. Construction date: Estimated: Factual: 1723 9. Architect; Unknown 10. Builder: Oscar and Ed Cochems, original owners 1L, ApprQKLmate property size Sire feetl: Frontage: 49 feet Depth: 95 feet Dr approximate acreage: 12. Date(s) of enclosed photograph(s): September 1986 i 75C -671 14. Alterations: Garage added 1929+ [demolished 1971), reroofed 1954, Converted to office 1971, damaged by fare 1972. 15. Surroundings: (Check more than one if necessary) Open land; Scattered buildings: Densely built up: X Residential: X Industrial: Commercial: X Other: 16. Threats to site: None known: Private development: Zoning: Vandalism: Public works project: Streit improvements other: 17. Is the structure: On its original site" X Moved? Unknown? 1B. Related features: SIGNIFICANCE 19_ Briefly state historical and /or architectural importance (include dates, events and persons associated with the site.): This structure has rather singular architecture for a building of this size and in this location, out cannot be considered as a rare or outstanding example or the elision Revival style. Research in local histories indicates that no persons of historical note was ever associated with the Douse. It is felt that the features of this structure are not sufficiently important to warrant listing in the NatLooal Register of Historic Places. 20. Maim theme of historical resource; (If mare than one is checked, number in order of importance_) Architecture: Y Arts and Leasure: Economic= /Industrial: Exploration /Settlement: Government: Military: Religian: SaciallE.d.ucatLara: 21. Sources: (List books, documents, surveys, personal interviews and their dates_): Wiffen 1991, City of Santa And building permit files, orange County Tax Assessor's records, Orange County Hecorder records. 22. Date form prepared: 21 September 1906 By (flame): Ronald M. Bissell Organization: Independent consultant. Address: 24762 Via Del Rio City: E1 Toro, CA 92630 Phone: (714) OW-9592. 2 75C -672 Location sketch map (draw and label site and surrounding streets, roads and prominent landmarks): I 517 K. 6410 L Y M � cAR�vN� 57rr g faf l:r a a Photographs: 3 75C -673 BUILDING EVALUATION FORM I- Common name: Moulton house a, Historic name: Crowe house A. Street or rural address: 827 North Bristol Street City: Santa Ana, California Zip: 92703 County: Orange 4. Parcel number: 5- 032 -45 5. Present owner: David W. Moulton Address: As above City: Zip: ownership is: Public: Private: X 6. Present use: Dwelling original use: Dwelling ';a. Architectural style= Workman's Cottage, 7b. Briefly describe the present physical description of the site or structure and describe any major alterations from its original condition: This small single story frame home uses only ordinary construction and architectural methods. R garage was added in 1422, unspecified additions were made to the home in 1424 and 1930 and a wall furnace was added in 1964- B. Construction date; Estimated- Factual: 1922 9. Architect: Unknown 10. Builder: H. 0. Crowe, original owner, 11. Approximate property size (in feet): Frantage: 54 feet Depth: 138 feet ❑r approximate acreage: 12. Date(s) of enclosed photograph(,): September 1986 13. Condition: Excellent: Good: X Fair: deteriorated: No longer in existence: 14. Alterations: Garage 1922, additions in 1924 and 1930, wall furnace 1964. 1 75C -674 15. Surroundings. IChPck inure Chan one if receasary) open land: Scattered buildings: Densely built up: X Residential: X Industrial: Commercial: X Other: 16. Threats to site: None known: Private development: Zoning: Vandalism: Public works project; Street improvements. Other: 17. Is the structure: on its original Site? X Moved? Unknown? 18. Related features: SIGNIPICARICE 19. Briefly state historical andlnr architectural importance (include dates, eventa and per5anr associated with the =Cite_): 7h =% small structure displays only common architecture and research in local histories indicates that no person of'lii5torical note was ever associated with the house. It is felt that the Features of this Structure are not sufficxently important to warrant consideration for inclusiGn in the Natignel Regl5ter of Histarir; Places. 2O. Plain theme of historical resource: (If more than one is checked, number in order of importance.) Architecture: X Arts and Leisure; Econorr:id /Industrial: Exploration /Settlement: Government: Military: Religion: social /Education: 21. Sources: (List books, documents, surveys, personal Interviews and their dates.): Wiffen 1981, City of Santa Ana building permit files, Orange County Tax Assessor's records, Orange County Recorder records. 2a. pate form prepared: 21 September 1906 By (Name); Ronald M. Bissell Organization; Independent con�ultant Address; E476Z Via Del Rio City: El -Tarn, California Zip: 92639 Phone: 5714; B37 -958r 2 75C -675 Location sketch map (draw and label site and surrutinding streets, roads and prominent landmark-3), 5 to t mf"t T Photographs: 1~ r- ti s e r I7 !N Aro a✓r jg,�j0e Z 3 75C -676 BUILDING EVALUATION FORM 1. Common name: Lafdjian house 2. Historic name: Morton house 3. Street or rural address: 929 North Bristol Street City: Santa Ana, California Zip: 92703 County: Change 4. Parcel number; 5- 032 -50 5_ Present owner: Jacob P. Lafdjian Address: Post Office Box B93 City: Santa Ana, California Zip: 92702 Ownership is: Public: Private; X 6. Present use: Dwelling original use: Dwelling 7a. Architectural style: Workman's Cottage. 7b. Briefly describe the present physical description of the site or structure and describe any major alterations from its original condition: This small single story home has a day window, its outstanding architectural feature on the north side of the structure. The building was reroofnd in 1942. Unspecified alterations were made in 1953. An obvious addition is visible at the front of the house. This may be the 1953 alteration. The house is covered with rock siding shingles of a variety common in the 1750s, but this alteration is not reflected in the building permit files. 8, Construction date: Estimated: Factual: 1922 9. Architect: Unknown 10. Builder: Charles Norton, original owner 11. Approximate property size (in feet): Frontage: 50 feet Depth: 134 feet Or approximate acreage; 12. Date(s) of enclosed photograph(s): September 1906 1 75C -677 14. Alterations: Reroofed 1442, ,addition at front of house, probably 1953, siding shingles date unknown. 15. Surroundings: (Cheek more than one if necessary) Open land: Scattered buildings; Densely built up: k Residential: X Industrial: Commercial: X Other: 16. Threats to site: None known: Private development: Zoning: Vandalism: Public works project: Street improvements Other: 17. Is the structure: On its original site? X Moved? unknown? 18. Related features: SIGNIFICANCE 14. Briefly state historical and/or arLhitectural importance (include dates, events and persons associated with the site.): This small structure displays only common architecture, with the exception of the bay window. Research in local histories indicates that no person of historical rite was ever associated with the house. It is felt that the features of this structure are not sufficiently important to warrant consideration for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. 20. Main theme of historical resource: (if more than one is checked, number in order of importance.) Architecture: X Arts and Leiaurec Economic /Industrial: Rxploi ation /Set tleaient GOVei'nment1 Military: Religion: social /Education: 21- sources: (List honks., document-, Surveys, personal interviews and their dates.): Wiffen 1981, City of Santa Ana building permit files, Orange County Tax Assessor's records, Orange County Recorder records. 22. slate Form prepared: 21 September 1926 By (Name): Ronald M. Bissell Organization; Independent consultant Address: 24762 Via Del Rio City: E1 Toro, California zip: 92620 Pharie: [714 � 1307 -9582 75C -678 Locatign sketzh map (draw and label site and surrQUnding streets, roads and prominent landmarks): 4 Yw S Y,TL xr Photographs; u !µ h N N a' q 1r q�0 oJf $fRVEQ 75C - 't79 BUILDING EVALUATION FORM 1. Common name: Johnson house 2. Historic name: Markel house 3. Street or rural address: 411 North Bristol Street City: Santa Ana, California Zip: 92703 County: Orange 4. Parcel number: 5- 032 -54 5. Present owner: Margaret Johnson, etal Address: As above City: Zip: Ownership is: Public: Private: X 6. Present use: Dwelling Original use: Dwelling 7a. Architectural style: Workman's Cettage. 7b. Briefly describe the present physical description of the site or structure and describe any major alterations from its original condition: This L shaped home is one of the larger along this portion of the street. The front ell is single story, but the rear ell has a second floor. No alterations are known. S. Construction date: Estimated: Factual: 1936 R. Architect: Unknown 10. Builder: Jules W. Markel: original owner 11. Approximate property size [in feet): Frontage: 50 feet Depth: 146 feet Or approximate acreage: 12. Date(s) of enclosed photograph(s): September 1986 13. Condition: Excellent: Goad: X Fair: Deteriorated: No longer in existence: 14. Alterations: None known 1 75C -680 15. Surroundings: (ChecV more man one if necessary) Open land: Scat tF•r Rd bw1 1dings: Densely built up: k Residential: X Industrial: C:cmmarcial: X Other: 16. Threats to site: None kROWTl: Private development: Zoning; Vandalism: Public works project: Street improvements Other: 17. Is the structur8: On its original site? k Moved? Unknown? 1B. kelated features: SIGNIFICANCE 19. Briefly state historical and/or architectural importance (include dates, events and persons associated with the site.I. This small structure dispiays only common architecture and research in local histories indicates that no person or historical note wae, over associated with the house. it is felt that the features of this structure are not sufficiently important to warrant consideration for inclusion in the National Rcgicter of Historic Places. 20, Bain Lheme of historical reso%rrce: (If more than one is checked, number in order of importance.) Architecture; X farts and Leisure: Economic / Industria:: Exploration /Settlement: GuvernmEnt: military: Religion: Social /Education; 21. Sources: (List books, d[lcuments, surveys, personal interviews and the)r datps.�: Wifferi 1991, City of Santa Gina building permit files, Orange County Tax Assessor's records, Orange County Recorder records. 22. Date form prepared: 21 September 1924, By (Name): Ronald N. Bissell Organization: independent consultant Address; 24762 Via Del Rio City: E1 Toro, California 'ip; 92630 Phone. 5714) 8137 -959mi C 75C -681 Location sketch map (draw and label site and surrounding streets, roads and prominent landmarks): Photographs: IJ 91) .J .0 4 0s 11 t I a 7 it 8 4' j)-Ok- !i f. y r• ORisYde. I-1 7z1 '�' . �a�s- 75C 682 BUILDING EV LUATION FCR 1. Common name: McGrew house 2. Historic name: Martin house 3_ Street or rural address: 917 North Bristol Street City: Santa Ana, California Zip: 92703 County: Orange 4. Parcel number: 5- 032 -49 5. Present owner: Curtis L. McGrew Address: 586E Lubec Street City: Bell Gardens, Califorria Zip: 90201 Ownership is: Public: Private: X 6. Present use: Dwelling original use: Dwelling 7a_ Architectural style: Workman's Cottage. 76. Briefly describe the present physical descriptions of the site or structure and describe any major alterations from its original condition: This smalE dwelling has a columned front porch as its most noticeable architectural feature. The building was reroofed in 1935 and again in 1952. Rock siding shingles were installed in 1956. B. Construction date: Estimated: Pre -1929 Factual: 9_ Architect: Unknown 10. Builder: Charles Martin, original owner 11_ Approximate property size (in feet]; Frontage: 74 feet Depth: 125 feet Dr approximate acreage: 12. Aate(s) of enclosed photograph(s): September 1986 13. Condition: Excellent: Good: X Fair: Deteriorated: No longer in existence: E4. Alterations: Reroof 1935 and 1952, siding shingles added 1956. 1 75C -683 15. Surrounding„ (Check more than one if necessary) Open land: Scattered buildings: Densely built up: X Residential: X I<dustrial: Commercial: X Other: 16. Threats to site: None known: Private development: Zoning: Vandalism: Public works projQct; Street improvements Other: 17, Is the structure: On its original 6itM7 X 'loved? Unknown? 18. Related features; SIGNIFICANCE 19. Briefly State historical and /or architectural importance (include datum, OVentS and persons associated with the site.): rhis small structure displays only common architecture and research in local histories indicates that no person of historical note was ever associated with the house. it is felt that Lhe features of this building are not important enough to warrant consideration for Inclusion in the National RagiEtor of Historic Places. W. Main theme of historicaE resource: (If more than one is checked, number in order of importance.) Architecture: X Arts and Leisure: Economic /Industrial: Exploration /settlement: GDYernneat: Military: Religion: Social /Education; 21. Sources: (List Books, document5, surveys, personal interviews and their- daLes.1: Wiffen 1981, City of Santa Asia building permit files, Orange County Tax Assessor's records, Orange County Recorder records. 22_ Elate form prepares: 21 Septsmner 19Q6 By (Name): Ronald M. 9issell Organization; Independent consultant Address: 24762 Vi? DPI Rio City: E1 Toro, California Zip: 92630 Phone; 17143 BW7 -1502 1) 75C -684 Location sketch map (draw and label site and surrounding streets+ roads and prominent landmarks): 57 rr 3 rFit e'T Photographs: r L 144 2' 1. h J J S� 4- .rQ 11 lit rv. iagt r'" J I, I r• F17 4R+s rai 3 75C -685 BUILDING £VALUATION FORM 1. Common name: DeFord house 2. Historic name: Sterling house. 3. Street or rural address: 921 North Bristol Street City: Santa Ana, California Zip: 92763 County: ❑range 4. Parcel number: 5- 032 --51 5. Present owner: George W. DePord Address: AS above City: Zip: Qwnership is: Public: Private: K A. Prevent use: Dwelling Original use: Dwelling 7s. Architectural style: Spanish Colonial 7b. Briefly describe the present physical description of the site or structure and describe any major alterations from its Original condition: This small dwelling features a tile roof and an Octagonal room on the northwest corner. The Structure was reroofed in 1940 and unspecified alterations were made in 1954_ This may have invo Lved the metal bars which now cover all windows on the building. 8. Construction date: Estimated: Factual: 1930 9. Architect: Unknown 10. Builder: Lee Sterling, original Owner- 11. Approximate property size Sin feed: Frontage: 43 feet Depth: 125 feet Or approximate acreage: 12. ❑ate1z) of enclosed photograph?W : September 1986 13. Condition: Excellent: X Good: Fair: Deteriorated: No longer in existence: 14. Alterations: Reroof 1940, window bars, probably 1954 1 75C -686 I55 Surr a and xng s: (Check more than one 1f necessary) Dpen land: ScattPred buildings: Densely built up: X Residential: X Industrial: Commercial: X Others 18. Threats to site: NonD known: Private development: zoning: Vandalism: Public works project: Street improvements Uther: 17. Is the structure: On its original site? X Moved? Unknown? kF3. Related featur mss: SIGNIFICANCE 14- Briefly state historical and /or architectural importance f inc Jude dates, avents and persons, associated with the site.}: The architecture of this structure is somewhat unusuaI, but cannot be cons E der ed as a pure or outstanding example of the Spanish Coianial style. Research in local histories indicates that no person of historical note was ever associated with the h❑u5e. It is felt that the features of this structure are not sufficiently important to warrant consideration for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. 213. Main theme of historical resource: If more than one is checked, numtier in ordLr of importance.) Architecture; X L]rts and Leisure: Econorn is /Industrial: E=xploration /5ettlemant: Government: Military; Religion: Social /Education: 21. Sources: ILi.st books, oaCUriznts, surveys, personal interviews and their datps.l: Wiffen 1481, City of Santa Ana building permit -riles, Orange County Tax A,sessar's records, Orange COUnty Recorder records. 22. Date form prepared: 21 September 1986 By (Name); Ronald M. Bisacll Organization: Independent consultant Address: P4762 Via Del Rio City: E=l Tbro, Califnrniu Zip: 92690 Phone: (714) E137 -y:322 75C -687 Location sketch map (draw and lapel site and surrounding streets, roads and pr❑mnnent landmarks): Ors j0-4idF Photdgraph5: y h I C 11 /GL� V. ffRY3i6L 11 qir �/. 6Rl.f � c z El9)7 N 03 aasr�I- 3 75C -688 13UILDIF3G EVALJRTION FORM 1. Common name: Graef house 2_ Historic name: Kelly house 3. Street or rural address: 1103 North Bristol Street City: Santa Ana, California Zip: 92703 County: Orange 4. Parcel number: 5- 024 -20 5. Present owner: Russel W. Graef Address: 1027 North Bristol Street City: Santa Ana, California Zip: 92703 Ownership is: Public: Private: X 6. Present use: Dwelling Original, use: Dwelling 7a. Architectural style: Workman's Cottage. 7b. Briefly describe the present physical description of the aite or structure and describe any major alterations from its original condition: This small dwelling is L shaped and features a porch which runs the length of the major axis of the house. No major alterations are known. G. Construction date: Estimated: Factual: 1935 9, Architect: Unknown 16. Builder: need W. Kelly, Original owner 1t. Approximate property size fin feet): Frontage: 50 feet Depth: 135 feet Or approximate acreage: 12. Date(& of enclosed photographC& : September 1986 13. Condition, Excellent: Good: Fair: X Deteriorated: No ]anger in existence: 14. Alterations: No major alterations known. 1 75C -689 15. S,irroundings: (ChLlck nore than one if necessary) Open land: Scattered buildings: Densely Guilt up: x Residential. x Industrial: C:cmmPrcial: X Other: if,. thrd'Ata. Cv vi LIrZ Noe�v i nnwni f°r s vatse olvx wrr 3c+Ea 1,l ac iy84 zoning: VardaIism: Pilblic works prajOct: Street improvements Other: 17. Is the structure: On its original site? X Moved? Unknown? 18. Related features: SIGW FICANCE 14. Briefly state historical and/or architectural importance (include dates, evenizs and persons associated with the site.); This. •sma1L •Structure displayer only common architectural features, with the exception of the natural stone chimney which i5 vii�ihle in the photograph. QesEarch in local nistorie. inuicates that no person of historical note was ever assoCiated with the house. It is felt that the features of this house yre nut sufficiently important to warrant conslderaLion for inclusion In the National Register of Historic Places. 20. Main theme of hLat❑riCQl rrasourLe: (If more than One is checked, number in order of importance.) Architecture': X Arts and Lei•sur[7; Ecfl no�rric /Industrial: Exploration /Settlement: Government: Military- Religion: Sor.,ial /Education: 21. So ur C 5: ;List boak•„ documents, ,urveys, personal znterview:r and their dates.): Wiffen 1481, City of Santa Ana building permit >"ilesr Orange County tak Assessor's records, OT ang,3 County Recorder records. 22. Date form prepared: 1 ?1 September 19e6 By (Name); Ronald M. Ris•,r_tt orgarrizatione 1r;deprendPnt cRr.sultint Address: 24762 Via I1s1 Rio City: C1 Tnrp, California Zip: 42630 Rhone: c,tik) P37.r,7::.+ 75C -690 Location sketch map (draw and label site and surrounding 5treet5, roads and prominent landmarks): rl TA a j-94LI e Photographs: 111 y N S 0 C b 11 )1L'7N.ag1$"'- 1) Q1 P1. (3(t +ii6L F] 102.1 N da,ST11- 3 75C -691 BUILDING EVALUATION FORM 1. Common name: MacKinnon house 2. historic name: Swesey house 3. Street or rural address: 1107 North Bristol Street City: Santa Ana, California Zip; 92703 County; Orange 4. Parcel number: 5- 024 -22 S. Present owner: Lloyd MacKinnon Address: 7415 Vineland Avenue City: Sun Valley, California Zip; 91352 Ownership is: Public: Private: X 6. Present use: Dwelling Original use: Dwelling 7a. Architectural style: Workman's Cottage. 7b. Briefly describe the present physical description of the site or structure and describe any major alterations from its original condition: This small single story home has no noteworthy architectural features. No major alterations are known. S. Construction date: Estimated: Factual: 1933 9. Architect: Unknown 10. Builder: Bernice 5wesey, original owner 11. Approximate property size (in feet): Frontage: 55 feet Depth! 135 feet Or approximate acreage: 12. Date(5) of enclosed photegraph(s): September 1986 13. Condition: Excellent: Good: X Fair: Deteriorated: No Fenger in existence; W. Alterations: None known 1 750 -692 15. gurroundings: (Check more than one if necessary) Open land: Scattered buildings; Densely built up: X Residential: X Industrial: Commercial: X Ether: 16. Threats to site: None known: Private development: 20ning: Vandalism: Public works project: Street improvements Other: 17. I= the structure: ❑n its original site, X Moved? Unknown? Q, Related features; 5IGN[F"IGA+iCC 19. Briefly state historical and/or architectural importance (include dates, events and persons associated with the site.): This ,mall structure displays only common architecture and research in local histories indicates that no person of historical note was ever associated with the horse. it is felt that the features of this structure are not sufficiently important to warrant consideration Tor inr-lusinn in the Matinnal Register of Historic Places. 20. Main theme of historical resource; (If more than one is c {pecked, number in order of importance.) Architecture: X carts ann helsure: Economic /Industrial: Exploration Settlement: Gnvernment: military: Rolrg3nn; Social /Education: 21. Sources: (List hooks, documents, surveys, personal 10tervlews and their dates.): Wrffen 192t, City of Santa Cana building permit files, Orange County Tax Assessor's records, Orange County Recorder records. P2. date form prepared: 21 September 1'le6 By (Flame): Ronald M. Disneli Organization: Independent consultant Address: 24762 Via Del Rio City: E1 Toro, Caiifornia Zip; 92630 Phone: ( 714 ) 037 -- 950, -_' c 75C -693 Location sketch map (draw and label site and surrounding streetsp roads and prominent landmarks): 0 T11 s rA te7 Photographs: C s_ r V 9 ❑ PPd wilrn sR+sro, I I 0-1 ✓. BR,Sr�, I1 u3 N- d4, syc, 3 75C -694 BUILDING EVALUATION FRRM 1. Common name: Tasi house 2. Historic name: Fairfield house A. Street or rural address: 1111 North Bristol Street City: Santa Ana, California zip: 92703 County: Orange 4. Parcel number: 5- 024 -19 5. Present owner: 6i1L S. Tasi Address: 2614 Tiffany Place City: Fullerton, California Zip: 92633 Qwnership is: Public: Private: X S. Present use: Dwelling Original use: Dwelling 7a. Architectural style: Workman's Cottage. 7b. Briefly describe the present physical description of the site or structure and describe any major alterations from its original condition: This small dwelling is L shaped with some brick work on porth column, and the front facade. Reroofed in 1935 and 1950. B. Construction date: Estimated: Factual: 1932 9. Architect: Unknown 10. Builder: H. H. Fairfield, original owner 11. Approximate property size (in feet): Frontage: 55 feet Depth: 135 feet Or approximate acreage: 12. Pate {s) of enclosed photegraph(s): September 1986 13. Condition: Excellent: Goad: X Fair: Deteriorated: No longer in existence: 14. Alterations: None known 75C -05 1:i. Sur r oi.ind i ngs: (Check muri: than one if necessary) Opari land: Scattered buildings: Densely built up: X Residential: X Iridustr'ia1: Lcmmercia I: X Other: 16. Threats to site: None known: Privato develgpment: �oning: Vandalism: Public works project: Street impravements ❑(' her: 17. is the structure: On its original site? X Moved? Unknown? 12. Related features: SIGNIFICANCE 14. Briefly state h1StOriCal and /or architectural importance (include dates, events and persons associated with the site_): This Small 6trur_tUrP displays only common architecture and research irr local histories indicates that nq person of historical note w,i5 ever associated with the house. It is felt that the features associated with this .Structure are rat sulticiently important t❑ warrant corisidaration for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. 20 . Main themm of nlstorical resource: Slf more than one is checked, number in order of importance.) Architecture: X Art, and Leisure: EcDnDrniC /Industrial: Exploratlon /Settlement: Go%,ertirrient: Mil nary: Religion: Social /Educat Lori : Sources: (List books, dnrum(�rrts, survey„ persarial interviews and their dates.): Wiffen 1991, City of Santa Ana Building permit f)las, Orange Cqunty Tan AssPSSar's records, Orange CDiinty Recorder records. 22. Date form preparQd: 91 Septembor 1986 By (Name): Ronald M. Bisell Organization: IndS'pe- nderrt r- orisi,ltl�nt Addrogs: 24762 Via Del Rio City: E1 Tnro, Laliforni =i Zip: 9263D Phony; {7341 037- LJ -82 2 75C -696 Location sketch map (draw and label site and surrounding streets, roads and prominent landmarks): j+ rn s;RerT Photographs: I_ ti 3 C "-7 116q W. 605r{'i 111 r+, ail 15ioL CI11a7 V. (iR +bjO� 75C - '697 BUILDING EVALUATION FORM 1. Common name: Greenleaf house 2. Historic name: Livenshire house 3. Street or rural address: 1919 !North Bristol Street City: Santa Ana, California Zip: 92703 County: Grange 4. Parcel number: 5- 022 -24 5. Present owner: F. Roy Greenleaf, Jr. Address: Post Office Box 11795 City: Santa Ana, California Zip: 92711 Ownership is: Public: Private: X 6. Present use; Dwelling Original use: Dwelling 7a. Architectural style: Workman's Cottage. 7h_ Rriefly describe the present physical description of the site or structure and describe any major alterations from its original condition: This small dwelling is L shaped, but has no noteworthy architectural features. The house was converted to commercial use in 1965, but there is no visible evidence of such use today. 8. Construction date: Estimated: Factual: 1931 9. Architect: unknown 10. Builder; Ralph Livenshire, original owner 11. Approximate property size [in feet): Frontage: 50 feet Depth: 155 feet Or approximate acreage: 12. Dates) of enclosed photograph(s): Septemoer 1986 13. Condition: Excellent; Good: X Fair: Deteriorated: No longer in existence: 14. Alterations: Conversion to commercial use 1965. I 75C -698 15. Surroundings: ]Check more than One it' neressaryl Open land: Scattered Densely built up: X Residential: X Industrial: C:ornmercial: X ❑then: 16. Threats to site: None 1cruwn: Private development: Zoning; vandal]--m: Public works project: Street irriprovernents Other: 17. Is the Structure- On its original cite? X Moved? Unknown? 1R. Related features: SIGNIFICANCE 19. Briefly state historical and/or architectural importance Iipiclude7 dates, ovr -nts and perstlris associated with the site_]: This snail structure dioplays only common architecture and research in local histories indicates that no person of historical note was ever associated with the house. It 15 felt that the features associated with this structure are not important enough to warrant consideration for inclusion in the National REglster of Historic P1acBS. 20. Main thBme of historical resource: iIf more than one is ch QC kedj number in order of importance.] Architecture: X Arts and Leisure: Economic /Industrial: Explorati On/Se ttI emrs r.t: Sri vernment: Military; Religion. Social /Education; 21_ Sources: (List bn ❑k. , document�-e surveys, personal interviews and their datps.l Wiffen 1981, City of Santa Ana building permit, filesr Grange County 'rare Assessor's records, Grange County Recorder records. 22. Date form prepared: 21 September 1986 By (Namk�S; Ronald M. Bissell Organization: Independent c (jnsultant Address.: 24762 ilia bbl Rio Lity: E1 1 -oro, California 27ip: 92630 phone: [714] 837 -9502 75C -699 Location sketch map Sdraw and label site and surrounding streets, roads and prominent landmarks]- wAsq..d-Yc.� L;rZk Photographs: 11 13;-I N• Sfi +srot LnJ p�.+YA� GPr'�GC q. 54LT 75C -t00 BUILDING EVALUATION FORM 1. Common name: Thompson house R. Historic name: Thompson house 3. Street or rural address: 1321 North Bristol Street City: Santa Ana, California Zip: 42703 County: Orange 4. Parcel number: 5- 022 -2$ 5. Present owner: Ellen Thompson Address: As above City: Zip: Ownership is: Public: Private: X 6. Present use: Dwelling original use; Dwelling Ta. Architectural style: Workman's Cottage. 7b. Briefly describe the present physical description of the site or structure and describe any major alterations from its original condition: This small dwelling is L shaped and has a steep roof. Roofing shingles overhang the front facade and the entry is arched. Repaxrs were made to the chimney in 1933. O. Construction date: Estimated: Factual: 1930 Q. Architect: Unknown 14. Builder; M. N. Thompson, original owner 11. Approximate property size fin feet): Frontage: 50 feet Depth: 135 feet Or approximate acreage: 12. Datels) of encloser! photegraph(s); September 1486 13_ Condition; Excellent: X Good: Fair; Deteriorated: No longer in existence: 14. Alterations: No major alterations known. 75C401 I:7. Burr ourioinigs: (Check morn than Pne if nocessaf Y) ❑pen land: Scattpred buildings: Densely built up: X Residential: X Industrial: Commercial: X Other, 16. Threats to site: Nnne known: private development: Zoning: Vandalism: Public works project: Street Improvements Other: 17. Is the structure: On Its original site? X Moved? Unknown? 18. Related features: SIGNIFICANCE 19. Brie Fly state historical and /or architectural importance [include dates, events and persons associated with the site.): This small structure displays some singular architectural features, belt tl•�ese are not Of transcendental importance. Research in local histories Indicates that no person of iistoricai note was ever associated with the house, ho;rever, it Is ititer esti Tig that the same fami 1 has owned the house ever since it was constructed. It is felt that the features of this house ere not of sufficLent importance to warrant consideration for inclusion in the National Register Of filstUTIC Places. 20. Main theme of historical rosource: (If more than one is checked, number in order of importance.) Architecture: X Arts and Leisure: 1:conomic /Industrial; EHpinration /Settlement: Gov Pr nment: Military: ReIigi.on: snGiat"FLucation: 21. Sour4es: (List books, documents, surveys, personal interviews and their ddte5.): Wif Fen 1991, City of Santa Ana buildlnq permit files, Orange County Tax Assessor's records, Orange County Recorder records. 22. Date farm prepared: a'1 September 1906 By ;Namel: Ronald H. Hissed Organization; independent consultant Addre GS; 24762 Via Del Rio City: El 'faro, California Zip: 92630 Phnno: (714) 837 -•�1 Pi 2 75C -702 Location sketch map draw and label site and surrounding streets, roads and prominent landmarks): WAS�Ilwrrnk'r 67QtC'T Photographs: 75C -�03 J 13-, r N- 6RISi4� l_J 13 7r 114 " � I i 1315 N (fRlfi�L a G e3 I I p/, SRt7 75C -�03 :� S ... .. .r�'CC. .. r,:. �.� • Lid . -. }. :. *^�a '_ �`` -: .. rte. ���.- :: �. J � �. y l � � i. 4 E � � .yry k' i r r. � ° i =� _ Mb �: i. •�T � - -I� ��'I b] f.'- `yR BUILDING EVALUATION FORM 1. Common name: Telef house 2. Historic name: Markel house 3. Street or rural address: 1401 North Bristol Street City: Santa Ana= California Zip: 92706 County: Oranqe 4. Parcel number: 5- 022 -26 S. Present owner: Ursula Telef Address: As above City: Zip. Ownership is: Public: Private: X 6. Present use: Dwelling Original use: Dwelling 7a. Architectural style: Workman's Cohtage. 71b. Briefly describe the present physical description of the site or structure and describe any major alterations from its original condition: This small dwelling features a modified hipped roof, unbalanced ells, and arched entry with very nice brick work and a large chimney at the south and of the structure. An aluminum patio cover was added in 1979. The currently existing aluminum window awnings were probably added at the same time. 8. Construction date: Estimated: Factual: 1931 9. Architect: Unknown 10. Builder: J. W. Markel, original owner 11. Approximate property size Sin feet7: Frontage: 50 feet Depth: 135 feet Or approximate acreage: 12. Date(s) of enclosed photograghCs): September 1986 13. Condition: Excellent: X Good: Fair: Deteriorated: No longer in existence: 14. Alterations: Aluminum patio cover added in 1979. Awnings were probably concurrent. 75C405 15. Surroundings: iCheck more than one if necessary) ❑pen land: Scattered buildings: Densely built up: X Residential: X Industrial: Commercial: X Other: 16. Threats t❑ site: None known: Private development: zoning: Vandalism: Publtc works project: Street improvements ( Other: 17. Is the structure: Can its original slw? X Moved? Unknown? 18. Related features: SIGNIFICANCE 14. Briefly state historical 6oh /or architectural importance ?Wciude dates, events and per;ons associated with the site_): This small structure displays some interesting: but not transcendental, arnhltPctural features. Research in local histories indicates that no person of historical note was ever associated with the house. It is felt that the features of this structure are not sufficient to warrant consideration for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. 20. Maid theme of historical resource: K f more than One is checked, number in order of importance.) ArchitecLure: X Arts .and Leisure: Economic /Industrial: Exploratit7nFSettlemrar�t: uovernment: Military: Religion: Social/Education: P1. sources; (List hooks, documents, surveys, personal interviews and their dates.): Wiffen 1981, City of Santa Ana building purmlt file„ CrangQ County Tax Assessor's records. Orange County Recorder records. 22. Date form prepared: ?1 September 19[36 By INamR11 Ronald M. Hiy sell Wganieatiori: Independent consultant Address: 24762 Via Del Rio City: EL TQr6, C'.a1LEarntia Zipt 92639 Phone: 17741 G37 -95W3 75C -706 Lonation sketch map (draw and label site and surrounding Streetsp roads and prominent landmarks): s,gwTA ANA GZn+mdr +ia LoyLl: UL Photographs: a v r a J N �at�S /+, f3R �i7hL j f'��f r� (j�Ifi4L 1311 w. f3Ri57u1_ 75C -3107 BUILDING EVALUATION FORM 1. Common name: Vassalle house 2. Historic name: Stauffer house 3. Street or rural address: 1415 North Bristol Street City: Santa Ana, California Zip: 92706 County: Orange 4. Parcel number: 5- 022 -22 5. Present owner: Gina S. vassalle Address: As above City: Zip: Ownership is: Public: Private: X 6. Present use: Dwelling Original use: Dwelling 7a. Architectural style: Workman's Cottage. 7b. Briefly describe the present physical description of the site or structure and describe any major alterations from its original condition: This home is very well preserved and features numerous interesting architectural elements. Among them are exposed exterior beams in the peaks, a hay window, and a front stepped chimney which is close t❑ the main entrance. A "rumpus room," separate from the house, was constructed in 1952. In 1979 a permit was issued for the destruction of a rear house and garage. The interior was remodeled in 19BO. The house is currently partially used as a beauty salon. H. Construction date: Estimated: Factual: 1935 9. Architect: Unknown 10. Builder: A. M. Stauffer, original owner 11. Approximate property size (in feet): Frontage: 80 feet Depth: 135 feet Or approximate acreage: I?. Date(s) of enclosed photograph(s); September 1986 75C -�08 14. Alterations: Separate "rumpus room" added in 1952. 15. Surroundings: (Check more than One+ if necessary) Oyer, land: Scattered buildings: Donsely built up: X Residential: X Industrial: Commercial: X Other: 16. Threats to site: None knoon: Private development: Zoning; vandalism: Puol:c works project: Street improvements Other: 17. Is the structure: On its urlginal mite? X Moved? Unknown? 19. Related features: SIGNIFICANCE 19. Briefly state historical and /or architectural importance f lnEludy Qates, events and persons associated with the site.): this small structure displays some unusual, but far from transcendental architectural features. Research in local histories indicates that no person of historical note was ever associated with the house. It is felt that the features of this structure are not of sufficient importance to warrant consideration for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, 20. Main theme of historical resource: (If more than one is checked, number in order of impurtance.) Architecture; X Arts and Leisure: Economic /Industrial: Fxploratiun /Settlement; 60vernment; Military: Religion: Social /Education: 21. Sources: (List books, documents, surveys, personal interviews and their dates.): Wiffen I961, City of Santa Ana building permit files, Orange County Tax Assessor's records, Ur tinge County Recorder records. 22. Date farm prepared: al September 1986 By (Name): Ronald M. Bissell Organization: Independent consultant Address: 24760 Via Del Rio 51 ty: E1 Toro, California Zip; 92630 Phone: (7141 837 -95BL 75C -709 13. Condition: Excellent: X Good: Fair: Deteriorated: No longer in existence: 14. Alterations: Separate "rumpus room" added in 1952. 15. Surroundings: (Check more than one if necessary) open land: Scattered buildings: Densely built up: X Residential: X Industrial: Commercial: X Either: lb. Threats to site: None known: Private development: Zoning; Vandalism! Public works project: Street improvements Other: 17. Is the structure: On its original site? X Moved? Unknown? 18. Related features: SIGNIFICANCE 19. Briefly state historical and /or architectural importance tinclude dates, events and persons associated with the site.): This small structure displays some uncommon architectural features, but research in local histories indicates that no person of historical note was ever associated with the house. 20. Main theme of historical resource: ?If more than one is checked, number in order of importance.) Architecture: X Arts and Leisure: Economic /Industrial: Expioration)Settlement: Government: military: Religion: Social /Education: 21. Sources: (List books, documents, surveys, personal interviews and their dates.): Wiffen 1481, City of Santa Ana building permit files, orange County Tax Assessor's records, Orange County Recorder records. 22. Date farm prepared: 21 September 1966 By (Name): Ronald M. Bissell Organization: Independent consultant Address: 24762 Via Del Rio City: El Torn, California Zip: 92630 Phone: (714) 837 -y5U2 2 75C -710 Location sketch map (draw and lapel site and surrounding streets, roads and prominent landmarks): SA,.7R A.+A GamMVWj'i -: Got -Gt cer Photographs: 11 J J4)7 ,�.G3¢tsrtia o-U iv 6RtS74l. A dPJ�CyLI.L CL1,406 75C-'711 I1UILDING EVALUATION FORM 1. CQmmon name: Alleman house 2. Historic name: Head house 3. Street or rural address: 1509 North Bristol Street City: Santa Ana, California Zip: 92706 County: Orange 4. Parcel number: 5- 012 -44 S. Present owner: Alleman Enterprises Address: 2461 North Rosewood Avenue City: Santa Ana, California Zip: 92706 Dwnership is: Public: Private: X 6. Present use: Dwelling Original use: Notary and tax office. 7a. Architectural style: Workman's Cottage - 7b. Briefly describe the present physical description of the site or structure and describe any major alterations from its original condition: This small dwelling is L shaped, but does not have any outstanding architectural features. The structure was converted to office use in 1961. B. Construction data: Estimated: Factual: 1936 9. Architect: Roy Russell, contractor 10. Builder: H. C. Head, original owner 11. Approximate property size [in feet]: Frontage: 50 feet Depth: 13S feet Or approximate acreage: 12. Date {s} of enclosed photograph(s): September 1986 13. Condition: Excellent: Good: X Fair: Deteriorated: No longer in existence- 14. Alterations: Converted to office use in 1961. 75C -�12 It). Surroundings: (Ch* =r1, mare than One if necessary) Open land: Scattered building,: Densely built up: x Residential: X Industrial: Commercial: X Other: 16. Threats to site: None known: Private development: 20ning; Vandalism: Public works project: Street improvements Other: 17. Is the structure: (In its original site? X Moved? Uiiknowri? 18. Related features: S I GIV I F I CANCE 19. Briefly state histurical and /or architectural Importance (irvc]ude dates, events and persons associated with the site_): This small strur =tune does not have any uncommon architectural features, and research in local histories indicates that no person of historirwal note was ever associated with the house. It is felt that the Features of this structure are Of insi.ifficlent importance t❑ warrant tan�idaran on for inr_iusion xn tha Cdat7onal RL'gister a{ Historic Places. 20. Main theme of historic-al resource: (If more than one is checked, number in order of importance.) Architecture: X Arts and LCjsure: Economic /Industrial: Exploratign /SQttlemunt: Government; Military: R_•ligion: Sacral /Education: 21. S❑urCeS: (List books, dnr-LurrentS. surveys, personal interviews and their dates.): Wiffen 1981, City of f�arrta Ana buildin+? FJer'mIt f=1PS, Orange County Tay. As recard-., Change County Recorder records. 22. Date form prepared; 21 September 1986 By (Name): Ronald N. Bissell Drganization: Independent consultant Address: 24762 Via Del Rio City: E1 Tarar California Zip: `?2630 Phone: (714) 937 -9'�B2 2 75C -713 Location sketch map (draw and label site and surrounding F,treets, roads and prominent landmarks]: 5A,•rR AAA LurnMUi,+4'y CoLI.t 6-x L4 y LE4 we +NCRscnd��z� r s, h c' d Photographs: 75C -�14 BUILDING EVALUATION FOR11 1. Common name: Baron house 2. Historic name: French house 3. Street or rural address: 1607 North Bristol Street City: Santa Ana, California Zip: 92706 County: Orange 4. Parcel number: 5- 012 -39 5. Present owner: Bernard Baron Address: As above City: Zip: Ownership is: Public: Private; X 6. Present use: Dwell,ng Original use: Income tax office. 7a. Architectural style: Workman's Cottage_ 7b. Briefly describe the present physical description of the site or structure and describe any major alterations from its original condition: This small dwelling features a rather unusual chimney, in that it is broad at the base and narrows with increasing height. The building was converted to office use in 1965. The garage at the rear of the building was erected in 1747. G. Construction date: Estimated: Factual: 1926 4. Archibect: Unknown to. Builder: French brothers, original owners. 11. Approximate property size Sin feet): Frontage; 50 feet Depth: 135 feet Or approximate acreage: 12. Datels) of enclosed phctograph(s): September 1986 13. Condition: Excellent: MOM Fair: X Deteriorated: No longer in existence: 14. Alterations: Converted to office use in 1965. 1 75C -715 15. Surroundings: (Check more than Dne if nec ❑wary) Open land: scattered butldi,,gs: Densely built up: X Residential: X Industrial: Commercial: X Other: 16. Threats t❑ site: No „e known: Private development: Zoning: Vandalism: Public works project; Street improvements 0Cher: 17. Is thv. structure: an its original site'2 ;[ Moved? Unknown? 18. Related features: SIGNIFICANCE k9. Sr ler IV state historical and !or- arChlteCtural lmpor tanCe (include dates, events and persons a,s❑ciated with the site.): this small structure displays a relatively uncQmmori, bi.lt rPrtainiy riot transcendental architectoral feature in its chimney. Research in local histories indicates that no person of historical note was ever associated with the hour . It is flat that the features of this structure of of insufficient merit for consideratinn fur Inclusion in the National Register of Historic Piaces. 2G. Main theme of historical rDSqurca: fIf ,here than one is r.hecked, number in order of importance.) Architecture: X Arts and Leisure: Ccnnom is /Industrial; E r.p l or at iD n /Settlement: Government: Mil Mary: Religion: Social /Education: 21. Sources: (List boDks, documents, surveys, personal interviews and their datr?s.): Wiffon 1981, City of Banta Ana building permit files, Orange County Tax f�S aessnr's recoi'ds, Grange CDUnty Recorder records. 22. Data Fnrm Prepared: 21 SepLemher 1986 Ely [Name]: Ronald M, Bissell Ilrganiration: Independent Co,,sul Cant Address: E +4762 Via i}el R7n City; F1 Toro, Cal ifornin 2iP: 9 @630 Phone: [%14+ 1337.9502 75C -716 Location sketch map (draw and label site and surrounding streetsp roads and prominent landmarks): pa2r4�.�G �a7 5 Ra7R Arr4 CDMM dNrYY GG7 -�-c (rk �(ol I✓. 6R15iGk. PhotograpW. 75C -tV BUILDING F..VALUMION FORM 1. Common name: Heinz house 2. Historic name: None 3. Street or rural address; 518 North Bristol Street City: Santa Ana, California Zip: 92703 County: Orange 4. Parcel number: 405.065 -18 S. Present owner: Twi1a Heinz Address: As above City: Zip: Ownership is: Public: private: X h. Present use: Residence Original use: Residence 7a. Architectural style: Workman's cottage 75. Briefly describe the present physical description of the situ ur structure and describe any malur alterations from its original condition: This small residence is well maintainedr but does not have any noteworthy architectural features. The date of construction is not recorded, but the house was relocated to its present position from 415 North Bristol in 1948. No major alterationa are known. 8. Construction date: Estimated: 1935 Actual: 9. Architect: Unknown 10. Builder: Unknown li. Approximate property size Sin feet): Frontage: 45 feet Depth: 101 feet Or approximate acreage: 12. Date(s) of enclosed photograph(s): September 1986 i 750 -718 13_ Condition: Encellent: X Goon; (--air; Deteriorated; Nci Icr rrg er in T:xi =tcncp: 14. Alterations: No mayor alterations known. 15. Surroundings: iChor_k more than one if necessary) Open land: Scatterers fjuildana3s; Densely built up: X Residential: X Inr{u =trial: Comrr.ercial: X Other: 16. threats to site: Mone known: Private devel❑pment; Zoning; Vandalism: Public iyorks protect: Street improvements Other; 17. Is the structure: On its original sire' Ito ved'? X unknown? 18. Related features: SIGNIFICANCE 19. 2rrefly state histarical and /or architectural importance (include dates, cvents and persons associated with the site.): Uo out5tandtnr7 architectural features are apparent in this small resrdence, arirt research in local histories indicates that no une of groat historical importance was ever associated with the structure. It is felt that the features of this structure? n❑ >>pt have suffitient merit to warrant c'ur,sideration for inc-lusion in the Nitionai Register of Historic Places. 29. Main theme of histar:ra] resource: (If more than one is cnetked r nunsbar i n c r rr- r) f i mpur tance. 7 Architecture: X Arte and Leisure; Economic /lndustraal; Euploration /Settlerpent: Go•ternmerit: Military: F{eiigian; Soc i.sl /ld sir atic rr; 21. v ❑urc es: List bu❑k�, documents, surveys, personal interviews and ?heir dates_?: Warfen 1981, City of Santa Ana building ppi -mit files, Orange County Tax Assessor's records, Or-ar:ye Courity ?Recorder records, Miller 19131 . 75C -719 22. Date form prepared_ 21 September 1926 By (Name); Ronald N. Bissell Organization: Independent consultant Address: 24762 Via Del Rio City: El Toro, California Zip: 92620 Phone: (714) S37-95&E Location sketch map Wraw and label site and surrounding streets, roads and prominent landmarks): 67N SiRee'T �^ y s fly N, 4A 1>> uL )n Photographs: 3 75C -720 QUILDUG EVALUATION F©R 1. Common name: McIntyre house 2. Historic name: Marks house 3. Street or rural address: 909 North Bristol Street City: Santa Ana, California Zip: 92703 County: Orange 4. Parcel number: 4- 122 -39 5. Present owner: George D. McIntyre Addrews: As above City: Zip: Cwnerxhip is: Public: private: X 6. Present use: Residence and real estate office original use: Residence 7a. Architectural style: Workman's cottage 7b. Briefly describe the present physical description of the site or structure and describe any major alterattuns from its original condition: This residence is well maintained, but does not have any noteworthy architectural features. The building was constructed in 1936 and a 16 X 20 foot addition was made Ln 1948. The building was converted to Commercial use in 1976. S. Construction date: Estemated: 1935 Actual: 9. Architect: Unknown 10. Builder: Adrian Marks, original owner 11. Approximate property size (in feety: Frontage: 112 feet Oepth: 100 feet Or approximate acreage: 12. Date(s) of enclosed phatograph(s): September 1986 75C -721 13. Condition: Exce11r?nt: X : fair: Dpter tor ated: No longer in existence: 14. AlteratiDris; Roam uddLtLon in 1945 15, Surroundings: SCheck more thane one if necessary] open land: Scattered buildirigs: Densely built up: X Residential: X Industf tale c ❑mm ❑rcial: X Lather: fb_ Threats to site: Nnne known: Private development: Zoning: Vandalism., Public wori.s project: Street I rilpro veRlent S otFler: 17. Is the structure; On Its original sito� X MG VC—d "? unknown? 18, Related features: SIGNIFICANCE 19. Briefly state hiStor Lr..ai and'or- ar Chitertural Importance !include dales, avantr, 614LJ person' associated with the si Le.]; No out6tancl 1iiq archi teGttjral features are apparent in this resident =e, and resE-arch in local histories indicates ttrat ri(r one of great hi tur ical importance was ever associated wL th the' st,urtur e. It is felt that the features of this dwel LLng da iiat have stiff icie«t iwerit to warrant consideration for lr,[lUi 10n in the National Register of Histo,I, Places, 20_ Ma Ln theme of hest ❑r Lcal resource: fTf more than one is Fhecktmd, nUML)er in ordrmr of importance.) Architecture; X Arts and L•P1 Sure: Econom it /industrial: Explorat ion/Sett lem Lilt; Gcvel nmei)t: Cli Litary: Religion: SoLLai /Edurat;orl: 21. Sour CG"-: 0_1st bo❑Fsr C1OCL3mentS, surveys, persgnal interviews and their datrs,l: Wiffen 1981, City of Santa Arra Guiidinq permit fibs, Cr•ange CPL1Rty Tax ::ssr's5. or'c recur r]s, ❑r,lnr}l� p_uunty Rvcorder records, Miller 198t. 2 75C -722 22. Date form prepared; 21 September 1486 By (Hume): Ronald M. Bissell Organization: independent consultant Address; 24762 Via Del Rio City: El Toro, California Zip: 92636 Phone: (714) 837 -9582 Location sketch map (draw and label site and surrounding streets, roads and prominent landmarks): w r 9 rn s i'q Z T H s A C7 Photographs; 3 75C -723 ATTACHMENT b Bissell /Raschke Reports 75C -724 Historic Property Survey Report: Bristol Street Between First Street and Warner Avenue, City of Santa Ana, Orange County, California PREPARED FOR: Willdan Associates 14714 Carmenita Road, Suite 300 Norwalk, California 90650 PREPARED BY: Ronald M. Bissell Archaeologist 24762 Via Del Rio El Toro, California 92630 (714) 837 -9582 Rodney F. Raschke Paleontologist 25108 Marguerite Parkway, Suite B-149 Mission Viejo, California 92692 (714) 770 -8042 September 1985 75C -725 INTRODUCTION- The purpose of this project is to describe the paleonto- logical, archaeological and historical resources existing along Bristol Street between First Street and Warner Avenue in the City of Santa Ana, Orange County, California, The project was undertaken as part of an environmental impact statement assessing proposed street improvements. The area of the project is depicted on the Index Map appearing on page 2 of this report. For the purpose of historic assessment the project was limited to the first row of properties fronting Bristol Street in the segment be- tween First Street and Warner Avenue (City of Santa Ana 1984:8). The archaeological and historical assessments were completed by Ronald M. Bissell, an Orange County Certified Archaeologist. The paleon- tological assessment was accomplished by Mr. Rodney E. Raschke, an Orange County Certified Paleontologist. The survey was completed at various dates between 5 July and 9 August 1985. THE SURVEY: CITY OF SANTA ANA: The first major resource examined during the survey was the files of building permits maintained by the City of Santa Ana, Planning and Development Services, 2l} Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, California 92702. Michael C. Betts and Guy W. Admire, both City of Santa Ana employees, were most helpful in arranging access to the records and interpretation of some of the entries. The initial examination of the building permit files occurred on 5 July 1585, with follow -up visits on 12 and 17 July 1985. The building permit files established that four structures with po- tential for historic preservation exist along Bristol Street in the proj- ect area. These structures will be discussed in some detail in the next section of this report. The building permit file for one structure, a tract residence at 410 South Bristol contained the natation, "No demos. See Planning for permits. Historical preservation." It was surmised that the notation 75C -1726 I r I f 4444 - yyy p F.JL li 1� SeA GMhLC j Ri _ • r ..III � � _• [ —� •1. 5� . J.• yjr 11 At 17; � F, BRISTOL STREET IMPROVEMENT �� PROUECT RREA FAA F t. �, ' 'f3IDilley Y •:'�: : 1 u 5 Wv EP-Ilm • �:� RESERVAMON 22 a —� 1 � i!ff F i ii ti 1 R 1e _ __ oil u111 r "T state 4 U U U feet lip. ~ y 7 s• M:Faddesr 2 '�z2, .B.Y��i BASE MAP: O'SGS NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 7.5 MINUTE QUADRANGLE, 1965, PHOTORIEVISEO 1981 75C -727 Ii r- i III_ INEW O S- N was mistakenly placed on this file instead of the file for the structure at 400 South Bristol, a home erected in 1919 by a Mr, John Sebastian. However, field inspection revealed that the Sebastian house no longer exists and that there is no such current address as either 400 or 410 South Bristol. The Sebastian house was razed before or as part of the construction of Tract 1804, accomplished in 1953. Investigation with Heritage Orange County, Incorporated, 106 West Fourth Street, Suite 505, Santa Ana, California 92701, established that the historical preservation notice contained in the City of Santa Ana files should have been included in the file pertaining to the property at 1248 West Bishop Street. This property was erected in 1922 by E. A. Walker and is one of the four properties identified in the original file search as a possibilitiy for historical preservation. This structure will he discussed in some detail in the following section of this report. Kathy Les of Heritage Orange County was most helpful in determining the above iniormation. LISRARV RESEARCH: On 9 July 1985 the collection at the Santa Ana Histrry Room, Santa Ana Public Library was examined. The librarian of the Santa Ana History Room, Anne Harder, was mast helpful in suggesting sources to check and in locating them. The work at the Santa Ana History Room did not provide any details concerning any of the existing structures along Bristol Street, but a great deal of information regarding the early history of the area was gained, This inforration will be outlined in a later section of this report. The general collections of the Santa Ana Public Library and the Orange County Law Library were utilized on 10 July 1985 to determine if any property on Bristol Street in the project area had previously been nominates for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places or the California Inventory of Historic f sources. No such nominations have been made (Federal Register 1979 -1985, California Department of Parks and Recreation 1975). The most profound discovery made in these general library collections concerned the first few Orange County Fairs, the livestock portions of which were held at a racetrack which was located immediately east of 75C -728 Bristol Street between McFadden Avenue and Edinger Avenue. The collection at the Sherman Library, 2647 East Coast Highway, Corona Del Mar, California 92625 was examined on 18 July 1985. This library is devoted to Southwestern history and is an excellent collection. Dr. William D. Hendricks, the Director, provided much valuable guidance during the search. The Sherman Library collection provided a great many deatils regarding area history, but nothing of value in assessing the importance of extant structures. The final library resource to be utilized for this survey was the Map Library, University of California, Los Angeles. This collection was examined on 23 July 1985. The earliest located map which depicts an existing Bristol Street in the project area is an 1877 work by J. H. Wildly, a Deputy County Surveyor, and A. J. 5tahlberg, a Civil Engineer, The map is titled, "Map of the County of Los Angeles." This map indicates that three struc- tures existed in 1877 along Bristol Street. Two of these were located on the east side of the street and south of the current Edinger Avenue. The remaining structure was directly across Bristol from the first two build- ings. None of these structures have survived to the present day. It is worthwhile to note that a school existed in the area at this early date. The Dia❑ond Grammar School was located north of Edinger a short distance to the west of the Bristol Street intersection. The United States Coast and Geodetic Survey map of 1901 reveals that seven buildings and a racetrack then existed immediately adjacent to Bris- tol Street. All except one of these buildings were located south of the racetrack, which itself was located just north of Edinger and east of Bristol. None of these buildings have survived to the present day. The United States Army Corps of Engineers map of 1947 indicates that 12 buildings then existed along Bristol Street in the project area. How- ever, the map apparently does not depict buildings below a certain size, since several structures known to exist from the City of Santa Ana records are mt shown. In fact, of the six structures which predate 1947, only the Walker house (1248 West Bishop Street) can be identified on the Corps of Engineers map. It is therefore probable that many other buildings were in existence in 1947 along Bristol Street. 75C -729 NATIONAL ARCHIVES: On 16 July 1985 the resources of the National Archives, Chet C. Hollifield Federal Building, Laguna Niguel, California were examined. The census schedules for the years 1960, 1910 and 1920 were most helpful in establishing the developmental history of the pro- ject area. No direct information regarding structures was obtained, but general locations Gould be surmised from addresses given in the census data. FIELD SURVEY: On 22, 24 and 25 July 1985 the information which had been determined through agency and library study was field checked. All addresses along Bristol Street in the project area were verified, all of the structures with potential for historical preservation were visited and measurements and photographs made. In addition, all open areas along the street and several areas of active construction excavation were examined for any evidence of archaeological deposition. No such deposition was found and it was noted that the subsurface in the project area appears to be primarily recent alluvial deposits. OTHER RESOURCES: During the course of this survey many additional printed resources were utilized and many people were contacted. Many of the printed resources will be cited in the following history of the pro - ject area. A partial listing of the persons contacted includes: Jeanette McRae, Orange County Fair Association Carol Dumke, Orange County Current Planning Processing Center Mr. Guillory, Orange County Assessor's Office Ed Miller, author of an historical work about the City of Costa Mesa Lecil Slahack, Drange County "istoTical Commission Opal Kissinger, Librarian, Anaheim Public Library Mr. Kapphahn, Business Manager, Mater Dei High School Father Trower, Office of the Bishop of Orange Nancy Thatcher, Orange County Historical Commission Barbara Blankman, Librarian, First Amp_rican Title Cnmpany IDENTIFIED POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT HISTORICAL RESOURCES: During this survey four extant structures with potential for historical preservation were ident- ified. Each of these are discussed below. The map of the project area on 75C -730 5 page 7 of this report indicates the location of each of the structures, as well as other features in the project area. 901 SOUrii BRISTOL; The exact date of construction of this frame, hipped roof structure was not established. Mr. S. 5. Drennan, the then current owner, was issued a building permit on 11 February 1946, but this was for repairs to an already existing building. The building dates to a far earlier period, judging from the construction style. The building actually fronts on a side street and is located more than 50 feet from the curb of Bristol Street. Since the structure is clearly not threatened by the proposed street improvement project, no great research effort was ex- pended to gain details of its history. The structure is depicted in Plate I, page 8. 305 SOUTH BRISTOL; On 28 July 1925 a building permit was issued to Helen L. Jackson for construction of a residence and garage at 305 South Bristol. The resulting frame house with two external brick chimneys is typical of construction of that period. Since the house is located only about 20 feet from the Bristol Street curb it is clearly threatened by the proposed construction. Nevertheless, the structure is not unique from an architectural standpoint and it was not the home of any noted person. In addition, the house is not in its original condition, since a bedroom was added in 1953. It is felt that the structure is not eli- gible for National Register nomination, since such nomination would he based only on age. The structure is depicted in Plate ]I, page 9. 303 SOUTH BRISTOL: This stucco residence was constructed in 1925 by Waldo C. King. It is immediately adjacent to 305 South Bristol, dis- cussed above. Much of what was said about the structure at 305 South Bristol also applies to this residence. It is the sarne distance from the curb, its architectural style is typical and it was never the home of a noted person. Therefore, it appears that this structure is also not a good candidate for National Register nomination, since the nomination would be based solely on age. This structure is also seem in Plate I1, page S. 75C -731 :r r sac ws .e xisa. WL i� _I I E~ Lutheran Church. nx We E.' Baptist ChurchM .�.'% N ,� ;• k .� ��� � III C-' llJ.�._I�J jjj �• �I J ' ° .. ; }� 03 5outh Bristol X305 South Bristol 0 D ❑00.. 309 South Bristol 1248 West 81shvpT uO0! �o❑E3 0 11 0 `1I � X901 Futh Bris 5 0Lo j .F 0Q � rrjjrr ,ICI AREA OF THE 18905 RACE TRACK Li UU1J,LI �� i tL C'mater De i High Schoo 1, � ' d '�FLJ � I 1 I I I I i t I I I I j � �� •�� h. UGL.. (R&m MAJOR FEATURES ALONG BRISTOL STREET {C- BETWEEN FIRST STREET AND WARNER AVENUE i�i �2�4�n L7 .ter, 4.�uy I - � - I �l�ll PLATE I: 901 South Bristol Street 75C -733 PLATE 11: 303 South Bristol Street (above) 305 South Bristol Street (below) Mi734 7248 WEST BISHOP STREET. This structure, with some 110 feet of Bristol Street frontage, is constructed in the Prairie style. The Prairie style was introduced by Frank Lloyd Wright in 1900 in build- ings in northern Illinois. The style is quite common in the midwest, and is only infrequently encounLered in southern California. The example at 1248 West Bishop Street has been identified by Heritage Orange County, Incorporated, a local historical group, as having Preservation potential. On 1 July 1919 E. A. Talker was issued a building permit to erect a warehouse at this location. Another building permit was issued in June 1922 for construction of the residence. A poultry house was added in April 1923 and an incubator house was constructed in September of the same year, A greenhouse was added in early 1935. Some of the buildings have since been converted to other uses, or have been replaced by later construction. For example, there is currently no indication of a poultry or incubator house, but a building currently referred to as a "summer house" now ex- ists. This is a one room building with kitchen and bath facilities lo- cated behind the main house. The greenhouse is still in existence, but is no longer used as such. About 1950 the ownership of 1248 West Bishop Street passed to the Catholic Bishop of Los Angeles and subsequently to the Bishop of Orange. The change of ownership occured about the time Mater Oei High School, a few blocks to the south, was being constructed. The house was apparently purchased as a support facility for Mater Dei High School, since it now houses several Fathers of the �lohertine Order, instructors at the hiyh school. flue to the pnssibilicy fnr historical preservaCit +n repres ntpd by the Walker House, a Building Evaluation Form has been completed and may be found in the Appendix. OTHER CONSTRUCTION; 'rhe balance of the re:maininq construction along Bristol Street in the study area consists of a variety of tract homes, commercial buildings, schools and churches, none at which have historic preservation potential. The bulk of the construction was subsequent to 1950, 75C -735 10 AREA PREHISTORY ANV HTSTORV: PALEONTOLOGY: The following section of this report was prepared by Mr. Rodney E. Raschke, an Orange County Certified Paleontologist. A review of the latest published geological map of the area reveal- ed that Bristol Street between Earner Avenue and First Street is under- lain by Quaternary Aalluvium (Morton et al. 1)73). These deposits were laid down by the Santa Ana River. Typically these deposits are less than 10,000 years old, which uiakt�s them geologically too young to contain important fossils. There are no confirmed reports of fossils froin these deposits in the Santa Ana area. There are unconfirmed questionable reports of the remains of "Ice Age" animals supposedly recovered From the alluviul deposiLS, However, no fossils are currently available to support these reports. Quaternary alluvium is considered to have a low paleontological sensitivity or potential for the discovery of fossils during the develop- ment of an area underlain by these depoists. Eased on the low paleontological sensitivity of the rock unit exposed in the Bristol Street area and the shallow nature of the excavations as- sociated with the proposed project it is unlikely that there will be any adverse impact on the paleontological resources in the Santa Ana area. Therefore, no paleontological monitoring will be necessary during the widening of Bristol Street between first Street and Warner Avenue. The above evaluation is based on a review of the published and un- published geological and paleontological literature of the area and the locality records of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County and 75C -7136 the Natural History Foundation of Orange County, No field survey was conducted during this study. ARCHAEOLOW : ChAono ,Eogy; The Native American group living in the project area came to be known as Gabrielino. However, this name was bestowed by the Spanish and is derived from association with Mission San Gabriel. The name the native population used to identify them5elves is not known (Kroeber 1925), The date of the earliest human occupation of the general project area is disputed, but most scholars would agree that a human presence was es- tablished along the southern California coast dy 75CD B.C. The artifactual record left by these early people indicates that they subsisted primarlily by hunting. The tools they left are oeneralTy quite large and the bulk of them are chipped lithic tools, such as projectile points and scrapers, or the remains of chipped tool manufacture, such as cores and hammerstones. Many of the projectile points are finely made, while most of the other tools are crude. This era is locally known as the Early Man Period. The millennium centered around 5500 B.C. reveals a major shift in the artifactual record. The large, finely made projectile points of the earlier period give way to smaller aid more crudely made points. Grinding tools for the processing of hard seeds became the predominant artifact types. These grinding implements are known as manos, the smaller hand held stone, and metates, the larger tools which often display deep basins. The appearance of the manos and metates is generally interpreted as a major shift in subsistence strategy, with a decreased dependence on hunt- ing and an increased dependence on the gathering of wild seeds. However, this shift may not be as pronounced as originally thought. Recent work indicates that hunting continued to be relatively important (Drover, Koerper and Langenwalter T983). This second phase of local archaeology is known as the Milling Stone Period. The Milling Stone Period persisted locally until about 1000 B.C., when a new tool combination, the mortar and pestle was introduced, ushering in the Intermediate Cultures Period. 75C -737 The mortar and pestle is generally related to the processing of the acorn as a food resource. However, the use of manos and metates continues unabated, so the introduction of the mortar and pestle indicates utilization of acorns as a supplemental food resource rather than as a replacement for other food. Projectile points become much smaller during the Intermediate, probably indicating the first use of the how and arrow in the area. The Intermediate also saw the first use of steatite in the area. Steatite is a soft, easy to work substance and was used for a variety of purposes, ranging from cooking utensils to personal decorative items. The steatite was imported from Santa Catalina Island, proof that the population had mastered local ocean travel. The final phase of native culture is known as the Late Prehistoric Period, and it began in the area around A.D. 750. The Late Period is characterized by changes in mortuary practices and by dramatic increase in the use of shell for decoration and functional tools. Projectile points become smaller still and are generally more finely worked than in the pre - ceeding era. Pottery appeared in some quantity near the end of the period. The local chronology, as it is presently understood, is surrarized in table 1, page 14. The above description and Table 1 are based primarily on Koerper and 9rover X1983]. AAahaeotogicat Re,6wch: On 213 July 1983 a literature review was accomplished at the Archaeological Survey, university of California, Los Angeles, the repository of archaeological data for Orange County. The literature review established that the project area has never been examined for archaeological remains and that no archaeological sites have been recorded in the immediate vicinity. Most of the area had been built -up prior to the introduction of requirements for pre - construction archaeological mitigation. During the field work for th! s project, primarily on 2', 24 and 25 July 1985, all open areas fronting on Bristol Street were examined for archaeological remains. Two construction excavations were also examined. These areas amounted to approximately 5% of the total street frentage, and all were highly disturbed. No archaeological remains were found. Due to the lack of prior research in the area and the present extensive construction, an evaluation of the archaeological sensitivity of the area 75Ci738 75C -739 Table 1: Chronology PERIOD TEMPORAL SPAN MAJOR DIAGNOSTIC TRAITS Early Man ? to 7500 B.C. t ? 1. Lack of grinding implements. 2. Large, welimade projectile points. Milling Stone 7500 S.C. ± ? to 1. Preponderance of mantis and metates. 1000 B.C. t 250 2. Ornaments made of stone. 3. Large and often crude projectile points. 4. Cogstones, evolving into discoidals. S. Charmstones. 6. Some mortars and pestles near end of period. Intermediate 1000 B.C. + 25C to t. %one ornaments. A.D. 750 ± 250 2. Wide use of mortars and pestles, along with manas and metates. 3. Use of steatite begins. 4. Many distoidals. 5. Large projectile points trending to smaller in last part of period. Late A.D. 750 ± 250 to 1. Shell ornaments. Prehistoric Spanish contact Z. Ptortar, pestle, nano and metate use continues. 3. Wide use of steatite. 4. Small, finely worked projectile points. 5. Pottery vessels appear near the and of the period. 75C -739 cannot be made. There is no basis for establishing the archaeological potential or value of the area and there is presently no means of de- veloping the data necessary for such evaluation. AREA HISTORY: The historical era opens in Orange County with the Porto la expedition of 1769, but nothing of note occurred in the project area until 1810. On 10 July of that year the Rancho Santiago de Santa Ana was granted by Spanish Governor ArrelIago to Jose Antonia Yorba and Juan Pablo Peralta. This 62,516 acre rancho was the only Spanish grant which was completely vsithin the area which would become Orange County. The current project area is contained completely within the Rancho Santiago de Santa Ana (Meadows 1966). In 1869 the City of Santa Ana was founded by William Kenry Spurgeon. He originally laid out 24 blocks with 10 lots each in the area of present downtown Santa Ana and the Civic Center. He built and operated a store at what is now Fourth Street and Broadway (Alex 196b, Swanner 1953), In 1889, Orange County was esatblished as a separate entity and the City of Santa Ana became the county seat. BRISTOL STREET HISTORY: The earliest reference to Bristol as a func- tioning street and structures near it is found in the previously cited 1877 Map of the County of Los Angeles. The map identifies one structure as the "Old Sepulveda House." This residence was located near what is now the intersection of Richland Avenue and Central Street, several blocks to the west of the current project area. The Ds amond Grammar School was also in existence in 1877, it was located along what would become Edinger Avenue, several blocks west of the Bristol Street intersection. There were three buildings fr rating ors Bristol Street in 1377. ❑n-• of these was located on the west side of the street south of Edinger Avenue, about where the Baptist Church now stands, This house was on land iden- ified as belonging to Lang. The other two buildings were located direct- ly across Bristol Street or property belonging to W. F. Koil, Bristol Street ended in its southerly extreme near what is now St. Andrew Place. No further reference could he found related to the structures existing along Bristol Street in 1977. 75C -740 In 1890 an event occurred which was to profoundly affect Bristol Street for the next decade. Horse racing was a popular entertainment in the area from early Spanish times. In 1890 a group of horsemen pool- ed their resources and constructed a mile long race track immediately east of Bristol between Edinger Avenue and McFadden Avenue. At the time, McFadden Avenue was known as Fairview Avenue. The track was built on 70 acres of land purchased and donated by R. J. glee. The track quickly became establi5hed as a major racing facility. In a short period of time, it boasted a grandstand capable of seating 1,500 people and about 150 horse stables. There was also a water system which piped water throughout the Stable area (Riggs 1931). The Orange County Fair Association was organized in 1891, with J. E. Pleasants as President. The first fair was held in September of that year. The agricultural exhibits were in the Opera House in downtown Santa Ana, while the stock show and races were held at the track ( Pleasants 1931). 9ne of the prime attractions during this period was a horse named 5ilkwood, owned by J. Willits. This particular horse was very fast and several match races were held at the track between him and other fast horses, one from as far away as Kansas. These races always drew enormous crowds. One reporter quipped about one race that the attendance exceeded the total population of Orange County. Other events held at the track included bicycle races, foot races and, in a few instances, man versus horse races. The latter races were prompted by the presence of one Tom Morris, a local resident who was billed as the world's fastest human. In these races a typical format would be for the man to run one hundred yards while the horse ran two hundred yards. The popularity of the track declined rapidly and the property was sold in 1397 (Riggs 1931:112). The suddeness of the decline is attributable to several causes. Silkwood was no ]anger racing and no champion of equal quality had emerged to take his place. In 1897 the state aid given to local fairs was halted, with the expected negative influence ( Riggs 1931: 99). However, Ashby (et a] 1931) states that the major reason for the de- cline was the autlawing of betting at the track, also in 1897. When the track buildings were razed is unknown, but the tacility ap- pears on insurance maps prepared by Sanborn in 1906. These same maps indicate that the Only construction then existing along Bristol Street, 75C -741 16 other than the race track, was concentrated in the first few blocks south of First Street. None of these buildings have survived to the present day. Growth along Bristol Street in the project area was quite slow. In 1901, only four addresses were in use up South Bristol. These res- idences belonged to Mr. E. J. Garrett, F. R. Horstley, B. S. Kearns and J, Willits. the latter is the same Mr. Willits who owned the race horse, 5ilkwood. R Street was named in honor of Mr. Willits. It today extends west from BriStul Street across from Bishop Street. ,(Southern California Directory Company 1901). None of these buildings have survived to the present day. By 1937, some 26 residences existed along Bristol Street in the project area. All of the residences listed previously in this report as potentially significant were in place by 1937. K. L. Harbert had an address at 305 South Bristol, one of the previously discussed properties. Mr. Rerhert was apparently operating a business from this residence, since the directory contains the notation, "Grange County ➢istributing Company." It will be recalled that E. A. Walker was the constructor and uwner of the large residence at 1248 West Bishop Street. The 193; directory ndicates that E. A. Walker was at that time operating a feed mill, known as Banner Mills, at 605 South Bristol Street. The mill continued to op- erate until at leat 1947 (Southern California Directory Company 1937, West- ern Directory Company 1947), The major development of Bristol Street occurred during the 1950s. The decade of the 1950s saw the construction of Mater Oei High School, two churches, seven tract residentiaT developments and a great number of commercial and retail establishments. The development continues to the present day. CONCLUSIONS: 1. Four structures exist along Bristol Street in the project area which are old enough for consideration for historical preservation. Of these, only the Walker house at 1248 hest SishuA Street, has features in addition to age which make it a strong candidate for preservation. 75C-1742 42 2. A plajar facility, the Orange County Agricultural Fair Association race track existed immediately east of Bristol Street between McFadden Avenue and Edinger Avenue. This facility was erected in 1890 and was used for about a decade. 3. The subsurface of the project area is not likely to contain valuable paleontological material. 4. Data does not exist with which to assess the archaeological sensitivity of the study area. RECOMMENVATIONS: 1. A Request for Determination of Eligibility should be prepared and forwarded to appropriate state agencies for the 'Walker House located at 1248 :lest Bishop Street. 2, All other structures existiny along Bristol Street within the study area are considered as having no features or associations which would render them eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. It is recommended that no further research effort be expenders. 3. The subsurface in the area of the 18905 race track may concain artifacts of historical importance. Excavation on the east side of Bristol Street between McFadden Avenue and Edinger Avenue should be monitored by a qualified archaeologist /historian equipped to quickly document and re- cover any important material which appears. Any material recovered should be aescribed in a professional report and the material should be donated to d ]acal historical society. 4. Since the archaeological sensitivity of the area has not been established, all excavation nark should be periodically inspected by an archaeologist. This inspection may be terminated in any given area when clearly undisturbed natural deposits are reached. The archaeologist must be prepared to quickly assess the vajue of any materiaj ghjLh appears, and to quickly document and recover the material. Any material recovered should be aescrir.�ed in a professional report and the naterial should be curate) at a local facility with the resources for protection and display. Rona id M. 61sse11 Archaeologist 75C -743 Ronald M. Bissell Archaeologist 24762 Via Del Rio El Toro, California 92630 '(714) 837 -9582 750744 REFERENCES CITED Alex, Gladys D. 1966 A Brief History of Santa Ana City: From Its Founding in 1869 to Shortly After the Turn of the Century. MS on file at the Santa Ana History Room, Santa Ana Public Library, Santa Ana, California. Ashby, Gladyce E., et al 1931 Sports and Recreation in Orange County, Public Works Adminis- tration, Orange County Research Group. MS on file at the Sherman Library, Corona Del Mar, California. California Cepartmeit of Parks and Recreation 1976 California Inventory of Historic Resources. Sacrenento. Drover, Christopher E., Henry C. Koerper and Paul Langenwalter II 1983 Early Holocene Human Adaptation on the Southern California Coast: A Summary Report of Investigations at the Irvine Site (CA- Ora -64), Newport Bay, Orange County, California. Pacific Coast Archaealo ical Societ F�uarterl , Vol. 19, No. 3 an[J7, p - 4. Federal Register 1979 National Register of Historic Places, Annual Listing of Historic Properties. National Park Service, Washington D.C. Also issues of 6 February 1979. 18 March 1980, 3 February 1981, 2 February 1982, 1 March 1983, 7 February 1984, 5 March 1985, 2 April 1985. 7 May 1985, 4 June 1985 and 2 July 1985. Koerper, Henry C. and Christopher E. Drover 1983 Chronology Building for Coastal Orange County, The Case from CA -Ora- 119 -A. Pacific Coast ArchaeologicaT Society Quarterly, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp I-TL- Meadows, Don 1966 Historic Place Names in Orange Count. Paisano Press, Inc., TboanTans -a Fifornia. Morton, P. K., A. V. Miller and D. L. Fife 1973 Preliminary Geo- Environmental Maps of Orange County, California. California Division of Mines and Geology. Preliminary Report 15. Pleasants, J. E., editor 1931 Ni story of Orange County, California, Three Volumes, R. J. FinneTl a 'ions, os nge es. Riggs, Charles 1931 Horse Racing in the Early Days. In Histor of Oran a Count , California, ed. J. E. Pleasants, R. lone an ons, ❑s n9AE7es. 75C -745 Santa Ana, City of 1984 Request for Proposal for the Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement and Preliminary Engineering for the Improvement of Bristol Street Between First Street and Warner Avenue. Santa Ana, California. Southern California Directory Company 1901 Grange County Oirectory, Santa Ana, California. Swanner, Charles D. 1953 Santa Ana: A Narrative of Yesterday 1870 -1910. Saunder Press, CTaremontCal mrnia. Western Directory Company 1937 Directory of Orange County. Long Beach, California. ---FP7—Directory of Orange County. Long Beach, California, 75C -746 APPENDIX BUILDING EVALUA1IOR FORMS 75C -747 Historic Properties Survey Report, Bristol Street Between First Street and Memory Lane, City of Santa Ana, Orange County, California PREPARED FOR- Willwan Associates 12900 Crossroads Parkway South, Suite 200 Industry, California 51046-34W? PREPARED BY: Ronald M. Dian.1€ Archaeologist E1 Toro, California 90650 (714) B37 -9$B2 I5 Dctober 1486 75C -748 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The purpose of this project is to provide a description of the paleontological: archaeological and historical resources existing along Bristol Street between First Street and Memory Lane in the City of Santa Ana, Prange County, California_ The work was undertaker in support of a proposed project to provide street improvements along the subject section of Eristol Street. The Area of Potential Environmental Impact [APEI] for this project is defined as the first row of properties fronting on Bristol Street between First Street and Memory Lane. The project area is depicted on the Index Map cn page 2 of this report. The locations of some o{ the important features within the pra,ect area are depicted on the Project Map which appears on page 7 of this report. SURVEY RESUME METHODOLOGY: The methodology varied depending an the type of resource under study: 1. Paleontological resources: The locality records of the Museum of Natural History of Los Angeles County and the Natural History Foundation of Grange County were atudiad to determine what prior paleontological resources had been identified in the vicinity. Field evamination was not undertaken due to the absence of any subsurface exposures in the project area. 2. Archaeological resources: The records of the Archaeological Survey, (University Of California. Los Angeles were utilized to determine the extent of prior archaeological rasearch in the project vicinity. The surfaces of all open Parcels Wi thim the study area "ore examinyd for evident, of cultural deposition. 1 75C -749 1 eIjNl -.. ;*� — �5 bo -xi NCE RDl 4 1101: IF, 1p I -JF: —1 6'd ul�.' I I Ll F HI WEO�mp d.LeZ I ?z O Slh [A v -YC 'A) SANTA HN j 'I I-- L; A I., h N A r. JJI L ) Mn Eum$ A 1k I ssl ro m 1. sr 71 BRISTOL STOL STREET STUDY AR7A j LINZ kvi .... . . I be 1A) .. . .. ..... J.- rLrP # 6, rl r 4k• r -- 1; A VIF... gl V � F. IL irl iIy NLE JA I *. [ �- , - . -- .- - —, -- 11 -- - -1 -L --j. 4: 1 4T� 'I n-klln-t I.tT fall 1 101 I 15F Cen F j c �k n. E"lq 1 7 q , r -11 r ';L,n Il fj scale 4 0 0 Me 6 t BRISTOL STREET BETWEEN FIRST STREET AND MEMORY LANE, CITY OF SANTA ANA, ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. APFI IS THE FIRST POW OF PROPERTIES WHICH FRONT ON BRISTOL STREET. BASE MAPS: USGS 7.5 MINUTE QUADRANGLES, ANAHEIM, 1965, PHOTOREVISED 1981; NEWPORT BEACH, 1965, PHOTOREVISED 1981; ORANGE, 1964, PH070REVISED 1981; TUSTIN, i965, PHOTOREVISED 1981. 75C.2750 3. Historic resources: The first step in the effort to identify historic properties in the study area involved an examination of the APEI and recording of; a. Address of each existing structure. 6. Approximate age of each structure as determined by architectural style, condition and other factors. c. Obvious modifications. The next step was to examine public retards such as the building permit files Of the City of Santa Ana to determine the true date of construction of many of the structures. Residences which were clearly less than 50 years of age were eliminated from further research effort. Parcel numbers and current owner information for those buildings exceeding 50 years of age was obtained from the records of the Grange County Assessor. During this phase it was determined that two buildings in the APEI were not 50 years of age, but had other strong reasons for cc, nsider ati0n for preservation. A Building Evaluation Form for each of the buildings exceeding 50 years of age and for the two additional important structures was prepared, to include at least one photograph of each building. The final step in the historic study was to examine archival resources to establish a general history for the study area and to determine if noted historical figures had been associal pd with any of the structures for which evaluation forms had been prepared. PERSONNEL The paleontological study was completed by Mr. Rodney E. Raschke, an Orange County Certified Paleontologist. Mr. Raschke is a Principal of RMW Paleo Associates. 25loe Marguerite Parkway, Suite 13-144, Mission Viejo, California 92642, [7141 837 -95H2. The archaeological and historical studies were completed by Ronald M. Bissell, an Grange County Certified Archaeologist. Mr. Bissell is an independent consultant. His address and telephone number appear on the title page of this report. 75C -7'51 DATES OF SURVEY: The survey was Completed on various dates between 1 September and 15 October 19E36_ RECORDS RESEARCHED: 1. Site recording forms and reports of past excavation at the Archaeological Survey, University of California, Los Angeles. 2. Older maps of the pra,�ect area at the Map Library, University of California, Los Angeles. 3. Site recording farms and reports of past excavation at the Anthropology Museum, California State University. Fullerton, California. -4. Old insurance mans, general area histories. directories, clippings and the California Inventory of Historic Resources at the Santa Ana Public Library. 5. Local area histories at the Sherman Librarv. 6. Building permit files at the Planning Department, City of Santa Ana, California. 7. The Federal Register of Historic Places at the Orange County Law Library. S. Census records at the National Archives, Laguna Niquel, California. 9. Parcel maps at Assessor's Office, County of Orange. iD. Deeds and other, records at the uffice cf the County Clerk, County of Orange. i1. Locality records of the Museum of Natural Histo�v of Los Angeles County. 12. Locality rercrrds of the Orange County Natural History Foundation. Organizatjons and PersQns Contacted: i. Mr. Robert Seaway, Orange County Environmental Management Agency. Mr. Seiwav responded to a call the author placed to the staff of the Orange County Historical Comm15510i1. !°fir. Gelway stated that the County of Orange had no particular interest in any of the buildings within the APEI. 2. Ms. Terrell Ayazian, Staff Member at Heritage N 75C -752 ❑range County. The surveys completed by Heritage Orange Gaunty apparently did not Cover the APEI portion of 6rist❑l Street. Heritage Orange County has no record of significant structures within the APEI. a. Miss Susan Colby, Archaeological Survey, University Of C.aLjfarnia, Las Angeles. 4, pr. i^lilliam ❑, Hendricks, Sherman Litarary Director. or- Hend ircks was unaware of any structures within the study area which may have historical sigriificanc;e. Dr. Hendricks further stated that he feels preservatiari should be undertaken only if a building i� clearly associated with major hlstor lcai events or persons, or is an Outstanding example of a particular architectural form. Based ran this researcher's 'zi.- riptinn ❑f the buildings within, the PPEI, 'Dr. Hendiicks did not feel that any of them were deserving of preservation considsratlon. 5. Mrs. Constance (,ameron, Curator of the Museum of Anthropology, Caiifornid State ilniver5lty, Fullerton. o. Mrs. 11ary Gass, Staff Member. OT- ange County Hi5turical Cor'+mission. Mrs. Gass furnished a listing of aii known sites in Orange County which have been included in the National Register of Historic Place -- or which have been nominated for inclusion, None of these are within the APE!. 7, Mrs. Marjorie E. Stirrat, 1st Vice Presidert, Q -ange County 4ilstprlcal Society. Mrs. Stirrat stated that the c❑ciety has an intQrest in all structures which are in excess of fifty years of age. She stated that she would have several other people contact the author to discuss the buildings within the APEI, but no such communication has been received. IDERITI�7IED HISTORIC :)ND CULTUPf:dL RESDUPCES No paleontological localities were identi.f Led durirsg the survey. The project area consists Of Duaternary Alluvium and is Considered too young to contain sionifluant fossils. Details are giveal in a later section of this report devoted to the history of the study area. No archaeological sItQ5 were iOentified during this survev. S 75C -753 Archival research indicates that the study area had not been previously examined for archaeological resources. Only very limited and highly disturbed areas are currently available for detailed examination= and no archaeological remains were noted. Aue to the lack of prior research in the area and the current unavailability of the surface for examination it is not possible to establish the archaeological sensitivity of the study area. Twenty three structures within the APEI have potential for ,;on,iderati ❑n fur preservation. Twenty One of these structures are 50 years of age or older. Nineteen of the structures which are in excess of fifty years of age were originally homes while the other two were originally commercial establishments. One of the commercial establishments has since been converted to a dwelling, and several of the original homes have been converted to commercial or office use. The two structures which are rot fifty years of age are a church and a drug store. A Building Evaluation Form has been prepared for each of thy twenty three identified structures. The address and Some details regarding each structure are given below. 1-he location of each structure is shown on the Project Map, which appears on page 7 of this report: 1. 202 North Bristol. African Methodist Church, This building is not 50 years of age, since it was constructed as part of the Santa Ana Army Air Base SSRAFIBY during World war Si. The SAAAB became operational in 1942 and was used fur pilot and navigator training throughout the war. Following the oval' the SAAAS was not contin+ led as an active base and the buildings and land were sold. These buildings played an important role in early post war Orange County historym for example. buildings which once formed part of the SAAAa were used for classrooms at Goth Santa Ana Community College and Goldenwest College. The four chapels from the SAAAF3 were moved and became civilian churches. Three of these are still in existenr.ei one in the City of Costa Mesa and the other lwo in the City of Santa A»am the church located at 202 North Bristol has been modifier, by the S 75C -754 CITY SANTA ANA ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA ® y IODe [ g. M ' • °.° lellL w. u rl .� •.INo� pY. RF ' AURA NGE J" k" •f }� OR AYCE CIiY fr :.A "5 .v la I, � 11 •ar -_ °�k r L "11""11 �� �.i q ��..u. p -G1II : £ rar � �- 1 ]4 4444 ER WLIn =1iY - � r` °1^• �IIL 5[[". [n ` e e 1 - 16D714. BRISTOL �r� n rr X69 W. eRISTDLI _ 1401 FF. BRISIU ��FF L 1415 N. BRISTOL "J, a �❑ L c X1321 fJ. BRISTOL N: •-•••� s q�. ; 1111 N. BRISTOL 1319 N. BRISTOL.Y I 1 1107 N. BRISTO > 921 N. BRISTOL ` ❑ "' 917 N. BRISTOL a �p 110- N. BRIST�O�L� 911 N. BRISTOL i r rco9D8 N. BRiSTpL 829 1. BRISTOLFI ❑ a $ 2 7 -fd. aRISTUL [6 517 N . B R I SfDL° e 518 ff, BRISTp 15 N. BRISTOL �r V � orb J Lam+± `� . an i DRUGSTORE 1302 SANTA ANA BLVD 207 N. rnBRISTOL�J Q ��� L P CHURCII 202 N. BRISTOL a 249 2ND STREET 1� CI Ch�. 11 N. BRISTOL y17 i. f.i , ❑QC 1 ❑E lEJE U L3C]LI mwLj El ' z °,AEI. s7 0Ull 0 4 _ p i7 y� Boa .Q1� S 1 J n i1 IlJ ��_.��LI D.00P. is -�,F—K] removal of the original clapboard siding which has been replaced with stucco. 2. 1342 West Santa Ana Boulevard. The Bristol Drug Company. The building, constructed in 1947, fronts on Santa Ara Boulevard with the east side of the building along Bristol. Street. The store front makes use of a variety of colored materials, a great deal of aeon lighting and many translucent class bricks. These features make this building a pristine example of late 1940s commercial architecture. The building is in exceilent Condition and has undergone very little modification since construction. 3. 1249 End Street and 207 North Bristol Street. These two buiidings are currently under sirgle ownership, and it is felt that this has probably been true throughout the life or the buildings_ 1249 2nd Street is presently in use as a dwelling, but it has been converted to that use from an original commercial role. The building has a loft door on the northern end which apparently permitted access to material storage at one time. The adjacent building at 207 North Bristol currently houses a metal plating shop. This activity goes back to at least the early 1960a and may represent the original activity of the establishment. Z4, Ill North Bristol Street. This structure is probably the oldest to be found in the study area. An exact date of construction could not be determined, but the architectural features argue that it datum to the early 1920s. The address of 111 North Bristol Street is embossed in a concrete step adjacent to the house, but may not be a rurrertly used address. The house is located on the same parcel and in the rear of a 1950s house which has the address 12522 2nd Street. The house appears to be in reasonably good condition. The western wall of this small house is immediately adjacent to the Bristol Street sidewalk, so street widening places this old structure in danger. 5. 515 North Bristol. Constructed in 1923. 6. 517 North Bristol. Constructed in 1923, this small 9 75C -756 building has a Mission Revival architectural theme, which is unusual for a house of this size and in this area. some $3000 of fire damage occurred to the building in 1972. The structure was converted to office use in 1971. 7. 827 North Bristol. Constructed in 1922. B. 829 North Bristol. Constructed in 1922. 9. 911 North Bristol. Constructed in 1936. 10. 917 North Bristol. Exact construction date is unknown, but the house was built before 1929. 11. 921 North Bristol. This Spanish Colonial house was constructed in 1930. The architectural style is unusual for a small house in this area. The outstanding feature is an octagonal room at the northwest corner. 12_ 1103 North Bristol_ Constructed to 1935. 13. 1107 North Bristol. constructed in 1933. 14. 1111 North Bristol. Constructed in 1932. 15. 1319 North Bristol. Constructed in 1931. 16. 1321 North Bristol. Constructed in 1930. It as worthwhile to note that the same family, the Thompaans, have resided in this house since it was constructed. The method of installation of the overhanging roofing shingles is area unique. 17. 1401 North Bristol. Constructed in 1931. I8. 1415 North Bristol. Constructed in 1935. This house has some most interesting architectural features. R portion of the home is currently used as a beauty salon. 19. 1509 North Bristol. Constructed in 1936, this building is currently used as an income tax office. 20. 1607 North Bristol. Constructed in 1926, this house is among the oldest along Bristol Street in the study area, The house cncorp❑rates an unusual chimney. The building is currently used as an income tax office. 21. 908 North Bristol Street. Constructed in 1936. 22. 518 North Bristol Street. Constructed date is unknown. The building was moved to its present location from 415 North Bristol in 194B. Information pertinent to each of the above lasted structures 4 75C -757 is contained in the Building Evaluation Forms found in the Appendix. AREA HISTORY PALEDNTQL0GYi The following section of this report was prepared by Mr. Rodney E. Raschke. an ❑rangy County Certified Paleontologist. A review of the latest published geological map of the area revealed that BristoL Street between First Street and Memory Lane is underlain by Guaternary alluvium (Morton et al. 1973). These deposits were laid down by the Santa Ana River. Typically. these deposits are less than 10,Ci0f) years old. which manes them geologicaliv too young to contain fossils. There are no confirmed records of fossi1a from these deposits in the Garita Ana area. There are uncogflrmed questionable reports of the remains of "Ice Age" animals from the alluvium. However- ii,j fossils are available to support these reporte. Quaternary alluvium is col side -ed to Piave a 1❑w paleontological sensitivity (potential for the discovery of foSsiI - i. Based on the low paleontological Sensitivity of the fork unit exposed in the Eristcl Street area and the shallow �iatu -e of the excavations associated with the proposed project, it is umlikeLy there will be any adverse impact on the paleontoluv_ical resources of the Santa Ana area. Therefore no paleontological monitorinq will be necessary during the wideninq ❑f Bristol. Street between First Street and Memory Lane. The above evaluation is based on a review of the publisher] and unpublished i❑cality records Of the Natural '-4istory Museum of Los Angeles County and the Natural History Foundation or Orange County. No paIeGrtological field survey was Conducted during this study. ARCHAEOLOGY Chronaiogy. The Native i�mer; can group which once Lived in the study area ara known -ia Gahrielino. However, this name wac bestowed by the Spanish acid is derived From association with Ili 75C -758 Mission San Gabriel. The name the native population used to identify itself is not known Wroeber 19251. The date of the earliest human occupation of the study area is disputad, but most scholars would agree that a human presence was established along the southern California coast by 7500 H.C. The artifactual record left by these early people indicates that they subsisted primarily by hunting. The tools they left are generally quite large and the bulk of them are chipped lithic tools, such as projectile points and scrapers, or the remains of chipped tool manufacture, such as flakes and cores. Many of the projectile points are finely made, while most of the other tools are crude. This era is known locally as the Early Man Pervad. The millennium centered around 5500 B.C. reveals a major shift in the artifactual record_ The large, finely made projectile paints of the earlier period give way to somewhat smaller and more crudely made points. Grinding tools for the processing of hard seeds become the predominant artifact types. These grinding implements are known as manes, the smaller hand held stone, and metates, the larger tools against which the seeds were ground. The metates often display deep basins. The appearance of manos and metates is generally interpreted as a major shift in subsistence strategy, with a decreased dependence on animal resources and an increased dependence on the gathering of wild seeds. However, this shift may not be as pronounced as originally thought. Recent work indicates that hunting continued to be relatively important (Drover, Koerper and Langenwalter 1983). This second era of the local archaeological sequence is known as the Milling Stone Period. Locally, the Milling Stone Period persisted until about 1000 B.C., when a npw tool combination, the mortar and pestle, was introduced. These new tools ushered in the Intermediate Cultures Period. The mortar and pestle is generally related to the processing of the acorn as a fond resource. However, the use of manes and metates continued unabated, so the introduction of the mortar 11 75C -759 and pestle indicates utilization of acorns as a supplemental food resource rather than as a replacement for other resources. Projectile points become much smaller during the Intermediate, probably indicating the first use of the how and arrow in the study area. The Intermediate also saw the first local use Of steatite. Steatite is a soft, easy to work material and was used for a wide variety of purposes, ranging from cooking utensils to items of personal decoration. The steatite was imported from Santa Catalina Island, proof that the Intermediate people had mastered local open ocean travel. The final phase of native culture is known as the Late Prehistoric Period, and it began around A.D. 750. The Late Period is characterized by changes in mortuary practices and by rather dramatic increase in the use of shell for decoration and functional tools. Projectile points become smaller still and are generally more finely worked than in the preceding era. Pottery appeared in some quantity near the end of the period. The local chronology, as it is presently understood, is summarized in Table 1. which appears on the following page. The above description and Table 1 are based primarily on koerper and Drover 517831. Archaeological Research: On 14 October 1486 a literature review was accomplished at the Archaeological Survey, University of California, Los Angeles, the repository of archaeological data For Orange County. the records of the Anthropology Museum, California State University, Fullerton had been previously examined. the literature review established that the study area had never been examined for archaeological remains and that no archaeological sites had been recorded in the immediate vicinity. Essentially all of the study area had been built -up prior to the introduction of requirements for pre - construction archaeological mitigation. During the field work for this Project aL1 open areas fronting on Bristol Streek were examined for archaeological remains. Such area amounted to approximately 5% of the total 12 75C -760 FIGURE 1: CHRONOLOGY, BASED ON KOERPER AND DROVER (1983) PERIOD TEMPQRAL SPAN MAJOR DIAGNOSTIC TRAITS Early Man ? to 7500 H.C. +I- ? 1. Lack of grinding implements. 2, Large, Nall made projectile paints. Milling Stone 7500 B.C- +I- 7 to 1. Predominance of mantis and 1000 9.C. +1- 250 metates. B. Ornaments made of stone. 3. Large and often crude projectile points. 4, Cogstones, evolving into discoidals. 5. Charmst ❑nes. 6. Some mortars and pestles near the end of the period. Intermediate 1000 B.C. +I- 250 to 1. Bone ornaments. A.D. 750 fl- 250 2. Wide use of mortars and pestles along with manos and metates. 3. Use of steatite begins. 4. Many discoidals. 5, Large projectile points trending to smaller in the last part of the period. Late A.G. 750 +I- 250 to 1. Shell ornaments. Prehistoric Spanish contact 2. MArtar, pestle, mano and metat2 use continues. 3. Small, finely worked projectile points. 4. Wide use of steatite. 5. Some pottery vessels appear near the end of the period. 13 75C -761 street frontage, and all were highly disturbed through past housing and street construction. No archaeological remains were found. Due to the lack of prior research and the present extensive construction, an evaluation of the archaeological sensitivity of the area cannot be made. There is no basis for a55es5ing the archaeological potential of the area and there is presently no means of developing the data necessary for such an evaluation. HISTORY: Bristol first appears as a functional route in an 1977 work entitled "Map of the County of Los Angeles." This map was cnmpzled by 3.H. Hildy, Deputy County Surveyor, and A.J. Stahlberg. Civil Engineer. Bristol Street existed in 1077 only to the south of the current intersection with First Street, s❑ did not exist within the current project ARFT_ Thera were three property owners within the area which would become Bristol Street north of First Street. Two of the property owners are S, Chaves, who owned the southernmost parcel immediately north of First Street, and J. Floss, who owned property north of the Chaves parcel. The name of the third property owner is very difficult to read, but could possibly be Maybury. Two structures were in existerce in ie77 in the vicinity of what would become Bristol Street. Both of these were located about 500 feet to east of the current Bristol Street right of way, s❑ were well outside the APEI. Neither of these buildings has survived to the present day. The 1991 United States Coast and Geodetic Survey Anaheim and Santa Arta sheets reveal that Bristol Street was open between First Street and Memory Lame by that date. Some II structures were adjacent to Bristol Street within the APEI. Five of these, two on the west and three on the east side of Bristol arP between First and Fifth Streets. It is interestinq that near fifth Street there is an approximate 100 foot offset in Bristol Street, with the portion north of Fifth Street being further to the east. Three structures Were, located at widely spaced intervals on the west side of Bristol Street between Ninth 14 75C -762 Street and Washington Street. Seventeenth Street terminated from the east at Bristol Street. one structure was located just north of Seventeenth on the east side of Bristol. The two remaining structures were located east of Bristol and just south of Santiago Creek. None of these structures have survived to the present day. The 1442 maps of the project area indicates that the area along Bristol between First and Seventeenth was entirely built -up by that date, excepting only a small parcel immediately southwest of the Bristol Street /Seventeenth Street intersection. This is the parcel which eventually became Santa Ana Community College. Six buildings are located along Bristol north of Seventeenth Street. None of the buildings north of- Seventeenth Street depicted on the 1942 maps have survived to the present day, but many from this era exist in the southerly portion of the APEI. During the first post war decade, 1946 to 1956, the APEI underwent major development. Santa Ana Community College became operational during the early part of this decade to meet the educational needs of the returning servicemen. Originally. Santa Ana Community College utilized buildings which had been purchased from the Santa Ana army Ric Base and moved the college site. None of these buildings survive to the present day. South of Seventeenth Street many small commercial establishments such as gasaiine stations, restaurants and general Offices were erected. In addition, many of the existing residential structures were converted to commercial office use. The development north of Seventeenth Street was somewhat different. This area had been largely devoted to citrus groves with only a few scattered structures. All of these structures were removed and the bulk of the area was devoted to tract duplex housing. Horner Snapping Plana to the northwest of the intersection of Bristol and Seventeenth was built, as was Santiago Elementary School east of Bristol. The bridge spanning Santiago Creek was installed in 1947. 15 75C -763 CCNCLUSIONS 1. The APEI is not empected to contain valuable paleontological material. 2. The archaeological sensitivity of the APEI cannot be assessed due to the lack of prior research in the area and the current heavy construction which precludes examination of the ground surface. 3. Twenty three buildings exist within the APEI which haves potential for historic preservation: a. Twenty one of the structures are 50 years of age or older. Atone of these buildings have any noted historical figures associated with them. While some of the structures have interesting architectural elements, none has features which can be considered unique_ Several of the buildings have undergone rather extensive remodeling. including some structures which have been converted from residential to office use. ❑ire structure has been converted from commercial to residential use. None of these buildings are considered sufficiently unique to warrant further consideration for historical preservation. b. The African Methodist Church at 202 North Bristol Street was originally constructed as a chapel at the Santa Ana Army Air Base and was moved to its present location in 1947. Since being ralor.ated the original clapboard siding of the structure has been replaced with stucco. While the church is associated with important recent historical events, the relocation and extensive remodeling detract greatly from its historic value. The building cannot be considered unique since three of the four chapels originally constructed at the Santa Ana Armv Air Base are still in existence. The building is not sufficiently historically significant to warrant further consideration for historical preservation. C. The Bristol Drug Company building at 1342 West Santa Ana Boulevard is a pristine example of late 1940s commercial architecture. However, it has no historical associations and is therefore not sufficiently significant to warrant farther consideration for historical preservation. 16 75C -764 4. Since buildings have existed within the WI since before the turn of the century, it is possible that important historical deposits exist in the subsurface in toe form of foundations, trash deposits, filled privy pits and other such material- RECOMMENDATIONS GAUTONTaLGGICAL: No further research is recommended. ARCHAEOLOGICAL: 1. Since the archaeological sensitivity of the APEI cannot be assessed it is recommended that an archaeologist monitor the initial stages of grading. 2. The archaeologist should be prepared to quickly document and recover any cultural material which may appear. 3. Monitoring need not be accomplished in those areas where clearly undisturbed bedrock units are exposed. 4. All recovered archaeological material should be described in a written report which receives Gufficient distribution to insure its availability to future researchers. 5. All recovered archaeological material should be donated to a local institution which has the proper facilities for curation and display. HISTORICAL: 1. A historical archaealagist should monitor the initial stages of grading. This monitoring may be accomplished ey the same person retained to perform the archaeological monitoring recommended above. 2. The historical archaeologist should be prepared to quickly document and recover any important historical material which may appear. 3. Monitoring need not be accomplished in those areas where clearly undisturbed Bedrock units are exposed. 4, A11 recovered historical material should be described in a written report which receives sufficient distribution to insure its availability to future researchers. 17 75C -765 5. All recovered historical material shouid be donated to a local institutLon which has the proper facilities for duration and display. Ronald M. Bissell Archaeologist I 75C -766 REFERENCES CITED California Department of Parks and Recreation 1976 California Inventory of Historic Resources_ Sacramento. Drover, Christopher E., Henry C. Keerper and Paul Wangenwalter 19B3 Early Holocene Human Adaptation on the Southern California Coast; A Summary Report of Investigations at the Irvine Site (CA-Cra -641, Newport Bay, Orange County, California. Pacific_ Coast ArchaeolOAical Society Quarterly, Vol. 19, No. 3 -and 4, pp. 1 -64. !^ Federal Register 1979 National Register of Historic Places, Annual Listing of Historic Properties. National Park Service, Washington, D.C. Issues of 6 February 1979, 18 March 1980, 3 February 1981, 2 February 1988, 1 March 1983 7 February [984, 5 Parch 1985 and 11 February 1986. Koerper, Henry C. and Christopher E. Drover 1983 Chronology Building for Coastal Orange County, The Case From CA -Dra- 119 -A. Pacific Coast Archaeologina1 S❑❑inty Quarterly. Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. t-34. Kroeber, A. L. 1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnolo Bulletin 78. Morton, Paul K. and Russell V. Miller and Donald L. Fife 1973 Geo- Environmental Maps of Orange County, California. California Division of Mines and Geolo v Preliminary Report 15. San Francisco. 750 -x'67 APPENDIX BUILDING EVALUATION FORMS (INCLUDED IN ATTACfi' ENT C) 75C -768 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION: REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR THE WALKER RESIDENCE Prepared Far: Willdan Associates 12900 Crossroads Parkway South, Suite 200 Industry, California 91746 -3499 Prepared By: Fathc: way & McKepua 23301 -A La Glorin a Mission Viejo, CA 92691 (714) 458 -1245 May 26, 1987 Job 0 5- 87 -5 -2 75C -769 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: REQUEST FOR DEThRMiNATION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR THE WALKER RESIDENCE, Location /Identification The Edward A. Walker Residence: 1248 West: Bishop Street /605 South Bristol Street, Santa Ann, California. Architectural Deseriotion The Walker Residence consists of a two story wood frame and stucco residence. It is designed in a manner influenced by the Mediterranean /Mission styles, although its buiidinp, form io thnt of a Classical Box. The sLructttre is built in a rectangular building plan, and is in excellent condition. Major architectural features include a raised central main entrance, a I,aIf - ]ength corner porch with hipped roof, a main entry pediment, a r.entraliy located hipped roof dormer, and a hipped tile roof. ArchlLect -ural details include a walled porch /patio, flat window Lind doorway surrounds, sash Uindows, bracketed eaves, iTie tul downspouts, ti lc: roofing, and a chimney. The chimney is detailed with twin 'TWrr metal braces, in reference to the Walker family name. Lhe main residence retains its architectural integrity and is unaltered. Associated features include three outbuildings; a garage, a "btLmmerhouse ", and a greenhouse. The garage is of a similar design and it has an identical hipped tile roof_ The "summerhouse" is a one room unit with both bath and kitchen faciliLles. The greenhouse has a board- and - batten addition with a fireplace. Rach of Lhe outbitildings is one story in heightt and they are in good to excellent. condition. The structures are built on a flat lot, located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Bristol and Biskiop streets in the City of Santa Ana. The property itself is landscaped with mature trcr_s, shrubs and flowering plants. The landscaping is maintained in poor to fair condition, and the rear portion of the property is fenced. Historical Summary Built in 1922, the: Walker residence is an excellent example of an archll- eCt.ural variation of the Classical Box as influenced by the Medit.errancan /Mission styles. City and County Directories indic:t+t.c that Walker, was located at this address as Carly as 1908. Lhe present residence doc5, therefore, replace an earlier residential unit nrr r.hc same address. 1'hu Carliest record of Edward A. Walker's presence in Santa Ana is documented in the City Dtreccory for 1901. No occupation rs 1 75C -770 1ist.ed and Walker 1s referenced as residing at 201 Sycamore Street_. Walker appears to hcive been unmarried at this time, and lie was probably renting at this address as he is not listed as a "householder ", but as a "resident". By 1905, Walker had married Minnie B. (maiden name unknown) and had moved to 212 South Main Street. He was employed as a baggage agent for the Santa Fe Railroad, and is listed as a resident at the above aAdre33. In 1908, Edward A. and Minnie B. Walker are listed as living at 605 South Bristol Street. Walker is, at. this rime, referred to as a "rancher ". By 1910, Walker is listed as a "householder" at the Bristol Street address. Tnterestingly, Walker appears to have remarried, as his wife is now listed as Nellie Walker. Edward and Nellie Walker continued t:o reside at the Bristol Street address from 1910 to 1917, during which vears Edward is listed as either a ' "rancher" or "farmrr ". Tn 1918, however, Walker is listed as the owner of a poultry ranch. In 1922, Walker is listed as the owner of the Mode_] Poultry Farm° at 505 South Bristol. There is no reference to Nellie Walker in this year, suggesting that Walker was no longer married. In this year, Walker [loth expanded his poultry business and built the present residence. From 1922 to 1927, Walker continued to operate his Model Poultry Farm, and was one of five Poultry business operations in Orange County. The 1927 City llirer.t.ory also indicates that Walker had remarried, and that his new wife was named Helen D, Walker. Edward and Helen Walker operated the Modci Poultry Farm from 1927 to 1928. In 1929, Walker is listed as Ole proprietor of "Banner Mills ", a feed and grain husinoss located at 605 South Bristol. Banner Mills was originally founded in 1894, by Fronr.is J. Ro (d)gers and it was originally located at 307 -309 French Street, in Santa Ana, Tile mill operated a 30- horsepower engine which could run on either coal or nil, to grind wheat flour, cornmeal, and a variety of stock feeds using the ' "Burr stone method ". Banner Mills was operated by Rodgers iiiitil 1921, when various crop failures and transport-at-ion innovations forced closure of the mill. City Directories do not list Banner Mills, as operated by Rodgers, after 1918. However, according to historian Jim Sleeper, the mill survived until 1921. Walker apparently purcliased the milling; equipment and the name of Banner Mills prior to 1929, at. which paint lie Began operation of El new Banner Mills al. the Bristol Street address. Banner Mills did, in fact., replace the Model Poultry Fram as a business, as no additional references to the poultry farm are found after 1927. Banner Mills is listed a "iced & grain" business in 1929, and it remained to operation until of least. 1945 when reference to it is dropped from City Dirrr.torics. 2 75C -771 In 1951, Gialker continues to reside at the Bristol Street address with t,is wiCc Helen, but he now listed as "retired ". T 1952, Walker is listed a5 livietg at 1248 West Bishop Street {the same property), and he presumably continued to reside at this address until his death, although the property was transferrPd to Lhe Catholic Bishop of Orange as early as 1950. The residence is presently owned by the Catholic Church, and is occupied by clergymen associated with the operation of Hater Dei High School. In summary, Walker is known to have been a Santa Ana resident as early as 1901. He does not appear in County Directories for 1894, and it must. be assumed that he moved to Santa Ana cat some point between 1894 and 1900. From 1901 to 9905, [Walker was not a householder, although he was employed by the SantS Fe Railroad. By 1908, he is both a householder and a sell- employed rancher residing at the Bristol Street address. Walker appears to have thrived, for between 1908 and 1929 he established a small ranch, a Model Poultry Farm, built a major residence with associated features, and became the proprietor of Banner IiLls. Walker never achieved major regrvnal significance, for he is not reEcrenced in any st.c3ndard reference works of the period. Ilowcvcr, he may be regarded as haling considerable local significance line to his association with the agricultural industry in Orange County, his specialized interests lee poultry, and his operation of Banner Mills. Integrrt.y The Edwaru A. walker res-idence retains Lotcgrity of Cie 5ign, locdtton, materials, workmanship and association. The setting has been altered by more recent resident.ial deve1oprnent in the surrounding neighborhood, and the demolition of Lhe mill structures which were a part of Banner Mills. The main residence :end the three associated features are, however, unaltered on the exterior, and they represent an unusual and intac=t unit in Santa Ana. In concLusion, the Walker property retains a high degree of integriLy. SIg;nifiraPC0 Tho Edward A. Walker residence is eligible at the local level to the National Register of Historic Places in accordance with Crit.cria A, i3, and C. Fjrst, the property is associated with the development of the agricultural industry in both Santa ,Ana and Orange County. Walker's establishment of his `IodPl Poultry Farm and his subsequent eStahlishmo nt of Banner Mills spans an unusually long period extending from the late 19th Century ( the original Banner Mills) to circa 1950, and it accordingly qualifies under Criterion A. Second, the house was the residence- of Edward A. Walker, a prominent local busineSSMO n, The house was built at the beginning of Walker's rapid expansion of his 1 75C -772 business ipterests in Santa Ana. Despite the fact that Walker never achieved regional significance, his local significance qualifies the property under Criterion B. Finally, the residence is an excellent and unaltered example of a variation of the Classical Box an r_arriecl out in the Mediterranean /Mission style. Tt is a large example of Us type, and is retains several important associated features including a garage, "summerhouse ", and a greenhouse. As such, it is the best documented example of its type in the City of Santa Ana, and is potentiaLly eligible under Criterion C. 4 75C -773 w •N w U C r6 4-4 n 11 .N V v F C N V Qj v .,y N v ai 4 v x .w 3 a z4 ro 3 'O W 0 d W ❑ U r� 75C -774 v z o -P a} a a 0 a: a: 0 0 v m 0 z m m d v v'cr ra a 10 ra ro ro w rC w >= C G ❑ ❑ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ❑ 9 rn •H w N .G .c �c .A-. F rc; .0 �r U G 27 lu ❑ al al al 0 al ❑ 0 0 N of •w N O of [n a a 7 �l �:5 �l a �5 �3 7 O W CG al al C ❑ 0 0 0 0 0 ❑ 0 0 0 -P -H R, CG 7, x :.0 x x x x x x U w a� n is U .d C N - 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 c V Eli N r6 s-r s-r 44 1.i ti L U 4 4 S4 S •H If] 'a N U � }., $ D >4 w W co [f] rf] Vl V7 Vl U] V] U1 U1 U1 U] CL 4 co N N L1 V: L'] ifl uZ C' :] Lr oN c o 0 o C:- a o (D a (D a 0 o C) o N sa Lo -H ❑a :J c a a a u 4 N m u- i R a� ti ❑ ❑ 0 :. 5_ ❑ P. F C 01 4 N ?. a. a. ❑. TS TS .4: u ,a; s Q1 a1 L{ 4 S4 4 Q1 0 a1 0 a, O 27 .� ,C N ++ w w w al 0 1. L4 N r. [fl s~ s U U E w (D I v C r -H of +1 4 '6 13 13 C C ll -0 W ..-I U m ru r6 r6 ❑ 0 n ❑ fb f3 al p: a1 17 m ❑ �D a rx r= w P. 5 Z le- Z� q x rx L4 F15 U m p i4 q ar v ar ra W •ti N w m W 6) 0 al al 41 •H w rC H H c N m m m m ti a a m a n or o� �. %. rw + v3 ❑ ';4 C N U a v a v a a v u a a b+� i vr- 41 m ❑ 0 CG u Si id id iJ :i 1-I Zi Zi id it i3 Li [i a: v a v v v v v v as ar a, m .i w H 44 x x Y x x x x x x x .Y x ❑ r -+ w w w ti w w w ti r, -, ., m F rj r,7 rr r] M ry r7 rt7 r7 fa m ra .d d u o: 0 rd - a RUrn a _ G Ss3 .�. lsl 1 4 4L 'no [- p [' •ti •ti C'1 4'1 rl rl rl N J rl n rY y F ti ti 75C -774 Table 2 Chronology for the Ownerships and Locations of the Model Poultry Farm and Banner Mills of Santa Ana. DATE YAME /OWNER LOCATION 1894 Banner Mills (established) F.J. Rogers, Prop. 1918 Banner dills F.J. Rogers, Prop. 1921 Banner Mills (Closed) F.J. Ragcrs, Prop. 1922 Model Poultry Farm E.A. Walker 1927 Model Poultry Farm E.A. Walker 1928 -29 Banner bought 1929 Banner Edward 1945 Banner Edward Mills (equipment by E.A. Walker) Mills (Feed & Grain; A. Walker Mills (Food) A. Walker 307 -309 French St. 307 French Street 307 French Street 605 S. Bristol 605 S. Bristol N.A. 605 S. Bristol 605 S. Bristol NOTE: Dates referred to in this table correspond with the city directories on file at the Santa Ana Library, Special Collections /Histozical Society. 75C -775 (] REFERENCES A.W. Marquis Company n.d. W110's Who on the Pacific Coast. The A- N. Marquis Company, Chicago, Illinois_ California Historical Society 1965 Index to California Historical Society Quarterly_ volumes one to Port y: 1922 -L941. Sd11 Francisco. Detwiler, .IUStice B. 1928 -29 who's Who in California. A Biographical Directory- Who's Ybo Pub]ishing Company, San Francisco, CA. Directory Service Company 1951 The Directory Service Cn)n --a IF OrEicial Santa Ana Oranae & Tustin City Directory. 1952 Iuskey's Official C[ntral ❑ran e County and Criss Cross DireCtory. Guinn, J.M. 1901 A History of California and an Extended Histor of Its Southern Coast Counties. Historic Record Company, Chicago, Illinois. Hager, Anna Marie and Everett Gordon Hager n.d. Cumulative Index: Westway5- Touring Topics 1909 - 19_59. 7+u torgobile Club of Southern California. international News Service 1913 Press Reverence Librarli, Western Edition. Notables of the west. Volume I. International mews Service, Ne-W York. 1915 Press Reverence LihYary, IATesterrt Edition. Notables of t1le We t_. Koiume, II. International News Service, New York, Irvine, Lr.igh H_ 1905 A History ❑F t}SO New rallfarRla; Its Resources and Pe❑ Lewis Publishing Company, New York. .7ordy, hilliam H 1976 AmPric Bu' d'n a d `leir Ar h'tects: Prn res ive and A em' I e a the Tnrn f th Twren 'et C-ntury. Anchor Hooks, Anchor Press /Doubleday, Carden City, New York. 75C -776 Lang, C.S. 1924 Who's Who in Los Anq_les 1924. C.S. Lang, Publisher. 1925 -16 who's iTho in i,os An eles 1925 -1926. C.S. Lang, Publisher. 1927 -28 Who's who in has Angeles C_UUnty_1927- 192.8. C.J. Lang, Publisher. ;328 -29 Who`s Who in 7,os Angeles County 1928-1929. Charles J. Lang, Publisher. Lewis Publishing Company 1889 An Illustrated_ History of Los Angeles county, California_ Lewis Publishing Company, Chicago, Illinois. McGroarty, John Steven, ed. 1923 History of Los Angeles County. American historical Society, Inc., Chicago and New York. Moore, John M. 1958 Moore's Who is S %'ho in California. John M. Mooro, Publisher and Editor. Newmark, Maurice H. and 14zirco R_ Newmark, eds. 1926 Sixty Years in Southern California 1185.3 -1913. The RnicKerbocker Press, New York. Orange County Register 1986 Free7,e Frame: Santa Ana Banner Mills. June 3, 1986. Santa Ana Directory Company 1908 Santa Ana City Directory 1908 -1909 InCluding Tustin and Garden Grove. Santa Ana Directory Company, Santa Ana, California. 1910 Santa Ana City Directory 1910. Santa Ana Directory Company, Santa Ana, Califnrnia. 1918 Tustin with a_Complete Rural DirCCtnry. Santa Directory Company, Santa Ana, California. 1922 Santa Ana City Directory 1922. Santa Ana Directory Comparly, Santa Ana, California. Southern California Directory Company 1901 Orancre Count Di;er_tor A Com Sete and Reliable Edition, Southern California Directory Company, Santa Ana, California. 75C -777 Western Directory Company 1927 Householder's Guido of the City or Santa Ana. Western Directory Company, Long Beach, California. 1928a Orange County Directory 1928. Western Directory Company, Long Beach, California. 1928b Householders Guide of the City of Santa Ana. Western Direr.tozy Company, Long Beach, California. 1945 South Orange County Directory: December 19 45. Western Directory Company, Long Beach, California. 75C -778 REFERENCES (Addendum) Chamber of Commerce 1915 Santa Ana City Directory Chamber of Commerce. Santa Ana, California. Orango County Directory and Advertising Company 1905 Santa Ana City Directory 1905, orange County Directory and Advertising Company, Santa Ana, Californria. 75C -779 EXHIBIT 1 75C -780 DRAFT RELOCATION IMPACT STUDY Prepared By: Approval Recommended By: Senior Right -of -Way Agent Supervising Right -of -Way Agent Approved By: Deputy District Director Right-of-Way isb' tr ce �— — --P-. &T-.-- E. A. Project: Bristol Street Widening Date: Randy A. Nichols, AICP Senior Planner Willdan Associates Kelly Williams Associate Right -of -Way Agent State Department of Transportation 75C -781 006709 I SUMMARY AND PROJECT DATA A. Purpose of Study The purpose of this study is to provide the California Department of Transportation, the City of Santa Ana and the general public with information as to displacement effects/ relocation resources related to the proposed widening of Bristof Street, in the City of Santa Ana. B. Limits and Purpose of Project The purpose of the subject project is to improve the flow of local and through traffic along Bristol Street, between Warner Avenue and Memory Lane, covering a distance of approximately 3.9 miles. (See Figure 1, following.) C. Corridor and Alignments Studied 1. Number of alternatives studied: 4 a. Alternative 1 = Widening on both sides of Bristol, to achieve 120' right -of -way. b. Alternative 2 = Widen along east side only, to achieve a 120' right -of -way. c. Alternative 3 = Widen along west side only, to achieve a 120' right -of -way. d. Alternative 4 = No Project 2. Is there a "core" corridor common to all alternatives? Yes -- The present Bristol Street right -of -way and a depth of one parcel along both sides of the street, throughout the project corridor. 3. Comments: Widening alternatives would also include additional spot widening at several intersections, affecting all legs, to accommodate special features such as bus turn -outs, left turns only, and right -turn only lanes. Also, each alternative would realign Bristol Street to the west to avoid any widening along the frontage of the Santiago Elementary School site. The entire corridor lies within the City of Santa Ana. D. Character of Displacement Area 1. Location in Relation to General Community: Subject segment of Bristol Street runs north and south, roughly in the center of the City, and is one of the most utilized north -south arterial corridors in the City. Bristol Street connects with the Garden Grove freeway (State Highway 22) just north of the project area. 75C -782 00670 > ¢ GARDEN IGROVE GARDEN SEVENTEENTH GPONB. BLVD F ,�P Q� CHAPMAN s N Syr 9 9y AVE > 'a MEMORY > > > a LL FWY LN ST z Project Limits ~ FIRST ST Mc FADDEN FWy AVE EDINGER AVE v j z ¢ . �� AVE JRNER � R 0 TALBERT �Q MAC ARTHUR BLVD Sg1V O�FC0 z a 0 3 J 1- m ¢ Q W U FwY Q m Figure 1 Vicinity Map NORTH WILLDAN ASSOCIATES BRISTOL STREET WIDENING PROJECT ENGINEERS AND PLANNER75C_ +83 CITY OF SANTA ANA 2. Character of Area: Land uses within the project corridor are mixed, consisting of older residential units, including both single - family homes and duplexes, a variety of strip - commercial businesses, four school sites (two elementary, one high school and one college) and one community shopping center (Honer Plaza). E. Project Area Characteristics (City of Santa Ana) 1. Type of Area: Urban 2. Estimated 1985 Median Household Income: $24,446 3. Estimated Total Population, 1987: 227,398 4. Ethnic Composition, October 1986 Estimate: Spanish /Hispanic 73.8% Black 3.3% Asian /Pacific Islander 11.0% Caucasian 11.8% Other .1% Source: Santa Ana Unified School District, October 1986 Student Enrollment. 5. Average Household Size, 1987 Estimate: 3.3 6. Housing Stock: Estimated Total Housing Units, 1987: 71,290 Single - Family Units 53.4% Multi - Family Units 42.4% Mobile Homes 4.1% 7. Percentage housing units built more than 15 years ago: 88% Source: Housing Element of the City of Santa Ana General Plan, June 1984. 8. Vacancy Rate, 1987: 3.65% Source: State of California, Department of Finance. 9. Average sales price of a previously owned, single- family home: ± $130,000 and more 10. Section 8 Rental Limits (Orange County, November, 19861 Number of Bedrooms Rental Limit: 1 2 3 4 5 $615 $724 $904 $1,013 $1,165 75C3 -784 II SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Estimated displacement, by alternative: Alternative Number See Attachment C for illustrations of full parcel acquisitions, for each alternative, which result in the displacement of the existing land use. B. Five Largest Local Employers: -- Rancho Santiago College -- Honer Plaza -- City of Santa Ana -- County of Orange -- Mater Dei: High School 1. Will this project significantly affect any of these employers: No C. Will this project significantly affect any of the following amenities? -- Elementary School: No -- Jr. High School: No -- High School: No -- Churches: No -- Shopping Centers: No -- Local Shopping: No -- Parks: No -- Others: One preschool would be displaced under Alternatives 1 or 3. D. Are neighborhoods homogeneous? Yes 1. General condition of neighborhoods: Poor to Good 75C4.785 1 2 3 4 Housing Units 236 172 133 0 Businesses 99 73 41 0 Non - Profits 1 4 0 Agricultural 0 0 0 0 Total Persons* 1,379 1,006 709 0 * Residents and both full and part -time employees, based on average household size of 3.3 and average number of employees per business of six (6). See Attachment C for illustrations of full parcel acquisitions, for each alternative, which result in the displacement of the existing land use. B. Five Largest Local Employers: -- Rancho Santiago College -- Honer Plaza -- City of Santa Ana -- County of Orange -- Mater Dei: High School 1. Will this project significantly affect any of these employers: No C. Will this project significantly affect any of the following amenities? -- Elementary School: No -- Jr. High School: No -- High School: No -- Churches: No -- Shopping Centers: No -- Local Shopping: No -- Parks: No -- Others: One preschool would be displaced under Alternatives 1 or 3. D. Are neighborhoods homogeneous? Yes 1. General condition of neighborhoods: Poor to Good 75C4.785 2. Condition of units being displaced: Good: 25% Average: 25% Fair: 25% Poor: 25% E. Number of mobilehomes in immediate area: None F. Will the project significantly affect: 1. The Local Labor Force? Yes -- employees could be displaced. 2. Local Economy? Yes -- increased impeded access to commercial sites street improvements. 3. Local Housing Market? Yes* 4. Displacement Neighborhood(s)? No approximately 200 -600 traffic congestion and during construction of * Will create temporary, relatively heavy demand for very low - moderate income housing, which is in short supply in this area. G. Basis of Findings The sources used in the preparation of this study were both primary and secondary in nature. They included: Yes No 1. Public Agencies X 2. Newspapers X 3. Public Documents X 4. Multiple Listing Service X 5. Local Realtors X 6. Right -of -Way Route Survey X 7. Contact with Property Owners X B. Contact with Business Owners X 9. SCAG X 10. Federal Home Loan Bank X 11. United States Census X Other sources: 1986 First Quarter Real Estate and Construc- tion Report, Real Estate Research Council of outhern ali ova Urban Decision Systems, Los Angeles, CA, June 1986. California Department of Finance, Population and Housing Estimates, January 1, 1987. Housing Element, City of Santa Ana, June 1984. The Orange County Register, April 26, 1987. 75C5.786 III PROJECT DISPLACEMENT units: Units Displaced, by Alternative by 1 2 3 4 Residential 236 172 133 0 Business 99 73 41 0 Non - Profit 1 0 1 0 Industrial 0 0 0 0 Agricultural 0 0 0 0 Total Units 336 245 175 0 A. Displaced Housing Unit Characteristics Type and number of displaced units: Number of Buildings by Number of Units by Alternative Alternative Building Type 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Single - Family 163 106 80 0 163 106 80 0 Duplex 35 33 25 0 70 66 50 0 3+ Units 1 0 1 0 3 0 3 0 Mobilehomes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 199 139 106 0 236 172 109 0 Estimated % Owner Occupied: 30% Estimated % Renter Occupied: 70% Approximate age range of displaced units: 20 -60+ years Condition of displaced units: Good 25% Average 25% Fair 25% Poor 25% 75C -787 -6- Estimated average resale value of displaced units: Owner- Occupied: $120,000 Renter- Occupied: $120,000 - $180,000 B. Characteristics of Displaced Households 1. Occupants per household: 3.3* * California Department of Finance, January 1, 1987, City -wide estimate. 2. Age Distribution *: 0 -17 29% 18 -24 15.4% 25 -64 26.7% 65+ 7.6% * California Department of Finance, January 1, 1986, City -wide estimate. 3. Ethnicity:* Spanish /Hispanic: 60% Asian: 15% Caucasian: 15% Other: 10% * Based on walk -thru of project corridor, October 1986. 4. Income Distribution:* Very Low -Low 50% Low- Moderate 50% * Based on walk -thru of project corridor, October 1986. C. Characteristics of Displaced Businesses and Non - Profits 1. Type and number affected, by alternative: 1 2 3 4 Service 12 13 1 0 Retail 34 24 18 0 Office 11 8 5 0 Eating Establishment 13 9 7 0 Mon- Profit Day Care 1 0 1 0 Health Care 16 13 2 0 Misc. Commercial 13 7 8 0 Totals 100 74 42 0 75q -788 2. Service area of displaced businesses, by alternative: 75C*d-789 1 2 3 4 Local 86 64 35 0 City 13 9 6 0 Regional 0 0 0 0 Freeway 0 0 0 0 3. Estimated number of employees within displaced businesses, by alternative. 1 2 3 4 1 -3 Employees 76 56 33 0 4 -10 Employees 20 14 8 0 11 -20 Employees 3 3 0 0 21+ Employees 0 0 0 0 4. Any minority owned businesses? Yes -- many, primarily of Hispanic and Asian ethnicity. 6. Displaced business facility characteristics: 1 2 3 4 Strip Commercial 94 67 36 0 Local Shopping Center 3 3 3 0 Regional Center 0 0 0 0 Single Structure 91 65 33 0 Mixed Residential 4 3 2 0 Low-Pent Area 99 73 41 0 D. Are there any toxic or hazardous waste sites within the project corridor? Yes (See following list.) 1. Gas Station at 2303 S. Bristol Street (Full Take, Alternatives 1, 2 and 3) 2. Gas Station at 106 S. Bristol Street (Full Take, Alternatives 1 and 3) 3. Gas Station at 2040 S. Bristol Street (Full Take, Alternatives 1 and 3) 4. Medical Clinic at 217 -223 S. Bristol Street (Full Take, Alternatives 1 and 2) 5. Medical Clinic at 1147 S. Bristol Street (Full Take, Alternatives 1 and 2) 75C*d-789 6. Pest Control Service at 1143 S. Bristol Street (Full Take, Alternatives 1 and 2) 7. Copy (print) Shop at 1127 S. Bristol Street (Full Take, Alternatives 1 and 2) 8. Gas Station at 1228 McFadden Street (Partial Take, Alternatives 1 and 2) 9. Dental Office at 2105 S. Bristol Street (Full Take, Alternatives 1 and 2) 10. Gas Station at 1441 S. Bristol Street (Full Take, Alternatives 1 and 2) 11. Dental Office at 1423 -1425 S. Bristol Street (Full Take, Alternatives 1 and 2) 12. Medical Clinic at 2101 S. Bristol Street (Full Take, Alternatives 1 and 2) 13. Hair Salon at 2010 N. Bristol Street (Full Take, Alternatives 1 and 3) 14. Gas Station at 802 N. Bristol Street (Full Take, Alternatives 1 and 3) 15. Doctor's Office at 716 N. Bristol Street (Full Take, Alternatives 1 and 3) 16. Gas Station at 708 N. Bristol Street (Full Take, Alternatives 1 and 3) 17. Gas Station at 2641 N. Bristol Street (Full Take, Alternatives 1 and 2) 18. Doctor's Office at 1601 N. Bristol (Full Take, Alternatives 1 and 2) 19. Dental Office at 1417 N. Bristol Street (Full Take, Alternatives 1 and 2) 20. Dental Office at 1311 N. Bristol Street (Full Take, Alternatives 1 and 2) 21. Gas Station at 801 N. Bristol Street (Full Take, Alternatives 1 and 2) 22. Auto Service at 509 N. Bristol Street (Full Take, Alternatives 1 and 2) 23. Auto Service at 417 N. Bristol Street (Partial Take, Alternatives 1 and 2) 75C -790 -9- 24. Auto Service at 1747 W. Santa Ana Boulevard (Full Take, Alternatives 1 and 2) 25. Medical Clinic at 1250 W. 3rd Street (Full Take, Alternatives 1 and 2) 26. Auto Service at 1249 W. 1st Street (Full Take, Alternatives 1, 2 and 3) 27. Brass Polishing/ Plating at 207 N. Bristol Street (Full Take, Alternatives 1 and 2) E. Comments Regarding Non- Profits and Businesses A wide variety of businesses are found along this segment of Bristol Street, ranging from small offices in converted single- family dwellings, to smaller, stand -alone shops, to large free - standing businesses (e.g., Building Emporium) to the major commercial site in the project area, Honer Plaza, a community scale shopping center covering approximately 38 acres of land. Although it will be necessary to relocate a number of businesses due to extensive loss of building and /or parking area, the range of businesses available to local and City -wide residents will not significantly change. Many of the potential displaced businesses rely heavily on local patronage, due to neighborhood identification and ethnic ties. Such businesses will have greater difficulty in relocating, successfully, to a new location. Some of these businesses may be forced to close permanently as a result. Non - profit entities in the project corridor include: four churches, two day care centers, the Rancho Santiago Community College, Mater Dei High School, Santiago Elementary School, Jose Andres Sepulveda Elementary School, and a City of Santa Ana Water pumping station. Of these, only the Southwest Learning Center, a non - profit day care center at 810 S. Bristol Street, could be displaced, under Alternatives one or three. Each of the school sites would lose some of its area along the street frontage, if Bristol Street is widened on both sides or along the side that abuts the particular school site. In the case of Mater Del High School, any loss of frontage area would eliminate critically needed parking spaces. The elementary schools would lose some outdoor recreational area, but both sites have sufficient remaining area to adequately withstand this loss of space. Due to Federal Highway Administration Section 4 (f) Guidelines, however, each alternative would avoid any widening along the frontage of the Santiago Elementary School frontage. The college site would lose some parking and vehicular circulation along its 17th Street frontage, under each widening alternative, but the number of spaces would be less than one percent of the total and the vehicular drive along 17th Street is not a critical component of the 75C -791 -1a- on -site circulation since it provides access only to a small parking area. The water pumping station facilities would not be affected under any of the street widening alternatives. For further information concerning the characteristics of these non - profit entities, please refer to Section 111.6.4 of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). For further information concerning the potential effects on these sites, please refer to Sections IV.Q. and IV.S in the EIS. F. Estimated displacement period, by alternative: Alternative 1 9 -12 months Alternative 2 9 -12 months Alternative 3 9 -12 months Alternative 4 None 75C -792 -11- IV RELOCATION RESOURCES Due to the size and complexity of this project, the relocation resource area is defined to include the entire City of Santa Ana, as well as the immediately adjacent Cities of Garden Grove and Anaheim. It must be recognized, however, that given the significant Hispanic and lower- income characteristics of the displacement area, comparable neighborhoods within the adjacent areas will probably be limited to neighborhoods exhibiting similar socio- enconomic traits. A. Residential /Non - Residential Gross Units Hundreds of vacant and comparable units, both residential and non - residential, are expected to be available throughout the relocation resource area. This estimate is based upon State Department of Finance housing vacancy estimates as well as classified advertisements listed in the Orange County Register. B. Residential Rental and Sales Prices in Relocation Resource Area 1 Real Estate and Construction Report, First Quarter, 1986 R. .R.C. of Southern California. 2 Rental prices from Orange County Register, January 1987. 3 Not available -- No four bedroom apartments were listed for rent in the editions of the Orange County Register that were reviewed. 75C -793 -12- Average Sales or Rental Price Type /Size of Unit Santa Ana Garden Grove Anaheim Single Family - Resalel $ 102,000+ $ 119,000+ $ 100,000+ Single Family - Det9ched 4 Bedroom Rental 885 -1,050 850 -1,200 950 -1,100 3 Bedroom Rental 750 -1,500 750 -1,175 775 -1,300 Single Family - Attached 3 Bedroom Rental 760 -900 870 -1,025 800 -1,150 2 Bedroom Rental 600 -750 800 -900 695 -900 Duplex - 2 Bedroom Rental 620 -800 650 525 -650 Apartment 4 Bedroom NA NA NA 3 Bedroom 775 -850 700 -825 750 -825 2 Bedroom 600 -700 575 -795 550 -700 1 Bedroom 450 -600 350 -595 440 -640 1 Real Estate and Construction Report, First Quarter, 1986 R. .R.C. of Southern California. 2 Rental prices from Orange County Register, January 1987. 3 Not available -- No four bedroom apartments were listed for rent in the editions of the Orange County Register that were reviewed. 75C -793 -12- C. Residential relocations units needed by type, price and alternatives: 1. Alternative 1 (Widen both sides of street to 120' right-of-way.) Affordable Type /Size Number Needed - Price Range Owner Occupied SF 16 1Max. $51,561 Owner Occupied SF Owner 33 /Avg. $73,000 Renter Occupied 4 Bedroom 361$414 - $640 /month Renter Occupied 4 Bedroom 36 /Avg. $893 /month Renter Occupied 3 Bedroom 37 /$383 - $573 /month Renter Occupied 3 Bedroom 36 /Avg. $828 /month Renter Occupied 2 Bedroom 191$345 - $516 /month Renter Occupied 2 Bedroom 18 /Avg. - $745 1month Renter Occupied 1 Bedroom 51$306 - $414 /month 2. Alternative 2 (Widen only on east side, to 120' right -of -way.) 3. Alternative 3 (Widen only on west side, to 120' right -of -way.) Affordable Type /Size Number Needed - Price Range Owner Occupied SF 10 /Max. $51,561 Owner Occupied SF 27 /Avg. $73,000 Renter Occupied 4 Bedroom 26/$414- $640 /month Renter Occupied 4 Bedroom 26 /Avg. $893 /month Renter Occupied 3 Bedroom 27 /$383 - $573 /month Renter Occupied 3 Bedroom 26 /Avg. $828 1month Renter Occupied 2 Bedroom 141$345 - $516 /month Renter Occupied 2 Bedroom 13 /Avg. - $745 /month Renter Occupied 1 Bedroom 3/$306- $474 /month 3. Alternative 3 (Widen only on west side, to 120' right -of -way.) * Sales and rental prices based upon rough estimates of displaced households' tenure, size, and income and affordable housing cost calculations contained in Attachments A and B. 75C -794 -13- Affordable Type /Size Number Needed - Price Range Owner Occupied SF 7 /Max. $51,561 Owner Occupied SF 17 /Avg. $73,000 Renter Occupied 4 Bedroom 21/$414 - $640 /month Renter Occupied 4 Bedroom 21 /Avg. $893 /month Renter Occupied 3 Bedroom 21/$383- $573 /month Renter Occupied 3 Bedroom 21 /Avg. $828 1month Renter Occupied 2 Bedroom 11/$345 - $516 /month Renter Occupied 2 Bedroom 11 /Avg. - $745 1month Renter Occupied 1 Bedroom 3/$306 - $474 /month * Sales and rental prices based upon rough estimates of displaced households' tenure, size, and income and affordable housing cost calculations contained in Attachments A and B. 75C -794 -13- D. Comments Concerning Residential Relocation Resources: Based on a survey of rental listings in The Orange County Register, the largest local newspaper, there appears to be an adequate supply of available rental and for -sale housing within the Santa Ana - Garden Grove - Anaheim area, to accommodate displaced households. However, there could be difficulties in finding comparable and suitable replacement housing for the following types of displaced households: Type of Household 3 and 4 Bedroom Rentals Owner Occupied 2 Bedroom Rentals Relocation Problem Limited supply of vacant units, market rents not affordable to lower income households. Market prices generally not affordable to either lower or moderate income households. Market rents not affordable to lower income households. Due to the high percentage of Spanish speaking residents within the project corridor, a Spanish speaking relocation agent will probably be necessary to assist the City's relocation program. If right -of -way acquisition and project construction take place concurrently with other street and highway improvements planned in this general area, competition for relocation resources will be significantly increased and the relocation area may need to be expanded or supplemental housing payments increased to enable affordable housing costs within the local relocation area. For further information concerning the timing and displacement effects of those other projects, please refer to Section N .M. of the EIS. 75C -795 -14- V ROUTINE RELOCATION STATEMENT OF SUFFICIENCY A. Will adequate relocation resources most likely be available for: Owner- Occupied SFR? Yes Tenant - Occupied SFR? Yes Tenant - Occupied Duplex? Yes Commercial? Yes, with the possible exception of several small, neighborhood oriented businesses. Non - Profit? Yes B. Are there available Relocation Resources meeting all decent, safe and sanitary housing requirements? Yes C. Are the displacement neighborhood and relocation areas comparable in terms of amenities, public utilities, accessibility to public services, transportation and shopping facilities? Yes D. Are available Relocation Resources subject to discriminatory rental practices? No E. Are Relocation Resources affordable to displacees, given the use of housing and rental payments? Yes F. Are there other public projects in the area that will displace additional families or make additional housing available concurrently with the subject project? Yes* G. Are there special /significant relocation problems associated with this project? Yes ** * The City of Santa Ana Housing Agency is administering several programs which are providing new housing units and payments to low- income renters, throughout the City. The City of Santa Ana is proposing to widen Westminster Street, which may occur at approximately the same time as the subject project. In addition, Caltrans is planning to widen the Santa Ana Freeway (1 -5), between Route 55 and Route 22, beginning in June 1990, and to widen the interchange between the Santa Ana Freeway and the Newport Freeway, beginning in June 1989. Some overlap of all these projects would increase the demand for local relocation resources, possibly necessitating a larger relocation area and /or increased supplemental housing and business relocation payments. For further details concerning the displacement effects of these various street improvement projects, please refer to Sections IV.M and IV.N of the EIS. ** Problems consist of finding comparable and affordable housing for displaced low income and large family households, as well as a need for a Spanish Speaking relocation agent. For further details, see Section IV. 75C -796 -15- This occurs on alternatives: 1. X 2. X 3. X 4. H. Will the Last Resort Housing Program most likely be required to relocate households being displaced? Yes* I. Is the Caltrans Relocation Program adequate to successfully relocate all displaced? Yes, in most cases. Smaller, locally oriented businesses may be unable to successfully relocate. J. The Last Resort Program will require: Yes No Payments X Construction X Field Office X K. Will a no- rerent policy be recommended at the Final Relocation Impact Statement stage of the EIS process? Yes L. See Attachment D for a complete description of the Caltrans Relocation Program. * Estimated percentage requiring Last Resort Housing Program: Owners 75 %, Renters 90% 75C -797 -16- ATTACHMENT A Estimated Number and Type of Needed Replacement Housing Units, By Size and Alternative 75C -798 ESTIMATED NUMBER AND TYPE OF NEEDED REPLACEMENT HOUSING UNITS, BY SIZE AND ALTERNATIVE A. Alternative 1 , Widen Both Sides, 120' Right -o 1. Owner - Occupied SF Total displaced SF units: 163 163 x 30% = 49 Owner - Occupied Units 316 VL -Low, 333 Mod. 2. Renter - Occupied SF or MF Total Renter Units: 187 (236 total displaced units, less 49 owner - occupied units) # of 5 Person Household (4- Bedroom): 187 x 39% = 72 # of 4 Person Household (3- Bedroom): 187 x 39% = 73 # of 3 Person Household (2- Bedroom): 187 x 20% = 37 # of 2 Person Household (1- Bedroom): Balance = 5 # of 5 Person # of 5 Person # of 4 Person # of 4 Person # of 3 Person # of 3 Person # of 2 Person (4- Bedroom] (4- Bedroom] (3- Bedroom] (3- Bedroom) (2- Bedroom] (2- Bedroom] (1- Bedroom] VL -Low Income: 72 x 112 = 36 Mod. Income: 72 x 1/2 = 36 V L -Low Income: 72 x 112 = 37 Mod. Income: 72 x 1/2 = 36 VL -Low Income: 37 x 112 = 19 Mod. Income: 37 x 112 = 18 VL -Low Income: Balance = 5 B. Alternative 2, 120' Widen Only on East Side, Right -of -Way 1. Owner- Occupied SF Total Displaced SF Units: 106 106 x 34% = 37 Owner - Occupied Units 310 V L -Low, 327 Moderate 2. Renter - Occupied SF or MF 172 - 37 = 135 Total Renter Units # of 5 Person Households (4- bedroom): 135 x 39% = 52 # of 4 Person Households (3- bedroom): 135 x 39% = 53 # of 3 Person Households (2- bedroom): 135 x 20% = 27 # of 2 Person Households (1- bedroom): Balance = 3 # of 5 Person, # of 5 Person, # of 4 Person, # of 4 Person, # of 3 Person, # of 3 Person, # of 2 Person, VL -Low Income: Moderate Income: VL -Low Income: Moderate Income: VL -Low Income: Moderate Income: VL -Low Income: 52 x 112 = 26 52 x 112 = 26 53 x 112 = 27 53 x 112 = 26 27 x 112 = 14 27 x 112 = 13 Balance = 3 75C -799 C. Alternative 3, 120' Right -of -Way, Widen Only on West Side 1. Owner - Occupied SF Total Displaced SF Units: 80 80 x 30% = 24 Owner - Occupied Units ±7 VL -Low, ±17 Moderate 2. Renter - Occupied SF or MF 133 -24 = 109 Total Renter Units # of 5 Person Households (4- bedroom): 109 x 39% = 42 # of 4 Person Households (3- bedroom): 109 x 39% = 42 # of 3 Person Households (2- bedroom): 109 x 20% = 22 # of 2 Person Households (1- bedroom): 109 x 2% = 3 # of 5 Person, # of 5 Person, # of 4 Person, # of 4 Person, # of 3 Person, # of 3 Person, # of 2 Person, VL -Low Income: Moderate Income: LV -Low Income: Moderate Income: V L -Low Income: Moderate Income: VL -Low Income: 42 x 1/2 = 21 42 x 1/2 = 21 42 x 1/2 = 21 42 x 1/2 = 21 22 x 112 = 11 22 x1(2 =11 Balance 3 75C -800 ATTACHMENT B Affordable Housing Cost Calculations 75C -801 AFFORDABLE SALES PRICE CALCULATIONS? A. Very Low -Low Income Family of Four Annual Household Income 2: $18,400 (VL) - $27,500 (L) Gross Monthly Income: $1,533 (VL) - $2,292 (L) Federal Withholding (Estimate): $200 (VL) - $250 (L) Net Effective Income: $1,533c200 = $1,333 (VL) to $2,2921750 = $2,042 (L) Affordable Monthly Housing Cost: .35 ($1,333) _ $467 (VL) to .35 ($2,042) _ $715 (L) Average Utilities, Maintenance and Insurance: $108 + 85 + 35 = $228 /month Affordable Principal, Interest and Taxes: ($467 -228) _ $239 [VL) to ($715 -228) _ $487 (L) Affordable P.I.T. _ $239 - $487 /month 487 = .008775 x mortgage = .001 487 = .00875 x (.95 SP + $500 f 487 = .008336 SP + $4.39 + .001 487 = .009336 SP + $4.39 487 -4.39 = .009336 SP 482.61 = .009336 SP 482.61 - .009336 = SP $51,561 sales price (SP) $500 + .001 SP SP = Maximum Affordable SP 1 Calculation methodology from Section 602.506 of Chapter 602 of the California Department of Transportation Right -of -Way Procedure Handbook. 2 Median Household Income estimates for the Anaheim - Santa Ana - Garden Grove PMSA, July 1986, as reported by the Santa Ana Housing Services Agency. 75C -802 B. Moderate Income Family of Four: Median Household Income: $36,800 Moderate Income: .8 to 1.2 x (36,800) = $29,440 - $44,160 Median Gross Monthly Income: $36,800 - 12 = $3,067 /month Federal Withholding (Estimated): $450 Net Effective Income (NEI): 3,067 -450 = $2,617 1month Affordable Monthly Housing Cost: .35(2,617) = $916 Average Monthly Utilities, Maintenance, Insurance: $108 +85 +40 = $233 Affordable Principal, Interest and Taxes: 916 -233 = $683 683 = .00875 x mortgage + .001 sales price (SP) 683 = .00875 x (.95 SP + $500 + .001 SP) 683 = .008336 SP + $4.39 + .001 SP 683 = .009336 SP + 4.39 683 -4.39 = .009336 SP 678.61 = .009336 SP 678.61 .009336 = SP = $72,688 75C -803 AFFORDABLE RENTAL COST CALCULATIONS A. Renter - Occupied, Family of Five Median Household Income (M): Very Low Income (VL): .5 (39, Low Income (L): .774 (39,700) Moderate Income: .8 (39,700) _ (4 Bedroom) $39,700 700) _ $19,850 _ $30,728 $31,760 to 1.2 (39,700) _ $47,640 (VL) - Maximum affordable gross monthly rent: (19,850 t 12) x .25 = 1,654 x .25 = $414 /month (L) - Maximum affordable gross monthly rent: (30,728 r 12) x .25 = (2,561 x .25) _ $640 /month (M) - Maximum affordable gross monthly rent: (39,700 - 12) x .27 = (3,308 x .27) _ $893 1month B. Renter Occupied, Family of Four (3 Bedroom) Median Household Income (M): $36,800 Very Low (VL): $18,400 Low (L): $27,500 Moderate): $29,400 - $44,160 (VL) - Maximum affordable gross monthly rent: (18,400 - 12) x .25 = $383 1month (L) - Maximum affordable gross monthly rent: (27,500 - 12) x .25 = $573 1month (M) - Maximum affordable gross monthly rent: (36,800 c 12) .27 = $828 1month 1 Calculation methodology from Section 602.506 of Chapter 602 of the California Department of Transportation Right -of -Way Procedure Handbook. 2 For Anaheim - Santa Ana - Garden Grove PMSA, June 1986, as reported by the Santa Ana Housing Services Agency. 75C -804 C. Renter Occupied, Family of Three (2 Bedroom) Median Household Income (M): $33,100 annually Very Low (V L): $16,550 Low (L): $24,750 Moderate: $26,480 - $39,720 (VL) - Maximum affordable gross monthly rent: (16,550 t 12) x .25 = $345 1month (L) - Maximum affordable gross monthly rent: (24,750 - 12) x .25 = $516 1month (M) - Maximum affordable gross monthly rent: (33,100 - 12) x .27 = $745 /month 1 For Anaheim - Santa Ana - Garden Grove PMSA, June 1986, as reported by the Santa Ana Housing Services Agency. 75C -805 ATTACHMENT C Displacement Sites 75C -806 C d m d J F ? _ 6 tO 3 w U 1 Z 41< 030 G Z LL 6 Z s � � P Z P LL A '✓i to F i 3 •3C ■E1O 3NIl HOLVW • 1 3AV tl30 3 / 3AV ptlYH OItl06 0 f L� N 0 r N m 3AV 1, E 4 H3p NIp3 NO1l8V3 U • •I Id OO�O MN3lp • Id N3pWVD • Nap WYE re- Id 3NNY F • 3NNY 16 1 �� ld I` —'F 30lltlltl3p '1S / / / / / • • • or�� 1 3A tl3 N ' Q C m N a EN U t g o Q m N � 6 a N N C N 7 CO W C co .J C Q y m Q Q Z Q Q Z Q LL 0 i' f' rb N w U� O ¢ Z Z a b N w w QZ U J Z yJ_ w V C sl m m J m 9 U U U LL n Z 44-� •00 v S •nL m ❑J 1S aS t C 3NIl HD1tlW �� LS 1B tlld LS inNivM • L 3NTTId • • w • • 1B 1nN1B3HO • O • • a Ls 3lltl Al • T • • 1S 3l • • lS dDH61 • 16 tl3WA1 AAI3�L MOOHB 3Atl N3OOVI -W JI Q to 113 sne 4 � . m • • 4 • IH N 2 Q C a m U N N t U o � m a� 6a N � N C 7 m C DS .g C N U) N d 2 w U Z -3 a CC F- a. a C'3 Cl) z LL Z 0 LU Q } U LL W J O F- CO x m N W Q U� 0¢ E I Z c n a N w Q Z Z _J w C m CD CD J S � 3 fWf /1< *0c �O U OT _ L[I_�4 ILWM fl • 4 • .3r r r r � r p • r • � s e • •I� o t- r r P �r 7SC- 8,Uq..._ Q C M m D V w cg ° � O a Cm V 6 a Z ? Z N c w � o a m W o ` a ° c c0 w Q � c N J U O N X F— E 0] ! J a Z Q Z LL O r C) cc W _ _ Q J D O Q N Q LLl W a W Q o m V O o a 7 o ` a ° o J a Z Q Z LL O r C) cc W _ _ Q J D O Q N Q LLl W a W r C d 01 d J LL U U U u n i .4 44 000 = w 3 W i o _ _ z N 0 N i F F •00 0 11 -1 a N o n= a' J � 4 c • ■ 1 3 ■ Y E I' C l d � • la • 0z e U) o a a N � U L N m 6 m N 9 N C 7 ao a C ro c m in N N 2 LL U W 0 cr _Z Z W W W r[ I-- J 0 H co Q m a Z a Ia- Z a W 0 F- U CO W F- N UW 2 O/� V/ J a C a Q N Z¢ W Q M 2 J W J L p 3 p � U F O 75C -810 e U) o a a N � U L N m 6 m N 9 N C 7 ao a C ro c m in N N 2 LL U W 0 cr _Z Z W W W r[ I-- J 0 H co Q m a Z a Ia- Z a W 0 F- U CO W F- N UW 2 O/� V/ J a C a Q N Z¢ W Q M 2 J W J v C d d J u o V U 9 5 i Al<•vo 6 ¢ m 4 LLd 0 0 3 S ❑ ❑ E w 3NIl N71VW 3AV SAV �4 4 ula NlQ3 • • I• Id • • Id N3QHVO • s ld 3N NV� ld I 11 NEY3 Foo- O oil I o d a N a m Q ]A M tl M 1S 3 y m � r E �o mm �N �m a� �m ci m c C13 c m y N .. w m 0 rh im U W O 2 c� z z w 0 H W W H W J O I— co rr m Q z Q H z Q LL O r I" U En w Q Ul Oa Z Z �4 Zb Q� a Qz 5 J w J 3 a c d OI d J � L W LL 'L Z Al< 000 m . •00 ■7❑ 3NIl HH1Vn 16 ±�j a 16 1ftlIJ I1I 16 1nNlYM 16 BMW EQT • • • � 16 1nN163N0 • a m O • i m i d 16 3llmAw 3AY N3OaV 1�W a d a -o O 0 d � —� N firs ssne 4— m OT d y ai O1 4 Oo_ 0 ��� IHB IIM M N y^ I T m O C E° °m 0 N US m LS � N N 0 C y in C co N cn N N w !� Q W Q ¢ F- /a. z V Q z H U- Li O 1, J 0 m V / w Q 0¢ z z '^ a Qj b Z� w J z MM-t n c d OI d J 3 � z U (J U LL 444 •00 w . s a s •00 ■J71 c i FTJ • • d �- ..J r Le, I•tl o � m 76e--a1 w N 0 d m CN CL N m N m cv 3 fl] c m a c N N Q1 ¢ LL wl O ,an V _z Z W D w w H J O co ¢ m a z Q H Z U) v/ LL 0 } F- Ab vJ W F- ay U W O'^- 6 VJ J a cn Q a N z W W _Z z J Z J W C d OI d J N a 41<030 •00 ■Cl❑ J a G G p Y dl g0 N, o • • o •� c O O IF O a o v e o • — o • F I 75C -814 a _m m C o CL a� m U � � m 6 3 N c N • a C 3 7 .. m a C m c (1) U3 N cc w LL E� rh MIN F- w 3 O a. a. O Z_ Z w 0 w w U) J O F- Q m Q Z Q r Z Q LL O r F U W H am C UW O�= //�/ 4 V/ rr^^ a co G Q N Z w Qw z 0 i J w J C d d J 3 � U V U 414<1 * 0 0 i F m m F m r W � W m IL IL LL u u 9 p ¢ 0 m E 2 E 000 m!1 1' 3NIl HO1VW 3AV 3AV N30NIO3 0 O a 3 v is N011N GOOMN310 c N30WV0 m °O 3NNV m� ld • a onNld3o d � d N • 4 • o N , m d 4 a 3A f r s c Z U c 2' O N m U a ro m � y aw w_ ym c 3 N m c ro c m fn m Q Q Z Q Q f" Z a LL 0 U w Q U� O2 o Z b N 77 N � w o Q 2 w J 3 rh mp a c m m d J U r s 9 £ U U J LL Z 444 •00 ill ill Pi F F F •00 MID ,-1 16 y_BTltlif d EI < E4777 16 1nNlrm 4 4 �I O � O 16 3NId I Moo m, MIHUIIM 0 LLI mr C) O¢ N Z Z VQ( � b N_ w W cZ (7 o J w 3 401 F-¢ 0 W Q v O N d Z a w Q) LL C Z L m U � cis W W F- C F. N CA N In J ¢ 0 F- N Cc M LLI mr C) O¢ N Z Z VQ( � b N_ w W cZ (7 o J w 3 401 c d m m J F 8 � 3 w 4aa •oo m vi e3 i � i •0G ■0❑ L� 1 fi P 119 7 �a a.a. �t ♦[w TFE .a O O O D PIP Ell � 4 • d • • d • O 4 0 • • • (FF— s Z E s O a � � T U c 0 aW fll c Ul a C �+ m C [V N N LL r� F- V W U m a. CD z z W W W CO F_ J O F- L 07 Q z Q z Q LL O } F- U V/ W Q W U = O Z (n a a Q N zw W Q = 00 J = W J r 'O C N QI d 1 b LL E LL A� A LL LL LL LL •00 ■11L s a ■ G ■ • a JL �. GN W / • I�1 / y / Y � �i ■ � r €O � ■ °,l 4 • f 10 02 I ° d !O H 75C -818 c O N m U v a N aW N a_ C }+ N" 3 m c m .0 N N LL U W O cr a cD z z W ?O 7 W W W- r J O F E m Q z Q F- z Q U- 0 } H U W H Q G UW z O/ a /�z V/ J d :n Q N z w W Q = Z J W J ►Eq t ATTACHMENT D Caltrans Relocation Program 75C -819 I. RELOCATION ASSISTANCE ADVISORY SERVICES The Department of Transportation will provide relocation advisory assistance to any person, business, farm or non- profit organization displaced as a result of the Department's acquisition of real property for public use. The Department will assist displacees in obtaining replacement housing by providing current and continuing information on the avail- ability and prices of houses for sale and rental units that are comparable, decent, safe, and sanitary. Nonresidential displacees will receive information on comparable properties for lease or purchase. For business, farm and nonprofit organization relocation services, see Section III. Residential replacement dwellings will be in equal or better neighborhoods at rents or prices within the financial means of the individuals and families displaced, and reasonably accessible to their places of employment. Before any displacement occurs, comparable replacement dwellings will be offered to displacees that are fair housing open to all persons regardless of race, color, religion, sex or national origin and consistent with the requirements of Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968. This assistance will also include the supplying of information concerning Federal and State assisted housing programs and any other known services being offered by public and private agencies in the area. 75C -820 The Department will monitor on a continuing basis the needs of all displaced persons in order to minimize hardship to such persons. II. RESIDENTIAL RELOCATION PAYMENTS PROGRAM The Relocation Payments Program will help eligible residential occupants by paying certain costs and expenses. These costs are limited to those necessary for or incidental to the purchasing or renting of the replacement dwelling and actual reasonable moving expenses to a new location within 50 -miles of the displacees property. Any actual moving costs in excess of the 50 -miles are the responsibility of the displacee. The Residential Relocation Program can be summarized as follows: (1) Moving Costs Any displaced person, who was "lawfully" in occupancy of the acquired property regardless of the length of occupancy in the property acquired, will be eligible for reimbursement of moving costs. Displacees will receive, either the actual reasonable costs involved in moving themselves and personal property up to a maximum of 50 miles, or a fixed payment based on the number of furnished or unfurnished rooms of their present dwelling, not to exceed $300.00. In addition, residential dis- placees choosing the fixed room count method, will be granted a flat $200.00 dislocation allowance for a maximum of $500.00 under the fixed moving cost method. The dislocation allowance is designed to cover incidental moving expenses such as utility deposits, utility connections, cable TV and phone hook -ups. 75C -821 (2) Purchase Supplement In addition to moving and related expense payments, fully eligible homeowners may also be entitled to payments for increased costs of replacement housing, if any. Homeowners who have owned and occupied their property for 180 days prior to the date of the first written offer to purchase, may qualify to receive a price differential payment. If this payment is made, the Department determines that the cost to buy a replace- ment dwelling is more than the amount being paid for the displacent dwelling. In addition, these owner - occupants may also qualify to receive payments for certain nonrecurring costs incidental to the purchase of a replacement property. An Interest Differential Payment is also available if the interest rate for the loan(s) on the replacement dwelling is higher than the loan(s) on the displacement dwelling. The maximum combination of these three supplemental payments that the owner - occupants can receive is $15,000.00. If the total entitlement (without the moving payments) is in excess of $15,000.00, the last resort housing program will be used. See Section 5, for an explanation. 75C -822 (3) Rent Supplement Tenants who have occupied the property to be acquired by the Department for 90 days or more and owner - occupants of 90 to 179 days prior to the date of the first written offer to purchase may qualify to receive a rental differential payment. This payment is made when the Department determines that the cost to rent a replace- ment dwelling will be more than the present rent of the displacement dwelling. As an alternative, the tenant may qualify for a down payment benefit designed to assist in the purchase of a replacement property and the payment of certain costs incidental to its purchase. See section 4. The maximum amount payable to any tenant of 90 days or more and any owner - occupant of 90 to 179 days, in addi- tion to moving expenses, will be $4,000.00. If the total entitlement for rent supplement exceeds $4,000.00, the last resort housing program will be used. See Section 5, for an explanation. The rent supplement of $4,000.00 or less will be paid in a lump sum unless the displacee requests that it be paid in installments. In addition to the occupancy requirements, the displaced person must rent and occupy a "decent, safe, and sanitary" replace- ment dwelling within one year from the date the Department takes legal possession of the property, or from the date displacee vacates the Department- acquired property, whichever is later. 75C -823 (4) Down Pavment The down payment option has been designed to aid owner occupants of 90 to 179 days and tenants with no less than 90 days of continuous occupancy prior to the Department's first written offer to purchase a replacement dwelling. The down payment and incidental expenses cannot exceed the maximum payment of $4,000.00. The Department will determine the maximum down payment that the displacee may be eligible to receive based on typical down payments required for the financing of a comparable dwelling with a conventional loan. There is a "matching requirement," however, if the total required down payment and other eligible costs exceed $2,000.00. The displacee will receive $2,000.00 plus 50 percent of any amount required in excess of $2,000.00 on a matching basis up to the maximum of $4,000.00. This means that the displaced person, eligible as defined above, will be required to invest $2,000.00 of his own funds in order to receive the maximum $4,000.00 under this option. The one -year eligibility period in which to purchase and occupy a "decent, safe, and sanitary" replacement dwelling will apply. (5) Last Resort Housing Federal regulations (49CFR Section 25) contain the policy and procedure for implementing the Last Resort Housing Program on Federal -Aid projects. The State Department of Transportation, in order to maintain 75C -824 uniformity in the program has also adopted these Federal guidelines on non - Federal -Aid highway projects. Last resort housing benefits are, except for the amounts of payments and the methods of making them, the same as those benefits for standard relocation as explained above. Last resort housing has been designed primarily to cover situations where displacees cannot be relocated because of the lack of available compara- ble replacement housing, or when their anticipated replacement housing payments exceed the $4,000.00 and $15,000.00 limits of the standard relocation procedures. In certain exceptional situations, last resort housing may also be used for tenants of less than 90 -days. After the first written offer to acquire the property has been made, the Department will, within a reasonable length of time, personally contact the displacees to gather important information relating to: (a) Preferences in area of relocation; (b) Number of people to be displaced and distribution of adults and children according to age and sex; (c) Location of schools and employment; (d) Special arrangements needed to accommodate any handicapped member of the family; (e) Financial ability to relocate into a comparable replacement dwelling which will house all members of the family decently 75C-825 The above explanation is general in nature and not intended to be a complete explanation of relocation regulations. Any questions concerning relocation should be addressed to the Department of Transportation. Any person to be displaced will be assigned a Relocation Advisor, who will work closely with each displacee in order to see that all payments and benefits are fully utilized, and that all regulations are observed, thereby avoiding the possibility of displacees jeopardizing or forfeiting any of their benefits or payments. III. BUSINESS AND FARM RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM The Business and Farm Relocation Assistance Program provides for aid in locating a suitable replacement property, and reimbursement for certain costs involved in relocation. The Relocation Advisory Assistance Program will provide current lists of properties offered for sale or rent suitable for specific relocation needs. The types of payments available to businesses, farms and non- profit organizations can be summarized as follows: (1) Moving expenses include the following actual reasonable costs: The moving of inventory, machinery, office equipment and similar business - related personal property, dismantling, disconnecting, crating, packing, loading, insuring, transporting, unloading, unpacking, and reconnecting of personal property. 75C -826 (2) Loss of tangible personal property provides payment to relocate for "actual direct" losses of personal property that the owner elects not to move. (3) Expenses related to searching for a new business site can be reimbursed up to $1,000.00 for actual reasonable costs incurred. (4) Payment "in lieu" of moving expense is available to businesses which are expected to suffer a substantial loss of existing patronage as a result of the displacement, or if certain other require- ments such as inability to find a suitable relocation site are met. This payment is an amount equal to the average annual net earnings for the last two taxable years prior to relocation. Such payment may not be less than $2,500.00 and not more than $10,000.00. In lieu payments to non- profit organizations are limited to $2,500.00. 75C -827 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Reimbursement for moving costs and replacement housing payments are not considered income for the purpose of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, or resources for the purpose of determining the extent of eligibility of a displacee for assistance under the Social Security Act, local "Section 8" Housing Programs, or other Federal Assistance Programs. Persons who are eligible for relocation payments and who are legally occupying the property required for the project will not be asked to move without first being given at least 90 days advance notice, in writing. Occupants of any type of dwelling, eligible for relocation payments, will not be required to move unless at least one comparable "decent, safe, and sanitary" replacement residence, which is open to all persons regardless of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, is available or has been made available to them by the State. Any person, business, farm, or nonprofit organization which has been refused a relocation payment by the Department of Transportation or believes that the payments offered are inadequate may appeal for a special hearing of their complaint. No legal assistance is required. Information about the appeal procedure is available from a Department of Transportation Relocation Advisor. 75C -828 The preceding information is not intended to be a complete statement of all the Department's laws and regulations. At the time of the first written offer to purchase, owner - occupants are given a more detailed explanation of the State's relocation services. Tenant occupants of properties to be acquired are contacted immediately after the first written offers to purchase, and also given a more detailed explanation of the Department's Relocation Programs. Important Notice To avoid loss of possible benefits, no individual, family, business, farm, or nonprofit organization should commit to purchase or rent a replacement property without first contacting a Department of Transportation Relocation Advisor. Additional information or copies of the Department regula- tions regarding the Relocation Assistance Program can be obtained by writing to: State of California Department of Transportation P. 0. Box 2304, Terminal Annex Los Angeles, California 90051 75C -829 ST ANDREW PL CARLT�ON PL CARLTON PL GLENWOOD PL GLENWOOD PL CAMDEN P ` 1 CAMDEN PL I � 1 I ST AN PL T ANNE PL I I � ST GERTRUDE PL r- i �---- ST GERTRUDE PL _J J L-2 WARNER AV (DELHI RD) -,1 r- ._ (SCALE NTS) ® PROJECT AREA EXHIBIT 2 RESOLUTION TO ADOPT ADDENDUM., TO FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT $ t savrA ANA STATEMENT /ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CITY COUNCIL REPORT FOR THE BRISTOL STREET if P W A AGENDA DATE: IMPROVEMENTS AND WIDENING PROJECT — u APRIL 7, 2015 BETWEEN WARNER AVENUE AND PU9L�C woaks a�EN�. SAINT ANDREW PLACE. PAGE 1 of 1 75C -830 75C -831 August 2014 CITY OF SANTA ANA Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) Environmental Impact Report Addendum PROJECT NUMBER; 733667 PRO✓ECTCONTACT,. Court Morgan EMAIL: court morgar @powerang. mm PHONE: 949-436 -3453 POWER s ENGINEERS Exhibit 3 75C -832 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) Environmental Impact Report Addendum PREPARED FOR: CITY OF SANTA ANA PREPARED BY. COURTMORGAN 714- 507 -2764 CO URT. MOR GAN @POWERENG. COM 75C -833 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM Bristol Street Wldeninq Prolect Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. ..............................1 1.1 PURPOSE OF AN ADDENDUM .............................................................................. ............................... 2 1.2 PROJECT LOCATION ............................................................................................ ............................... 4 1.1.1 Existing Land Uses ........................................................................................................ ..............................4 1.3 PROJECT BACK GROUND ................................................................................... ............................... 10 1.3.1 Approved 1990 Final EM/ EIS ...................................................................................... .............................10 1.3.2 Adopted Transportation Improvement Program ........................................................... .............................10 1.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................... ............................. 11 1.4.1 Bristol Street Widening Phase IV Project Area ........................................................... ............................... 11 1.4.2 Property Acquisition ..................................................................................................... .............................11 1.4.3 Changes as Compared to the Approved Project ............................................................ .............................15 1.4.4 Construction Timeframe ............................................................................................... .............................16 1.5 DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS .................................................................................. ............................. 16 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECK LIST ................................................................... .............................19 2.1 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................. ............................... 19 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES .......................................................... .............................21 3.1 AESTHETICS ........................................................................................................ .............................21 3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................ ............................... 22 3.3 AIR QUALITY .................................................................................................... ............................... 23 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ................................................................................. ............................... 32 3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES .................................................................................... ............................... 33 3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ....................................................................................... ............................... 34 3.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ......................................................................... ............................... 36 3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ........................................................ ............................... 37 3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ................................................................ ............................... 39 3.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING ............................................................................... ............................... 43 3.11 MINERAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................ ............................. 43 3.12 NOISE .................................................................................................................. .............................44 3.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING ............................................................................. ............................... 49 3.14 PUBLIC SERVICES ............................................................................................. ............................... 50 3.15 RECREATION .................................................................................................... ............................... 51 3.16 TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC ............................................................................. ............................... 51 3.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ................................................................... ............................... 53 3.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ....................................................... ............................... 54 ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU i 75C -834 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) 4.0 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................... .............................56 FIGURES FIGURE 1 REGIONAL LOCATION ..................................................................................... ............................... 7 FIGURE 2 PROJECT LOCATION ........................................................................................ ............................... 8 FIGURE 3 EXISTING LAND USES FROM 1990 FINAL EIS/ EIR ......................................... ............................... 9 FIGURE 4 PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS ............................................................................ ............................... 14 FIGURE 5 PROPOSED PROJECT LAYOUT ....................................................................... ............................... 17 FIGURE 6 PROPOSED LANE GEOMETRICS - 1990 FINAL EIS/EIR ................................ ............................... 18 FIGURE 7A NOISE MONITORING AND MODELING LOCATIONS ................................... ............................... 46 FIGURE 7B NOISE MONITORING AND MODELING LOCATIONS ................................... ............................... 47 TABLES TABLE 1 EXISTING LAND USES ...................................................................................... ..............................4 TABLE 2 PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS ............................................................................ ............................... 12 TABLE 3 PROJECT RELATED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS ........................................... ............................... 25 TABLE 4 YEAR 2015 WITH AND WITHOUT PROJECT AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS ..... ............................... 27 TABLE 5 YEAR 2035 WITH AND WITHOUT PROJECT AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS ..... ............................... 28 TABLE LOCALIZED SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS ANALYSIS FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES .............. 30 TABLE 7 CO HOTSPOT ANALYSIS (PPM) ..................................................................... ............................... 31 TABLE 8 LOCAL SCHOOLS WITHIN THE PHASE IV PROJECT AREA ............................. ............................... 38 APPENDIX A ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) USA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 75C -835 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) 1.0 INTRODUCTION This Addendum has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as amended, to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed changes to the widening of Bristol Street, from Warner Avenue to Memory Lane as proposed in the Project Final Environmental hnpact Statement / Environmental Impact Report (FEIS /EIR) approved in 1990 (FHWA -CA- EIS- 89 -01- F; SCH No. 87071509). This Addendum focuses on the segment of Bristol Street between Warner Avenue and Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV, or Project) and is limited to the proposed improvements to this segment. This Addendum provides an assessment of potential environmental impacts associated with minor design modifications and the issue of climate change which was not addressed in the previously prepared and certified FEIS /EIR. Design modifications to the Project, since approval of the 1990 FEIS /EIR, that are addressed in this Addendum include the following: • The proposed Project increases the total right -of -way width from 120 feet to 128 feet. The proposed Project right- of-way cross- section would maintain a curb -to -curb width of 100 feet, would accommodate a 7 -foot wide bike lane on each side of the roadway, and would not affect the number or width of vehicular travel lanes as compared to the right -of -way cross - section addressed in the 1990 FEIS/EIR. However, the proposed Project right -of -way cross section, as compared to the right- of-way cross section addressed in the 1990 FEIS /EIR, would reduce the width of the sidewalks from 10 to 8 feet and also accommodate a 6 -foot wide parkway on each side of Bristol Street to separate pedestrian and vehicular travel; a parkway was not included as part of the roadway cross section addressed in the 1990 FEIS /EIR. Acquisition of property resulting from the proposed Project right - of -way is accounted for in this analysis. • The centerline alignment has been shifted to the west starting at St. Gertrude instead of starting at Glenwood Place with the addition of 4 -feat to the original 20 -foot shift. The street centerline then shifted back 4 -feet to the east at St. Andrew in order to match the existing centerline north of St. Andrew. By shifting the centerline at St. Gertrude, the Phase IV Project saved eight parcels from full take by reducing these parcels to partial acquisitions. • A bus turnout would be located at the Warner Avenue. • Change right -of -way requirement from full take to partial take of the following single - family residential parcels: 015- 215 -10 (150 square feet), 015- 215 -11 (50 square feet), 015- 214 -10 (50 square feet), 015- 234 -10 (50 square feet), 015- 233 -11 (50 square feet), 015- 233 -10 (50 square Feet), 015- 232 -11 (50 square feet), and (015- 232 -10 (50 square feet). • Change right -of -way requirement from full take to partial take of Parcel 408- 336 -17 (3,466 square feet). • Land use for the current Project has been changed compared to the 1990 FEIS. The following parcels have been changed from Park to Park with Commercial Option: 015- 194 -38 and 015 -194- 39. • Preceding project phase inclusive of the following parcel which is no longer included in the Phase IV Project right -of -way requirements: 015- 194 -40. It should be noted that the 1990 FEIS and 2013 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Reevaluation (URS Corporation) provided comprehensive noise barriers at all easterly parcel boundaries currently fronting the east side of Bristol Street between Warner Avenue and Saint Andrew Place and comprehensive noise barriers at all westerly parcel boundaries currently fronting the west side of Bristol Street between ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 75C -836 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) West Saint Gertrude Place and Saint Andrew Place. Using the California Department of Transportation's (Caltrans) May 2011 Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, the following noise barriers (NB) were determined to be reasonable: NB -4, NB -5, NB -6, NB -7, NB -8, NB -9, NB -10, and NB -11. These noise barriers are generally equivalent to the recommended noise barriers shown in the 1990 FEIS and 2013 Reevaluation. However, barriers NB -6, NB -7, NB -8, and NB -9 would need to be shifted to the west of the receivers (parcels) that are no longer being acquired. The modifications and other refinements to the project would not create any additional impacts than what was identified in the 2013 NEPA Reevaluation; thus, there would be no changes or additions to the avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures. Furthermore, as climate change is a relatively new area of discussion, the topic was not discussed in the Air Quality section of the previously approved FEIS /EIR. As such, this Addendum analyzes the effects of climate change associated with the construction and operation of the Project. This Addendum to the previously certified 1990 Final EIS /EIR has been prepared because project - related modifications to the Bristol Street alignment do not trigger the need for further environmental analysis in a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR under the requirements of CEQA or CEQA Guidelines (refer to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15164 and 15167). 1.1 Purpose of an Addendum Under CEQA, when an EIR has been certified for a project, no Subsequent FIR may be required for that project unless the lead agency determines, based upon substantial evidence, that one or more specified circumstances has occurred. Only if one or more of the following circumstances arises is a Subsequent FIR required: 1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revision of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revision of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or 3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete, shows any of the following: A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR; B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15162[a]) A Supplement to an FIR (or Supplemental EIR), which is narrower in scope than a Subsequent EIR, may be prepared if any of the above criteria apply, but "[o]nly minor changes or additions would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation" (CEQA Guidelines Section 15163[a]). In the absence of the need to prepare either a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR, an Addendum may be prepared. Section 15164 states: ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 75C -837 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) (a) The lead agency or a responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent FIR have occurred. (b) An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred. (c) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR or adopted negative declaration. (d) The decision making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR or adopted negative declaration prior to making a decision on the project. (e) A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency's findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15164) This Addendum to the previously certified Final EIS/EIR for the Approved Project has been prepared because the evaluation of the proposed modifications does not result in any of the circumstances requiring a Subsequent or Supplemental EIS/EIR. As shown in this Addendum, although the proposed modifications would result in development that differs from that in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR, they do not trigger the need for preparation of a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR under the criteria listed in Sections 15162(a) and 15163(a). Sections 2 and 3 of this Addendum demonstrate that no substantial changes are proposed in the approved project or have occurred in the area of the Bristol Street Widening Phase IV project located between Warner Avenue and St. Andrew Place that will require major revisions to the previously certified 1990 Final EIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Specifically, the proposed modifications do not result in new or substantially greater significant impacts because the scale and nature of the development proposed are sufficiently similar to that analyzed in the 1990 Final EIS/EIR that the impacts of the proposed modifications are within the levels and types of environmental impacts disclosed in the 1990 Final EIS/EIR. Additionally, no substantial changes in circumstances under Section 15162(a)(2) have occurred since the certification of the 1990 Final EIS /EIR for the approved project that would implicate new significant impacts or substantially increase the severity of significant impacts previously identified, since the background environmental conditions have not significantly changed since that time. The City of Santa Ana has received no information indicating there has been a substantial change in any circumstances that would result in a new or substantially greater significant impact. Furthermore, no new information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time of the 1990 Final EIS /EIR preparation, has been revealed that shows new or substantially greater significant impacts will result (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3)). In addition, there are no new or different Mitigation Measures or Alternatives that would substantially reduce one or more significant impacts of the approved project but that are not adopted. The proposed modifications do not identify or require adoption of any further Mitigation Measures or Alternatives beyond those provided in the certified 1990 Final EIS/EIR for the approved project, since additional Mitigation Measures are either not necessary or not feasible, and the Alternatives analyzed in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR represent a reasonable range as requested by CEQA (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3)). The Addendum relies on the certified 1990 Final EIS/EIR and the related administrative record, in addition to the additional documentation included to support the Addendum, including the appendices. The Addendum is to be included or attached to the 1990 Final EIS/EIR and is not to be considered as an independent or separate document. As this Addendum does not identify new or substantially greater significant impacts, circulation for public review and comment is not necessary pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(c). However, the City ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 3 75C -838 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ADDENDUM Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) Council will consider and adopt or reject this Addendum at a public meeting prior to the approval of the proposed Bristol Street Widening Phase IV project (refer to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(4)). The findings of the City Council in its resolution of adoption of this Addendum, if adopted, will reflect this Addendum which provides the basis and substantial evidence for the decision not to prepare a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR (refer to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(e)). 1.2 Project Location The project site is located on a segment of Bristol Street between Warner Avenue to Saint Andrew Place in the City of Santa Ana. The City of Santa Ana, located within the County of Orange, is surrounded by the Cities of Tustin, Orange, Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, and Garden Grove. The proposed project site is located approximately 1.5 miles north of the San Diego Freeway (I -405) and approximately three miles south of State Route 22 (SR -22). Refer to Figure 1 and Figure 2 for the regional map and project location map with proposed roadway alignment and widening. 1.1.1 Existing Land Uses The project area and surrounding vicinity is located within a fully urbanized area of the City. The existing land uses along the project corridor consist of commercial and single - family residential developments. There are no outdoor activities associated with the commercial developments in the project area. The existing single - family residences consist of single -story homes of varying sizes, and include outdoor areas of frequent human use (i.e., rear and side yards). According to the current City of Santa Ana General Plan, land use designation for the affected parcels fronting Bristol Street within the vicinity of the Bristol Street Widening Phase IV project area and existing land uses are summarized in the Table 1 Existing Land Uses. The majority of surrounding areas beyond the project site are similar to the development typology along Bristol Street Widening Phase IV which includes single family residences, multi - family residences and various commercial and retail facilities. Figure 3 (Existing Land Uses from the 1990 Final EIS/EIR]), illustrates the existing land uses identified for Bristol Street Widening Phase IV as part of the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. It should be noted that while the Phase IV project area stretches along Bristol Street from Warner Avenue to Saint Andrew Place, Bristol Street at Edinger Avenue is also included as part of the project study area however, Bristol Street from Saint Andrew to Edinger has already been widened and is not a part of Phase IV. The locations of the full or partial acquisitions are shown on Figure 4. TABLE 1 EXISTING LAND USES ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) USA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 75C -839 APN ADDRESS GENERAL PLAN ZONING EXISTING LAND U5E DESIGNATION 015- 191 -11 1235 W Saint OS SP1 Single Family Residential Gertrude PI 015 - 194 -17 2101 S Bristol St OS SP1 Commercial (Mortgage Office) 015 - 194 -20 2115 S Bristol St OS SP1 Commercial (Lawnmower/ Equipment Repair 015 - 194 -21 2119 S Bristol St OS SP1 Parking 015 - 194 -22 2123 S Bristol St OS SP1 Commercial (Palm /Tarot Reading in Single Family Residential) 015 - 194 -23 2201 S Bristol St OS SP1 Single Family Residential 015 - 194 -24 2205 S Bristol St OS SP1 Single Family Residential ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) USA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 75C -839 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) 015-194-25 -,algmg n-gl MY 2209 S Bristol St Os SPI IMP Commercial (Dentist) 015-194-28 2223 S Bristol St PIC Spi Commercial (Real Estate Office) 015-194-29 2227 S Bristol St PIC Spi Commercial (Costume Rental) 015-194-36 2231 S Bristol St PIC Spi Commercial (Dentist) 015-194-38 2215 S Bristol St PIC Spi Commercial (Ambulance Services) 015-194-39 2219 S Bristol St PIC SPI Commercial (Ambulance Services) 015-194-41 2109 S Bristol St OS Spi Commercial (Dentist) 015-214-10 1241 Camden P1 OS Spi Single Family Residential 015-215-10 1241 Saint Anne P1 OS SPI Single Family Residential 015-215-11 1242 Camden PI Os Spi Single Family Residential 015-216-01 1242 Saint Anne PI OS SPI Single Family Residential 015-232-10 1242 W Saint AndrE i OS Spi Single Family Residential 015-232-11 1241 Carlton PI OS Spi Single Family Residential 015-233-10 1242 Carlton PI OS Spi Single Family Residential 015-233-11 1241 W Glenwood I OS SIDI Single Family Residential 015-234-10 1242 W Glenwood I OS SPI Single Family Residential 408-332-01 1302 W Saint AndrE pi OS SPI Single Family Residential 408-332-17 1305 W Carlton PI LR7 R2 Single Family Residential 408-332-18 1301 W Carlton PI OS SPI Single Family Residential 408-333-01 1302 W Carlton PI OS SPI Single Family Residential 408-333-02 1306 W Carlton PI LR7 R2 Single Family Residential 408-333-18 1301 W Glenwood I OS Spi Single Family Residential 408-334-01 2034 S Bristol St OS Spi Single Family Residential 408-334-17 1305 W Camden PI LR7 R2 Single Family Residential 408-334-18 1301 W Camden PI OS Spi Single Family Residential 408-335-01 1302 W Camden PI OS Spi Single Family Residential 408-335-02 1306 W Camden PI LR7 R2 Single Family Residential 408-335-17 1305 W Saint Anne LR7 R2 Single Family Residential 408-335-18 1301 W Saint Anne OS Spi Single Family Residential ANA 305-194 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 75C-840 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) rrr�' `L✓a�"} 5" k_ ai -.: -S e' i <j -., Ya {i. '.'"� -� ;^ i' C a.2� �Fyt$4��, N'�i�'� I�' �*�a �s of 408- 336 -01 1302 W Saint Anne OS SP1 Single Family Residential 408 - 336 -02 1306 W Saint Anne LR7 R2 Single Family Residential 408- 336 -17 2040 S Bristol St LR7 /OS R2 /SP1 Vacant 408 - 471 -01 2102 S Bristol St GC C2 /SP1 Commercial (Restaurant) 408- 471 -05 2222 S Bristol St GC C2 /SP1 Commercial (Strip Mall) 408- 471 -06 2240 S Bristol St GC C2 1SP1 Commercial (Florist) 408 - 471 -17 2130 S Bristol St GC C2 /SP1 Commercial (Shopping Plaza) Notes: General Plan Designations: GC = General Commercial, LR7 = Low Density Residential, OS = Open Space, PIC = Park with Commercial Zoning Designations: SP1= Bristol Street Corridor Specific Plan, R1= Single Family Residential, R2 = Two-Family Residential, C2 = General Commercial Parcel 015- 194 -40 located at 2235 S Bristol Stwas not included in this list as itwas acquired by the City of Santa Ana as partof a separate preceding project. AN 305 -194 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 75C -841 FIGURE 1 REGIONAL LOCATION ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) 75C -842 �KERN'CU. — — ,� OREGON IDAHO F d � s ^� V. L9master 'ate 5 NEVADA UTAH'. a r. �F Imdale AdeldnI CALIFORNIA "i,RIZON aKy S /Oyga pn LEGEND * PROJECT LOCATION PACIFIC OCEAN F 1` FIGURE 1 REGIONAL LOCATION N BRISTOL STREET WIDENING PROJECT WARNERAVENUE TO ST. ANDREW PLACE ® Miles (PHASE IV) 0 5 10 15 75C -843 FIGURE 2 PROJECT LOCATION ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) 75C -844 PC1Rk yitloaLy - �i Ail Wypllhls fit �1 I I� 'dl iv ciifri r. I K GP ii. i 55 wilw[PP6t i It �( mil jl 1RlrNiandSt l �t 3 i e'� 7 ��� WWISlenaP, p i i I,. II,t 6 i�l i.A }t�J J n tt `� ¢c 1--- ) _ I` i Hev�Ny PI. m l if i ( m, III w� t ir if Ell if Il611 Si �� i> p� II i I, I Lt I 91ddwd I i L it !' s ll I i = vl WEld -f AVe h It ` q Il r (` nl I L _ d ' n zfl i �AVWHU}( 9p�) `wTe :w`li bar n �& k( no 5ffi I. if m o wu,ifflsl dV st r GartVm e1lt' ` I it Hirvaril5t �� Foil li !n4 l�n'�l .'z _ gJ NwTSo-rHY r +� G II—W AneIUtfit P,I - if -. it _ -i! I s w _ 1 1 I U= _II L m If WHe1iVV li if i S s I, w.l mI ilk l �. i ECxnIF rot f I_ n �jc i �ti _ w If t 2 1 p L 1 3: Ii st WH6'fevoRWnf. il . to ifiPm)an I -_ , a t Y9 p r I t 1 e., .r AVc i ,n Ldllo 1 AbnA,c j ll NIh3 y tt _ i n 1 1 VC. i=Ave W Be! AV, _ R1 ( W 3 t'ltlpt * 6lvtl I _ IIf, Av2 — �qfu aR>�r4 _ _ Ks z cent R, itl Santa Ana " o� K04 ,. ", Costa Mesa I i r ,. °•i.. LEGEND FIGURE 2 PROPOSEDIMPROVEMENTS PROJECT LOCATION N BRISTOL STREET WIDENING PROJECT WARNER AVENUE TO ST. ANDREW PLACE ® Feel (PHASE IV) 0 1,000 2,000 FOI IRCF ARCGI.S ONI INF. NATPF0 WORT D MAP ACOFRSFO Ni 75C -845 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) FIGURE 3 EXISTING LAND USES FROM 1990 FINAL EIS /EIR ANA 305494 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 75C -846 tJ Q wa W N aw M0 =m W Q W LU o 2 uj ww � (D �o¢ U M ww� 0 3AY pli V" U) N� wa W �w VA V XpYOt a m UR NY. VAV Yip X103 v�� p,Sy •,r��+i't� + S r x >)q3 t a 1pplYli AW1X3Mtlt' 0.'e'lrTf�'vi y ++' MINOMV -It � pF J � li Mp11tlVp zU ZO q6 Ll � � O � lv pO0MXi1t �j z g H yuLL N ,� oa W m u D r7 ? NV— O NWM Z Oz wy UO iXNY 'lt S� .J 'W'llll�ll� eNXY is ° L° •. z� w? �w tp tl1Yi0 'Lt ° >a }r � w I z wa Fo C yw 3AY Yt MYVM r N Um0 OK Nm 75C -847 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) 1.3 Project Background 1.3.1 Approved 1990 Final EIRIEIS The City of Santa Ana General Plan has designated Bristol Street as a Major Arterial Highway traveling in a north -south direction. As a result of significant growth and traffic congestion on Bristol Avenue, the City, in the late 1980s, proposed to widen Bristol Street from a four -lane roadway to a six -lane arterial in accordance with adopted County of Orange and City of Santa Ana standards for a Major Arterial Highway. A joint EIS /EIR was prepared and approved by the City of Santa Ana and Caltrans for the widening of Bristol Street in 1990. The 1990 project entailed a 3.9 -mile segment of Bristol Street from Warner Avenue on the south to Memory Lane on the north. Due to significant costs associated with construction and availability of funding, the project was divided into several construction phases; Phase 1 from Warner Avenue north to First Street, Phase 2 consisting of the widening and reconstruction of the bridge which crosses Santiago Creels (northerly limits of the street widening project), and Phase 3 between First Street and Memory Lane. The 1990 Final EIS /EIR document (SCH No. 87071509) was approved on November 19, 1990. The 1990 Final EIS /EIR and associated technical studies, incorporated herein by reference, documented the environmental impacts of widening Bristol Street from Warner Avenue to Memory Lane in the City of Santa Ana. As stated in the 1990 Final EIS/EIR, the purpose and goals of the Bristol Street Widening project were to: 1) Provide sufficient roadway capacity to accommodate current and future traffic demand. 2) Improve the performance and safety of the roadway for the benefit of the motoring public. 3) To reduce current and projected future delays experienced at major intersections and to design intersections to function at acceptable Levels of Service (LOS). 4) To design the roadway in manner conducive to the provision of public transportation, namely bus service provided by the Orange County Transit District (OCTD). 1.3.2 Adopted Transportation Improvement Program The Approved Project is included as project number ORA125 in the regional emissions analysis conducted by Southern California Association of Governments (SLAG) for the conforming 2013 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) adopted by SCAG on September 19, 2012 and approved by FHWA on December 14, 2012. As provided in the FTIP, the Approved Project description reads as follows: BRISTOL ST (WARNER TO MEMORY LANE) WIDEN FROM 4 TO 6 LANES (IMPV AT BRISTOL /WARNER (ADD ATIEBISB THRULNS; WB RT TRNLN) AND BRISTOL /FIRST (ADD NBISB THR U INS, SBLFTIRTITRNINS The Phase IV project is a component of the Approved Project. The Phase IV Project's design concept and scope have not changed significantly from what was analyzed in the RTIP and FTIP. This analysis found that the plan and, therefore, the individual projects contained in the plan, are conforming projects, and would have air quality impacts consistent with those identified in the state implementation plans (SIPS) for achieving the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). FHWA determined the RTIP to conform to the SIP. The Phase IV Project's open to the public year is consistent with (within the same regional emission analysis period as) the construction completion date identified in the FTIP and /or RTP. The FTIP gives priority to eligible Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) identified in the SIP and provides sufficient funds to provide for their implementation. FHWA determined the TIP to conform to the SIP on December 2010. ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 10 75C -848 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ADDENDUM Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) The Phase IV Project is also included in the 2013 TIP adopted by SCAG on September 6, 2012 and approved by FHWA on December 14, 2012. 1.4 Project Description 1.4.1 Bristol Street Widening Phase IV Project Area Phase IV of the Bristol Street Widening Project involves the widening of Bristol Street (between Warner Avenue to Saint Andrew Place) from 4 lanes to 6 lanes with a 150- foot -wide right -of -way cross section including a 14 -foot wide raised landscaped median; three 12- foot -wide through travel lanes in each direction; a 7 -foot wide Class 1I bike lane on each side of the roadway; a 15 -foot wide parkway, and 10 -foot sidewalk with curb ramps for wheelchair access pursuant to American with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) requirements on both sides of the roadway. As Bristol Street approaches the intersections between Warner Avenue and Saint Andrew Place, and between Warner Avenue and Glenwood Place, the landscaped center median would taper to accommodate right -tarn pockets and left -turn lanes in each direction. The landscaped center median would then continue north of the Glenwood Place intersection to match the existing raised center median approximately 380 feet south of Edinger Avenue. The addition of the landscaped center median would improve safety by preventing left -tum access to /from Saint Gertrude Place, Saint Anne Place, Camden Place, and Carlton Place to the newly widened Bristol Street. (Note: the intersection of Bristol Street and Saint Andrew Place would be converted to a right -turn only intersection in both directions.) Additionally, cul -de -sacs would be included on the west side of Bristol Street at Saint Anne Place, Camden Place, and Carlton Place to improve safety by preventing access to /from these streets to the newly widened Bristol Street. The location of the Phase IV Project is shown in Figure 1 and in Figure 2. Street signs and utilities including electric power lines, telephone poles, and street lighting would be relocated to new locations within the project area along Bristol Street. Street furniture, including the benches and bus shelters, will be provided at bus stop locations. During the one -year construction (approximately mid -2016 to mid- 2017), one lane in each direction would remain open and existing driveway accesses along Bristol Street would be retained at all rimes. Maximum excavation depth would be three feet for roadway excavation and 10 feet for utility /drainage excavation. Construction equipment would be those consistent with other similar roadway widening projects and likely would include excavators, loaders, backhoes, dump trucks, graders, pavers and rollers, and other construction trucks. 1.4.2 Property Acquisition To accommodate the street widening proposed by the Bristol Street Widening project, a combination of full and partial acquisition of right of way is required from a total of 43 residential and commercial parcels fronting Bristol Street from Warner Avenue to Saint Andrew Place (refer to Figure 4 [Property Acquisitions] for the locations of affected properties). Table 2 includes a listing of properties affected and the disposition of acquisition requirements. ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 75C -849 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ADDENDUM Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) TABLE 2 PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 12 75C -850 015 - 191 -11 - -- 1235 W. Saint Gertrude Place Single - Family Residential Full 6,493 015 - 194 -17 - -- 2101 S. Bristol Street Mortgage Full 5,389 015 - 194 -20 - -- 2115 S. Bristol Street Lawnmower/Equipment Repair Full 5,881 015 - 194 -21 - -- 2119 S. Bristol Street Parking Full 6,000 015 - 194 -22 - -- 2123 S Bristol Street Palm /Tarot Reading in Single- Family Residential Full 6,720 015 - 194 -23 - -- 2201 S. Bristol Street Single - Family Residential Full 6,720 015 - 194 -24 - -- 2205 S. Bristol Street Single - Family Residential Full 6,600 015 - 194 -25 - -- 2209S. Bristol Street Dental Office Full 5,880 015 - 194 -28 - -- 2223 S. Bristol Street Real Estate Office Full 6,120 015 - 194 -29 - -- 2227 S. Bristol Street Costume Rental Full 6,120 015 - 194 -36 - -- 2231 S. Bristol Street Dental Office Full 5,940 015 - 194 -38 - -- 2215 S. Bristol Street Ambulance Services Full 5,760 015 - 194 -39 - -- 2219 S. Bristol Street Ambulance Services Full 5,640 015 - 194 -41 - -- 2109 S. Bristol Street Dental Office Full 11,402 015 - 214 -10 RD 1241 Camden Place Single - Family Residential Partial 53 015 - 215 -10 RD 1241 Saint Anne Place Single - Family Residential Partial 209 015- 215 -11 RD 1242 Camden Place Single - Family Residential Partial 48 015 - 216 -01 - -- 1242 Saint Anne Place Single - Family Residential Full 6,556 015 - 232 -10 RD 1242 W. Saint Andrew Place Single - Family Residential Partial 50 015 - 232 -11 RD 1241 Carlton Place Single - Family Residential Partial 52 015 - 233 -10 RD 1242 Carlton Place Single - Family Residential Partial 46 015 - 233 -11 RD 1241 W. Glenwood Place Single - Family Residential Partial 51 015 - 234 -10 RD 1242 W. Glenwood Place Single - Family Residential Partial 50 408 - 332 -01 - -- 1302 W. Saint Andrew Place Single - Family Residential Full 8,262 408 - 332 -17 - -- 1305 W. Carlton Place Single- Family Residential Partial 450 408 - 332 -18 - -- 1301 W. Carlton Place Single- Family Residential Full 8,286 408 - 333 -01 - -- 1302 W. Carlton Place Single - Family Residential Full 8,286 408 - 333 -02 - -- 1306 W. Carlton Place Single - Family Residential Partial 450 ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 12 75C -850 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) 4 g iE ssYe 1�T4sLNJ U YM lt$ 408- 333 -18 - -- 1301 W. Glenwood Place Single - Family Residential Full 8,262 408 - 334 -01 - -- 2034 S. Bristol Street Single - Family Residential Full 7,531 408 - 334 -17 - -- 1305 W. Camden Place Single - Family Residential Partial 150 408 - 334 -18 - -- 1301 W. Camden Place Single - Family Residential Full 7,012 408- 335 -01 - -- 1302 W. Camden Place Single - Family Residential Full 7,009 408- 335 -02 - -- 1306 W. Camden Place Single - Family Residential Partial 150 408- 335 -17 - -- 1305 W. Saint Anne Place Single - Family Residential Partial 150 408 - 335 -18 - -- 1301 W. Saint Anne Place Single - Family Residential Full 7,012 408- 336 -01 - -- 1302 W. Saint Anne Place Single - Family Residential Full 7,012 408- 336 -02 - -- 1306 W. Saint Anne Place Single - Family Residential Partial 150 408 - 336 -17 RD 2040 S. Bristol Street Vacant Partial 3,466 408 - 471 -01 - -- 2102 S. Bristol Street Restaurant Full 11,079 408 - 471 -05 - -- 2222 S. Bristol Street Strip Mall Partial 1,415 408 - 471 -06 - -- 2240 S. Bristol Street Florist Full 21,169 408 - 471 -17 - -- 2130 S. Bristol Street Shopping Plaza Partial 17,076 Source: POWER Engineers, 2014. NOTES RD: Change in parcel boundaries or parcel impact subsequent to the 1990 FEIS and 2013 Reevaluation. -- No Change. The acquisition of property, as described herein, would comply with policies pursuant to the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 as implemented by the City of Santa Ana. ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 75C -851 13 FIGURE 4 PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) 75C -852 14 w Fc 9' u• a R i p �� d "i�� �.Fd ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM Bristol Street Widening Proiect Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) 1.4.3 Changes as Compared to the Approved Project It should be noted that project phasing has been revised from the original three phases identified in thel990 Final EIS /EIR. Construction phasing of the entire project segment has been further subdivided as follows: • St. Andrew Place to McFadden Avenue (Constructed in 2002) • Elm Street to Memory Lane (Constructed in 2003) • Pine Street to 3`d Street (Constructed in 2009) • Phase I: McFadden Avenue to Pine Street (Constructed in 2011)' • Phase IL• 3`d Street to Civic Center Drive (Construction to be completed in 2014) • Phase IIIA: Civic Center Drive to Washington Avenue • Phase IIIB: Washington Avenue to 17 "' Street • Phase IV: Warner Avenue to St. Andrew Place • Phase V: 17`1i Street to Elm Street The proposed street widening design configuration for the current Phase IV segment differs from the original configuration of the 1990 Final EIS /EIR, as follows: • The proposed Project increases the total right -of -way width from 120 feet to 128 feet. The proposed Project right -of -way cross - section would maintain a curb -to -curb width of 100 feet, would accommodate a 7 -foot wide bike lane on each side of the roadway, and would not affect the number or width of vehicular travel lanes as compared to the right -of -way cross - section addressed in the 1990 FEIS /EIR. However, the proposed Project right -of -way cross section, as compared to the right - of -way cross section addressed in the 1990 FEIS /EIR, would reduce the width of the sidewalks from 10 to 8 feet and also accommodate a 6 -foot wide parkway on each side of Bristol Street to separate pedestrian and vehicular travel; a parkway was not included as part of the roadway cross section addressed in the 1990 FEIS /EIR. Acquisition of property resulting from the proposed Project right - of -way is accounted for in this analysis. • The centerline alignment has been shifted to the west starting at St. Gertrude instead of starting at Glenwood Place with the addition of 4 -feet to the original 20 -foot shift. The street centerline then shifted back 4 -feet to the east at St. Andrew in order to match the existing centerline north of St. Andrew. By shifting the centerline at St. Gertrude, the Phase IV Project saved eight parcels from full take by reducing these parcels to partial acquisitions. • A bus turnout would be located at the Warner Avenue. • Change right -of -way requirement from full take to partial take of the following single - family residential parcels: 015 - 215 -10 (150 square feet), 015- 215 -11 (50 square feet), 015- 214 -10 (50 square feet), 015- 234 -10 (50 square feet), 015- 233 -11 (50 square feet), 015- 233 -10 (50 square feet), 015- 232 -11 (50 square feet), and (015- 232 -10 (50 square feet). I Phase numbers were assigned to the Bristol Street Widening Project subsequent to cancelation of the CenterLine Light Rail Transit Project and associated reallocation of funding from that canceled project to the Bristol Street ANA 305494 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 75C -854 15 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ADDENDUM Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) Change right -of -way requirement from full take to partial take of Parcel 408- 336 -17 (3,466 square feet).Land use for the current Project has been changed compared to the 1990 FEIS. The following parcels have been changed from Park to Park with Commercial Option: 015- 194 -38 and 015 -194- 39. • Preceding project phase inclusive of the following parcel which is no longer included in the Phase IV Project right -of -way requirements: 015- 194 -40. It should be noted that the 1990 FEIS and 2013 NEPA Reevaluation (URS Corporation) provided comprehensive noise barriers at all easterly parcel boundaries currently fronting the east side of Bristol Street between Warner Avenue and Saint Andrew Place and comprehensive noise barriers at all westerly parcel boundaries currently fronting the west side of Bristol Street between West Saint Gertrude Place and Saint Andrew Place. Using the California Department of Transportation's (Caltrans) May 2011 Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, the following noise barriers were determined to be reasonable: NB -4, NB -5, NB -6, NB -7, NB -8, NB -9, NB -10, and NB -11. These noise barriers are generally equivalent to the recommended noise barriers shown in the 1990 FEIS and 2013 NEPA Reevaluation. However, barriers NB -6, NB -7, NB -8, and NB -9 would need to be shifted to the west of the receivers (parcels) that are no longer being acquired. The modifications and other refinements to the project would not create any additional impacts than what was identified in the 2013 NEPA Reevaluation; thus, there would be no changes or additions to the avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures. The proposed Phase IV Project lane configurations are shown in Figure 5, whereas the lane configurations from the original approved 1990 Final EIS/EIR are shown in Figure 6. An assessment of construction and Project related GHG emissions was also not addressed in the 1990 FEIS /EIR, and as a result is addressed in this Addendum. 1.4.4 Construction Timeframe Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would occur following acquisition of the required parcels. Construction of the Project is anticipated to begin in mid -2016 and be completed within approximately one year (mid- 2017). 1.5 Discretionary Actions The Addendum document must be adopted by the City of Santa Ana City Council as to its adequacy in complying with the requirements of CEQA and the previously approved 1990 Final EIS /EIR. The City Council will consider the information contained in the Addendum and the 1990 Final EIS/EIR in making a decision to approve or deny the proposed project. No discretionary actions with regards to National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), or changes are proposed pursuant to NEPA. ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 16 75C -855 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) FIGURE 5 PROPOSED PROJECT LAYOUT ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 75C -856 I v f.A1l n,i 6 k� v v.r e UYI i4W (1 Np. '� 9E C yr 7 V; k IF Y ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ADDENDUM Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) FIGURE 6 PROPOSED LANE GEOMETRICS -1990 FINAL EIS /EIR ANA 305494 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 18 75C -858 "ltEt V- N art" sites SOURCE: FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTIENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, PROPOSED WIDENING OF BRISTOL STREET FROM WHILSHIREAVENUE TO WARNER AVENUE IN THE CITY OF SANTAANA, WILLDAN ASSOCIATES. 1990, FIGURE PROPOSED LANE GEOMETRICS (1990 FEISIEIR) BRISTOL STREET WIDENING PROJECT WARNER AVENUE TO ST. ANDREW PLACE (PHASE IV) 75C -859 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2.1 Background Project Title: Bristol Street Widening Phase IV Project Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza, M -36 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Contact Person and Phone Number: Kenny Nguyen, P.E. Senior Civil Engineer City of Santa Ana (714) 647 -5632 Project Location: Bristol Street from Warner Avenue to Saint Andrew Place in the City of Santa Ana. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza, M -36 Santa Ana, CA 92702 General Plan Designation: General Commercial (GC), Low Density Residential (LR -7), Open Space (OS), Park with Commercial (P /C) Zoning: Specific Plan (SP1), General Commercial (C -2), Single Family Residential (RI), Two Family Residential (R2) Description of Project: The City of Santa Ana is proposing to widen the Bristol Street between Warner Avenue and Saint Andrew Place as part of the previously approved Bristol Street from Warner Avenue to Memory Lane Project, for which an EIS/EIR was certified in 1990. The Build Alternative involves the widening of Bristol Street (between Warner Avenue to Saint Andrew Place) from 4 lanes to 6 lanes with a 150 -foot wide right -of -way cross section including a 14 -foot wide raised landscaped median; 3 12 -foot wide through travel lanes in each direction; a 7 -foot wide Class II bike lane on each side of the roadway; a 15 -foot wide parkway, and 10 -foot sidewalk with curb ramps for wheelchair access pursuant to ADA requirements on both sides of the roadway. As Bristol Street approaches the intersections between Warner Avenue and Saint Andrew Place, and between Warner Avenue and Glenwood Place, the landscaped center median would taper to accommodate right -turn pockets and left -turn lanes in each direction. The landscaped center median would then continue north of the Glenwood Place intersection to match the existing raised center median approximately 380 feet south of Edinger Avenue. The addition of the landscaped center median would improve safety by preventing left -turn access to /from Saint Gertrude Place, Saint Anne Place, Camden Place, and Carlton Place to the newly widened Bristol Street. (Note: the intersection of Bristol Street and Saint Andrew Place would be converted to a right -turn only intersection in both directions.) Additionally, cul-de-sacs would be included on the west side of Bristol Street at Saint Anne Place, Camden Place, and Carlton Place to improve safety by preventing access to /from these streets to the newly widened Bristol Street. ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 19 75C -860 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) The widening would require full and partial takes of several parcels fronting Bristol Street as detailed in Table 2 (Property Acquisitions). Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project site is located within a fully developed urban area within the City of Santa Ana. Areas surrounding the project site consist of various urban uses such as commercial and retail facilities, and single and multi - family residences. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required (e.g., permits, financing, or participation agreement): City of Santa Ana ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 75C -861 20 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES This section describes the effects of the proposed modifications to the Bristol Street Widening Phase IV project compared to those identified in the previously approved 1990 Final EIS/EIR document, and to existing conditions and any changes in regulatory setting since the previously approved 1990 Final EIS /EIR. Furthermore, this section analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. The issue areas evaluated in this document include the following, pursuant to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, and have been modified to evaluate the proposed project changes for which a Final EIS/EIR has been previously approved (in 1990) to assist in the determination of the need for a supplemental EIS /EIR or an Addendum. The modified Initial Study checklist is found in Appendix A. • Aesthetics • Agricultural and Forestry Resources • Air Quality • Biological Resources • Cultural Resources • Geology and Soils • Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Hazards & Hazardous Materials • Hydrology/WaterQuality • Land Use • Mineral Resources • Noise • Population and Housing • Public Services • Recreation • Transportation /Traffic • Utilities /Service Systems • Mandatory Findings of Significance A summary of impacts of the previously approved project and the mitigation measures imposed is provided along an analysis of the potential impacts resulting from the proposed project and whether those impacts substantially exceeds those discussed in the previously approved 1990 Final EIS /EIR. 3.1 Aesthetics This section corresponds with Section IV, Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures, subsections A, Landform Modification, G, Urban Landscaping, J, Light and Glare, and K, Aesthetic Considerations of the previously approved 1990 Final EIS /EIR. (a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? The proposed project would not result in any significant modifications or changes from the previously approved 1990 Final EIS /EIR. The Bristol Street Widening Phase IV intersections are located within a highly developed urban area of the City. No scenic vistas are located within the project area. No impact to scenic vistas would result from the proposed project. Mitigation Measures No new additional mitigation measures are required. (b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? There are no state designated scenic highways within the project area. The project is located within a highly developed and urbanized area of the City. No scenic highways are located within close proximity, nor is the project area visible from any scenic highways. No impacts are anticipated in this regard. Mitigation Measures No new additional mitigation measures are required. ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 21 75C -862 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) (c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? The proposed project involves a total of 43 parcels of which 35 would result in the full take and eight would result in partial take. Field observations indicated that the potentially affected properties (residential and non- residential) do not have unique characteristics related to their age or condition that would be difficult to replace, or possess attributes that are unique. The proposed project would result in a reduced number of acquired units in comparison to the 1990 Final EIS/EIR and would not result in substantial changes in visual character as analyzed in the previously approved 1990 Final EIS/EIR. Implementation of mitigation measures as included in the previously approved 1990 Final EIS /EIR would ensure that impacts are reduced to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measures No additional new mitigation measures are required. (d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Light and glare are currently generated from existing vehicular uses within the Phase IV project area, commercial and retail businesses, signage, street lighting, and parking lot lighting. The proposed project does not involve the construction of any structures other than relocation of street lighting fixtures. Therefore, no new sources of light or glare are anticipated with implementation of the proposed project. The proposed project would not generate additional daytime or nighttime illumination beyond that currently experienced within the area. Implementation of the proposed project would not create more significant light and glare impacts than previously analyzed in the 1990 Final EIS/EIR. Mitigation Measures No additional new mitigation measures are required. 3.2 Agricultural Resources The previously approved 1990 Final EIS /EIR did not include evaluation for agricultural resources, as no agricultural resources are located within the area of analysis. (a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural use? The project site is located within a fully developed, urban area of the City of Santa Ana. No Prime, Unique, or Farmland or Statewide Importance is located in the vicinity of the project site. No impacts would result from the proposed project. The proposed project would not result in greater impacts than previously analyzed in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. Mitigation Measures No additional new mitigation measures are required. (b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? The project site is located within a fully developed, urban area of the City of Santa Ana. The project area is designated as General Commercial, Park with Commercial, Open Space, and Low Density Residential by the City of Santa Ana General Plan with a combination of Specific Plan (SPI), General Commercial (C), Two Family Residential (R2), and Single Family Residential (RI) zoning designations. No agricultural uses exist on site or in the vicinity, and the project would not conflict with a Williamson Act contract. The proposed project would not result in greater impacts than previously analyzed in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 22 75C -863 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) Mitigation Measures No additional new mitigation measures are required. (c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning, of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(8)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(8))? The project site is located within a fully developed, urban area of the City of Santa Ana. No timberland or forest resources exist on site or in the vicinity. The project area is either designated as General Commercial, Park with Commercial, Open Space, or Low Density Residential by the City of Santa Ana General Plan with a combination of Specific Plan (SP1), General Commercial (C2), Two Family Residential (R2), and Single Family Residential (R1) zoning designations. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in greater impacts than previously analyzed in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. Mitigation Measures No additional new mitigation measures are required. (d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non - forest use? The project site is located within a fully developed, urban area of the City of Santa Ana. No forest land is located on site or in the vicinity. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in greater impacts than previously analyzed in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. Mitigation Measures No additional new mitigation measures are required. (e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non - agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non - forest use The project site is fully developed with no agricultural uses within or in the vicinity. No impact would result from the proposed project. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in greater impacts than previously analyzed in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. Mitigation Measures No additional new mitigation measures are required. 3.3 Air Quality This section corresponds with Section IV, Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures, subsections H, Air Quality and V. Construction Impacts of the previously approved 1990 Final EIS /EIR. (a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? The Bristol Street Widening Phase IV project is a component of the Proposed Widening of Bristol Street from Warner Avenue to Memory Lane, which was approved in 1990. The Bristol Street Widening Phase IV Project is included as project number ORA125 in the regional emissions analysis conducted by SCAG for the conforming 2013 FTIP adopted by SLAG on September 19, 2012 and approved by FHWA on December 14, 2012. As provided in the FTIP, the Approved Project description reads as follows: ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 23 75C -864 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) BRISTOL ST (WARNER TO MEMORY LANE) WIDEN FROM 4 TO 6 LANES (IMPV AT BRISTOL /WARNER (ADD NBIEBISB TI3RU LAS, WB RT TRY LN) AND BRISTOL /FIRST (ADD NBISB THRULNS; SB LFTIR TITRN LNS The Phase IV Project's design concept and scope have not changed significantly from what was analyzed in the RTIP and FTIP. This analysis found that the plan and, therefore, the individual projects contained in the plan, are conforming projects, and would have air quality impacts consistent with those identified in the state implementation plans (SIPS) for achieving the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). FHWA determined the RTIP to conform to the SIP. The Phase IV Project's open to the public year is consistent with (within the same regional emission analysis period as) the construction completion date identified in the FTIP and/or RTP. The FTIP gives priority to eligible TCMs identified in the SIP and provides sufficient funds to provide for their implementation. FHWA determined the TIP to conform to the SIP on December 2010. The Phase IV Project is also included in the 2013 TIP adopted by SCAG on September 6, 2012 and approved by FHWA on December 14, 2012. The Proposed Widening of Bristol Street, from Warner Avenue to Memory Lane project has been included in the federal TIP since 1992. The federal TIP gives priority to eligible TCMs identified in the SIP and provides sufficient funds to provide for their implementation. FHWA determined the TIP to conform to the SIP on April 2, 2009. No significant impacts would occur. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in greater impacts than previously analyzed in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. Furthermore, the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) is designated by the state and US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as nonattaimnent for ozone (03 ), and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5 ). The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) developed regional emissions thresholds to determine whether or not a project would contribute to air pollutant violations. If a project exceeds the regional air pollutant thresholds, then the project would substantially contribute to air quality violations in the SCAB. In addition, a project would also contribute to air pollutant violations if localized emissions result in an exceedanee of the ambient air quality standards (AAQS). Short -term emissions generated during project - related construction activities would not exceed the SCAQMD regional emissions thresholds for any of the criteria pollutants and also would not substantially elevate localized concentrations of these pollutants. Consequently, the project would be consistent with the AQMP. Long -tern emissions generated by the project would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds for regional emissions and would therefore also not contribute to an increase in frequency or severity of air quality violations. The proposed project would be consistent with the Major Arterial designation of the City of Santa Ana General Plan Circulation Element and the County of Orange's Master Plan of Arterial Highways. Additionally, the project would improve traffic flow and result in a reduction in air pollutant emissions. Mitigation Measures No additional new mitigation measures are required. (b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Short -tern emissions were modeled for the construction phase of the proposed street widening project. Construction activities associated with the project would include demolition of pavement and buildings, fine grading, trenching, paving, and development of ancillary strictures. During construction activities, emissions from heavy equipment exhaust, delivery trucks, and fugitive dust would be generated for a short duration. To ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 24 75C -865 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) accurately determine the significance of air quality impacts from construction activities, construction emissions are quantified and compared to the significance thresholds set by the SCAQMD. Project - specific data, such as construction timelines and dimensions of the project site, along with general operating guidelines, were used as inputs to the SCAQMD's California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Model (version 2011.1.1) to quantify construction emissions. As shown in Table 3, emissions calculated by this model were compared to the SCAQMD's regional significance thresholds. As shown in Table 3, emissions attributable to construction of the proposed project were found to be below the significance thresholds adopted by the SCAQMD for all the analyzed air pollutants. Because emissions were found to be below the SCAQMD's significance thresholds, project related construction emissions are not considered by the SCAQMD to result in a significant impact. In addition, mitigation measures included in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR would further reduce construction- related air quality impacts. ii0:1 d; 14Wi% 94nW *H61d;11141 1[O]1111146 1619101069 Source: URS Corporation, January 2013. An assessment of regional emissions associated with the operations phase of the proposed project was also conducted which compared emissions with and without the proposed project. Air pollutant emissions generated by roadway vehicles are quantified based on emissions rates that vary based on vehicle speed. Because the Proposed Project would increase the roadway capacity along Bristol Street, traffic congestion would be alleviated and average vehicle speeds would increase along improved roadway segments. Table 4 shows the emissions that would occur with and without the proposed Project based on the average vehicle speeds. As shown in Table 4, air pollutant emissions would be less under the With Project Alternative as opposed to the No Project Alternative due to the lower emission rates associated with higher average vehicle speeds. The SCAQMD has established significance thresholds to determine whether the operations phase of projects would result in significant impacts to regional air quality. The proposed project would result in air pollutant emissions which are below these significance thresholds and would result in a beneficial impact in emissions due to improvements in operational phase efficiencies along project roadway segments for the 2015 project opening year. Emissions occurring during the 2035 design year were also quantified based on the LOS, average vehicle speed and emission rates that would occur with and without the proposed project. As shown in Table 5, air pollutant emissions occurring under the With Project Alternative would be less than under the No Project Alternative due to lower emission rates associated with higher average speeds. Consequently, the Proposed Project for the 2035 ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 25 75C -866 VOC `- NOx : CO S02 PM10 I PM2.5 Demolition 8 64 43 <1 12 3 Trenching 4 33 19 <1 2 2 Grading 7 52 31 <1 5 4 Paving 3 15 11 <1 1 1 Maximum 8 64 43 <1 12 3 SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No Source: URS Corporation, January 2013. An assessment of regional emissions associated with the operations phase of the proposed project was also conducted which compared emissions with and without the proposed project. Air pollutant emissions generated by roadway vehicles are quantified based on emissions rates that vary based on vehicle speed. Because the Proposed Project would increase the roadway capacity along Bristol Street, traffic congestion would be alleviated and average vehicle speeds would increase along improved roadway segments. Table 4 shows the emissions that would occur with and without the proposed Project based on the average vehicle speeds. As shown in Table 4, air pollutant emissions would be less under the With Project Alternative as opposed to the No Project Alternative due to the lower emission rates associated with higher average vehicle speeds. The SCAQMD has established significance thresholds to determine whether the operations phase of projects would result in significant impacts to regional air quality. The proposed project would result in air pollutant emissions which are below these significance thresholds and would result in a beneficial impact in emissions due to improvements in operational phase efficiencies along project roadway segments for the 2015 project opening year. Emissions occurring during the 2035 design year were also quantified based on the LOS, average vehicle speed and emission rates that would occur with and without the proposed project. As shown in Table 5, air pollutant emissions occurring under the With Project Alternative would be less than under the No Project Alternative due to lower emission rates associated with higher average speeds. Consequently, the Proposed Project for the 2035 ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 25 75C -866 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) project design year would likewise result in emissions which are below the SCAQMD's significance thresholds and would result in a beneficial impact relative to GHG emissions due to improvements in operational phase efficiencies along project roadway segments. Mitigation Measures No additional new mitigation measures are required. ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) USA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 75C -867 26 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) TABLE 4 YEAR 2015 WITH AND WITHOUT PROJECT AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS _tl .. .. Year 2015 No Project Bristol Street Between Glen wooc 15 76 5 13 0 2 1 Place and Warner Avenue Bristol Street Between St Andrew 15 23 2 4 0 1 0 Place and Glenwood Place Bristol Street Between Edinger 15 56 4 9 0 1 1 Avenue and St Andrew Place Total 155 1 11 1 26 1 0 1 4 1 3 Year 2015 With Project Bristol Street Between Glenwood 32 54 2 10 0 1 1 Place and Warner Avenue Bristol Street Between St Andrew 32 16 1 3 0 0 0 Place and Glenwood Place Bristol Street Between Edinger Avenue and St Andrew Place 32 40 2 7 0 1 1 Total 110 5 20 0 2 2 Difference between No Project and With Project Emissions Bristol Street Between Glenwood -22 -3 -3 0 -1 -1 Place and Warner Avenue Bristol Street Between St Andrew 7 1 1 0 0 0 Place and Glenwood Place Bristol Street Between Edinger Avenue and St Andrew Place -16 -2 -2 0 -1 -1 Total -45 -6 -6 0 -2 -1 SCAQMD Significance 550 55 55 150 150 55 Thresholds Exceeds Thresholds No No No No No No Notes: mph = miles per hour Source. URS Corporation, January 2013, ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 27 75C -868 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) TABLE 5 YEAR 2035 WITH AND WITHOUT PROJECT AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS °�� F �� ��� d 3N. -[z'F "c'` ^�'iT' . ?�.' 3aa� +r nv+u �. ...�.'� w. N?.. - iv�v'•Y -. i `...n2x - 'ji` +.hmr t d4 1u.'%tva'..5 -. v 'w- m iS°FcYS'.3<vn Year 2035 No Project Bristol Street Between Glenwood 13 41 3 7 <1 3 2 Place and Warner Avenue Bristol Street Between St Andrew 13 12 1 2 <1 1 1 Place and Glenwood Place Bristol Street Between Edinger 13 30 2 5 <1 2 1 Avenue and St Andrew Place Total 83 6 13 <1 5 4 Year 2035 With Project, Bristol Street Between Glenwood 25 32 2 5 <1 2 1 Place and Warner Avenue Bristol Street Between St Andrew 25 10 0 1 <1 0 0 Place and Glenwood Place Bristol Street Between Edinger 25 24 1 4 <1 1 1 Avenue and St Andrew Place Total 65 1 3 1 10 1 0 3 2 Difference between No Project and With Project Emissions Bristol Street Between Glenwood g 2 2 <1 1 1 Place and Warner Avenue Bristol Street Between St Andrew 3 0 1 <1 0 0 Place and Glenwood Place Bristol Street Between Edinger -7 -1 -1 <1 -1 -1 Avenue and St Andrew Place Total -18 -3 -4 <1 -2 -2 SCAQMD Significance 550 55 55 150 150 55 Thresholds Exceeds Thresholds No No No No No No Notes: mph = miles per hour Source: URS Corporation, January 2013, ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) USA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 75C -869 28 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) (c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? The SCAB is designated by the EPA and the State as being nonattainment for 03 , PM10 , and PM2.5 . In accordance with SCAQMD methodology, any project that does not exceed or can be mitigated to less than the daily threshold values does not add significantly to a cumulative impact. Since the proposed project would not exceed the SCAQMD's significance thresholds for construction activities or the operations phase, the SCAQMD does not consider emissions from the project to add significantly to any cumulative impact. Furthermore, it should be noted that the proposed project would increase the capacity at three out of the four study intersections (Bristol Street at Edinger Avenue has already been widened) during both AM and PM peak hours. Increases in roadway capacity would result in improvement in the LOS along Bristol Street. The improvement in LOS would result in increases in average vehicle speed and reductions in the amount of delay vehicles experience at intersections thereby resulting in both lower emissions and lower emissions rates associated with higher vehicle speeds. As such, the project would continue to result in a beneficial impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in greater impacts than previously analyzed in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. Mitigation Measures No additional new mitigation measures are required. (d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? A project could have the potential to expose sensitive receptors to elevated pollutant concentrations if it would cause or contribute substantially to elevated pollutant concentration levels or place the project in an area with elevated pollutant concentrations. An evaluation of air pollutant emissions as it affects local sensitive receptors has been conducted for both the construction and operations phases of the project. Localized Construction Impacts Localized air pollutant emissions are evaluated relative to the exposure of local sensitive uses to air pollutant concentrations generated by the proposed Project. These are pollutant concentrations which can be directly correlated to the health -based ambient air quality standards. This differs from regional emissions which were discussed previously in that regional emissions are used to assess how much air pollution is generated within an air basin and does not have a direct correlation with health effects. Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) have been developed by the SCAQMD for NOx , CO, PM10, and PM2.5 . The LSTs determine whether project- related emissions would substantially contribute to or exceed the ambient air quality standards and expose sensitive receptors to excessive concentrations of air pollutants. The LSTs differ based on distance such that a greater allowance in air pollutant emissions is allowed for construction activities occurring further from a sensitive use and a lesser allowance in emissions is given for construction activities occurring closer to sensitive uses. Only short-teen emissions occurring at the project site for the Project's constriction phase were included to determine if sensitive receptors local to the project site would adversely affected. Emissions generated by construction activities disperse rapidly with distance from the construction site. Individual construction phases were compared against the SCAQMD's LST significance criteria. As shown in Table 6, project emissions would not exceed the LST screening level criteria for CO, NO2 , PM10 , or PM2.5 . Because emissions associated with this alternative would be less than the LST, onsite construction emissions would not be expected to exceed the federal or California AAQS at the nearest sensitive receptors. As such, no significant air quality impacts related to localized air pollutants would occur from the construction phase. ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 29 75C -870 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) TABLE 6 LOCALIZED SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS ANALYSIS FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES Intersection Hot -Spots While the proposed Project would not result in any direct sources of localized emissions due to the roadway street lighting being powered by electricity, changes in LOS or traffic volumes due to the project may cause indirect sources of localized emissions. While emissions of motor vehicles have improved due to more stringent vehicle emissions standards and the use of cleaner burning fuels, they continue to be the primary source of local emissions within the study area. Localized areas where ambient concentrations exceed national and /or state standards for CO are known as hotspots. The SCAQMD defines typical sensitive receptors as residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, athletic facilities, long -term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes. Because CO is produced in greatest quantities from vehicle combustion and does not readily disperse into the atmosphere, adherence to AAQS is typically demonstrated through an analysis of localized CO concentrations. Areas of vehicle congestion have the potential to create pockets of CO called "hot spots." These pockets have the potential to exceed the state one -hour standard of 20 ppm or the eight -hour standard of 9.0 ppm. Note that the federal levels are based on one- and eight -hour standards of 35 and 9 ppm, respectively. Thus, an exceedance condition would occur based on the state standards before the federal standards. The following intersections were modeled for CO hotspots: • Bristol Street and Warner Avenue • Bristol Street and Glenwood Place • Bristol Street and St. Andrew Place • Bristol Street and W. Edinger Avenue As shown in Table 7, both the 1 -hour and 8 -hour CO concentrations at the intersections that were affected by the proposed project would be substantially below the California and federal ambient air quality standards for CO, potential CO impacts related to the project alternatives are below AAQS and would not result in a significant air quality impact from CO hotspots. ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 30 75C -871 LI UTA�fi(L f.ud) t)( �Rl1Tl PMFlSE NOx CO PM10 PMze x r. r Demolition 61 40 4 3 Grading 52 30 5 4 Trenching 33 19 2 2 Paving 15 1 11 1 1 1 1 SCAQMD Threshold 183 1,253 13 7 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No Source: URS Corporation, January 2013. Intersection Hot -Spots While the proposed Project would not result in any direct sources of localized emissions due to the roadway street lighting being powered by electricity, changes in LOS or traffic volumes due to the project may cause indirect sources of localized emissions. While emissions of motor vehicles have improved due to more stringent vehicle emissions standards and the use of cleaner burning fuels, they continue to be the primary source of local emissions within the study area. Localized areas where ambient concentrations exceed national and /or state standards for CO are known as hotspots. The SCAQMD defines typical sensitive receptors as residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, athletic facilities, long -term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes. Because CO is produced in greatest quantities from vehicle combustion and does not readily disperse into the atmosphere, adherence to AAQS is typically demonstrated through an analysis of localized CO concentrations. Areas of vehicle congestion have the potential to create pockets of CO called "hot spots." These pockets have the potential to exceed the state one -hour standard of 20 ppm or the eight -hour standard of 9.0 ppm. Note that the federal levels are based on one- and eight -hour standards of 35 and 9 ppm, respectively. Thus, an exceedance condition would occur based on the state standards before the federal standards. The following intersections were modeled for CO hotspots: • Bristol Street and Warner Avenue • Bristol Street and Glenwood Place • Bristol Street and St. Andrew Place • Bristol Street and W. Edinger Avenue As shown in Table 7, both the 1 -hour and 8 -hour CO concentrations at the intersections that were affected by the proposed project would be substantially below the California and federal ambient air quality standards for CO, potential CO impacts related to the project alternatives are below AAQS and would not result in a significant air quality impact from CO hotspots. ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 30 75C -871 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ADDENDUM Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) TABLE 7 CO HOTSPOT ANALYSIS (PPM) As discussed previously, the proposed project would not result in air pollutant concentrations that exceed the SCAQMD's Localized Significance Thresholds for construction activities. In addition, the operations phase of the project would not result in CO hotspots. As such, the constriction and operations phases of the project would not result in significant impacts to air quality which would expose sensitive receptors to substantial air pollutant concentrations. Mitigation Measures No additional new mitigation measures are required. (e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Construction activities associated with the proposed Project may generate detectable odors from heavy- duty construction equipment and exhaust. Odors associated with diesel and gasoline fumes are transitory in nature and would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. The impacts from these odors would be short -tern, would cease upon project completion and are not anticipated to be significant. Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in greater impacts than previously analyzed in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. Mitigation Measures No additional new mitigation measures are required. ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 31 75C -872 WE Bristol Street and Warner Avenue` Northeast Receptor 6.8 20 4.6 9.0 No No Southeast Receptor 6.9 20 4.7 9.0 No No Southwest Receptor 6.9 20 4.7 9.0 No No Northwest Receptor 6.9 20 4.7 9.0 No No Bristol Street and Glenwood Place Northeast Receptor 6.5 20 4.4 9.0 No No Southeast Receptor 6.5 20 4.4 9.0 No No Southwest Receptor 6.6 20 4.5 9.0 No No Northwest Receptor 6.6 20 4.5 9.0 No No Bristol Street and St. Andrew Place Northeast Receptor 6.4 20 4.3 9.0 No No Southeast Receptor 6.4 20 4.3 9.0 No No Southwest Receptor 6.5 20 4.4 9.0 No No Northwest Receptor 6.5 20 4.4 9.0 No No Bristol Street and St„Andrew Place Northeast Receptor 7.1 20 4.8 9.0 No No Southeast Receptor 7.1 20 4.8 9.0 No No Southwest Receptor 7.2 20 4.9 9.0 No No Northwest Receptor 7.1 20 4.8 9.0 No No Source: URS Corporation, January 2012. As discussed previously, the proposed project would not result in air pollutant concentrations that exceed the SCAQMD's Localized Significance Thresholds for construction activities. In addition, the operations phase of the project would not result in CO hotspots. As such, the constriction and operations phases of the project would not result in significant impacts to air quality which would expose sensitive receptors to substantial air pollutant concentrations. Mitigation Measures No additional new mitigation measures are required. (e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Construction activities associated with the proposed Project may generate detectable odors from heavy- duty construction equipment and exhaust. Odors associated with diesel and gasoline fumes are transitory in nature and would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. The impacts from these odors would be short -tern, would cease upon project completion and are not anticipated to be significant. Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in greater impacts than previously analyzed in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. Mitigation Measures No additional new mitigation measures are required. ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 31 75C -872 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ADDENDUM Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) 3.4 Biological Resources This section corresponds with Section IV, Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures, subsection E, Streambed Modification, of the previously approved 1990 Final EIS /EIR. (a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special - status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? The project site is located within a fully developed urban area within the City of Santa Ana. No special natural habitat exists on or in the vicinity of the proposed project. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in greater impacts than previously analyzed in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. Mitigation Measures No new additional mitigation measures are required. (b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? Refer to response in 3.4 (a), above. No riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities are identified in the project area or vicinity. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in greater impacts than previously analyzed in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. Mitigation Measures No new additional mitigation measures are required. (c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Refer to response in 3.4 (a), above. No federally protected wetlands are identified in the project area or vicinity. The proposed project is located within a fully developed urban area of the City. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in greater impacts than previously analyzed in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. Mitigation Measures No new additional mitigation measures are required. (d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? The proposed project would not interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites, as none are located within the project area. The proposed project is located within a fully developed urban area of the City. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in greater impacts than previously analyzed in the 1990 Final EIS/EIR. Mitigation Measures No new additional mitigation measures are required. (e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 32 75C -873 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ADDENDUM Bristol Street Widening Project WarnerAve to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) preservation policy or ordinance? The proposed project may involve the removal of existing landscaping, including trees. Any removal or planting of trees is required to comply with the City of Santa Ana Municipal Code, Article VII, Regulation of the Planting, Maintenance, and Removal of Trees. Furthermore, the proposed project would not conflict with the City's tree ordinance. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in greater impacts than previously analyzed in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. Mitigation Measures No new additional mitigation measures are required. (f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? The proposed project site is not a part of any habitat conservation plan. The project site is developed with urban uses and no natural conservation plans are adopted for the area. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in greater impacts than previously analyzed in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. Mitigation Measures No new additional mitigation measures are required. 3.5 Cultural Resources This section corresponds with Section IV, Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures, subsection T, Cultural Resources, of the previously approved 1990 Final EIS /EIR. (a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as de£med in § 15064.5? The proposed project would not involve changes that were not addressed in the 1990 Final EIS/EIR. Based on aerial photographs and a windshield survey, the structures do not appear to be of historical significance due to unique architecture and are not anticipated to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. Land uses within the Phase IV project area affected parcels include single family residential, parking lots, strip malls, shopping plazas, and various office uses. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in greater impacts than previously analyzed in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. Mitigation Measures No new additional mitigation measures are required. (b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? Due to the limited area of disturbance, within an existing developed and urban area, and limited depth of proposed excavations, the potential to uncover archaeological resources is considered low. However, implementation of mitigation measures as included in the previously approved 1990 Final EIS /EIR would reduce impacts to archaeological resources yet uncovered or undiscovered. The proposed project would not result in archaeological impacts greater than previously analyzed in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. Mitigation Measures No new additional mitigation measures are required. (c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 33 75C -874 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) As shown in Chapter VI, Resources Element, of the County of Orange General Plan, the project site is not located in an area of paleontological sensitivity. Also, the proposed project would involve only shallow excavation. Furthermore, since the project area is already developed, the potential for discovering paleontological resources during construction is low. Soils occurring in the project area are mostly Quaternary Alluvium. Typically, these deposits are less than 10,000 years old, and not likely to contain important fossils. No greater impacts to paleontological resources than previously analyzed in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR would result from project implementation. Mitigation Measures No new additional mitigation measures are required. (d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? The project site is located within a fully developed urban area of the City. No formal cemeteries are located within the project area or vicinity. However, in the event that human remains are uncovered during grading or excavation, contractors are required to comply with the procedures and requirements set forth in the California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 2098.98. The County Coroner and, in the event that the remains are Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission would be notified and, in turn, would notify those persons believed to be most likely descended from the deceased for appropriate disposition of the remains. The proposed project would not result in human remains impact greater than previously analyzed in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. Mitigation Measures No new additional mitigation measures are required. 3.6 Geology and Soils This section corresponds with Section IV, Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures, subsections A, Landform Modification, B. Seismic Hazards, C. Erosion Impacts, and F. Water Quality, of the previously approved 1990 Final EIS /EIR. (a) i Rupture of a known earthquake fault, iv Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the substantial evidence of a known fault? Re Publication 42. delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo State Geologist for the area or based on other er to Division of Mines and Geology Special The City of Santa Ana is not included in the Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map. The project site is not underlain by an active fault and the closest fault, the Newport- Inglewood Fault, is approximately eight miles to the west. The proposed widening would not result in greater impacts than previously analyzed in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. Mitigation Measures No new additional mitigation measures are required. (a) ii Strong seismic ground shaking? The Newport - Inglewood Fault is the closest fault to the project site and is the most likely source of ground shaking impacts. The proposed project is an intersection widening project and would not expose people or structures to adverse ground shaking impact. The proposed widening would not result in greater impacts than previously analyzed in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 34 75C -875 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) Mitigation Measures No new additional mitigation measures are required. (a) iii Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? The project site is not identified by the 1990 EIS /EIR as having a high liquefaction potential but is near areas classified as high to medium liquefaction potential. In addition, the project would be constructed to achieve the standards outlined in the California Building Code to reduce impacts in this regard. Consequently, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to potential liquefaction impact. The proposed widening would not result in greater impacts than previously analyzed in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. Mitigation Measures No new additional mitigation measures are required. (a) iv Landslides? The proposed project site is generally flat and does not contain any significant slopes. The proposed Project would not result in greater impacts than previously analyzed in the 1990 Final EIS/EIR. Mitigation Measures No new additional mitigation measures are required. (b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Exposure of barren rock and soil surfaces during construction would result in soil erosion. However, considering the slight gradient, anticipated erosion impact is minimal. Furthermore, the project would be subject to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting regulation, including the development and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) during construction activities. The SWPPP requires construction contractors to implement best management practices (BMPs) to reduce sediment from impacting the stormwater system. The increased erosion impact due to the intersection widening would not be substantially greater than previously analyzed. (c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? The 1990 EIS /EIR indicated that there are no instances of midisturbed, natural soils. The project site is underlain by well- drained alluvial fan or flood plains and is not included in the areas of high subsidence or high liquefaction hazard (but located south of an area identified as high to medium subsidence for liquefaction). The project area is fully developed with urban uses within the City. The proposed project will be constructed in accordance with the standards of the Uniform Building Code (UBC). The proposed project would not create greater impact than previously analyzed in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. Mitigation Measures No new additional mitigation measures are required. (d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 35 75C -876 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) The proposed project would not include the construction of any structures other than relocation of existing utilities. The proposed project would not create substantial risks to life or property and the proposed project would not create greater impacts than previously analyzed in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. Mitigation Measures No new additional mitigation measures are required. (e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? The proposed project would not generate any sewage or wastewater and would not require installation of any septic tanks or alternative wastewater systems. No impacts are anticipated in this regard. Mitigation Measures No new additional mitigation measures are required. 3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions This section corresponds with Section IV, Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures, subsection H, Air Quality, and V. Construction Impacts of the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. (a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? The 1990 Final EIS /EIR did not evaluate global climate change or greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts. Construction activities would consume fuel and result in the generation of GHG emissions. Construction of the project is anticipated to begin in the early 2015 and be complete later that year. Construction- related GHG emissions would cease upon completion of the project. Due to the length of construction activities, GHG emissions associated with construction activities are anticipated to be minimal. Because construction emissions are not substantial and would cease after completion of construction, GHG emissions would not be significant. Furthermore, the project proposes intersection widening of Bristol Street from Warner Avenue to Saint Andrew Place, therefore only carbon dioxide (CO2 ) emissions from mobile- sources are evaluated. Similar to the other criteria pollutants, the highest emissions would occur between 0 to 10 mph and 50 mph and above. Because the project would improve traffic flow within the Phase IV project area, the project would result in reduced CO2 emissions. Consequently, GHG emissions associated with the project would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures No new additional mitigation measures are required. (b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? The proposed project would not conflict with applicable plans, policy or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHG. The proposed project would result in improved traffic flow, reduced vehicle idling times and congestion. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in new impacts to GHG. Mitigation Measures No new additional mitigation measures are required. ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 36 75C -877 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) 3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials This section corresponds with Section IV, Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures, subsections V, Construction Impacts, X, Hazardous Materials, of the 1990 Final EIS/EIR. (a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? The proposed project would result in demolition of structures. Compliance with the standard protocol surveys and abating procedures would be required prior to any demolition activities that would potentially disturb existing building materials. Furthermore, specific requirements limiting asbestos emissions from building demolition activities are set forth in SCAQMD Rule 1403 (Asbestos Emission From Demolition /Renovation Activities). The existing structures to be demolished and roadway paintings and markers are also required to be surveyed for lead -based paint prior to demolition, in compliance with the applicable local, state, and federal regulations administered through the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health. Compliance with existing regulations would ensure that impacts are not greater than previously analyzed in the 1990 Final EISBIR. Mitigation Measures No new additional mitigation measures are required (b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Refer to response in 3.8 (a), above. Compliance with existing regulations and mitigation measures from the 1990 Final EISBIR would ensure that impacts are not greater than previously analyzed in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. Mitigation Measures No new additional mitigation measures are required. (c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? There are two schools that lie within one - quarter mile of the project site. Table 8 provides a summary of schools within the Bristol Street Widening ,Phase IV project area. ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 37 75C -878 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) TABLE 8 LOCAL SCHOOLS WITHIN THE PHASE IV PROJECT AREA � { Sa=6 �I�L�Oi. "� � ���CSx4"'Cx;p��'� 3' K{i �4 � V�' C�L"'IY�'r'L ✓# .5^ W'.2C' 3 "'3r't�C'Ti -`'H" Jose Andres Sepulveda 1801 S Poplar Street, Santa Ana, CA West of Bristol Street at Saint 0,11 miles Elementary School 92704 Andrew Place intersection 1202 West Edinger Avenue, Santa Ana, Northeast of Bristol Street at Saint Mater Del High School 0.25 miles CA 92707 Andrew Place intersection Hazardous materials can be classified into four basic categories: toxins, flammables, irritants, and explosives. Toxins include a broad range of industrial chemicals and agricultural pesticides that may cause serious illness or death to humans. Irritants can cause inflammation or destruction of living tissue with effects ranging from mild to severe, depending on the degree of exposure and material involved. Flammables pose the threat of combustion at low ignition temperatures and rapid burning characteristics. Explosives can produce rapid chemical reactions causing damage from blast and flash fire. Because of their widespread use, it was assumed that each type of hazardous material was transported through, used, or stored to some degree, within the project area. Storage and use of hazardous materials was, and still is, generally limited to the industrial area to the west although hazardous materials are used or stored along Bristol Street at businesses such as gas stations, auto service shops, metal polishing and plating operations, and medical clinics. Both Mater Dei High School and Jose Andres Sepulveda Elementary School were identified and evaluated for potential impact in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. It is not anticipated that the project would increase risk of upset beyond previous conditions. Therefore, health risks associated with project construction activities would be less than significant and impacts are not greater than previously analyzed in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. Mitigation Measures No new additional mitigation measures are required. (d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? The proposed project site involves the widening of an existing intersection. The project area is developed with commercial and retail uses. Compliance with existing regulations and mitigation measures from the 1990 Final EIS /EIR would ensure that impacts are not greater than previously analyzed in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. Mitigation Measures No new additional mitigation measures are required. (e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? The project site is not within an airport land use plan. The closest airport to the site is John Wayne — Orange County Airport, miles southeast of the project site. The proposed widening would not introduce any new risks or increase risks associated with the project. ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 75C -879 38 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM Bristol Street 1Mdeninq Protect Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) Mitigation Measures No new additional mitigation measures are required. (f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? The project site is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip and would not create any safety hazard. The proposed project would not create additional significant impact. Mitigation Measures No new additional mitigation measures are required. (g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? The disruption of traffic and restricted access along Bristol Street between Warner Avenue and Saint Andrew Place during construction would affect the mobility of emergency vehicles. However, provisions would be made for interim access and traffic control plans would be prepared prior to each step in the construction process. Advance warning and information signs would be used to reduce the confusion motorists may experience during the construction process. It is expected that Bristol Street would remain open during construction. Although the proposed project may interfere with an emergency evacuation plan, it would be short term during construction, and the mobility would improve once the project is completed. Compliance with mitigation measures from the 1990 Final EIS /EIR would ensure that impacts are not greater than previously analyzed in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. Mitigation Measures No new additional mitigation measures are required. (h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? The proposed project site is developed with various urban uses within the City. There are no wildlands in the project vicinity and no new significant impacts would result with project implementation. Mitigation Measures No new additional mitigation measures are required. 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality This section corresponds with Section IV, Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures, subsections C, Erosion Impacts, D, Floodplain /Floodway Encroachment, and F, Water Quality of the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. (a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? As part of Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, the EPA has established regulations under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) program to control direct stormwater discharges. The proposed project would be required to comply with the NPDES program for the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB). ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 75C -880 39 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ADDENDUM Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) Construction Activities Grading and excavation and use of hazardous materials during construction would create potential sources of polluted discharge. The construction contractor is required to conform to the requirements of the Statewide NPDES Storm Water Permit. Pursuant to the CWA, in 2001, the State Water Quality Control Board (SWRCB) issued a statewide general NPDES Permit for stormwater discharges from construction sites ( NPDES No. CAS000002). Under this Statewide General Construction Activity permit, discharges of stormwater from construction sites with a disturbed area of one or more acres are required to either obtain individual NPDES permits for stormwater discharges or to be covered by the General Permit. In addition, best management practices (BMPs) specified in the Caltrans Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) are also applicable. The construction contractor is required to conform to the requirements of the General NPDES Permit for Construction Activities and any subsequent General Permit in effect at the time of project construction. As part of the statewide NPDES permit, the construction contractor would be required to implement BMPs into their construction operations to reduce potential water quality impacts to the maximum extent practicable through preparation of a SWPPP. The General Permit contains requirements that BMPs must meet, including: Erosion Control Erosion control, also called stabilization, is the protection of the soil surface so that soil particles do not become detached by water or wind; and trapping soil particles that do become detached and are moved by water or wind. Non - Stormwater Management Non- stormwater management is the reduction or avoidance of discharges other than stonnwater, such as from cleaning of vehicles and equipment, and spills of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes. Non- stormwater management includes requirements for the use and storage of hazardous substances so as to avoid spills and minimizes pollution by cleaning spills that do occur. The SWPPP contains BMPs chosen for a project based on the specific activities that would be conducted as part of that project, and the amounts of stormwater and non - stormwater runoff that are anticipated. The 1990 Final EIS /EIR included a mitigation measure to control stormwater runoff associated with construction activities. Impacts would be less than significant and would be similar to those identified in the 1990 Final EIS/EIR. Moreover, the project would comply with the updated NPDES requirements, as described above. Operational Phase Operation of the proposed intersection has the potential to degrade water quality as a result of vehicular travel, including increases in such pollutants as oil, gasoline, grease, lead, and dust. Discharge from the proposed project to stormwater facilities would consist of non -point sources. Stormwater quality is generally affected by the length of time since the last rainfall, rainfall intensity, urban uses of the area, and the quantity of transported sediments. Typical urban water quality pollutants usually result from motor vehicle operations, oil and grease residue. The majority of pollutant loads are usually washed away during the first flush of the storm occurring after the dry season period. Due to the nature of the proposed project, generally occurring within an existing developed area, project impacts are not considered adverse. Consequently, impacts would be similar to those identified in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. Mitigation Measures No new additional mitigation measures are required. ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 75C -881 40 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) (b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre - existing nearby wells would drop to a level that would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? The project site is already developed and is not a groundwater recharging area. The proposed Bristol Street Widening Phase IV project would not result in increased water consumption and would not deplete groundwater supplies. No impact to groundwater supplies would result from the proposed project. No mitigation measures are necessary. Impacts would be similar to those identified in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. Mitigation Measures No new additional mitigation measures are required. (c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? The project site is already developed and the existing drainage pattern would not be changed due to the implementation of Bristol Street Widening Phase IV project. The storm drain improvements would be limited to relocation and /or construction of catch basins as necessary. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite due to drainage alteration. No mitigation measures are necessary. Impacts would be similar to those identified in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. Mitigation Measures No new additional mitigation measures are required. (d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off -site? The project site is already developed and the existing drainage pattern would not be changed due to the Bristol Street Widening Phase IV. 'Be storm drain improvements would be limited to construction of properly designed curb and gutter as necessary. The proposed project would not result in substantial reduction in impervious ground surfaces. The proposed project would not increase the rate or amount of surface runoff to create on- or offsite flooding. Impacts would not be greater than previously analyzed in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. Mitigation Measures No new additional mitigation measures are required. (e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? The project site is already developed and the existing drainage pattern would not be changed due to the Bristol Street Widening Phase IV project. The storm drain improvements would be limited to construction of catch basins as necessary. The proposed project would not result in substantial increase in impervious ground surfaces. The proposed project would not increase the rate or amount of surface runoff to create on- or offsite flooding. Impacts would be similar to those identified in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) USA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 75C -882 41 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) Mitigation Measures No new additional mitigation measures are required. (f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? The project site is currently developed and the proposed project would not result in substantial changes to the volume or nature of the urban runoff. Impacts would be similar to those identified in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. The proposed project would be required to adhere to water quality regulatory requirements, as described above. Mitigation Measures No new additional mitigation measures are required. (g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? The proposed widening would not place any housing within a 100 -year flooding zone as mapped by the FIRM. No impact would result from the proposed project. Impacts would be similar to those identified in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. Mitigation Measures No new additional mitigation measures are required. (h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? The Bristol Street Widening Phase IV project would not place any structures within a 100 -year flood hazard zone. No impact would result from the proposed project. Mitigation Measures No new additional mitigation measures are required. (i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? The proposed street widening does not involve development of any above -grade structures except for the relocation of utility poles. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant flooding risk any greater than what is already existing onsite. No impact would result from the proposed project. Mitigation Measures No new additional mitigation measures are required. (j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? The project site is approximately 10 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean. The likelihood of tsunami impacting a site more than five miles inland is minimal. The project site and its vicinity are built out with urban uses and there is no unusual slope or geologic feature in the area. The potential for seiche, tsunami, or mudflow impacting the project site is less than significant. Impacts would be similar to those identified in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 42 75C -883 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) Mitigation Measures No new additional mitigation measures are required. 3.10 Land Use and Planning This section corresponds with Section IV, Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures, subsection A, Landfonn Modification, of the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. (a) Physically divide an established community? The project area is developed with various urban uses and the proposed widening would not divide an established community. Although there would be partial and full takes, the project would not create a physical barrier to separate a community. The proposed project would not introduce any significant land use impacts than previously analyzed. No significant impact would result from the project implementation. Impacts would be similar to those identified in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. Mitigation Measures No new additional mitigation measures are required. (b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? The proposed project would not result in changes to the land use designation of the acquired parcels. The proposed project is in compliance with the existing designation and would not create a new conflict. No significant impact is anticipated. Impacts would be similar to those identified in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. Mitigation Measures No new additional mitigation measures are required. (c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? The project site is not a part of any habitat conservation plan. The project site is already fully developed and the proposed widening would not conflict with any habitat conservation plan or natural community. No impact is anticipated. Impacts would be similar to those identified in the 1990 Final EIS/EIR. Mitigation Measures No new additional mitigation measures are required. 3.11 Mineral Resources This section corresponds with Section IV, Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures, subsection W, Consumption of Renewable and Non - Renewable Resources of the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. (a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? The project site is currently developed and does not contain any areas for the extraction of mineral resources. The proposed project would not involve excavation that would likely identify previously ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 75C -884 43 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ADDENDUM Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) unidentified mineral resources. No impact to mineral resources would result from the proposed project. hnpacts would be similar to those identified in the 1990 Final EIS/EIR. Mitigation Measures No new additional mitigation measures are required. (b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally - important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? The project site is currently developed and is not delineated as a mineral resources recovery site by the City of Santa Ana General Plan. Implementation of the proposed project would have no impact on the mineral resources and no mitigation measures are necessary. Impacts would be similar to those identified in the 1990 Final EIS/EIR. Mitigation Measures No new additional mitigation measures are required. 3.12 Noise This section corresponds with Section IV, Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures, Subsection I, Noise, and V, Construction Impacts of the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. (a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? The proposed project involves widening of Bristol Street between Warner Avenue and Saint Andrew Place. The land uses in between Warner Avenue and St. Gertrude Place, and adjacent to the project, are commercial (Category C) on the west side of Bristol Street, and a mix of residential and commercial land uses on the east side of Bristol Street. The land uses on both sides of Bristol Street between St. Gertrude and St. Andrew Place are residential. Mater Dei High School is located along the east side of Bristol Street north of St. Andrew Place. Jose Andres Sepulveda Elementary School is west of Bristol Street in this same area. The future noise modeling results of the 1990 Final EIS /EIR indicated that future noise levels would be no more than one dBA higher with the project as compared to levels without project improvements (noise level changes of less than 3 dBA are normally inaudible to the human ear). The 1990 Final EIS /EIR (and 2013 NEPA Reevaluation) provided comprehensive noise barriers at all easterly parcel boundaries currently fronting the east side of Bristol Street between Warner Avenue and Saint Andrew Place and comprehensive noise barriers at all westerly parcel boundaries currently fronting the west side of Bristol Street between West Saint Gertrude Place and Saint Andrew Place. The following noise barriers were determined to be reasonable: NB -4, NB -5, NB -6, NB -7, NB -8, NB -9, NB -10, and NB -11. These noise barriers are generally equivalent to the recommended noise barriers shown in the 1990 FEIS and 2013 Reevaluation. However, barriers NB -6, NB -7, NB -8, and NB -9 would need to be shifted to the west of the receivers (parcels) that are no longer being acquired in whole such that these barriers are now proposed at the westerly parcel boundaries that front the east side of Bristol Street between Saint Anne Place and Saint Andrew Place (refer to Figure 7a and Figure 7b). Furthermore, the reasonable noise barriers would be constructed at a height of 8 feet, as opposed to 6 feet as identified in the 1990 FEIS and 2013 NEPA Reevaluation. The modifications and other refinements to the project would not create any additional impacts than what was identified in the 1990 Final EIS/EIR. With implementation of the mitigation measures from the 1990 Final EIS /EIR, noise impacts would be similar to that identified in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 75C -885 44 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ADDENDUM Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) Mitigation Measures No new additional mitigation measures are required. ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 W 45 75C -886 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) FIGURE 7A NOISE MONITORING AND MODELING LOCATIONS ANA 305 -194 (PLR 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 46 75C -887 GEERRTRUDE PLACE- RzI ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) FIGURE 7B NOISE MONITORING AND MODELING LOCATIONS ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 PU 75C -889 47 IW 11A t K ` � idreas geda ntary,'h i ool - M 1h '1 Al d M 2aF M-2h f , u I< its r(b Mater Del High School ry r Al M-2h ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) (b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Refer to response in 3.12 (a.) above. Project construction will involve typical groundborne noise and vibration. However, the majority of construction activities will consist of standard procedures, and will be relatively limited for any particular area. Construction activities would comply with the City of Santa Ana Municipal Code, which limits construction noise to the least noise sensitive portions of the day. Impacts would be similar to those identified in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR with implementation of mitigation measures as included in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. Mitigation Measures No new additional mitigation measures are required. (c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Refer to response in 3.12 (a.) above. During construction of the proposed project, the noise associated with construction may intermittently dominate the noise environment in the immediate area of construction. Typical construction equipment for roadway construction is expected to generate noise levels ranging from 74 to 89 decibels (0) at a distance of 50 feet. However, no additional adverse noise impacts from construction are anticipated as construction would comply with the City of Santa Ana Municipal Code, which limits construction noise to the least noise sensitive portions of the day. Construction equipment would be properly fitted and maintained according to the manufacturer's specifications. Furthermore, construction noise would be short-tern, temporary and cease upon completion of the proposed project. Impacts would be similar to those identified in the 1990 Final EIS/EIR with implementation of mitigation measures, as identified in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. Mitigation Measures No new additional mitigation measures are required. (d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Refer to responses 3.12 (c), above, for discussion regarding temporary noise impacts associated with construction. Mitigation Measures No new additional mitigation measures are required. (e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The project site is not located within an airport land use plan. The nearest airport is the John Wayne Airport approximately 3.5 miles southeast of the southernmost Phase IV project intersection. No impacts would occur. Impacts would be similar to those identified in the 1990 Final EIS/EIR. Mitigation Measures No new additional mitigation measures are required. (f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 75C -891 48 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) Refer to response 3.12 (e.), above. The proposed project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Mitigation Measures No new additional mitigation measures are required. 3.13 Population and Housing This section corresponds with Section IV, Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures, subsections L, Population, M, Housing Displacement, N, Business Displacement, O, Impacts on Neighborhood Character and Minority Groups, and R, Effect on Assessed Property Values, of the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. No take of residential parcels is proposed as part of this project. (a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure? Bristol Street and Warner Avenue are currently heavily traveled roadways and the City of Santa Ana is fully built out. The proposed project is designed to accommodate the existing and future traffic volume and would not create significant numbers of new trips. The proposed widening would not result in additional impact. Impacts would be similar to those identified in the 1990 Final EIS/EIR. Mitigation Measures No new additional mitigation measures are required. (b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The proposed project's Build Alternative is anticipated to result in full or partial acquisitions of approximately 43 parcels along the project study area. The acquired parcels are defined as distinct locations where residential and non - residential displacement could occur along the project alignment. The project is anticipated to result in the acquisition of 27 single - family residential units. This compares to a total of 28 single - family residential units (6 partial and 22 full acquisitions) as identified in the 1990 Final EIS/EIR. Of the 27 residential units that would be displaced as part of the proposed Project, 14 parcels would be considered partial acquisitions and 13 parcels would be considered full acquisitions. Since comparable relocation properties appear to be available in the metropolitan Santa Ana area in sufficient quantity, the need for replacement housing would not be triggered due to project implementation. The number of displacees resulting from the Proposed project are anticipated to be less than identified in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR due to the reduction in number of full acquisition of single - family residential units. Mitigation Measures No new additional mitigation measures are required. (c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The proposed project requires the acquisition of 27 single - family units could possibly result in displacing approximately 82 residents (URS Corporation, November 2011). The construction of replacement housing elsewhere would not be necessary because comparable relocation properties appear to be available in the metropolitan Santa Ana area in sufficient quantity. The project involves the widening Bristol Street from Warner Avenue to Saint Andrew Place in an urbanized, residential/commercial area of the City of Santa Ana. The required relocations would not disproportionately affect any specific group or groups of ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 75C -892 49 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTREPORTADDENDUM Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) individuals. Before any displacement occurs, residential and non - residential displacees will be presented with a list of comparable replacement properties that are available within the last six months for rent, lease, or purchase regardless of race, color, religion, sex or national origin, and would be consistent with the requirements of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1968. Impacts would be similar to those identified in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. Mitigation Measures No new additional mitigation measures are required. 3.14 Public Services This section corresponds with Section IV, Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures, subsections P, Impacts on Community Facilities, and V, Construction hnpacts of the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. (a) Fire Protection? The proposed project is an intersection widening project and no increase in demand for fire protection services would occur with implementation of the proposed project. Furthermore, the proposed project would result in positive impacts as a result of greater congestion relief and increased mobility in the vicinity for motor vehicles including emergency vehicles. hnpacts would be similar to those identified in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. Mitigation Measures No new additional mitigation measures are required. (b) Police Protection? Refer to response for Section 3.14 (a), above. The proposed project would reduce congestion and traffic idling times, and therefore, increase mobility of emergency vehicles, including police vehicles. The proposed project would not result in the need or increase the demand for police services in the area. Mitigation Measures No new additional mitigation measures are required. (c) Schools? No schools would be impacted by the proposed project and no school services would be affected by the proposed project. Impacts would be similar to those identified in the 1990 Final EIS/EIR. Mitigation Measures No new additional mitigation measures are required. (d) Parks? The proposed project is a road widening project and no park site would be acquired as part of the project. No park services would be increased or impacted by the proposed project and no impact would result from the proposed project. Impacts would be similar to those identified in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. Mitigation Measures No new additional mitigation measures are required. (e) Other public facilities? ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 50 75C -893 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ADDENDUM Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) The proposed project is an intersection widening project and would not generate demands for public facilities. Impacts would be similar to those identified in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. Mitigation Measures No new additional mitigation measures are required. 3.15 Recreation This section corresponds with Section IV, Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures, subsection P, Impact on Recreational Facilities, of the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. (a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? The proposed project is not a growth- inducing project and would not create demand for recreation services. Physical deterioration of recreational facilities would not result from the proposed intersection widening and no impact would result from the project implementation. No mitigation measures are required with regards to recreational resources. Impacts would be similar to those identified in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. Mitigation Measures No new additional mitigation measures are required. (b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The proposed intersection widening would not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities and no adverse physical impact would be generated. No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be similar to those identified in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. Mitigation Measures No new additional mitigation measures are required. 3.16 Transportation /Traffic This section corresponds with Section IV, Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures, subsections U, Impacts to Transportation Facilities, and V, Construction Impacts of the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. (a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non - motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit. The Bristol Street Widening Phase IV project is consistent with the applicable plans, ordinances and policies establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system as described in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. The widening of Bristol Street was designated in the Orange County Master 'Plan, and was recommended in the Bristol Street Corridor Study — Final Report by Mohle, Grover & Associates in 1983. It was also recommended in the Arterial Highway Element — Santa Ana Element — Santa Ana Transportation Corridor State II Alternative Analysis prepared by Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade and Douglas, Inc., in 1983. The proposed widening is also in agreement with the recommendation found in the Intercity Liaison Committee — Five -Year Transportation Study Update to 1990 prepared by Basmaeiyan- Darnell, Inc., in ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 75C -894 51 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) 1985. Furthermore, the proposed project would result in an improvement to the Bristol Street at Warner Avenue, Glenwood Place, and Saint Andrew Place intersections. Impacts would be similar to those identified in the 1990 Final EIS/EIR. Mitigation Measures No new additional mitigation measures are required. (b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? The proposed project would result in an improvement to Bristol Street from Warner Avenue to Saint Andrew Place. Once the project has been implemented, all roadway segments would operate at LOS D or better. The proposed project would not cause the County congestion agency's LOS standards to be exceeded. Impacts would be similar to those identified in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. Mitigation Measures No new additional mitigation measures are required. (c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? The closest airport to the site is John Wayne — Orange County Airport, located approximately 3.5 miles southeast of the project site. The proposed project would have no impact on air traffic patterns. The proposed project would not introduce any new risks or increase risks. Impacts would be similar to those identified in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. Mitigation Measures No new additional mitigation measures are required. (d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? The proposed project would improve the traffic flow along Bristol Street from Warner Avenue to Saint Andrew Place and would not create any sharp curves or other incompatible uses. The proposed project would not create any significant hazards beyond what was previously analyzed. Impacts would be similar to those identified in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. Mitigation Measures No new additional mitigation measures are required. (e) Result in inadequate emergency access? The proposed project would improve traffic flow along Bristol Street in the long -term. However, during the construction phase, the disruption of traffic and restricted access along Bristol Street could temporarily affect the mobility of emergency vehicles. Provisions would be made for interim access, and traffic control plans would be prepared prior to construction. Additionally, advance warning and information signs would be used to reduce the confusion motorists may experience during the construction process. Bristol Street would remain open during construction. Although the proposed project may interfere with emergency access in the short -tern, it would improve emergency access once the project is completed. The proposed project would not result in a more significant impact to emergency access than previously analyzed, and with the implementation of mitigation measures as prescribed in the 1990 Final EIS/EIR. ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 75C -895 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) Mitigation Measures No new additional mitigation measures are required. (f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? The proposed project supports the use of public transportation and it would not conflict with any alternative transportation plan and would increase safety. The proposed project would not result in impacts greater than as described in the 1990 Final EIS/EIR. Mitigation Measures No new additional mitigation measures are required. 3.17 Utilities and Service Systems This section corresponds with Section IV, Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures, subsections S, Effect on Utilities, and V, Construction Impacts of the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. (a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? The proposed project would not generate any sewer demand and would not change the sewer quality. No impacts are anticipated in this regard. Mitigation Measures No new additional mitigation measures are required. (b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? The proposed road widening project would not generate the need for water and wastewater services from the City of Santa Ana Public Works Agency and the Orange County Sanitation District, respectively. The existing sewer and water lines beneath Bristol Street would not be relocated. The proposed project would not create any new significant environmental impact. Impacts would be similar to those identified in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. Mitigation Measures No new additional mitigation measures are required. (c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? The project site is already fully developed and the proposed project would not change the runoff volume significantly. Instead, the proposed project would improve existing drainage flow by constructing properly designed curb and gutter along the edges of Bristol Street. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in any new significant environmental impact. Impacts would be similar to those identified in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. Mitigation Measures No new additional mitigation measures are required. ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 75C -896 53 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) (d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? The proposed project would not result in any increase in water consumption. Landscape improvements, if applicable, would not require any new or expanded water entitlements. The proposed project would not create any new significant environmental impact. Impacts would be similar to those identified in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. Mitigation Measures No new additional mitigation measures are required (e) 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? The proposed roadway widening project would not generate any sewer demands. No new significant impact is anticipated. Impacts would be similar to those identified in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. Mitigation Measures No new additional mitigation measures are required. (f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? The proposed project would generate construction waste on a short -term basis. The City has two haulers, Waste Management and Ware Disposal, which provide recycling services for construction and demolition projects. Construction waste that cannot be recycled would be taken to available landfills. The predominant receiving landfill for the City is the Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill at 11002 Bee Canyon Access Road in Irvine. The landfill, which is owned and operated by the Orange County Integrated Waste Management Department, opened in 1990 and is scheduled to operate until approximately 2022. The facility has adequate landfill capacity to serve the proposed project and no new significant environmental impact would result from the project implementation. Impacts would be similar to those identified in the 1990 Final EIS/EIR. Mitigation Measures No new additional mitigation measures are required. (g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? The proposed project would comply with all applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. The proposed project would comply with the City's established reduction, reuse, and recycling programs. No new significant solid waste impact would result from the proposed project. Impacts would be similar to those identified in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. Mitigation Measures No new additional mitigation measures are required. 3.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance Based on this Addendum, the Bristol Street Widening Phase IV project has not substantially changed in regard to the setting, design, impacts, and mitigation measures as described in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. New ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 54 75C -897 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ADDENDUM Bristol Street Widening Project WarnerAve to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) circumstances or new information, including any new or revised environmental laws, regulations, or policies have not modified the impacts of the proposed project. (a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? The proposed project would not result in greater impacts as compared with the 1990 Final EIS /EIR and does not have the potential to degrade the environment, reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, threaten plant or animal communities, reduce or restrict endangered plant or animal species or eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory. (b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Due to the relatively limited nature of the proposed project and in consideration of mitigation measures addressed in the 1990 Final EIS/EIR, the project would not involve impacts that are cumulatively considerable. (c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Construction - related activities are anticipated to have some minor, temporary impacts, which can be mitigated with implementation of measures included in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. Furthermore, potential long- term impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of required mitigation measures. ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 75C -898 55 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) 4.0 REFERENCES Air Quality Conformity Analysis — Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Avenue to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV), URS Corporation. January 2013. City of Santa Ana General Plan, Adopted September 1982 (with updates and reformatting through January 2010). City of Santa Ana Website: www .ei.santa- ana.ca.us.Community Impact Assessment — Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Avenue to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV), URS Corporation. October 2010. Relocation Impact Statement — Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Avenue to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV), URS Corporation. November 2011. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Proposed Widening of Bristol Street from Warner Avenue to Memory Lane, in the City of Santa Ana. Wildan Associates. 1990. Noise Study Report — Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Avenue to Saint Andrew Place, URS Corporation. November 2012. Southern California Association of Governments, Orange County RTIP, Project Listing Report. 2008, www.seag.ca.gov. Traffic Impact Analysis — Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Avenue to Saint Andrew Place, URS Corporation. October 2010. ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 56 75C -899 APPENDIX A MODIFIED INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 75C -900 Modified Initial Study Checklist The following Modified Initial Study (MIS) Checklist is based on the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Initial Study Checklist. It is modified to evaluate the proposed project changes for which environmental impact reports /statements have previously been completed to assist in the determination of the need for supplemental environmental documents, in this case, a Supplemental EIS/EIR or an Addendum under Public Resources Code 21166 and Guideline Sections 15162, 15163, and 15164. For purposes of this study, references to "the proposal' in the left hand column questions refer to the proposed project changes. The first four columns to the right of the MIS questions identify whether the proposed project changes would result in new impacts and if so whether these impacts would be less than significant, less than significant after mitigation, or significant. The fifth column asks whether or not the impacts associated with project changes, if any, were sufficiently disclosed in the previous environmental documents (Not Addressed). Finally, the last column indicates whether or not a Supplemental EIS /EIR is needed. A Supplemental EIS /EIR would be needed if there were new significant unmitigated or substantially more severe impacts which would result from the project changes and which were not sufficiently disclosed in the previous environmental documents. Discussion in support of the conclusions indicated on the checklist is provided in Chapter 3 ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133967 YU 75C -901 A MODIFIED INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) USA (AUGUST 2014) 133967 YU 75C -902 New Impacts of Project Changes -` PreviousFEIRandFEIS - ess an Significant ess an Significant otentia VV Significant pp uppp ement al EIR/EIS robs P Impact After Impact DiscloseG? Required? Mitigation 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect X YES NO on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and X N/A NO historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site X YES NO and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which X YES NO would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Z AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the X N/A NO Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act X NIA NO contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning, of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code X N/A NO section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(8))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non - X NIA NO forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing en vironm ant wh ich, due to their location or nature, could result X N/A NO in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non - forest use? ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) USA (AUGUST 2014) 133967 YU 75C -902 ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 75C -903 New Impacts of Project Changes - Previous FOR and FEIS Impact P Less an Significant Less an Significant Potentially Significant DiscPosed? uppp emenl al EIRIEIS - Impact After Impact`. .Required? Mitigation 3. AIR QUALITY. - Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct X YES NO implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or X YES NO contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an X YES NO applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to X YES NO substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of X YES NO people? 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, X YES NO or special- status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, X YES NO policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited X YES NO lo, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 75C -903 ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 75C -904 New Impacts of Project Changes Previous FOR and FEIS No Impact Less I han Significant Less I han Significant Potentially Significant Impacts Disclosed? Supplement at EIR/EIS Impact After Impact Required? Mitigation d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or X YES NO with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological X YES NO resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or stale habitat conservation plan? 5, CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a X YES NO historical resource as defined In § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an X YES NO archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or X YES NO site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of X NA NO formal cemeteries? 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the X YES NO State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 75C -904 ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) USA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 75C -905 - New Impacts of Project Changes Previous FOR and FEIS Impact Less an Significant an Significant otentia V Significant Disclosed? ulp ement at EIR/EIS Impact After Impact Required? Mitigation ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X YES NO iii) Seismic - related ground failure, X YES NO including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? X YES NO b) Result in substantial soil erosion X YES NO or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- X YES NO or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), X YES NO creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste X NA NO water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or X NO NO indirectly, that may have a significant Impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the X NO NO purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? 8. HAZARDS, Would the project involve: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through X YES NO the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) USA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 75C -905 ;. New Impacts of Project Changes .. Previous: FOR and FEIS. No Less I ran Significant Less I nan Significant Ppienual Significant Impacts Su lament al EIR EIS Impact Impact After Impact Disclosed? Required? - - .:Mitigation . b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and X YES NO accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or X NIA NO waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 X YES NO and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within X NIA NO two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project X NIA NO result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted X YES NO emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to X NIA NO urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER. QUALITY a) Violate any water quality X YES NO standards or waste discharge requirements? ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 75C -906 ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 75C -907 New Impacts of Project Changes Previous FEIR and FEIS No Impact P ess I Man Significant Less I Man Significant Potemiall y Significant Impacts Disclosed? Icposed? upppement `al EIWEIS Impact After Impact Required? Mitigation E) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local X YES NO groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level that would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a X YES NO manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or X YES NO substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on -or off -site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water X YES NO drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade X YES NO water quality? g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or X YES NO Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood X YES NO hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding X YES NO as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 75C -907 ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) USA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 75C -908 New Impacts of Project Changes - Previous FEIR and FEIS Less : an Significant Less an Significant Potentially Significant Supplement atEIRIEIS Impact Impact After Impact Discosed? Required? ' Mitigation j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or X N/A NO mudflow? 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established X N/A NO community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local X YES NO coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural X N/A NO community conservation plan? 11. MINERAL RESOURCES. - Wouldtheproject: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would X YES NO be of value to the region and the residents of the stale? b) Result in the loss of availability of alocally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local X YES NO general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? 12. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local X YES NO general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive X YES NO groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase In ambient noise levels in the project X YES NO vicinity above levels existing without the project? ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) USA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 75C -908 ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 10 75C -909 New Impacts of Project Changes Previous FOR and FEIS Impact Less an Significant Less an Significant Potentially Significant Disclosed? uppp ement EIR/EIS Impact After Impact Required? Required? Mitigation d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise X YES NO levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public X N/A NO use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project X N/A NO expose people residing or working in '.. the project area to excessive noise levels? 13. POPULATION AND HOUSING.. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes X YES NO and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the X YES NO construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the X YES NO construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical Impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance ob'ecllves for any of the a) Fire protection? X YES NO b) Police protection? X YES NO c) Schools? X YES NO ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 10 75C -909 Appendix A ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 75C -910 New Impacts of Project Changes Previous FOR and FEIS No ess inan Significant Less I man Significant Potentially . Significant Impacts uppp ement al EIRIEIS Impact Impact 'After Impact: Disclosed? :Required.. .:Mitigation d) Parks? X YES NO e) Other public facilities? X YES NO 15. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational X YES NO facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of X YES NO recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 16. TRANSPORTATIONIfRAFFIG. Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking Into account all modes of transportation including X YES NO mass transit and non - motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand X YES NO measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase X NO NO in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) X YES NO or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 75C -910 ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) USA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 12 75C -911 New Impacts of Project Changes. Previous FOR and FEIS No. Impact P ess an Significant Less an Significant Potentially Significant Imacts Disclosed? upppement al EIR/EIS Jmpact After Impact Required? Mitigation e) Result in inadequate emergency X YES NO access? f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian X YES NO facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? 17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the 'ect a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable X YES NO Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or X YES NO expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of X YES NO existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, X YES NO or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the X YES NO project's projected demand In addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to X YES NO accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related X YES NO to solid waste? ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) USA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 12 75C -911 Appendix A ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) USA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 75C -912 New Impacts of Project Changes Previous FOR and FEIS . No ess I : an Significant Less I ham Significant Potentiall SignificantOisclosed? impacts upppement— al EIRIEIS Impact Impact After Impact Required? Mitigation 18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. - a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to X YES NO eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a X YES N project are considerable when 0 viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will X YES NO cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or Note: NIA = Not applicable 19. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and slate where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) USA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 75C -912 75C -913 ROH — 04/07/15 RESOLUTION NO. 2015 -xx A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA APPROVING AN ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 89 -01 FOR THE BRISTOL STREET WIDENING PROJECT BETWEEN WARNER AVENUE AND SAINT ANDREW PLACE (PHASE IV) 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: A. On November 19, 1990, the City Council approved the Final Environmental Impact Statement / Environmental Impact Report (EIS 89 -01) for the widening of a 3.9 -mile segment of Bristol Street from Warner Avenue to Memory Lane, hereinafter referred to as the "Project". B. City Council has been asked to approve the commencement of Phase IV of the Project, widening Bristol Street from Warner Avenue to Saint Andrew Place. Phase IV includes minor design modifications to the Project approved in EIS 89 -01. C. On April 7, 2015, the City Council of the City of Santa Ana considered the request for approval of the Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Study / Environmental Impact Report (EIS 89 -01). Section 2. The City Council previously approved and adopted Final Environmental Impact Study / Environmental Impact Report (EIS 89 -01). In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA "), an Addendum to EIS 89 -01 was prepared for Phase IV of the Bristol Street Widening Project. A true and correct copy of the Addendum is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference. The City Council reviewed the information contained in the Addendum, which includes reference materials, all of which are hereby incorporated by reference, and as a result of its consideration and the evidence presented at the hearings on this matter, determined that, as required pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the Addendum adequately addresses the expected environmental impacts of this Project. Based upon the studies, the City Council determines that there are no new significant impacts or any increases in the severity of the impacts previously identified in the original FEIS /EIR. Resolution No. 2015 - Page 1 of 3 75C -914 Section 3. The City Council hereby certifies and approves the Addendum to EIR 89 -01, and directs that any necessary Notice of Determination be prepared and filed with the County Clerk of the County of Orange in the matter required by Law. Section 4. These decisions are based upon the Request for Council Action dated April i, 2015, and exhibits attached thereto; the public comments; and, the Final Environmental Impact Study / Environmental Impact Report (EIS 89 -01), all of which are incorporated herein by this reference. Section 5. This decision rendered by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana is final and is subject to judicial review pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.8. ADOPTED this day of April, 2015. Miguel A. Pulido Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sonia f arvalhp, City Attorney M li AYES: Councilmembers NOES: Councilmembers ABSTAIN: Councilmembers NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers Resolution No. 2015 - Page 2 of 3 75C -915 CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, MARIA D. HUIZAR, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2015 -XXX to be the original resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on Date: Clerk of the Council City of Santa Ana 75C -916 Resolution No. 2015 - Page 3 of 3 75C -917 EXHIBITA Please note that Exhibit A referenced in the resolution is Exhibit 3 of the 75C Staff Report. 75C -918