Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-09-20_AGENDA PACKETPLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA NOVEMBER 9, 2020 Minh Thai Executive Director CITY OF SANTA ANA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA NOVEMBER 9, 2020 5:30 P.M. VIRTUAL MEETING MARK McLOUGHLIN Chair, Citywide Representative CYNTHIA CONTRERAS-LEO Vice Chair, Ward 5 Representative NORMA GARCIA Ward 1 Representative FELIX RIVERA Ward 2 Representative KENNETH NGUYEN Ward 3 Representative V. THAI PHAN Ward 4 Representative THOMAS MORRISSEY Ward 6 Representative Si tiene preguntas en español, favor de llamar a Narcee Perez al (714) 667-2260. Nếu cần liên lạc bằng tiếng Việt, xin điện thoại cho Tony Lai số (714) 565-2627. Translation Services: If you require translation services to participate in this meeting, please contact Sarah Bernal at sbernal@santa-ana.org no later than 48 hours prior to the scheduled meeting. Special Assistance: If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact Michael Ortiz, ADA Program Coordinator, at (714) 647-5624. Please call prior to the meeting date, to allow the City time to make reasonable arrangements for accessibility to this meeting [Americans with Disabilities Act, Title II, 28 CFR 35.102]. Lisa E. Storck Legal Counsel Vince Fregoso, AICP Planning Manager Sarah Bernal Recording Secretary Due to Governor Gavin Newsom's Executive Order and the City Council's Proclamation of Local Emergency, we can no longer offer an in-person meeting location for the community to attend public meetings. You may watch the meeting live in the following ways:  Visit the City’s website santa-ana.org/city-meetings and select the active link for the current Planning Commission meeting.  Visit the City’s YouTube site at youtube.com/cityofsantaanavideos/live.  For Spanish audio, visit santaana.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?publish_id=1 You may provide a comment in the following ways:  Send an e-mail to ecomments@santa-ana.org (reference ‘”Planning Commission Public Comment for Agenda Item No. #” in the subject line). Make sure to include your name, whether you are in support of or in opposition to the item and why. The deadline to submit comments is 5:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting. Comments received by the deadline will be distributed to the Commission prior to the start of the meeting and will also be posted on our website at www.santa-ana.org/cc/city-meetings. Comments received after the deadline may not be distributed to the Commission but will be posted on the City's website at the earliest possible opportunity after the meeting; or  Join the Zoom Webinar directly at: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/315965149; or  Call 669-900-9128 and enter Meeting ID: 315 965 149# when prompted. Callers can begin joining the speaker que by 5:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting. While the item that you would like to comment on is being discussed, dial *9 to let us know that you want to speak. After the clerk confirms the last three digits of caller’s phone number and unmutes them, the caller must press *6 to speak. You will have 3 minutes to state your name, whether you are in support of or in opposition to the item, and why. If you are calling in and watching YouTube, please turn your f PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA NOVEMBER 9, 2020 Basic Planning Commission Meeting Information The Planning Commission Agenda can be found online at https://www.santa-ana.org/cc/city-meetings Planning Commission: The Santa Ana Planning Commission consists of seven residents of the city who are appointed by Santa Ana City Councilmembers. The Commission meets regularly on the second and fourth Monday of each month Meetings begin at 5:30 p.m., unless otherwise noted. The Planning Commission is responsible for providing input to the City Council on long-range planning. Santa Ana’s long-range planning goals are embodied in the General Plan. The General Plan and the amendments to it are reviewed by the Planning Commission and adopted by the City Council. The General Plan is implemented through the City’s development regulations. The Planning Commission has the authority to approve or deny applications concerning development within the City. The category of applications includes Conditional Use Permits, Variances, Tentative Tract and Parcel Maps, Minor Exceptions, Site Plan Review, and Public Convenience or Necessity Determinations. The Planning Commission also makes recommendations to the City Council on all Zoning and General Plan amendments, Development Agreements, Specific Developments, and Specific Plans. Agenda and Staff Reports An agenda along with staff reports are provided for each Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission agenda and staff reports is posted at least 72 hours prior the meeting on the City’s website at www.santa-ana.org/cc/city-meetings, and on the posting boards outside the Civic Center entrance, Council Chamber, and Library. If you have any questions regarding any item of business on the agenda for this meeting, or any of the staff reports or other documentation relating to any agenda item, please contact the Planning and Building Agency at 714-667-2732. The items on the agenda are arranged in four categories: 1. Consent Calendar: These are relatively minor in nature, do not have any outstanding issues or concerns, and do not require a public hearing. All consent calendar items are considered by the Commission as one item and a single vote is taken for their approval, unless an item is pulled from the consent calendar for individual discussion. There is typically no Commission discussion of consent calendar items unless requested. 2. Business Items: Items in this category are general in nature and may require Commission action. Public input may be received at the request of the Commission. 3. Public Hearings: This category is for case applications that require, by law, a hearing open to public comment because of the discretionary nature of the request. Public hearings are formally conducted and public input/testimony is requested at a specific time. This is your opportunity to speak on the item(s) that concern you. 4. Work Study Session: Items in this category are generally items requiring discussion. No action will be taken. Public Hearing Procedure: The Planning Commission will follow the following procedure for all items listed as public hearing items: 1. The Chair will ask for presentation of the staff report; 2. The Commission will have the opportunity to question staff in order to clarify any specific points; 3. The public hearing will be opened; 4. The applicant/ project representative will be allowed to make a presentation, for a maximum of 15 minutes. 5. Members of the audience will be allowed to speak, for a maximum of 3 minutes per speaker. 6. The applicant will be given an opportunity to respond to comments made by the audience; 7. The public hearing will be closed; and 8. Discussion of the proposal will return to the Commission with formal action taken to approve, conditionally approve, deny, or continue review of the application. Appeals: The formal action by the Planning Commission regarding Conditional Use Permits, Variances, Tentative Tract and Parcel Maps, Minor Exceptions, Site Plan Review, and Public Convenience or Necessity Determinations are final and shall become effective after the ten-day appeal period (unless the City Council in compliance with section 41-643, 41-644 or 41-645 holds a public hearing on the matter, then the formal action will become effective on the day following the hearing and decision by the City Council). An appeal from the decision or requirement of the Planning Commission may be made by any interested party, individual, or group. The appeal must be filed with the Clerk of the Council, accompanied by the required filing fee, and a copy sent to the Planning Department, within ten days of the date of the Commission’s action, by 5:00 p.m. If the final day to appeal falls on a City Hall observed holiday or a day when City hall is closed, the final day to appeal shall be extended to the next day City Hall is open for public business. Please note: Under California Government Code Sec. 65009, if you challenge in court any of the matters on this agenda for which a public hearing is to be conducted, you may be limited to raising only those issues which you (or someone else) raised orally at the public hearing or in written correspondence received by the Planning Commission or City Council at or before the hearing. Submittal of information for dissemination or presentation Written Materials/Handouts: Any member of the public who desires to submit documentation in hard copy form may do so prior to the meeting or at the time he/she addresses the Planning Commission. Please provide 15 copies of the information to be submitted and file with the Recording Secretary at the time of arrival to the meeting. This information will be disseminated to the Planning Commission at the time testimony is given. Large Displays/Maps/Renderings: Any member of the public who desires to display freestanding large displays or renderings in conjunction with their public testimony is asked to notify the Planning and Building Agency at 714-667-2732 no later than noon on the day of the scheduled meeting. Electronic Documents/Audio-Visuals: Any member of the public who desires to display information electronically in conjunction with their public testimony is asked to submit the information to the Planning and Building Agency at 714-667-2732 no later than noon on the day of the scheduled meeting. Code of Ethics and Conduct: The people of the City of Santa Ana, at an election held on February 5, 2008, approved an amendment to the City Charter which established the Code of Ethics and Conduct for elected officials and members of appointed boards, commissions, and committees to assure public confidence. A copy of the City’s Code can be found on the Clerk of the Council’s webpage. The following are the core values expressed: Integrity · Honesty · Responsibility · Fairness · Accountability · Respect · Efficiency Senate Bill 343: As required by Senate Bill 343, any non-confidential writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission members regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection in the Planning & Building Agency during normal business hours. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA November 9, 2020 CITY OF SANTA ANA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PUBLIC COMMENTS (non-agenda items): Individuals may comment on an agenda item in the following ways: (1) You may submit written comments by email to ecomments@santa-ana.org (reference ‘”Planning Commission Public Comment for Agenda Item #” in the subject line). The deadline to submit comments is 5:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting; or (2) You may join the Zoom Webinar directly at: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/315965149; or (3) You may comment by phone while the meeting is in progress by calling 669-900-9128. Enter Meeting ID: 315 965 149# when prompted. While the item that you would like to comment on is being discussed, dial *9 to let us know that you want to speak. After you are called upon, you must press *6 to unmute yourself. Please state your name, whether you are in support or opposition to an item and why. You will have 3 minutes to speak. . RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve staff recommendation on the following Consent Calendar Item: A – B. A. MINUTES FROM THE OCTOBER 26, 2020 REGULAR MEETING. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the minutes. B. EXCUSED ABSENCES RECOMMENDED ACTION: Excuse absent commission members. * * * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * ** CONSENT CALENDAR Individuals may comment on an agenda item in the following ways: (1) You may submit written comments by email to ecomments@santa-ana.org (reference ‘”Planning Commission Public Comment for Agenda Item #” in the subject line). The deadline to submit comments is 5:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting; or (2) You may join the Zoom Webinar directly at: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/315965149; or (3) You may comment by phone while the meeting is in progress by calling 669-900-9128. Enter Meeting ID: 315 965 149# when prompted. While the item that you would like to comment on is being discussed, dial *9 to let us know that you want to speak. After you are called upon, you must press *6 to unmute yourself. Please state your name, whether you are in support or opposition to an item and why. You will have 3 minutes to speak. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA November 9, 2020 PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS: The Planning Commission decision on Conditional Use Permits, Variances, Tentative Tract and Parcel Maps, Minor Exceptions, Site Plan Review, and Public Convenience or Necessity Determinations are final unless appealed within 10 days of the decision by any interested party or group (refer to the Basic Meeting Information page for more information). The Planning Commission recommendation on Zoning and General Plan amendments, Development Agreements, Specific Developments, and Specific Plans will be forwarded to the City Council for final determination. NOTICE: Legal notice for item no. 1 was published in the Orange County Reporter on October 14; notices mailed at least 10 days prior. Legal notice for item no. 2 was published in the Orange County Register on October 23; notices mailed at least 10 days prior. Legal notice for item no. 3 was published in the Orange County Reporter on October 28; notices mailed at least 10 days prior. 1. SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 2020-04 – Selena Kelaher, Case Planner. Due to a lack of quorum, matter was continued from the October 26, 2020 regular meeting. LOCATION: 1801 East Fourth Street located in the Metro East Mixed-Use Overlay Zone (MEMU), Active Urban (AU) zoning district REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval of a site plan review to facilitate construction of a mixed-use development project consisting of two buildings with a total of 644 residential units, 15,130 square feet of commercial space, 1,318 parking spaces and associated amenities and open space. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: In conjunction with the above request, the Planning Commission consider the following: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the project has been determined to be adequately evaluated in the previously certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 2006-01 (SCH No. 2006031041) and Subsequent EIR (SEIR) No. 2018-15 as per Sections 15162 and 15168 of the CEQA guidelines. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt a Resolution. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA APPROVING SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 2020- 04 AS CONDITIONED FOR A NEW MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1801 EAST FOURTH STREET 2. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 2020-03 AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2020-06 FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE TO THE SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN – Vince Fregoso, Case Planner. Due to a lack of quorum, the matter was adjourned from the November 5, 2020 special meeting. LOCATION: Citywide BUSINESS CALENDAR Individuals may comment on an agenda item in the following ways: (1) You may submit written comments by email to ecomments@santa-ana.org (reference ‘”Planning Commission Public Comment for Agenda Item #” in the subject line). The deadline to submit comments is 5:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting; or (2) You may join the Zoom Webinar directly at: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/315965149; or (3) You may comment by phone while the meeting is in progress by calling 669-900-9128. Enter Meeting ID: 315 965 149# when prompted. While the item that you would like to comment on is being discussed, dial *9 to let us know that you want to speak. After you are called upon, you must press *6 to unmute yourself. Please state your name, whether you are in support or opposition to an item and why. You will have 3 minutes to speak. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA November 9, 2020 REQUEST: The City is requesting approval of a general plan amendment to facilitate a comprehensive update to the City’s General Plan. The General Plan goals and policies will guide the City’s physical development, fiscal and environmental sustainability, and overall quality of life for the community. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: In conjunction with the above request, the Planning Commission will consider the following: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Environmental Impact Report 2020-03 was prepared for the project to analyze the potential impacts of the project and identify measures to mitigate the environmental effects. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: a) Recommend that the City Council adopt a Resolution. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA (1) ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, (2) CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2020029087), (3) ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND (4) APPROVING THE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE b) Recommend that the City Council adopt a Resolution. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2020-06 FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE TO THE SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2020-19 AND VARIANCE NO. 2020-04 – Fernanda Aria, Case Planner. LOCATION: 4111 South Main Street located in the General Commercial (C2) zoning district. REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval of a (1) conditional use permit to permit the construction of a new major wireless communications facility disguised as a mono-pine and a (2) variance to permit the wireless facility at a height of 80 feet in lieu of a maximum of 60 feet. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: In conjunction with the above request, the Planning Commission will consider the following: The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines – New Construction. Notice of Exemption, Environmental Review No. 2018-117 will be filed for this project. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: Continue the matter to December 14, 2020. ***END OF BUSINESS CALENDAR*** PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA November 9, 2020 COMMENTS 4. STAFF COMMENTS 5. COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT – The meeting scheduled for Monday, November 23 is canceled. The next regular meeting will be held via teleconference on Monday, December 14 at 5:30 p.m. 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 26, 2020 ACTION MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SANTA ANA PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 26, 2020 CALLED TO ORDER VIRTUAL MEETING CITY HALL, ROSS ANNEX 20 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA, ROOM 1600 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 5:30 P.M. ATTENDANCE COMMISSIONERS Present: CYNTHIA CONTRERAS-LEO, Vice Chair MARK MCLOUGHLIN, Chair THOMAS MORRISSEY V. THAI PHAN COMMISSIONERS Absent: None. NORMA GARCIA KENNETH NGUYEN FELIX RIVERA PLANNING & BUILDING AGENCY STAFF Present: MINH THAI, Executive Director VINCE FREGOSO, Planning Manager RYAN HODGE, Assistant City Attorney SELENA KELAHER, Associate Planner JERRY GUEVARA, Assistant Planner SARAH BERNAL, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PUBLIC COMMENTS (on non-agenda items): None. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS *All votes were taken by roll call 1.MINUTES FROM THE OCTOBER 12, 2020 REGULAR MEETING MOTION: Approve the minutes. MOTION: MORRISSEY SECOND: PHAN VOTE: AYES: Contreras-Leo, McLoughlin, Morrissey, Phan (4) NOES: None (0) ABSTAIN:: None (0) A - 1 2 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 26, 2020 ABSENT: Garcia, Nguyen Rivera (3) BUSINESS CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING Item No. 1 moved to the end of the calendar 2. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW NO. 2018-83, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2020-04, AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO. 2020-02, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2019-02 – Jerry Guevara, Case Planner. LOCATION: 301 and 305 North Mountain View Street located in the General Agricultural (A1) zoning district. REQUEST: The applicant proposes to construct a new eight-unit condominium development. In order to facilitate the construction of this project, the applicant is requesting approval of the following land use entitlements: (1) a general plan amendment to change the site’s current land use designation from Low-Medium Density Residential (LMR-11) to Medium Density Residential (MR-15), (2) an amendment application to change the zoning designation of the property from General Agricultural (A1) to Two-Family Residence (R2), and (3) a tentative tract map to allow subdivision of the property for condominium purposes. In addition, the applicant is requesting adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. In conjunction with this project, the City is also proposing to change the General Plan Land Use designation and zoning of adjacent properties on the block stretching from First Street to Fifth Street to ensure consistency between zoning and the General Plan. Case Planner Guevara provided a staff presentation. Commission discussion ensued regarding the zoning designation and general plan amendment. Recording Secretary provided a summary report of written communication received. Chair McLoughlin opened the public hearing. Representatives of the project spoke in support of the matter. Answered questions regarding parking. There were no other speakers and the public hearing was closed. Further discussion ensued regarding City parking standards and permit parking. MOTIONS: a) Adopt a Resolution. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, ENVIRONMENTAL A - 2 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 26, 2020 REVIEW NO. 2018-83, RELATIVE TO TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2019-02 FOR THE PROJECT LOCATED AT 301 AND 305 NORTH MOUNTAIN VIEW STREET b) Adopt a Resolution: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2019-02 AS CONDITIONED TO CREATE A SUBDIVISION OF EIGHT (8) CONDOMINIUM UNITS AT 301 AND 305 NORTH MOUNTAIN VIEW STREET c) Recommend that the City Council adopt a Resolution: A RESOLUTION OF CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW NO. 2018-83, RELATIVE TO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2020-04 AND AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO. 2020-02 FOR THE PROJECT LOCATED AT 301 AND 305 NORTH MOUNTAIN VIEW STREET d) Recommend that the City Council adopt a Resolution: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2020-04 TO CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 4310, 4314, 4318, 4322, 4326 AND 4330 WEST FIFTH STREET; 113, 117, 121, 201, 203, 207, 211, 221, 223, 225, 227, 229, 231, 233, 235, 237, 239, 241, 243, 245, 247, 301, 305, 321, 323, 325, 327, 329, 331, 333, 335, 337, 339, 341, 343, 345, 347, 349, 351, 353, 355, 357, 359, 361, 363, 365, 409 AND 411 NORTH MOUNTAIN VIEW STREET; AND 4311, 4315, 4317, 4319, 4321, 4323, 4325, 4327, 4329, 4331, 4333, 4335, 4337 AND 4339 WEST FIRST STREET e) Recommend that the City Council adopt an Ordinance: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA APPROVING AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO. 2020-02 REZONING THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 4310, 4314, 4318, 4322, 4326 AND 4330 WEST FIFTH STREET; 113, 117, 121, 201, 203, 207, 211, 221, 223, 225, 227, 229, 231, 233, 235, 237, 239, 241, 243, 245, 247, 301, AND 305 NORTH MOUNTAIN VIEW STREET; AND 4311 WEST FIRST STREET MOTION: MORRISSEY SECOND: PHAN VOTE: AYES: Contreras-Leo, Garcia, McLoughlin, Morrissey, Phan (4) NOES: None (0) ABSTAIN: None (0) ABSENT: Garcia, Nguyen, Rivera (3) 1. SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 2020-04 – Selena Kelaher, Case Planner. LOCATION: 1801 East Fourth Street located in the Metro East Mixed-Use Overlay Zone (MEMU), Active Urban (AU) zoning district A - 3 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 26, 2020 REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval of a site plan review to facilitate construction of Central Pointe, a mixed-use development project consisting of two buildings with a total of 644 residential units, 15,130 square feet of commercial space, 1,318 parking spaces and associated amenities and open space. Commissioner Phan recused herself due to a conflict of her interest; her employer, Ruttan & Tucker, represents the owner. Due to a lack of quorum, the item was adjourned to the next regular meeting on November 9, 2020 at 5:30 p.m. ***END OF BUSINESS CALENDAR*** COMMENTS 3. STAFF COMMENTS: Planning Manager Fregoso:  Special Meeting scheduled for November 5 at 5:30 p.m. to review the General Plan Update.  Please reach out to staff if Commission would like to meet with staff to discuss the General Plan Update. 4. COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS:  Commissioner Morrissey: Should consider zoning inconsistency at the time the General Plan is adopted rather than spot zoning.  Commissioner Phan: Echoed Commissioner Morrissey’s comment regarding zoning.  Vice Chair Contreras-Leo: Echoed Commissioner Morrissey’s comment regarding zoning.  Chair McLoughlin: Inquired about community interest for the Special Meeting on November 5. 6:28 P.M. – There will be a Special meeting on November 5, 2020. The next Regular meeting will be on Monday, November 9, 2020 at 5:30 p.m. Sarah Bernal Recording Secretary A - 4 1 - 1 11-09-2020 DUE TO LACK OF QUORUM 1 - 2 1 - 3 1 - 4 1 - 5 1 - 6 1 - 7 1 - 8 1 - 9 EXHIBIT 1 1 - 10 Resolution No. 2020-xx Page 1 of 9 LS 11.9.20 RESOLUTION NO. 2020-xx A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA APPROVING SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 2020-04 AS CONDITIONED FOR A NEW MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1801 EAST FOURTH STREET BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines and declares as follows: A. Sean Rawson with Waterford Property Company, representing Park Center Santa Ana Associates, L.P (“Applicant”), is requesting approval of Site Plan Review No. 2020-04, as conditioned, to allow the construction of a new mixed-use development consisting of 644 multi-family residential units and 15,130 square feet of commercial space at 1801 East Fourth Street. B. The subject site has a General Plan land use designation of District Center (DC). The site is located within the Professional zoning district and has an overlay zone designation of Metro East Mixed-Use (MEMU) Overlay Zone (OZ-1), Active Urban district, which permits medium- to high-intensity mixed-use residential, commercial, office, and hotel developments subject to approval of a site plan review (SPR) application by the Planning Commission. C. The MEMU Overlay Zone was adopted in 2007 as a result of interest in developing mixed-use residential and commercial projects in the project area. In 2018, the City of Santa Ana expanded the MEMU designation along First Street between Grand Avenue and the Santa Ana (I-5) Freeway. The regulating plan, which establishes land uses and development standards, allows a variety of housing and commercial projects, including mixed-use residential communities, live/work units, hotels, and offices. D. A noticed public hearing was scheduled to be heard before the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana on October 26, 2020, but at that time there was not a quorum of the Planning Commission therefore, the item was continued by the Chair to the next regular meeting. On November 9, 2020, the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana held the duly noticed public hearing and considered all testimony, written and oral for the project. Resolution No. 2020-xx Page 2 of 9 E. Section 41-595.5 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (“SAMC”) requires a review by the Planning Commission of all plans within a zoning district classification combined with an OZ suffix where the applicant wants to apply the overlay zone, to ensure the project is in conformity with the overlay zone plan. F. The zoning designation for the subject property is proposed to be Metro East Mixed-Use (MEMU) Overlay Zone (OZ-1) in the Active Urban land use district. G. The Planning Commission determines that the following findings, which must be established in order to grant this Site Plan Review pursuant to SAMC Section 41-595.5, have been established for Site Plan Review No. 2020-04 to allow construction of the proposed project: 1. That the proposed development plan is consistent with and will further the objectives outlined in Section 1.2 for the MEMU overlay district. The development will activate a vacant and underutilized 8-acre site in the MEMU Overlay Zone. The project will create a new mixed-use development within close proximity to office buildings, Cabrillo Park, Mabury Park, and less than two miles from Downtown Santa Ana providing opportunities to live, work, and recreate. Each building will be five-stories of residential units wrapped around a seven-level parking structure. The height of the buildings will blend in with the heights of the nearby office buildings which range from single-story, three-story and eight-story buildings and will create an interface with the Santa Ana (I-5) Freeway. The project will be built to California Building Code standards, which include energy and water conservation measures and will improve pedestrian mobility by providing new sidewalks, and parkways along Fourth Street and Parkcourt Place. In addition, the publically accessible linear park will serve as a link to the meandering trail along Mabury Street and to Mabury Park to the north. Each building has a centrally located bike room, and there is a rideshare pick-up/drop-off in the middle of the project site. Additionally, the project is within walking distance of the OCTA route 463 bus stop at Fourth Street and Cabrillo Park Drive. The commercial space has been designed with retail floor heights of 20 feet with storefronts that will be visible from Fourth Street. In addition, the commercial space links directly to an on-site public plaza at the corner of Fourth Street and Cabrillo Park Drive which will include outdoor dining opportunities, decorative hardscape, specimen trees and plantings, umbrellas, seating and lawn games. Resolution No. 2020-xx Page 3 of 9 In addition, the ground floor residential units along Cabrillo Park Drive will have doors and patios with direct access to the street to help activate the street. 2. That the proposed development plan is consistent with the development standards specified in Section 4 of the MEMU overlay district. The project is consistent with the development standards specified in Section 4 of the MEMU Overlay Zone including land use, stories, development site area, building frontages, publically accessible open space, private/common open space, building setbacks, and parking. 3. That the proposed development plan is designed to be compatible with adjacent development in terms of similarity of scale, height, and site configuration and otherwise achieves the objectives of the Design Principles specified in Section 5 of the MEMU overlay district. The project is consistent with the development standards specified in Section 5 of the MEMU Overlay Zone. The buildings are designed with a high quality design that includes varied massing, changes in form, and is comprised of high quality material including metal siding, stone veneer, simulated wood siding, fiber cement lap siding, fiber cement panels, stucco, metal and glass railings, and aluminum storefronts. During the development review process, the architectural design was peer reviewed by John Kaliski Architects and City staff, which resulted in higher-quality building materials, an increase in the commercial square footage and a plaza at the corner of Fourth Street and Cabrillo Park Drive. The project massing is broken into discrete building elements, facades are broken up with the inclusion of private balconies, courtyards, and contrasting building materials. The commercial storefronts are enhanced with cornices and metal canopies and the primary access to the commercial uses will be from Fourth Street. The project promotes pedestrian activity with landscaping and publically accessible open space. Parking areas are screened from the street. Lastly, over 40 percent of the units are over 1,000 square feet. 4. That the land use uses, site design, and operational considerations in the proposed development plan have been planned in a manner that will result in a compatible and harmonious operation as specified in Section 7 of the MEMU overlay district. The project is consistent with the development standards specified in Section 7 of the MEMU Overlay Zone. The project has been Resolution No. 2020-xx Page 4 of 9 designed to ensure compatibility between the residential and non-residential uses on site. The commercial uses have separate entrances from the residential uses, and the parking management plan will manage parking between the residential and nonresidential uses. Each building has a dedicated move-in and commercial loading area that will be screened with roll-up doors and controlled by the property management company. On site lighting will be consistent with Santa Ana Municipal Code Chapter 8 (Security Ordinance). Section 2. The Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, authorized volunteers, and instrumentalities thereof, harmless from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other and proceedings (whether legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute resolution procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and such other procedures), judgments, orders, and decisions (collectively “Actions”), brought against the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or annul, any action of, or any permit or approval issued by the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City) for or concerning the project, whether such Actions are brought under the Ralph M. Brown Act, California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning and Zoning Law, the Subdivision Map Act, Code of Civil Procedure sections 1085 or 1094.5, or any other federal, state or local constitution, statute, law, ordinance, charter, rule, regulation, or any decision of a court of competent jurisdiction. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld, the legal counsel providing the City’s defense, and that Applicant shall reimburse the City for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the course of the defense. City shall promptly notify the Applicant of any Action brought and City shall cooperate with Applicant in the defense of the Action. Section 3. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the project has been determined to be adequately evaluated in the previously certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 2006-01 (SCH No. 2006031041) and Subsequent EIR SEIR No. 2018-15 as per Sections 15162 and 15168 of the CEQA guidelines. All mitigation measures in EIR No. 2006-01 and SEIR No. 2018-15 and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) will be enforced and apply to the proposed project. In addition, a traffic impact analysis dated July 30, 2020 was also prepared by Linscott Law and Greenspan which analyzed the project’s impacts on 25 intersections. The off-site improvements listed the Traffic Impact Analysis shall be implemented. A health risk assessment (HRA) was prepared to identify any impacts from developing a residential community near a major freeway. The HRA finds that a less than significant impact to project residents would occur due to the project’s proximity to a major freeway. Resolution No. 2020-xx Page 5 of 9 Section 4. The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana, after conducting the public hearing, hereby approves Site Plan Review No. 2020-04 as conditioned in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated as though fully set forth herein. This decision is based upon the evidence submitted at the above said hearing, which includes, but is not limited to: the Request for Planning Commission Action dated October 26, 2020, and November 9, 2020, and exhibits attached thereto; and the public testimony, written and oral, all of which are incorporated herein by this reference. ADOPTED this 9th day of November, 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: ABSTENTIONS: Commissioners: _______________________ Mark McLoughlin Chairman APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney By:________________________ Lisa Storck Assistant City Attorney CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, SARAH BERNAL Recording Secretary, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2020-xx to be the original resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana on November 9, 2020. Date: ________________ ____________________________________ Recording Secretary City of Santa Ana Resolution No. 2020-xx Page 6 of 9 Conditions for Approval for Site Plan Review No. 2020-04 Site Plan Review No. 2020-04 is approved subject to compliance, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Manager, with applicable sections of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, the California Administrative Code, the California Building Standards Code, and all other applicable regulations. In addition, it shall meet the following conditions of approval: The Applicant must comply with each and every condition listed below prior to exercising the rights conferred by this site plan review. The Applicant must remain in compliance with all conditions listed below throughout the life of the development project. Failure to comply with each and every condition may result in the revocation of the site plan review. A. Planning Division 1. All proposed site improvements must conform to the Development Project Review approval of DP No. 2019-26, and the staff report exhibits incorporated herein by reference. 2. Applicant shall agree to all recommendations contained within the required technical studies and reports prepared for the project including the Traffic Impact Analysis dated July 30, 2020. All studies and reports shall be finalized by the Applicant and approved by the City of Santa Ana prior to issuance of building permits. 3. Any amendment to this site plan review, including modifications to approved materials, finishes, architecture, site plan, landscaping, unit count, mix, and square footages must be submitted to the Planning Division for review. At that time, staff will determine if administrative relief is available or if the site plan review must be amended. 4. The full volume (first and second levels) of the commercial square footage within both buildings along Fourth Street shall be maintained for commercial purposes only and may not be converted or used for residential purposes. 5. The publicly accessible open space areas as shown on the open space plan shall remain accessible to the public and include a combination of landscape and hardscape as specified in Section 4.5 of the Metro East Mixed-Use Overlay Zone requirements. 6. A residential property manager shall be available at all times that the Project is occupied and Applicant and onsite management shall at all times maintain a 24- hour emergency contact and contact information on file with the City that is also posted at the entrance to the leasing office for public view. Resolution No. 2020-xx Page 7 of 9 7. All Project mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from public and courtyard areas. 8. After Project occupancy, landscaping and hardscape materials must be maintained as shown on the approved landscape plans. 9. Prior to the issuance of any building permits the subject site must meet the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act (i.e. a Lot Merger or Parcel Map must be recorded for the subject property). 10. Prior to issuance of any building permits, a final detailed amenity plan must be reviewed and approved by Applicant and the Planning Division. The plan shall include details on the hardscape design, lighting concepts and outdoor furniture for amenity, plaza, or courtyard areas, as well as an installation plan. 11. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall submit a construction schedule and staging plan to the Planning Division for review and approval. The plan shall include construction hours, staging areas, parking and site security/screening during Project construction. 12. Prior to installation of landscaping, the Applicant shall submit photos and specifications of all trees to be installed on the Project site for review and approval by the Planning Division. Specifications shall include, at a minimum, the species, box size (48 inches minimum), brown trunk height (10-foot minimum), and name and location of the supplier. 13. Applicant shall provide onsite parking for residents and visitors of the Project and actively monitor the parking demand of the Project site. Applicant shall continually monitor and take appropriate measures to manage the parking demand of the Project site to mitigate the use of offsite parking spaces on private or public properties and/or right-of-way. Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy and/or building permit finals, Applicant shall submit and obtain approval from the Planning and Building Agency a Parking Management Plan (the “PMP”) meeting the requirements of this condition. The approved PMP shall be adhered to and be enforced by the Project at all times. 14. Prior to Certificate of Occupancy issuance, public art shall be installed on the Project site at a value of one-half of one percent (0.5%) of the total valuation of both buildings. The selection, design, and installation of the art shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning and Building Agency, the Community Development Agency, and the Applicant. 15. Prior to Certificate of Occupancy issuance, a Property Maintenance Agreement must be recorded against the property. The agreement will be subject to review and applicability by the Planning and Building Agency, the Community Development Agency, the Public Works Agency, and the City Attorney to ensure Resolution No. 2020-xx Page 8 of 9 that the property and all improvements located thereupon are properly maintained, Applicant (and the owner of the property upon which the authorized use and/or authorized improvements are located if different from the Applicant) shall execute a Maintenance Agreement with the City of Santa Ana which shall be recorded against the property and which shall be in a form reasonably satisfactory to the City Attorney. The Maintenance Agreement shall contain covenants, conditions and restrictions relating to the following: (a) Compliance with operational conditions applicable during any period(s) of construction or major repair (e.g., proper screening and securing of the construction site; implementation of proper erosion control, dust control and noise mitigation measure; adherence to approved project phasing etc.); (b) Compliance with ongoing operational conditions, requirements and restrictions, as applicable (including but not limited to hours of operation, security requirements, the proper storage and disposal of trash and debris, enforcement of the parking management plan, and/or restrictions on certain uses, (c) Ongoing compliance with approved design and construction parameters, signage parameters and restrictions as well as landscape designs, as applicable; (d) Ongoing maintenance, repair and upkeep of the property and all improvements located thereupon (including but not limited to controls on the proliferation of trash and debris about the property; the proper and timely removal of graffiti; the timely maintenance, repair and upkeep of damaged, vandalized and/or weathered buildings, structures and/or improvements; the timely maintenance, repair and upkeep of exterior paint, parking striping, lighting and irrigation fixtures, walls and fencing, publicly accessible bathrooms and bathroom fixtures, landscaping and related landscape improvements and the like, as applicable); (e) If Applicant and the owner of the property are different (e.g., if the Applicant is a tenant or licensee of the property or any portion thereof), both the Applicant and the owner of the property shall be signatories to the Maintenance Agreement and both shall be jointly and severally liable for compliance with its terms. (f) The Maintenance Agreement shall further provide that any party responsible for complying with its terms shall not assign its ownership interest in the property or any interest in any lease, sublease, license or sublicense, unless the prospective assignee agrees in writing to assume all of the duties, obligations and responsibilities set forth under the Maintenance Agreement. (g) The Maintenance Agreement shall contain provisions relating to the enforcement of its conditions by the City and shall also contain provisions authorizing the City to recover costs and expenses which the City may incur arising out of any enforcement and/or remediation efforts which the City may Resolution No. 2020-xx Page 9 of 9 undertake in order to cure any deficiency in maintenance, repair or upkeep or to enforce any restrictions or conditions upon the use of the property. The maintenance agreement shall further provide that any unreimbursed costs and/or expenses incurred by the City to cure a deficiency in maintenance or to enforce use restrictions shall become a lien upon the property in an amount equivalent to the actual costs and/or expense incurred by the City. EXHIBIT 2 1 - 20 Central Pointe Mixed-Use Project SPR No. 2020-041801 E. Fourth Street Exhibit 2 – Vicinity Zoning and Aerial View © 2020 Digital Map Products. A ll rights reserved. 2019 Aerial Santa Ana Boundary Zoning 313 feet 1 - 21 EXHIBIT 3 1 - 22 SPR No. 2020-04 1801 East Fourth Street Central Pointe Mixed-Use Development Exhibit 3 – Site Photos 1 - 23 EXHIBIT 4 1 - 24 SPR No. 2020-04 1801 East Fourth Street Central Pointe Mixed-Use Development Exhibit 4 – Site Plan 1 - 25 EXHIBIT 5 1 - 26 SPR No. 2020-04 1801 East Fourth Street Central Pointe Mixed-Use Development Exhibit 5 – Residential Unit Floor Plans 1 - 27 SPR No. 2020-04 1801 East Fourth Street Central Pointe Mixed-Use Development Exhibit 5 – Residential Unit Floor Plans 1 - 28 EXHIBIT 6 1 - 29 SPR No. 2020-04 1801 East Fourth Street Central Pointe Mixed-Use Development Exhibit 6 – Building A Elevations 1 - 30 EXHIBIT 7 1 - 31 SPR No. 2020-04 1801 East Fourth Street Central Pointe Mixed-Use Development Exhibit 7 – Building B Elevations 1 - 32 EXHIBIT 8 1 - 33 SPR No. 2020-04 1801 East Fourth Street Central Pointe Mixed-Use Development Exhibit 8 – Renderings 1 - 34 EXHIBIT 9 1 - 35 SPR No. 2020-04 1801 East Fourth Street Central Pointe Mixed-Use Development Exhibit 9 – Open Space Plan 1 - 36 EXHIBIT 10 1 - 37 Development Standards Standard Required by MEMU Active Urban Provided Land Uses Mixed-Use Development 644 multi-family residential units and 15,130 SF of commercial space Maximum Stories 3 minimum No maximum Complies; 5 stories residential 7 level parking structure and amenity deck Minimum Development Size 1 acre Complies; 8.03 acres net Street Level Building Frontages Forecourt, Shopfront, Gallery or Arcade Forecourt and Shopfront Publicly Accessible Open Space 15% of lot area (52,468 sq. ft.) Complies; 15% (52,521 SF) Private and Common Open Space 90 SF per unit and 5% of site area for non-residential uses (58,716 SF) Complies; 106,654 SF Building to Street 10 feet maximum Complies; 10 feet maximum Building to Property Line 5 feet adjacent to any other use N/A – no immediately adjacent uses Building to Building 15 feet minimum between buildings Complies; 95 feet between buildings Parking 2.0 per unit inclusive of guest and non-residential SF (1,288 spaces) Complies; 2.04 spaces/unit (1,318 spaces) SPR No. 2020-04 1801 East Fourth Street Central Pointe Mixed-Use Development Exhibit 10 – Development Standards 1 - 38 EXHIBIT 11 1 - 39 Central Pointe Mixed-Use Development DIESEL PARTICULATE MATTER (DPM) HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT CITY OF SANTA ANA PREPARED BY: Haseeb Qureshi hqureshi@urbanxroads.com (949) 336-5987 JUNE 5, 2020 13400-03 Freeway HRA Report 1 - 40 1 - 41 Central Pointe Mixed-Use Development Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) Health Risk Assessment 13400-03 Freeway HRA Report i TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................... I APPENDICES ...................................................................................................................................... II LIST OF EXHIBITS ............................................................................................................................... III LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................. III LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS ........................................................................................................... IV EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... 5 1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 7 1.1 Site Location .................................................................................................................................. 7 1.2 Project Description ........................................................................................................................ 7 2 SOURCE IDENTIFICATION ......................................................................................................... 10 3 SOURCE CHARACTERIZATION ................................................................................................... 12 4 EXPOSURE QUANTIFICATION ................................................................................................... 15 5 RISK CHARACTERIZATION ........................................................................................................ 17 5.1 Carcinogenic Chemical Risk ......................................................................................................... 17 5.2 Non-Carcinogenic Exposures ...................................................................................................... 18 5.3 Potential Cancer and Non-Cancer Risks ...................................................................................... 19 6 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 21 7 CERTIFICATION ........................................................................................................................ 23 1 - 42 Central Pointe Mixed-Use Development Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) Health Risk Assessment 13400-03 Freeway HRA Report ii APPENDICES APPENDIX 3.1: EMISSION RATE CALCULATION WORKSHEETS APPENDIX 3.2: RISK CALCULATION WORKSHEETS APPENDIX 4.1: AERMOD MODEL OUTPUT SUMMARY FILE APPENDIX 4.2: AERMOD MODEL INPUT/OUTPUT FILES (ELECTRONIC FORMAT, AVAILABLE ON REQUEST) 1 - 43 Central Pointe Mixed-Use Development Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) Health Risk Assessment 13400-03 Freeway HRA Report iii LIST OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT 1-A: LOCATION MAP ............................................................................................................. 8 EXHIBIT 4-A: SOURCE RECEPTOR GRID NETWORK ............................................................................. 16 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 2-1 FREEWAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES ........................................................................................... 10 TABLE 3-1: VEHICLE FLEET MIX PROFILE ............................................................................................ 13 1 - 44 Central Pointe Mixed-Use Development Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) Health Risk Assessment 13400-03 Freeway HRA Report iv LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS (1) Reference AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic Volumes ARB Air Resources Board CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards Caltrans California Department of Transportation CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CO Carbon Monoxide CPF Cancer Potency Factor EPA Environmental Protection Agency HRA Health Risk Assessment LDA Light Duty Auto LDT Light Duty Truck LHD Light Heavy Duty MCY Motorcycle MDV Medium Duty Vehicle NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide OBUS Other Bus OLM Ozone Limiting PM10 Particulate Matter 10 microns in diameter or less PM2.5 Particulate Matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less PPM Parts per Million Project Central Pointe Mixed-Use Development PVMRM Plume Volume Molar Ratio Methods REL Reference Exposure Level RME Reasonable Maximum Exposure SBUS School Bus SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality management District TACs Toxic Air Contaminants UBUS Urban Bus URF Unit Risk Factor UTM Universal Traverse Mercator 1 - 45 Central Pointe Mixed-Use Development Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) Health Risk Assessment 13400-03 Freeway HRA Report 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 2005, the California Air Resources Board (ARB) promulgated an advisory recommendation to avoid setting sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles per day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles per day. The ARB indicates that due to traffic- generated pollutants, there is an estimated increased cancer risk incidence of 300 to 1,700 per million in within this domain. At some point however, the increased cancer risk incidence due the effects of freeway/roadway corridor pollutants become indistinguishable from the ambient air quality condition. In this regard, the effects of freeway/roadway-source pollutants that may impact the Project site are already acknowledged and accounted for within the ambient air quality discussions presented within this Section. More specifically, the MATES-IV Study data for the Project site comprehensively reflects increased TAC-source cancer risks affecting the City and Project site, inclusive of increased cancer risks due to freeway sources. The 2005 ARB guidance noted previously, information made available through the MATES-IV Study, and configuration and design of the Project would suggest that further assessment of freeway-source pollutant impacts is not warranted. Notwithstanding, this Off-Site Freeway- Source Air Toxic Health Risk Assessment has been prepared for the Project and is intended to: • Comply with and support CEQA Section 15003 (i) policies addressing adequacy, completeness, and a good-faith effort at full disclosure; • Disaggregate potential freeway-source air pollutant health effects from other background conditions identified in the MATES IV Study; and • Identify means to reduce the specific effects of freeway-source pollutants at the Project site. Findings and conclusions of this Assessment are summarized below. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS For carcinogenic exposures resulting from exposure to toxics from the freeway, the summation of risk for the maximum exposed residential receptor totaled 3.58 in one million and will not exceed the SCAQMD significance threshold of 10 in one million. For chronic noncarcinogenic effects, the hazard index identified for each toxicological endpoint totaled less than one. For acute exposures, the hazard indices for the identified averaging times did not exceed unity. Therefore, noncarcinogenic hazards are calculated to be within acceptable limits and a less than significant impact would occur. 1 - 46 Central Pointe Mixed-Use Development Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) Health Risk Assessment 13400-03 Freeway HRA Report 6 This page intentionally left blank 1 - 47 Central Pointe Mixed-Use Development Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) Health Risk Assessment 13400-03 Freeway HRA Report 7 1 INTRODUCTION In 2005, the California Air Resources Board (ARB) promulgated an advisory recommendation to avoid setting sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles per day or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles per day. According to the ARB, the increased cancer risk is 300 to 1,700 per million within this domain. The strongest association of traffic related emissions with adverse health outcomes was seen within 300 feet of roadways with high truck densities. Notwithstanding, the ARB notes that a site-specific analysis would be required to determine the actual risk near a particular land use and should consider factors such as prevailing wind direction, local topography and climate. In consideration of the above referenced requirement, the assessment and dispersion modeling methodologies used in the preparation of this report were composed of all relevant and appropriate procedures presented by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, California Environmental Protection Agency and South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The methodologies and assumptions offered under this regulatory guidance were used to ensure that the assessment effectively quantified residential exposures associated with the generation of contaminant emissions from adjacent mobile source activity. This report summarizes the protocol used to evaluate contaminant exposures and presents the results of the health risk assessment (HRA) prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc., for the proposed Central Pointe Mixed-Use Development (referred to as “Project). 1.1 SITE LOCATION The proposed Project is located at 1801 E Fourth Street at the northwest corner of 4th Street and Cabrillo Park Drive in the City of Santa Ana within the Metro East Mixed-Use (MEMU) Overlay District, as shown on Exhibit 1-A. 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project is proposed to consist of up to 650 multi-family residential units and 8,800 square feet of commercial space on an approximately 8-acre site. As part of the project design, the Project applicant has agreed to installing and maintaining air filtration systems with efficiencies equal to or exceeding a Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) 13 as defined by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 52.2. (1)1 in the proposed multi-family residential dwelling units. 1 The use of MERV filtration systems to reduce DPM and particulates has been successfully implemented by several lead agencies, including, but not limited to: City of Los Angeles, City of Claremont, City of Irvine, City of Glendale, City of Berkley, City of Oakland, and the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). The average particle size efficiency (PSE) removal based on ASHRAE Standard 52.2 for MERV 13 is approximately 75% for 0.3 to 1.0 g/m3(DPM) (2). 1 - 48 Central Pointe Mixed-Use Development Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) Health Risk Assessment 13400-03 Freeway HRA Report 8 EXHIBIT 1-A: LOCATION MAP 1 - 49 Central Pointe Mixed-Use Development Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) Health Risk Assessment 13400-03 Freeway HRA Report 9 This page intentionally left blank 1 - 50 Central Pointe Mixed-Use Development Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) Health Risk Assessment 13400-03 Freeway HRA Report 10 2 SOURCE IDENTIFICATION The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Traffic and Vehicle Data Systems Unit collects and maintains traffic volume counts for vehicles traversing the California state highway system. Table 2-1 presents the annual average daily traffic volumes (AADT) for the freeway segment considered in the assessment. TABLE 2-1 FREEWAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES Roadway Segment AADT Vehicles Per Hour (ALL) Vehicles Per Hour (gas) Vehicles Per Hour (diesel) I-5 Freeway 329,500 13,729 13,189 540 1 - 51 Central Pointe Mixed-Use Development Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) Health Risk Assessment 13400-03 Freeway HRA Report 11 This page intentionally left blank 1 - 52 Central Pointe Mixed-Use Development Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) Health Risk Assessment 13400-03 Freeway HRA Report 12 3 SOURCE CHARACTERIZATION In urban communities, vehicle emissions contribute significantly to localized concentrations of air contaminants. Typically, emissions generated from these sources are characterized by vehicle mix, the rate pollutants are generated during the course of travel and the number of vehicles traversing the roadway network. Currently, emission factors are generated from a series of computer based programs to produce a composite emission rate for vehicles traveling at various speeds within a defined geographical area or along a discrete roadway segment. To account for the emission standards imposed on the California fleet, the ARB has developed the EMFAC2017 emission factor model. EMFAC2017 was utilized to identify pollutant emission rates for total organic gases (TOG), diesel particulates, particulates (PM10 and PM2.5), carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) compounds (2). To produce a representative vehicle fleet distribution, the assessment utilized ARB’s Orange County population estimates for the 2020 calendar year. This approach provides an estimate of vehicle mix associated with operational profiles at the link or intersection level. Table 3-1 lists the identified fleet mix considered in the assessment. Based upon the freeway traffic volumes and population profiles noted above, discrete traffic counts were identified for each roadway segment. Diesel vehicles account for 3.94 percent of the total on-road mobile fleet. For chronic (long term) exposures, AADT values were averaged to produce representative hourly traffic volumes. An average observed route speed of 65 miles per hour was assumed for vehicles traversing the main highway link (I-5). The focus of this HRA is on DPM associated with vehicular activity traversing I-5. Appendix 3.1 presents the on-road emission rate calculation worksheets for the freeway segment considered in the assessment. 1 - 53 Central Pointe Mixed-Use Development Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) Health Risk Assessment 13400-03 Freeway HRA Report 13 TABLE 3-1: VEHICLE FLEET MIX PROFILE Note: Vehicle category descriptions can be found on the California Air Resources Board website at http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/modeling.htm. Vehicle class Orange County Fuel Population Percent LDA Diesel 11,165 0.43 LDA Gas 1,247,860 51.75 LDT1 Diesel 56 0.00 LDT1 Gas 134,019 5.46 LDT2 Diesel 2,427 0.07 LDT2 Gas 447,358 16.58 LHD1 Diesel 21,630 1.54 LHD1 Gas 36,819 1.59 LHD2 Diesel 8,344 0.58 LHD2 Gas 6,427 0.22 MCY Gas 55,869 2.69 MDV Diesel 6,029 0.25 MDV Gas 312,580 15.17 MH Diesel 2,902 0.20 MH Gas 7,043 0.55 T6 Diesel 27,487 1.17 T6 Gas 7,555 0.12 T7 Diesel 10,494 1.42 T7 Gas 10 0.00 OBUS Diesel 618 0.02 OBUS Gas 996 0.04 SBUS Diesel 1,330 0.08 SBUS Gas 478 0.04 UBUS Diesel 0 0.00 UBUS Gas 210 0.02 1 - 54 Central Pointe Mixed-Use Development Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) Health Risk Assessment 13400-03 Freeway HRA Report 14 This page intentionally left blank 1 - 55 Central Pointe Mixed-Use Development Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) Health Risk Assessment 13400-03 Freeway HRA Report 15 4 EXPOSURE QUANTIFICATION In order to assess the impact of emitted compounds on individuals who reside at the proposed apartment complex, air quality modeling utilizing the AMS/EPA Regulatory Model AERMOD was performed to assess the downwind extent of mobile source emissions. AERMOD’s air dispersion algorithms are based upon a planetary boundary layer turbulence structure and scaling concepts, including the treatment of surface and elevated sources in simple and complex terrain. The model offers additional flexibility by allowing the user to assign initial vertical and lateral dispersion parameters for sources representative of a localized mobile fleet. For this assessment, the volume source algorithm was utilized to model the emissions generated from on-road mobile source activity. Air dispersion models require additional input parameters including pollutant emission data and local meteorology. Due to the their sensitivity to individual meteorological parameters such as wind speed and direction, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recommends that meteorological data used as input into dispersion models be selected on the basis of relative spatial and temporal conditions that exist in the area of concern. In response to this recommendation, the nearest meteorological data available from the SCAQMD John Wayne Airport Meteorological Data Station (Source Receptor Area 18), was used to represent local weather conditions and prevailing winds. Five years (2012-2016) of available AERMOD meteorological data was utilized in the modeling. The modeling analysis also considered the spatial distribution of mobile source activity traversing the freeway in relation to the proposed site. To accommodate a Cartesian grid format, direction dependent calculations were obtained by identifying the universal transverse mercator (UTM) coordinates for each volume source location. On-site receptors were placed to provide coverage across the identified residential portion of the site. A ground level receptor height was assumed as a conservative measure. A graphical representation of the source-receptor grid network is presented in Exhibit 4-A. A dispersion model input summary table is provided in Appendix 4.1. A complete listing of model input/output files are provided in electronic format in Appendix 4.2. 1 - 56 Central Pointe Mixed-Use Development Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) Health Risk Assessment 13400-03 Freeway HRA Report 16 EXHIBIT 4-A: SOURCE RECEPTOR GRID NETWORK 1 - 57 Central Pointe Mixed-Use Development Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) Health Risk Assessment 13400-03 Freeway HRA Report 17 5 RISK CHARACTERIZATION 5.1 CARCINOGENIC CHEMICAL RISK The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993) states that emissions of toxic air contaminants (TACs) are considered significant if a HRA shows an increased risk of greater than ten in one million. Based on guidance from the SCAQMD in the document Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis ( (3), for purposes of this analysis, ten (10) in one million is used as the cancer risk threshold for the proposed Project. Excess cancer risks are estimated as the upper-bound incremental probability that an individual will develop cancer over a lifetime as a direct result of exposure to potential carcinogens over a specified exposure duration. The estimated risk is expressed as a unitless probability. The cancer risk attributed to a chemical is calculated by multiplying the chemical intake or dose at the human exchange boundaries (e.g., lungs) by the chemical-specific cancer potency factor (CPF). A risk level of 1 in a million implies a likelihood that up to one person, out of one million equally exposed people would contract cancer if exposed continuously (24 hours per day) to the levels of toxic air contaminants over a specified duration of time. This risk would be an excess cancer risk that is in addition to any cancer risk borne by a person not exposed to these air toxics. Health risks associated with exposure to carcinogenic compounds can be defined in terms of the probability of developing cancer as a result of exposure to a chemical at a given concentration. Under a deterministic approach (i.e., point estimate methodology), the cancer risk probability is determined by multiplying the chemical’s annual concentration by its unit risk factor (URF). The URF is a measure of the carcinogenic potential of a chemical when a dose is received through the inhalation pathway. It represents an upper bound estimate of the probability of contracting cancer as a result of continuous exposure to an ambient concentration of one microgram per cubic meter (g/m3) over a 70 year lifetime. The URFs utilized in the assessment and corresponding cancer potency factors were obtained from the Consolidated Table of OEHHA/ARB Approved Risk Assessment Health Values. Notwithstanding, it is the intent of the HRA to provide risk estimates from near-field on-road sources that are reflective of anticipated exposures experienced at a given residential occupancy. As such, a review of relevant guidance was conducted to determine applicability of the use of early life exposure adjustments to identified carcinogens. For risk assessments conducted under the auspices of The Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Information and Assessment Act (AB 2588, Connelly, Statutes of 1987; Health and Safety Code Section 44300 et seq.) a weighting factor is applied to all carcinogens regardless of purported mechanism of action. However, for this assessment, the HRA relied upon U.S. Environmental Protection Agency guidance relating to the use of early life exposure adjustment factors (Supplemental Guidance for Assessing Susceptibility from Early-Life Exposure to Carcinogens, EPA/630/R-003F) whereby adjustment factors are only considered when carcinogens act “through the mutagenic mode of action.” The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has identified 19 compounds that elicit a mutagenic mode of action for 1 - 58 Central Pointe Mixed-Use Development Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) Health Risk Assessment 13400-03 Freeway HRA Report 18 carcinogenesis. None of the gaseous compounds considered in the HRA elicit a mutagenic mode of action and, therefore, early life exposure adjustments were not considered. For diesel particulates, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and their derivatives, which are known to exhibit a mutagenic mode of action, comprise < 1% of the exhaust particulate mass. To date, the U.S. Environmental Agency reports that whole diesel engine exhaust has not been shown to elicit a mutagenic mode of action. To effectively quantify dose, the procedure requires the incorporation of several discrete exposure variates. Once determined, contaminant dose is multiplied by the cancer potency factor (CPF) in units of inverse dose expressed in milligrams per kilogram per day (mg/kg/day)-1 to derive the cancer risk estimate. Therefore, to assess exposures associated with the proposed residential population, the following dose algorithm was utilized. CDI = (Cair  EF  ED  IR) / (BW  AT) Where: CDI = chronic daily intake (mg/kg/day) Cair = concentration of contaminant in air (mg/m3) EF = exposure frequency (days/year) ED = exposure duration (years) IR = inhalation rate (m3/day) BW = body weight (kg) AT = averaging time (days) To represent residential exposures, the assessment employed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s guidance to develop viable dose estimates based on reasonable maximum exposures (RME). Specifically, activity patterns for population mobility recommended by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and presented in the Exposure Factors Handbook were utilized. As a result, lifetime risk values for residents were adjusted to account for an exposure duration of 350 days per year for 30 years (i.e., 95th percentile). These values are consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act which considers the evaluation of environmental effects of proposed projects in a manner that reflects both reasonable and feasible assumptions. 5.2 NON-CARCINOGENIC EXPOSURES An evaluation of the potential noncancerous effects of contaminant exposures was also conducted. Under the point estimate approach, adverse health effects are evaluated by comparing the concentration of each compound with the appropriate Reference Exposure Level (REL). Available REL’s presented in the Consolidated Table of OEHHA/ARB Approved Risk Assessment Health Values were considered in the assessment. 1 - 59 Central Pointe Mixed-Use Development Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) Health Risk Assessment 13400-03 Freeway HRA Report 19 To quantify noncarcinogenic impacts, the hazard index approach was used. The hazard index assumes that subthreshold exposures adversely affect a specific organ or organ system (i.e., toxicological endpoint). For each discrete pollutant exposure, target organs presented in regulatory guidance were utilized. To calculate the hazard index, the pollutant concentration or dose is divided by the appropriate toxicity value. For compounds affecting the same toxicological endpoint, this ratio is summed. Where the total equals or exceeds one (i.e., unity), a health hazard is presumed to exist. For chronic exposures, REL’s were converted to units expressed in mg/kg/day to accommodate the above referenced intake algorithm. To assess acute noncancer impacts, the maximum pollutant concentration is divided by the REL for the corresponding averaging time (e.g., 1-hour). No exposure adjustments are considered for short duration exposures. Appendix 3.2, summarizes the REL’s and corresponding reference dose values used in the evaluation of chronic noncarcinogenic and acute exposures. The noncancer hazard quotient for identified compounds generated from each source and a summation for each toxicological endpoint are presented on this table. For chronic noncarcinogenic effects, the hazard index identified for each toxicological endpoint totaled less than the threshold of 1.0 for all exposure scenarios. For acute exposures, the hazard indices for the identified averaging times did not exceed the threshold of 1.0. Therefore, acute and chronic non-carcinogenic hazards were predicted to be within acceptable limits and are less than significant. 5.3 POTENTIAL CANCER AND NON-CANCER RISKS2 For carcinogenic exposures resulting from exposure to toxics from the freeway, the summation of risk for the maximum exposed residential receptor totaled 3.58 in one million and will not exceed the SCAQMD significance threshold of 10 in one million. 2 SCAQMD guidance does not require assessment of the potential health risk to on-site workers. Excerpts from the document OEHHA Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines—The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments (OEHHA 2003), also indicate that it is not necessary to examine the health effects to on-site workers unless required by RCRA (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act) / CERCLA (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act) or the worker resides on-site. 1 - 60 Central Pointe Mixed-Use Development Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) Health Risk Assessment 13400-03 Freeway HRA Report 20 This page intentionally left blank 1 - 61 Central Pointe Mixed-Use Development Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) Health Risk Assessment 13400-03 Freeway HRA Report 21 6 REFERENCES 1. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. Method of Testing General Ventilation Air Cleaning Devices for Removal by Particle Size. 2017. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 52.2.2017. 2. California Department of Transportation. EMFAC Software. [Online] http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/air/pages/emfac.htm. 3. South Coast Air Quality Managment District. Mobile Source Toxics Analysis. [Online] 2003. http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/mobile_toxic/mobile_toxic.html. 1 - 62 Central Pointe Mixed-Use Development Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) Health Risk Assessment 13400-03 Freeway HRA Report 22 This page intentionally left blank 1 - 63 Central Pointe Mixed-Use Development Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) Health Risk Assessment 13400-03 Freeway HRA Report 23 7 CERTIFICATION The contents of this HRA represent an accurate depiction of the potential impacts to the proposed Central Pointe Mixed-Use Development Project. The information contained in this HRA is based on the best available data at the time of preparation. If you have any questions, please contact me directly at (949) 336-5987. Haseeb Qureshi Associate Principal URBAN CROSSROADS, INC. 260 E Baker St. Costa Mesa, CA 92626 (949) 336-5987 hqureshi@urbanxroads.com EDUCATION Master of Science in Environmental Studies California State University, Fullerton • May 2010 Bachelor of Arts in Environmental Analysis and Design University of California, Irvine • June 2006 PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS AEP – Association of Environmental Planners AWMA – Air and Waste Management Association ASTM – American Society for Testing and Materials PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATIONS Environmental Site Assessment – American Society for Testing and Materials • June 2013 Planned Communities and Urban Infill – Urban Land Institute • June 2011 Indoor Air Quality and Industrial Hygiene – EMSL Analytical • April 2008 Principles of Ambient Air Monitoring – California Air Resources Board • August 2007 AB2588 Regulatory Standards – Trinity Consultants • November 2006 Air Dispersion Modeling – Lakes Environmental • June 2006 1 - 64 Central Pointe Mixed-Use Development Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) Health Risk Assessment 13400-03 Freeway HRA Report This page intentionally left blank 1 - 65 Central Pointe Mixed-Use Development Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) Health Risk Assessment 13400-03 Freeway HRA Report APPENDIX 3.1: EMISSION RATE CALCULATION WORKSHEETS 1 - 66 Central Pointe Mixed-Use Development Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) Health Risk Assessment 13400-03 Freeway HRA Report This page intentionally left blank 1 - 67 EMFAC2017 Worksheet (65 mph) EMFAC2017 Emission Rates Region Type: County Region: ORANGE Calendar Year: 2020 Season: Annual Vehicle Classification: EMFAC2007 Categories Pollutant Classification: Criteria Region CalYr Season Veh_Class Fuel MdlYr Speed Population Wt Frac CO_RUNEX CO_RUNEX AVE NOX_RUNEX NOx_RUNEX AVE PM10_RUNEX PM10_RUNEX AVE PM10_PMTW PM10_PMTW_AVE PM10_PMBW PM10_PMBW_AVE (miles/hr)(vehicles)(gms/mile)(gms/mile)(gms/mile)(gms/mile)(gms/mile)(gms/mile)(gms/mile)(gms/mile)(gms/mile)(gms/mile) ORANGE 2020 Annual LDA DSL Aggregated 65 11164.903 0.0048 0.1576780 0.00074923 0.0868281 0.00041257 0.0082320 0.00003912 0.0080 0.00003801 0.03675 0.000174622 ORANGE 2020 Annual LDA GAS Aggregated 65 1247860.077 0.5311 0.5131502 0.27251912 0.0438778 0.02330222 0.0014267 0.00075769 0.0080 0.00424857 0.03675 0.019516854 ORANGE 2020 Annual LDT1 DSL Aggregated 65 55.819 0.0000 1.8674899 0.00004436 1.3902125 0.00003303 0.1898617 0.00000451 0.0080 0.00000019 0.03675 0.000000873 ORANGE 2020 Annual LDT1 GAS Aggregated 65 134019.271 0.0570 1.0208223 0.05822426 0.1234590 0.00704169 0.0020130 0.00011482 0.0080 0.00045629 0.03675 0.002096096 ORANGE 2020 Annual LDT2 DSL Aggregated 65 2427.176 0.0010 0.0729230 0.00007533 0.0357127 0.00003689 0.0045846 0.00000474 0.0080 0.00000826 0.03675 0.000037962 ORANGE 2020 Annual LDT2 GAS Aggregated 65 447357.582 0.1904 0.6886944 0.13111970 0.0859344 0.01636095 0.0013986 0.00026629 0.0080 0.00152311 0.03675 0.006996788ORANGE2020AnnualLHDT1DSLAggregated6521629.925 0.0092 0.5292682 0.00487211 2.2226139 0.02046000 0.0169925 0.00015642 0.0120 0.00011046 0.07644 0.000703659 ORANGE 2020 Annual LHDT1 GAS Aggregated 65 36819.260 0.0157 0.8630355 0.01352354 0.2146306 0.00336320 0.0010699 0.00001676 0.0080 0.00012536 0.07644 0.001197794 ORANGE 2020 Annual LHDT2 DSL Aggregated 65 8343.637 0.0036 0.4462804 0.00158471 1.8266933 0.00648646 0.0162931 0.00005786 0.0120 0.00004261 0.08918 0.000316672 ORANGE 2020 Annual LHDT2 GAS Aggregated 65 6427.420 0.0027 0.5119900 0.00140051 0.2149770 0.00058805 0.0009178 0.00000251 0.0080 0.00002188 0.08918 0.000243944 ORANGE 2020 Annual MCY GAS Aggregated 65 55868.871 0.0238 23.7251412 0.56411192 1.2028594 0.02860035 0.0018872 0.00004487 0.0040 0.00009511 0.01176 0.000279617 ORANGE 2020 Annual MDV DSL Aggregated 65 6028.952 0.0026 0.1265906 0.00032481 0.0591852 0.00015186 0.0048780 0.00001252 0.0080 0.00002053 0.03675 0.000094294 ORANGE 2020 Annual MDV GAS Aggregated 65 312579.715 0.1330 0.9627388 0.12807249 0.1229682 0.01635837 0.0014811 0.00019704 0.0080 0.00106423 0.03675 0.004888827 ORANGE 2020 Annual MH DSL Aggregated 65 2901.594 0.0012 0.2650886 0.00032735 3.6428042 0.00449841 0.1460253 0.00018032 0.0160 0.00001976 0.13034 0.000160954 ORANGE 2020 Annual MH GAS Aggregated 65 7043.392 0.0030 2.2246649 0.00666857 0.4283714 0.00128407 0.0012950 0.00000388 0.0120 0.00003597 0.13034 0.000390702 ORANGE 2020 Annual MHDT DSL Aggregated 65 27487.170 0.0117 0.3870657 0.00452795 2.5404975 0.02971908 0.0975440 0.00114108 0.0120 0.00014038 0.13034 0.001524735 ORANGE 2020 Annual MHDT GAS Aggregated 65 7554.979 0.0032 0.9441306 0.00303565 0.3448827 0.00110890 0.0007712 0.00000248 0.0120 0.00003858 0.13034 0.000419081 ORANGE 2020 Annual HHDT DSL Aggregated 65 10494.469 0.0045 0.3731136 0.00166643 4.0257130 0.01798001 0.0808631 0.00036116 0.0360 0.00016079 0.06174 0.000275749 ORANGE 2020 Annual HHDT GAS Aggregated 65 10.178 0.0000 24.2851878 0.00010520 5.5044337 0.00002384 0.0012867 0.00000001 0.0200 0.00000009 0.06174 0.000000267 ORANGE 2020 Annual OBUS DSL Aggregated 65 617.692 0.0003 0.5133360 0.00013495 3.8917273 0.00102306 0.1074946 0.00002826 0.0120 0.00000315 0.13034 0.000034264 ORANGE 2020 Annual OBUS GAS Aggregated 65 995.682 0.0004 1.4501108 0.00061448 0.5132142 0.00021747 0.0007231 0.00000031 0.0120 0.00000508 0.13034 0.000055231 ORANGE 2020 Annual SBUS DSL Aggregated 65 1330.412 0.0006 0.0000000 0.00000000 0.0000000 0.00000000 0.0000000 0.00000000 0.0120 0.00000679 0.74480 0.000421708 ORANGE 2020 Annual SBUS GAS Aggregated 65 477.537 0.0002 0.0000000 0.00000000 0.0000000 0.00000000 0.0000000 0.00000000 0.0080 0.00000163 0.74480 0.000151368 ORANGE 2020 Annual UBUS DSL Aggregated 65 0.000 0.0000 0.0000000 0.00000000 0.0000000 0.00000000 0.0000000 0.00000000 0.0000 0.00000000 0.0000 0.000000000 ORANGE 2020 Annual UBUS GAS Aggregated 65 209.765 0.0001 0.2433834 0.00002173 0.3161702 0.00002823 0.0002009 0.00000002 0.0120 0.00000107 0.13035 0.000011637 2349705 1.0 1.194 0.179 0.0034 0.008 0.040 EMFAC2017 Emission Rates Region Type: CountyRegion: ORANGE Calendar Year: 2020 Season: Annual Vehicle Classification: EMFAC2007 Categories Pollutant Classification: TOG GAS Region CalYr Season Veh_Class Fuel MdlYr Speed Population Wt Frac TOG_RUNEX TOG_RUNEX AVE (miles/hr)(vehicles)(gms/mile)(gms/mile) ORANGE 2020 Annual LDA GAS Aggregated 65 1247860.077 0.5528 0.0145697 0.0081 ORANGE 2020 Annual LDT1 GAS Aggregated 65 134019.271 0.0594 0.0364124 0.0022 ORANGE 2020 Annual LDT2 GAS Aggregated 65 447357.582 0.1982 0.0215635 0.0043 ORANGE 2020 Annual LHDT1 GAS Aggregated 65 36819.260 0.0163 0.0447649 0.0007ORANGE2020AnnualLHDT2GASAggregated656427.420 0.0028 0.0296607 0.0001 ORANGE 2020 Annual MCY GAS Aggregated 65 55868.871 0.0248 2.7688096 0.0685 ORANGE 2020 Annual MDV GAS Aggregated 65 312579.715 0.1385 0.0341850 0.0047 ORANGE 2020 Annual MH GAS Aggregated 65 7043.392 0.0031 0.0913197 0.0003 ORANGE 2020 Annual MHDT GAS Aggregated 65 7554.979 0.0033 0.0611843 0.0002 ORANGE 2020 Annual HHDT GAS Aggregated 65 10.178 0.0000 0.9835975 0.0000ORANGE2020AnnualOBUSGASAggregated65995.682 0.0004 0.0883973 0.0000 ORANGE 2020 Annual SBUS GAS Aggregated 65 477.537 0.0002 0.0000000 0.0000 ORANGE 2020 Annual UBUS GAS Aggregated 65 209.765 0.0001 0.0141811 0.0000 2257224 1.0 0.089 1 - 68 EMFAC2017 Worksheet (65 mph) PM2_5_RUNEX PM2_5_RUNEX_AVE PM2_5_PMTW PM2_5_PMTW_AVE PM2_5_PMBW PM2_5_PMBW_AVE (gms/mile)(gms/mile)(gms/mile)(gms/mile)(gms/mile)(gms/mile) 0.0078759 0.000037423 0.0020 0.000009503 0.01575 0.000074838 0.0013119 0.000696685 0.0020 0.001062142 0.01575 0.008364366 0.1816483 0.000004315 0.0020 0.000000048 0.01575 0.000000374 0.0018511 0.000105579 0.0020 0.000114073 0.01575 0.000898327 0.0043863 0.000004531 0.0020 0.000002066 0.01575 0.000016269 0.0012861 0.000244850 0.0020 0.000380778 0.01575 0.0029986230.0162574 0.000149655 0.0030 0.000027616 0.03276 0.000301568 0.0009842 0.000015422 0.0020 0.000031339 0.03276 0.000513340 0.0155883 0.000055353 0.0030 0.000010653 0.03822 0.000135716 0.0008438 0.000002308 0.0020 0.000005471 0.03822 0.000104548 0.0017678 0.000042032 0.0010 0.000023777 0.00504 0.000119836 0.0046670 0.000011975 0.0020 0.000005132 0.01575 0.000040412 0.0013630 0.000181322 0.0020 0.000266059 0.01575 0.002095212 0.1397083 0.000172522 0.0040 0.000004940 0.05586 0.000068980 0.0011917 0.000003572 0.0030 0.000008993 0.05586 0.000167444 0.0933243 0.001091720 0.0030 0.000035094 0.05586 0.000653458 0.0007091 0.000002280 0.0030 0.000009646 0.05586 0.000179606 0.0773650 0.000345535 0.0090 0.000040197 0.02646 0.000118178 0.0011830 0.000000005 0.0050 0.000000022 0.02646 0.000000115 0.1028444 0.000027036 0.0030 0.000000789 0.05586 0.000014684 0.0006651 0.000000282 0.0030 0.000001271 0.05586 0.000023671 0.0000000 0.000000000 0.0030 0.000001699 0.3192 0.000180732 0.0000000 0.000000000 0.0020 0.000000406 0.31920 0.000064872 0.0000000 0.000000000 0.0000 0.000000000 0.0000 0.000000000 0.0001847 0.000000016 0.0030 0.000000268 0.05587 0.000004987 0.0032 0.002 0.017 1 - 69 EMFAC2017 Worksheet (65 mph) EMFAC2017 Emission Rates Region Type: County Region: Orange (SC) Calendar Year: 2020 Season: Annual Vehicle Classification: EMFAC2007 Categories Pollutant Classification: TOG DSL Region CalYr Season Veh_Class Fuel MdlYr Speed Population Wt Frac TOG_RUNEX TOG_RUNEX AVE (miles/hr)(vehicles)(gms/mile)(gms/mile) ORANGE 2020 Annual LDA DSL Aggregated 65 11164.903 0.1207 0.0140263 0.0017 ORANGE 2020 Annual LDT1 DSL Aggregated 65 55.819 0.0006 0.2697117 0.0002 ORANGE 2020 Annual LDT2 DSL Aggregated 65 2427.176 0.0262 0.0099900 0.0003 ORANGE 2020 Annual LHDT1 DSL Aggregated 65 21629.925 0.2339 0.0791822 0.0185 ORANGE 2020 Annual LHDT2 DSL Aggregated 65 8343.637 0.0902 0.0686702 0.0062 ORANGE 2020 Annual MDV DSL Aggregated 65 6028.952 0.0652 0.0091178 0.0006 ORANGE 2020 Annual MH DSL Aggregated 65 2901.594 0.0314 0.0638991 0.0020 ORANGE 2020 Annual MHDT DSL Aggregated 65 27487.170 0.2972 0.1043012 0.0310 ORANGE 2020 Annual HHDT DSL Aggregated 65 10494.469 0.1135 0.1028850 0.0117 ORANGE 2020 Annual OBUS DSL Aggregated 65 617.692 0.0067 0.1618479 0.0011 ORANGE 2020 Annual SBUS DSL Aggregated 65 1330.412 0.0144 0.0000000 0.0000 ORANGE 2020 Annual UBUS DSL Aggregated 65 0.000 0.0000 0.0000000 0.0000 92482 1.0 0.073 EMFAC2017 Emission Rates Region Type: CountyRegion: Orange (SC) Calendar Year: 2020 Season: Annual Vehicle Classification: EMFAC2007 Categories Pollutant Classification: DSL Particulate Region CalYr Season Veh_Class Fuel MdlYr Speed Population Wt Frac PM10_RUNEX PM10_RUNEX AVE (miles/hr)(vehicles)(gms/mile)(gms/mile) ORANGE 2020 Annual LDA DSL Aggregated 65 11164.903 0.1207 0.0082320 0.0010 ORANGE 2020 Annual LDT1 DSL Aggregated 65 55.819 0.0006 0.1898617 0.0001 ORANGE 2020 Annual LDT2 DSL Aggregated 65 2427.176 0.0262 0.0045846 0.0001 ORANGE 2020 Annual LHDT1 DSL Aggregated 65 21629.925 0.2339 0.0169925 0.0040 ORANGE 2020 Annual LHDT2 DSL Aggregated 65 8343.637 0.0902 0.0162931 0.0015 ORANGE 2020 Annual MDV DSL Aggregated 65 6028.952 0.0652 0.0048780 0.0003 ORANGE 2020 Annual MH DSL Aggregated 65 2901.594 0.0314 0.1460253 0.0046 ORANGE 2020 Annual MHDT DSL Aggregated 65 27487.170 0.2972 0.0975440 0.0290 ORANGE 2020 Annual HHDT DSL Aggregated 65 10494.469 0.1135 0.0808631 0.0092 ORANGE 2020 Annual OBUS DSL Aggregated 65 617.692 0.0067 0.1074946 0.0007ORANGE2020AnnualSBUSDSLAggregated651330.412 0.0144 0.0000000 0.0000 ORANGE 2020 Annual UBUS DSL Aggregated 65 0.000 0.0000 0.0000000 0.0000 92482 1.0 0.050 1 - 70 On-Road Mobile Sources Emission Rate Computation Interstate 5 Mainline DSL Particulate Emissions Number of Sources 9 Link Length (meters)520 Volume/Baseline (VPH)540 Pollutant Mass Emission Rate (gr/mi)0.050 Emission Rate (gr/sec) = ((Mass Emission Rate x Volume/Baseline)/(1609.3 m/mile) x (3600 sec/hr)) x (Link Length) Pollutant Emission Rate (gr/sec)0.00242 Pollutant Emission Rate (gr/sec/source)2.69E-04 1 - 71 All 2349705 DSL 92482 Diesel Fleet Mix (weight fraction)0.0394 Link Counts AADT VPH VPH VPH all gas diesel 1 Interstate 5 Mainline 329500 13729 13189 540 6 I-5 SB On-Ramp at 1st St.14900 621 596 24 1 - 72 Central Pointe Mixed-Use Development Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) Health Risk Assessment 13400-03 Freeway HRA Report APPENDIX 3.2: RISK CALCULATION WORKSHEETS 1 - 73 Central Pointe Mixed-Use Development Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) Health Risk Assessment 13400-03 Freeway HRA Report This page intentionally left blank 1 - 74 Source Weight Contaminant Fraction URF CPF REL RfD (ug/m3)(mg/m3)(ug/m3)(mg/kg/day)(ug/m3)(mg/kg/day) (a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g)(h)(i)(j)(k)(l)(m)(n)(o)(p)(q)(r) Freeway 0.02900 2.9E-05 1.00E+00 Diesel Particulates 3.0E-04 1.1E+00 3.6E-06 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 5.6E-03 Total 3.58E-06 5.6E-03 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 * Key to Toxocological Endpoints RESP Respiratory System CNS/PNS Central/Peripheral Nervous System CV/BL Cardiovascular/Blood System IMMUN Immune System KIDN Kidney GI/LV Gastrointestinal System/Liver REPRO Reproductive System (e.g., teratogenic and developmental effects) EYES Eye irritation and/or other effects Note:Exposure factors used to calculate contaminant intake exposure frequency (days/year)350 exposure duration (years)30 inhalation rate (m3/day)20 average body weight (kg)70 averaging time(cancer) (days)25550 averaging time(noncancer) (days)10950 Noncarcinogenic Hazards / Toxicological Endpoints* RISK RESP CNS/PNS CV/BL IMMUN KIDN GI/LV REPRO EYES Table A1Quantification of Carcinogenic Risks and Noncarcinogenic Hazards 30 Year Exposure Scenario / Maximum Residential Receptor Concentration Carcinogenic Risk 1 - 75 Central Pointe Mixed-Use Development Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) Health Risk Assessment 13400-03 Freeway HRA Report APPENDIX 4.1: AERMOD MODEL OUTPUT SUMMARY FILE 1 - 76 Central Pointe Mixed-Use Development Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) Health Risk Assessment 13400-03 Freeway HRA Report This page intentionally left blank 1 - 77  *** AERMOD ‐ VERSION  19191 ***   *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\1660 E FIRST ST\1660  E FIRST ST.ISC             ***        06/05/20  *** AERMET ‐ VERSION  16216 ***   ***                                                                      ***        02:17:27                                                                                                                        PAGE   1  *** MODELOPTs:    RegDFAULT  CONC  ELEV  FLGPOL  URBAN  ADJ_U*                                             ***     MODEL SETUP OPTIONS SUMMARY       ***  ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐  ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐  **Model Is Setup For Calculation of Average CONCentration Values.       ‐‐  DEPOSITION LOGIC  ‐‐  **NO GAS DEPOSITION Data Provided.  **NO PARTICLE DEPOSITION Data Provided.  **Model Uses NO DRY DEPLETION.  DRYDPLT  =  F  **Model Uses NO WET DEPLETION.  WETDPLT  =  F     **Model Uses URBAN Dispersion Algorithm for the SBL for     9 Source(s),    for Total of    1 Urban Area(s):    Urban Population =   3010232.0 ;  Urban Roughness Length =  1.000 m     **Model Uses Regulatory DEFAULT Options:          1. Stack‐tip Downwash.          2. Model Accounts for ELEVated Terrain Effects.          3. Use Calms Processing Routine.          4. Use Missing Data Processing Routine.          5. No Exponential Decay.          6. Urban Roughness Length of 1.0 Meter Assumed.     **Other Options Specified:          ADJ_U*   ‐ Use ADJ_U* option for SBL in AERMET          CCVR_Sub ‐ Meteorological data includes CCVR substitutions          TEMP_Sub ‐ Meteorological data includes TEMP substitutions     **Model Accepts FLAGPOLE Receptor Heights.     **The User Specified a Pollutant Type of:  DPM          **Model Calculates ANNUAL Averages Only     **This Run Includes:      9 Source(s);       1 Source Group(s); and     348  Receptor(s)                 with:      0 POINT(s), including                            0 POINTCAP(s) and      0 POINTHOR(s)                  and:      9 VOLUME source(s) 1 - 78                  and:      0 AREA type source(s)                  and:      0 LINE source(s)                  and:      0 RLINE/RLINEXT source(s)                  and:      0 OPENPIT source(s)                  and:      0 BUOYANT LINE source(s) with      0 line(s)     **Model Set To Continue RUNning After the Setup Testing.  **The AERMET Input Meteorological Data Version Date:  16216     **Output Options Selected:           Model Outputs Tables of ANNUAL Averages by Receptor           Model Outputs External File(s) of High Values for Plotting (PLOTFILE  Keyword)           Model Outputs Separate Summary File of High Ranked Values (SUMMFILE  Keyword)     **NOTE:  The Following Flags May Appear Following CONC Values:  c for Calm Hours                                                                  m for Missing  Hours                                                                  b for Both Calm  and Missing Hours     **Misc. Inputs:  Base Elev. for Pot. Temp. Profile (m MSL) =    17.00 ;  Decay  Coef. =    0.000     ;  Rot. Angle =     0.0                   Emission Units = GRAMS/SEC                                ;   Emission Rate Unit Factor =   0.10000E+07                   Output Units   = MICROGRAMS/M**3                              **Approximate Storage Requirements of Model =      3.5 MB of RAM.     **Input Runstream File:          aermod.inp                                                                                        **Output Print File:             aermod.out                                                                                        **Detailed Error/Message File:   13400 FREEWAY HRA.ERR                                                                             **File for Summary of Results:   13400 FREEWAY HRA.SUM                                                                             *** AERMOD ‐ VERSION  19191 ***   *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\1660 E FIRST ST\1660  E FIRST ST.ISC             ***        06/05/20  *** AERMET ‐ VERSION  16216 ***   ***                                                                      ***        02:17:27                                                                                                                        PAGE   2  *** MODELOPTs:    RegDFAULT  CONC  ELEV  FLGPOL  URBAN  ADJ_U*                                             *** METEOROLOGICAL DAYS SELECTED FOR  1 - 79 PROCESSING ***                                                                (1=YES; 0=NO)             1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1   1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1   1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1   1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1   1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1             1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1   1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1   1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1   1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1   1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1             1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1   1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1   1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1   1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1   1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1             1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1   1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1   1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1   1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1   1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1             1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1   1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1   1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1   1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1   1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1             1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1   1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1   1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1   1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1   1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1             1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1   1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1   1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1   1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1   1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1             1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1   1 1 1 1 1 1                 NOTE:  METEOROLOGICAL DATA ACTUALLY PROCESSED WILL ALSO DEPEND ON  WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THE DATA FILE.                                   *** UPPER BOUND OF FIRST THROUGH FIFTH WIND SPEED CATEGORIES ***                                                             (METERS/SEC)                                                  1.54,   3.09,   5.14,   8.23,   10.80,  *** AERMOD ‐ VERSION  19191 ***   *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\1660 E FIRST ST\1660  E FIRST ST.ISC             ***        06/05/20  *** AERMET ‐ VERSION  16216 ***   ***                                                                      ***        02:17:27                                                                                                                        PAGE   3  *** MODELOPTs:    RegDFAULT  CONC  ELEV  FLGPOL  URBAN  ADJ_U*                                     *** UP TO THE FIRST 24 HOURS OF METEOROLOGICAL  DATA ***    Surface file:   KSNA_V9_ADJU\KSNA_V9.SFC                                                           Met Version:  16216    Profile file:   KSNA_V9_ADJU\KSNA_V9.PFL                                                            Surface format: FREE                                                                                                         Profile format: FREE                                                                                                         Surface station no.:    93184                  Upper air station no.:     3190 1 - 80                   Name: UNKNOWN                                    Name: UNKNOWN                                                    Year:   2012                                     Year:   2012  First 24 hours of scalar data  YR MO DY JDY HR     H0     U*     W*  DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH  M‐O LEN    Z0  BOWEN  ALBEDO  REF WS   WD     HT  REF TA     HT ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐   12 01 01   1 01   ‐4.5  0.082 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999.   56.     11.0  0.12   2.65    1.00    0.87   62.    5.8  283.8    2.0  12 01 01   1 02   ‐3.5  0.073 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999.   47.      9.9  0.12   2.65    1.00    0.77   27.    5.8  283.1    2.0  12 01 01   1 03   ‐3.5  0.073 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999.   47.      9.9  0.12   2.65    1.00    0.77  336.    5.8  283.1    2.0  12 01 01   1 04   ‐3.3  0.070 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999.   45.      9.7  0.12   2.65    1.00    0.74   34.    5.8  283.1    2.0  12 01 01   1 05   ‐3.0  0.068 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999.   42.      9.4  0.12   2.65    1.00    0.70  154.    5.8  282.5    2.0  12 01 01   1 06 ‐999.0 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999. ‐999. ‐99999.0  0.12   2.65    1.00    0.00    0.    5.8  282.0    2.0  12 01 01   1 07   ‐2.0  0.059 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999.   34.      9.0  0.12   2.65    1.00    0.55  343.    5.8  281.4    2.0  12 01 01   1 08   ‐2.6  0.066 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999.   40.      9.7  0.12   2.65    0.53    0.69   25.    5.8  281.4    2.0  12 01 01   1 09   21.6  0.133  0.252  0.010   27.  116.     ‐9.9  0.12   2.65    0.31    1.03  344.    5.8  282.5    2.0  12 01 01   1 10  115.6  0.162  0.713  0.008  114.  156.     ‐3.3  0.12   2.65    0.24    1.06  233.    5.8  286.4    2.0  12 01 01   1 11  160.9  0.126  1.129  0.005  325.  108.     ‐1.1  0.12   2.65    0.21    0.67  261.    5.8  291.4    2.0  12 01 01   1 12  187.0  0.138  1.467  0.005  614.  123.     ‐1.3  0.12   2.65    0.20    0.75  252.    5.8  294.9    2.0  12 01 01   1 13  186.9  0.189  1.755  0.005 1051.  197.     ‐3.3  0.12   2.65    0.20    1.23  280.    5.8  297.5    2.0  12 01 01   1 14  168.3  0.247  1.857  0.005 1383.  295.     ‐8.1  0.12   2.65    0.21    1.86  268.    5.8  299.2    2.0  12 01 01   1 15  115.3  0.275  1.688  0.005 1517.  346.    ‐16.3  0.12   2.65    0.24    2.25  248.    5.8  298.1    2.0  12 01 01   1 16   41.5  0.262  1.211  0.005 1552.  322.    ‐39.2  0.12   2.65    0.33    2.32  227.    5.8  295.9    2.0  12 01 01   1 17  ‐17.9  0.217 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999.  244.     52.0  0.12   2.65    0.60    2.18  227.    5.8  292.5    2.0  12 01 01   1 18  ‐24.7  0.250 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999.  300.     68.7  0.12   2.65    1.00    2.50  219.    5.8  288.8    2.0  12 01 01   1 19   ‐5.2  0.088 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999.   91.     12.0  0.12   2.65    1.00    0.94  201.    5.8  287.5    2.0  12 01 01   1 20   ‐3.5  0.073 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999.   47.     10.0  0.12   2.65    1.00    0.77  259.    5.8  287.0    2.0  12 01 01   1 21   ‐2.6  0.064 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999.   39.      9.1  0.12   2.65    1 - 81 1.00    0.65  264.    5.8  286.4    2.0  12 01 01   1 22   ‐4.4  0.081 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999.   55.     10.9  0.12   2.65    1.00    0.86  211.    5.8  285.9    2.0  12 01 01   1 23   ‐4.2  0.079 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999.   53.     10.7  0.12   2.65    1.00    0.84  247.    5.8  284.9    2.0  12 01 01   1 24   ‐7.1  0.103 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999.   80.     14.1  0.12   2.65    1.00    1.09  236.    5.8  283.8    2.0  First hour of profile data  YR MO DY HR HEIGHT F  WDIR    WSPD AMB_TMP sigmaA  sigmaW  sigmaV  12 01 01 01    5.8 1   62.    0.87   283.8   99.0  ‐99.00  ‐99.00  F indicates top of profile (=1) or below (=0)  *** AERMOD ‐ VERSION  19191 ***   *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\1660 E FIRST ST\1660  E FIRST ST.ISC             ***        06/05/20  *** AERMET ‐ VERSION  16216 ***   ***                                                                      ***        02:17:27                                                                                                                        PAGE   4  *** MODELOPTs:    RegDFAULT  CONC  ELEV  FLGPOL  URBAN  ADJ_U*                                    *** THE SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM ANNUAL RESULTS  AVERAGED OVER   5 YEARS ***                                     ** CONC OF DPM      IN MICROGRAMS/M**3                          **                                                                                                              NETWORK GROUP ID                       AVERAGE CONC                RECEPTOR  (XR, YR,  ZELEV, ZHILL, ZFLAG)  OF TYPE  GRID‐ID ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐  ALL       1ST HIGHEST VALUE IS       0.11599 AT (  421925.73,  3734653.54,     36.00,    36.00,    7.00)  DC                     2ND HIGHEST VALUE IS       0.11329 AT (  421937.11,  3734627.53,     36.00,    36.00,    7.00)  DC                     3RD HIGHEST VALUE IS       0.11286 AT (  421925.73,  3734662.21,     36.00,    36.00,    7.00)  DC                     4TH HIGHEST VALUE IS       0.11236 AT (  421902.97,  3734705.56,     36.45,    36.45,    7.00)  DC                     5TH HIGHEST VALUE IS       0.11117 AT (  421914.35,  3734688.22,     36.26,    36.26,    7.00)  DC                     6TH HIGHEST VALUE IS       0.11073 AT (  421937.11,  3734636.20,     36.00,    36.00,    7.00)  DC                     7TH HIGHEST VALUE IS       0.10963 AT (  421948.49,  3734601.52,     36.00,    36.00,    7.00)  DC           1 - 82           8TH HIGHEST VALUE IS       0.10923 AT (  421925.73,  3734670.88,     36.08,    36.08,    7.00)  DC                     9TH HIGHEST VALUE IS       0.10818 AT (  421937.11,  3734644.87,     36.00,    36.00,    7.00)  DC                    10TH HIGHEST VALUE IS       0.10817 AT (  421902.97,  3734714.23,     36.54,    36.54,    7.00)  DC            *** RECEPTOR TYPES:  GC = GRIDCART                       GP = GRIDPOLR                       DC = DISCCART                       DP = DISCPOLR  *** AERMOD ‐ VERSION  19191 ***   *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\1660 E FIRST ST\1660  E FIRST ST.ISC             ***        06/05/20  *** AERMET ‐ VERSION  16216 ***   ***                                                                      ***        02:17:27                                                                                                                        PAGE   5  *** MODELOPTs:    RegDFAULT  CONC  ELEV  FLGPOL  URBAN  ADJ_U*  *** Message Summary : AERMOD Model Execution ***   ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Summary of Total Messages ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐     A Total of            0 Fatal Error Message(s)  A Total of            2 Warning Message(s)  A Total of         1864 Informational Message(s)  A Total of        43848 Hours Were Processed  A Total of         1500 Calm Hours Identified  A Total of          364 Missing Hours Identified (  0.83 Percent)           ******** FATAL ERROR MESSAGES ********                 ***  NONE  ***                    ********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********   ME W186      99       MEOPEN: THRESH_1MIN 1‐min ASOS wind speed threshold used           0.50  ME W187      99       MEOPEN: ADJ_U* Option for Stable Low Winds used in AERMET               1 - 83 Central Pointe Mixed-Use Development Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) Health Risk Assessment 13400-03 Freeway HRA Report APPENDIX 4.2: AERMOD MODEL INPUT/OUTPUT FILES (ELECTRONIC FORMAT, AVAILABLE ON REQUEST) 1 - 84 ** Lakes Environmental AERMOD MPI ** **************************************** ** ** AERMOD INPUT PRODUCED BY: ** AERMOD VIEW VER. 9.9.0 ** LAKES ENVIRONMENTAL SOFTWARE INC. ** DATE: 6/5/2020 ** FILE: C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\13400 FREEWAY HRA\13400 FREEWAY HRA.ADI ** **************************************** ** ** **************************************** ** AERMOD CONTROL PATHWAY **************************************** ** ** CO STARTING    TITLEONE C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\1660 E FIRST ST\1660 E FIRST ST.ISC    MODELOPT DFAULT CONC    AVERTIME ANNUAL    URBANOPT 3010232    POLLUTID DPM    FLAGPOLE 0.00    RUNORNOT RUN    ERRORFIL "13400 FREEWAY HRA.ERR" CO FINISHED ** **************************************** ** AERMOD SOURCE PATHWAY **************************************** ** ** SO STARTING ** SOURCE LOCATION ** ** SOURCE ID ‐ TYPE ‐ X COORD. ‐ Y COORD. ** ** ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ** LINE SOURCE REPRESENTED BY ADJACENT VOLUME SOURCES ** LINE VOLUME SOURCE ID = SLINE1 ** DESCRSRC I‐5 MAINLINE ** PREFIX ** LENGTH OF SIDE = 57.91 ** CONFIGURATION = ADJACENT ** EMISSION RATE = 0.00242 ** VERTICAL DIMENSION = 7.59 ** SZINIT = 3.53 ** NODES = 4 ** 421732.353, 3734852.628, 37.00, 0.00, 26.93 ** 421856.672, 3734643.962, 36.00, 0.00, 26.93 1 - 85 ** 421905.810, 3734500.098, 35.00, 0.00, 26.93 ** 421939.898, 3734380.185, 34.94, 0.00, 26.93 ** ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐    LOCATION L0000001     VOLUME   421747.173 3734827.753 37.00    LOCATION L0000002     VOLUME   421776.813 3734778.004 37.00    LOCATION L0000003     VOLUME   421806.453 3734728.254 36.69    LOCATION L0000004     VOLUME   421836.093 3734678.504 36.15    LOCATION L0000005     VOLUME   421862.394 3734627.210 36.00    LOCATION L0000006     VOLUME   421881.112 3734572.408 36.00    LOCATION L0000007     VOLUME   421899.829 3734517.607 35.42    LOCATION L0000008     VOLUME   421916.585 3734462.192 35.00    LOCATION L0000009     VOLUME   421932.421 3734406.489 35.00 ** END OF LINE VOLUME SOURCE ID = SLINE1 ** SOURCE PARAMETERS ** ** LINE VOLUME SOURCE ID = SLINE1    SRCPARAM L0000001     0.0002688889      0.00     26.93      3.53    SRCPARAM L0000002     0.0002688889      0.00     26.93      3.53    SRCPARAM L0000003     0.0002688889      0.00     26.93      3.53    SRCPARAM L0000004     0.0002688889      0.00     26.93      3.53    SRCPARAM L0000005     0.0002688889      0.00     26.93      3.53    SRCPARAM L0000006     0.0002688889      0.00     26.93      3.53    SRCPARAM L0000007     0.0002688889      0.00     26.93      3.53    SRCPARAM L0000008     0.0002688889      0.00     26.93      3.53    SRCPARAM L0000009     0.0002688889      0.00     26.93      3.53 ** ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐    URBANSRC ALL    SRCGROUP ALL SO FINISHED ** **************************************** ** AERMOD RECEPTOR PATHWAY **************************************** ** ** RE STARTING    INCLUDED "13400 FREEWAY HRA.ROU" RE FINISHED ** **************************************** ** AERMOD METEOROLOGY PATHWAY **************************************** ** ** ME STARTING    SURFFILE KSNA_V9_ADJU\KSNA_V9.SFC    PROFFILE KSNA_V9_ADJU\KSNA_V9.PFL    SURFDATA 93184 2012    UAIRDATA 3190 2012    PROFBASE 17.0 METERS ME FINISHED 1 - 86 ** **************************************** ** AERMOD OUTPUT PATHWAY **************************************** ** ** OU STARTING ** AUTO‐GENERATED PLOTFILES    PLOTFILE   ANNUAL ALL "13400 FREEWAY HRA.AD\AN00GALL.PLT" 31    SUMMFILE "13400 FREEWAY HRA.SUM" OU FINISHED   *** Message Summary For AERMOD Model Setup ***   ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Summary of Total Messages ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐     A Total of            0 Fatal Error Message(s)  A Total of            2 Warning Message(s)  A Total of            0 Informational Message(s)           ******** FATAL ERROR MESSAGES ********                 ***  NONE  ***                    ********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********   ME W186      99       MEOPEN: THRESH_1MIN 1‐min ASOS wind speed threshold used           0.50  ME W187      99       MEOPEN: ADJ_U* Option for Stable Low Winds used in AERMET                ***********************************  *** SETUP Finishes Successfully ***  ***********************************  *** AERMOD ‐ VERSION  19191 ***   *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\1660 E FIRST ST\1660  E FIRST ST.ISC             ***        06/05/20  *** AERMET ‐ VERSION  16216 ***   ***                                                                      ***        02:17:27                                                                                                                        PAGE   1  *** MODELOPTs:    RegDFAULT  CONC  ELEV  FLGPOL  URBAN  ADJ_U*                                             ***     MODEL SETUP OPTIONS SUMMARY       ***  ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐  ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐  **Model Is Setup For Calculation of Average CONCentration Values. 1 - 87       ‐‐  DEPOSITION LOGIC  ‐‐  **NO GAS DEPOSITION Data Provided.  **NO PARTICLE DEPOSITION Data Provided.  **Model Uses NO DRY DEPLETION.  DRYDPLT  =  F  **Model Uses NO WET DEPLETION.  WETDPLT  =  F     **Model Uses URBAN Dispersion Algorithm for the SBL for     9 Source(s),    for Total of    1 Urban Area(s):    Urban Population =   3010232.0 ;  Urban Roughness Length =  1.000 m     **Model Uses Regulatory DEFAULT Options:          1. Stack‐tip Downwash.          2. Model Accounts for ELEVated Terrain Effects.          3. Use Calms Processing Routine.          4. Use Missing Data Processing Routine.          5. No Exponential Decay.          6. Urban Roughness Length of 1.0 Meter Assumed.     **Other Options Specified:          ADJ_U*   ‐ Use ADJ_U* option for SBL in AERMET          CCVR_Sub ‐ Meteorological data includes CCVR substitutions          TEMP_Sub ‐ Meteorological data includes TEMP substitutions     **Model Accepts FLAGPOLE Receptor Heights.     **The User Specified a Pollutant Type of:  DPM          **Model Calculates ANNUAL Averages Only     **This Run Includes:      9 Source(s);       1 Source Group(s); and     348  Receptor(s)                 with:      0 POINT(s), including                            0 POINTCAP(s) and      0 POINTHOR(s)                  and:      9 VOLUME source(s)                  and:      0 AREA type source(s)                  and:      0 LINE source(s)                  and:      0 RLINE/RLINEXT source(s)                  and:      0 OPENPIT source(s)                  and:      0 BUOYANT LINE source(s) with      0 line(s)     **Model Set To Continue RUNning After the Setup Testing.  **The AERMET Input Meteorological Data Version Date:  16216     **Output Options Selected:           Model Outputs Tables of ANNUAL Averages by Receptor           Model Outputs External File(s) of High Values for Plotting (PLOTFILE  1 - 88 Keyword)           Model Outputs Separate Summary File of High Ranked Values (SUMMFILE  Keyword)     **NOTE:  The Following Flags May Appear Following CONC Values:  c for Calm Hours                                                                  m for Missing  Hours                                                                  b for Both Calm  and Missing Hours     **Misc. Inputs:  Base Elev. for Pot. Temp. Profile (m MSL) =    17.00 ;  Decay  Coef. =    0.000     ;  Rot. Angle =     0.0                   Emission Units = GRAMS/SEC                                ;   Emission Rate Unit Factor =   0.10000E+07                   Output Units   = MICROGRAMS/M**3                              **Approximate Storage Requirements of Model =      3.5 MB of RAM.     **Input Runstream File:          aermod.inp                                                                                        **Output Print File:             aermod.out                                                                                        **Detailed Error/Message File:   13400 FREEWAY HRA.ERR                                                                             **File for Summary of Results:   13400 FREEWAY HRA.SUM                                                                             *** AERMOD ‐ VERSION  19191 ***   *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\1660 E FIRST ST\1660  E FIRST ST.ISC             ***        06/05/20  *** AERMET ‐ VERSION  16216 ***   ***                                                                      ***        02:17:27                                                                                                                        PAGE   2  *** MODELOPTs:    RegDFAULT  CONC  ELEV  FLGPOL  URBAN  ADJ_U*                                                   *** VOLUME SOURCE DATA ***                NUMBER EMISSION RATE                    BASE    RELEASE    INIT.     INIT.   URBAN  EMISSION RATE    SOURCE       PART.  (GRAMS/SEC)     X        Y      ELEV.   HEIGHT      SY       SZ     SOURCE  SCALAR VARY      ID         CATS.               (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS)  (METERS)              BY  ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐  ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐  L0000001         0   0.26889E‐03  421747.2 3734827.8    37.0     0.00    26.93     3.53     YES            L0000002         0   0.26889E‐03  421776.8 3734778.0    37.0     0.00    26.93     1 - 89 3.53     YES            L0000003         0   0.26889E‐03  421806.5 3734728.3    36.7     0.00    26.93     3.53     YES            L0000004         0   0.26889E‐03  421836.1 3734678.5    36.1     0.00    26.93     3.53     YES            L0000005         0   0.26889E‐03  421862.4 3734627.2    36.0     0.00    26.93     3.53     YES            L0000006         0   0.26889E‐03  421881.1 3734572.4    36.0     0.00    26.93     3.53     YES            L0000007         0   0.26889E‐03  421899.8 3734517.6    35.4     0.00    26.93     3.53     YES            L0000008         0   0.26889E‐03  421916.6 3734462.2    35.0     0.00    26.93     3.53     YES            L0000009         0   0.26889E‐03  421932.4 3734406.5    35.0     0.00    26.93     3.53     YES            *** AERMOD ‐ VERSION  19191 ***   *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\1660 E FIRST ST\1660  E FIRST ST.ISC             ***        06/05/20  *** AERMET ‐ VERSION  16216 ***   ***                                                                      ***        02:17:27                                                                                                                        PAGE   3  *** MODELOPTs:    RegDFAULT  CONC  ELEV  FLGPOL  URBAN  ADJ_U*                                            *** SOURCE IDs DEFINING SOURCE GROUPS  ***  SRCGROUP ID                                              SOURCE IDs  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐                                              ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐   ALL        L0000001    , L0000002    , L0000003    , L0000004    , L0000005    ,  L0000006    , L0000007    , L0000008    ,              L0000009    ,  *** AERMOD ‐ VERSION  19191 ***   *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\1660 E FIRST ST\1660  E FIRST ST.ISC             ***        06/05/20  *** AERMET ‐ VERSION  16216 ***   ***                                                                      ***        02:17:27                                                                                                                        PAGE   4  *** MODELOPTs:    RegDFAULT  CONC  ELEV  FLGPOL  URBAN  ADJ_U*                                           *** SOURCE IDs DEFINED AS URBAN SOURCES  ***   URBAN ID   URBAN POP                                    SOURCE IDs   ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐   ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐                                    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 1 - 90               3010232.   L0000001    , L0000002    , L0000003    , L0000004    ,  L0000005    , L0000006    , L0000007    ,  L0000008    ,              L0000009    ,  *** AERMOD ‐ VERSION  19191 ***   *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\1660 E FIRST ST\1660  E FIRST ST.ISC             ***        06/05/20  *** AERMET ‐ VERSION  16216 ***   ***                                                                      ***        02:17:27                                                                                                                        PAGE   5  *** MODELOPTs:    RegDFAULT  CONC  ELEV  FLGPOL  URBAN  ADJ_U*                                              *** DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTORS ***                                            (X‐COORD, Y‐COORD, ZELEV, ZHILL, ZFLAG)                                                            (METERS)      ( 421959.9, 3734566.8,      35.9,      35.9,       7.0);         ( 421971.2,  3734566.8,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 421982.6, 3734566.8,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 421994.0,  3734566.8,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 422005.4, 3734566.8,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 422016.8,  3734566.8,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 422028.1, 3734566.8,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 422039.5,  3734566.8,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 422050.9, 3734566.8,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 422062.3,  3734566.8,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 422073.7, 3734566.8,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 422085.0,  3734566.8,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 422096.4, 3734566.8,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 422107.8,  3734566.8,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 422119.2, 3734566.8,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 422130.6,  3734566.8,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 421959.9, 3734575.5,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 421971.2,  3734575.5,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 421982.6, 3734575.5,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 421994.0,  3734575.5,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 422005.4, 3734575.5,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 422016.8,  3734575.5,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 422028.1, 3734575.5,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 422039.5,  3734575.5,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 422050.9, 3734575.5,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 422062.3,  3734575.5,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 422073.7, 3734575.5,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 422085.0,  3734575.5,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 422096.4, 3734575.5,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 422107.8,  3734575.5,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 422119.2, 3734575.5,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 422130.6,  3734575.5,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);       1 - 91      ( 421959.9, 3734584.2,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 421971.2,  3734584.2,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 421982.6, 3734584.2,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 421994.0,  3734584.2,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 422005.4, 3734584.2,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 422016.8,  3734584.2,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 422028.1, 3734584.2,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 422039.5,  3734584.2,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 422050.9, 3734584.2,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 422062.3,  3734584.2,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 422073.7, 3734584.2,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 422085.0,  3734584.2,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 422096.4, 3734584.2,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 422107.8,  3734584.2,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 422119.2, 3734584.2,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 422130.6,  3734584.2,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 421959.9, 3734592.8,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 421971.2,  3734592.8,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 421982.6, 3734592.8,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 421994.0,  3734592.8,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 422005.4, 3734592.8,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 422016.8,  3734592.8,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 422028.1, 3734592.8,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 422039.5,  3734592.8,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 422050.9, 3734592.8,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 422062.3,  3734592.8,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 422073.7, 3734592.8,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 422085.0,  3734592.8,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 422096.4, 3734592.8,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 422107.8,  3734592.8,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 422119.2, 3734592.8,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 422130.6,  3734592.8,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 421948.5, 3734601.5,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 421959.9,  3734601.5,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 421971.2, 3734601.5,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 421982.6,  3734601.5,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 421994.0, 3734601.5,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 422005.4,  3734601.5,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 422016.8, 3734601.5,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 422028.1,  3734601.5,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 422039.5, 3734601.5,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 422050.9,  3734601.5,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 422062.3, 3734601.5,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 422073.7,  3734601.5,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 422085.0, 3734601.5,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 422096.4,  3734601.5,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 422107.8, 3734601.5,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 422119.2,  3734601.5,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 422130.6, 3734601.5,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 421948.5,  3734610.2,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);       1 - 92      ( 421959.9, 3734610.2,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 421971.2,  3734610.2,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 421982.6, 3734610.2,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 421994.0,  3734610.2,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 422005.4, 3734610.2,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 422016.8,  3734610.2,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 422028.1, 3734610.2,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 422039.5,  3734610.2,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);        *** AERMOD ‐ VERSION  19191 ***   *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\1660 E FIRST ST\1660  E FIRST ST.ISC             ***        06/05/20  *** AERMET ‐ VERSION  16216 ***   ***                                                                      ***        02:17:27                                                                                                                        PAGE   6  *** MODELOPTs:    RegDFAULT  CONC  ELEV  FLGPOL  URBAN  ADJ_U*                                              *** DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTORS ***                                            (X‐COORD, Y‐COORD, ZELEV, ZHILL, ZFLAG)                                                            (METERS)      ( 422050.9, 3734610.2,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 422062.3,  3734610.2,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 422073.7, 3734610.2,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 422085.0,  3734610.2,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 422096.4, 3734610.2,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 422107.8,  3734610.2,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 422119.2, 3734610.2,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 422130.6,  3734610.2,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 421948.5, 3734618.9,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 421959.9,  3734618.9,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 421971.2, 3734618.9,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 421982.6,  3734618.9,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 421994.0, 3734618.9,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 422005.4,  3734618.9,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 422016.8, 3734618.9,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 422028.1,  3734618.9,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 422039.5, 3734618.9,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 422050.9,  3734618.9,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 422062.3, 3734618.9,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 422073.7,  3734618.9,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 422085.0, 3734618.9,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 422096.4,  3734618.9,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 422107.8, 3734618.9,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 422119.2,  3734618.9,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 422130.6, 3734618.9,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 421937.1,  3734627.5,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 421948.5, 3734627.5,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 421959.9,  3734627.5,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 421971.2, 3734627.5,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 421982.6,  3734627.5,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);       1 - 93      ( 421994.0, 3734627.5,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 422005.4,  3734627.5,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 422016.8, 3734627.5,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 422028.1,  3734627.5,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 422039.5, 3734627.5,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 422050.9,  3734627.5,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 422062.3, 3734627.5,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 422073.7,  3734627.5,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 422085.0, 3734627.5,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 422096.4,  3734627.5,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 422107.8, 3734627.5,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 422119.2,  3734627.5,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 422130.6, 3734627.5,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 421937.1,  3734636.2,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 421948.5, 3734636.2,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 421959.9,  3734636.2,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 421971.2, 3734636.2,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 421982.6,  3734636.2,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 421994.0, 3734636.2,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 422005.4,  3734636.2,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 422016.8, 3734636.2,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 422028.1,  3734636.2,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 422039.5, 3734636.2,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 422050.9,  3734636.2,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 422062.3, 3734636.2,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 422073.7,  3734636.2,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 422085.0, 3734636.2,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 422096.4,  3734636.2,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 422107.8, 3734636.2,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 422119.2,  3734636.2,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 422130.6, 3734636.2,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 421937.1,  3734644.9,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 421948.5, 3734644.9,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 421959.9,  3734644.9,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 421971.2, 3734644.9,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 421982.6,  3734644.9,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 421994.0, 3734644.9,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 422005.4,  3734644.9,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 422016.8, 3734644.9,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 422028.1,  3734644.9,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 422039.5, 3734644.9,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 422050.9,  3734644.9,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 422062.3, 3734644.9,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 422073.7,  3734644.9,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 422085.0, 3734644.9,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 422096.4,  3734644.9,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 422107.8, 3734644.9,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 422119.2,  3734644.9,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 422130.6, 3734644.9,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 421925.7,  3734653.5,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);       1 - 94      ( 421937.1, 3734653.5,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 421948.5,  3734653.5,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 421959.9, 3734653.5,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 421971.2,  3734653.5,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 421982.6, 3734653.5,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 421994.0,  3734653.5,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 422005.4, 3734653.5,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 422016.8,  3734653.5,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 422028.1, 3734653.5,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 422039.5,  3734653.5,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);        *** AERMOD ‐ VERSION  19191 ***   *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\1660 E FIRST ST\1660  E FIRST ST.ISC             ***        06/05/20  *** AERMET ‐ VERSION  16216 ***   ***                                                                      ***        02:17:27                                                                                                                        PAGE   7  *** MODELOPTs:    RegDFAULT  CONC  ELEV  FLGPOL  URBAN  ADJ_U*                                              *** DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTORS ***                                            (X‐COORD, Y‐COORD, ZELEV, ZHILL, ZFLAG)                                                            (METERS)      ( 422050.9, 3734653.5,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 422062.3,  3734653.5,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 422073.7, 3734653.5,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 422085.0,  3734653.5,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 422096.4, 3734653.5,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 422107.8,  3734653.5,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 422119.2, 3734653.5,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 422130.6,  3734653.5,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 421925.7, 3734662.2,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 421937.1,  3734662.2,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 421948.5, 3734662.2,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 421959.9,  3734662.2,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 421971.2, 3734662.2,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 421982.6,  3734662.2,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 421994.0, 3734662.2,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 422005.4,  3734662.2,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 422016.8, 3734662.2,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 422028.1,  3734662.2,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 422039.5, 3734662.2,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 422050.9,  3734662.2,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 422062.3, 3734662.2,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 422073.7,  3734662.2,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 422085.0, 3734662.2,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 422096.4,  3734662.2,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 422107.8, 3734662.2,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 422119.2,  3734662.2,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);            ( 422130.6, 3734662.2,      36.0,      36.0,       7.0);         ( 421925.7,  3734670.9,      36.1,      36.1,       7.0);       1 - 95      ( 421937.1, 3734670.9,      36.1,      36.1,       7.0);         ( 421948.5,  3734670.9,      36.1,      36.1,       7.0);            ( 421959.9, 3734670.9,      36.1,      36.1,       7.0);         ( 421971.2,  3734670.9,      36.1,      36.1,       7.0);            ( 421982.6, 3734670.9,      36.1,      36.1,       7.0);         ( 421994.0,  3734670.9,      36.1,      36.1,       7.0);            ( 422005.4, 3734670.9,      36.1,      36.1,       7.0);         ( 422016.8,  3734670.9,      36.1,      36.1,       7.0);            ( 422028.1, 3734670.9,      36.1,      36.1,       7.0);         ( 422039.5,  3734670.9,      36.1,      36.1,       7.0);            ( 422050.9, 3734670.9,      36.1,      36.1,       7.0);         ( 422062.3,  3734670.9,      36.1,      36.1,       7.0);            ( 422073.7, 3734670.9,      36.1,      36.1,       7.0);         ( 422085.0,  3734670.9,      36.1,      36.1,       7.0);            ( 422096.4, 3734670.9,      36.1,      36.1,       7.0);         ( 422107.8,  3734670.9,      36.1,      36.1,       7.0);            ( 422119.2, 3734670.9,      36.1,      36.1,       7.0);         ( 422130.6,  3734670.9,      36.1,      36.1,       7.0);            ( 421925.7, 3734679.5,      36.2,      36.2,       7.0);         ( 421937.1,  3734679.5,      36.2,      36.2,       7.0);            ( 421948.5, 3734679.5,      36.2,      36.2,       7.0);         ( 421959.9,  3734679.5,      36.2,      36.2,       7.0);            ( 421971.2, 3734679.5,      36.2,      36.2,       7.0);         ( 421982.6,  3734679.5,      36.2,      36.2,       7.0);            ( 421994.0, 3734679.5,      36.2,      36.2,       7.0);         ( 422005.4,  3734679.5,      36.2,      36.2,       7.0);            ( 422016.8, 3734679.5,      36.2,      36.2,       7.0);         ( 422028.1,  3734679.5,      36.2,      36.2,       7.0);            ( 422039.5, 3734679.5,      36.2,      36.2,       7.0);         ( 422050.9,  3734679.5,      36.2,      36.2,       7.0);            ( 422062.3, 3734679.5,      36.2,      36.2,       7.0);         ( 422073.7,  3734679.5,      36.2,      36.2,       7.0);            ( 422085.0, 3734679.5,      36.2,      36.2,       7.0);         ( 422096.4,  3734679.5,      36.2,      36.2,       7.0);            ( 422107.8, 3734679.5,      36.2,      36.2,       7.0);         ( 422119.2,  3734679.5,      36.2,      36.2,       7.0);            ( 422130.6, 3734679.5,      36.2,      36.2,       7.0);         ( 421914.3,  3734688.2,      36.3,      36.3,       7.0);            ( 421925.7, 3734688.2,      36.3,      36.3,       7.0);         ( 421937.1,  3734688.2,      36.3,      36.3,       7.0);            ( 421948.5, 3734688.2,      36.3,      36.3,       7.0);         ( 421959.9,  3734688.2,      36.3,      36.3,       7.0);            ( 421971.2, 3734688.2,      36.3,      36.3,       7.0);         ( 421982.6,  3734688.2,      36.3,      36.3,       7.0);            ( 421994.0, 3734688.2,      36.3,      36.3,       7.0);         ( 422005.4,  3734688.2,      36.3,      36.3,       7.0);            ( 422016.8, 3734688.2,      36.3,      36.3,       7.0);         ( 422028.1,  3734688.2,      36.3,      36.3,       7.0);            ( 422039.5, 3734688.2,      36.3,      36.3,       7.0);         ( 422050.9,  3734688.2,      36.3,      36.3,       7.0);       1 - 96      ( 422062.3, 3734688.2,      36.3,      36.3,       7.0);         ( 422073.7,  3734688.2,      36.3,      36.3,       7.0);            ( 422085.0, 3734688.2,      36.3,      36.3,       7.0);         ( 422096.4,  3734688.2,      36.3,      36.3,       7.0);            ( 422107.8, 3734688.2,      36.3,      36.3,       7.0);         ( 422119.2,  3734688.2,      36.3,      36.3,       7.0);            ( 422130.6, 3734688.2,      36.3,      36.3,       7.0);         ( 421914.3,  3734696.9,      36.4,      36.4,       7.0);            ( 421925.7, 3734696.9,      36.4,      36.4,       7.0);         ( 421937.1,  3734696.9,      36.4,      36.4,       7.0);            ( 421948.5, 3734696.9,      36.4,      36.4,       7.0);         ( 421959.9,  3734696.9,      36.4,      36.4,       7.0);        *** AERMOD ‐ VERSION  19191 ***   *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\1660 E FIRST ST\1660  E FIRST ST.ISC             ***        06/05/20  *** AERMET ‐ VERSION  16216 ***   ***                                                                      ***        02:17:27                                                                                                                        PAGE   8  *** MODELOPTs:    RegDFAULT  CONC  ELEV  FLGPOL  URBAN  ADJ_U*                                              *** DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTORS ***                                            (X‐COORD, Y‐COORD, ZELEV, ZHILL, ZFLAG)                                                            (METERS)      ( 421971.2, 3734696.9,      36.4,      36.4,       7.0);         ( 421982.6,  3734696.9,      36.4,      36.4,       7.0);            ( 421994.0, 3734696.9,      36.4,      36.4,       7.0);         ( 422005.4,  3734696.9,      36.4,      36.4,       7.0);            ( 422016.8, 3734696.9,      36.4,      36.4,       7.0);         ( 422028.1,  3734696.9,      36.4,      36.4,       7.0);            ( 422039.5, 3734696.9,      36.4,      36.4,       7.0);         ( 422050.9,  3734696.9,      36.4,      36.4,       7.0);            ( 422062.3, 3734696.9,      36.4,      36.4,       7.0);         ( 422073.7,  3734696.9,      36.4,      36.4,       7.0);            ( 422085.0, 3734696.9,      36.4,      36.4,       7.0);         ( 422096.4,  3734696.9,      36.4,      36.4,       7.0);            ( 422107.8, 3734696.9,      36.4,      36.4,       7.0);         ( 422119.2,  3734696.9,      36.4,      36.4,       7.0);            ( 422130.6, 3734696.9,      36.4,      36.4,       7.0);         ( 421903.0,  3734705.6,      36.4,      36.4,       7.0);            ( 421914.3, 3734705.6,      36.4,      36.4,       7.0);         ( 421925.7,  3734705.6,      36.4,      36.4,       7.0);            ( 421937.1, 3734705.6,      36.4,      36.4,       7.0);         ( 421948.5,  3734705.6,      36.4,      36.4,       7.0);            ( 421959.9, 3734705.6,      36.5,      36.5,       7.0);         ( 421971.2,  3734705.6,      36.5,      36.5,       7.0);            ( 421982.6, 3734705.6,      36.5,      36.5,       7.0);         ( 421994.0,  3734705.6,      36.5,      36.5,       7.0);            ( 422005.4, 3734705.6,      36.5,      36.5,       7.0);         ( 422016.8,  3734705.6,      36.5,      36.5,       7.0);       1 - 97      ( 422028.1, 3734705.6,      36.5,      36.5,       7.0);         ( 422039.5,  3734705.6,      36.5,      36.5,       7.0);            ( 422050.9, 3734705.6,      36.5,      36.5,       7.0);         ( 422062.3,  3734705.6,      36.5,      36.5,       7.0);            ( 422073.7, 3734705.6,      36.5,      36.5,       7.0);         ( 422085.0,  3734705.6,      36.5,      36.5,       7.0);            ( 422096.4, 3734705.6,      36.5,      36.5,       7.0);         ( 422107.8,  3734705.6,      36.5,      36.5,       7.0);            ( 422119.2, 3734705.6,      36.5,      36.5,       7.0);         ( 422130.6,  3734705.6,      36.5,      36.5,       7.0);            ( 421903.0, 3734714.2,      36.5,      36.5,       7.0);         ( 421914.3,  3734714.2,      36.5,      36.5,       7.0);            ( 421925.7, 3734714.2,      36.5,      36.5,       7.0);         ( 421937.1,  3734714.2,      36.5,      36.5,       7.0);            ( 421948.5, 3734714.2,      36.5,      36.5,       7.0);         ( 421959.9,  3734714.2,      36.5,      36.5,       7.0);            ( 421971.2, 3734714.2,      36.5,      36.5,       7.0);         ( 421982.6,  3734714.2,      36.5,      36.5,       7.0);            ( 421994.0, 3734714.2,      36.5,      36.5,       7.0);         ( 422005.4,  3734714.2,      36.5,      36.5,       7.0);            ( 422016.8, 3734714.2,      36.5,      36.5,       7.0);         ( 422028.1,  3734714.2,      36.6,      36.6,       7.0);            ( 422039.5, 3734714.2,      36.6,      36.6,       7.0);         ( 422050.9,  3734714.2,      36.6,      36.6,       7.0);            ( 422062.3, 3734714.2,      36.6,      36.6,       7.0);         ( 422073.7,  3734714.2,      36.6,      36.6,       7.0);            ( 422085.0, 3734714.2,      36.6,      36.6,       7.0);         ( 422096.4,  3734714.2,      36.6,      36.6,       7.0);            ( 422107.8, 3734714.2,      36.6,      36.6,       7.0);         ( 422119.2,  3734714.2,      36.6,      36.6,       7.0);            ( 422130.6, 3734714.2,      36.6,      36.6,       7.0);         ( 421903.0,  3734722.9,      36.6,      36.6,       7.0);            ( 421914.3, 3734722.9,      36.6,      36.6,       7.0);         ( 421925.7,  3734722.9,      36.6,      36.6,       7.0);            ( 421937.1, 3734722.9,      36.6,      36.6,       7.0);         ( 421948.5,  3734722.9,      36.6,      36.6,       7.0);            ( 421959.9, 3734722.9,      36.6,      36.6,       7.0);         ( 421971.2,  3734722.9,      36.6,      36.6,       7.0);            ( 421982.6, 3734722.9,      36.6,      36.6,       7.0);         ( 421994.0,  3734722.9,      36.6,      36.6,       7.0);            ( 422005.4, 3734722.9,      36.6,      36.6,       7.0);         ( 422016.8,  3734722.9,      36.6,      36.6,       7.0);            ( 422028.1, 3734722.9,      36.6,      36.6,       7.0);         ( 422039.5,  3734722.9,      36.6,      36.6,       7.0);            ( 422050.9, 3734722.9,      36.6,      36.6,       7.0);         ( 422062.3,  3734722.9,      36.6,      36.6,       7.0);            ( 422073.7, 3734722.9,      36.6,      36.6,       7.0);         ( 422085.0,  3734722.9,      36.6,      36.6,       7.0);            ( 422096.4, 3734722.9,      36.7,      36.7,       7.0);         ( 422107.8,  3734722.9,      36.7,      36.7,       7.0);       1 - 98      ( 422119.2, 3734722.9,      36.7,      36.7,       7.0);         ( 422130.6,  3734722.9,      36.7,      36.7,       7.0);        *** AERMOD ‐ VERSION  19191 ***   *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\1660 E FIRST ST\1660  E FIRST ST.ISC             ***        06/05/20  *** AERMET ‐ VERSION  16216 ***   ***                                                                      ***        02:17:27                                                                                                                        PAGE   9  *** MODELOPTs:    RegDFAULT  CONC  ELEV  FLGPOL  URBAN  ADJ_U*                                             *** METEOROLOGICAL DAYS SELECTED FOR  PROCESSING ***                                                                (1=YES; 0=NO)             1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1   1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1   1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1   1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1   1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1             1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1   1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1   1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1   1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1   1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1             1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1   1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1   1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1   1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1   1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1             1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1   1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1   1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1   1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1   1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1             1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1   1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1   1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1   1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1   1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1             1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1   1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1   1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1   1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1   1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1             1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1   1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1   1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1   1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1   1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1             1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1   1 1 1 1 1 1                 NOTE:  METEOROLOGICAL DATA ACTUALLY PROCESSED WILL ALSO DEPEND ON  WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THE DATA FILE.                                   *** UPPER BOUND OF FIRST THROUGH FIFTH WIND SPEED CATEGORIES ***                                                             (METERS/SEC)                                                  1.54,   3.09,   5.14,   8.23,   10.80,  *** AERMOD ‐ VERSION  19191 ***   *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\1660 E FIRST ST\1660  E FIRST ST.ISC             ***        06/05/20  *** AERMET ‐ VERSION  16216 ***   ***                                                                      ***        02:17:27                                                                                                                        PAGE  10  *** MODELOPTs:    RegDFAULT  CONC  ELEV  FLGPOL  URBAN  ADJ_U*                                     *** UP TO THE FIRST 24 HOURS OF METEOROLOGICAL  1 - 99 DATA ***    Surface file:   KSNA_V9_ADJU\KSNA_V9.SFC                                                           Met Version:  16216    Profile file:   KSNA_V9_ADJU\KSNA_V9.PFL                                                            Surface format: FREE                                                                                                         Profile format: FREE                                                                                                         Surface station no.:    93184                  Upper air station no.:     3190                   Name: UNKNOWN                                    Name: UNKNOWN                                                    Year:   2012                                     Year:   2012  First 24 hours of scalar data  YR MO DY JDY HR     H0     U*     W*  DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH  M‐O LEN    Z0  BOWEN  ALBEDO  REF WS   WD     HT  REF TA     HT ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐   12 01 01   1 01   ‐4.5  0.082 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999.   56.     11.0  0.12   2.65    1.00    0.87   62.    5.8  283.8    2.0  12 01 01   1 02   ‐3.5  0.073 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999.   47.      9.9  0.12   2.65    1.00    0.77   27.    5.8  283.1    2.0  12 01 01   1 03   ‐3.5  0.073 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999.   47.      9.9  0.12   2.65    1.00    0.77  336.    5.8  283.1    2.0  12 01 01   1 04   ‐3.3  0.070 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999.   45.      9.7  0.12   2.65    1.00    0.74   34.    5.8  283.1    2.0  12 01 01   1 05   ‐3.0  0.068 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999.   42.      9.4  0.12   2.65    1.00    0.70  154.    5.8  282.5    2.0  12 01 01   1 06 ‐999.0 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999. ‐999. ‐99999.0  0.12   2.65    1.00    0.00    0.    5.8  282.0    2.0  12 01 01   1 07   ‐2.0  0.059 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999.   34.      9.0  0.12   2.65    1.00    0.55  343.    5.8  281.4    2.0  12 01 01   1 08   ‐2.6  0.066 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999.   40.      9.7  0.12   2.65    0.53    0.69   25.    5.8  281.4    2.0  12 01 01   1 09   21.6  0.133  0.252  0.010   27.  116.     ‐9.9  0.12   2.65    0.31    1.03  344.    5.8  282.5    2.0  12 01 01   1 10  115.6  0.162  0.713  0.008  114.  156.     ‐3.3  0.12   2.65    0.24    1.06  233.    5.8  286.4    2.0  12 01 01   1 11  160.9  0.126  1.129  0.005  325.  108.     ‐1.1  0.12   2.65    0.21    0.67  261.    5.8  291.4    2.0  12 01 01   1 12  187.0  0.138  1.467  0.005  614.  123.     ‐1.3  0.12   2.65    0.20    0.75  252.    5.8  294.9    2.0  12 01 01   1 13  186.9  0.189  1.755  0.005 1051.  197.     ‐3.3  0.12   2.65    0.20    1.23  280.    5.8  297.5    2.0  12 01 01   1 14  168.3  0.247  1.857  0.005 1383.  295.     ‐8.1  0.12   2.65    0.21    1.86  268.    5.8  299.2    2.0  12 01 01   1 15  115.3  0.275  1.688  0.005 1517.  346.    ‐16.3  0.12   2.65    0.24    2.25  248.    5.8  298.1    2.0 1 - 100  12 01 01   1 16   41.5  0.262  1.211  0.005 1552.  322.    ‐39.2  0.12   2.65    0.33    2.32  227.    5.8  295.9    2.0  12 01 01   1 17  ‐17.9  0.217 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999.  244.     52.0  0.12   2.65    0.60    2.18  227.    5.8  292.5    2.0  12 01 01   1 18  ‐24.7  0.250 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999.  300.     68.7  0.12   2.65    1.00    2.50  219.    5.8  288.8    2.0  12 01 01   1 19   ‐5.2  0.088 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999.   91.     12.0  0.12   2.65    1.00    0.94  201.    5.8  287.5    2.0  12 01 01   1 20   ‐3.5  0.073 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999.   47.     10.0  0.12   2.65    1.00    0.77  259.    5.8  287.0    2.0  12 01 01   1 21   ‐2.6  0.064 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999.   39.      9.1  0.12   2.65    1.00    0.65  264.    5.8  286.4    2.0  12 01 01   1 22   ‐4.4  0.081 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999.   55.     10.9  0.12   2.65    1.00    0.86  211.    5.8  285.9    2.0  12 01 01   1 23   ‐4.2  0.079 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999.   53.     10.7  0.12   2.65    1.00    0.84  247.    5.8  284.9    2.0  12 01 01   1 24   ‐7.1  0.103 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999.   80.     14.1  0.12   2.65    1.00    1.09  236.    5.8  283.8    2.0  First hour of profile data  YR MO DY HR HEIGHT F  WDIR    WSPD AMB_TMP sigmaA  sigmaW  sigmaV  12 01 01 01    5.8 1   62.    0.87   283.8   99.0  ‐99.00  ‐99.00  F indicates top of profile (=1) or below (=0)  *** AERMOD ‐ VERSION  19191 ***   *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\1660 E FIRST ST\1660  E FIRST ST.ISC             ***        06/05/20  *** AERMET ‐ VERSION  16216 ***   ***                                                                      ***        02:17:27                                                                                                                        PAGE  11  *** MODELOPTs:    RegDFAULT  CONC  ELEV  FLGPOL  URBAN  ADJ_U*                    *** THE ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATION    VALUES AVERAGED OVER   5 YEARS FOR SOURCE GROUP: ALL      ***                                   INCLUDING SOURCE(S):     L0000001    , L0000002    , L0000003    , L0000004    , L0000005    ,                   L0000006    , L0000007    , L0000008    , L0000009    ,                                               *** DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTOR POINTS ***                                         ** CONC OF DPM      IN MICROGRAMS/M**3                          **        X‐COORD (M)   Y‐COORD (M)        CONC                       X‐COORD (M)    Y‐COORD (M)        CONC  ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐  ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐          421959.87    3734566.84        0.10666                      421971.25     1 - 101 3734566.84        0.09644                                   421982.63    3734566.84        0.08740                      421994.01     3734566.84        0.07937                                   422005.39    3734566.84        0.07220                      422016.77     3734566.84        0.06580                                   422028.15    3734566.84        0.06006                      422039.53     3734566.84        0.05491                                   422050.91    3734566.84        0.05028                      422062.29     3734566.84        0.04614                                   422073.67    3734566.84        0.04242                      422085.05     3734566.84        0.03907                                   422096.43    3734566.84        0.03608                      422107.81     3734566.84        0.03340                                   422119.19    3734566.84        0.03098                      422130.57     3734566.84        0.02881                                   421959.87    3734575.51        0.10469                      421971.25     3734575.51        0.09489                                   421982.63    3734575.51        0.08620                      421994.01     3734575.51        0.07846                                   422005.39    3734575.51        0.07156                      422016.77     3734575.51        0.06537                                   422028.15    3734575.51        0.05981                      422039.53     3734575.51        0.05481                                   422050.91    3734575.51        0.05031                      422062.29     3734575.51        0.04625                                   422073.67    3734575.51        0.04260                      422085.05     3734575.51        0.03932                                   422096.43    3734575.51        0.03636                      422107.81     3734575.51        0.03370                                   422119.19    3734575.51        0.03129                      422130.57     3734575.51        0.02913                                   421959.87    3734584.18        0.10300                      421971.25     3734584.18        0.09351                                   421982.63    3734584.18        0.08510                      421994.01     3734584.18        0.07763                                   422005.39    3734584.18        0.07095                      422016.77     3734584.18        0.06496                                   422028.15    3734584.18        0.05957                      422039.53     3734584.18        0.05471                                   422050.91    3734584.18        0.05032                      422062.29     3734584.18        0.04635                                   422073.67    3734584.18        0.04276                      422085.05     3734584.18        0.03953                                   422096.43    3734584.18        0.03661                      422107.81     3734584.18        0.03397                                   422119.19    3734584.18        0.03158                      422130.57     3734584.18        0.02942                                   421959.87    3734592.85        0.10129                      421971.25     3734592.85        0.09209                                   421982.63    3734592.85        0.08396                      421994.01     1 - 102 3734592.85        0.07675                                   422005.39    3734592.85        0.07029                      422016.77     3734592.85        0.06450                                   422028.15    3734592.85        0.05927                      422039.53     3734592.85        0.05454                                   422050.91    3734592.85        0.05026                      422062.29     3734592.85        0.04638                                   422073.67    3734592.85        0.04287                      422085.05     3734592.85        0.03969                                   422096.43    3734592.85        0.03681                      422107.81     3734592.85        0.03419                                   422119.19    3734592.85        0.03183                      422130.57     3734592.85        0.02968                                   421948.49    3734601.52        0.10963                      421959.87     3734601.52        0.09952                                   421971.25    3734601.52        0.09063                      421982.63     3734601.52        0.08279                                   421994.01    3734601.52        0.07582                      422005.39     3734601.52        0.06958                                   422016.77    3734601.52        0.06397                      422028.15     3734601.52        0.05890                                   422039.53    3734601.52        0.05431                      422050.91     3734601.52        0.05015                                   422062.29    3734601.52        0.04636                      422073.67     3734601.52        0.04292                                   422085.05    3734601.52        0.03980                      422096.43     3734601.52        0.03696                                   422107.81    3734601.52        0.03438                      422119.19     3734601.52        0.03204                           *** AERMOD ‐ VERSION  19191 ***   *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\1660 E FIRST ST\1660  E FIRST ST.ISC             ***        06/05/20  *** AERMET ‐ VERSION  16216 ***   ***                                                                      ***        02:17:27                                                                                                                        PAGE  12  *** MODELOPTs:    RegDFAULT  CONC  ELEV  FLGPOL  URBAN  ADJ_U*                    *** THE ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATION    VALUES AVERAGED OVER   5 YEARS FOR SOURCE GROUP: ALL      ***                                   INCLUDING SOURCE(S):     L0000001    , L0000002    , L0000003    , L0000004    , L0000005    ,                   L0000006    , L0000007    , L0000008    , L0000009    ,                                               *** DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTOR POINTS ***                                         ** CONC OF DPM      IN MICROGRAMS/M**3                          **        X‐COORD (M)   Y‐COORD (M)        CONC                       X‐COORD (M)    1 - 103 Y‐COORD (M)        CONC  ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐  ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐          422130.57    3734601.52        0.02991                      421948.49     3734610.19        0.10746                                   421959.87    3734610.19        0.09772                      421971.25     3734610.19        0.08915                                   421982.63    3734610.19        0.08158                      421994.01     3734610.19        0.07485                                   422005.39    3734610.19        0.06883                      422016.77     3734610.19        0.06340                                   422028.15    3734610.19        0.05849                      422039.53     3734610.19        0.05403                                   422050.91    3734610.19        0.04998                      422062.29     3734610.19        0.04629                                   422073.67    3734610.19        0.04292                      422085.05     3734610.19        0.03986                                   422096.43    3734610.19        0.03707                      422107.81     3734610.19        0.03453                                   422119.19    3734610.19        0.03221                      422130.57     3734610.19        0.03010                                   421948.49    3734618.86        0.10525                      421959.87     3734618.86        0.09588                                   421971.25    3734618.86        0.08764                      421982.63     3734618.86        0.08034                                   421994.01    3734618.86        0.07385                      422005.39     3734618.86        0.06804                                   422016.77    3734618.86        0.06279                      422028.15     3734618.86        0.05803                                   422039.53    3734618.86        0.05371                      422050.91     3734618.86        0.04976                                   422062.29    3734618.86        0.04617                      422073.67     3734618.86        0.04288                                   422085.05    3734618.86        0.03988                      422096.43     3734618.86        0.03714                                   422107.81    3734618.86        0.03463                      422119.19     3734618.86        0.03235                                   422130.57    3734618.86        0.03026                      421937.11     3734627.53        0.11329                                   421948.49    3734627.53        0.10305                      421959.87     3734627.53        0.09404                                   421971.25    3734627.53        0.08611                      421982.63     3734627.53        0.07909                                   421994.01    3734627.53        0.07283                      422005.39     3734627.53        0.06721                                   422016.77    3734627.53        0.06214                      422028.15     3734627.53        0.05753                                   422039.53    3734627.53        0.05334                      422050.91     3734627.53        0.04950                                   422062.29    3734627.53        0.04600                      422073.67     1 - 104 3734627.53        0.04279                                   422085.05    3734627.53        0.03986                      422096.43     3734627.53        0.03717                                   422107.81    3734627.53        0.03471                      422119.19     3734627.53        0.03245                                   422130.57    3734627.53        0.03039                      421937.11     3734636.20        0.11073                                   421948.49    3734636.20        0.10086                      421959.87     3734636.20        0.09220                                   421971.25    3734636.20        0.08457                      421982.63     3734636.20        0.07781                                   421994.01    3734636.20        0.07178                      422005.39     3734636.20        0.06636                                   422016.77    3734636.20        0.06145                      422028.15     3734636.20        0.05699                                   422039.53    3734636.20        0.05293                      422050.91     3734636.20        0.04921                                   422062.29    3734636.20        0.04580                      422073.67     3734636.20        0.04267                                   422085.05    3734636.20        0.03980                      422096.43     3734636.20        0.03716                                   422107.81    3734636.20        0.03474                      422119.19     3734636.20        0.03252                                   422130.57    3734636.20        0.03048                      421937.11     3734644.87        0.10818                                   421948.49    3734644.87        0.09868                      421959.87     3734644.87        0.09036                                   421971.25    3734644.87        0.08302                      421982.63     3734644.87        0.07652                                   421994.01    3734644.87        0.07071                      422005.39     3734644.87        0.06548                                   422016.77    3734644.87        0.06074                      422028.15     3734644.87        0.05643                           *** AERMOD ‐ VERSION  19191 ***   *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\1660 E FIRST ST\1660  E FIRST ST.ISC             ***        06/05/20  *** AERMET ‐ VERSION  16216 ***   ***                                                                      ***        02:17:27                                                                                                                        PAGE  13  *** MODELOPTs:    RegDFAULT  CONC  ELEV  FLGPOL  URBAN  ADJ_U*                    *** THE ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATION    VALUES AVERAGED OVER   5 YEARS FOR SOURCE GROUP: ALL      ***                                   INCLUDING SOURCE(S):     L0000001    , L0000002    , L0000003    , L0000004    , L0000005    ,                   L0000006    , L0000007    , L0000008    , L0000009    ,                                               *** DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTOR POINTS *** 1 - 105                                         ** CONC OF DPM      IN MICROGRAMS/M**3                          **        X‐COORD (M)   Y‐COORD (M)        CONC                       X‐COORD (M)    Y‐COORD (M)        CONC  ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐  ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐          422039.53    3734644.87        0.05248                      422050.91     3734644.87        0.04887                                   422062.29    3734644.87        0.04555                      422073.67     3734644.87        0.04250                                   422085.05    3734644.87        0.03970                      422096.43     3734644.87        0.03712                                   422107.81    3734644.87        0.03475                      422119.19     3734644.87        0.03256                                   422130.57    3734644.87        0.03055                      421925.73     3734653.54        0.11599                                   421937.11    3734653.54        0.10560                      421948.49     3734653.54        0.09649                                   421959.87    3734653.54        0.08851                      421971.25     3734653.54        0.08147                                   421982.63    3734653.54        0.07522                      421994.01     3734653.54        0.06962                                   422005.39    3734653.54        0.06457                      422016.77     3734653.54        0.06000                                   422028.15    3734653.54        0.05583                      422039.53     3734653.54        0.05201                                   422050.91    3734653.54        0.04850                      422062.29     3734653.54        0.04528                                   422073.67    3734653.54        0.04231                      422085.05     3734653.54        0.03957                                   422096.43    3734653.54        0.03705                      422107.81     3734653.54        0.03472                                   422119.19    3734653.54        0.03258                      422130.57     3734653.54        0.03060                                   421925.73    3734662.21        0.11286                      421937.11     3734662.21        0.10298                                   421948.49    3734662.21        0.09429                      421959.87     3734662.21        0.08666                                   421971.25    3734662.21        0.07991                      421982.63     3734662.21        0.07390                                   421994.01    3734662.21        0.06851                      422005.39     3734662.21        0.06365                                   422016.77    3734662.21        0.05923                      422028.15     3734662.21        0.05520                                   422039.53    3734662.21        0.05150                      422050.91     3734662.21        0.04810                                   422062.29    3734662.21        0.04497                      422073.67     3734662.21        0.04208                                   422085.05    3734662.21        0.03941                      422096.43     1 - 106 3734662.21        0.03694                                   422107.81    3734662.21        0.03467                      422119.19     3734662.21        0.03256                                   422130.57    3734662.21        0.03062                      421925.73     3734670.88        0.10923                                   421937.11    3734670.88        0.09997                      421948.49     3734670.88        0.09179                                   421959.87    3734670.88        0.08456                      421971.25     3734670.88        0.07814                                   421982.63    3734670.88        0.07241                      421994.01     3734670.88        0.06726                                   422005.39    3734670.88        0.06260                      422016.77     3734670.88        0.05835                                   422028.15    3734670.88        0.05447                      422039.53     3734670.88        0.05090                                   422050.91    3734670.88        0.04762                      422062.29     3734670.88        0.04459                                   422073.67    3734670.88        0.04178                      422085.05     3734670.88        0.03919                                   422096.43    3734670.88        0.03679                      422107.81     3734670.88        0.03456                                   422119.19    3734670.88        0.03250                      422130.57     3734670.88        0.03059                                   421925.73    3734679.55        0.10561                      421937.11     3734679.55        0.09697                                   421948.49    3734679.55        0.08928                      421959.87     3734679.55        0.08246                                   421971.25    3734679.55        0.07635                      421982.63     3734679.55        0.07090                                   421994.01    3734679.55        0.06598                      422005.39     3734679.55        0.06152                                   422016.77    3734679.55        0.05745                      422028.15     3734679.55        0.05372                                   422039.53    3734679.55        0.05029                      422050.91     3734679.55        0.04712                                   422062.29    3734679.55        0.04418                      422073.67     3734679.55        0.04147                           *** AERMOD ‐ VERSION  19191 ***   *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\1660 E FIRST ST\1660  E FIRST ST.ISC             ***        06/05/20  *** AERMET ‐ VERSION  16216 ***   ***                                                                      ***        02:17:27                                                                                                                        PAGE  14  *** MODELOPTs:    RegDFAULT  CONC  ELEV  FLGPOL  URBAN  ADJ_U*                    *** THE ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATION    VALUES AVERAGED OVER   5 YEARS FOR SOURCE GROUP: ALL      ***                                   INCLUDING SOURCE(S):     L0000001    , L0000002    , L0000003    , L0000004    , L0000005    ,                   L0000006    , L0000007    , L0000008    , L0000009    ,  1 - 107                                              *** DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTOR POINTS ***                                         ** CONC OF DPM      IN MICROGRAMS/M**3                          **        X‐COORD (M)   Y‐COORD (M)        CONC                       X‐COORD (M)    Y‐COORD (M)        CONC  ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐  ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐          422085.05    3734679.55        0.03894                      422096.43     3734679.55        0.03660                                   422107.81    3734679.55        0.03443                      422119.19     3734679.55        0.03242                                   422130.57    3734679.55        0.03055                      421914.35     3734688.22        0.11117                                   421925.73    3734688.22        0.10207                      421937.11     3734688.22        0.09399                                   421948.49    3734688.22        0.08679                      421959.87     3734688.22        0.08036                                   421971.25    3734688.22        0.07460                      421982.63     3734688.22        0.06941                                   421994.01    3734688.22        0.06472                      422005.39     3734688.22        0.06045                                   422016.77    3734688.22        0.05655                      422028.15     3734688.22        0.05296                                   422039.53    3734688.22        0.04965                      422050.91     3734688.22        0.04659                                   422062.29    3734688.22        0.04375                      422073.67     3734688.22        0.04112                                   422085.05    3734688.22        0.03867                      422096.43     3734688.22        0.03640                                   422107.81    3734688.22        0.03428                      422119.19     3734688.22        0.03231                                   422130.57    3734688.22        0.03048                      421914.35     3734696.89        0.10719                                   421925.73    3734696.89        0.09871                      421937.11     3734696.89        0.09114                                   421948.49    3734696.89        0.08438                      421959.87     3734696.89        0.07831                                   421971.25    3734696.89        0.07286                      421982.63     3734696.89        0.06793                                   421994.01    3734696.89        0.06346                      422005.39     3734696.89        0.05937                                   422016.77    3734696.89        0.05563                      422028.15     3734696.89        0.05219                                   422039.53    3734696.89        0.04900                      422050.91     3734696.89        0.04605                                   422062.29    3734696.89        0.04331                      422073.67     1 - 108 3734696.89        0.04076                                   422085.05    3734696.89        0.03839                      422096.43     3734696.89        0.03618                                   422107.81    3734696.89        0.03412                      422119.19     3734696.89        0.03219                                   422130.57    3734696.89        0.03040                      421902.97     3734705.56        0.11236                                   421914.35    3734705.56        0.10343                      421925.73     3734705.56        0.09548                                   421937.11    3734705.56        0.08838                      421948.49     3734705.56        0.08202                                   421959.87    3734705.56        0.07628                      421971.25     3734705.56        0.07113                                   421982.63    3734705.56        0.06645                      421994.01     3734705.56        0.06219                                   422005.39    3734705.56        0.05829                      422016.77     3734705.56        0.05471                                   422028.15    3734705.56        0.05141                      422039.53     3734705.56        0.04835                                   422050.91    3734705.56        0.04550                      422062.29     3734705.56        0.04286                                   422073.67    3734705.56        0.04038                      422085.05     3734705.56        0.03808                                   422096.43    3734705.56        0.03593                      422107.81     3734705.56        0.03393                                   422119.19    3734705.56        0.03205                      422130.57     3734705.56        0.03030                                   421902.97    3734714.23        0.10817                      421914.35     3734714.23        0.09976                                   421925.73    3734714.23        0.09232                      421937.11     3734714.23        0.08567                                   421948.49    3734714.23        0.07970                      421959.87     3734714.23        0.07432                                   421971.25    3734714.23        0.06944                      421982.63     3734714.23        0.06500                                   421994.01    3734714.23        0.06094                      422005.39     3734714.23        0.05722                                   422016.77    3734714.23        0.05379                      422028.15     3734714.23        0.05061                                   422039.53    3734714.23        0.04767                      422050.91     3734714.23        0.04493                           *** AERMOD ‐ VERSION  19191 ***   *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\1660 E FIRST ST\1660  E FIRST ST.ISC             ***        06/05/20  *** AERMET ‐ VERSION  16216 ***   ***                                                                      ***        02:17:27                                                                                                                        PAGE  15  *** MODELOPTs:    RegDFAULT  CONC  ELEV  FLGPOL  URBAN  ADJ_U*                    *** THE ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATION    VALUES AVERAGED OVER   5 1 - 109 YEARS FOR SOURCE GROUP: ALL      ***                                   INCLUDING SOURCE(S):     L0000001    , L0000002    , L0000003    , L0000004    , L0000005    ,                   L0000006    , L0000007    , L0000008    , L0000009    ,                                               *** DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTOR POINTS ***                                         ** CONC OF DPM      IN MICROGRAMS/M**3                          **        X‐COORD (M)   Y‐COORD (M)        CONC                       X‐COORD (M)    Y‐COORD (M)        CONC  ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐  ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐          422062.29    3734714.23        0.04238                      422073.67     3734714.23        0.03999                                   422085.05    3734714.23        0.03776                      422096.43     3734714.23        0.03568                                   422107.81    3734714.23        0.03372                      422119.19     3734714.23        0.03190                                   422130.57    3734714.23        0.03019                      421902.97     3734722.90        0.10408                                   421914.35    3734722.90        0.09628                      421925.73     3734722.90        0.08932                                   421937.11    3734722.90        0.08308                      421948.49     3734722.90        0.07747                                   421959.87    3734722.90        0.07239                      421971.25     3734722.90        0.06778                                   421982.63    3734722.90        0.06355                      421994.01     3734722.90        0.05969                                   422005.39    3734722.90        0.05614                      422016.77     3734722.90        0.05286                                   422028.15    3734722.90        0.04982                      422039.53     3734722.90        0.04699                                   422050.91    3734722.90        0.04436                      422062.29     3734722.90        0.04189                                   422073.67    3734722.90        0.03959                      422085.05     3734722.90        0.03743                                   422096.43    3734722.90        0.03540                      422107.81     3734722.90        0.03350                                   422119.19    3734722.90        0.03172                      422130.57     3734722.90        0.03005                           *** AERMOD ‐ VERSION  19191 ***   *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\1660 E FIRST ST\1660  E FIRST ST.ISC             ***        06/05/20  *** AERMET ‐ VERSION  16216 ***   ***                                                                      ***        02:17:27                                                                                                                        PAGE  16  *** MODELOPTs:    RegDFAULT  CONC  ELEV  FLGPOL  URBAN  ADJ_U* 1 - 110                                    *** THE SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM ANNUAL RESULTS  AVERAGED OVER   5 YEARS ***                                     ** CONC OF DPM      IN MICROGRAMS/M**3                          **                                                                                                              NETWORK GROUP ID                       AVERAGE CONC                RECEPTOR  (XR, YR,  ZELEV, ZHILL, ZFLAG)  OF TYPE  GRID‐ID ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐  ALL       1ST HIGHEST VALUE IS       0.11599 AT (  421925.73,  3734653.54,     36.00,    36.00,    7.00)  DC                     2ND HIGHEST VALUE IS       0.11329 AT (  421937.11,  3734627.53,     36.00,    36.00,    7.00)  DC                     3RD HIGHEST VALUE IS       0.11286 AT (  421925.73,  3734662.21,     36.00,    36.00,    7.00)  DC                     4TH HIGHEST VALUE IS       0.11236 AT (  421902.97,  3734705.56,     36.45,    36.45,    7.00)  DC                     5TH HIGHEST VALUE IS       0.11117 AT (  421914.35,  3734688.22,     36.26,    36.26,    7.00)  DC                     6TH HIGHEST VALUE IS       0.11073 AT (  421937.11,  3734636.20,     36.00,    36.00,    7.00)  DC                     7TH HIGHEST VALUE IS       0.10963 AT (  421948.49,  3734601.52,     36.00,    36.00,    7.00)  DC                     8TH HIGHEST VALUE IS       0.10923 AT (  421925.73,  3734670.88,     36.08,    36.08,    7.00)  DC                     9TH HIGHEST VALUE IS       0.10818 AT (  421937.11,  3734644.87,     36.00,    36.00,    7.00)  DC                    10TH HIGHEST VALUE IS       0.10817 AT (  421902.97,  3734714.23,     36.54,    36.54,    7.00)  DC            *** RECEPTOR TYPES:  GC = GRIDCART                       GP = GRIDPOLR                       DC = DISCCART                       DP = DISCPOLR  *** AERMOD ‐ VERSION  19191 ***   *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\1660 E FIRST ST\1660  E FIRST ST.ISC             ***        06/05/20  *** AERMET ‐ VERSION  16216 ***   ***                                                                      ***        02:17:27                                                                                                                        PAGE  17  *** MODELOPTs:    RegDFAULT  CONC  ELEV  FLGPOL  URBAN  ADJ_U*  *** Message Summary : AERMOD Model Execution *** 1 - 111   ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Summary of Total Messages ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐     A Total of            0 Fatal Error Message(s)  A Total of            2 Warning Message(s)  A Total of         1864 Informational Message(s)  A Total of        43848 Hours Were Processed  A Total of         1500 Calm Hours Identified  A Total of          364 Missing Hours Identified (  0.83 Percent)           ******** FATAL ERROR MESSAGES ********                 ***  NONE  ***                    ********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********   ME W186      99       MEOPEN: THRESH_1MIN 1‐min ASOS wind speed threshold used           0.50  ME W187      99       MEOPEN: ADJ_U* Option for Stable Low Winds used in AERMET                   ************************************     *** AERMOD Finishes Successfully ***     ************************************ 1 - 112 EXHIBIT 12 1 - 113 REVISED TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT 4TH AND CABRILLO MIXED-USE PROJECT CENTRAL POINTE Santa Ana, California July 30, 2020 (Original dated August 27, 2019) Prepared for: ARNEL & AFFILIATES 949 South Coast Drive, 6th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626 LLG Ref. 2-19-4141-1 Prepared by: Under the Supervision of: Shane S. Green, P.E. Richard E. Barretto, P.E. Transportation Engineer III Principal & Megan Lam Transportation Engineer II 1 - 114 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-19-4141-1 4th and Cabrillo Mixed-Use Project, Santa Ana N:\4100\2194141 - 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use, Santa Ana\Report\4141 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use Center Point TIA, Santa Ana 7-30-2020.doc i TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Scope of Work ...................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Study Area ............................................................................................................................ 2 2.0 Project Description ..................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Site Access ............................................................................................................................ 4 2.2 Pedestrian Circulation ........................................................................................................... 4 3.0 Existing Conditions ..................................................................................................................... 6 3.1 Existing Street System .......................................................................................................... 6 3.1.1 Public Transit .............................................................................................................. 7 3.2 Bicycle Master Plan .............................................................................................................. 7 3.3 Existing Traffic Volumes ...................................................................................................... 8 3.4 Existing Intersection Conditions ........................................................................................... 8 3.4.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Method of Analysis ..................................... 8 3.4.2 Highway Capacity Manual 6 (HCM 6) Method of Analysis (Unsignalized Intersections) ......................................................................................................................... 9 3.4.3 Level of Service Criteria ........................................................................................... 12 3.5 Existing Level of Service Results ....................................................................................... 12 4.0 Traffic Forecasting Methodology ............................................................................................ 15 5.0 Project Traffic Characteristics ................................................................................................ 16 5.1 Project Traffic Generation .................................................................................................. 16 5.2 Project Traffic Distribution and Assignment ...................................................................... 16 5.3 Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions ............................................................................ 17 6.0 Future Traffic Conditions ........................................................................................................ 20 6.1 Ambient Traffic Growth ..................................................................................................... 20 6.2 Related Projects Traffic Characteristics .............................................................................. 20 6.3 Year 2040 Traffic Conditions ............................................................................................. 25 6.4 Year 2025 and Year 2040 Traffic Volumes ........................................................................ 25 6.4.1 Year 2025 Traffic Volumes ...................................................................................... 25 6.4.2 Year 2040 Traffic Volumes ...................................................................................... 25 7.0 Traffic Impact Analysis Methodology .................................................................................... 26 7.1 Impact Criteria and Thresholds ........................................................................................... 26 7.2 Traffic Impact Analysis Scenarios ...................................................................................... 27 8.0 Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis ............................................................................. 28 8.1 Existing Plus Project Analysis ............................................................................................ 28 8.1.1 Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions .................................................................. 28 8.2 Year 2025 Traffic Conditions ............................................................................................. 32 1 - 115 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-19-4141-1 4th and Cabrillo Mixed-Use Project, Santa Ana N:\4100\2194141 - 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use, Santa Ana\Report\4141 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use Center Point TIA, Santa Ana 7-30-2020.doc ii TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) SECTION PAGE 8.2.1 Year 2025 Cumulative Traffic Conditions ............................................................... 32 8.2.2 Year 2025 Cumulative Plus Project Conditions ....................................................... 32 8.3 Year 2040 Traffic Conditions ............................................................................................. 37 8.3.1 Year 2040 Traffic Conditions ................................................................................... 37 8.3.2 Year 2040 Plus Project Traffic Conditions ............................................................... 37 9.0 State of California (Caltrans) Analysis ................................................................................... 42 9.1 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Method of Analysis (Signalized Intersections) ......... 42 9.2 Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions ............................................................................ 44 9.2.1 Existing Traffic Conditions....................................................................................... 44 9.2.2 Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions .................................................................. 44 9.3 Year 2025 Traffic Conditions ............................................................................................. 46 9.3.1 Year 2025 Cumulative Traffic Conditions ............................................................... 46 9.3.2 Year 2025 Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Conditions ........................................... 46 9.4 Year 2040 Traffic Conditions ............................................................................................. 48 9.4.1 Year 2040 Buildout Traffic Conditions .................................................................... 48 9.4.2 Year 2040 Buildout Plus Project Traffic Conditions ................................................ 48 10.0 Site Access and Internal Circulation Evaluation ................................................................... 50 10.1 Site Access .......................................................................................................................... 50 10.2 Queuing Analysis ................................................................................................................ 50 10.2.1 Year 2040 Buildout Plus Project Traffic Conditions .......................................... 50 10.3 Internal Circulation Evaluation ........................................................................................... 54 10.4 Sight Distance Evaluation ................................................................................................... 54 11.0 Recommended Intersection Improvements ............................................................................ 55 11.1 Planned and/or Recommended Improvements ................................................................... 55 11.1.1 Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions ............................................................ 55 11.1.2 Year 2025 Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Conditions ..................................... 55 11.1.3 Year 2040 Buildout Plus Project Traffic Conditions .......................................... 56 11.2 Project-Specific Improvements ........................................................................................... 56 11.3 Recommended Circulation Enhancement ........................................................................... 56 11.4 Project-Related Fair-Share Contribution ............................................................................ 57 12.0 Congestion Management Program (CMP) Compliance Assessment ................................... 59 13.0 Summary Of Findings And Conclusions ................................................................................ 61 1 - 116 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-19-4141-1 4th and Cabrillo Mixed-Use Project, Santa Ana N:\4100\2194141 - 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use, Santa Ana\Report\4141 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use Center Point TIA, Santa Ana 7-30-2020.doc iii APPENDICES APPENDIX A. Traffic Study Scope of Work B. Existing Traffic Count Data C. Year 2040 Modeling Worksheets D. Intersection Level of Service Calculation Worksheets E. Caltrans Intersection Level of Service Calculation Worksheets F. Project Driveway Level of Service Calculation Worksheets G. Queueing Worksheets H. Signal Warrant Worksheets 1 - 117 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-19-4141-1 4th and Cabrillo Mixed-Use Project, Santa Ana N:\4100\2194141 - 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use, Santa Ana\Report\4141 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use Center Point TIA, Santa Ana 7-30-2020.doc iv LIST OF FIGURES SECTION—FIGURE # FOLLOWING PAGE 1-1 Vicinity Map ....................................................................................................................... 2 2-1 Existing Aerial Site Photograph ......................................................................................... 4 2-2 Proposed Site Plan ............................................................................................................... 4 3-1 Existing Roadway Conditions and Intersection Controls ............................................... 7 3-2 OCTA Transit Map ............................................................................................................ 7 3-3 Transit Stop Locations ....................................................................................................... 7 3-4 City of Santa Ana Bikeway Master Plan .......................................................................... 7 3-5 Existing AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ....................................................................... 8 3-6 Existing PM Peak Hour and Daily Traffic Volumes ...................................................... 8 5-1 Project Traffic Distribution Pattern ................................................................................ 19 5-2 AM Peak Hour Project Traffic Volumes ....................................................................... 19 5-3 PM Peak Hour and Daily Project Traffic Volumes ...................................................... 19 5-4 Existing Plus Project AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ............................................... 19 5-5 Existing Plus Project PM Peak Hour and Daily Traffic Volumes .............................. 19 6-1 Location of Cumulative Projects ..................................................................................... 20 6-2 AM Peak Hour Cumulative Projects Traffic Volumes ................................................... 20 6-3 PM Peak Hour and Daily Cumulative Projects Traffic Volumes .................................. 20 6-4 Year 2025 Cumulative AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ............................................ 25 6-5 Year 2025 Cumulative PM Peak Hour and Daily Traffic Volumes ........................... 25 6-6 Year 2025 Cumulative Plus Project AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ...................... 25 6-7 Year 2025 Cumulative Plus Project PM Peak Hour and Daily Traffic Volumes ..... 25 6-8 Year 2040 Buildout AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ................................................. 25 6-9 Year 2040 Buildout PM Peak Hour and Daily Traffic Volumes ................................ 25 6-10 Year 2040 Buildout Plus Project AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ........................... 25 6-11 Year 2040 Buildout Plus Project PM Peak Hour and Daily Traffic Volumes .......... 25 10-1 SU-30 Truck Turning Analysis ...................................................................................... 54 10-2 Project Driveways Sight Distance Analysis.................................................................. 54 11-1 Planned and Recommended Improvements .................................................................. 57 11-2 Conceptual Improvement Plan: 4th Street from I-5 NB Ramps to Cabrillo Park Dr ..... 57 1 - 118 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-19-4141-1 4th and Cabrillo Mixed-Use Project, Santa Ana N:\4100\2194141 - 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use, Santa Ana\Report\4141 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use Center Point TIA, Santa Ana 7-30-2020.doc v LIST OF TABLES SECTION—TABLE # PAGE 2-1 Project Development Summary .......................................................................................... 5 3-1 Level of Service Criteria For Signalized Intersections ................................................ 10 3-2 Level of Service Criteria For Unsignalized Intersections ............................................ 11 3-3 Existing Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis .................................................. 13-14 5-1 Project Traffic Generation Rates and Forecast ............................................................... 18 5-2 Project Directional Distribution Pattern .......................................................................... 19 6-1 Location and Description of Cumulative Projects ..................................................... 21-22 6-2 Cumulative Projects Traffic Generation Forecast ...................................................... 23-24 8-1 Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis ............................. 29-31 8-2 Year 2025 Cumulative Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis .......................... 34-36 8-3 Year 2040 Buildout Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis ............................... 39-41 9-1 Level of Service Criterial for Signalized Intersections (HCM) ..................................... 43 9-2 Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis - Caltrans ................. 45 9-3 Year 2025 Cumulative Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis - Caltrans .............. 47 9-4 Year 2040 Buildout Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis - Caltrans ................... 49 10-1 Project Driveway Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis ........................................ 52 10-2 Year 2040 Buildout Peak Hour Queueing Analysis ....................................................... 53 11-1 Year 2040 Buildout Project Fair-Share Contribution ..................................................... 58 12-1 Project Percentage Radius of Influence CMP Analysis ................................................. 60 1 - 119 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-19-4141-1 4th and Cabrillo Mixed-Use Project, Santa Ana N:\4100\2194141 - 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use, Santa Ana\Report\4141 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use Center Point TIA, Santa Ana 7-30-2020.doc 1 REVISED TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT 4TH AND CABRILLO MIXED-USE PROJECT CENTRAL POINTE Santa Ana, California July 30, 2020 (Original dated August 27, 2019) 1.0 INTRODUCTION This Traffic Impact Analysis report addresses the potential traffic impacts and circulation needs associated with 4th and Cabrillo Mixed-Use Project, formally named Central Pointe, (hereinafter referred to as Project) in the City of Santa Ana. The project proponent, Arnell & Affiliates, proposes to develop up to 644 apartment units, and up to 15,200 square-feet (SF) of retail/commercial floor area consisting of 3,500 SF of restaurant use and 11,700 SF of retail space. The Project site is an 8.35-acre vacant parcel of land within the Metro East Mixed-Use Overlay Zone that is generally located north of 4th Street, east of the Santa Ana (I-5) Freeway, and west of Cabrillo Park Drive. 1.1 Scope of Work This traffic report documents the findings and recommendations of a traffic impact analysis conducted by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) to determine the potential impacts associated with the proposed Project. The traffic analysis evaluates the existing operating conditions at twenty-five (25) key study intersections within the project vicinity, estimates the trip generation potential of the proposed Project, and forecasts future near-term (Year 2025) and long-term (Year 2040) operating conditions without and with the proposed Project. Where necessary, intersection improvements/mitigation measures are identified. This revised traffic report satisfies the traffic impact requirements of the City of Santa Ana and is consistent with the current Congestion Management Program (CMP) for Orange County and addresses comments of City staff based on review of the draft traffic study. The Scope of Work for this traffic study, which is included in Appendix A, was developed in conjunction with and reflects input City of Santa Ana Public Works Department staff. The project site has been visited and an inventory of adjacent area roadways and intersections was performed. Existing weekday peak hour traffic count information has been collected at twenty-five (25) key study intersections for use in the preparation of intersection level of service calculations. Information concerning cumulative projects (planned and/or approved) in the vicinity of the proposed Project has been researched at the City of Santa Ana and City of Tustin. Based on our research, there are twenty-eight (28) related projects located in the City of Santa Ana and two (2) related projects located in the City of Tustin. The thirty (30) related projects were considered in the cumulative traffic analysis for this project. This traffic report analyzes existing and future weekday daily, AM peak hour and PM peak hour traffic conditions for a near-term (Year 2025) and long-term (Year 2040) traffic setting upon 1 - 120 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-19-4141-1 4th and Cabrillo Mixed-Use Project, Santa Ana N:\4100\2194141 - 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use, Santa Ana\Report\4141 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use Center Point TIA, Santa Ana 7-30-2020.doc 2 completion of the proposed Project. Near-term (Year 2025) cumulative daily and peak hour traffic forecasts were projected by incorporating a one percent (1.0%) annual growth rate and the trip generation potential of thirty (30) related projects. Long-term (Year 2040) daily and peak hour traffic forecasts were projected based on modeled traffic projections prepared by OCTA utilizing the OCTAM 4.0 Year 2040 Model. 1.2 Study Area Based on a “50 trip threshold” for analysis and collaboration with City staff, twenty-five (25) key study intersections have been identified for evaluation. The twenty-five (25) intersections listed below provide regional and local access to the study area and define the extent of the boundaries for this traffic impact investigation. Key Study Intersections 1. Elk Lane at First Street (Santa Ana) 14. SR-55 NB Ramps at 4th Street (Tustin/Caltrans) 2. I-5 SB On-Ramp at First Street (Santa Ana/Caltrans) 15. Yorba Street at 4th Street (Tustin) 3. Cabrillo Park Drive at First Street (Santa Ana) 16. Cabrillo Park Drive at State Fund Access Road (Santa Ana) 4. Golden Circle Drive at First Street (Santa Ana) 17. Cabrillo Park Drive at Xerox Center Access Road (Santa Ana) 5. Tustin Avenue at First Street (Tustin) 18. Cabrillo Park Drive at 17th Street (Santa Ana) 6. Yorba Street at First Street (Tustin) 19. Cabrillo Park Drive at Wellington Avenue (Santa Ana) 7. I-5 SB On-Ramp/Mabury Street at 4th Street (Santa Ana/Caltrans) 20. Tustin Avenue at Wellington Avenue (Santa Ana) 8. I-5 NB Ramps at 4th Street (Santa Ana/Caltrans) 21. Mabury Street at Fruit Street (Santa Ana) 9. Cabrillo Park Drive at 4th Street (Santa Ana) 22. Cabrillo Park Drive at Fruit Street (Santa Ana) 10. Golden Circle Drive at 4th Street (Santa Ana) 23. Park Center Drive at Fruit Street (Santa Ana) 11. Park Center Drive at 4th Street (Santa Ana) 24. Tustin Avenue at Fruit Street (Santa Ana) 12. Tustin Avenue at 4th Street (Santa Ana) 25. Cabrillo Park Drive at Park Court Place (Santa Ana) 13. SR-55 SB Ramps at 4th Street (Santa Ana/Caltrans) Figure 1-1 presents a Vicinity Map, which illustrates the general location of the Project and depicts the study locations and surrounding street system. The Level of Service (LOS) investigations at these key locations were used to evaluate the potential traffic-related impacts associated with area growth, cumulative projects and the proposed Project. When necessary, this report recommends intersection and/or roadway improvements that may be required to accommodate future traffic volumes and restore/maintain an acceptable Level of Service, and/or mitigates the impact of the project. 1 - 121 1 - 122 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-19-4141-1 4th and Cabrillo Mixed-Use Project, Santa Ana N:\4100\2194141 - 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use, Santa Ana\Report\4141 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use Center Point TIA, Santa Ana 7-30-2020.doc 3 Included in this Traffic Impact Analysis are: ▪ Existing traffic counts, ▪ Estimated project traffic generation/distribution/assignment, ▪ Estimated cumulative project traffic generation/distribution/assignment, ▪ AM and PM peak hour capacity analyses for existing conditions, ▪ AM and PM peak hour capacity analyses for existing plus project conditions, ▪ AM and PM peak hour capacity analyses for future near-term (Year 2025) traffic conditions without and with the proposed Project, ▪ AM and PM peak hour capacity analyses for future long-term (Year 2040) traffic conditions without and with the proposed Project, ▪ Caltrans Analysis, ▪ Site Access Evaluation, ▪ Queueing Analysis, ▪ Internal Circulation and Sight Distance Evaluation, ▪ Recommended Intersection Improvements, ▪ Congestion Management Program Compliance Assessment, and 1 - 123 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-19-4141-1 4th and Cabrillo Mixed-Use Project, Santa Ana N:\4100\2194141 - 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use, Santa Ana\Report\4141 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use Center Point TIA, Santa Ana 7-30-2020.doc 4 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project site is an 8.35-acre vacant parcel of land within the Metro East Mixed Use Overlay Zone that is generally located north of 4th Street, east of the Santa Ana (I-5) freeway, and west of Cabrillo Park Drive. Figure 2-1 is an existing aerial photograph of the Project site. Table 2-1 summarizes the project development totals. The proposed Project includes the development of up to 644 apartment units, 3,500 SF restaurant uses and 11,700 SF of retail space. The proposed Project will provide a total of 1,300 parking spaces within two buildings along with 18 surface parking spaces. “Building A” is proposed as a five-story apartment podium with up to 325 apartment homes consisting of approximately 19 (±5.8%) studio units, 162 (±49.8%) one-bedroom units, 121 (±37.2%) two-bedroom units and 23 (±7.1%) three-bedroom units and approximately 6,100 SF of ground floor retail/commercial space and 3,500 SF restaurant space “wrapped” around an eight-level partial subterranean parking structure with a total of approximately 650 spaces along with 9 ground floor spaces for retail/leasing. “Building B” is proposed as a five-story apartment podium with up to 319 apartment homes consisting of approximately 20 (±6.3%) studio units, 164 (±51.4%) one-bedroom units, 127 (±39.8%) two-bedroom units and 8 (±2.5%) three-bedroom units and approximately 5,600 SF of ground floor retail/commercial space “wrapped” around a eight-level partial subterranean parking structure with a total of approximately 650 spaces along with 9 ground floor spaces for retail/leasing. On-site facilities/amenities of the proposed Project include a leasing office, a lounge/lobby, business center, pool/spa, and a fitness center for residents. Figure 2-2 presents the preferred Project site plan, prepared by KTGY. The Project is expected to be constructed and completed by Year 2025, which has been utilized to assess the Project’s potential traffic impacts at full occupancy of the project within an opening year traffic setting. 2.1 Site Access Vehicular access to the proposed Project will be provided via one (1) full access unsignalized driveway along Park Court Place and one (1) right in/out only driveway located along 4th Street. As part of the proposed Project’s design features, an exclusive southbound right-turn lane will be constructed at the intersection of Cabrillo Park Drive/4th Street. Additionally, Project’s curb face is planned to be set back far enough to accommodate improvements at I-5 NB Ramps/4th Street, which include the construction of an additional right-turn lane. 2.2 Pedestrian Circulation Pedestrian circulation for the proposed Project would be provided via existing public sidewalks along Park Court Place, Cabrillo Park Drive, and 4th Street within the vicinity of the Project. The existing sidewalk system within the Project vicinity provides direct connectivity to the existing development located along major thoroughfares. Pedestrian access to both the residential and retail components of the Project will be provided via building entries/exits located on Park Court Place and 4th Street. 1 - 124 1 - 125 1 - 126 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-19-4141-1 4th and Cabrillo Mixed-Use Project, Santa Ana N:\4100\2194141 - 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use, Santa Ana\Report\4141 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use Center Point TIA, Santa Ana 7-30-2020.doc 5 TABLE 2-1 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY Land Use / Project Description Project Development Totals1 4th & Cabrillo Apartments ❑ Building A o Studio Units 19 Units (5.8%) o 1 Bedroom Units 162 Units (49.8%) o 2 Bedroom Units 121 Units (37.2%) o 3 Bedroom Units 23 Units (7.1%) ❑ Building B o Studio Units 20 Units (6.3%) o 1 Bedroom Units 164 Units (51.4%) o 2 Bedroom Units 127 Units (39.8%) o 3 Bedroom Units 8 Units (2.5%) Total Residential Units: 644 Units ❑ Building A Retail 6,100 SF ❑ Building A Restaurant 3,500 SF ❑ Building B Retail 5,600 SF Total Retail Space: 15,200 SF Parking Supply ❑ Parking Structure o Building A o Building B ❑ Surface Parking Lot o Retail/Leasing 650 spaces 650 spaces 18 spaces Total Parking Supply: 1,318 spaces 1 Source: Conceptual Site Plan, prepared by KTGY, dated February 28, 2020. 1 - 127 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-19-4141-1 4th and Cabrillo Mixed-Use Project, Santa Ana N:\4100\2194141 - 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use, Santa Ana\Report\4141 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use Center Point TIA, Santa Ana 7-30-2020.doc 6 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 3.1 Existing Street System The principal local network of streets serving the project site is First Street, 4th Street, 17th Street, Park Court Place, Cabrillo Park Drive, and Tustin Avenue. The following discussion provides a brief synopsis of these key area streets. The descriptions are based on an inventory of existing roadway conditions. First Street a four to six-lane, divided roadway in the vicinity of the project, oriented in the east- west direction that provides two or three lanes in each direction separated by a raised median island. The posted speed limit on First Street is 35 mph. On-street parking is not permitted along this roadway. A traffic signal controls the study intersections of First Street at Mabury Street/Elk Lane, I-5 SB On Ramp, Cabrillo Park Drive, Golden Center Drive, Tustin Avenue, and Yorba Street. 4th Street is a six-lane, divided roadway oriented in the east-west direction that provides three eastbound and three westbound travel lanes separated by a raised median island. The posted speed limit on Fourth Street is 40 miles per hour (mph). On-street parking is not permitted along this roadway in the vicinity of the project. Traffic signals control the study intersections of Fourth Street at I-5 SB Off-Ramp, I-5 NB On-Ramp, Cabrillo Park Drive, Golden Circle Drive, Park Center Drive, Tustin Avenue, SR-55 SB Ramps, SR-55 NB Ramps and Yorba Street. East of the SR-55 Freeway, Fourth Street is known as Irvine Boulevard within the City of Tustin. 17th Street is a six-lane, divided roadway oriented in the east-west direction. The posted speed limit on 17th Street is 40 mph. On-street parking is not permitted on either side of this roadway in the vicinity of the Project. A traffic signal controls the study intersection of 17th Street at Cabrillo Park Drive. Park Court Place is a two-lane, divided roadway oriented in the east-west direction. The posted speed limit on Park Court Place is 25 mph. On-street parking is not permitted on either side of this roadway in the vicinity of the Project. Cabrillo Park Drive is a four-lane, divided roadway that borders the project site to the east, oriented in the north-south direction. The posted speed limit on Cabrillo Park Drive is 35 mph. On-street parking is not permitted along this roadway in the vicinity of the project. Traffic signals control the study intersections of Fourth Street, State Fund Access Road, Xerox Centre Access Road, and First Street. Tustin Avenue is a six-lane, divided roadway, oriented in the north-south direction. On-street parking is not permitted along this roadway in the vicinity of the project. The posted speed limit on Tustin Avenue is 40 mph. Traffic signals control the study intersections of Tustin at Fourth Street, First Street, Wellington Avenue, and Fruit Street. 1 - 128 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-19-4141-1 4th and Cabrillo Mixed-Use Project, Santa Ana N:\4100\2194141 - 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use, Santa Ana\Report\4141 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use Center Point TIA, Santa Ana 7-30-2020.doc 7 Figure 3-1 presents an inventory of the existing roadway conditions for the arterials and intersections evaluated in this report. This figure identifies the number of travel lanes for key arterials, as well as intersection configurations and controls for the key area study intersections. 3.1.1 Public Transit Public transit bus service is provided in the project area by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). Four (4) OCTA bus routes operate within the vicinity of the project site on First Street, 4th Street, 17th Street, and Tustin Avenue, which consists of the following: ▪ OCTA Route 60: The major routes of travel include 17th Street and Tustin Avenue. Nearest to the project site are bus stops located on 17th Street at Cabrillo Park Drive in the northwest and southwest corners. Route 60 operates on approximate 30-minute headways during weekdays and 20-minute headways on weekends. ▪ OCTA Route 64: The major route of travel is First Street. Nearest to the project site are bus stops located on First Street at Cabrillo Park Drive in the southeast and northeast corners. Route 64 operates on approximate 30-minute headways on the weekdays and 20-minutes on the weekends. ▪ OCTA Route 71: The major route of travel is Tustin Avenue. Nearest to the project site are bus stops located on Tustin Avenue at 4th Street in the northeast and southwest corners. Route 71 operates on approximate 30-minute headways on the weekdays and 45-minute headways on the weekends. ▪ OCTA Route 463: The major route of travel is 4th Street. Nearest to the project site are bus stops located on 4th Street at Cabrillo Park Drive in the northeast and southeast corners. Route 463 operates on approximate 25-minute headways on the weekdays and no bus service on the weekends. Figure 3-2 graphically illustrates the transit routes of OCTA within the vicinity of the project. Figure 3-3 identifies the locations of the existing bus stops in proximity to the Project site. 3.2 Bicycle Master Plan The City of Santa Ana promotes bicycling as a means of mobility and a way in which to improve the quality of life within its community. The Bikeway Master Plan recognizes the needs of bicycle users and aims to create a complete and safe bicycle network throughout the City. Currently, not many bicycle facilities exist in the study area. However, review of Figure 3-4, which presents the City’s Bikeway Master Plan, shows that a Class I bike path is proposed to be built along Tustin Avenue within the vicinity of the Project. 1 - 129 1 - 130 1 - 131 1 - 132 1 - 133 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-19-4141-1 4th and Cabrillo Mixed-Use Project, Santa Ana N:\4100\2194141 - 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use, Santa Ana\Report\4141 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use Center Point TIA, Santa Ana 7-30-2020.doc 8 3.3 Existing Traffic Volumes Twenty-five (25) key study intersections have been identified as the locations at which to evaluate existing and future traffic operating conditions. Some portion of potential project-related traffic will pass through each of these intersections, and their analysis will reveal the expected relative impacts of the project. These key locations were selected for evaluation based on discussions with City of Santa Ana staff and in consideration of Orange County CMP requirements. Existing daily, AM peak hour and PM peak hour traffic volumes for the twenty-five (25) key study intersections evaluated in this report were obtained from manual turning movement counts conducted by National Data and Surveying Services in May 2019. Figures 3-5 and 3-6 illustrate the existing AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at the twenty-five (25) key study intersections evaluated in this report, respectively. Figure 3-6 also presents the existing average daily traffic volumes for twelve (12) key roadway segments in the vicinity of the proposed Project. Appendix B contains the detailed peak hour and daily traffic count sheets for the key intersections and roadway segments evaluated in this report. 3.4 Existing Intersection Conditions Existing AM and PM peak hour operating conditions for the twenty-five (25) key study intersections were evaluated using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology for signalized intersections and the methodology outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual 6 (HCM 6) for unsignalized intersections. 3.4.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Method of Analysis In conformance with Cities of Santa Ana, Tustin and Orange County CMP requirements, existing AM and PM peak hour operating conditions for the key signalized study intersections were evaluated using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method. The ICU technique is intended for signalized intersection analysis and estimates the volume to capacity (V/C) relationship for an intersection based on the individual V/C ratios for key conflicting traffic movements. The ICU numerical value represents the percent signal (green) time, and thus capacity, required by existing and/or future traffic. It should be noted that the ICU methodology assumes uniform traffic distribution per intersection approach lane and optimal signal timing. Per City of Santa Ana requirements, the ICU calculations use a lane capacity of 1,700 vehicles per hour (vph) for through lanes and 1,600 vph for left-turn lanes and right-turn lanes. A clearance adjustment factor of 0.05 was added to each Level of Service calculation. Per City of Tustin requirements, the ICU calculations use a lane capacity of 1,700 for through and all turn lanes. A clearance adjustment factor of 0.05 was added to each Level of Service calculation. The ICU value translates to a Level of Service (LOS) estimate, which is a relative measure of the intersection performance. The ICU value is the sum of the critical volume to capacity ratios at an intersection; it is not intended to be indicative of the LOS of each of the individual turning 1 - 134 1 - 135 1 - 136 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-19-4141-1 4th and Cabrillo Mixed-Use Project, Santa Ana N:\4100\2194141 - 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use, Santa Ana\Report\4141 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use Center Point TIA, Santa Ana 7-30-2020.doc 9 movements. The six qualitative categories of Level of Service have been defined along with the corresponding ICU value range and are shown in Table 3-1. 3.4.2 Highway Capacity Manual 6 (HCM 6) Method of Analysis (Unsignalized Intersections) Two-way stop-controlled intersections are comprised of a major street, which is uncontrolled, and a minor street, which is controlled by stop signs. Level of service for a two-way stop-controlled intersection is determined by the computed or measured control delay. The control delay by movement, by approach, and for the intersection as a whole is estimated by the computed capacity for each movement. LOS is determined for each minor-street movement (or shared movement) as well as major-street left turns. The worst side street approach delay is reported. LOS is not defined for the intersection as a whole or for major-street approaches, as it is assumed that major-street through vehicles experience zero delay. The HCM control delay value range for two-way stop- controlled intersections is shown in Table 3-2. 1 - 137 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-19-4141-1 4th and Cabrillo Mixed-Use Project, Santa Ana N:\4100\2194141 - 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use, Santa Ana\Report\4141 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use Center Point TIA, Santa Ana 7-30-2020.doc 10 TABLE 3-1 LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS (ICU METHODOLOGY) Level of Service (LOS) Intersection Capacity Utilization Value (V/C) Level of Service Description A  0.60 EXCELLENT. No vehicle waits longer than one red light, and no approach phase is fully used. B 0.61 – 0.70 VERY GOOD. An occasional approach phase is fully utilized; many drivers begin to feel somewhat restricted within groups of vehicles. C 0.71 – 0.80 GOOD. Occasionally drivers may have to wait through more than one red light; backups may develop behind turning vehicles. D 0.81 – 0.90 FAIR. Delays may be substantial during portions of the rush hours, but enough lower volume periods occur to permit clearing of developing lines, preventing excessive backups. E 0.91 – 1.00 POOR. Represents the most vehicles intersection approaches can accommodate; may be long lines of waiting vehicles through several signal cycles. F > 1.00 FAILURE. Backups from nearby locations or on cross streets may restrict or prevent movement of vehicles out of the intersection approaches. Potentially very long delays with continuously increasing queue lengths. 1 - 138 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-19-4141-1 4th and Cabrillo Mixed-Use Project, Santa Ana N:\4100\2194141 - 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use, Santa Ana\Report\4141 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use Center Point TIA, Santa Ana 7-30-2020.doc 11 TABLE 3-2 LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS (HCM 6 METHODOLOGY)2 Level of Service (LOS) Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Delay Per Vehicle (seconds/vehicle) Level of Service Description A  10.0 Little or no delay B > 10.0 and  15.0 Short traffic delays C > 15.0 and  25.0 Average traffic delays D > 25.0 and  35.0 Long traffic delays E > 35.0 and  50.0 Very long traffic delays F > 50.0 Severe congestion 2 Source: Highway Capacity Manual 6, Chapter 20: Two-Way Stop-Controlled Intersections. The LOS criteria apply to each lane on a given approach and to each approach on the minor street. LOS is not calculated for major-street approaches or for the intersection as a whole. 1 - 139 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-19-4141-1 4th and Cabrillo Mixed-Use Project, Santa Ana N:\4100\2194141 - 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use, Santa Ana\Report\4141 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use Center Point TIA, Santa Ana 7-30-2020.doc 12 3.4.3 Level of Service Criteria According to the Cities of Santa Ana and Tustin, LOS D is the minimum acceptable condition that should be maintained during the peak commute hours. However, the City of Santa Ana has defined exceptions to this criterion at specific locations within the study area. The City of Santa Ana has defined major development areas where LOS “E” is considered acceptable. Based on the above, the following summarizes the LOS required for each key study intersection: ➢ LOS “D” Requirements: 1. Elk Lane at First Street 15. Yorba Street at 4th Street 2. I-5 SB On-Ramp at First Street 18. Cabrillo Park Drive at 17th Street 5. Tustin Avenue at First Street 19. Cabrillo Park Drive at Wellington Avenue 6. Yorba Street at First Street 21. Mabury Street at Fruit Street 7. I-5 SB On-Ramp/Mabury Street at 4th Street 22. Cabrillo Park Drive at Fruit Street 8. I-5 NB Ramps at 4th Street 23. Park Center Drive at Fruit Street 13. SR-55 SB Ramps at 4th Street 25. Cabrillo Park Drive at Park Court Place 14. SR-55 NB Ramps at 4th Street ➢ LOS “E” Requirements: 3. Cabrillo Park Drive at First Street 12. Tustin Avenue at 4th Street 4. Golden Circle Drive at First Street 16. Cabrillo Park Drive at State Fund Access Road 9. Cabrillo Park Drive at 4th Street 17. Cabrillo Park Drive at Xerox Center Access Road 10. Golden Circle Drive at 4th Street 20. Tustin Avenue at Wellington Avenue 11. Park Center Drive at 4th Street 24. Tustin Avenue at Fruit Street 3.5 Existing Level of Service Results Table 3-3 summarizes the existing peak hour service level calculations for the twenty-five (25) key study intersections based on existing traffic volumes and current street geometrics. Review of Table 3-3 indicates that twenty-four (24) of the twenty-five key study intersections currently operate at an acceptable level of service during the AM and PM peak hours. The intersection of SR-55 SB Ramps/4th Street currently operates at unacceptable LOS E during the AM peak hour. Appendix D presents the ICU/LOS and HCM/LOS calculation worksheets for the twenty-five (25) key study intersections for the AM peak hour and PM peak hour. 1 - 140 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-19-4141-1 4th and Cabrillo Mixed-Use Project, Santa Ana N:\4100\2194141 - 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use, Santa Ana\Report\4141 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use Center Point TIA, Santa Ana 7-30-2020.doc 13 TABLE 3-3 EXISTING PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS Key Intersection Jurisdiction Minimum Acceptable LOS Control Type Time Period ICU/HCM LOS 1. Elk Lane at First Street Santa Ana D 4 Traffic Signal AM 0.599 A PM 0.716 C 2. I-5 SB On Ramp at First Street Santa Ana/ Caltrans D 2 Traffic Signal AM 0.599 A PM 0.716 C 3. Cabrillo Park Drive at First Street Santa Ana E 6 Traffic Signal AM 0.425 A PM 0.584 A 4. Golden Circle Drive at First Street Santa Ana E 5 Traffic Signal AM 0.450 A PM 0.544 A 5. Tustin Avenue at First Street Tustin D 6 Traffic Signal AM 0.331 A PM 0.324 A 6. Yorba Street at First Street Tustin D 5 Traffic Signal AM 0.396 A PM 0.418 A 7. I-5 SB On Ramp/Mabury Street at 4th street Santa Ana/ Caltrans D 3 Traffic Signal AM 0.448 A PM 0.526 A 8. I-5 NB Ramps at 4th Street Santa Ana/ Caltrans D 3 Traffic Signal AM 0.357 A PM 0.395 A 9. Cabrillo Park Drive at 4th Street Santa Ana E 6 Traffic Signal AM 0.429 A PM 0.774 C 10. Golden Circle Drive at 4th Street Santa Ana E 5 Traffic Signal AM 0.398 A PM 0.405 A 11. Park Center Drive at 4th Street Santa Ana E One-Way Stop AM 13.7 s/v B PM 16.2 s/v C 12. Tustin Avenue at 4th Street Santa Ana E 8 Traffic Signal AM 0.667 B PM 0.738 C 13. SR-55 SB Ramps at 4th Street Santa Ana/ Caltrans D 3 Traffic Signal AM 0.978 E PM 0.748 C 14. SR-55 NB Ramps at 4th Street Tustin/ Caltrans D 3 Traffic Signal AM 0.670 B PM 0.689 B 15. Yorba Street at 4th Street Tustin D 6 Traffic Signal AM 0.561 A PM 0.605 B 1 - 141 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-19-4141-1 4th and Cabrillo Mixed-Use Project, Santa Ana N:\4100\2194141 - 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use, Santa Ana\Report\4141 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use Center Point TIA, Santa Ana 7-30-2020.doc 14 TABLE 3-3 (CONTINUED) EXISTING PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS Key Intersection Jurisdiction Minimum Acceptable LOS Control Type Time Period ICU/HCM LOS 16. Cabrillo Park Drive at State Fund Access Road Santa Ana E 3 Traffic Signal AM 0.308 A PM 0.340 A 17. Cabrillo Park Drive at Xerox Centre Access Road Santa Ana E 3 Traffic Signal AM 0.271 A PM 0.308 A 18. Cabrillo Park Drive at 17th Street Santa Ana D 5 Traffic Signal AM 0.568 A PM 0.611 B 19. Cabrillo Park Drive at Wellington Avenue Santa Ana D Two-Way Stop AM 17.8 s/v C PM 17.9 s/v C 20. Tustin Avenue at Wellington Avenue Santa Ana E 5 Traffic Signal AM 0.574 A PM 0.411 A 21. Mabury Street at Fruit Street Santa Ana D All-Way Stop AM 7.7 s/v A PM 7.7 s/v A 22. Cabrillo Park Drive at Fruit Street Santa Ana D All-Way Stop AM 12.5 s/v B PM 11.5 s/v B 23. Park Center Drive at Fruit Street Santa Ana D Two-Way Stop AM 10.3 s/v B PM 10.5 s/v B 24. Tustin Avenue at Fruit Street Santa Ana E 2 Traffic Signal AM 0.509 A PM 0.446 A 25. Cabrillo Park Drive at Park Court Place Santa Ana D Two-Way Stop AM 18.6 s/v C PM 24.3 s/v C 1 - 142 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-19-4141-1 4th and Cabrillo Mixed-Use Project, Santa Ana N:\4100\2194141 - 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use, Santa Ana\Report\4141 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use Center Point TIA, Santa Ana 7-30-2020.doc 15 4.0 TRAFFIC FORECASTING METHODOLOGY In order to estimate the traffic impact characteristics of the proposed Project, a multi-step process has been utilized. The first step is traffic generation, which estimates the total arriving and departing traffic on a peak hour and daily basis. The traffic generation potential is forecast by applying the appropriate vehicle trip generation equations or rates to the project development tabulation. The second step of the forecasting process is traffic distribution, which identifies the origins and destinations of inbound and outbound project traffic. These origins and destinations are typically based on demographics and existing/expected future travel patterns in the study area. The third step is traffic assignment, which involves the allocation of project traffic to study area streets and intersections. Traffic assignment is typically based on minimization of travel time, which may or may not involve the shortest route, depending on prevailing operating conditions and travel speeds. Traffic distribution patterns are indicated by general percentage orientation, while traffic assignment allocates specific volume forecasts to individual roadway links and intersection turning movements throughout the study area. With the forecasting process complete and project traffic assignments developed, the impact of the proposed project is isolated by comparing operational (LOS) conditions at selected key intersections using expected future traffic volumes with and without forecast project traffic. The need for site- specific and/or cumulative local area traffic improvements can then be evaluated and the significance of the project’s impacts identified. 1 - 143 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-19-4141-1 4th and Cabrillo Mixed-Use Project, Santa Ana N:\4100\2194141 - 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use, Santa Ana\Report\4141 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use Center Point TIA, Santa Ana 7-30-2020.doc 16 5.0 PROJECT TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS 5.1 Project Traffic Generation Traffic generation is expressed in vehicle trip ends, defined as one-way vehicular movements, either entering or exiting the generating land use. Generation equations and/or rates used in the traffic forecasting procedure are found in the 10th Edition of Trip Generation, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) [Washington D.C., 2017]. Table 5-1 summarizes the trip generation rates used in forecasting the vehicular trips generated by the proposed Project and presents the project’s forecast peak hour and daily traffic volumes. As shown in the upper portion of Table 5-1, ITE Land Use 221: Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise), ITE Land Use 820: Shopping Center, and ITE Land Use 932: High Turnover Sit-Down Restaurant trip rates were used to forecast the trip generation potential for the proposed project. A review of the lower portion of this table indicates that the proposed Project, after adjustment for internal capture, is forecast to generate approximately 4,121 “net” daily trips, with 264 “net” trips (82 inbound, 182 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and 344 “net” trips (205 inbound, 139 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour on a “typical” weekday. 5.2 Project Traffic Distribution and Assignment Figure 5-1 presents the traffic distribution pattern for the proposed Project. A tabular summary of the general directional Project trip distribution pattern is presented Table 5-2. Project traffic volumes both entering and exiting the project site have been distributed and assigned to the adjacent street system based on the following considerations: ▪ location of site access points in relation to the surrounding street system, ▪ the site's proximity to major traffic carriers and regional access routes, ▪ physical characteristics of the circulation system such as lane channelization and presence of traffic signals that affect travel patterns, ▪ presence of traffic congestion in the surrounding vicinity, ▪ ingress/egress availability at the project site (i.e. right-turn restrictions on 4th Street access and full access on Park Court Place driveway), ▪ distribution patterns contained within the Traffic Impact Study for the Metro East Overlay Zone in the City of Santa Ana, and ▪ input from City staff. The anticipated AM and PM peak hour project traffic volumes associated with the proposed Project are presented in Figures 5-2 and 5-3, respectively. Figure 5-3 also presents the daily Project traffic volumes. The traffic volume assignments presented in Figures 5-2 and 5-3 reflect the traffic distribution characteristics shown in Figure 5-1 and the traffic generation forecast presented in Table 5-1. 1 - 144 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-19-4141-1 4th and Cabrillo Mixed-Use Project, Santa Ana N:\4100\2194141 - 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use, Santa Ana\Report\4141 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use Center Point TIA, Santa Ana 7-30-2020.doc 17 It should be noted that travel patterns are generally focused to major streets with larger roadway classifications and typically higher travel speeds. As such, it is forecast that the majority of project- related traffic will utilize 4th Street and Cabrillo Park Drive to Park Court Place to access the Project site, with Project traffic travelling to and from the north via Mabury Street for to be minimal when accessing the Project site. Based on Table 5-1 and Figure 5-1, it is anticipated that approximately 4% of Project traffic will utilize Mabury Street which translates to approximately 1 cars every 8 minutes and 1 car every 4 minutes in the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. This added volume to the local residential network is considered nominal and would have little to no effect on the overall existing traffic patterns or operating conditions. 5.3 Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions The Existing Plus Project traffic conditions have been generated based upon existing conditions and the estimated project traffic. These forecast traffic conditions have been prepared to assess the potential impacts of a Project upon the circulation system as it currently exists. This traffic volume scenario and the related intersection capacity analyses will identify the roadway improvements necessary to mitigate the direct traffic impacts of the Project, if any. Figures 5-4 and 5-5 present projected AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at the twenty-five (25) key study intersections and two (2) Project driveways with the addition of the trips generated by the proposed Project to existing traffic volumes, respectively. Figure 5-5 also presents the Existing Plus Project daily traffic volumes. 1 - 145 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-19-4141-1 4th and Cabrillo Mixed-Use Project, Santa Ana N:\4100\2194141 - 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use, Santa Ana\Report\4141 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use Center Point TIA, Santa Ana 7-30-2020.doc 18 TABLE 5-1 PROJECT TRAFFIC GENERATION RATES AND FORECAST3 Description Daily 2-Way AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Trip Rates: ▪ 221: Multifamily Housing Mid-Rise (TE/DU) 5.44 26% 74% 0.36 61% 39% 0.44 ▪ 820: Shopping Center (TE/1000 SF) 37.75 62% 38% 0.94 48% 52% 3.81 ▪ 932: High Turnover Sit-Down Restaurant (TE/1000 SF) 112.18 55% 45% 9.94 62% 38% 9.77 Trip Generation: ▪ 4th & Cabrillo Apartments (644 DU) 3,503 60 172 232 173 110 283 ▪ 4th & Cabrillo Retail (11,700 SF) 442 7 4 11 22 23 45 ▪ 4th & Cabrillo Restaurant (3,500 SF) 393 19 16 35 21 13 34 Total Project Trip Generation: 4,338 86 192 278 216 146 362 Internal Trip Capture (5%) -217 -4 -10 -14 -11 -7 -18 Total Net Project Trip Generation 4,121 82 182 264 205 139 344 Notes: TE/1000 SF = Trip End per 1,000 Square Feet of Gross Floor Area TE/DU = Trip End per Dwelling Unit 3 Source: Trip Generation, 10th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Washington, D.C. (2017). 1 - 146 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-19-4141-1 4th and Cabrillo Mixed-Use Project, Santa Ana N:\4100\2194141 - 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use, Santa Ana\Report\4141 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use Center Point TIA, Santa Ana 7-30-2020.doc 19 TABLE 5-2 PROJECT DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION PATTERN Distribution Percentage Orientation/Direction 15% To/from the north via I-5 Freeway 17% To/from the south via I-5 Freeway 10% To/from the north via SR-55 Freeway 10% To/from the south via SR-55 Freeway 6% To/from the north via Cabrillo Park Drive 4% To/from the north via Parkcourt Place/Marbury Street 5% To/from the north via Tustin Avenue 3% To/from the south via Elk Avenue 10% To/from the east via Fourth Street/Irvine Boulevard 10% To/from the west via Fourth Street 5% To/from the east via First Street 5% To/from the west via First Street 100% Total 1 - 147 1 - 148 1 - 149 1 - 150 1 - 151 1 - 152 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-19-4141-1 4th and Cabrillo Mixed-Use Project, Santa Ana N:\4100\2194141 - 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use, Santa Ana\Report\4141 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use Center Point TIA, Santa Ana 7-30-2020.doc 20 6.0 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS 6.1 Ambient Traffic Growth Horizon year, background traffic growth estimates have been calculated using an ambient traffic growth factor. The ambient traffic growth factor is intended to include unknown and future related projects in the study area, as well as account for regular growth in traffic volumes due to the development of projects outside the study area. The future growth in traffic volumes has been calculated at one percent (1.0%) per year. Applied to the Year 2019 existing traffic volumes, this factor results in a 6.0% growth in existing volumes to the near-term horizon year 2025. 6.2 Related Projects Traffic Characteristics In order to make a realistic estimate of future on-street conditions prior to implementation of the proposed Project, the status of other known development projects (related projects) within a two- mile radius of the proposed project has been researched at the Cities of Santa Ana and Tustin. With this information, the potential impact of the proposed Project can be evaluated within the context of the cumulative impact of all ongoing development. Based on our research during the scoping process, there are twenty-eight (28) related projects in the City of Santa Ana and two (2) related projects in the City of Tustin that are being processed for approval. These thirty (30) related projects have been included as part of the cumulative background setting. Table 6-1 provides a brief description for each of the thirty (30) related projects. Figure 6-1 graphically illustrates the location of the thirty (30) related projects. These related projects are expected to generate vehicular traffic, which may affect the operating conditions of the key study intersections. Table 6-2 summarizes the trip generation potential for all thirty (30) related projects on a daily and peak hour basis for a typical weekday. As shown, the related projects are expected to generate 45,942 daily trips, with 3,033 trips (1,458 inbound, 1,575 outbound) anticipated during the AM peak hour and 3,837 trips (1,927 inbound, 1,910 outbound) produced during the PM peak hour. The AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes associated with the thirty (30) related projects in the Year 2025 are presented in Figures 6-2 and 6-3, respectively. Figure 6-3 also presents the daily related project traffic volumes. 1 - 153 1 - 154 1 - 155 1 - 156 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-19-4141-1 4th and Cabrillo Mixed-Use Project, Santa Ana N:\4100\2194141 - 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use, Santa Ana\Report\4141 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use Center Point TIA, Santa Ana 7-30-2020.doc 21 TABLE 6-1 LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF CUMULATIVE PROJECTS4 No. Cumulative Project Location/Address Description City of Santa Ana 1. Starbucks 2701 North Grand Avenue 907 SF coffee shop with drive-thru 2. Starbucks with Drive-thru 2301 North Tustin Avenue 3,567 SF coffee shop with drive-thru 3. Hampton Inn Hotel 2056, 2058, 2115, 2129 and 2129 North Main Street 2,657 SF commercial, 135 room hotel, and 1,619 SF existing office demolition 4. North Grand Car Wash 1821 North Grand Ave 5,243 SF carwash and 6,592 SF existing restaurant demolition 5. Rocket Express Car Wash 1703 East 17th Street 4,292 SF carwash 6. Tustin Service Station and Car Wash 2230 North Tustin Avenue 3,600 SF commercial 7. Sexlinger Homes and Orchard 1584 East Santa Clara Avenue 23 DU single-family detached 8. Arts Collective Meta Housing Adaptive Reuse 1666 North Main Street 58 DU residential apartments 9. The Orleans Adaptive Reuse Apartments 1212 North Broadway Avenue 24 DU residential apartments 10. One Broadway Plaza 1109 North Broadway 518,000 SF office tower with 16,000 SF restaurant 11. Bridging the Aqua 317 East 17th Street 57 DU residential apartments 12. First Street Family Apartments 1440 East 1st Street 69 DU residential apartments, 47,040 SF existing office demolition 13. 1660 First Street Elks Apartments 1660 East 1st Street 603 DU residential apartments and 20,671 SF retail 14. Elk’s Lodge 1751 South Lyon Street 52,453 SF commercial/lodge 15. Russell Fisher Commercial 301-325 North Tustin Avenue 10,195 SF commercial, 1,780 SF existing carwash demolition and 3,440 SF existing restaurant demolition 16. Ednovate Charter High School Adaptive Reuse 1450 East 17th Street 29,368 SF charter high school 17. Kiddie Academy of Santa Ana 1345 North Grand Avenue 7,657 SF childcare 18. Target Shopping Center 1330 East 17th Street 9,112 SF commercial Notes: ▪ SF = Square-feet ▪ DU = Dwelling units 4 Source: City of Santa Ana and City of Tustin Planning Department. 1 - 157 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-19-4141-1 4th and Cabrillo Mixed-Use Project, Santa Ana N:\4100\2194141 - 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use, Santa Ana\Report\4141 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use Center Point TIA, Santa Ana 7-30-2020.doc 22 TABLE 6-1 (CONTINUED) LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF CUMULATIVE PROJECTS5 No. Cumulative Project Location/Address Description City of Santa Ana (Continued) 19. Raising Cane’s Restaurant 2250 East 17th Street 3,935 SF restaurant and 10,000 SF existing restaurant demolition 20. 888 Adaptive Reuse 888 North Main Street 146 Condominiums and 3,700 SF commercial 21. Legacy Square Mixed-Use Development 609 North Spurgeon Street 93 DU residential apartments and 6,335 SF commercial 22. First American Plaza 421 North Main Street /114 East 5th Street 220 DU multifamily (mid-rise) and 12,350 SF retail 23. 4th and Mortimer (Block A & B) 409/ 509 East 4th Street 133 DU residential apartments, 105,812 SF commercial and 22,330 SF demolition of commercial building 24. 201 E 4th Street 401 North Bush Street 24 DU residential apartments 25. Tom’s Trucks Residential Development 1008 East 4th Street 133 DU single-family residences 26. East First Street Apartments 2222 East 1st Street 418 DU senior residential apartments 27. The Madison 200 North Cabrillo Park Drive 260 DU apartments, 6,561 SF commercial and 2,507 SF retail component of live/work 28. 2114 East First Apartments 2114 East 1st Street 552 DU affordable apartments, 10,000 SF commercial City of Tustin 29. Service Station 1001 Edinger Avenue 6 fueling stations 30. Vintage 420 West 6th Street 140 DU condominiums Notes: ▪ SF = Square-feet ▪ DU = Dwelling units 5 Source: City of Santa Ana and City of Tustin Planning Department. 1 - 158 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-19-4141-1 4th and Cabrillo Mixed-Use Project, Santa Ana N:\4100\2194141 - 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use, Santa Ana\Report\4141 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use Center Point TIA, Santa Ana 7-30-2020.doc 23 TABLE 6-2 CUMULATIVE PROJECTS TRAFFIC GENERATION FORECAST6 Cumulative Project Description Daily 2-Way AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total 1. Starbucks7 372 20 20 40 10 9 19 2. Starbucks with Drive-thru 1,463 81 77 158 39 38 77 3. Hampton Inn Hotel7 1,228 38 27 65 46 45 91 4. North Grand Car Wash7 Rocket Express Car Wash Tustin Service Station and Car Wash Sexlinger Homes and Orchard Arts Collective Meta Housing Adaptive Reuse The Orleans Adaptive Reuse Apartments YCU Conversion of SFD to office Use One Broadway Plaza Bridging the Aqua First Street Family Apartments 1660 First Street Elks Apartments McFadden Village Chevron Elk’s Lodge Softscapes New Building Russell Fisher Commercial Ednovate Charter High School Adaptive Reuse 740 0 0 0 37 37 74 5. Rocket Express Car Wash 610 0 0 0 31 30 61 6. Tustin Service Station and Car Wash 3,247 64 64 128 114 114 228 7. Sexlinger Homes and Orchard 217 4 13 17 14 9 23 8. Arts Collective Meta Housing Adaptive Reuse 425 6 21 27 20 12 32 9. The Orleans Adaptive Reuse Apartments 176 3 8 11 8 5 13 10. One Broadway Plaza7 6,660 595 149 744 150 535 685 11. Bridging the Aqua 417 6 20 26 20 12 32 12. First Street Family Apartments8 459 7 28 35 28 15 43 13. 1660 First Street Elks Apartments9 4,648 70 242 312 266 162 428 14. Elk’s Lodge 1,512 61 31 92 57 64 121 15. Russell Fisher Commercial7 346 5 4 9 13 13 26 16. Ednovate Charter High School Adaptive7 Reuse 413 70 29 99 15 13 28 17. Kiddie Academy of Santa Ana7 365 45 39 84 40 45 85 18. Target Shopping Center 310 5 3 8 11 12 23 19. Raising Cane’s Restaurant 926 41 40 81 33 31 64 20. 888 Adaptive Reuse7 1,209 17 53 70 59 37 96 21. Legacy Square Mixed-Use Development 2,833 43 54 97 110 101 211 22. First American Plaza7 1,420 26 59 85 70 52 122 23. 4th and Mortimer (Block A & B) 4,569 69 81 150 174 166 340 24. 201 E 4th Street 176 3 8 11 8 5 13 25. Tom’s Trucks Residential Development7 1,256 25 73 98 83 49 132 6 Unless otherwise noted, Source: Trip Generation, 10th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Washington, D.C. (2017). 7 Source: First American Plaza TIA, prepared by LLG, dated April 2019. 8 Source: First Street Family Apartments TIA, prepared by LLG, dated January 2016. 9 Source: 1660 E. First Street Elks Apartments TIA, prepared by LLG, dated June 2019. 1 - 159 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-19-4141-1 4th and Cabrillo Mixed-Use Project, Santa Ana N:\4100\2194141 - 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use, Santa Ana\Report\4141 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use Center Point TIA, Santa Ana 7-30-2020.doc 24 TABLE 6-2 (CONTINUED) CUMULATIVE PROJECTS TRAFFIC GENERATION FORECAST10 Cumulative Project Description Daily 2-Way AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total 26. East First Street Apartments 1,785 33 67 100 76 49 125 27. The Madison11 2,010 30 104 134 115 69 184 28. 2114 East First Apartments12 4,381 63 199 262 207 127 334 29. Service Station 744 13 13 26 24 25 49 30. Vintage 1,025 15 49 64 49 29 78 Cumulative Projects Total Trip Generation Potential 45,942 1,458 1,575 3,033 1,927 1,910 3,837 10 Unless otherwise noted, Source: Trip Generation, 10th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Washington, D.C. (2017). 11 Source: The Madison Mixed-Use Development TIA, prepared by LLG, dated August 2017. 12 Source: First American Plaza TIA, prepared by LLG, dated April 2019. 1 - 160 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-19-4141-1 4th and Cabrillo Mixed-Use Project, Santa Ana N:\4100\2194141 - 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use, Santa Ana\Report\4141 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use Center Point TIA, Santa Ana 7-30-2020.doc 25 6.3 Year 2040 Traffic Conditions As coordinated with City staff, the Year 2040 traffic volume forecasts for this traffic study were development via the utilization of the OCTAM 4.0 Year 2040 traffic model provided by OCTA. Specifically, daily, AM peak period and PM peak period link traffic volumes were provided by OCTA for the existing base year (i.e. Year 2012) and for the Year 2040 year. The AM peak period corresponds to a three-hour morning commute period while the PM peak period corresponds to a four-hour afternoon commute period. Using the peak period model runs and the OCTA approved peak hour factors (i.e. AM = 0.3566 and PM = 0.2662), the one-hour peak hour link traffic volumes were determined. These future year 2040 link traffic volumes were post-processed based on the relationship of the base year validation model run output to the base year ground traffic counts resulting in Year 2040 without project daily traffic volumes for the AM peak hour/PM peak hour turning movements for the key study intersections. Copies of the model post-processing worksheets are contained in Appendix C. 6.4 Year 2025 and Year 2040 Traffic Volumes 6.4.1 Year 2025 Traffic Volumes Figures 6-4 and 6-5 present the AM and PM peak hour cumulative traffic volumes (existing traffic + ambient growth + related projects) at twenty-five (25) key study intersections for the Year 2025, respectively. Figure 6-5 also presents the Year 2025 daily cumulative traffic volumes. Figures 6-6 and 6-7 illustrate the Year 2025 forecast AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes, with the inclusion of the trips generated by the proposed Project, respectively. Figure 6-7 also presents the Year 2025 cumulative plus project daily traffic volumes. 6.4.2 Year 2040 Traffic Volumes Figures 6-8 and 6-9 present the Year 2040 AM and PM peak hour cumulative traffic volumes at the twenty-five (25) key study intersections, respectively. Figure 6-9 also presents the Year 2040 daily cumulative traffic volumes. Figures 6-10 and 6-11 illustrate the Year 2040 forecast AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes, with the inclusion of the trips generated by the proposed Project, respectively. Figure 6-11 also presents the Year 2040 buildout plus project daily traffic volumes. 1 - 161 1 - 162 1 - 163 1 - 164 1 - 165 1 - 166 1 - 167 1 - 168 1 - 169 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-19-4141-1 4th and Cabrillo Mixed-Use Project, Santa Ana N:\4100\2194141 - 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use, Santa Ana\Report\4141 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use Center Point TIA, Santa Ana 7-30-2020.doc 26 7.0 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY The relative impact of the proposed Project during the AM peak hour and PM peak hour was evaluated based on analysis of future operating conditions at the twenty-five (25) key study intersections, without, then with, the proposed Project. The previously discussed capacity analysis procedures were utilized to investigate the future volume-to-capacity relationships and service level characteristics at each study intersection. The significance of the potential impacts of the Project at each key intersection was then evaluated using the following traffic impact criteria. 7.1 Impact Criteria and Thresholds 7.1.1 City of Santa Ana Based on the City of Santa Ana, impacts to local and regional transportation systems are considered significant if any of the following would occur: ▪ Project traffic would cause an intersection currently operating at an acceptable peak hour Level of Service (LOS) to operate at an unacceptable peak hour LOS. The City of Santa Ana considers LOS D to be the minimum acceptable LOS for all intersections, except for those locations located within the City’s defined major development areas, where LOS E is considered acceptable. Based on the above, the following summarizes the LOS required for each key study intersection: ➢ LOS “D” Requirements: 1. Elk Lane at First Street 19. Cabrillo Park Drive at Wellington Avenue 2. I-5 SB On-Ramp at First Street 21. Mabury Street at Fruit Street 7. I-5 SB On-Ramp/Mabury Street at 4th Street 22. Cabrillo Park Drive at Fruit Street 8. I-5 NB Ramps at 4th Street 23. Park Center Drive at Fruit Street 13. SR-55 SB Ramps at 4th Street 25. Cabrillo Park Drive at Park Court Place 18. Cabrillo Park Drive at 17th Street ➢ LOS “E” Requirements: 3. Cabrillo Park Drive at First Street 12. Tustin Avenue at 4th Street 4. Golden Circle Drive at First Street 16. Cabrillo Park Drive at State Fund Access Road 9. Cabrillo Park Drive at 4th Street 17. Cabrillo Park Drive at Xerox Center Access Road 10. Golden Circle Drive at 4th Street 20. Tustin Avenue at Wellington Avenue 11. Park Center Drive at 4th Street 24. Tustin Avenue at Fruit Street ▪ The project increases traffic demand by 1% of capacity (ICU increase  0.01) at a signalized study intersection forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS. ▪ At unsignalized intersections, an impact is considered to be significant if the project causes an intersection at LOS D or better to degrade to LOS E or F and the traffic signal warrant analysis determines that a signal is justified. 1 - 170 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-19-4141-1 4th and Cabrillo Mixed-Use Project, Santa Ana N:\4100\2194141 - 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use, Santa Ana\Report\4141 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use Center Point TIA, Santa Ana 7-30-2020.doc 27 7.1.2 City of Tustin For those study intersections within the jurisdiction of the City of Tustin, impacts to local and regional transportation systems are considered significant if: ▪ An unacceptable peak hour Level of Service (LOS) at any of the key intersections is projected. The City of Tustin considers LOS D to be the minimum acceptable condition that should be maintained during the peak commute hours. For this analysis, if the project increases traffic demand at the study intersection by 1% of capacity (ICU increase  0.010), causing or worsening LOS E or F (ICU > 0.901), the impact is considered significant. 7.2 Traffic Impact Analysis Scenarios The following scenarios are those for which volume/capacity calculations have been performed at the twenty-five (25) key intersections for existing plus project, near-term (Year 2025) and long-term (Year 2040) traffic conditions: A. Existing Traffic Conditions; B. Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions; C. Scenario (B) with Improvements, if necessary; D. Near-Term (Year 2025) Cumulative Traffic Conditions, E. Near-Term (Year 2025) Cumulative plus Project Traffic Conditions; F. Scenario (E) with Improvements, if necessary; G. Long-Term (Year 2040) Future Traffic Conditions; H. Long-Term (Year 2040) Future Traffic Conditions plus Project Traffic; and I. Scenario (H) with Improvements, if necessary. 1 - 171 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-19-4141-1 4th and Cabrillo Mixed-Use Project, Santa Ana N:\4100\2194141 - 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use, Santa Ana\Report\4141 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use Center Point TIA, Santa Ana 7-30-2020.doc 28 8.0 PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS 8.1 Existing Plus Project Analysis Table 8-1 summarizes the peak hour Level of Service results at the twenty-five (25) key study intersections for existing plus project traffic conditions. The first column (1) of ICU/LOS values and HCM/LOS values in Table 8-1 presents a summary of existing AM and PM peak hour traffic conditions (which were also presented in Table 3-3). The second column (2) lists existing plus project traffic conditions. The third column (3) shows the increase in ICU value and/or HCM value due to the added peak hour Project trips and indicates whether the traffic associated with the Project will have a significant impact based on the LOS standards and significant impact criteria defined in this report. The fourth column (4) presents the resultant level of service with the inclusion of recommended traffic improvements, where needed, to achieve an acceptable level of service. 8.1.1 Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions Review of columns (2) and (3) of Table 8-1 indicates that traffic associated with the proposed Project will significantly impact one (1) of the twenty-five study intersections, when compared to the LOS standards and significant impact criteria specified in this report. The impacted intersection of SR-55 SB Ramps/4th Street is forecast to operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour. The remaining study intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable level of service during the AM and PM peak hours. Review of column (4) of Table 8-1 indicates that the implementation of recommended improvements at the intersection will help offset the Project’s impact. Planned and recommended improvements are discussed in Section 11.0. Appendix D presents the existing plus project ICU/LOS and HCM/LOS calculations for the twenty- five (25) key study intersections. 1 - 172 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-19-4141-1 4th and Cabrillo Mixed-Use Project, Santa Ana N:\4100\2194141 - 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use, Santa Ana\Report\4141 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use Center Point TIA, Santa Ana 7-30-2020.doc 29 TABLE 8-1 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS Key Intersection Minimum Acceptable LOS Time Period (1) Existing Traffic Conditions (2) Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions (3) Significant Impact (4) Existing Plus Project Plus Improvements Traffic Conditions ICU/HCM LOS ICU/HCM LOS Increase Yes/No ICU/HCM LOS 1. Elk Lane at First Street D AM 0.599 A 0.604 B 0.005 No -- -- PM 0.716 C 0.725 C 0.009 No -- -- 2. I-5 SB On Ramp at First Street D AM 0.425 A 0.434 A 0.009 No -- -- PM 0.584 A 0.594 A 0.010 No -- -- 3. Cabrillo Park Drive at First Street E AM 0.450 A 0.458 A 0.008 No -- -- PM 0.544 A 0.558 A 0.014 No -- -- 4. Golden Circle Drive at First Street E AM 0.331 A 0.331 A 0.000 No -- -- PM 0.324 A 0.325 A 0.001 No -- -- 5. Tustin Avenue at First Street D AM 0.396 A 0.398 A 0.002 No -- -- PM 0.418 A 0.421 A 0.003 No -- -- 6. Yorba Street at First Street D AM 0.448 A 0.449 A 0.001 No -- -- PM 0.526 A 0.529 A 0.003 No -- -- 7. I-5 SB On Ramp/Mabury Street at 4th Street D AM 0.357 A 0.382 A 0.025 No -- -- PM 0.395 A 0.399 A 0.004 No -- -- 8. I-5 NB Ramps at 4th Street D AM 0.429 A 0.442 A 0.013 No -- -- PM 0.774 C 0.787 C 0.013 No -- -- 9. Cabrillo Park Drive at 4th Street E AM 0.551 A 0.547 A -0.00413 No -- -- PM 0.714 C 0.793 C 0.079 No -- -- Note: ▪ Bold ICU/LOS or HCM/LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on the Cities LOS standards. ▪ s/v = seconds per vehicle (delay) 13 Negative V/C increase is due to Project-specific improvements as detailed in Section 11.0. 1 - 173 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-19-4141-1 4th and Cabrillo Mixed-Use Project, Santa Ana N:\4100\2194141 - 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use, Santa Ana\Report\4141 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use Center Point TIA, Santa Ana 7-30-2020.doc 30 TABLE 8-1 (CONTINUED) EXISTING PLUS PROJECT PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS Key Intersection Minimum Acceptable LOS Time Period (1) Existing Traffic Conditions (2) Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions (3) Significant Impact (4) Existing Plus Project Plus Improvements Traffic Conditions ICU/HCM LOS ICU/HCM LOS Increase Yes/No ICU/HCM LOS 10. Golden Circle Drive at 4th Street E AM 0.398 A 0.410 A 0.012 No -- -- PM 0.405 A 0.421 A 0.016 No -- -- 11. Park Center Drive at 4th Street E AM 13.7 s/v B 14.0 s/v B 0.3 s/v No -- -- PM 16.2 s/v C 17.0 s/v C 0.8 s/v No -- -- 12. Tustin Avenue at 4th Street E AM 0.667 B 0.667 B 0.000 No -- -- PM 0.738 C 0.751 C 0.013 No -- -- 13. SR-55 SB Ramps at 4th Street D AM 0.978 E 0.991 E 0.013 Yes 0.521 A PM 0.748 C 0.761 C 0.013 No 0.706 C 14. SR-55 NB Ramps at 4th Street D AM 0.670 B 0.684 B 0.014 No -- -- PM 0.689 B 0.705 C 0.016 No -- -- 15. Yorba Street at 4th Street D AM 0.561 A 0.563 A 0.002 No -- -- PM 0.605 B 0.610 B 0.005 No -- -- 16. Cabrillo Park Drive at State Fund Access Road E AM 0.308 A 0.319 A 0.011 No -- -- PM 0.340 A 0.347 A 0.007 No -- -- 17. Cabrillo Park Drive at Xerox Centre Access Road E AM 0.271 A 0.282 A 0.011 No -- -- PM 0.308 A 0.315 A 0.007 No -- -- 18. Cabrillo Park Drive at 17th Street D AM 0.568 A 0.571 A 0.003 No -- -- PM 0.611 B 0.619 B 0.008 No -- -- Note: ▪ Bold ICU/LOS or HCM/LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on the Cities LOS standards. ▪ s/v = seconds per vehicle (delay) 1 - 174 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-19-4141-1 4th and Cabrillo Mixed-Use Project, Santa Ana N:\4100\2194141 - 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use, Santa Ana\Report\4141 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use Center Point TIA, Santa Ana 7-30-2020.doc 31 TABLE 8-1 (CONTINUED) EXISTING PLUS PROJECT PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS Key Intersection Minimum Acceptable LOS Time Period (1) Existing Traffic Conditions (2) Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions (3) Significant Impact (4) Existing Plus Project Plus Improvements Traffic Conditions ICU/HCM LOS ICU/HCM LOS Increase Yes/No ICU/HCM LOS 19. Cabrillo Park Drive at Wellington Avenue D AM 17.8 s/v C 18.2 s/v C 0.4 s/v No -- -- PM 17.9 s/v C 18.3 s/v C 0.4 s/v No -- -- 20. Tustin Avenue at Wellington Avenue E AM 0.574 A 0.575 A 0.001 No -- -- PM 0.411 A 0.412 A 0.001 No -- -- 21. Mabury Street at Fruit Street D AM 7.7 s/v A 7.7 s/v A 0.0 s/v No -- -- PM 7.7 s/v A 7.7 s/v A 0.0 s/v No -- -- 22. Cabrillo Park Drive at Fruit Street D AM 12.5 s/v B 12.7 s/v B 0.2 s/v No -- -- PM 11.5 s/v B 11.9 s/v B 0.4 s/v No -- -- 23. Park Center Drive at Fruit Street D AM 10.3 s/v B 10.4 s/v B 0.1 s/v No -- -- PM 10.5 s/v B 10.6 s/v B 0.1 s/v No -- -- 24. Tustin Avenue at Fruit Street E AM 0.509 A 0.516 A 0.007 No -- -- PM 0.446 A 0.451 A 0.005 No -- -- 25. Cabrillo Park Drive at Park Court Place D AM 18.6 s/v C 22.6 s/v C 4.0 s/v No -- -- PM 24.3 s/v C 32.4 s/v D 8.1 s/v No -- -- Note: ▪ Bold ICU/LOS or HCM/LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on the Cities LOS standards. ▪ s/v = seconds per vehicle (delay) 1 - 175 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-19-4141-1 4th and Cabrillo Mixed-Use Project, Santa Ana N:\4100\2194141 - 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use, Santa Ana\Report\4141 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use Center Point TIA, Santa Ana 7-30-2020.doc 32 8.2 Year 2025 Traffic Conditions Table 8-2 summarizes the peak hour Level of Service results at the twenty-five (25) key study intersections for the Year 2025 horizon year. The first column (1) of ICU/LOS and HCM/LOS values in Table 8-2 presents a summary of existing AM and PM peak hour traffic conditions. The second column (2) lists projected cumulative traffic conditions (existing plus ambient plus related projects traffic) based on existing intersection geometry, but without any traffic generated from the proposed Project. The third column (3) presents forecast Year 2025 near-term traffic conditions with the addition of Project traffic. The fourth column (4) shows the increase in ICU value and/or HCM value due to the added peak hour Project trips and indicates whether the traffic associated with the Project will have a significant impact based on the LOS standards and significant impact criteria defined in this report. The fifth column (5) presents the resultant level of service with the inclusion of recommended traffic improvements, where needed, to achieve an acceptable level of service. 8.2.1 Year 2025 Cumulative Traffic Conditions Review of column (2) of Table 8-2 indicates that the addition of ambient traffic growth and related projects traffic will adversely impact two (2) of the twenty-five key study intersections. The remaining study intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable level of service during the AM and PM peak hours. The intersections forecast to operate adversely consist of the following: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Intersection ICU/HCM LOS ICU/HCM LOS 1. Elk Lane at First Street -- -- 0.921 E 13. SR-55 SB Ramps at 4th Street 1.063 F -- -- 8.2.2 Year 2025 Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Review of columns (3) of Table 8-2 indicates that four (4) of the twenty-five study intersections are forecast to operate at unacceptable level of service during the AM and/or PM peak hours, based on the LOS standards and impact criteria specified in this report, with the addition of project traffic. The remaining study intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable level of service during the AM and PM peak hours. The intersections forecast to operate adversely consist of the following: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Intersection ICU/HCM LOS ICU/HCM LOS 1. Elk Lane at First Street -- -- 0.929 E 8. I-5 NB Ramps at 4th Street -- -- 0.904 E 13. SR-55 SB Ramps at 4th Street 1.074 F -- -- 25. Cabrillo Park Drive at Park Court Place -- -- 45.9 s/v E 1 - 176 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-19-4141-1 4th and Cabrillo Mixed-Use Project, Santa Ana N:\4100\2194141 - 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use, Santa Ana\Report\4141 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use Center Point TIA, Santa Ana 7-30-2020.doc 33 Review of column (4) of Table 8-2 indicates that two (2) intersections are significantly impacted by the Project under Year 2025 Cumulative Plus Project traffic conditions, which include I-5 NB Ramps/4th Street and SR-55 SB Ramps/4th Street. Review of column (5) indicates that the implementation of planned and/or recommended improvements at the intersections will help offset the Project’s impact. Planned and recommended improvements are discussed in Section 11.0. Although the intersection of Elk Lane/First Street operates adversely during the PM peak hour, the proposed Project adds less than 0.010 increment to the ICU value and is therefore not considered significantly impacted based on the LOS standards and impact criteria specified in this report. Although Cabrillo Park Drive/Park Court Place operates adversely during the PM peak hour, a traffic signal is not warranted during the PM peak hour and therefore the intersection is not considered significantly impacted based on the LOS standards and impact criteria specified in this report. However, a traffic signal is warranted during the AM peak hour and therefore it is recommended to implement improvements at the intersection to help achieve acceptable level of service. Review of column (5) indicates that the installation of a two-phase traffic signal at this intersection would help improve the intersection and result in an acceptable level of service. It should be noted that the installation of a two-phase traffic signal would be in place of previously identified improvements at the intersection (i.e. median diverters to prohibit cross-traffic) as documented in the Traffic Impact Study for the Metro East Overlay Zone in the City of Santa Ana. Appendix D also presents the near-term ICU/LOS and HCM/LOS calculations for the twenty-five (25) key study intersections. Appendix H presents the signal warrant worksheets for the intersection of Cabrillo Park Drive/Park Court Place. 1 - 177 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-19-4141-1 4th and Cabrillo Mixed-Use Project, Santa Ana N:\4100\2194141 - 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use, Santa Ana\Report\4141 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use Center Point TIA, Santa Ana 7-30-2020.doc 34 TABLE 8-2 YEAR 2025 CUMULATIVE PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS Key Intersection Minimum Acceptable LOS Time Period (1) Existing Traffic Conditions (2) Year 2025 Cumulative Traffic Conditions (3) Year 2025 Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Conditions (4) Significant Impact (5) Year 2025 Cumulative Plus Project Plus Improvements Traffic Conditions ICU/HCM LOS ICU/HCM LOS ICU/HCM LOS Increase Yes/No ICU/HCM LOS 1. Elk Lane at First Street D AM 0.599 A 0.748 C 0.753 C 0.005 No -- -- PM 0.716 C 0.921 E 0.929 E 0.008 No -- -- 2. I-5 SB On Ramp at First Street D AM 0.425 A 0.517 A 0.527 A 0.010 No -- -- PM 0.584 A 0.681 B 0.691 B 0.010 No -- -- 3. Cabrillo Park Drive at First Street E AM 0.450 A 0.563 A 0.571 A 0.008 No -- -- PM 0.544 A 0.716 C 0.730 C 0.014 No -- -- 4. Golden Circle Drive at First Street E AM 0.331 A 0.384 A 0.385 A 0.001 No -- -- PM 0.324 A 0.381 A 0.382 A 0.001 No -- -- 5. Tustin Avenue at First Street D AM 0.396 A 0.487 A 0.489 A 0.002 No -- -- PM 0.418 A 0.476 A 0.478 A 0.002 No -- -- 6. Yorba Street at First Street D AM 0.448 A 0.524 A 0.525 A 0.001 No -- -- PM 0.526 A 0.610 B 0.613 B 0.003 No -- -- 7. I-5 SB On Ramp/Mabury Street at 4th Street D AM 0.357 A 0.413 A 0.437 A 0.024 No -- -- PM 0.395 A 0.478 A 0.482 A 0.004 No -- -- 8. I-5 NB Ramps at 4th Street D AM 0.429 A 0.482 A 0.495 A 0.013 No 0.495 A PM 0.774 C 0.891 D 0.904 E 0.013 Yes 0.573 A 9. Cabrillo Park Drive at 4th Street E AM 0.551 A 0.633 B 0.620 B -0.01314 No -- -- PM 0.714 C 0.817 D 0.881 D 0.064 No -- -- Note: ▪ Bold ICU/LOS or HCM/LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on the Cities LOS standards. ▪ s/v = seconds per vehicle (delay) 14 Negative V/C increase is due to Project-specific improvements as detailed in Section 11.0. 1 - 178 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-19-4141-1 4th and Cabrillo Mixed-Use Project, Santa Ana N:\4100\2194141 - 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use, Santa Ana\Report\4141 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use Center Point TIA, Santa Ana 7-30-2020.doc 35 TABLE 8-2 (CONTINUED) YEAR 2025 CUMULATIVE PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS Key Intersection Minimum Acceptable LOS Time Period (1) Existing Traffic Conditions (2) Year 2025 Cumulative Traffic Conditions (3) Year 2025 Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Conditions (4) Significant Impact (5) Year 2025 Cumulative Plus Project Plus Improvements Traffic Conditions ICU/HCM LOS ICU/HCM LOS ICU/HCM LOS Increase Yes/No ICU/HCM LOS 10. Golden Circle Drive at 4th Street E AM 0.398 A 0.447 A 0.459 A 0.012 No -- -- PM 0.405 A 0.469 A 0.483 A 0.014 No -- -- 11. Park Center Drive at 4th Street E AM 13.7 s/v B 15.6 s/v C 15.8 s/v C 0.2 s/v No -- -- PM 16.2 s/v C 20.9 s/v C 22.2 s/v C 1.3 s/v No -- -- 12. Tustin Avenue at 4th Street E AM 0.667 B 0.779 C 0.785 C 0.006 No -- -- PM 0.738 C 0.843 D 0.856 D 0.013 No -- -- 13. SR-55 SB Ramps at 4th Street D AM 0.978 E 1.063 F 1.074 F 0.011 Yes 0.610 B PM 0.748 C 0.834 D 0.847 D 0.013 No 0.810 D 14. SR-55 NB Ramps at 4th Street D AM 0.670 B 0.771 C 0.785 C 0.014 No -- -- PM 0.689 B 0.802 D 0.818 D 0.016 No -- -- 15. Yorba Street at 4th Street D AM 0.561 A 0.614 B 0.616 B 0.002 No -- -- PM 0.605 B 0.664 B 0.668 B 0.004 No -- -- 16. Cabrillo Park Drive at State Fund Access Road E AM 0.308 A 0.347 A 0.359 A 0.012 No -- -- PM 0.340 A 0.386 A 0.393 A 0.007 No -- -- 17. Cabrillo Park Drive at Xerox Centre Access Road E AM 0.271 A 0.350 A 0.362 A 0.012 No -- -- PM 0.308 A 0.398 A 0.400 A 0.002 No -- -- 18. Cabrillo Park Drive at 17th Street D AM 0.568 A 0.624 B 0.628 B 0.004 No -- -- PM 0.611 B 0.697 B 0.705 C 0.008 No -- -- Note: ▪ Bold ICU/LOS or HCM/LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on the Cities LOS standards. ▪ s/v = seconds per vehicle (delay) 1 - 179 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-19-4141-1 4th and Cabrillo Mixed-Use Project, Santa Ana N:\4100\2194141 - 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use, Santa Ana\Report\4141 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use Center Point TIA, Santa Ana 7-30-2020.doc 36 TABLE 8-2 (CONTINUED) YEAR 2025 CUMULATIVE PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS Key Intersection Minimum Acceptable LOS Time Period (1) Existing Traffic Conditions (2) Year 2025 Cumulative Traffic Conditions (3) Year 2025 Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Conditions (4) Significant Impact (5) Year 2025 Cumulative Plus Project Plus Improvements Traffic Conditions ICU/HCM LOS ICU/HCM LOS ICU/HCM LOS Increase Yes/No ICU/HCM LOS 19. Cabrillo Park Drive at Wellington Avenue D AM 17.8 s/v C 22.0 s/v C 22.6 s/v C 0.6 s/v No -- -- PM 17.9 s/v C 21.7 s/v C 22.2 s/v C 0.5 s/v No -- -- 20. Tustin Avenue at Wellington Avenue E AM 0.574 A 0.612 B 0.613 B 0.001 No -- -- PM 0.411 A 0.443 A 0.445 A 0.002 No -- -- 21. Mabury Street at Fruit Street D AM 7.7 s/v A 7.8 s/v A 7.8 s/v A 0.0 s/v No -- -- PM 7.7 s/v A 7.7 s/v A 7.8 s/v A 0.1 s/v No -- -- 22. Cabrillo Park Drive at Fruit Street D AM 12.5 s/v B 13.9 s/v B 14.2 s/v B 0.3 s/v No -- -- PM 11.5 s/v B 12.9 s/v B 13.3 s/v B 0.4 s/v No -- -- 23. Park Center Drive at Fruit Street D AM 10.3 s/v B 10.5 s/v B 10.6 s/v B 0.1 s/v No -- -- PM 10.5 s/v B 10.7 s/v B 10.8 s/v B 0.1 s/v No -- -- 24. Tustin Avenue at Fruit Street E AM 0.509 A 0.543 A 0.550 A 0.007 No -- -- PM 0.446 A 0.480 A 0.485 A 0.005 No -- -- 25. Cabrillo Park Drive at Park Court Place D AM 18.6 s/v C 21.4 s/v C 26.6 s/v D 5.9 s/v No 0.487 A15 PM 24.3 s/v C 31.7 s/v D 45.9 s/v E 6.6 s/v No 0.414 A15 Note: ▪ Bold ICU/LOS or HCM/LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on the Cities LOS standards. ▪ s/v = seconds per vehicle (delay) 15 Although the intersection is not considered significantly impacted, it is forecast to operate at unacceptable level of service. Therefore, recommended mitigation measures have been included in this analysis for informational purposes. Recommended mitigation includes the installation of a two-phase traffic signal. 1 - 180 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-19-4141-1 4th and Cabrillo Mixed-Use Project, Santa Ana N:\4100\2194141 - 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use, Santa Ana\Report\4141 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use Center Point TIA, Santa Ana 7-30-2020.doc 37 8.3 Year 2040 Traffic Conditions Table 8-3 summarizes the peak hour Level of Service results at the twenty-five (25) key study intersections for the Year 2040. The first column (1) of ICU/LOS and HCM/LOS values in Table 8- 3 presents a summary of existing AM and PM peak hour traffic conditions. The second column (2) lists projected Year 2040 long-term traffic conditions based on existing intersection geometry, but without any traffic generated from the proposed Project. The third column (3) presents forecast Year 2040 long-term traffic conditions with the addition of Project traffic. The fourth column (4) shows the increase in ICU value and/or HCM value due to the added peak hour Project trips and indicates whether the traffic associated with the Project will have a significant impact based on the LOS standards and significant impact criteria defined in this report. The fifth column (5) presents the resultant level of service with the inclusion of recommended traffic improvements, where needed, to achieve an acceptable level of service. 8.3.1 Year 2040 Traffic Conditions Review of column (2) of Table 8-3 indicates that projected long-term (Year 2040) without project traffic will adversely impact four (4) of the twenty-five key study intersections. The remaining study intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable level of service during the AM and PM peak hours. The intersections forecast to operate adversely consist of the following: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Intersection ICU/HCM LOS ICU/HCM LOS 1. Elk Lane at First Street -- -- 0.964 E 8. I-5 NB Ramps at 4th Street -- -- 0.960 E 13. SR-55 SB Ramps at 4th Street 1.111 F 0.934 E 25. Cabrillo Park Drive at Park Court Place -- -- 37.2 s/v E 8.3.2 Year 2040 Plus Project Traffic Conditions Review of columns (3) of Table 8-3 indicates that four (4) of the twenty-five study intersections are forecast to operate at unacceptable level of service during the AM and/or PM peak hours, based on the LOS standards and impact criteria specified in this report, with the addition of project traffic. The remaining study intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable level of service during the AM and PM peak hours. The intersections forecast to operate adversely consist of the following: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Intersection ICU/HCM LOS ICU/HCM LOS 1. Elk Lane at First Street -- -- 0.972 E 8. I-5 NB Ramps at 4th Street -- -- 0.973 E 13. SR-55 SB Ramps at 4th Street 1.123 F 0.948 E 25. Cabrillo Park Drive at Park Court Place -- -- 56.9 s/v F 1 - 181 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-19-4141-1 4th and Cabrillo Mixed-Use Project, Santa Ana N:\4100\2194141 - 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use, Santa Ana\Report\4141 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use Center Point TIA, Santa Ana 7-30-2020.doc 38 Review of column (4) of Table 8-3 indicates that two (2) intersections are significantly impacted by the Project under Year 2040 Buildout Plus Project traffic conditions, which include I-5 NB Ramps/4th Street and SR-55 SB Ramps/4th Street. Review of column (5) indicates that the implementation of planned and/or recommended improvements at the intersections will help offset the Project’s impact. Planned and recommended improvements are discussed in Section 11.0. Although the intersection of Elk Lane/First Street operates adversely during the PM peak hour, the proposed Project adds less than 0.010 increment to the ICU value and is therefore not considered significantly impacted based on the LOS standards and impact criteria specified in this report. Although Cabrillo Park Drive/Park Court Place operates adversely during the PM peak hour, a traffic signal is not warranted during the PM peak hour and therefore the intersection is not considered significantly impacted based on the LOS standards and impact criteria specified in this report. However, a traffic signal is warranted during the AM peak hour and therefore it is recommended to implement improvements at the intersection to help achieve acceptable level of service. Review of column (5) indicates that the installation of a two-phase traffic signal at this intersection would help improve the intersection and result in an acceptable level of service. It should be noted that the installation of a two-phase traffic signal would be in place of previously identified improvements at the intersection (i.e. median diverters to prohibit cross-traffic) as documented in the Traffic Impact Study for the Metro East Overlay Zone in the City of Santa Ana. Appendix D also presents the long-term ICU/LOS and HCM/LOS calculations for the twenty-five (25) key study intersections. Appendix H presents the signal warrant worksheets for the intersection of Cabrillo Park Drive/Park Court Place. 1 - 182 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-19-4141-1 4th and Cabrillo Mixed-Use Project, Santa Ana N:\4100\2194141 - 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use, Santa Ana\Report\4141 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use Center Point TIA, Santa Ana 7-30-2020.doc 39 TABLE 8-3 YEAR 2040 BUILDOUT PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS Key Intersection Minimum Acceptable LOS Time Period (1) Existing Traffic Conditions (2) Year 2040 Buildout Traffic Conditions (3) Year 2040 Buildout Plus Project Traffic Conditions (4) Significant Impact (5) Year 2040 Buildout Plus Project Plus Improvements Traffic Conditions ICU/HCM LOS ICU/HCM LOS ICU/HCM LOS Increase Yes/No ICU/HCM LOS 1. Elk Lane at First Street D AM 0.599 A 0.785 C 0.791 A 0.006 No -- -- PM 0.716 C 0.964 E 0.972 E 0.008 No -- -- 2. I-5 SB On Ramp at First Street D AM 0.425 A 0.541 A 0.550 A 0.009 No -- -- PM 0.584 A 0.713 C 0.722 C 0.009 No -- -- 3. Cabrillo Park Drive at First Street E AM 0.450 A 0.652 B 0.660 B 0.008 No -- -- PM 0.544 A 0.750 C 0.764 C 0.014 No -- -- 4. Golden Circle Drive at First Street E AM 0.331 A 0.403 A 0.404 A 0.001 No -- -- PM 0.324 A 0.390 A 0.391 A 0.001 No -- -- 5. Tustin Avenue at First Street D AM 0.396 A 0.506 A 0.508 A 0.002 No -- -- PM 0.418 A 0.557 A 0.559 A 0.002 No -- -- 6. Yorba Street at First Street D AM 0.448 A 0.626 B 0.628 B 0.002 No -- -- PM 0.526 A 0.684 B 0.686 B 0.002 No -- -- 7. I-5 SB On Ramp/Mabury Street at 4th Street D AM 0.357 A 0.432 A 0.457 A 0.025 No -- -- PM 0.395 A 0.503 A 0.517 A 0.014 No -- -- 8. I-5 NB Ramps at 4th Street D AM 0.429 A 0.528 A 0.541 A 0.013 No 0.541 A PM 0.774 C 0.960 E 0.973 E 0.013 Yes 0.626 B 9. Cabrillo Park Drive at 4th Street E AM 0.551 A 0.669 B 0.661 B -0.00816 No -- -- PM 0.714 C 0.846 D 0.915 E 0.069 No -- -- Note: ▪ Bold ICU/LOS or HCM/LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on the Cities LOS standards. ▪ s/v = seconds per vehicle (delay) 16 Negative V/C increase is due to Project-specific improvements as detailed in Section 11.0. 1 - 183 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-19-4141-1 4th and Cabrillo Mixed-Use Project, Santa Ana N:\4100\2194141 - 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use, Santa Ana\Report\4141 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use Center Point TIA, Santa Ana 7-30-2020.doc 40 TABLE 8-3 (CONTINUED) YEAR 2040 BUILDOUT PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS Key Intersection Minimum Acceptable LOS Time Period (1) Existing Traffic Conditions (2) Year 2040 Buildout Traffic Conditions (3) Year 2040 Buildout Plus Project Traffic Conditions (4) Significant Impact (5) Year 2040 Buildout Plus Project Plus Improvements Traffic Conditions ICU/HCM LOS ICU/HCM LOS ICU/HCM LOS Increase Yes/No ICU/HCM LOS 10. Golden Circle Drive at 4th Street E AM 0.398 A 0.466 A 0.478 A 0.012 No -- -- PM 0.405 A 0.490 A 0.503 A 0.013 No -- -- 11. Park Center Drive at 4th Street E AM 13.7 s/v B 16.2 s/v C 16.5 s/v C 0.3 s/v No -- -- PM 16.2 s/v C 22.7 s/v C 24.3 s/v C 1.6 s/v No -- -- 12. Tustin Avenue at 4th Street E AM 0.667 B 0.820 D 0.826 D 0.006 No -- -- PM 0.738 C 0.961 E 0.961 E 0.000 No -- -- 13. SR-55 SB Ramps at 4th Street D AM 0.978 E 1.111 F 1.123 F 0.012 Yes 0.635 B PM 0.748 C 0.934 E 0.948 E 0.014 Yes 0.903 E 14. SR-55 NB Ramps at 4th Street D AM 0.670 B 0.835 D 0.849 D 0.014 No -- -- PM 0.689 B 0.851 D 0.890 D 0.039 No -- -- 15. Yorba Street at 4th Street D AM 0.561 A 0.752 C 0.754 C 0.002 No -- -- PM 0.605 B 0.715 C 0.719 C 0.004 No -- -- 16. Cabrillo Park Drive at State Fund Access Road E AM 0.308 A 0.362 A 0.374 A 0.012 No -- -- PM 0.340 A 0.403 A 0.409 A 0.006 No -- -- 17. Cabrillo Park Drive at Xerox Centre Access Road E AM 0.271 A 0.366 A 0.377 A 0.011 No -- -- PM 0.308 A 0.408 A 0.417 A 0.009 No -- -- 18. Cabrillo Park Drive at 17th Street D AM 0.568 A 0.652 B 0.655 B 0.003 No -- -- PM 0.611 B 0.730 C 0.737 C 0.007 No -- -- Note: ▪ Bold ICU/LOS or HCM/LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on the Cities LOS standards. ▪ s/v = seconds per vehicle (delay) 1 - 184 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-19-4141-1 4th and Cabrillo Mixed-Use Project, Santa Ana N:\4100\2194141 - 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use, Santa Ana\Report\4141 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use Center Point TIA, Santa Ana 7-30-2020.doc 41 TABLE 8-3 (CONTINUED) YEAR 2040 BUILDOUT PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS Key Intersection Minimum Acceptable LOS Time Period (1) Existing Traffic Conditions (2) Year 2040 Buildout Traffic Conditions (3) Year 2040 Buildout Plus Project Traffic Conditions (4) Significant Impact (5) Year 2040 Buildout Plus Project Plus Improvements Traffic Conditions ICU/HCM LOS ICU/HCM LOS ICU/HCM LOS Increase Yes/No ICU/HCM LOS 19. Cabrillo Park Drive at Wellington Avenue D AM 17.8 s/v C 24.4 s/v C 25.2 s/v D 0.8 s/v No -- -- PM 17.9 s/v C 24.1 s/v C 24.7 s/v C 0.6 s/v No -- -- 20. Tustin Avenue at Wellington Avenue E AM 0.574 A 0.640 B 0.641 B 0.001 No -- -- PM 0.411 A 0.462 A 0.464 A 0.002 No -- -- 21. Mabury Street at Fruit Street D AM 7.7 s/v A 7.8 s/v A 7.8 s/v A 0.0 s/v No -- -- PM 7.7 s/v A 7.8 s/v A 7.9 s/v A 0.1 s/v No -- -- 22. Cabrillo Park Drive at Fruit Street D AM 12.5 s/v B 14.9 s/v B 15.2 s/v C 0.3 s/v No -- -- PM 11.5 s/v B 13.6 s/v B 14.0 s/v B 0.4 s/v No -- -- 23. Park Center Drive at Fruit Street D AM 10.3 s/v B 10.7 s/v B 10.8 s/v B 0.1 s/v No -- -- PM 10.5 s/v B 10.8 s/v B 12.0 s/v B 1.2 s/v No -- -- 24. Tustin Avenue at Fruit Street E AM 0.509 A 0.577 A 0.584 A 0.007 No -- -- PM 0.446 A 0.502 A 0.506 A 0.004 No -- -- 25. Cabrillo Park Drive at Park Court Place D AM 18.6 s/v C 23.0 s/v C 29.2 s/v D 7.2 s/v No 0.514 A17 PM 24.3 s/v C 37.2 s/v E 56.9 s/v F 9.1 s/v No 0.423 A17 Note: ▪ Bold ICU/LOS or HCM/LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on the Cities LOS standards. ▪ s/v = seconds per vehicle (delay) 17 Although the intersection is not considered significantly impacted, it is forecast to operate at unacceptable level of service. Therefore, recommended mitigation measures have been included in this analysis for informational purposes. Recommended mitigation includes the installation of a two-phase traffic signal. 1 - 185 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-19-4141-1 4th and Cabrillo Mixed-Use Project, Santa Ana N:\4100\2194141 - 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use, Santa Ana\Report\4141 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use Center Point TIA, Santa Ana 7-30-2020.doc 42 9.0 STATE OF CALIFORNIA (CALTRANS) ANALYSIS In conformance with the current Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, dated December 2002, existing and projected peak hour operating conditions at the five (5) state-controlled study intersections within the study area have been evaluated using the Highway Capacity Manual operations method of analysis. These state-controlled locations include the following study intersections: 2. I-5 SB On-Ramp at First Street (City of Santa Ana/Caltrans) 7. I-5 SB On-Ramp/Mabury Street at 4th Street (City of Santa Ana/Caltrans) 8. I-5 NB Ramps at 4th Street (City of Santa Ana/Caltrans) 13. SR-55 SB Ramps at 4th Street (City of Santa Ana/Caltrans) 14. SR-55 NB Ramps at 4th Street (City of Tustin/Caltrans) Caltrans “endeavors to maintain a target LOS at the transition between LOS “C” and LOS “D” on State highway facilities”; it does not require that LOS “D” (shall) be maintained. However, Caltrans acknowledges that this may not always be feasible and recommends that the lead agency consult with Caltrans to determine the appropriate target LOS. For this analysis, LOS D is the target level of service standard and will be utilized to assess the project impacts at the state-controlled study intersections. The Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, dated December 2002 states that if an existing State-owned facility operates at less than the target LOS (i.e. LOS D); the existing service level should be maintained. Based on Caltrans Criteria, a Project’s impact is considered significant if the Project causes the LOS to change from an acceptable LOS (i.e., LOS D or better) to a deficient LOS (i.e. LOS E or F). 9.1 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Method of Analysis (Signalized Intersections) Based on the HCM 6th Edition operations method of analysis, level of service for signalized intersections is defined in terms of control delay, which is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption and lost travel time. The delay experienced by a motorist is made up of a number of factors that relate to control, geometries, traffic and incidents. Total delay is the difference between the travel time actually experienced and the reference travel time that would result during ideal conditions: in the absence of traffic control, in the absence of geometric delay, in the absence of any incidents and when there are no other vehicles on the road. In the HCM, only the portion of total delay attributed to the control facility is quantified. This delay is called control delay. Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay and final acceleration delay. Specifically, LOS criteria for traffic signals are stated in terms of the average control delay per vehicle. The six qualitative categories of Level of Service that have been defined along with the corresponding HCM control delay value range for signalized intersections are shown in Table 9-1. 1 - 186 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-19-4141-1 4th and Cabrillo Mixed-Use Project, Santa Ana N:\4100\2194141 - 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use, Santa Ana\Report\4141 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use Center Point TIA, Santa Ana 7-30-2020.doc 43 TABLE 9-1 LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS (HCM)18 Level of Service (LOS) Control Delay Per Vehicle (seconds/vehicle) Level of Service Description A < 10.0 This level of service occurs when progression is extremely favorable and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. B > 10.0 and < 20.0 This level generally occurs with good progression, short cycle lengths, or both. More vehicles stop than with LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. C > 20.0 and < 35.0 Average traffic delays. These higher delays may result from fair progression, longer cycle lengths, or both. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, though many still pass through the intersection without stopping. D > 35.0 and < 55.0 Long traffic delays. At level D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high v/c ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. E > 55.0 and < 80.0 Very long traffic delays. This level is considered by many agencies (i.e. SANBAG) to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high v/c ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. F  80.0 Severe congestion. This level, considered to be unacceptable to most drivers, often occurs with over saturation, that is, when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. It may also occur at high v/c ratios below 1.0 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing factors to such delay levels. 18 Source: Highway Capacity Manual (Signalized Intersections). 1 - 187 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-19-4141-1 4th and Cabrillo Mixed-Use Project, Santa Ana N:\4100\2194141 - 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use, Santa Ana\Report\4141 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use Center Point TIA, Santa Ana 7-30-2020.doc 44 9.2 Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions Table 9-2 summarizes the peak hour Level of Service results at the five (5) state-controlled study intersections for existing plus project traffic conditions. The first column (1) of HCM/LOS values in Table 9-2 presents a summary of existing AM and PM peak hour traffic. The second column (2) lists existing plus project traffic conditions with current intersection geometry/lane configurations. The third column (3) shows the increase in delay value due to the added peak hour project trips and indicates whether the traffic associated with the Project will have a significant impact based on the significant impact criteria defined in this report. The fourth column (4) indicates the anticipated level of service with improvements, if any. 9.2.1 Existing Traffic Conditions Review of column (1) of Table 9-2 indicates that the intersection of SR-55 SB Ramps/4th Street currently operates at unacceptable LOS F in the AM peak hour. The remaining state-controlled study intersections currently operate at LOS C or better during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. 9.2.2 Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions Review of columns (2) and (3) of Table 9-2 indicates that the intersection of SR-55 SB Ramps/4th Street will continue to operate at unacceptable LOS F in the AM peak hour with the addition of project traffic. The remaining state-controlled study intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable LOS C or better during the weekday AM and PM peak hours, with the addition of project traffic. Although the intersection of SR-55 SB Ramps/4th Street is forecast to operate at unacceptable LOS F in the AM peak hour, the intersection is not considered significantly impacted when compared to the LOS standards and significant impact criteria specified in this report. Appendix E presents the existing plus project HCM/LOS calculations for the state-controlled study intersections. 1 - 188 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-19-4141-1 4th and Cabrillo Mixed-Use Project, Santa Ana N:\4100\2194141 - 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use, Santa Ana\Report\4141 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use Center Point TIA, Santa Ana 7-30-2020.doc 45 TABLE 9-2 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY - CALTRANS Key Intersection Time Period (1) Existing Traffic Conditions (2) Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions (3) Significant Impact (4) Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions with Improvements HCM LOS HCM LOS Yes/No HCM LOS 2. I-5 SB On Ramp at AM 7.2 s/v A 7.4 s/v A No -- -- First Street PM 7.2 s/v A 7.4 s/v A No -- -- 7. I-5 SB On Ramp/Mabury Street at AM 15.2 s/v B 16.1 s/v B No -- -- 4th street PM 13.3 s/v B 14.3 s/v B No -- -- 8. I-5 NB Ramps at AM 8.7 s/v A 8.6 s/v A No -- -- 4th Street PM 14.2 s/v B 14.4 s/v B No -- -- 13. SR-55 SB Ramps at AM 147.9 s/v F 151.8 s/v F No 26.8 s/v C19 4th Street PM 27.2 s/v C 27.6 s/v C No 24.8 s/v C19 14. SR-55 NB Ramps at AM 24.8 s/v C 25.6 s/v C No -- -- 4th Street PM 20.0 s/v B 20.7 s/v C No -- -- Note: ▪ Bold HCM/LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on the Caltrans LOS standards. ▪ s/v = seconds per vehicle (delay) 19 Although the intersection is not considered a significant impact based on Caltrans criteria, level of service results at the intersection with the implementation of improvements discussed in Section 11.0 have been included for informational purposes. 1 - 189 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-19-4141-1 4th and Cabrillo Mixed-Use Project, Santa Ana N:\4100\2194141 - 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use, Santa Ana\Report\4141 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use Center Point TIA, Santa Ana 7-30-2020.doc 46 9.3 Year 2025 Traffic Conditions Table 9-3 summarizes the peak hour Level of Service results at the at the five (5) state-controlled study intersections for the Year 2025 horizon year. The first column (1) of HCM/LOS values in Table 9-3 presents a summary of existing AM and PM peak hour traffic conditions. The second column (2) lists future Year 2025 cumulative traffic conditions (existing plus ambient growth traffic plus cumulative projects traffic), without any traffic generated by the proposed Project. The third column (3) presents future forecast traffic conditions with the addition of traffic generated by the proposed Project. The fourth column (4) shows the increase in delay value due to the added peak hour project trips and indicates whether the traffic associated with the Project will have a significant impact based on the LOS standards and significant impact criteria defined in this report. The fifth column (5) indicates the anticipated level of service with improvements, if any. 9.3.1 Year 2025 Cumulative Traffic Conditions Review of Column (2) of Table 9-3 indicates that the intersection of SR-55 SB Ramps/4th Street is forecast to operate at unacceptable LOS F in the AM peak hour. The remaining state-controlled study intersections are forecast to operate at LOS C or better during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. 9.3.2 Year 2025 Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Conditions Review of columns (3) and (4) of Table 9-3 indicates that the intersection of SR-55 SB Ramps/4th Street will continue to operate at unacceptable LOS F in the AM peak hour with the addition of project traffic. The remaining state-controlled study intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable LOS C or better during the weekday AM and PM peak hours, with the addition of project traffic. Although the intersection of SR-55 SB Ramps/4th Street is forecast to operate at unacceptable LOS F in the AM peak hour, the intersection is not considered significantly impacted when compared to the LOS standards and significant impact criteria specified in this report. Appendix E presents the Year 2025 HCM/LOS calculations for the state-controlled study intersections. 1 - 190 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-19-4141-1 4th and Cabrillo Mixed-Use Project, Santa Ana N:\4100\2194141 - 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use, Santa Ana\Report\4141 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use Center Point TIA, Santa Ana 7-30-2020.doc 47 TABLE 9-3 YEAR 2025 CUMULATIVE PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY - CALTRANS Key Intersection Time Period (1) Existing Traffic Conditions (2) Year 2025 Cumulative Traffic Conditions (3) Year 2025 Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Conditions (4) Significant Impact (5) Year 2025 Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Conditions with Improvements HCM LOS HCM LOS HCM LOS Yes/No HCM LOS 2. I-5 SB On Ramp at AM 7.2 s/v A 7.7 s/v A 8.0 s/v A No -- -- First Street PM 7.2 s/v A 8.3 s/v A 8.6 s/v A No -- -- 7. I-5 SB On Ramp/Mabury Street at AM 15.2 s/v B 15.6 s/v B 16.4 s/v B No -- -- 4th street PM 13.3 s/v B 14.8 s/v B 15.6 s/v B No -- -- 8. I-5 NB Ramps at AM 8.7 s/v A 10.0 s/v A 9.9 s/v A No 9.2 s/v A20 4th Street PM 14.2 s/v B 20.6 s/v C 21.2 s/v C No 11.9 s/v B20 13. SR-55 SB Ramps at AM 147.9 s/v F 156.9 s/v F 160.7 s/v F No 25.7 s/v C20 4th Street PM 27.2 s/v C 31.4 s/v C 32.8 s/v C No 26.0 s/v C20 14. SR-55 NB Ramps at AM 24.8 s/v C 34.7 s/v C 36.2 s/v D No -- -- 4th Street PM 20.0 s/v B 26.8 s/v C 29.4 s/v C No -- -- Note: ▪ Bold HCM/LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on the Caltrans LOS standards. ▪ s/v = seconds per vehicle (delay) 20 Although the intersection is not considered a significant impact based on Caltrans criteria, level of service results at the intersection with the implementation of improvements discussed in Section 11.0 have been included for informational purposes. 1 - 191 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-19-4141-1 4th and Cabrillo Mixed-Use Project, Santa Ana N:\4100\2194141 - 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use, Santa Ana\Report\4141 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use Center Point TIA, Santa Ana 7-30-2020.doc 48 9.4 Year 2040 Traffic Conditions Table 9-4 summarizes the peak hour Level of Service results at the at the five (5) state-controlled study intersections for the Year 2040 buildout year. The first column (1) of HCM/LOS values in Table 9-4 presents a summary of existing AM and PM peak hour traffic conditions. The second column (2) lists future Year 2040 buildout traffic conditions, without any traffic generated by the proposed Project. The third column (3) presents future forecast traffic conditions with the addition of traffic generated by the proposed Project. The fourth column (4) shows the increase in delay value due to the added peak hour project trips and indicates whether the traffic associated with the Project will have a significant impact based on the LOS standards and significant impact criteria defined in this report. The fifth column (5) indicates the anticipated level of service with improvements, if any. 9.4.1 Year 2040 Buildout Traffic Conditions Review of Column (2) of Table 9-4 indicates that the intersection of SR-55 SB Ramps/4th Street is forecast to operate at unacceptable LOS F in the AM peak hour. The remaining state-controlled study intersections are forecast to operate at LOS C or better during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. 9.4.2 Year 2040 Buildout Plus Project Traffic Conditions Review of columns (3) and (4) of Table 9-4 indicates that the intersection of SR-55 SB Ramps/4th Street will continue to operate at unacceptable LOS F in the AM peak hour with the addition of project traffic. The remaining state-controlled study intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable LOS C or better during the weekday AM and PM peak hours, with the addition of project traffic. Although the intersection of SR-55 SB Ramps/4th Street is forecast to operate at unacceptable LOS F in the AM peak hour, the intersection is not considered significantly impacted when compared to the LOS standards and significant impact criteria specified in this report. Appendix E presents the Year 2040 HCM/LOS calculations for the state-controlled study intersections. 1 - 192 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-19-4141-1 4th and Cabrillo Mixed-Use Project, Santa Ana N:\4100\2194141 - 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use, Santa Ana\Report\4141 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use Center Point TIA, Santa Ana 7-30-2020.doc 49 TABLE 9-4 YEAR 2040 BUILDOUT PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY - CALTRANS Key Intersection Time Period (1) Existing Traffic Conditions (2) Year 2040 Buildout Traffic Conditions (3) Year 2040 Buildout Plus Project Traffic Conditions (4) Significant Impact (5) Year 2040 Buildout Plus Project Traffic Conditions with Improvements HCM LOS HCM LOS HCM LOS Yes/No HCM LOS 2. I-5 SB On Ramp at AM 7.2 s/v A 7.9 s/v A 8.1 s/v A No -- -- First Street PM 7.2 s/v A 8.9 s/v A 9.2 s/v A No -- -- 7. I-5 SB On Ramp/Mabury Street at AM 15.2 s/v B 16.6 s/v B 17.6 s/v B No -- -- 4th street PM 13.3 s/v B 16.8 s/v B 17.4 s/v B No -- -- 8. I-5 NB Ramps at AM 8.7 s/v A 10.2 s/v B 10.2 s/v B No 9.4 s/v A21 4th Street PM 14.2 s/v B 28.1 s/v C 29.1 s/v C No 13.8 s/v B21 13. SR-55 SB Ramps at AM 147.9 s/v F 170.3 s/v F 174.1 s/v F No 25.4 s/v C21 4th Street PM 27.2 s/v C 39.7 s/v D 41.7 s/v D No 32.2 s/v C21 14. SR-55 NB Ramps at AM 24.8 s/v C 48.2 s/v D 50.6 s/v D No -- -- 4th Street PM 20.0 s/v B 34.7 s/v C 37.0 s/v D No -- -- Note: ▪ Bold HCM/LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on the Caltrans LOS standards. ▪ s/v = seconds per vehicle (delay) 21 Although the intersection is not considered a significant impact based on Caltrans criteria, level of service results at the intersection with the implementation of improvements discussed in Section 11.0 have been included for informational purposes. 1 - 193 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-19-4141-1 4th and Cabrillo Mixed-Use Project, Santa Ana N:\4100\2194141 - 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use, Santa Ana\Report\4141 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use Center Point TIA, Santa Ana 7-30-2020.doc 50 10.0 SITE ACCESS AND INTERNAL CIRCULATION EVALUATION 10.1 Site Access Access to the proposed Project will be provided via one (1) full access unsignalized driveway along Park Court Place and one (1) right in/out only driveway located along 4th Street. Table 10-1 summarizes the intersection level of service results for the two (2) proposed Project driveways under near-term (Year 2025) and long-term (Year 2040) traffic conditions at completion and full occupancy of the proposed Project. As shown, these key study intersections are forecast to operate at LOS D or better during the AM peak hour and PM peak hour. Appendix F presents the near-term and long-term HCM/LOS calculations for the two (2) Project driveways. 10.2 Queuing Analysis A queuing assessment has been completed to validate the driveway locations and egress from the site. In addition, as a result of the recommended improvements in Section 11.0, which identifies a second westbound right turn lane at I-5 NB Ramps/4th Street, the queueing analysis includes additional recommended improvements to help with existing congestion at Cabrillo Park Drive/4th Street. This evaluation is based on Synchro 10.0 SimTraffic 95th Percentile methodology. 10.2.1 Year 2040 Buildout Plus Project Traffic Conditions Table 10-2 presents the queueing analyses results for the AM and PM peak hours for Year 2040 Buildout Plus Project traffic conditions. Column (1) presents results for Year 2040 Buildout project traffic conditions and column (2) presents results for Year 2040 Buildout Plus Project traffic conditions with recommended improvements. Based on field observation it is apparent that congestion occurs at Cabrillo Park Drive/4th Street as a result of vehicles trying to enter the westbound right-turn lane along 4th Street. Due to the recommended second westbound right-turn lane along 4th Street, additional improvements are recommended for the northbound approach at Cabrillo Park Drive/4th Street. The additional recommended improvements consist of the following: ▪ Add signage to the northbound direction along with lane line extensions to direct the motorist in the left turn lane that they can enter the inner right-turn lane for access to the I-5 NB Ramp. The northbound left/thru lane should have signage and lane extensions to direct the motorist to use the outer right-turn lane for access to the I-5 NB Ramp. These improvements are subject to the review and approval of the City of Santa Ana. Review of Column (1) of Table 10-2 indicates that the queues are generally adequate under Year 2040 Buildout Plus Project traffic conditions during both the AM and PM peak hours. However, the southbound right-turn lane at Cabrillo Park Drive/4th Street may exceed the storage provided. As an alternative, subject to review and approval of City staff, an option southbound through/right lane in 1 - 194 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-19-4141-1 4th and Cabrillo Mixed-Use Project, Santa Ana N:\4100\2194141 - 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use, Santa Ana\Report\4141 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use Center Point TIA, Santa Ana 7-30-2020.doc 51 addition to the proposed southbound right-turn lane can be striped to provide additional queuing storage. Review of Column (2) of Table 10-2 indicates that with the implementation of improvements, the queues are generally adequate under Year 2040 Buildout Plus Project traffic conditions during both the AM and PM peak hours. However, the southbound right-turn lane at Cabrillo Park Drive/4th Street may exceed the storage provided. As an alternative, subject to review and approval of City staff, an option southbound through/right lane in addition to the proposed southbound right-turn lane can be striped to provide additional queuing storage. The implementation of the recommended improvements also helps to improve congestion and limit unnecessary weaving/merging of vehicles that need to enter the I-5 NB Ramp22. However, in the event that Fourth Street experiences “spikes” in congestion during the weekday AM and PM peak hours, residents will very likely re-route themselves (self-monitor) and utilize the northern Driveway on Park Court Place instead of the driveway on Fourth Street. The intersections of Cabrillo Park Drive/Park Court Place and Cabrillo Park Drive/Fourth Street have enough capacity to accommodate the additional trips. Appendix G presents the queueing worksheets for Year 2040 Buildout Plus Project traffic conditions. 22 Level of service results at Cabrillo Park Drive/4th Street with Improvements: Year 2040 Buildout Plus Project: AM Peak Hour: ICU 0.674, LOS B; PM Peak Hour: ICU 0.915, LOS E 1 - 195 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-19-4141-1 4th and Cabrillo Mixed-Use Project, Santa Ana N:\4100\2194141 - 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use, Santa Ana\Report\4141 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use Center Point TIA, Santa Ana 7-30-2020.doc 52 TABLE 10-1 PROJECT DRIVEWAY PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS Key Intersection Intersection Control Time Period (1) Year 2025 Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Conditions (2) Year 2040 Buildout Plus Project Traffic Conditions HCM LOS HCM LOS A. Project Driveway 1 at Park Court Place One-Way Stop AM 9.5 s/v A 9.5 s/v A PM 9.3 s/v A 9.4 s/v A B. Project Driveway 2 at 4th Street One-Way Stop AM 16.6 s/v C 17.2 s/v C PM 29.1 s/v D 31.6 s/v D Notes: ▪ s/v = seconds per vehicle (delay) 1 - 196 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-19-4141-1 4th and Cabrillo Mixed-Use Project, Santa Ana N:\4100\2194141 - 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use, Santa Ana\Report\4141 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use Center Point TIA, Santa Ana 7-30-2020.doc 53 TABLE 10-2 YEAR 2040 BUILDOUT PEAK HOUR QUEUING ANALYSIS23 (1) Year 2040 Buildout Plus Project Traffic Conditions (2) Year 2040 Buildout Plus Project Traffic Conditions with Improvements Key Study Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Storage Provided (feet) Max. Queue/ Min. Storage Required Adequate Storage (Yes/No) Max. Queue/ Min. Storage Required Adequate Storage (Yes/No) Max. Queue/ Min. Storage Required Adequate Storage (Yes/No) Max. Queue/ Min. Storage Required Adequate Storage (Yes/No) 8. I-5 NB Ramps at 4th Street Westbound Through 555’/215’24 196’ Yes 189’ Yes 204’ Yes 184’ Yes Westbound Right-Turn 555’/215’24 134’ Yes 171’ Yes 137’ Yes 188’ Yes 9. Cabrillo Park Drive at 4th Street Southbound Right-Turn 100’ 210’ No25 162’ No 176’ No25 126’ No25 A. Project Driveway 1 at Park Court Place Northbound Left/Right-Turn 90’ 58’ Yes 56’ Yes 61’ Yes 60’ Yes B. Project Driveway 2 at 4th Street Southbound Right-Turn 185’ 68’ Yes 79’ Yes 61’ Yes 60’ Yes 23 Queues are based on SimTraffic 95th Percentile methodology. 24 A storage of 555-feet is provided under existing traffic conditions while a storage of 215-feet represents the distance between the limit line and the proposed project driveway. 25 Please note that a right-turn storage is 100-feet with a 60-foot transition. Alternatively, subject to review and approval of City staff, an option southbound through/right lane in addition to the proposed southbound right-turn lane can be striped to provide additional queuing storage. 1 - 197 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-19-4141-1 4th and Cabrillo Mixed-Use Project, Santa Ana N:\4100\2194141 - 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use, Santa Ana\Report\4141 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use Center Point TIA, Santa Ana 7-30-2020.doc 54 10.3 Internal Circulation Evaluation Access to the site is proposed via a right-turn in/out driveway along 4th Street. Access for small service/delivery trucks (i.e. UPS, FedEx, and trash trucks) and passenger vehicles for the Project site have been evaluated. Our evaluation of the on-site circulation shown on the Project site plan was performed using the Turning Vehicle Templates, developed by Jack E. Leisch & Associates and AutoTURN for AutoCAD computer software that simulates turning maneuvers for various types of vehicles. Figure 10-1 illustrates the turning movements required of a small delivery truck (SU-30) as it accesses the site from 4th Street. Review of Figure 10-1 shows overall the turning movements are considered adequate. After reviewing the design of Project Driveway 2 along 4th Street, it has been determined that the driveway throating is considered adequate. 10.4 Sight Distance Evaluation At intersections and/or project driveways, a substantially clear line of sight should be maintained between the driver of a vehicle waiting at the crossroad and the driver of an approaching vehicle. Adequate time must be provided for the waiting vehicle to either cross all lanes of through traffic, cross the near lanes and turn left, or turn right, without requiring through traffic to radically alter their speed. A sight distance evaluation has been performed for both project driveways. The Sight Distance Evaluation prepared for the project driveways are based on the criteria and procedures set forth by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the State’s Highway Design Manual (HDM). Corner sight distance was utilized for the evaluation. Corner sight distance is defined in the Caltrans HDM to be the distance required by the driver of a vehicle, traveling at a given speed, to maneuver their vehicle and avoid an object without radically altering their speed. Line of sight for corner sight distance is to be determined from a 3½ foot height at the location of the driver of a vehicle on a minor road to a 4¼ foot object height in the center of the approaching lane of the major road. Based on the criteria set forth in Table 405.1A of the Caltrans HDM and a posted speed limit of 25 mph on Park Court Place, a corner sight distance of 275 feet is required for left-turn at Project Driveway 1 and 239 feet for right-turn at Project Driveway 1. Based on the criteria set forth in Table 405.1A of the Caltrans HDM and a posted speed limit of 40 mph on 4th Street, a corner sight distance of 382 feet is required for right-turn at Project Driveway 2. Figure 10-2 presents the results of the sight distance evaluation for the Project driveways based on the application of the corner sight distance criteria. The figure illustrates the limited use areas. As shown, the sight lines at the proposed Project driveways are expected to be adequate as long as obstructions within the sight triangles are minimized. 1 - 198 1 - 199 1 - 200 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-19-4141-1 4th and Cabrillo Mixed-Use Project, Santa Ana N:\4100\2194141 - 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use, Santa Ana\Report\4141 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use Center Point TIA, Santa Ana 7-30-2020.doc 55 11.0 RECOMMENDED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS For those intersections where projected traffic volumes are expected to result in unacceptable operating conditions, this report recommends (identifies) improvement measures that change the intersection geometry to increase capacity. These capacity improvements involve roadway widening and/or re-striping to reconfigure (add lanes) to specific approaches of a key intersection. The identified improvements are expected to: ▪ mitigate the impact of existing traffic, Project traffic and future non-project (ambient traffic growth and cumulative project) traffic and ▪ improve Levels of Service to an acceptable range and/or to pre-project conditions. 11.1 Planned and/or Recommended Improvements 11.1.1 Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions The results of the intersection capacity analyses presented previously in Table 8-1 shows that the proposed Project is expected to have a significant impact at one (1) of the twenty-five (25) key study intersections under Existing Plus Project traffic conditions. As such, the following intersection improvements are recommended to mitigate the impacts of the proposed Project under these conditions. ▪ No. 13 – SR-55 SB Ramps at Fourth Street: Modify the eastbound shared through/right- turn lane to construct a free-right turn lane. Modify the existing traffic signal as necessary. This improvement is subject to the review and approval of the City of Santa Ana and Caltrans. Per City requirements, the Project may be expected to pay a fair-share/local fee to cover the Project’s fair share of the full construction costs needed to implement these mitigation measures. 11.1.2 Year 2025 Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Conditions The results of the intersection capacity analyses presented previously in Table 8-2 shows that the proposed Project is expected to have a significant impact at two (2) of the twenty-five (25) key study intersections under Year 2025 Cumulative Plus Project traffic conditions. As such, the following intersection improvements are recommended to mitigate the impacts of the proposed Project under these conditions. No. 8 – I-5 NB Ramps at Fourth Street: Construct an additional westbound right-turn lane. Modify the existing traffic signal as necessary, inclusive any modifications to the traffic signal phasing. This improvement is consistent with the Traffic Impact Study for the Metro East Overlay Zone in the City of Santa Ana. This improvement is subject to the review and approval of the City of Santa Ana and Caltrans. The proposed Project is expected to pay the full construction cost needed to implement these mitigation measures, which are reflected in the Project site plan and is considered a “design feature”. ▪ No. 13 – SR-55 SB Ramps at Fourth Street: Same as those identified in Section 11.1.1 – Modify the eastbound shared through/right-turn lane to construct a free-right turn lane. Modify the existing traffic signal as necessary. This improvement is subject to the review and 1 - 201 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-19-4141-1 4th and Cabrillo Mixed-Use Project, Santa Ana N:\4100\2194141 - 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use, Santa Ana\Report\4141 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use Center Point TIA, Santa Ana 7-30-2020.doc 56 approval of the City of Santa Ana and Caltrans. Per City requirements, the Project may be expected to pay a fair-share/local fee to cover the Project’s fair share of the full construction costs needed to implement these mitigation measures. 11.1.3 Year 2040 Buildout Plus Project Traffic Conditions The results of the intersection capacity analyses presented previously in Table 8-3 shows that the proposed Project is expected to have a significant impact at two (2) of the twenty-five (25) key study intersections under Year 2040 Buildout Plus Project traffic conditions. As such, the following intersection improvements are recommended to mitigate the impacts of the proposed Project under these conditions. ▪ No. 8 – I-5 NB Ramps at Fourth Street: Same as those identified in Section 11.1.2 – Construct an additional westbound right-turn lane. Modify the existing traffic signal as necessary inclusive any modifications to the traffic signal phasing. This improvement is consistent with the Traffic Impact Study for the Metro East Overlay Zone in the City of Santa Ana. This improvement is subject to the review and approval of the City of Santa Ana and Caltrans. The proposed Project is expected to pay the full construction cost needed to implement these mitigation measures which are reflected in the Project site plan and is considered a “design feature”. ▪ No. 13 – SR-55 SB Ramps at Fourth Street: Same as those identified in Sections 11.1.1 and 11.1.2 – Modify the eastbound shared through/right-turn lane to construct a free-right turn lane. Modify the existing traffic signal as necessary. This improvement is subject to the review and approval of the City of Santa Ana and Caltrans. Per City requirements, the Project may be expected to pay a fair-share/local fee to cover the Project’s fair share of the full construction costs needed to implement these mitigation measures. 11.2 Project-Specific Improvements The following improvements are being implemented as part of the proposed Project, which the Project is expected to pay the full construction costs: ▪ No. 9 – Cabrillo Park Drive at Fourth Street: Construct an exclusive southbound right- turn lane. Modify the existing traffic signal as necessary. This improvement, which has been incorporated in the Project site plan as a Project “design feature” is subject to the review and approval of the City of Santa Ana. As an alternative to the above mentioned improvement, subject to review and approval of City staff, an option southbound through/right lane in addition to the proposed southbound right-turn lane is proposed to minimize the southbound right-turning vehicles from impeding the through traffic. 11.3 Recommended Circulation Enhancement The following improvements are recommended to be implemented to enhance circulation within the Project Vicinity, thereby maintaining acceptable operating conditions: 1 - 202 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-19-4141-1 4th and Cabrillo Mixed-Use Project, Santa Ana N:\4100\2194141 - 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use, Santa Ana\Report\4141 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use Center Point TIA, Santa Ana 7-30-2020.doc 57 ▪ No. 25 – Cabrillo Park Drive at Park Court Place: Install two-phase traffic signal and implement all necessary signing and striping improvements. This improvement is subject to the review and approval of the City of Santa Ana. Figure 11-1 graphically illustrates the recommended and project specific improvements, as well as recommended circulation enhancements. Figure 11-2 presents a conceptual improvement plan for 4th Street between the I-5 NB Ramps and Cabrillo Park Drive that illustrates recommended signage and striping to inform motorists of availability of lanes to access the I-5 NB ramps and/or continue on 4th Street. The improvements are consistent with those recommended in Section 10.2 of this report. Please note that the proposed Project may be expected to pay the full construction cost needed to implement the signage and striping for the proposed freeway wayfinding at 4th Street and Cabrillo Park Drive. However, it is assumed that the City and/or Caltrans will provide maintenance of these improvements. 11.4 Project-Related Fair-Share Contribution The transportation impacts associated with the development of the Project were determined based on the Existing Plus Project, Year 2025 and Year 2040 Buildout traffic analyses. As summarized in Tables 8-1, 8-2 and 8-3, the development of the Project is anticipated to have a significant impact at two (2) locations. While the proposed Project is expected to pay the full constructions costs for the intersection of I-5 NB Ramps/Fourth Street, the Project can be expected to pay its fair share of the improvement costs at the intersection of SR-55 SB Ramps/Fourth Street to offset the Project’s incremental traffic impact at these intersections. Although the intersection of Cabrillo Park Drive/Park Court Place is not considered significantly impacted, it was determined that the implementation of improvements at this location would help improve the level of service at this location, thereby enhancing access and circulation through this intersection for local area traffic as well as Project-related traffic. Therefore, based on collaboration with City staff, the proposed Project is expected to pay the full construction cost or install a traffic signal at this location. Table 11-1 presents the Project’s fair-share contribution to construct the recommended improvements at the two (2) study intersections. As presented in this Table 11-1, the first column (1) presents a total of all intersection peak hour movements for existing conditions. The second column (2) presents Project-related added traffic volumes during AM peak hour and PM peak hour. The third column (3) presents Year 2040 Buildout traffic conditions with Project traffic. The fourth column (4) represents what percentage of total added intersection peak hour traffic is Project-related traffic. Review of Table 11-1 shows that the proposed Project’s percentage of net traffic impact ranges from 12.30% to 100.00%. This percentage represents the Project’s “fair-share” cost responsibility associated with the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. 1 - 203 1 - 204 1 - 205 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-19-4141-1 4th and Cabrillo Mixed-Use Project, Santa Ana N:\4100\2194141 - 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use, Santa Ana\Report\4141 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use Center Point TIA, Santa Ana 7-30-2020.doc 58 TABLE 11-1 YEAR 2040 BUILDOUT PROJECT FAIR-SHARE COST CONTRIBUTION Key Intersection City/ Jurisdiction Time Period (1) Existing Traffic (2) Project Traffic (3) Year 2040 Buildout Plus Project Traffic (4) Project Fair-Share Percent26 13. SR-55 SB Ramps at 4th Street Santa Ana/ Caltrans AM 3163 78 3,797 12.30% PM -- -- -- -- 25. Cabrillo Park Drive at Park Court Place Santa Ana AM -- -- -- -- PM -- -- -- 100.00%27 26 Project fair-share percentage Column (4) = [Column (2)] / [Column (3) – Column (1)]. 27 As the intersection is not considered significantly impacted, the installation of the two-phase traffic signal shall be fully paid by the Project or the Project will implement the improvement. 1 - 206 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-19-4141-1 4th and Cabrillo Mixed-Use Project, Santa Ana N:\4100\2194141 - 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use, Santa Ana\Report\4141 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use Center Point TIA, Santa Ana 7-30-2020.doc 59 12.0 CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (CMP) COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENT This analysis is consistent with the requirements and procedures outlined in the current Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP). The CMP requires that a traffic impact analysis be conducted for any project generating 2,400 or more daily trips, or 1,600 or more daily trips for projects that directly access the CMP Highway System (HS). As noted in Section 5.0 of this traffic study, the proposed Project is forecast to generate approximately 4,121 daily trip-ends and thus meets the criteria requiring a CMP TIA. The CMPHS includes specific roadways, which include State Highways and Super Streets, which are now known as Smart Streets. Therefore, the CMP TIA analysis requirements relate to the potential impacts only on the specified CMPHS, which in this case includes First Street west of the I-5 SB On-Ramp. As described in the "Radius of Development Influence" section of the CMP TIA, the study area (i.e. CMP intersections) is recommended to be defined by the CMP links which have a project impact of three percent, or more, of their daily LOS "E" capacity. There is one (1) CMP intersection in close proximity to the site which is as follows: Study Intersection Location 13 I-5 SB On-Ramps at First Street Table 12-1 summarizes the Project percentage impact CMP analysis for three (3) key roadway segments in the vicinity of the proposed Project along First Street. Column one (1) of Table 12-1 shows the CMP LOS “E” Capacity for each roadway segment, column two (2) shows the Project ADT for each roadway segment, column three (3) shows the Project ADT LOS "E" capacity percentages for each roadway segment and column (4) shows whether or not added project traffic meets or exceeds the “three percent” limit. Review of Table 12-1 shows that the three percent limit is not exceeded at any of the three (3) key roadway segments and therefore a CMP analysis is not required. 1 - 207 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-19-4141-1 4th and Cabrillo Mixed-Use Project, Santa Ana N:\4100\2194141 - 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use, Santa Ana\Report\4141 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use Center Point TIA, Santa Ana 7-30-2020.doc 60 TABLE 12-1 PROJECT PERCENTAGE RADIUS OF INFLUENCE CMP ANALYSIS Roadway Segment (1) CMP LOS “E” Capacity (2) Project ADT (3) Percentage (3) = (2)  (1) (4) Radius of Influence (Yes/No) 1. First Street, west of Elk Lane/Mabury Street 56,300 206 0.4% No 2. First Street, between Elk Lane/Mabury Street and I-5 SB On-Ramp 56,300 495 0.9% No 3. First Street, between I-5 SB On-Ramp and Cabrillo Park Drive 56,300 515 0.9% No 1 - 208 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-19-4141-1 4th and Cabrillo Mixed-Use Project, Santa Ana N:\4100\2194141 - 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use, Santa Ana\Report\4141 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use Center Point TIA, Santa Ana 7-30-2020.doc 61 13.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ▪ Project Description – The Project site is an 8.35-acre vacant parcel of land within the Metro East Mixed Use Overlay Zone that is generally located north of 4th Street, east of the Santa Ana (I-5) freeway, and west of Cabrillo Park Drive. The proposed Project includes the development of up to 644 apartment units, 3,500 SF restaurant uses and 11,700 SF of retail space. The proposed Project will provide a total of 1,300 parking spaces within two buildings along with 18 surface parking spaces. “Building A” is proposed as a five-story apartment podium with up to 325 apartment homes consisting of approximately 19 (±5.8%) studio units, 162 (±49.8%) one-bedroom units, 121 (±37.2%) two-bedroom units and 23 (±7.1%) three-bedroom units and approximately 6,100 SF of ground floor retail/commercial space and 3,500 SF restaurant space “wrapped” around an eight-level partial subterranean parking structure with a total of approximately 650 spaces along with 9 ground floor spaces for retail/leasing. “Building B” is proposed as a five-story apartment podium with up to 319 apartment homes consisting of approximately 20 (±6.3%) studio units, 164 (±51.4%) one- bedroom units, 127 (±39.8%) two-bedroom units and 8 (±2.5%) three-bedroom units and approximately 5,600 SF of ground floor retail/commercial space “wrapped” around an eight- level partial subterranean parking structure with a total of approximately 650 spaces along with 9 ground floor spaces for retail/leasing. On-site facilities/amenities of the proposed Project include a leasing office, a lounge/lobby, business center, pool/spa, and a fitness center for residents. Vehicular access to the proposed Project will be provided via one (1) full access unsignalized driveway along Park Court Place and one (1) right in/out only driveway located along 4th Street. As part of the proposed Project, an exclusive southbound right-turn lane will be constructed at the intersection of Cabrillo Park Drive/4th Street. Additionally, the project’s curb face is planned to be set back far enough to accommodate improvements at I-5 NB Ramps/4th Street, which include the construction of an additional right-turn lane. ▪ Study Scope – The following twenty-five (25) key study intersections were selected for detailed peak hour level of service analyses under Existing Traffic Conditions, Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions, Year 2025 Cumulative Traffic Conditions, Year 2025 Cumulative plus Project, Year 2040 Buildout Traffic Conditions, and Year 2040 Buildout Plus Project Traffic Conditions. Key Study Intersections 1. Elk Lane at First Street (Santa Ana) 14. SR-55 NB Ramps at 4th Street (Tustin/Caltrans) 2. I-5 SB On-Ramp at First Street (Santa Ana/Caltrans) 15. Yorba Street at 4th Street (Tustin) 3. Cabrillo Park Drive at First Street (Santa Ana) 16. Cabrillo Park Drive at State Fund Access Road (Santa Ana) 4. Golden Circle Drive at First Street (Santa Ana) 17. Cabrillo Park Drive at Xerox Center Access Road (Santa Ana) 5. Tustin Avenue at First Street (Tustin) 18. Cabrillo Park Drive at 17th Street (Santa Ana) 6. Yorba Street at First Street (Tustin) 19. Cabrillo Park Drive at Wellington Avenue (Santa Ana) 1 - 209 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-19-4141-1 4th and Cabrillo Mixed-Use Project, Santa Ana N:\4100\2194141 - 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use, Santa Ana\Report\4141 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use Center Point TIA, Santa Ana 7-30-2020.doc 62 7. I-5 SB On-Ramp/Mabury Street at 4th Street (Santa Ana/Caltrans) 20. Tustin Avenue at Wellington Avenue (Santa Ana) 8. I-5 NB Ramps at 4th Street (Santa Ana/Caltrans) 21. Mabury Street at Fruit Street (Santa Ana) 9. Cabrillo Park Drive at 4th Street (Santa Ana) 22. Cabrillo Park Drive at Fruit Street (Santa Ana) 10. Golden Circle Drive at 4th Street (Santa Ana) 23. Park Center Drive at Fruit Street (Santa Ana) 11. Park Center Drive at 4th Street (Santa Ana) 24. Tustin Avenue at Fruit Street (Santa Ana) 12. Tustin Avenue at 4th Street (Santa Ana) 25. Cabrillo Park Drive at Park Court Place (Santa Ana) 13. SR-55 SB Ramps at 4th Street (Santa Ana/Caltrans) ▪ Existing Traffic Conditions – Twenty-four (24) of the twenty-five key study intersections currently operate at an acceptable level of service during the AM and PM peak hours. The intersection of SR-55 SB Ramps/4th Street currently operates at unacceptable LOS E during the AM peak hour. ▪ Project Trip Generation – The proposed Project, after adjustment for internal capture, is forecast to generate approximately 4,121 “net” daily trips, with 264 “net” trips (82 inbound, 182 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and 344 “net” trips (205 inbound, 139 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour on a “typical” weekday. ▪ Related Projects Traffic Characteristics – Thirty (30) related projects were considered as part of the cumulative background setting. The thirty (30) related projects are forecast to generate 45,942 daily trips, with 3,033 trips (1,458 inbound, 1,575 outbound) anticipated during the AM peak hour and 3,837 trips (1,927 inbound, 1,910 outbound) produced during the PM peak hour. ▪ Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions – Traffic associated with the proposed Project will significantly impact one (1) of the twenty-five study intersections, when compared to the LOS standards and significant impact criteria specified in this report. The impacted intersection of SR- 55 SB Ramps/4th Street is forecast to operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour. The remaining study intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable level of service during the AM and PM peak hours. The implementation of recommended improvements at the intersection will help offset the Project’s impact ▪ Year 2025 Cumulative Traffic Conditions Plus Project – Traffic associated with the proposed Project will significantly impact two (2) of the twenty-five study intersections, when compared to the LOS standards and significant impact criteria specified in this report, which include I-5 NB Ramps/4th Street and SR-55 SB Ramps/4th Street. The remaining study intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable level of service during the AM and PM peak hours. The implementation of recommended improvements at the intersection will help offset the Project’s impact. ▪ Year 2040 Buildout Traffic Conditions Plus Project – Traffic associated with the proposed Project will significantly impact two (2) of the twenty-five study intersections, when compared to the LOS standards and significant impact criteria specified in this report, which include I-5 NB Ramps/4th Street and SR-55 SB Ramps/4th Street. The remaining study intersections are 1 - 210 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-19-4141-1 4th and Cabrillo Mixed-Use Project, Santa Ana N:\4100\2194141 - 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use, Santa Ana\Report\4141 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use Center Point TIA, Santa Ana 7-30-2020.doc 63 forecast to operate at acceptable level of service during the AM and PM peak hours. The implementation of recommended improvements at the intersection will help offset the Project’s impact. ▪ Caltrans Existing Traffic Conditions – The intersection of SR-55 SB Ramps/4th Street currently operates at unacceptable LOS F in the AM peak hour. The remaining state-controlled study intersections currently operate at LOS C or better during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. ▪ Caltrans Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions – The intersection of SR-55 SB Ramps/4th Street will continue to operate at unacceptable LOS F in the AM peak hour with the addition of project traffic. The remaining state-controlled study intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable LOS C or better during the weekday AM and PM peak hours, with the addition of project traffic. Although the intersection of SR-55 SB Ramps/4th Street is forecast to operate at unacceptable LOS F in the AM peak hour, the intersection is not considered significantly impacted when compared to the LOS standards and significant impact criteria specified in this report. ▪ Caltrans Year 2025 Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Conditions – The intersection of SR-55 SB Ramps/4th Street will continue to operate at unacceptable LOS F in the AM peak hour with the addition of project traffic. The remaining state-controlled study intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable LOS C or better during the weekday AM and PM peak hours, with the addition of project traffic. Although the intersection of SR-55 SB Ramps/4th Street is forecast to operate at unacceptable LOS F in the AM peak hour, the intersection is not considered significantly impacted when compared to the LOS standards and significant impact criteria specified in this report. ▪ Caltrans Year 2040 Buildout Plus Project Traffic Conditions – The intersection of SR-55 SB Ramps/4th Street will continue to operate at unacceptable LOS F in the AM peak hour with the addition of project traffic. The remaining state-controlled study intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable LOS C or better during the weekday AM and PM peak hours, with the addition of project traffic. Although the intersection of SR-55 SB Ramps/4th Street is forecast to operate at unacceptable LOS F in the AM peak hour, the intersection is not considered significantly impacted when compared to the LOS standards and significant impact criteria specified in this report. ▪ Queuing Analysis – Based on field observation it is apparent that congestion occurs at Cabrillo Park Drive/4th Street as a result of vehicles trying to enter the westbound right-turn lane along 4th Street. Due to the recommended second westbound right-turn lane along 4th Street, additional improvements are recommended for the northbound and southbound approaches at Cabrillo Park Drive/4th Street. The additional recommended improvements consist of the following: 1 - 211 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-19-4141-1 4th and Cabrillo Mixed-Use Project, Santa Ana N:\4100\2194141 - 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use, Santa Ana\Report\4141 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use Center Point TIA, Santa Ana 7-30-2020.doc 64 ➢ Add signage to the northbound direction along with lane line extensions to direct the motorist in the left turn lane that they can enter the inner right-turn lane for access to the I-5 NB Ramp. The northbound left/thru lane should have signage and lane extensions to direct the motorist to use the outer right-turn lane for access to the I-5 NB Ramp. These improvements are subject to the review and approval of the City of Santa Ana. With the implementation of improvements, the queues are generally adequate under Year 2040 Buildout Plus Project traffic conditions during both the AM and PM peak hours. However, the southbound right-turn lane at Cabrillo Park Drive/4th Street may exceed the storage provided. As an alternative, subject to review and approval of City staff, an option southbound through/right lane in addition to the proposed southbound right-turn lane can be striped to provide additional queuing storage. The implementation of the recommended improvements also helps to improve congestion and limit unnecessary weaving/merging of vehicles that need to enter the I-5 NB Ramp. However, in the event that Fourth Street experiences “spikes” in congestion during the weekday AM and PM peak hours, residents will very likely re-route themselves (self-monitor) and utilize the northern Driveway on Park Court Place instead of the driveway on Fourth Street. The intersections of Cabrillo Park Drive/Park Court Place and Cabrillo Park Drive/Fourth Street have enough capacity to accommodate the additional trips. ▪ Existing Plus Project Recommended Improvements – The following intersection improvements are recommended to mitigate the impacts of the proposed Project under these conditions. ➢ No. 13 – SR-55 SB Ramps at Fourth Street: Modify the eastbound shared through/right- turn lane to construct a free-right turn lane. Modify the existing traffic signal as necessary. This improvement is subject to the review and approval of the City of Santa Ana and Caltrans. Per City requirements, the Project may be expected to pay a fair-share/local fee to cover the Project’s fair share of the full construction costs needed to implement these mitigation measures. ▪ Year 2025 Cumulative Plus Project Recommended Improvements – The following intersection improvements are recommended to mitigate the impacts of the proposed Project under these conditions. ➢ No. 8 – I-5 NB Ramps at Fourth Street: Construct an additional westbound right-turn lane. Modify the existing traffic signal as necessary inclusive any modifications to the traffic signal phasing. This improvement is consistent with the Traffic Impact Study for the Metro East Overlay Zone in the City of Santa Ana. This improvement is subject to the review and approval of the City of Santa Ana and Caltrans. The proposed Project is expected to pay the full construction cost needed to implement these mitigation measures. ➢ No. 13 – SR-55 SB Ramps at Fourth Street: Modify the eastbound shared through/right- turn lane to construct a free-right turn lane. Modify the existing traffic signal as necessary. 1 - 212 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-19-4141-1 4th and Cabrillo Mixed-Use Project, Santa Ana N:\4100\2194141 - 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use, Santa Ana\Report\4141 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use Center Point TIA, Santa Ana 7-30-2020.doc 65 This improvement is subject to the review and approval of the City of Santa Ana and Caltrans. Per City requirements, the Project may be expected to pay a fair-share/local fee to cover the Project’s fair share of the full construction costs needed to implement these mitigation measures. ▪ Year 2040 Buildout Plus Project Recommended Improvements – The following intersection improvements are recommended to mitigate the impacts of the proposed Project under these conditions. ➢ No. 8 – I-5 NB Ramps at Fourth Street: Construct an additional westbound right-turn lane. Modify the existing traffic signal as necessary inclusive any modifications to the traffic signal phasing. This improvement is consistent with the Traffic Impact Study for the Metro East Overlay Zone in the City of Santa Ana. This improvement is subject to the review and approval of the City of Santa Ana and Caltrans. The proposed Project is expected to pay the full construction cost needed to implement these mitigation measures. ➢ No. 13 – SR-55 SB Ramps at Fourth Street: Modify the eastbound shared through/right- turn lane to construct a free-right turn lane. Modify the existing traffic signal as necessary. This improvement is subject to the review and approval of the City of Santa Ana and Caltrans. Per City requirements, the Project may be expected to pay a fair-share/local fee to cover the Project’s fair share of the full construction costs needed to implement these mitigation measures. ▪ Project Specific Improvements – The following improvements are being implemented as part of the proposed Project, which the Project is expected to pay the full construction costs: ➢ No. 9 – Cabrillo Park Drive at Fourth Street: Construct an exclusive southbound right-turn lane. Modify the existing traffic signal as necessary. This improvement is subject to the review and approval of the City of Santa Ana. As an alternative to the above mentioned improvement, subject to review and approval of City staff, an option southbound through/right lane in addition to the proposed southbound right-turn lane is proposed to minimize the southbound right-turning vehicles from impeding the through traffic. ▪ Recommended Circulation Enhancement: The following improvements, which are expected to be implemented or paid for by the Project, are recommended to be implemented to enhance circulation within the Project Vicinity, thereby maintaining acceptable operating conditions: ➢ No. 25 – Cabrillo Park Drive at Park Court Place: Install two-phase traffic signal and implement all necessary signing and striping improvements. This improvement is subject to the review and approval of the City of Santa Ana. 1 - 213 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-19-4141-1 4th and Cabrillo Mixed-Use Project, Santa Ana N:\4100\2194141 - 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use, Santa Ana\Report\4141 4th & Cabrillo Mixed-Use Center Point TIA, Santa Ana 7-30-2020.doc 66 ▪ Project-Related Fair-Share Contribution – The proposed Project’s percentage of net traffic impact ranges from 12.30% to 100.00%. This percentage represents the Project’s “fair-share” cost responsibility associated with the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. ▪ CMP Compliance Assessment – The three percent limit is not exceeded at any of the three (3) key roadway segments and therefore a CMP analysis is not required. 1 - 214 EXHIBIT 13 1 - 215 MARKET & FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSES FOR A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT IN SANTA ANA, CA (4TH & CABRILLO PARK DRIVE) FINAL REPORT AUGUST 10, 2020 PREPARED FOR: ARNEL DEVELOPMENT CO. 369 SAN MIGUEL DRIVE, SUITE 265 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 PHONE 949.717.6450 251 KEARNY STREET, 6TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 PHONE 415.397.5490 1170 PEACHTREE STREET NE, SUITE 1200 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30309 PHONE 404.879.5000 641 LEXINGTON AVENUE, SUITE 1400 NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10022 PHONE 646.354.7090 11 - 216 ARNEL DEVELOPMENT CO. May 2020 Santa Ana – 4th & Cabrillo Park Drive 20233.00 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY MARKET ANALYSIS 1. Recommendations 2. MF Rent Positioning A. Rent to Size Graph B. Absolute Rent 3. Retail / Office Rent Positioning 4. Project Location A. Regional B. Median Income C. Local Setting D. Surrounding Land Uses E. Traffic Counts 5. Site Plan 6. Demographics 7. MF Macro-Market Performance A. Inventory & Deliveries B. Occupancy & Rents 8. MF Inventory A. Location & Performance B. Vacancy by Unit Type C. Floor Plan Mix D. Amenities 9. Retail Performance 10. Office Performance 11. Mixed-Use Analogs FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS APPENDIX A. Survey – Apartments B. Survey – Retail Leases C. ULI – Emerging Trends in Real Estate 21 - 217 The Concord Group EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 31 - 218 Arnel Development Co. August 2020 Santa Ana – 4th & Cabrillo Park Dr 20233.00 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ To: Arnel Development Co. From: The Concord Group Date: August 2020 Re: Market & Fiscal Impact Analyses for a Mixed-Use Development in Santa Ana, CA (4th & Cabrillo Park Dr) ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Arnel Development Co. (“Arnel”) is evaluating the development potential of a mixed-use project in the central Orange County community of Santa Ana. The project site is located at the eastern edge of the city, immediately opposite Interstate 5. The project is planned for 644 upscale apartment units and 15,200 square feet of commercial space, in a five-story building. In support of strategic planning and underwriting due diligence, Arnel required market and fiscal impact input to identify the highest and best use of the project under the current MEMU zoning and demonstrate the financial viability of the development. To this end, The Concord Group (“TCG”) and RSG were engaged to conduct market and fiscal feasibility analyses for the project. The following text highlights the key findings and conclusions generated by the analysis, supported by an exhibit package of tables, maps and graphs. Project Overview  The project is well located near Interstate 5, Southern California’s primary north / south connector, and is just over a mile from the city’s Downtown and associated food, dining, service and employment amenities (Exhibit 4).  A total of 644 apartments are planned in a five-story building with 15,200 square feet of ground floor retail, located at the northwest corner of 4th Street and Cabrillo Park Drive (Exhibits 1 and 5).  The project’s elevated regional accessibility, close proximity to Downtown’s cultural amenities and major County job nodes, combined with a top-of-market community amenity and interior unit specification package, merits a near top-of-market multi-family rent positioning strategy (Exhibit 2).  The scale of the commercial retail planned within the project’s mixed-use context is in alignment with other multi-family focused mixed-use projects in Orange County, who’s commercial retail footprints range from 8,500 to 14,000 SF (Exhibit 11). 41 - 219 The Concord Group ARNEL DEVELOPMENT CO. August 2020 Santa Ana – 4th & Cabrillo Park Dr 20233.00 Marketability The project’s marketing strengths are as follows:  Regional Accessibility – the project site is easily accessible to the target renter and consumer base, with freeway and rail access each less than a mile away (Exhibit 4C).  Proximity to Jobs – several major Orange County office employment nodes are within a five-mile radius of the project, including Downtown Santa Ana, South Coast Metro, Irvine Business Complex and Town and Country, driving demand for both apartments and commercial space.  Cultural and Entertainment Amenities – the Project is located proximate to the city’s Downtown and Artists Village, home to numerous galleries and popular restaurants that possess regional draws (Exhibit 4C).  Shortage of State-of-the-Art Apartments – Santa Ana is under-supplied with Class A rental apartment product, evidenced by high rates of occupancies and rapid rent growth over the past five years (Exhibit 7). The project’s marketing challenges are as follows:  Distressed Retail Environment – the rise of e-commerce has had a significant negative impact on “brick- and-mortar” retailers, leading to store closures across the retail landscape. The negative effects of e-commerce have been especially apparent during the current pandemic which has served to accelerate store closings and overall retail contraction (Appendix C). Apartment Market Performance  TCG surveyed eight comparable rental projects in the CMA, representing best-in-class product in the cities of Santa Ana, Costa Mesa, Irvine, Tustin, Orange and Anaheim (Exhibit 8A).  The average base rent (ie. an average of the lowest listed rent for each floorplan, excluding premiums for views, orientation and elevation) of the eight comparables surveyed is $2,606, or $2.88 per square foot (“PSF”) – top of market rents include Skyloft (average base rent of $3,024, $3.32 PSF) and Eleven 10 ($2,571, $3.12). 51 - 220 The Concord Group ARNEL DEVELOPMENT CO. August 2020 Santa Ana – 4th & Cabrillo Park Dr 20233.00  The overall rental apartment market is performing strongly, evidenced by: o Surveyed occupancy of 94% in stabilized projects (ie. not in lease-up), slightly below 95% stabilization, but high relative the Covid-19 market environment (Exhibit 8A). o Elevated rent growth – rents in Santa Ana have increased an average of 4.0% per year since 2014 (Exhibit 7B). Commercial Market Performance  Neither 4th Street nor Cabrillo Park Drive are established retail corridors in the project’s neighborhood around I-5 (Exhibit 4D).  The local 3-mile radius trade area is in general equilibrium, with 44 SF of retail per capital, a ratio on par with the County average (also 44, per Exhibit 6).  There has been limited demand for new retail in the site’s 3-mile radius trade area. While the trade area has added only 100,000 SF of new retail 10-years (current inventory of 12.2M SF), occupancy has not changed during the timeframe (Exhibit 9)  The mixed-use character of the multi-family driven projects is limiting to the overall scale of retail opportunity. Successful, large-scale commercial retail projects require anchor tenancy (grocery, department store, etc), a characteristic that cannot be met within the mixed-us context of the site. o Two of the three analog mixed-use multi-family / commercial projects surveyed suffer from poor occupancy, each below 50% (Exhibit 11). o The two low occupancy analogs share both a similar walk score as the subject (60-69 range) and overall scale (13,000 SF average) (Exhibit 11).  Without a critical mass of retail near the site, the project will be challenged to attract a significant scale of retail tenancy.  The 15,200 SF of commercial retail planned is at the upper end of the range supportable on site o Target tenant types will require smaller unit footprints, ranging from 500 to 2,500 SF. o Target tenant types include hairdressers, dry cleaners, craft food store, small professional service businesses, etc. 61 - 221 The Concord Group ARNEL DEVELOPMENT CO. August 2020 Santa Ana – 4th & Cabrillo Park Dr 20233.00 Apartment Rent Recommendations  TCG recommends an average base rent of $2,731, or $3.14 PSF, placing the project at the near the top of the CMA (Exhibit 2B).  Rent premium garners for elevation, courtyard and views generate an additional $82 in premium revenue for an average project rent of $2,813 ($3.23 PSF). Commercial Rent Recommendations  In-line commercial tenancy will achieve rents ranging from $28 to $32 PSF per year (NNN), in line with mixed-use analogs (Appendix B) and at the top of the local 4th Street / Irvine Boulevard commercial corridor. 71 - 222 The Concord Group ARNEL DEVELOPMENT CO. August 2020 Santa Ana – 4th & Cabrillo Park Dr 20233.00 Market Conclusions  The current development plan represents the highest and best use for the project.  Multi-family residential possesses the greatest level of marketability of the MEMU permitted land uses. A regional under-supply of Class A residences is evidenced by high rates of occupancy and rent growth within the product type (Exhibit 7B). The project location, just of I-5 and proximate to Downtown Santa Ana, will be highly desirable to prospective residents seeking convenient access to both jobs and entertainment.  The modest scale of commercial land uses planned is appropriate for the mixed-use orientation of the project. The scale of commercial (15,200) is in alignment with similar scope, multi-family anchored projects elsewhere in Orange County (Exhibit 11). Fiscal Impact Findings (RSG)  The multi-family / commercial mixed-use development at the site will provide significantly more fee and tax revenue to the City of Santa Ana as compared to the existing office land use: o Approximately $41.3 million ($23.1 million in net present value [2020 dollars], discounted at four percent) in additional City General Fund Revenue, including construction period revenues, recurring site-specific tax and other project revenues o Approximately $541,400 in property tax revenue per year, as opposed to the current $11,700. The site development would generate approximately $10.3 million after 25 years (discounted) o Over the same 25-year period, the City General Fund expenditures associated with the project total $7.0 million (discounted) o As a result, the net new General Fund revenue is projected to be approximately $28.1 million ($16.1 million in 2020 dollars) from the acquisition and development of the project  The Development will generate more revenue to the City in one year than the existing use is projected to generate over the next 25 years 81 - 223 The Concord Group ARNEL DEVELOPMENT CO. August 2020 Santa Ana – 4th & Cabrillo Park Dr 20233.00 Net New Recurring General Fund Fiscal Impacts The entire fiscal impact study, in detail, is available for review in Section II of this report. * * * * This assignment was completed by Michael Reynolds in association with RSG. We have enjoyed working with you on this assignment and look forward to our continued involvement. 91 - 224 The Concord Group MARKET ANALYSIS 101 - 225 EXHIBIT 1 RECOMMENDATIONS SANTA ANA - CENTRAL POINTE MAY 2020 Project Summary Location:• Central Orange County, in the City of Santa Ana ◦Santa Ana is the County seat, with county, state and federal offices all located in Downtown ◦Eastern edge of the city, just east of I-5, at the northwest corner of 4th Street and Cabrillo Park Drive • I-5, the West Coast's primary north/south connector, directly fronts the site, connecting renters to major job centers throughout Orange and LA Counties ◦Santa Ana Metrolink Station is just under a mile northeast of the property, linking the site to Southern California's growing rail hub • Downtown Santa Ana, a major regional food and entertainment destination, is just over a mile west of the project Description:• 644 apartment units and 15,200 of street level retail in two 5 story, wrap style buildings ◦7 stories of parking (with semi-sub); some street front surface parking for retail ◦8.35-acre site - 80.9 dwelling units per acre • Extensive community amenity program include two roof top courtyards with pools and large community park central to the project • Interior unit specifications on par with best-in-class, Orange County Class "A" rental market Marketability Metrics Market •Regional Accessibility ◦I-5 and the Santa Ana Metrolink Station are both proximate to the site Strengths: •Proximity to ◦In addition to downtown Santa Ana, multiple major Orange County employment cores are located within a White Collar Jobs five-mile radius, including South Coast Metro, Irvine Business Complex and Anaheim/Orange •Arts and Dining ◦Project is located proximate to the city's Artists Village, home to numerous galleries and popular restaurants that Destination possess regional draws •Lack of Class A ◦The city is under-supplied with luxury, "Class A" apartment product Institutional Supply ◦Santa Ana's gentrification to date has focused primarily on retail and office redevelopment ◦Indicative of the City's housing shortage, the City boasts a jobs to housing ratio of 1.2, higher than the County average of 1.1 Market •Distressed ◦The rise of e-commerce has had a significant negative impact on “brick- and-mortar” retailers, leading to store Challenges Retail Environment closures across the retail landscape. The negative effects of e-commerce have been especially apparent during the current pandemic which has served to accelerate store closings Multi-Family Program & Recommended Rents Positioning • Subject site base rents are positioned slightly below the top of upscale, low-rise competitive set in Central Orange County Thesis:◦Top-of-market positioning is merited by the project's downtown Santa Ana location, Orange County's only authentic, walkable Downtown neighborhood, accessibility to the 5 freeway, planned high level of amenities, and interior unit specifications ◦Average base rent of $3.14 PSF positions the project generally in line with Eleven 10 ($3.12), a project with a superior location in the Platinum Triangle in Orange Arnel Program TCG Recommended Rents MF Unit Mix Den/Unit Base Rent Avg. Premium Average Rent Program: Floorplan Num. Perc. Beds Loft Bath Size $ $/sf $ % $ $/sf S1 19 3% 0 --- 1 518 $2,080 $4.02 $62 3.0% $2,142 $4.14 S2 20 3% 0 --- 1 543 $2,120 $3.90 $64 3.0% $2,184 $4.02 1B - 1 122 19% 1 --- 1 683 $2,425 $3.55 $73 3.0% $2,498 $3.66 1B - 2 176 27% 1 --- 1 726 $2,485 $3.42 $75 3.0% $2,560 $3.53 1B - 3 3 0% 1 --- 1 728 $2,590 $3.56 $78 3.0% $2,668 $3.66 1B - 5 5 1% 1 --- 1 750 $2,545 $3.39 $76 3.0% $2,621 $3.50 1B - 4 20 3% 1 --- 1 752 $2,550 $3.39 $77 3.0% $2,627 $3.49 2B - 1 140 22% 2 --- 2 1,066 $3,061 $2.87 $92 3.0% $3,153 $2.96 2B - 3 68 11% 2 --- 2 1,071 $3,069 $2.87 $92 3.0% $3,162 $2.95 2B - 2 40 6% 2 --- 2 1,148 $3,195 $2.78 $96 3.0% $3,291 $2.87 3B - 1 25 4% 3 --- 3 1,274 $3,400 $2.67 $102 3.0% $3,502 $2.75 3B - 2 6 1% 3 --- 3 1,339 $3,680 $2.75 $110 3.0% $3,790 $2.83 Total 644 100%560,650 $1,758,803 $1,811,567 Average 871 $2,731 $3.14 $82 $2,813 $3.23 Commercial Program and Recommended Rents Commercial • TCG recommends an average rent of $30 PSF per year (NNN) for the 15,200 SF of retail Program:• Rent recommendations are in line with mixed-use analogs in Orange County - namely Pinnacle at MacArthur Place (local to Santa Ana) and Pinnacle at Fullerton (downtown Fullerton address) • Recommended rents are positioned at the top of the 4th Street / Irvine Boulevard corridor • TCG projects a slow to moderate paced lease-up, based primarily on the relative low rate of occupancy at the Pinnacle at MacArthur Place project 20233.00 RecComps: Rec The Concord Group 11 1 - 226 EXHIBIT 2AMF RENT POSITIONING - RENT TO SIZE GRAPHSANTA ANA, COSTA MESA, ORANGE AND TUSTINMAY 2020Source: Appendix A$1,800$1,900$2,000$2,100$2,200$2,300$2,400$2,500$2,600$2,700$2,800$2,900$3,000$3,100$3,200$3,300$3,400$3,500$3,600$3,700$3,800$3,900$4,000500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,2001,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700TCG - Central PointeBroadstone Arden (2020)The Charlie (2019)Nineteen01 (2016)Amalfi (2014)Residences on Jamboree (2017)Skyloft Apartments (2019)AMLI Uptown Orange (2016)Eleven 10 (2018)Color = LocationRed = Santa Ana / Costa MesaBlue = IrvineGreen = Anaheim / Orange728 SF floor plan has premium due to elevation1,339 SF floor plan has premium due to elevation20233.00 RecComps: RSThe Concord Group121 - 227 EXHIBIT 2BMF RENT POSITIONING - ABSOLUTE RENTSANTA ANA, COSTA MESA, ORANGE AND TUSTINMAY 2020Rents listed are "base" - an average of the lowest listed rents per floorplanProject Averages (Size and List Rent)Unit Mix Overall Studios One-Bedrooms Two-BedroomsMap Year (by Bed Count) Unit Base Rent Unit Base Rent Unit Base Rent Unit Base RentKeyProject Name UnitsBuiltOcc.012Size $ $/sfSize $ $/sfSize $ $/sfSize $ $/sf1-Bed SortABroadstone Arden335202026%26%19%53%1,023$3,063$2.99800$2,676$3.34881$2,769$3.141,157$3,312$2.86FSkyloft Apartments388201919%8%54%36%910$3,024$3.32571 $2,531 $4.43768$2,713$3.531,165$3,513$3.02TCG - Central Pointe871 $2,731 $3.14 531 $2,101 $3.96 712 $2,468 $3.47 1,081 $3,085 $2.85HEleven 10260 2018 93% 21% 51% 28% 825 $2,571 $3.12 515 $2,103 $4.08 764$2,463$3.22 1,167 $3,118 $2.67GAMLI Uptown Orange 334 2016 93% 3% 45% 51% 930 $2,663 $2.86 570 $2,101 $3.69 782$2,307$2.95 1,071 $2,986 $2.79DAmalfi542 2014 95% 12% 69% 19% 785 $2,268 $2.89 584 $2,035 $3.48 748$2,242$3.00 1,046 $2,510 $2.40EResidences on Jamboree 381 2017 96% 18% 43% 33% 897 $2,447 $2.73 690 $1,994 $2.89 724$2,132$2.95 1,134 $2,906 $2.56BThe Charlie 228201913%10%40%42%875$2,373$2.71 542$1,848$3.41 708$2,060$2.91 1,048$2,633$2.51CNineteen01261 2016 90% 0% 46% 50% 1,072 $2,495 $2.33 --- --- --- 831$2,056$2.47 1,235 $2,804 $2.27Total/Average:2,729 2017 68% 12% 48% 37% 904 $2,606 $2.88 645 $2,236 $3.47 765 $2,329 $3.04 1,130 $3,010 $2.66Excluding Lease-Ups:1,77894%2-Bed SortFSkyloft Apartments388201919%8%54%36%910$3,024$3.32571 $2,531 $4.43768$2,713$3.531,165$3,513$3.02ABroadstone Arden335202026%26%19%53%1,023$3,063$2.99800$2,676$3.34881 $2,769$3.141,157$3,312$2.86HEleven 10260 2018 93% 21% 51% 28% 825 $2,571 $3.12 515 $2,103 $4.08 764 $2,463 $3.22 1,167$3,118$2.67TCG - Central Pointe871 $2,731 $3.14 531 $2,101 $3.96 712 $2,468 $3.47 1,081 $3,085 $2.85GAMLI Uptown Orange 334 2016 93% 3% 45% 51% 930$2,663 $2.86 570 $2,101 $3.69 782 $2,307 $2.95 1,071$2,986$2.79EResidences on Jamboree 381 2017 96% 18% 43% 33%897 $2,447 $2.73 690 $1,994 $2.89 724 $2,132 $2.95 1,134$2,906$2.56CNineteen01261 2016 90% 0% 46% 50% 1,072 $2,495 $2.33 --- --- --- 831 $2,056 $2.47 1,235$2,804$2.27BThe Charlie 228201913%10%40%42%875$2,373$2.71 542$1,848$3.41 708$2,060$2.91 1,048$2,633$2.51DAmalfi542 2014 95% 12% 69% 19% 785 $2,268 $2.89 584 $2,035 $3.48 748 $2,242 $3.00 1,046$2,510$2.40Studio SortABroadstone Arden335202026%26%19%53%1,023$3,063$2.99800$2,676$3.34881 $2,769$3.141,157$3,312$2.86FSkyloft Apartments388201919%8%54%36%910$3,024$3.32571$2,531$4.43768$2,713$3.531,165$3,513$3.02HEleven 10260 2018 93% 21% 51% 28% 825 $2,571 $3.12 515$2,103$4.08 764 $2,463 $3.22 1,167 $3,118 $2.67TCG - Central Pointe871 $2,731 $3.14 531 $2,101 $3.96 712 $2,468 $3.47 1,081 $3,085 $2.85GAMLI Uptown Orange334201693%3%45%51%930$2,663$2.86570$2,101$3.69782$2,307$2.951,071 $2,986$2.79DAmalfi542 2014 95% 12% 69% 19% 785 $2,268 $2.89 584$2,035$3.48 748 $2,242 $3.00 1,046 $2,510 $2.40EResidences on Jamboree 381 2017 96% 18% 43% 33% 897 $2,447 $2.73 690$1,994$2.89 724 $2,132 $2.95 1,134 $2,906 $2.56BThe Charlie 228201913%10%40%42%875$2,373$2.71 542$1,848$3.41 708$2,060$2.91 1,048$2,633$2.51Source: Appendix AColor = LocationRed = Santa Ana / Costa MesaBlue = Irvine / TustinGreen = Anaheim / Orange20233.00 RecComps: PosThe Concord Group131 - 228 EXHIBIT 3RETAIL / OFFICE RENT POSITIONINGORANGE COUNTY AND LOCAL THREE-MILE TRADE AREAJANUARY 2017 THROUGH JULY 2020 - 3.5-YEARSSource: Appendix B$16$18$20$22$24$26$28$30$32$34TCG - Retail / ServicesCreekside Plaza17400 Irvine Blvd2000 E. 4th St17772 Irvine Blvd17671 Irvine Blvd1901 E. 4th StPinnacle at MacArthur PlacePinnacle at FullertonPositioning - Annual Lease RateColor = LocationRed = Local 4th St / Irvine Blvd CorridorBlue = Mixed Use Analogs20233.00 RecComps: rPosThe Concord Group141 - 229 EXHIBIT 4APROJECT LOCATION - REGIONALORANGE COUNTYMAY 2020Map: MaptitudeThe subject site is located in the city of Santa Ana (dark maroon shading), the County seat and its geographic center.Anaheim/OrangeFullertonIrvineCostaMesaSanta Ana20233.00 Maps: RegThe Concord Group151 - 230 EXHIBIT 4BPROJECT LOCATION - MEDIAN INCOMEORANGE COUNTYMAY 2020Source: ESRI3-MileRadius1-MileRadiusMedian Income ($)20233.00 Maps: IncomeThe Concord Group161 - 231 EXHIBIT 4CPROJECTION LOCATION - LOCAL SETTINGSANTA ANA / TUSTINMAY 2020Map: BingMapsDowntownSanta AnaOld TownTustinMetrolinkStationI-555Freeway20233.00 Maps: LocalThe Concord Group171 - 232 EXHIBIT 4DPROJECTION LOCATION - SURROUNDING LAND USESSANTA ANAMAY 2020Map: BingMaps20233.00 Maps: AerialThe Concord Group181 - 233 EXHIBIT 4EPROJECTION LOCATION - TRAFFIC COUNTSSANTA ANAMAY 2020Map: CoStar20233.00 Maps: TrafficThe Concord Group191 - 234 EXHIBIT 5SITE PLAN4TH AND CABRILLO - SANTA ANAMAY 202020233.00 Maps: SitePlanThe Concord Group201 - 235 EXHIBIT 6 DEMOGRAPHICS ORANGE COUNTY 2019 Local Radii 1.0-Mile 3.0-Mile Santa Ana Orange County U.S. Geography:Num. Perc. Num. Perc. Num. Perc. Num. Perc. Num. Perc. Population 2019 34,761 280,411 340,347 3,252,459 332,417,793 2024 35,921 287,653 349,390 3,368,861 345,487,602 Gr./ Yr. 232 0.7% 1,448 0.5% 1,809 0.5% 23,280 0.7% 2,613,962 0.8% Households 2010 9,395 71,438 73,123 992,781 116,716,292 2019 9,853 73,769 75,607 1,060,886 125,168,557 Gr./ Yr. 51 0.5% 259 0.4%276 0.4% 7,567 0.7% 939,141 0.8% 2024 10,107 75,335 77,346 1,095,455 129,922,162 Gr./ Yr. 51 0.5% 313 0.4%348 0.5% 6,914 0.6% 950,721 0.7% Renters ('19)6,615 67% 41,031 56% 41,674 55% 458,189 43% 45,709,279 37% HH Size ('19)3.5 3.8 4.5 3.1 2.7 1 Person 2,026 21% 12,535 17%9,533 13% 222,107 21% 33,464,681 27% 1-2 Persons 4,178 42% 29,106 39% 22,207 29% 532,561 50% 74,476,732 60% 3+ Persons 5,675 58% 44,663 61% 53,400 71% 528,325 50% 50,691,825 40% Family HHs 7,128 72% 56,102 76%61,665 82% 757,094 71% 83,153,401 66% Median Income (000s) 2019 $53 $67 $60 $88 $61 2024 $60 $78 $71 $103 $69 Gr./ Yr. $1.2 2.2% $2.3 3.3% $2.2 3.5% $2.9 3.0% $1.7 2.7% Income Profile ('19) Over $50K 5,396 55% 46,846 64% 45,254 60% 771,621 73% 73,892,464 59% Over $75K 3,124 32% 33,370 45% 29,958 40% 614,698 58% 51,974,116 42% Over $100K 1,732 18% 23,171 31% 19,230 25% 475,348 45% 36,152,986 29% Over $150K 706 7% 11,239 15% 7,697 10%269,674 25% 17,309,482 14% Over $200K 299 3% 5,690 8% 3,201 4%156,471 15% 9,153,435 7% Age Profile ('19) Median - Pop. 30 32 31 37 39 Householder Under 25 462 5% 2,556 3% 2,435 3% 30,673 3% 5,004,274 4% 25-34 2,032 21% 12,762 17% 13,551 18% 153,712 14% 19,381,040 15% 35-44 2,305 23% 15,575 21% 16,632 22% 190,990 18% 20,976,243 17% 45-54 1,984 20% 15,337 21% 16,677 22% 209,921 20% 22,103,882 18% 55-64 1,493 15% 12,785 17% 12,992 17% 207,275 20% 24,301,863 19% 65 Plus 1,576 16% 14,754 20% 13,321 18% 268,296 25% 33,399,611 27% Retail Inventory SF (000s) (QTD) 1,198 12,231 12,117 143,250 SF per Person 34 44 36 44 Source: ESRI 34 44 36 44 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Retail PSF Retail per Capita 1.0-Mile 3.0-Mile Santa Ana Orange County 20233.00 DemoRetail:DemoCL THE CONCORD GROUP 21 1 - 236 EXHIBIT 7AMF MACRO-MARKET PERFORMANCE - INVENTORY & DELIVERIESORANGE COUNTY2000 THROUGH FIRST QUARTER 2020YTD - Apr-20ValuesAnnualAnnual AverageU/Cin 000s2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 5-Yr 10-Yr 15-Yr 1Q20 Num. %InvJob GrowthOrange County 3.1%1.8%-0.7%1.9%2.0%2.4%1.9%-0.2%-2.0%-7.1%-1.2%1.2%2.7%2.7%2.3%3.2%2.6%2.1%2.0%1.3%0.9%Inventory (000s)Orange County 204.6 207.7 210.5 212.3 214.1 216.7 218.9 219.4 222.0 225.9 229.6 230.1 232.2 234.6 237.4 240.6 243.4 248.5 252.6 256.1260.4Santa Ana 19.7 19.7 19.9 19.9 19.9 19.9 19.9 19.7 19.8 20.1 20.1 20.1 20.1 20.0 20.3 20.3 20.5 20.6 20.8 20.822.2% County9.6%9.5% 9.5% 9.4% 9.3% 9.2% 9.1% 9.0% 8.9% 8.9% 8.7% 8.7% 8.6% 8.5% 8.6% 8.4% 8.4% 8.3% 8.2% 8.1%8.5%Completions (000s)YTDU/COrange County 1.66 4.89 0.70 2.52 1.71 2.82 1.51 0.90 3.85 5.77 1.150.09 3.34 2.64 2.98 3.47 2.07 5.62 4.22 5.07 4.09 3.28 3.03 1.65 3.221.2%Santa Ana 0.000.000.250.000.000.000.000.000.350.000.000.000.000.000.300.000.260.000.180.23 0.130.110.09 1.220.221.0%% County 0% 0% 36% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 9% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 0% 13% 0% 4% 4% 3% 3% 3% 74% 7%Source: Jobs - BLS; Apartment - CoStar (for projects that are 5+ units) Note: "U/C" - under construction-8%-6%-4%-2%0%2%4%6%8%01,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,0008,0002000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019Completions (bar) and Job Growth (line)Santa AnaRem. Orange CountyOrange County (left axis)20233.00 Macro: ScaleThe Concord Group221 - 237 EXHIBIT 7BMF MACRO-MARKET PERFORMANCE - OCCUPANCY & RENTSORANGE COUNTY2000 THROUGH FIRST QUARTER 2020ValuesHistoricalAnnual Average1-Yearin 000s2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 5-Yr 10-Yr 15-Yr 1Q19 1Q20Job GrowthOrange County 3.1% 1.8% -0.7% 1.9% 2.0% 2.4% 1.9% -0.2% -2.0% -7.1% -1.2% 1.2% 2.7% 2.7% 2.3% 3.2% 2.6% 2.1% 2.0% 1.3%0.9%Asking Rent ($)Orange County 1,238 1,302 1,321 1,328 1,358 1,428 1,520 1,598 1,626 1,555 1,518 1,537 1,584 1,640 1,705 1,788 1,875 1,938 1,988 2,050 2,013 2,053Gr/Yr 5.2% 1.4% 0.5% 2.3% 5.1% 6.5% 5.1% 1.8% -4.4% -2.4% 1.3% 3.1% 3.5% 3.9% 4.9% 4.9% 3.4% 2.6% 3.1% 3.8% 2.8% 2.8% Y/Y: 2.0%Santa Ana 1,096 1,152 1,173 1,183 1,204 1,260 1,339 1,403 1,425 1,367 1,331 1,353 1,395 1,439 1,512 1,590 1,669 1,731 1,779 1,838 1,813 1,859Gr/Yr 5.1% 1.8% 0.8% 1.8% 4.6% 6.3% 4.8% 1.6% -4.1% -2.6% 1.6% 3.1% 3.2% 5.0% 5.2% 5.0% 3.7% 2.8% 3.3%4.0%3.0% 2.9% Y/Y: 2.5%Asking Rent ($/SF)Orange County 1.41 1.49 1.51 1.52 1.55 1.63 1.74 1.83 1.86 1.78 1.73 1.75 1.81 1.87 1.95 2.04 2.15 2.22 2.27 2.34 2.30 2.35Gr/Yr 5.3% 1.3% 0.5% 2.3% 5.3% 6.4% 5.0% 1.9% -4.6% -2.4% 1.2% 3.1% 3.6% 4.0% 4.9% 5.0% 3.4% 2.5% 3.1% 3.8% 2.8% 2.8% Y/Y: 2.2%Santa Ana 1.32 1.39 1.41 1.43 1.45 1.52 1.62 1.70 1.72 1.65 1.61 1.63 1.69 1.74 1.83 1.92 2.02 2.09 2.15 2.22 2.19 2.25Gr/Yr 5.1% 1.8% 0.9% 1.9% 4.6% 6.4% 4.8% 1.5% -4.2% -2.6% 1.7% 3.2% 3.0% 5.2% 5.3% 5.1% 3.6% 2.7% 3.3%4.0%3.0% 2.9% Y/Y: 2.7%OccupancyOrange County 97% 96% 95% 95% 95% 96% 96% 95% 95% 94% 94% 94% 95% 95% 96% 95% 96% 95% 95% 95% 96% 95% 95% 95.1% 94.0%Santa Ana 98% 97% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96% 95% 94% 95% 96% 96% 96% 96% 97% 96% 96% 96%95%96% 96% 96% 95.4% 90.9%Source: Jobs - BLS; Apartment - CoStar (for projects that are 5+ units)5%2%1%2%5%6%5%2%-4%-3%2%3%3%5%5%5%4%3%3%-8.0%-6.0%-4.0%-2.0%0.0%2.0%4.0%6.0%8.0%-8%-6%-4%-2%0%2%4%6%8%2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019Rent Growth (bar) and Job Growth (line)Santa AnaOrange CountyOrange County ( right axis)20233.00 Macro: RentThe Concord Group231 - 238 EXHIBIT 8A MF INVENTORY - LOCATION & PERFORMANCE SANTA ANA, COSTA MESA, ORANGE AND TUSTIN MAY 2020 Rents listed are "base" - an average of the lowest listed rents per floorplan Project Averages (Size and List Rent) Unit Mix Overall Studios One-Bedrooms Two-Bedrooms Map Year (by Bed Count) Unit Base Rent Unit Base Rent Unit Base Rent Unit Base Rent Key Project Name Units Built Occ. 0 1 2 Size $ $/sf Size $ $/sf Size $ $/sf Size $ $/sf F Skyloft Apartments 388 2019 19%8%54%36%910 $3,024 $3.32 571 $2,531 $4.43 768 $2,713 $3.53 1,165 $3,513 $3.02 H Eleven 10 260 2018 93% 21% 51% 28% 825 $2,571 $3.12 515 $2,103 $4.08 764 $2,463 $3.22 1,167 $3,118 $2.67 A Broadstone Arden 335 2020 26%26%19%53%1,023 $3,063 $2.99 800 $2,676 $3.34 881 $2,769 $3.14 1,157 $3,312 $2.86 D Amalfi 542 2014 95% 12% 69% 19% 785 $2,268 $2.89 584 $2,035 $3.48 748 $2,242 $3.00 1,046 $2,510 $2.40EResidences on Jamboree 381 2017 96% 18% 43% 33% 897 $2,447 $2.73 690 $1,994 $2.89 724 $2,132 $2.95 1,134 $2,906 $2.56 G AMLI Uptown Orange 334 2016 93% 3% 45% 51% 930 $2,663 $2.86 570 $2,101 $3.69 782 $2,307 $2.95 1,071 $2,986 $2.79 B The Charlie 228 2019 13%10%40%42%875 $2,373 $2.71 542 $1,848 $3.41 708 $2,060 $2.91 1,048 $2,633 $2.51 C Nineteen01 261 2016 90% 0% 46% 50% 1,072 $2,495 $2.33 --- --- --- 831 $2,056 $2.47 1,235 $2,804 $2.27 Total/Average: 2,729 2017 68% 12% 48% 37% 904 $2,606 $2.88 645 $2,236 $3.47 765 $2,329 $3.04 1,130 $3,010 $2.66 Excluding Lease-Ups:1,778 94% Source: Appendix A Color = Location Red = Santa Ana / Costa Mesa Blue = Irvine / Tustin Green = Anaheim / Orange 20233.00 RecComps: Inv The Concord Group 24 1 - 239 EXHIBIT 8BMF INVENTORY - VACANCY BY UNIT TYPESANTA ANA, COSTA MESA, ORANGE AND TUSTINMAY 2020Vacancy RateYear 1BUnit SizesUnit CountUnit MixVac- By Unit TypeProject NameBuilt $/SF Units 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 ancy 0 1 2 3Eleven 102018 $3.22 260 515 764 1,167 --- 55 133 73 0 21% 51% 28% 0% 7% 4% 1% 0% ---Amalfi2014 $3.00 542 584 748 1,046 --- 65 374 103 0 12% 69% 19% 0% 5% 0% 5% 13% ---Residences on Jamboree2017 $2.95 381 690 724 1,134 1,452 69 164 126 23 18% 43% 33% 6% 4% 3% 2% 4% 13%AMLI Uptown Orange2016 $2.95 334 570 782 1,071 1,418 10 150 170 4 3% 45% 51% 1% 7% 10% 8% 5% 0%Nineteen012016 $2.47 261 --- 831 1,235 1,799 0 121 130 11 0% 46% 50% 4% 10% --- 3% 7% 18%Total/Average:2016 $2.88 1,778 601 762 1,127 1,092 198 941 601 38 11% 53% 34% 2% 6% 3% 4% 6% 13%(1) Excludes projects in Lease-up(2) Represents availability of units as per leasing agents and community websitesSource: Appendix A2.5%4.1%5.8%13.3%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%0.0%2.0%4.0%6.0%8.0%10.0%12.0%14.0%Studio1-Bed2-Bed3-BedVacancy (bar, left axis)Mix of Inventory (circle, right axis)Color = LocationRed = Santa Ana / Costa MesaBlue = Irvine / TustinGreen = Anaheim / Orange20233.00 RecComps: VacThe Concord Group251 - 240 EXHIBIT 8CMF INVENTORY - FLOOR PLAN MIXSANTA ANA, COSTA MESA, ORANGE AND TUSTINMAY 2020Units by Rent Range (Base)BedUnder $2,000 $2,100 $2,200$2,300 $2,400 $2,500 $2,600 $2,700 $2,800 $2,900 $3,000 $3,100 $3,200 $3,300 $3,400 $3,500 $3,600 $3,700$3,800TotalCount$2,000 $2,100 $2,200 $2,300 $2,400 $2,500 $2,600 $2,700 $2,800 $2,900 $3,000 $3,100 $3,200 $3,300 $3,400 $3,500 $3,600 $3,700 $3,800PlusNum. Share092876500223100220000220000034012%Share27% 26% 19% 0% 0% 6% 9% 0% 0% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%1851662482101965115387504008000800041,30448%Share7% 13% 19% 16% 15% 4% 12% 7% 4% 3% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%200001631001079178983392107916637310181,01437%Share0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6% 10% 11% 9% 8% 10% 3% 9% 11% 9% 6% 4% 3% 0% 2%30000000000000992082222 713%Share 0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%12%12%28%11%3%3%30%Total177 252 313 210 197 135 283 194 141 141 98 41 92 116 122 94 45 33 2 43 2,729 100%Cumulative6% 16% 27% 35% 42% 47% 57% 65% 70% 75% 78% 80% 83% 88% 92% 95% 97% 98% 98% 100%Units by Floor Plan Size RangeBedUnder 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1,000 1,050 1,100 1,150 1,200 1,250 1,300 1,350 1,400 1,450 1,500TotalCount600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1,000 1,050 1,100 1,150 1,200 1,250 1,300 1,350 1,400 1,450 1,500 Plus Num. Share02030722200220022000000000034012%Share60% 0% 21% 6% 0% 0% 6% 0% 0% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%127101944142852444237311200080000001,30448%Share2% 1% 15% 32% 22% 19% 3% 3% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%20000000054146249231197544702202131,01437%Share0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 14% 25% 23% 19% 5% 5% 0% 2% 0% 0% 1%300000000000001800028322 713%Share 0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%25%0%0%0%40%5%31%Total230 10 266 435 285 244 64 37 85 179 249 231 197 79 47 0 22 28 5 35 2,729 100%Cumulative8% 9% 19% 34% 45% 54% 56% 58% 61% 67% 76% 85% 92% 95% 97% 97% 98% 99% 99% 100%Source: Appendix A050100150200250300350$2,000-$2,100$2,200-$2,300$2,400-$2,500$2,600-$2,700$2,800-$2,900$3,000-$3,100$3,200-$3,300$3,400-$3,500$3,600-$3,700$3,800-PlusUnit Count by Rent Range (Base)Studio1 Bed2 Bed3+ Bed20233.00 RecComps: MixThe Concord Group261 - 241 EXHIBIT 8D MF INVENTORY - AMENITIES SANTA ANA, COSTA MESA, ORANGE AND TUSTIN MAY 2020 Project:Nineteen01 Broadstone Arden Eleven 10 Community Summary City Santa Ana Santa Ana Orange Address 1901 E 1st St 1951 E Dyer Road 1110 W. Town and Country Rd Year Built 2016 2020 2018 Elevation555 Units 261 335 260 Average Rent ($)$2,495 $3,063 $2,571 Average Rent ($/sf)$2.33 $2.99 $3.12 % 1-Beds 46%19%51% % 2-Beds 50%53%28% Community Amenities Concierge Service No Yes Yes Business Center Yes Yes Yes Conference Room No Yes Yes Fitness Center Yes Yes Yes + Outdoor Athletic Terrace Cardio Room Combined Spin Studio Combined Weight Room Combined Yes Combined Yoga/Stretch Room ---Yes Outdoor Area Game Room Yes Outdoor, Ping Pong / Billiards Billiards / Shuffleboard Kitchen/Clubhouse Catering Kitchen / Games Large, Catering Kitchen Catering Kitchen Pool Rooftop / Cabanas Resort Pool, Salt Room Resort-Style Pool and Spa Theater TV Room Outdoor Pool Theatre No Wi-Fi Yes Yes Yes Other Areas Car Wash Station Golf Simulator Pet Spa and Dog Park Pet Spa and Dog Park Coffee Lounge Amazon parcel locker system Outdoor Cabanas w/ TVs Day Spa Outdoor Cabanas Bike Storage Storage Units Interior Spec Kitchen Appliance Stainless Steel Stainless Steel Stainless Steel Counters Quartz/Marble Quartz Quartz Floor Wood-Grain Finish Wood Plank Style Wood-Style Cabinets Contemporary Contemporary Contemporary Backsplash Full Full Full Washer/Dryer In Unit Stacked Stacked Stacked Flooring (common)Wood-Grain Finish Wood Plank Style Wood-Style Balcony/Patio In most units Private Patios In most units Pictures 20233.00 RecComps: Amenities The Concord Group 27 1 - 242 EXHIBIT 9RETAIL PERFORMANCEORANGE COUNTY2006 THROUGH SECOND QUARTER 2020Annual Annual Average Quarterly Under Const.Period: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 5-Yr 10-Yr 1Q20 2Q20 Num. %InvInventory SF (MMs)Growth (#)Orange County 138.6 139.8 141.3 142.1 142.3 141.8 141.8 141.5 141.6 142.1 142.6 143.0 143.2 143.3 0.33 0.11 143.3 143.3 0.16 0.1%Santa Ana 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.1 12.112.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 (0.00) (0.01) 12.1 12.1 0.1 0.5%3.0-Mile 12.0 12.0 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.112.1 12.1 12.1 12.2 12.2 0.03 0.01 12.2 12.2 0.01 0.0%1.0-Mile 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.01 0.00 1.2 1.2 0.00 0.0%% Santa Ana 9% 9% 9% 10% 10% 9% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% -187% -24% 10% 10% 0%OccupancyOrange County 96.3% 96.6% 96.0% 94.2% 93.6%94.0% 93.9% 94.4% 95.4% 96.0% 96.2% 95.9% 96.2%96.2%96.1% 95.2% 96.0%95.8%Santa Ana 96.3% 96.8% 96.3% 95.4% 94.1% 94.2% 93.9% 93.4%94.9% 95.6% 95.8% 95.7% 96.6% 96.3% 96.0% 95.0% 95.9% 96.3%3.0-Mile 95.0% 96.7% 97.2% 95.8% 94.0% 93.8% 94.3% 94.1%94.9% 94.7% 94.6% 95.3% 96.6% 96.1% 95.4% 94.8% 95.8% 95.8%1.0-Mile 97.9% 97.6% 96.1% 92.4% 91.6% 92.0% 94.2% 94.9%92.7% 93.3% 96.1% 96.7% 97.7% 97.1% 96.1% 94.6% 97.3% 97.1%Absorption SF (000s)Orange County 987 1,965 (97) (2,323) (312) 100 295 790 1,206 1,685 47 145 716 (394) 440 428Santa Ana 134 64 60 (227) 3 (94) (5) 27 52 111 (43) (44) 134 (67) 18 73.0-Mile 96 276 46 (255) (102) 17 69 45 (87) 43 (24) 226 76 (74) 49 191.0-Mile 18 (12) (7) (0) (18) 7 46 (6) (42) 46 15 28 (1) 3 18 8Lease RateGrowth (%)Orange County $24 $27 $29 $26 $23 $22 $22 $22 $23 $24 $25 $26 $26 $27 3.8% 0.6% $28.26 $28.62Santa Ana $25 $26 $25 $22 $19 $19 $19 $18 $20 $22 $21 $23 $24 $26 4.8% 1.7% $26.97 $27.113.0-Mile $23 $24 $24 $21 $19 $19 $19 $19 $20 $22 $23 $23 $24 $25 5.4% 2.1% $26.37$25.801.0-Mile $16 $37 $31 $27 $22 $22 $22 $21 $23 $26 $25 $26 $26 $27 3.0% 0.1% $27.11$30.23Source: CoStar$0$5$10$15$20$25$30(300)(200)(100)01002003004002006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2Q203.0-Mile - Absorption (MMs SF) and Lease Rate ($/SF/Yr)AbsorptionLease Rate20233.00 DemoRetail: RetailThe Concord Group281 - 243 EXHIBIT 10OFFICE PERFORMANCEORANGE COUNTY2006 THROUGH SECOND QUARTER 2020Annual Annual Average Quarterly Under Const.Period: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 5-Yr 10-Yr 1Q20 2Q20 Num. %InvInventory SF (MMs)Growth (#)Orange County 146.3 149.8 153.2 153.9 153.9 154.0 154.4 154.0 154.7 154.9 155.4 156.5 158.1 158.9 0.83 0.50 159.1 159.1 1.38 0.9%Santa Ana 19.6 19.6 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.8 19.8 19.6 19.519.5 19.5 19.5 19.5 19.4 (0.02) (0.03) 19.4 19.4 0.0 0.0%3.0-Mile 21.6 21.7 21.8 21.9 22.0 22.0 22.0 21.8 21.721.8 21.8 21.9 21.9 21.9 0.03 (0.01) 21.8 21.8 0.19 0.9%1.0-Mile 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 0.00 (0.01) 5.4 5.4 0.00 0.0%% Santa Ana 27% 27% 27% 28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 0% 20% 28% 28%OccupancyOrange County 93.1% 91.1% 87.8% 86.0% 84.5%85.8% 87.0% 88.5% 89.1% 90.5% 91.4% 91.2% 90.5%90.4%90.8% 88.9% 90.4%90.3%Santa Ana 93.8% 92.3% 90.0% 87.8% 87.5% 88.0% 87.4% 86.9%87.0% 87.5% 87.6% 89.8% 90.1% 89.2% 88.8% 88.1% 88.5% 88.0%3.0-Mile 94.4% 93.6% 91.6% 90.5% 89.2% 89.3% 88.6% 88.4%89.5% 89.8% 88.8% 90.2% 91.0% 90.7% 90.1% 89.5% 90.7% 90.4%1.0-Mile 95.7% 93.5% 89.1% 87.3% 85.0% 86.2% 85.0% 86.5%88.1% 88.6% 89.1% 88.4% 89.2% 88.4% 88.7% 87.4% 87.7% 87.0%Absorption SF (000s)Orange County 700 (852) (1,001) (3,581) (472) 2,900 2,054 1,193 2,880 1,572 1,582 243 620 245 852 1,282Santa Ana 86 (586) (167) (338) 33 58 (25) (487) 244 (162) 393 333 (115) (392) 12 (12)3.0-Mile 276 (432) 47 (308) (128) 99 (285) (193) 463 (179) (8) 497 (61) (42) 41 161.0-Mile 154 (267) (43) (99) (4) 40 (55) 1 85 (43) 160 (77) (15) (53) (5) 4Lease RateGrowth (%)Orange County $28 $30 $29 $26 $24 $23 $22 $22 $24 $26 $27 $29 $31 $32 5.9% 2.0% $32.26 $32.76Santa Ana $24 $25 $25 $22 $21 $20 $19 $19 $20 $21 $22 $23 $25 $27 6.1% 1.9% $28.13 $27.823.0-Mile $23 $25 $24 $22 $21 $20 $19 $20 $21 $21 $22 $24 $26 $27 5.3% 1.9% $27.30$28.011.0-Mile $23 $23 $23 $23 $21 $19 $19 $19 $20 $21 $20 $22 $24 $26 5.2% 1.3% $28.24$28.69Source: CoStar$0$5$10$15$20$25$30(600)(400)(200)02004006002006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2Q203.0-Mile - Absorption (MMs SF) and Lease Rate ($/SF/Yr)AbsorptionLease Rate20233.00 DemoRetail: OfficeThe Concord Group291 - 244 EXHIBIT 11MIXED-USE ANALOGSSANTA ANA, LAGUNA HILLS AND FULLERTONMAY 2020Project Name Central Pointe Pinnacle at MacArthur Place Reata Oakbrook Village Pinnacle at FullertonCity Santa Ana Santa Ana Laguna Hills FullertonStreet 4th & Cabrillo Park Dr 31 E. MacArthur Cres24391 Avenida de la Carlota 229 E. Commonwealth AveProject DescriptionYear Built TBD 2001 2016 2004Elevation 5-stories 4-stories 4-stories 4-storiesApartments 644 253 289 192Retail (SF) 15,200 14,000 12,000 8,500ParkingGarage Wrap - 7-stories Semi-Sub Podium Semi-Sub Podium Semi-Sub PodiumStreet 20-spaces 25-spaces Unlimited Spaces 8-spacesRetail PerformanceOccupancyTBD 44% 30% 90%VisibilityPrimary Frontage Street 4th Street MacArthur BoulevardAvenida de la CarlotaCommonwealth AvenueWalk Score67636596Traffic Count23,00036,00015,00024,000PictureSource: CoStar; OCTA; TCG44%30%90%676365960204060801001200%20%40%60%80%100%Central PointePinnacle at MacArthur PlaceReata Oakbrook VillagePinnacle at FullertonBar = Retail Occupancy --- Circle = Walk Score20233.00 Analogs: SummThe Concord Group301 - 245 The Concord Group FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS 311 - 246 June 3, 2020 Via Electronic Mail Michael D. Reynolds, Principal THE CONCORD GROUP 369 San Miguel Drive, Suite 265 Newport Beach, CA 92660 DEVELOPMENT FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS CENTRAL POINTE MIXED-USE PROJECT, SANTA ANA Dear Mr. Reynolds: RSG, Inc. (“RSG”) was retained by The Concord Group (“TCG”) to perform a fiscal and economic impact analysis for the development of a proposed mixed-use apartment and retail project (“Project”) in Santa Ana, California. TCG obtained this analysis on behalf of the property owner/developer, Arnel & Waterford Property Company (“Developer”), which recently submitted an application for redevelopment of the subject property with the City of Santa Ana’s (“City”) Planning and Building Services Department. The Project site sits along 4th Street, between the Santa Ana (Interstate 5) Freeway (“I-5”) and Cabrillo Park Drive. The gross site area is approximately 8.35 acres, and is made up of four vacant parcels. If approved, the Project would consist of two five-story mixed-used buildings divided by a central park and open walk space. Attached to the buildings would be two seven-story parking structures. On the ground floor of each building would be a total 15,200 square feet of retail space. This letter describes our analysis, methodology, and anticipated recurring fiscal impacts resulting from development of the Project. As is typical at this stage, our conclusions could evolve as the application moves forward through the design and environmental review process. As is consistent with other Santa Ana projects analyzed by RSG, the construction period was assumed to be over three years. Part of the work would begin in 2021 (36 percent), with a majority taking place in 2022 (51 percent), leading to the remainder in 2023 (13 percent). The Project would open in the third construction year. Fiscal impacts from that year are reduced to reflect a partial year. Overall, RSG anticipates the following fiscal outcomes over a 25-year forecast period: • Gross General Fund revenues of approximately $23.1 million, (net present value, discounted at 4 percent), including: o $10.3 million (net present value, discounted at 4 percent) in net new property tax revenues to the City General Fund. o A combined $3.6 million in sales taxes that includes $1.8 million from the City’s base rate, as well as an additional $1.8 million from the City’s Measure X additional tax rate through the sunset in 2039 (net present value, discounted at 4 percent). 32 1 - 247 o A total of $23.1 million (net present value, discounted at 4 percent) in additional City General Fund revenue, including construction period revenues, recurring site- specific tax, and other Project impacts. • City General Fund expenditures associated with the Project total $7 million (net present value, discounted at 4 percent) • As a result, the net new General Fund revenue (revenues less expenditures) is projected to be approximately $16.1 million (net present value, discounted at 4 percent) if the Project were developed as proposed. Table 1 summarizes the 25-year fiscal impact of the Project. Table 2 provides the corresponding forecast of the same impacts on the following page. Table 1 Revenue Category Nominal NPV 4.0% Property Tax $ 18,505,380 $ 10,333,353 Property Tax In-Lieu 12,096,754 6,756,731 Utility User Tax 3,537,877 1,884,715 Sales Tax 3,479,170 1,853,440 Measure X (2018) Sales Tax Increase 2,753,009 1,786,920 Business Tax 927,121 493,901 Total Revenues $ 41,299,312 $ 23,109,059 Less City Expenditures $(13,214,039) $ (7,026,724) NET NEW REVENUE TOTAL $ 28,085,273 $ 16,082,335 25-Year Recurring NET NEW RECURRING GENERAL FUND FISCAL IMPACTS Central Pointe, Santa Ana Sources: City of Santa Ana, County of Orange, California State Board of Equalization, ESRI Business Analyst Online, and RSG, Inc. 33 1 - 248 Net New Property Tax Property Tax In-Lieu Utility User Tax Sales Tax Measure X (2018) Additional Sales Tax Business Tax Gross Revenue City Expenditures Net New Total CY1 2021 205,735$ 138,575$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 344,309$ -$ 344,309$ CY2 2022 462,569 302,985 - - - - 765,554 - 765,554 CY3 2023 529,747 346,150 91,766 90,244 135,366 24,048 1,217,321 (307,968) 909,354 1 2024 540,342 353,073 94,519 92,951 139,427 24,769 1,245,082 (353,986) 891,096 2 2025 551,149 360,135 97,355 95,740 143,609 25,512 1,273,500 (364,606) 908,895 3 2026 562,172 367,337 100,276 98,612 147,918 26,278 1,302,593 (375,544) 927,049 4 2027 573,416 374,684 103,284 101,570 152,355 27,066 1,332,375 (386,810) 945,565 5 2028 584,884 382,178 106,383 104,617 156,926 27,878 1,362,866 (398,414) 964,451 6 2029 596,582 389,821 109,574 107,756 161,634 28,715 1,394,081 (410,367) 983,714 7 2030 608,513 397,618 112,861 110,988 149,668 29,576 1,409,225 (422,678) 986,547 8 2031 620,684 405,570 116,247 114,318 154,158 30,463 1,441,440 (435,358) 1,006,082 9 2032 633,097 413,682 119,734 117,748 158,783 31,377 1,474,421 (448,419) 1,026,002 10 2033 645,759 421,955 123,326 121,280 163,546 32,318 1,508,186 (461,872) 1,046,314 11 2034 658,674 430,394 127,026 124,918 168,453 33,288 1,542,754 (475,728) 1,067,026 12 2035 671,848 439,002 130,837 128,666 173,506 34,287 1,578,146 (489,999) 1,088,147 13 2036 685,285 447,782 134,762 132,526 178,711 35,315 1,614,382 (504,699) 1,109,682 14 2037 698,990 456,738 138,805 136,502 184,073 36,375 1,651,483 (519,840) 1,131,642 15 2038 712,970 465,873 142,969 140,597 189,595 37,466 1,689,470 (535,436) 1,154,034 16 2039 727,230 475,190 147,258 144,815 195,283 38,590 1,728,366 (551,499) 1,176,867 17 2040 741,774 484,694 151,676 149,159 - 39,748 1,567,051 (568,044) 999,007 18 2041 756,610 494,388 156,226 153,634 - 40,940 1,601,798 (585,085) 1,016,713 19 2042 771,742 504,276 160,913 158,243 - 42,168 1,637,342 (602,638) 1,034,704 20 2043 787,177 514,361 165,740 162,990 - 43,433 1,673,702 (620,717) 1,052,985 21 2044 802,920 524,648 170,713 167,880 - 44,736 1,710,898 (639,338) 1,071,559 22 2045 818,979 535,141 175,834 172,916 - 46,078 1,748,949 (658,518) 1,090,431 23 2046 835,358 545,844 181,109 178,104 - 47,461 1,787,876 (678,274) 1,109,602 24 2047 852,066 556,761 186,542 183,447 - 48,885 1,827,700 (698,622) 1,129,078 25 2048 869,107 567,896 192,139 188,950 - 50,351 1,868,443 (719,581) 1,148,862 TOTAL 18,505,380$ 12,096,754$ 3,537,877$ 3,479,170$ 2,753,009$ 927,121$ 41,299,312$ (13,214,039)$ 28,085,273$ NPV 4.00%10,333,353$ 6,756,731$ 1,884,715$ 1,853,440$ 1,786,920$ 493,901$ 23,109,059$ (7,026,724)$ 16,082,335$ Inflation Rate 2.0% 2.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0%3.0% Year 25-YEAR NET NEW RECURRING FISCAL IMPACT PROJECTIONS Central Pointe, Santa Ana Table 2 34 1 - 249 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project site is situated just east of the I-5 Freeway on 4th Street at Cabrillo Park Drive, south of Parkcourt Place. The Project sits at the northern border of the MEMU zone. It is 1.7 miles east of Downtown Santa Ana. Santa Ana’s Saddleback View neighborhood lies across I-5 to the west while Marbury Park neighborhood is to the north. Office/professional uses are located to the east, and located south across 4th Street is the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 12 office building and other uses. The Project is also one block away from the relatively new Nineteen01 multifamily project at the corner of First Street and Cabrillo Park Drive. Figure 1 shows the location of the Project Site. Figure 1: Project Site Source: Google Maps According to the Developer this is the City’s Metro East Mixed-Use (“MEMU”) Overlay Zone, as well as its Active Urban District. The MEMU zone was created in 2007 by the Santa Ana Planning Commission to foster the development of more active commercial and residential projects. The zone encourages the construction of modern and urban architecture, with plentiful open space. Project Site 4th Street Cabrillo Park Drive Saddleback View Marbury Park I-5 Golden Circle Caltrans Parkcourt Place 35 1 - 250 As shown in Figure 2, the 576,000 square foot (gross building area) Project would result in the construction of 644 market rate multifamily units, 15,200 square feet of ground floor retail space, and two seven-story parking structures with a combined 1,318 spaces. Both buildings contain similar amenities. The eastern structure, building A, would host 318 units, 580 parking spaces, and retail space of 9,600 square feet. Five courtyards checker this building’s outdoor open space. The western structure (building B) would host 319 units and 638 parking spaces. The building would also have 5,600 square feet for retail on the ground floor. Just outside of the building would be open space divided into four courtyards, an Emergency Vehicle Access lane (“EVA”), a small dog run, and a park looking out on the I-5 Freeway. Between both buildings would be a resident park and paved pedestrian walkways leading to 4th Street and Parkcourt Place. Figure 2: Site Plan Source: KTGY Group Inc., Arnel & Waterford Property Co. Figure 3 presents a rendering of the project as currently proposed: 36 1 - 251 Figure 3 The proposed 644 unit market-rate project includes 39 studios (6 percent of all units), 326 one- bedroom (51 percent), 284 two-bedroom (39 percent), and 31 three-bedroom (5 percent) units. Figure 4 exhibits the unit mix: Figure 4 Source: KTGY Group Inc., Arnel & Waterford Property Co. Studio 39 1 BR 326 2 BR 248 3 BR 31 Central Pointe Unit Breakdown Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 37 1 - 252 RECURRING FISCAL IMPACTS Property Tax Revenue All property taxes in the state of California are levied at a rate of 1 percent. The City’s share of the 1 percent property tax levy is 19.4%, as provided by the County of Orange (“County”) Auditor-Controller. The Developer provided RSG with the Project costs that consisted of $42 million for land, and $203 million for hard and soft costs. This $245 million adjusted for inflation over the construction period, would amount to an assessed valuation of $279 million at buildout. To accurately portray the effect of the Project to the City, property tax revenues presented in this report are net of any existing revenues. The existing site is currently valued at $5.5 million. When adjusted for inflation over the construction period the value is $6 million, providing the City an estimated $11,691 in year 2023 absent the construction of the Project. The new development would provide $541,438 to the City in that same year. Therefore, the net new property tax revenues to the City would be $529,747 at buildout. Table 3 To project future property taxes, RSG assumed 2 percent inflation on property tax revenues over the 25-year projection period, resulting in $10.3 million (net present value, discounted at 4 percent) in net new property tax revenues for the City General Fund. Property Tax in-lieu of Motor Vehicle License Fee Revenue Established in 1935, the Motor Vehicle License Fee (“MVLF”) was essentially a tax on vehicle ownership. It is collected by the State annually when vehicles are registered and was historically allocated to cities and counties based upon a statutory formula. In 2004, during the State’s budget crisis, about 90 percent of each city’s MVLF revenue was replaced with property tax revenue, and cities in particular began to receive an allocation of property tax from the Educational Revenue NET NEW PROPERTY TAX REVENUE Central Pointe, Santa Ana At Buildout Existing Assessed Value 6,026,240$ Proposed Project Assessed Valuation1 279,091,931 Net New Value 273,065,691$ City Property Tax Rate 19.4% Annual Estimate Existing Property Tax Revenues 11,691$ New Property Tax Revenues 541,438$ Net New Property Tax Revenues 529,747$ Source: County of Orange Auditor Controller, RSG, Inc. 1 Inflated pursuant to the construction schedule 38 1 - 253 Augmentation Fund (“ERAF”) in an amount equal to what they would have received in MVLF under an older MVLF allocation formula. Under current law, the property tax in-lieu of MVLF revenue increases based on assessed value growth in a jurisdiction, so estimated revenues are based on changes in assessed value created by the Project. Based on the City’s 2019-20 secured property tax roll, the total assessed value of all Property in the City is $26.3 billion. When adjusting for inflation during the construction period, the Project’s net new assessed valuation ($273 million) increases the City’s assessed value by 1.06 percent. The MVLF increase from the Project is calculated from the percent increase in assessed value. This gives us $346,150 in estimated In-Lieu MVLF revenues at build-out (see Table 4). As depicted above, the City is expected to receive $6.8 million (net present value, discounted at 4 percent) in In-Lieu MVLF revenues through 2048. Table 4 Utility User Tax The City assesses a utility user tax of 5.5 percent on electricity, gas, water, and telephone revenues generated within Santa Ana. Utility costs were estimated by RSG based on a review of similar projects and utility costs in Orange County. Residential utility expenditures were assumed to be: $104 per month for phone, $75 for electricity, $23 for gas, and $38 for water. This amounts to $3,260 annually in 2020 dollars. From the Developer’s estimates of 15,200 square feet of retail, RSG was able to use US Energy Information Administration (“EIA”) estimates to extrapolate commercial utility expenses. Retail establishments average around $1.50 per square foot in energy expenses, amounting to $22,797 annually for the Project. Based on these assumptions, RSG estimates that utility user tax revenues generated by the Project, reduced to account for a partial year, would be an estimated $91,766 at buildout. This adds up to $1.9 million (net present value, discounted at 4 percent) over the 25-year projection period (see Table 2). Central Pointe, Santa Ana 2019-20 City Assessed Value 26,369,891,977$ Project Assessed Value 1 279,091,931 City Assessed Value with Project 26,648,983,908 Increase in Assessed Value 1.06% Santa Ana 2019-20 VLF 32,705,877 Santa Ana VLF with Project 33,052,028 Annual Estimate Property Tax In-lieu Revenue 346,150$ PROPERTY TAX IN-LIEU OF MOTOR VEHICLE LICENSE FEES Source: County of Orange Auditor Controller, RSG, Inc. 1 Inflated pursuant to the construction schedule 39 1 - 254 Table 5 showcases the Utility User Tax at buildout below. Table 5 Sales Taxes The Project is expected to increase sales taxes through both the new businesses and new residents. The methodology and assumptions for both differ but are necessary for accuracy. Resident-Derived Sales Tax To determine the resident share, RSG obtained average annual household expenditures for households within a 1-mile radius of the Project from ESRI Business Analyst. By adjusting the household expenditures based on taxable and non-taxable sales, RSG estimates that each household would spend an average of $17,836 at buildout. Based on experience with previous projects in the City, an estimated 60 percent of those expenditures would be subject to Santa Ana’s sales tax. The State and County sales tax receive 6 percent and 0.75 percent of taxable sales, respectively. In addition, the City levies its own sales tax at a rate of 1 percent. In 2018, Santa Ana voters approved an additional sales tax of 1.5 percent that would then decrease to 1 percent in 2029 until sunsetting in 2039. RSG took this increase into consideration when analyzing the affects the new residents would have on the City’s General Fund. Using ESRI’s Business Analyst Online software, RSG was able to estimate the amount of taxable expenditures the average new household would make in the City. That number was then multiplied by the number of occupied households (581). This provided an estimate of total taxable sales of $6.2 million. From there, the taxable sales were multiplied by both the City’s base tax rate and the Measure X additional rates (1 percent and 1.5 percent). Therefore, the residential derived sales tax revenue from the base tax rate is an estimated $62,205 at buildout. The Central Pointe, Santa Ana Energy Expenditures per Household 3,260$ Occupied Households 581 Total Residential Energy Expenses 1,894,998$ Total Commercial Energy Expenses1 22,797$ City Tax Rate 5.5% Full-Year Buildout Revenues 105,479$ Partial-Year Buildout Revenues 91,766$ UTILITY USER TAX REVENUE Sources: US Energy Information Administration, RSG, Inc., ESRI BAO 1EIA estimates of $1.50 per SF for Retail 40 1 - 255 additional tax from Measure X would yield $93,307 at buildout and decrease to $74,276 in 2029 (adjusted for 3% inflation) before ceasing in 2039. Table 6 Business-Derived Sales Tax The Project includes 15,200 square feet of retail space. The new businesses would generate sales taxes separate from the new residents. Since the Developer does not yet know the exact tenants that would fill the space, RSG estimated an average of $250 of sales per square foot for the space. As a result, the retail businesses would generate taxable sales of $3.8 million at buildout. RSG estimates the base sales tax revenues at buildout to be $41,524. Table 7 below presents this information. In addition, Measure X would generate $62,285 for that year as well. However, in 2029 Measure X revenues would decrease to $51,069 before being eliminated altogether in 2039. Households and Sales at Buildout Average Household Taxable Expenditures 17,836$ Occupied Households 581 Percent within Santa Ana 60% Total Taxable Sales 6,220,479$ City Share of Sales Tax 1% Measure X (2018) Additional Sales Tax1 1.5% Resident-Derived Sales Tax Revenues Annual Estimate (Base Rate)62,205$ (2018 Addition)93,307$ (2029 Decrease to 1%)74,276$ 1Measure X additional sales tax decreases from 1.5% to 1% in 2029 RESIDENT-DERIVED SALES TAX REVENUE Central Pointe, Santa Ana Source: ESRI BAO, City of Santa Ana 41 1 - 256 Table 7 For the City base rate, combined resident and business sales taxes at buildout would be an estimated $90,244. Measure X combined taxes would be $135,366. Both are adjusted for inflation during the construction period and for the partial year at opening. This provides for a 25-year total of $1.8 million from the base rate and $1.8 million from Measure X (net present value, discounted at 4 percent). Business Tax The City assesses a business tax on retail stores and residential property management companies. Table 8 below showcases the new revenues from the Project. Retail business taxes are assessed based on annual sales while management company business taxes are assessed based on unit count. The combined business tax revenues are an estimated $24,048 at buildout, or $493,901 over 25 years (net present value, discounted at 4 percent). Table 8 Central Pointe, Santa Ana Sales at Buildout General Retail 3,800,000$ City Share of Sales Tax 1% Measure X (2018) Additional Sales Tax1 1.5% Business-Derived Sales Tax Revenues Annual Estimate (Base Rate)41,524$ (2018 Addition)62,285$ (2029 Decrease to 1%)51,069$ Source: California State Board of Equalization, RSG, Inc. 1Measure X additional sales tax decreases from 1.5% to 1% in 2029 BUSINESS-DERIVED SALES TAX REVENUE Central Pointe, Santa Ana Multifamily Residential Tax 24,739$ Retail Tax 2,902 Full-Year Business Taxes at Buildout 28,786$ Partial-Year Business Taxes at Buildout 24,048$ Sources: City of Santa Ana, RSG, Inc BUSINESS TAX REVENUES 42 1 - 257 CITY EXPENDITURES RSG estimated the additional population that would move into the Project to estimate the total added expenditures to the City General Fund for servicing the new residents. Consistent with other recent analyses prepared by RSG on projects in Santa Ana, RSG assumed that each studio would house 1.25 residents, each one-bedroom unit would house 1.75 residents, each two- bedroom unit would house 3.25 residents, and each three-bedroom unit would house 4 residents. Overall, this works out to an average household size of 2.41 residents per unit, which RSG considers reasonable for this particular Project. RSG estimates at full occupancy the Project could hold 1,550 residents. Taking into account that a small percentage of the units will normally be vacant due to turnover, we estimate the fiscal impacts based on residents’ time spent in the City. This is done by calculating the full-time equivalent (FTE) residents, defined as those who spend a vast majority of their daily consumption in Santa Ana. The assumption being that new residents who work out of the City, do not consume products in the City during the time they are gone. RSG gathered data from the US Census and ESRI Business Analyst Online to estimate the FTE residents of the Project. Approximately 13 percent of Santa Ana residents work within Santa Ana, which, in effect means that the City is servicing these resident-employees 100 percent of the time. Another 37 percent of Santa Ana residents work outside the city. Assuming the residents that work outside of the city are outside City limits from 9 am to 5 pm, Santa Ana is servicing these residents approximately 73 percent of the time. The city’s remaining residential population (about 51 percent), is serviced by the City 100 percent of the time. Accounting for all residents and employees based on the percent of time spent in the city, the Project would generate a daily (24/7) population of 1,399 persons. RSG identified variable costs, as opposed to fixed costs, by department in the City of Santa Ana FY 2019-20 Adopted Budget. Variable costs are City expenditures that increase or decrease based on the resident and employee population. The City Manager and City Attorney offices, for example, are fixed costs that would not vary based on population, but the Police and Fire departments would vary based on population. With that said, RSG estimates expenditure increases of $353,986 during the first full year of operations. Over a 25-year projection period, the Project would add $7 million in City expenditures (net present value, discounted at 4 percent). 43 1 - 258 Table 9 EMPLOYMENT Development and ongoing operation of the Project would generate employment opportunities, add labor income to the market area, and add value to the gross regional product. For this analysis, RSG used the IMPLAN model to measure the economic impacts of the Project using County-wide data. IMPLAN is an input-output analysis software tool that tracks the interdependence among various producing and consuming sectors of the economy. According to MIG, Inc., the creators of IMPLAN, the software measures the relationship between a given set of demands for final goods and services and the inputs required to satisfy those demands. IMPLAN publishes countywide data on an annual basis; this analysis utilized the most recent available County of Orange dataset (2018) to calculate direct, indirect, and induced impacts. The IMPLAN inputs are investment (development costs) and gross business operating income of the Project and the resulting outputs are economic impacts, including employment generation, labor income, and gross regional product. Jobs are the primary impacts calculated by IMPLAN. RSG analyzed both temporary and permanent economic impacts. For temporary construction impacts the Developer’s Project costs exclusive of land costs were used ($203 million). From there construction costs were divided based on the gross building area for the between multi- City Department Current City Expenditures2 Project-derived City Expenditures Total City Expenditures3 Percent Increase City Manager's Office 2,708,440$ -$ 2,708,440$ 0.00% Non-Departmental & Interfund Transfers 61,098,660 - 61,098,660 0.00% Clerk of the Council Office 1,682,560 50 1,682,610 0.00% City Attorney's Office 3,219,780 - 3,219,780 0.00%Personnel Services 2,490,360 148 2,490,508 0.01% Finance & Management Services 9,671,190 671 9,671,861 0.01% Bowers Museum Corporation 1,473,430 - 1,473,430 0.00%Parks, Recreation and Community Services 26,836,790 4,560 26,841,350 0.02% Police Department 131,568,820 223,291 131,792,111 0.17% Fire Services 45,640,920 95,156 45,736,076 0.21% Planning & Building Agency 13,227,380 71 13,227,451 0.00% Public Works Agency 13,155,830 - 13,155,830 0.00% Community Development Agency 3,353,520 - 3,353,520 0.00% Total in FY 2020-21 316,127,681$ 323,947$ 316,451,627$ 0.10% Total in 2023-24 353,986$ 3 Sum of current City expenditures and project-derived City expenditures. Assuming project opened in 2020-21. 2 Current expenditures are based on adopted expenditures in the City of Santa Ana's FY 2019-20 Budget. Sources: City of Santa Ana, RSG, Inc., US Census Bureau 1 For this analysis, RSG identified departmental costs in the City of Santa Ana FY 2019-20 Budget that are variable costs, as opposed to fixed costs. Variable costs are expenditures by the City that increase or decrease based on the residential and employee population in the City. For example, City Council and Human Resources salaries and wages generally are fixed costs that do not vary based on population. Meanwhile, the Fire Services and Parks & Community Services departments will likely experience service cost increases due to the added population. SUMMARY OF RECURRING CITY EXPENDITURES1 CITY OF SANTA ANA Central Pointe, Santa Ana 44 1 - 259 family (97 percent) and non-residential (3 percent) components. For permanent impacts, the estimated sales from the residential complex, and the retail space were used. IMPLAN breaks down the resulting employment and other effects into three categories: direct, indirect, and induced: • Direct Effects – Refers to the direct effects that occur on the Project site may result from development costs and operational sales revenue. • Indirect Effects – Changes in sales, jobs, and/or income within the businesses that may supply goods and services to the Project. Indirect effects do not occur directly on the Project-site but are an indirect effect to surrounding or related businesses. • Induced Effects – Regional changes resulting from additional spending that may be earned either directly or indirectly from the Project. RSG utilizes the FTE conversion of total employment generally preferred in Public Policy. FTE employment numbers, as opposed to residents, present total employment through the lens of hours worked; summarizing then dividing by how many 40-hour work weeks are generated by the investment. The IMPLAN analysis concludes that the temporary construction component of the Project would result in 1,300 direct FTE jobs, 117 indirect FTE jobs, and 544 induced FTE jobs the majority of which would be in Santa Ana. The permanent impacts attributed to the Project are 69 FTE jobs related to the operations of both the residential building itself, as well as the retail component of the Project. This includes 48 direct, 8 indirect, and 13 induced jobs to the region. Table 10 outlines the aforementioned FTE jobs generated by the Project. 45 1 - 260 Table 10 In closing, it is our privilege to assist The Concord Group and your client Arnel & Waterford Property Company with predevelopment activities on this project. Please let us know if you have any questions or comments pertaining to the findings of this report. Sincerely, James Simon, Principal Temporary (Construction) Jobs Direct 1300 Indirect 117 Induced 544 Subtotal 1961 Permanent Jobs Direct 48 Indirect 8 Induced 13 Subtotal 69 Total Temporary & Permanent Jobs Direct 1349 Indirect 125 Induced 556 Total 2030 Source: IMPLAN PROJECTED EMPLOYMENT (FTE) 4th and Cabrillo 46 1 - 261 The Concord Group APPENDIX 471 - 262 APPENDIX A SURVEY - APARTMENTS SANTA ANA, COSTA MESA, ORANGE AND TUSTIN MAY 2020 Occ./ Project Name/ Year Floorplans Manager/Units/ Built/ Units Bed/ Unit Base Rent Address Elev. Reno. Mix Vac. Bath Size $ $/sf Santa Ana / Costa Mesa Broadstone Arden 335 26% 7% 5 0 / 1.0 584 $2,095 $3.59 Alliance 5 2020 7% 1 0 / 1.0 744 $2,405 $3.23 1951 E Dyer Road 7% 0 / 1.0 864 $2,856 $3.31 Santa Ana 7% 2 0 / 2.0 1,009 $3,345 $3.32 92705 2% 4 1 / 1.0 1,000 $3,410 $3.41 2% 5 1 / 1.0 907 $2,825 $3.11 2% 2 1 / 1.0 956 $2,880 $3.01 2% 5 1 / 1.0 689 $2,381 $3.46 2% 5 1 / 1.0 745 $2,496 $3.35 3% 2 1 / 1.0 770 $2,575 $3.34 2% 2 1 / 1.0 782 $2,551 $3.26 2% 1 / 2.0 1,215 $3,056 $2.52 7% 5 2 / 2.0 1,089 $3,205 $2.94 7% 5 2 / 2.0 1,087 $3,115 $2.87 7% 3 2 / 2.0 1,109 $3,250 $2.93 7% 5 2 / 2.0 1,077 $3,200 $2.97 7% 2 2 / 2.0 1,184 $3,375 $2.85 7% 2 / 2.0 1,189 $3,595 $3.02 7% 4 2 / 2.0 1,239 $3,400 $2.74 7% 3 2 / 2.0 1,284 $3,355 $2.61 1% 5 3 / 2.0 1,454 $3,915 $2.69 1% 3 / 2.0 1,956 $4,631 $2.37 The Charlie 228 13% 9% 5 0 / 1.0 523 $1,840 $3.52 Alliance 4 2019 2% 2 0 / 1.0 651 $1,895 $2.91 3630 Westminster Avenue 11% 1 / 1.0 681 $1,995 $2.93 Santa Ana 3% 1 1 / 1.0 684 $2,015 $2.95 92703 22% 6 1 / 1.0 696 $2,055 $2.95 2% 5 1 / 1.0 844 $2,230 $2.64 2% 3 1 / 1.0 860 $2,300 $2.67 6% 5 2 / 2.0 997 $2,455 $2.46 6% 5 2 / 2.0 1,041 $2,530 $2.43 18% 8 2 / 2.0 1,052 $2,670 $2.54 6% 4 2 / 2.0 1,066 $2,680 $2.51 6% 2 2 / 2.0 1,079 $2,765 $2.56 4% 5 3 / 2.0 1,236 $3,230 $2.61 4% 5 3 / 2.0 1,239 $3,305 $2.67 20233.00 RecComps: Comps Page 1 of 5 The Concord Group 48 1 - 263 APPENDIX A SURVEY - APARTMENTS SANTA ANA, COSTA MESA, ORANGE AND TUSTIN MAY 2020 Occ./ Project Name/ Year Floorplans Manager/Units/ Built/ Units Bed/ Unit Base Rent Address Elev. Reno. Mix Vac. Bath Size $ $/sf Nineteen01 261 90% 3% 1 1 / 1.0 770 $1,915 $2.49 Greenwood & McKenzie 5 2016 3%1 / 1.0 773 $1,925 $2.49 1901 E 1st St 16% 2 1 / 1.0 774 $1,905 $2.46 Santa Ana 3% 1 / 1.0 795 $1,950 $2.45 92705 6% 1 / 1.0 826 $2,030 $2.46 2% 1 / 1.0 848 $2,090 $2.46 2% 1 / 1.0 860 $2,110 $2.45 2% 1 / 1.0 864 $2,125 $2.46 2% 1 1 / 1.0 890 $2,200 $2.47 3% 1 / 1.0 948 $2,455 $2.59 3% 1 / 1.0 967 $2,385 $2.47 2% 1 / 1.0 974 $2,397 $2.46 3% 1 2 / 2.0 982 $2,500 $2.55 0% 2 / 2.0 1,034 $2,665 $2.58 2% 1 2 / 2.0 1,058 $2,550 $2.41 0% 2 / 2.0 1,081 $2,375 $2.20 0% 1 2 / 2.0 1,085 $2,775 $2.56 7% 1 2 / 2.0 1,122 $2,580 $2.30 6% 2 / 2.0 1,380 $3,050 $2.21 4% 1 2 / 2.0 1,142 $2,655 $2.32 9% 2 / 2.0 1,156 $2,659 $2.30 5% 2 / 2.0 1,180 $2,714 $2.30 0% 1 2 / 2.0 1,193 $2,750 $2.31 2% 1 2 / 2.0 1,195 $2,705 $2.26 2% 2 / 2.0 1,260 $2,885 $2.29 2% 1 2 / 2.0 1,265 $2,895 $2.29 1% 2 / 2.0 1,284 $2,959 $2.30 0% 2 / 2.0 1,391 $3,068 $2.21 1% 2 / 2.0 1,476 $3,120 $2.11 2% 2 / 2.0 1,639 $3,468 $2.12 2% 1 2 / 2.0 1,712 $3,415 $1.99 2% 2 / 2.5 1,760 $3,663 $2.08 2% 1 3 / 2.0 1,510 $3,465 $2.29 0% 3 / 2.0 1,632 $3,456 $2.12 2% 1 3 / 2.5 2,020 $3,865 $1.91 20233.00 RecComps: Comps Page 2 of 5 The Concord Group 49 1 - 264 APPENDIX A SURVEY - APARTMENTS SANTA ANA, COSTA MESA, ORANGE AND TUSTIN MAY 2020 Occ./ Project Name/ Year Floorplans Manager/Units/ Built/ Units Bed/ Unit Base Rent Address Elev. Reno. Mix Vac. Bath Size $ $/sf Irvine / Tustin Amalfi 542 95% 12%0 / 1.0 584 $2,035 $3.48 Irvine Company 3 2014 5%1 / 1.0 552 $2,090 $3.79 16000 Legacy Rd 4% 3 1 / 1.0 681 $2,095 $3.08 Tustin 3% 1 1 / 1.0 695 $2,195 $3.16 92782 5% 2 1 / 1.0 730 $2,295 $3.14 12%1 / 1.0 741 $2,320 $3.13 8% 2 1 / 1.0 746 $2,165 $2.90 12% 5 1 / 1.0 751 $2,145 $2.86 7% 3 1 / 1.0 760 $2,195 $2.89 5%1 / 1.0 800 $2,295 $2.87 3%1 / 1.0 813 $2,325 $2.86 4%1 / 1.0 906 $2,525 $2.79 2% 2 1 / 1.0 955 $2,595 $2.72 2%2 / 2.0 963 $2,500 $2.60 9% 4 2 / 2.0 1,021 $2,495 $2.44 8% 9 2 / 2.0 1,095 $2,530 $2.31 Residences on Jamboree 381 96% 1% 1 0 / 1.0 662 $1,970 $2.98 UDR 5 2017 17% 1 0 / 1.0 692 $1,995 $2.88 2801 Kelvin Ave 10% 1 / 1.0 687 $2,144 $3.12 Irvine 3% 1 / 1.0 698 $2,214 $3.17 92614 11% 1 1 / 1.0 701 $2,124 $3.03 https://www.udr.com/orange-county-apartments/irvine/the-r 8%1 / 1.0 757 $2,224 $2.94 10% 3 1 / 1.0 762 $2,014 $2.64 1%1 / 1.0 782 $2,319 $2.97 7% 1 2 / 2.0 1,063 $2,724 $2.56 3%2 / 2.0 1,108 $2,789 $2.52 20% 2 2 / 2.0 1,147 $2,979 $2.60 1% 2 2 / 2.0 1,165 $2,699 $2.32 2%2 / 2.0 1,284 $3,099 $2.41 4% 3 3 / 2.0 1,426 $3,499 $2.45 2%3 / 2.0 1,503 $3,599 $2.39 20233.00 RecComps: Comps Page 3 of 5 The Concord Group 50 1 - 265 APPENDIX A SURVEY - APARTMENTS SANTA ANA, COSTA MESA, ORANGE AND TUSTIN MAY 2020 Occ./ Project Name/ Year Floorplans Manager/Units/ Built/ Units Bed/ Unit Base Rent Address Elev. Reno. Mix Vac. Bath Size $ $/sf Skyloft Apartments 388 19% 8%0 / 1.0 571 $2,531 $4.43 Legacy Partners 5 2019 1%1 / 1.0 690 $2,628 $3.81 2700 Main St 4%1 / 1.0 712 $2,658 $3.73 Irvine 17%1 / 1.0 733 $2,698 $3.68 92614 10%1 / 1.0 749 $2,747 $3.67 3%1 / 1.0 762 $2,797 $3.67 1% 1 / 1.0 780 $2,812 $3.61 3% 1 / 1.0 781 $2,813 $3.60 3% 1 / 1.0 784 $2,829 $3.61 11% 1 / 1.0 836 $2,555 $3.06 1% 1 / 2.0 1,039 $3,840 $3.70 1% 2 / 2.0 1,019 $3,083 $3.03 2% 2 / 2.0 1,095 $3,168 $2.89 11% 2 / 2.0 1,132 $3,363 $2.97 1% 2 / 2.0 1,137 $3,817 $3.36 6% 2 / 2.0 1,162 $3,623 $3.12 5% 2 / 2.0 1,185 $3,479 $2.94 3% 2 / 2.0 1,188 $3,499 $2.95 1% 2 / 2.0 1,217 $3,473 $2.85 3% 2 / 2.0 1,222 $3,513 $2.87 2% 2 / 2.0 1,248 $4,100 $3.29 1% 2 / 2.0 1,296 $4,212 $3.25 2% 3 / 3.0 1,438 $4,391 $3.05 20233.00 RecComps: Comps Page 4 of 5 The Concord Group 51 1 - 266 APPENDIX A SURVEY - APARTMENTS SANTA ANA, COSTA MESA, ORANGE AND TUSTIN MAY 2020 Occ./ Project Name/ Year Floorplans Manager/Units/ Built/ Units Bed/ Unit Base Rent Address Elev. Reno. Mix Vac. Bath Size $ $/sf Anaheim / Orange AMLI Uptown Orange 334 93% 3% 1 0 / 1.0 570 $2,101 $3.69 AMLI 4 2016 3% 2 1 / 1.0 626 $2,241 $3.58 385 S. Manchester Ave 4% 1 1 / 1.0 711 $2,233 $3.14 Orange 4% 1 / 1.0 716 $2,416 $3.37 92868 3% 1 1 / 1.0 745 $2,484 $3.33 3% 1 / 1.0 748 $2,485 $3.32 4% 4 1 / 1.0 802 $2,267 $2.83 4% 1 / 1.0 816 $2,300 $2.82 3% 1 / 1.0 823 $2,320 $2.82 3% 4 1 / 1.0 829 $2,216 $2.67 3% 1 / 1.0 837 $2,238 $2.67 3% 1 / 1.0 840 $2,238 $2.66 3% 1 / 1.0 857 $2,275 $2.65 3% 1 / 1.0 862 $2,278 $2.64 3% 1 2 / 2.0 978 $2,717 $2.78 3% 2 / 2.0 993 $2,760 $2.78 4% 1 2 / 2.0 1,002 $3,214 $3.21 4% 2 / 2.0 1,010 $3,220 $3.19 4% 1 2 / 2.0 1,047 $2,883 $2.75 4% 2 / 2.0 1,049 $2,626 $2.50 3% 1 2 / 2.0 1,050 $2,890 $2.75 3% 2 / 2.0 1,054 $2,900 $2.75 3% 2 / 2.0 1,063 $3,186 $3.00 3% 2 / 2.0 1,122 $3,299 $2.94 4% 3 2 / 2.0 1,131 $2,874 $2.54 3% 2 / 2.0 1,133 $2,890 $2.55 1% 2 / 2.0 1,142 $2,900 $2.54 1% 1 2 / 2.0 1,147 $2,988 $2.61 1% 2 / 2.0 1,175 $3,050 $2.60 1% 2 / 2.0 1,211 $3,556 $2.94 1% 2 / 2.0 1,236 $3,304 $2.67 1% 3 / 2.0 1,404 $3,655 $2.60 1% 3 / 2.0 1,431 $3,710 $2.59 Eleven 10 260 93% 21% 2 0 / 1.0 515 $2,103 $4.08 Piceme Residential 5 2018 5%1 / 1.0 665 $2,200 $3.31 1110 W. Town and Country Rd 23% 0 1 / 1.0 737 $2,387 $3.24 Orange 20%1 / 1.0 811 $2,596 $3.20 92868 7% 0 2 / 2.0 1,027 $2,826 $2.75 2%2 / 2.0 1,357 $3,600 $2.65 3% 1 1 / 1.0 819 $2,596 $3.17 19% 0 2 / 2.0 1,199 $3,175 $2.65 20233.00 RecComps: Comps Page 5 of 5 The Concord Group 52 1 - 267 APPENDIX B SURVEY - RETAIL LEASES ORANGE COUNTY AND LOCAL THREE-MILE TRADE AREA JANUARY 2017 THROUGH JULY 2020 - 3.5-YEARS Building Lease Map Year Sign Rate Key Shopping Center City Street Address Built Elev. GLA Suite / Tenant SF Date Type Rent 4th Street / Irvine Blvd Corridor - Grand Ave to Prospect Ave A Creekside Plaza Santa Ana 2321 E. 4th St 2003 1s 8,818 Country Café (#A) 1,200 Dec-18 NNN $30 Suite D 1,500 Oct-17 NNN $30 Average:$30 B 17400 Irvine Blvd Tustin 17400 Irvine Blvd 1968 1s 17,600 Medical (#M)1,100 Aug-20 FSG $29 Medical (#F) 2,256 Aug-20 FSG $29 Average:$29 C 2000 E. 4th St Santa Ana 2000 E. 4th St 1982 3s 34,080 Suite 350 1,663 Oct-19 FSG $26 Suite 110 1,327 Apr-19 FSG $25 Suite 202 1,470 Feb-19 FSG $25 Suite 304 2,074 Nov-18 FSG $25 Suite 320 2,270 Sep-18 FSG $23 Average:$25 D 17772 Irvine Blvd Tustin 17772 Irvine Blvd 1973 2s 16,325 Suite 102-8 145 Sep-19 FSG $25 Suite 102-1 245 Dec-19 FSG $25 Average:$25 E 17671 Irvine Blvd Tustin 17671 Irvine Blvd 1972 2s 32,777 Suite 112 237 Sep-17 FSG $24 F 1901 E. 4th St Santa Ana 1901 E. 4th St 1974 3s 39,699 Suite 312 1,622 Dec-19 FSG $23 Suite 350 1,572 Aug-19 FSG $23 Average:$23 Mixed-Use Analogs # Apts Pinnacle at MacArthur Place Santa Ana 31 E. MacArthur Crescent Dr 2001 4s 253 MF Suite 107 1,714 Nov-19 NNN $30 Suite 105 941 Jul-19 NNN $30 Suite 101 1,143 Apr-19 NNN $30 Suite 106B 869 Oct-18 NNN $30 9Round (#108) 1,428 May-18 NNN $30 Braizen Sandwiches (#102)1,126 Aug-17 NNN $30 Average:$30 Pinnacle at Fullerton Fullerton 229 E. Commonwealth Ave 2004 4s 192 MF End Cap 875 May-19 NNN $33 Suite A 2,526 May-19 NNN $30 Heere Tea (#E)1,888 Jul-18 NNN $30 Average:$30 Source: CoStar 20233.00 RecComps: Leases The Concord Group 53 1 - 268 APPENDIX C 54 1 - 269 55 1 - 270 56 1 - 271 57 1 - 272 58 1 - 273 EXHIBIT 14 1 - 274 City of Santa Ana Review of Market & Fiscal Impact Analyses for Mixed- Use Development on 4th and Cabrillo Final Report October 22, 2020 1 - 275 4th and Cabrillo Peer Review Draft AECOM Economics General Limiting Conditions AECOM devoted the level of effort consistent with (i) the level of diligence ordinarily exercised by competent professionals practicing in the area under the same or similar circumstances, and (ii) consistent with the time and budget available for the Services to develop the Deliverables. The Deliverables are based on estimates, assumptions, information developed by AECOM from its independent research effort, general knowledge of the industry, and information provided by and consultations with Client and Client's representatives. No responsibility is assumed for inaccuracies in data provided by the Client, the Client's representatives, or any third-party data source used in preparing or presenting the Deliverables. AECOM assumes no duty to update the information contained in the Deliverables unless such additional services are separately retained pursuant to a written agreement signed by AECOM and Client. AECOM’s findings represent its professional judgment. Neither AECOM nor its parent corporations, nor their respective affiliates or subsidiaries (“AECOM Entities”) make any warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, with respect to any information or methods contained in or used to produce the Deliverables. The Deliverables shall not to be used in conjunction with any public or private offering of securities, debt, equity, or other similar purpose where it may be relied upon to any degree by any person other than the Client. The Deliverables shall not be used for purposes other than those for which they were prepared or for which prior written consent has been obtained from AECOM. Possession of the Deliverables does not carry with it any right of publication or the right to use the name of "AECOM" in any manner without the prior express written consent of AECOM. No party may reference AECOM with regard to any abstract, excerpt or summarization of the Deliverables without the prior written consent of AECOM. AECOM has served solely in the capacity of consultant and has not rendered any expert opinions in connection with the subject matter hereof. Any changes made to the Deliverables, or any use of the Deliverables not specifically identified in the Agreement between the Client and AECOM or otherwise expressly approved in writing by AECOM, shall be at the sole risk of the party making such changes or use. The Deliverables were prepared solely for the use by the Client. No third party may rely on the Deliverables unless expressly authorized by AECOM in writing (including, without limitation, in the form of a formal reliance letter. Any third party expressly authorized by AECOM in writing to rely on the Deliverables may do so only on the Deliverable in its entirety and not on any abstract, excerpt or summary. Entitlement to rely upon the Deliverables is conditioned upon the entitled party accepting full responsibility for such use, strict compliance with this Agreement and not holding AECOM liable in any way for any impacts on the forecasts or the earnings resulting from changes in "external" factors such as changes in government policy, in the pricing of commodities and materials, changes in market conditions, price levels generally, competitive alternatives to the project, the behavior of consumers or competitors and changes in the Client’s policies affecting the operation of their projects. The Deliverables may include “forward-looking statements”. These statements relate to AECOM’s expectations, beliefs, intentions or strategies regarding the future. These statements may be identified by the use of words like “anticipate,” “believe,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “may,” “plan,” “project,” “will,” “should,” “seek,” and similar expressions. The forward-looking statements reflect AECOM’s views and assumptions with respect to future events as of the date of the Deliverables and are subject to future economic conditions, and other risks and uncertainties. Actual and future results and trends could differ materially from those set forth in such statements due to various factors, including, without limitation, those discussed in the Deliverables. These factors are beyond AECOM’s ability to control or predict. Accordingly, AECOM makes no warranty or representation that any of the projected values or results contained in the Deliverables will actually occur or be achieved. The Deliverables are qualified in their entirety by, and should be considered in light of, these limitations, conditions and considerations. 1 - 276 4th and Cabrillo Peer Review Draft AECOM Prepared for: City of Santa Ana Prepared by: AECOM AECOM 401 West A Street Suite 120 San Diego, CA 92101 aecom.com Copyright © 2020 by AECOM All rights reserved. No part of this copyrighted work may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of AECOM. 1 - 277 4th and Cabrillo Peer Review Draft AECOM Table of Contents 1. Summary of Findings ............................................................................................ 5 2. Assessment .......................................................................................................... 6 Appropriateness of Methodology.................................................................................................................................... 6 Multi-Family Market Analysis .......................................................................................................................................... 6 Retail Market Analysis .................................................................................................................................................... 6 Fiscal and Economic Impact Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 8 3. Appendix ............................................................................................................ 12 Figures Figure 1: Retail Vacancy ................................................................................................................................................ 7 Tables Table 1: Mixed Use Projects .......................................................................................................................................... 7 Table 2: Retail Leakage/Surplus .................................................................................................................................... 8 Table 3: Net Supportable Retail Demand Model ............................................................................................................ 8 Table 4: Adjusted Fiscal Revenue Estimate for Sales Tax .............................................................................................. 9 Table 5: Adjusted Fiscal Expenditure Estimate ............................................................................................................ 10 Table 6: Adjusted Fiscal Revenue and Expenditure Estimates .................................................................................... 10 Table 7: 25-Year Recurring Adjusted Fiscal Impact ...................................................................................................... 11 Table 8: Retail Demand Model for the Project Site ....................................................................................................... 12 1 - 278 4th and Cabrillo Peer Review AECOM 5 1. Summary of Findings At the request of the City of Santa Ana (“City”), AECOM has conducted an independent review of a report (“Report”) prepared for Arnel Development Co. by The Concord Group (“TCG”) titled Market & Fiscal Impact Analyses for a Mixed-Use Development in Santa Ana, CA (4th & Cabrillo Park Dr). Arnel Development Co. (the “Developer”) has proposed a mixed-use project (“Project”) for a site in the City with 644 apartment units and 15,200 square feet of commercial space. The Project, located at 4th & Cabrillo Park Drive, is to be located in the MEMU (Metro East Mixed-Use) Overlay District in the City of Santa Ana. The Developer engaged TCG (in association with a second firm RSG) to “conduct market and fiscal feasibility analyses for the project” in order to “identify the highest and best use for the site” and “demonstrate the financial viability of the development.” AECOM’s findings are summarized below. 1. The Report presents strong evidence for the market feasibility and fiscal impacts of the Project, but it does not clearly establish the highest and best use or financial viability of the Project. 2. The Report’s conclusions about support for multi-family residential Market are substantiated by market data. The rents represent the higher end of the potential range but are reasonable based on location, proposed amenities, and unit mix. 3. The Report’s retail market analysis concludes that 15,200 retail square feet is supportable in the market based on an assessment of three comparable mixed-use developments. AECOM supplemented this analysis and found further evidence to validate the potential range of supportable retail for the Project. However, neither the Report nor AECOM’s analysis can fully forecast whether long-term retail demand patterns may fundamentally change as a result of the pandemic. 4. The estimates for potential property tax, utility users’ tax, and business taxes apply commonly accepted methodology, and the estimates are validated in the Report’s analysis. 5. In estimating potential sales taxes, the Report assumes different retail capture rates and retail sales yields than used in comparable studies. However, an alternate analysis prepared by AECOM using the adjusted input assumptions validates the Report’s estimates, which are slightly lower—and therefore more defensibly conservative—than those calculated in the alternative.1 6. The Report’s estimate of City fiscal expenditures that would result from the Project appears low. The Report estimates that on a pro-rata basis, the fiscal expenditure for each member of the service population is approximately $250, while AECOM in a separate report recently estimated such costs at $480 per service population member. Applying the AECOM pro-rata measure results in an estimated 104 percent increase of fiscal expenditures resulting from the Project. 7. Net fiscal revenue is the difference between estimated fiscal revenues and fiscal expenditures. Applying AECOM’s adjusted input assumptions for calculating fiscal revenues and fiscal expenditures results in a net present value net fiscal revenue estimate of $10.3 million, which represents a decrease of $5.7 million from the $16 million estimated provided by the TCG Report. 8. The Report’s estimate of the Project’s economic impacts on employment in the Region use IMPLAN input- output modelling for both the construction and stabilized buildout stages of the project. AECOM reconstructed the model and found no significant deviations in results. 1 While not material to overall sale tax estimate, the TCG Report, in Tables 2, 6, and 7 show an inconsistency that should be explained if intended or corrected if in error. This inconsistency is discussed further in the analysis below. 1 - 279 4th and Cabrillo Peer Review AECOM 6 2. Assessment Appropriateness of Methodology In the preamble, the Report states as its goal to “identify the highest and best use of the project under current MEMU zoning and demonstrate financial viability of the development.” Identification of highest and best use typically involves comparison of multiple potential land uses using proforma analysis to estimate potential project returns or residual land value. Determination of financial viability may also rely on proforma analysis to estimate Net Operating Income (NOI) and development costs. While the Report features multiple exhibits that demonstrate key inputs and parameters that could be incorporated into proforma analysis, no such additional analysis is conducted to test for highest best use and financial viability. Multi-Family Market Analysis The Multi-Family Residential (MFR) market analysis clearly demonstrates potential achievable rents for the units proposed in the project. The Report’s assumptions and data are consistent with previous analysis conducted by AECOM of the residential market, and the Report’s conclusions are supported by the analysis. The rents, absorption rates, vacancies, and unit mixes presented in the comparative analysis are broadly representative of the competitive market area. While the proposed rents represent the upper range for the market areas examined, they may be justifiable by the desirable location and the quality of proposed amenities. The Project unit mix, which emphasizes 1-BR units (51 percent) and 2-BR units (39 percent), appears to be optimized to take advantage of market area trends, which indicate that smaller units command higher rents (on a square-foot-basis) and achieve lower vacancy rates than 3-BR units. Retail Market Analysis The City is particularly interested in the potential for the Project to include retail space to support the mixed-use nature of the MEMU land use designation. The proposed Project currently contains 15,200 square feet of retail space, and the Report justifies this quantity through arguments regarding Project location, general retail market trends, and comparison with other established mixed-use projects. AECOM has supplemented this analysis with retail leakage/surplus analysis and a retail demand model and concurs that under normal market conditions,15,200 square feet is supportable. However, as the long-term market impact of COVID-19 on retail performance is not known, caution regarding retail expansion is warranted. The Report features a comparison with three existing mixed-use projects in Orange County that highlight the potential difficulty the Project may face attracting and retaining retail tenants. Two of these comparison projects, which have a similar walkability score as the Project, show vacancy rates of 70 percent and 56 percent. However, such rates are not typical for retail in Orange County, as indicated by Figure 1, which shows retail vacancies fluctuating between 2.5 percent and 6.5 percent between 2006 and 2020 in Orange County and within the 3-Mile Radius surrounding the Project. While the comparison projects illustrate the potential difficulties of sustaining retail tenants in mixed-use projects, the general retail market in Orange County has remained stable in the recent past. 1 - 280 4th and Cabrillo Peer Review AECOM 7 Figure 1: Retail Vacancy Source: Costar There are three other mixed-use residential and retail projects in the development pipeline with program retail ranging from 6,000 to 24,290 square feet contributing 1.4 percent to 3.5 percent of total Gross Building Area (GBA). The Project’s 15,200 square feet of retail space represents approximately 2.6 percent of GBA, which falls within the range of both pipeline projects and similar projects under development within a half mile of the Project’s site, as shown in Table 1. Table 1: Mixed Use Projects Retail leakage/surplus analysis offers another perspective on retail potential. Leakage/surplus analysis compares estimated potential retail spending with estimated actual retail spending to determine whether there is a variance. A surplus variance, where estimated retail spending exceeds estimated demand, indicates the area is drawing retail spending from outside its boundaries, whereas a deficit variance suggests retail “leakage” where residents are leaving the area for retail spending. Leakage can indicate an undersupply of retail space and a potential opportunity for retail development (although not always: if substantial retail supply exists just outside of the boundaries of an area showing leakage, then new supply within the area risks oversupplying the market and diluting sales). AECOM conducted a retail leakage/surplus analysis for both the City of Santa Ana and the 2-Mile Radius2 around the site and found that both geographies capture a significant surplus of retail spending. While the surplus is a net benefit to the City, which benefits from the resulting sales taxes, it also suggests the area is already well supplied and may not have capacity to absorb much more. While the new on-site residential population will help absorb some of this demand, the proposed retail also needs to be unique and differentiated enough to continue to draw shoppers from outside the area to avoid diluting the performance of existing retail supply. Table 2 shows that the 2-Mile Radius has a 2 AECOM uses standard geographies for retail demand assessment, typically a half mile and 2-mile radius around the site that represent the immediate opportunities for pedestrian traffic and a short car ride respectively. Project Name Project Adress Dwelling Units Total GBA (SF) Retail Space (SF)% Retail Madison 200 N Cabrillo Park Dr.260 186,000 6,500 3.5% AMG First Point 2112 & 2116 E. First St.552 700,000 10,000 1.4% Elan 1600 E. First St.603 650,000 20,000 3.1% Project 4th and Cabrillo 644 576,000 15,200 2.6% Source: Costar, City of Santa Ana, AECOM Comparison of Mixed-Use Projects Under Development within Half-Mile of the Project 1 - 281 4th and Cabrillo Peer Review AECOM 8 retail surplus of over $640 million in sales, while the City of Santa Ana has a surplus of approximately $1.2 billion in sales. Table 2: Retail Leakage/Surplus As a final test of supportable retail supply, AECOM prepared a retail demand model that quantifies supportable retail based on a region’s demographics, socio-economic trends, and the current development pipeline. The model assumes capture rates for residents and employees based on their proximity to the site and data on retail spending patterns. Based on current demographics and projects in the development pipeline, the model estimates the Project could support between 10,000 and 21,000 square feet of retail space. This indicates that the 15,200 square feet currently proposed falls well within the range of supportable retail at the site. The calculation of net supportable square feet, as shown in Table 3, is based on an estimate of total supportable square feet less the approximately 40,890 square feet of retail space in several mixed-use projects currently proposed or under construction within a half mile of the Project’s site. An extended table showing the model’s assumptions is found in Appendix A. Table 3: Net Supportable Retail Demand Model These findings support TCG’s analysis in the Report and offer validation that the proposed 15,200 square feet of retail could be supported under normal market conditions. Fiscal and Economic Impact Analysis The Report estimates fiscal impacts on City’s General Fund that may result from the Project. Fiscal impacts are comprised of fiscal revenues and fiscal expenditures. Fiscal revenues considered by the Report include Property Tax, Property Tax in-Lieu of VLF, Sales Tax (Direct and Indirect), Utility User Tax, and Business Tax, while fiscal expenditures include Police, Fire, Parks/Recreation/Community Services, Finance & Management Services, Planning & Building Agency, Personnel Services, and the Clerk of the Council. Property Tax Estimated Property Tax revenues are based on an estimate of assessed value of the Development at full buildout. This approach to property valuation is widely accepted and suitable for the Project in its current stage of development. The estimate of Property Tax in-lieu of VLF uses a proportional approach, in which estimated Project assessed value is compared to Citywide assessed value, and the proportional increment of new value is applied to the previous year’s Property Tax in-lieu of VLF payment to estimate the new incremental tax revenue. This is a common and generally accepted estimation methodology. Demand Supply Retail Gap Leakage/Surplus Number of (Retail Potenital)(Retail Sales)Factor Businesses Retail Trade $1,124,811,711 $1,655,118,799 -$530,307,088 -19.1 895 Food & Drink $124,997,520 $235,536,446 -$110,538,926 -30.7 395 Total $1,249,809,231 $1,890,655,245 -$640,846,014 -20.4 1,290 Demand Supply Retail Gap Leakage/Surplus Number of (Retail Potenital)(Retail Sales)Factor Businesses Retail Trade $2,311,832,197 $3,452,949,815 -$1,141,117,618 -19.8 1,606 Food & Drink $255,926,740 $405,314,351 -$149,387,611 -22.6 646 Total $2,567,758,937 $3,858,264,166 -$1,290,505,229 -20.1 2,252 2-Mile Radius Retail Leakage/Surplus Anlysis City of Santa Ana Retail Leakage/Surplus Anlysis Source: ESRI, AECOM Total Supportable Current Pipeline Net Supportable High Scenario ($350/SF)61,500 40,890 21,000 Low Scenario ($425/SF)50,600 40,890 10,000 Retail Demand Model Net Supportable Retail at 4th and Cabrillo Source: ESRI, BLS, LEHD, Costar, California DOF, ICSC, AECOM 1 - 282 4th and Cabrillo Peer Review AECOM 9 Sales Tax Estimates for indirect Sales Tax rely on several assumptions regarding household/employee spending habits and the City’s capture of this spending. The Report estimates a City capture rate of 60 percent of taxable spending for new households. Capture rates in comparable studies from AECOM (2018), Economic and Planning Systems (2016) and Keyser Marston Associates (2018) show a range from 25 percent to 50 percent with greater capture rates for developments near the commercial center of larger cities. Precedents from other studies suggest that the 60 percent capture rate for new households may be high considering the Project’s central in Orange County with numerous shopping centers in neighboring jurisdictions. A more conservative and defensible capture rate would be between 30 percent and 40 percent. The estimate of taxable sales for households is within the range of several data sources. The Bureau of Labor Services Consumption Survey for the Los Angles Metro Area estimates taxable sales of approximately $22,000 per household in the region, while ESRI estimates approximately $18,000 for the City. Because of the small average size of the households projected to occupy the principally 1-BR and 2-BR dwelling units, the Report’s approximate annual household spending of $17,800 is a reasonable estimate. For the business-derived sales tax, the Report assumes a rate of $250 per square foot of retail space to estimate total sales. According to an eMarketer survey of retail locations in Southern California, sales per square foot averaged $436 in 2018 with a median of $322. Consequently, assuming a higher sales tax rate may be defensible. The Report shows inconsistency in the sales tax estimates as indicated in Table 2 and Tables 6 and 7 of the Report. Table 2 in the Report, which shows a cashflow analysis representing the 25-year net new recurring fiscal impact projections of all estimated revenue streams and expenditures, lists the base rate sales tax at buildout at $90,244 and the Measure X sales tax at $135,366. These figures are consistent with the concluding text on page 42 of the Report that summarizes the fiscal impacts of sales tax. However, Tables 6 and 7 in the Report and the accompanying text show a combined $103,700 for base rate sales tax at buildout and $155,550 for Measure X sales tax at buildout. These measures are approximately 15 percent higher than the measures shown in the cashflow analysis in Table 2 of Report on which the net fiscal revenue calculations are based. In a final version of the Report, TCG should explain this discrepancy if intended or correct it if an error. In order to test the impacts of observations above about different input assumptions for calculating fiscal revenues and fiscal expenditures, AECOM prepared an alternate estimate that assumes $350/square foot in retail sales and a capture rate of 40 percent. In addition, to explore whether the data discrepancy discussed above might also have a meaningful impact, AECOM prepared an alternate version of the Report’s estimate: as shown in Table 4 below, “Report” represents TCG’s base estimate, which uses the cashflow shown in the Report’s Table 2. The “Report Alternative” estimate is based on the sales tax measures shown in the Report’s Tables 6 and 7. The results of these alternate calculations show the Report’s original estimate to be the lowest and most conservative, with a net present sales tax value (NPV at 4% discount rate) of approximately $3.6 million. The AECOM alternative, with a higher sales yield per square foot but lower capture rate, is higher at approximately $4.1 million. Finally, the Report Alternative is highest at approximately $4.3 million. From this, it may be concluded that the Report’s original finding is defensible but that higher Project fiscal revenues may be achievable. Table 4: Adjusted Fiscal Revenue Estimate for Sales Tax Sales Tax Base Rate1 Sales Tax Measure X1 Total Sales Tax1 25-Year Recurring Sales Tax (NPV at 4% Discount Report2 $90,244 $135,366 $225,610 $3,640,360 Report Alternative3 $103,700 $155,550 $259,250 $4,298,055 AECOM $99,584 $149,376 $248,960 $4,127,459 Souce: TCG, RSG, AECOM Fiscal Impact of Sales Tax Assumptions (1) Annual revenues at first year of buildout of the Project (2) Cash Flow Analysis from Table 2 in the Report (4) Assumes 40% capture rate for Project residents and $350 per square foot for Project retail space (3) Derived from Tables 6 and 7, based on the methodology described in the Report 1 - 283 4th and Cabrillo Peer Review AECOM 10 Utility User, Franchise and Business Taxes The Report estimates Utility Users Taxes based on household data for phone, electricity, gas, and water expenditures for Project residents and Energy Information Association (EIA) estimates of utility expenditures for retail properties for the Project’s retail space. Business Tax estimates are based on annual sales of the retail future retail tenants and business activities of the property management company. These are acceptable methodologies, and the predictions are in line with assumptions made in comparable studies. Fiscal Expenditures The Report applies a standard pro rata fiscal expenditure for the service population of the Project (which is derived from commuting patterns of the City’s residents and workforce. Based on estimated demand for City services from people living and working in Santa Ana (with demand adjusted to reflect time spent in the City as it varies between full-time residents and in-commuters), the Report estimates a service population of 1,399 persons for the Project. This methodology is a standard practice and widely accepted for general planning purposes. The Report estimates that City expenditures for the service population would result in an increase of approximately $354,000 for the first full year of buildout, or approximately $253 per person. This estimate is based on the City budget for Fiscal Year 2019-2020 and considers whether expenditures are variable versus fixed costs. The estimate excludes costs such as the City Manager’s office and City Attorney’s Office but scales up services such as the Police and Fire Departments. AECOM recently conducted a series of fiscal analyses for the City that adopted a similar approach that combined budgetary and demographic analysis with interviews with City staff. The most recent report (March 2020) estimated a pro-rata expenditure of $487 per member of the service population. The AECOM estimate represents an increase of $234 over the Report’s estimate, a variance that if applied to the overall estimate has a substantial impact on the Gross Expenditures and Net New Revenues from the Project. Using the same assumptions as the Report in calculating the rolling 25-year impact (Net Present Value at a discount rate of 4 percent), AECOM estimates fiscal expenditures at approximately double of that estimated by the Report. The results of these estimates are shown in Table 5. Table 5: Adjusted Fiscal Expenditure Estimate This adjusted fiscal expenditure estimated carries over to the estimate of Net New Revenue. As shown in Table 6, estimated adjustments to annual fiscal revenues (sales tax) and expenditures result in net new fiscal revenues of approximately $540,000 compared to $890,000 for the first year of buildout out. As shown in Table 7, estimated adjustments to fiscal revenues and fiscal expenditures result in a net present value estimate of $10.3 million, compared with the Report’s estimate of $16 million. Table 6: Adjusted Fiscal Revenue and Expenditure Estimates Service Population Pro Rata Share Total Annual Expenditures at Buildout 25 Year Net Recurring (NPV at 4%) Report 1,399 $253 $353,986 $7,026,724 AECOM (2020)1,399 $487 $681,313 $14,354,016 Pro Rata City Expenditure Estimates Source: US Census LEHD, ESRI, Santa Ana 2019-20 Adopted Budget, AECOM Sales Tax at First Year Buildout Fiscal Expenditures at First Year Buildout Net New Fiscal Revenues at First Year Buildout Report1 $225,610 -$353,986 $891,096 AECOM $248,960 -$681,313 $540,418 Adjusted Annual Fiscal Impacts at Project Buildout (1) Assumes Sales Tax cash flow analysis from Table 2 in the Report Source: TCG, RSG, AECOM 1 - 284 4th and Cabrillo Peer Review AECOM 11 Table 7: 25-Year Recurring Adjusted Fiscal Impact Economic Impacts The Report only considers the impacts on employment for the “Region,” which is not specified (but is likely to be Orange County). The Report derives an estimate of construction phase jobs from construction costs. The estimate of permanent jobs is derived from rate assumptions that associate employment with retail square footage and dwelling units. The analysis uses IMPLAN software that draws on data from several local, state and federal sources, including the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), and the California Department of Finance. This software package is used widely for estimating economic impacts across a wide array of industries and economic settings. To test the estimated economic impacts shown in the Report, AECOM conducted a parallel IMPLAN input/output analysis using the Report’s inputs for Project construction costs and full-time positions. The outputs of AECOM’s model were close to those of the Report and validate the Report’s employment estimates. 25 year Recurring Fiscal Revenues 25 year Recurring Fiscal Expenditures 25 year Recurring Net New Impact Report1 $23,109,060 $7,026,724 $16,082,335 AECOM $24,679,077 $14,354,016 $10,325,061 (1) Assumes Sales Tax cash flow analysis from Table 2 in the Report Source: TCG, RSG, AECOM 25-Year Recurring Net New Fiscal Impacts (NPV at 4% discount rate) 1 - 285 4th and Cabrillo Peer Review AECOM 12 3. Appendix Table 8: Retail Demand Model for the Project Site Current Buildout2 Current Buildout2 Current Buildout2 Households 2,216 4,271 35,204 35,746 37,420 40,017 On-Site3 0 612 0 0 0 612 Site Capture(%)7.5%7.5%0%0%0%0% Off-Site 2,216 3,659 35,204 35,746 35,204 39,405 Site-Capture(%)5.0%5.0%2.5%2.5%2.5%2.5% Median HH Income $60,500 $60,500 $60,500 $60,500 $60,500 $60,500 HH Retail Expenditures4 $15,125 $15,125 $15,125 $15,125 $15,125 $15,125 Estimated Household Sales Capture $1,675,850 $3,461,281 $13,045,282 $13,246,127 $13,045,282 $16,707,408 Employees 5,900 5,900 54,700 55,272 60,600 61,172 On-site 48 48 0 0 48 48 Annual Expenditures5 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 Site Capture (%)5.0%5.0%0%0%0%0% Off-site 5,852 5,852 54,700 55,272 60,552 61,124 Annual Expenditures5 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 Site Capture (%)4%4%2%2%2%2% Estimated Business Sales Capture $852,288 $852,288 $3,938,400 $3,979,606 $4,790,688 $4,831,894 Total Estimated Retail Capture $2,528,138 $4,313,569 $16,983,682 $17,225,733 $19,511,820 $21,539,302 Supportable Retail SF ($350/SF)6 7,223 12,324 48,525 49,216 55,748 61,541 Supportable Retail SF ($425/SF)6 5,949 10,150 39,962 40,531 45,910 50,681 (4) BLS assumes 20%-30% of median income is spent on all retail categories, site capture adjusted for retail type (5) Based on ICSC data for average workday spending for office/retail workers, excluding transportaiton, grocery, and warehouse expenditures (1) 2 Mile Radius is exclusive of 1/2 Mile Radius to avoid double counting Source: ESRI, BLS, LEHD, Costar, California DOF, ICSC, AECOM (6) Gross supportabel retail before adjustment for retail developmentin the current pipeline (2) Assumes stable occupancy of all known current development pipeline (3) Assumes 95% Occupancy of the Project Estimated 4th and Cabrillo Capture of Household Retail Expenditures 1/2 Mile Radius 2 Mile Radius1 Total 1 - 286 EXHIBIT 15 1 - 287 CITY OF SANTA ANA October 2020 4th and Cabrillo Project 20233.00 __________________________________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM To: City of Santa Ana From: The Concord Group Date: October 22, 2020 Re: Viability of a Grocery Store and Market Optimal Scale of Retail for the 4th and Cabrillo Project in Santa Ana, CA __________________________________________________________________________________________________ In August 2020, The Concord Group (“TCG”) completed a highest and best use analysis for the 4th and Cabrillo project in Santa Ana. It was TCG’s conclusion that the current plan set forth by the developer, which includes 644 apartments and 15,200 square feet of retail, is the highest and best use for the property. Per preliminary feedback from the Planning Commission, we understand the City would like further explanation with regards to two key conclusions in the analysis: 1. A grocery store is not supportable on site; 2. The +/- 15,000 square feet of retail planned is the maximum marketable retail square footage that the project can support. Grocery Store A grocery store is not viable in the project. Grocery stores require: (1) a high degree of marketing visibility; (2) high density of nearby rooftops with strong incomes; and (3) and convenient accessibility. 1. With regards to point 1, the project possesses attractive visibility along 4th Street, with up to 30,000 cars passing by the site daily. However, with regards to points 2 and 3, the project fails. 2. The density of rooftops and associated incomes is insufficient to attract a grocery tenant. Within a one-mile radius of the project, there are only 9,800 households, with incomes well below the County median. 3. Only in the most urban settings (ie. downtown Los Angeles, Santa Monica), will grocery operators consider structured parking for their shoppers. Grocery shoppers seek “easy in / easy out” accessibility. The large amount of surface parking required for a grocery store would render the mixed-use character of the project financially infeasible. Scale of Retail The current scale of retail planned for the project is the maximum that can be supported on the site. There are several marketing concerns limiting the market viability of more retail on site: 1. There is limited demand for new retail in the site’s trade area. Over the last ten years, only 100,000 square feet of retail has been added, with no improvements to retail occupancy during the timeframe. 2. Secondly, successful, large-scale commercial shopping destinations require anchor tenancy – typically a grocery – which is not viable on site. Anchor tenants are the “draw” that attract consumers to the smaller, in-line tenant spaces. 3. Lastly, while mixed-use retail and residential is common in the most densely populated urban settings, a large scale of ground floor retail is not viable in a suburban setting. TCG surveyed three mixed-use projects in Orange County, with ground level retail footprints ranging from 8,500 to 14,000 square feet. Two of the three projects were considered distressed, with elevated rates of retail vacancy (54% and 70%). Like the subject, each mixed-use analog lacks an anchor tenant magnet to attract consumers. In summary, TCG considers the current land plan to be the highest and best use for the 4th and Cabrillo site. * * * The above assignment was completed Michael Reynolds and David Prokopenko. Should you have any questions regarding the data or conclusions generated by the analysis, feel free to contact us at (949) 717-6450. 1 - 288 EXHIBIT 16 1 - 289 130 Newport Center Drive, Ste. 230 Newport Beach, CA 92660 CENTRAL POINTE, 4th St. & Cabrillo Park Sunshine Ordinance Meeting Meeting Minutes Date & Time: Thursday, August 15, 2019, 6:00 PM Location: Creekside Plaza, 505 N. Tustin Ave., Suite 243, Santa Ana, Ca 92705 Purpose: Community meeting in compliance with the Sunshine Ordinance for Central Pointe at 4th St. & Cabrillo Park in Santa Ana In Attendance: City Representatives: Vince Fregoso, Selena Kelaher, Scott Kutner, Mark McLoughlin Applicant: Sean Rawson and Consultant Team (KTGY/Architect, MJS/Landscape Architect and Debra Pember/Asst. Project Manager Members of the Public: 15 members were in attendance The meeting began at approximately 6:05 pm. Sean Rawson, the applicant, introduced himself and his team. He provided an overview of the proposed project with a power point slide presentation, illustrating the conceptual elevations, floor plans, finishes, amenities and open space. It was emphasized that this is only a conceptual plan at this time. This is the first opportunity to get public feed-back. The following information was shared, followed by questions and comments.  Project Zoning: The intent of the MEMU (Metro East Mixed-Use Overlay District) was explained and how the project complies with the zoning.  Type of Project: 650 unit mixed-use residential project located in the Active Urban District. The mixed-use will include retail space on the first floors facing 4th Street. The project will create 500 jobs and bring $36 million to the City in short-term income.  Project has just recently been submitted to the City and no City feedback has been received since submittal.  Project Amenities: The Landscape Architect, Matt Jackson, described the green open space open to the public and some of the roof top amenities that will be available to the residents, such as pools, fitness and clubrooms. A dog park is also being planned for the residents.  Number of Units: Two buildings that total 650 luxury apartment units for rent, made up of studio units, one, two and some three-bedroom units. It was emphasized that this is conceptual as this point in time, until public and City feedback is received. 1 - 290 Central Pointe, 4th St. & Cabrillo Park August 15, 2019 Sunshine Ordinance Community Meeting Page 2 Questions, Comments, Answers:  Q. Target demographics? A. Millennial renters and empty nesters. Project will also comply with HOO (Housing Opportunity Ordinance).  Q. Will there be affordable units on site? A. Reviewed options that support HOO and which option to pursue is being considered and not yet determined.  Q. What types of businesses will occupy the retail component? A. Too soon to determine. Generally, the project needs to be built first and marketing for tenants will follow.  Q. When will the project be started? What is the time frame for completion? A. We just started the entitlement process, which could take 10 to 12 months. After project is approved, the construction document phase starts, which with plan check, could take 8 to 10 months and then 30 months to build out.  Q. Concern over dust impacts during construction. A. The EIR will identify all impacts and have specific requirements for mitigation.  Q. Parking concerns: 650 units is 1,400 cars; project will have 2-3 residents per unit. What is the parking? Concern over parking spilling over into the neighborhoods (like Mabury cul-de-sacs) where not enough parking currently exists. Need to increase parking ratio. Is there parking onsite? What about visitors parking? What about parking for the retail? A. Parking is 1.82 spaces per unit and is consistent with the zoning. There is a parking structure for each building; it’s considered a wrap design. We’re hearing your concerns and the parking will be further studied through the entitlement period.  Q. Concerns over traffic: Number of cars per unit; 650 units is 1,400 cars. Concerns with traffic using Mabury as a thorough fare to and from 17th St. A. A traffic study is being done. Everyone’s comments and concerns will be considered and addressed.  Q. Queuing going west on 4th St. is already difficult. How will this affect that? A. An additional traffic lane is being added.  Q. Will there be consideration to add a bus route on 4th St.? Is it transit oriented? A. That’s a question more for CalTrans. However, we are considering a shuttle service to/from the train station.  Q. Will there be a sound wall along the freeway side? A. We don’t know yet. Those are details that still need to be worked out through the process.  Q. Utility poles, what’s the status? A. They’ll be undergrounded. 1 - 291 Central Pointe, 4th St. & Cabrillo Park August 15, 2019 Sunshine Ordinance Community Meeting Page 3  Q. What is the roadway to west used for (on site plan)? A. That’s actually a gated access for emergency vehicles only.  Q. What is the sidewalk width going to be around the project? A. Not sure exactly, but those details will follow.  Q. Will there be security on site? A. Some areas will be gated.  Q. How far was the outreach? 500’ is not enough, doesn’t cover everyone. Should consider reaching out to neighboring communities. One couple talked about how they found out about the meeting through “Next Door”. When is next meeting? How was it posted? A. Rules were followed within the City’s guidelines for Sunshine Ordinance. It was posted in the paper, meeting notices mailed and posted signs on the property.  Signs should also be posted at the Mabury curve.  Q. When is the next meeting? A. The next meeting with the community will be hosted after the traffic study is complete.  Q. What kind of landscaping is being proposed? (Desi) I don’t like palm trees; they get tall and lose their value. I think you should plant pine trees; also wants boulders and some type of public art. A. Matt Jackson, project’s landscape architect addressed the question. Tall, fuller type trees, vegetation will be placed along the freeway and other areas. However, typically, palm trees work well along storefronts or other commercial buildings, because they don’t have a tendency to hide the signage.  Q. Could you please bring more displays? A. Yes, definitely.  Q. Will we be kept informed of all activities? A. Yes.  Q. Could we have the next community meeting at the Cabrillo Park, maybe the tennis court area? A. Yes, we’ll work on that.  Additional comment: Desi stated his concerns, but added that “overall, likes the project”. Meeting adjourned approximately 7:15 PM 1 - 292 1 - 293 2 - 1 2 - 2 2 - 3 2 - 4 2 - 5 2 - 6 2 - 7 2 - 8 2 - 9 2 - 10 2 - 11 2 - 12 EXHIBIT 1 2 - 13 Resolution No. 2020-xx Page 1 LS 11.9.20 RESOLUTION NO. 2020-xx A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA (1) CERTIFYING THE FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2020029087), (2) ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, (3) ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND (4) APPROVING THE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines and declares as follows: WHEREAS, the City of Santa Ana seeks to approve the City of Santa Ana General Plan Update (“proposed project”); and WHEREAS, the project as currently proposed entails, among other things, (1) adoption of the Santa Ana General Plan Update; (2) Certification of a Program Environmental Impact Report (the “PEIR”); (3) Adoption of Finding of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations; (4) Adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and (5) Adoption of any ordinances, guidelines, programs, actions, or other mechanisms that implement the Santa Ana General Plan update; and WHEREAS, the proposed project has been submitted and requires review and certification of the PEIR (State Clearinghouse/SCH No. 2020029087) (Environmental Impact Report No. 2020-03) and the adoption of the Santa Ana General Plan Update; and WHEREAS, the City of Santa Ana is in the western central portion of Orange County, approximately 30 miles southwest of the city of Los Angeles and 10 miles northeast of the city of Newport Beach. The city is bordered by the city of Orange and unincorporated areas of Orange County to the north, the city of Tustin to the east, the cities of Irvine and Costa Mesa to the south, and the cities of Fountain Valley and Garden Grove to the west. In November 2019, the City annexed the 17th Street Island, a 24.78-acre area in the northeast portion of the city. The 17th Street Island is bounded by State Route 55 to the east, 17th Street to the south, and North Tustin Avenue to the west. The city also includes a portion of the Santa Ana River Drainage Channel within 2 - 14 Resolution No. 2020-xx Page 2 its sphere of influence (SOI); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 21067 of the Public Resources Code, and Section 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, § 15000 et seq.), the City of Santa Ana is the lead agency for the proposed project; and WHEREAS, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(a), the City as lead agency determined that a program EIR was clearly required for the project, and therefore did not prepare an initial study; and WHEREAS, the City determined that a program EIR should be prepared to evaluate the proposed project’s potential to have a significant effect on the environment in all of the following areas as required by Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines: Aesthetics; Air Quality; Biological Resources; Cultural Resources; Energy; Geology and Soils; Greenhouse Gas Emissions; Hazards and Hazardous Materials; Hydrology and Water Quality; Land Use and Planning; Noise; Population and Housing; Public Services and Recreation; Transportation; Tribal Cultural Resources; Utilities and Service Systems; and Project Alternatives; and WHEREAS, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, on February 26, 2020, the City sent to the Office of Planning and Research and each responsible and trustee agency a Notice of Preparation (“NOP”)—which was also published in the Orange County Register, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Santa Ana—stating that an environmental impact report (SCH No. 2020029087) would be prepared; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.9 and State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15082(c) and 15083, the City held a duly noticed scoping meeting on Thursday, March 5, 2020, to solicit comments on the scope of the environmental review of the proposed project; and WHEREAS, 18 comment letters were received in response to the NOP; and WHEREAS, a Draft PEIR was prepared for the proposed project addressing comments received in response to the NOP and evaluating the proposed project’s potentially significant environmental impacts; and WHEREAS, the Draft PEIR identifies five significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the project that pertain to Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise, and Population and Housing. Air Quality impacts stem from inconsistency with the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (AQMD) air quality management plan (AQMP) and exceedance of the South Coast AQMD’s significance thresholds that would cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB), and would result in long-term emissions that would exceed South Coast AQMD’s significance thresholds and again cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the SoCAB. Cultural Resources impacts result from significant impacts to historical resources that may be 2 - 15 Resolution No. 2020-xx Page 3 considered unavoidable and therefore significant. Greenhouse Gas Emissions impacts stem from the inability to meet the year 2050 GHG reduction goal set by California Executive Order S-03-05. Noise impacts result from a substantial increase in noise levels above ambient conditions due to construction noise and project-generated traffic noise for existing residences along affected roadways. Lastly, population impacts stem from population and housing growth at buildout being larger than Orange County Council of Government’s 2045 population and housing projections; and WHEREAS, the Draft PEIR further determines that mitigation measures are required to address impacts to Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Noise and Tribal Cultural Resources, and Utilities and Service Systems; and WHEREAS, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15085, a Notice of Completion was prepared and filed with the Office of Planning and Research on February 26, 2020; and WHEREAS, as required by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15087(a), the City provided a Notice of Availability of the Draft PEIR to the public—and published the Notice of Availability in the Orange County Register—at the same time that the City sent a Notice of Completion to the Office of Planning and Research on August 3, 2020; and WHEREAS, during the public comment period, copies of the Draft PEIR and technical appendices were available for review and inspection at City Hall (20 Civic Center Plaza), on the City’s website, and at the Santa Ana Public Library (26 Civic Center Plaza); and WHEREAS, during the public comment period, Planning Commission work- study sessions were held on August 24, 2020 and September 14, 2020 where staff presented the proposed project and described the Draft PEIR; and WHEREAS, consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15087(e), the Draft PEIR was circulated for a 45-day review period, from August 3, 2020, to September 16, 2020; and was extended for review 20 days thereafter to October 6, 2020; and WHEREAS, during the 45-day public comment period, the City consulted with and requested comments from all responsible and trustee agencies, other regulatory agencies, and others pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15086; and WHEREAS, the City has complied with CEQA environmental review requirements; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, on October 30, 2020, the City provided copies of its responses to commenting public agencies and interested organizations and parties more than 10 days prior to the City’s consideration of the Final PEIR; and 2 - 16 Resolution No. 2020-xx Page 4 WHEREAS, on November 3, 2020, the City released the Final PEIR, attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, which consists of the Draft PEIR, all technical appendices prepared in support of the Draft PEIR, all written comment letters received on the Draft PEIR, written responses to all written comment letters received and verbal comments received on the Draft PEIR, revisions to the Draft PEIR and technical appendices, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and WHEREAS, on November 9, 2020, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the PEIR and the General Plan Update, and the associated EIR and GPA applications. After hearing all relevant testimony from staff, the public, and the City’s consultant team, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council certify the PEIR; adopt the findings of fact, the statement of overriding considerations, and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program; and approve the project; and WHEREAS, on November 20, 2020, the City gave public notice of a City Council public hearing for consideration of the PEIR No. 2020-03 (State Clearinghouse No. 2020029087) by publishing in the Orange County Register, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Santa Ana, and by mailing to owners of property and residents within 500 feet of the proposed Focus Areas, those individuals on the project interest list, and those individuals on the PEIR Notice of Availability list; and WHEREAS, on December 1, 2020, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the PEIR, at which hearing members of the public were afforded an opportunity to comment upon Environmental Impact Report No. 2020-03. After hearing all relevant testimony from staff, the public, and the City’s consultant team, the City Council voted to certify the PEIR; adopt the findings of fact, the statement of overriding considerations, and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program; and approve the project; and WHEREAS, the “PEIR” consists of the Final PEIR, and all attachments and appendices to the Final PEIR, as well as the Draft PEIR and its attachments and appendices (as modified by the Final PEIR); and WHEREAS, all potentially significant adverse environmental impacts were sufficiently analyzed in the PEIR; and WHEREAS, as contained herein, the City Council has endeavored in good faith to set forth the basis for its decision and recommendations on the project; and WHEREAS, all of the requirements of the Public Resources Code and the State CEQA Guidelines have been satisfied by the City in connection with the preparation of the PEIR, which is sufficiently detailed so that all of the potentially significant environmental effects of the project have been adequately evaluated; and WHEREAS, all of the findings and conclusions made by the City Council pursuant to this Resolution are based upon the oral and written evidence presented to it as a whole and the entirety of the administrative record for the PEIR project, which 2 - 17 Resolution No. 2020-xx Page 5 are incorporated herein by this reference, and not based solely on the information provided in this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the project’s significant environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level even with incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures, as identified in the PEIR, are described in Section V of the Findings of Fact, attached hereto as Exhibit “B”; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the PEIR project’s environmental impacts that are less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation measures, as identified in the PEIR, are described in Section IV of the Findings of Fact, attached hereto as Exhibit “B”; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that environmental impacts that are identified in the PEIR as less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Section III of the Findings of Fact, attached hereto as Exhibit “B”; and WHEREAS, the potential significant and irreversible environmental changes that would result from the project identified in the PEIR and set forth herein, are described in Section VI of the Findings of Fact, attached hereto as “Exhibit B”; and WHEREAS, the existence of any growth-inducing impacts resulting from the PEIR project identified in the PEIR and set forth herein, are described in Section VII of the Findings of Fact, attached hereto as Exhibit “B”; and WHEREAS, alternatives to the PEIR project that might further reduce the PEIR project’s environmental impacts are described in Section VIII of the Findings of Fact, attached hereto as Exhibit “B”; and WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the City Council has heard, been presented with, reviewed, and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record, including but not limited to the PEIR and all oral and written evidence presented to it during all meetings and hearings; and WHEREAS, the PEIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council and is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the proposed project; and WHEREAS, no comments made in the public hearing conducted by the City Council and no additional information submitted to the City have produced substantial new information requiring recirculation of the PEIR or additional environmental review of the project under Public Resources Code Section 21092.1 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5; and WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. 2 - 18 Resolution No. 2020-xx Page 6 NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE, FIND, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 2. The City Council hereby finds that it has been presented with the PEIR, which it has reviewed and considered, and further finds that the PEIR is an accurate and objective statement that has been completed in full compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, and that the PEIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City, acting as lead agency for the project. Section 3. The City Council declares that no evidence of new significant impacts or any new information of “substantial importance,” as defined by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, has been received by the City after circulation of the Draft PEIR that would require recirculation of the PEIR. Section 4. The City Council hereby: 1. Certifies the PEIR based on the entirety of the record of proceedings. 2. Adopts the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit “B”, after balancing the significant and unavoidable air quality, cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and population and housing impacts of the proposed project against the benefits of the proposed project. 3. Adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit “C”, consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6; makes implementation of the mitigation measures in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program a condition of approval of the project; and finds that in the event of any inconsistencies between the mitigation measures set forth herein and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program shall control. 4. Directs City staff to cause a Notice of Determination to be filed and posted with the County of Orange Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk and the State Clearinghouse within five working days of the City Council’s final project approval. Section 5. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the Clerk of the Council shall attest to and certify the vote adopting this Resolution. ADOPTED this day of , 2020. 2 - 19 Resolution No. 2020-xx Page 7 _ Miguel A. Pulido Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sonia R. Carvalho City Attorney By: Lisa Storck Assistant City Attorney AYES: Councilmembers _ NOES: Councilmembers _ ABSTAIN: Councilmembers _ NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers _ CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, Daisy Gomez, Clerk of the Council, do hereby certify the attached Resolution No. 2020-____ to be the original resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on _____________________, 2020. Date: _____________________ _______________________________ Clerk of the Council City of Santa Ana 2 - 20 CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT FOR THE SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT City of Santa Ana STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2020029087 I. INTRODUCTION The California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) requires that a number of written findings be made by the lead agency in connection with certification of an environmental impact report (“EIR”) prior to approval of the project pursuant to Sections 15091 and 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines and Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code. The State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 provides: (a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are: 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can or should be adopted by such other agency. 3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. (b) The findings required by subdivision (a) shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (c) The finding in subdivision (a)(2) shall not be made if the agency making the finding has concurrent jurisdiction with another agency to deal with identified feasible mitigation measures or alternatives. The finding in subsection (a)(3) shall describe the specific reasons for rejecting identified mitigation measures and project alternatives. EXHIBIT B 2 - 21 (d) When making the findings required in subdivision (a)(1), the agency shall also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects. These measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. (e) The public agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other materials which constitute the record of the proceedings upon which its decision is based. (f) A statement made pursuant to Section 15093 does not substitute for the findings required by this section. Public Resources Code Section 21061.1 defines “feasible” to mean “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.” CEQA Guidelines section 15364 adds another factor: “legal” considerations. (See Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 565 (Goleta II).) The concept of “feasibility” also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project. (California Native Plant Soc. v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 1001 [“an alternative ‘may be found infeasible on the ground it is inconsistent with the project objectives as long as the finding is supported by substantial evidence in the record’”].) An alternative may also be rejected because it “would not ‘entirely fulfill’ [a] project objective.” (Citizens for Open Government v. City of Lodi (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 296, 314-315.) “[F]easibility” under CEQA encompasses ‘desirability’ to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.” (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715.) With respect to a project for which significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened, a public agency, after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve the project if the agency first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the specific reasons why the agency found that the project's “benefits” rendered “acceptable” its “unavoidable adverse environmental effects.” (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15093, 15043, subd. (b); see also Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (b).) The California Supreme Court has stated, “[t]he wisdom of approving . . . any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced.” (Goleta II, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 576.) When adopting Statements of Overriding Considerations, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 further provides: 2 - 22 (a) CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposal project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered “acceptable.” (b) Where the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. This statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section 15091. Having received, independently reviewed, and considered the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (“Draft PEIR”) and the Final Program Environmental Impact Report (“Final PEIR”) for the Santa Ana General Plan Update, SCH No. 2020029087 (collectively, the “PEIR”), as well as all other information in the record of proceedings on this matter, the following Findings of Facts (“Findings”) are hereby adopted by the City of Santa Ana (“City”) in its capacity as the CEQA Lead Agency. These Findings set forth the environmental basis for the discretionary actions to be undertaken by the City for adoption and implementation of the Santa Ana General Plan Update (“Proposed Project”). This action includes the certification of the following: § Santa Ana General Plan Update Program Environmental Impact Report, SCH No. 2020029087 A. DOCUMENT FORMAT These Findings have been organized into the following sections: 1) Section I provides an introduction. 2) Section II provides a summary of the project, overview of the discretionary actions required for approval of the project, and a statement of the project’s objectives. 3) Section III provides a summary of previous environmental reviews related to the project area that took place prior to the environmental review done specifically for the project, and a summary of public participation in the environmental review for the project. 2 - 23 4) Section IV sets forth findings regarding the environmental impacts that were determined to be—as a result of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) and consideration of comments received during the NOP comment period—either not relevant to the project or clearly not at levels that were deemed significant for consideration given the nature and location of the proposed project. 5) Section V sets forth findings regarding significant or potentially significant environmental impacts identified in the Draft FEIR that the City has determined are either not significant or can feasibly be mitigated to a less than significant level through the imposition of project design features and/or mitigation measures. In order to ensure compliance and implementation, all of these measures are included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) for the project and adopted as conditions of the project by the Lead Agency. Where potentially significant impacts can be reduced to less than significant levels through adherence to project design features and/or mitigation measures, these findings specify how those impacts were reduced to an acceptable level. Section V also includes findings regarding those significant or potentially significant environmental impacts identified in the Draft PEIR that will or may result from the project and which the City has determined cannot feasibly be mitigated to a less than significant level. 6) Section VI sets forth findings regarding alternatives to the proposed project. 7) Section VII sets forth the statement of overriding considerations for the proposed project. 8) Section VIII sets forth the resolution regarding certification of the PEIR 9) Section IX sets for the resolution adopting a mitigation and monitoring plan for the proposed project. 10) Section X sets for the resolution regarding custodian of records for the proposed project. B. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS For purposes of CEQA and these Findings, the Record of Proceedings for the proposed project consists of the following documents and other evidence, at a minimum: § The NOP and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the proposed project § The DEIR for the proposed project § The FEIR for the proposed project § All written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public review comment period on the Draft PEIR 2 - 24 § All responses to written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public review comment period on the Draft PEIR § All written and verbal public testimony presented during a noticed public hearing for the proposed project § The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program § The reports and technical memoranda included or referenced in the Response to Comments § All documents, studies, EIRs, or other materials incorporated by reference in the Draft PEIR and Final PEIR § The Resolutions adopted by the City of Santa Ana in connection with the proposed project, and all documents incorporated by reference therein, including comments received after the close of the comment period and responses thereto § Matters of common knowledge to the City of Santa Ana, including but not limited to federal, state, and local laws and regulations § Any documents expressly cited in these Findings § Any other relevant materials required to be in the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code Section 21167.6(e) The documents and other material that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings are based are located at the City of Santa Ana Planning Division Counter. The custodian for these documents is the City of Santa Ana. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(2) and 14 California Code Regulations Section 15091(e). C. CUSTODIAN AND LOCATION OF RECORDS The documents and other materials that constitute the administrative record for the City’s actions related to the project are at the City of Santa Ana Planning Division, 20 Civic Center Plaza, M-20, Santa Ana, CA 92701. The City’s Planning Division is the custodian of the administrative record for the project. Copies of these documents, which constitute the record of proceedings, are and at all relevant times have been and will be available upon request at the offices of the Planning Division Counter. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(2) and 14 California Code Regulations Section 15091(e). 2 - 25 II. PROJECT SUMMARY A. PROJECT LOCATION Santa Ana is in the western central portion of Orange County, approximately 30 miles southwest of the city of Los Angeles and 10 miles northeast of Newport Beach. Orange County is surrounded by the counties of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside, and San Diego and is one of six counties comprising the Southern California Region. Santa Ana is bordered by Orange and unincorporated areas of Orange County to the north, Tustin to the east, Irvine and Costa Mesa to the south, and Fountain Valley and Garden Grove to the west. In November 2019, the City annexed the 17th Street Island, a 24.78-acre area in the northeast portion of the city. The 17th Street Island is bounded by State Route 55 to the east, 17th Street to the south, and North Tustin Avenue to the west. The city also includes a portion of the Santa Ana River Drainage Channel in its sphere of influence (SOI). The city and its SOI are defined and referred to herein as the plan area. Regional access to the city is provided by the Garden Grove Freeway (SR-22) and the Orange Freeway (SR-57) on the north, the Santa Ana Freeway (1-5) on the northeast, the Costa Mesa Freeway (SR-55) on the east, and the San Diego Freeway (l-405) on the south. B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION In March 2014, the City Council adopted the Santa Ana Strategic Plan. The Strategic Plan was the result of an extensive community outreach process and established specific goals, objectives, and strategies to guide the City’s major efforts. One of the key strategies identified was to complete a comprehensive update of the existing General Plan. The General Plan Update (GPU) will provide long-term policy direction to guide the physical development, quality of life, economic health, and sustainability of the Santa Ana community through 2045. The General Plan Update will identify areas of opportunity and provide options to enhance development potential in key areas of the city. It will also bring the city into compliance with recent State laws, reflect current conditions, and incorporate input from the general public, City staff, and other stakeholders. The proposed GPU is organized into three sections: I, Services and Infrastructure; II, Natural Environment; and III, Built Environment. The proposed GPU addresses the seven topics required by state law as well as five optional topics. State law gives jurisdictions the discretion to incorporate optional topics and to address any of these topics in a single element or across multiple elements of the general plan. The 12 proposed elements of the GPU will replace the 16 elements of the current General Plan. The GPU will incorporate the current 2014–2021 housing element, and no substantive changes are anticipated. The topic of housing will be addressed as a separate effort in late 2021 in accordance with State law. The topic of environmental justice will be incorporated throughout the GPU, with goals and policies incorporated into multiple elements. The 12 elements of the proposed General Plan update are: 2 - 26 Mandatory Topics Optional Topics § Land Use Element § Circulation Element § Housing Element § Open Space Element § Conservation Element § Safety Element § Noise Element § Public Services Element § Urban Design Element § Community Element § Economic Prosperity Element § Historic Preservation Element The proposed GPU is comprehensive both in its geography and subject matter. It addresses the entire territory within the plan area’s boundary and the full spectrum of issues associated with management of the plan area. The GPU also includes forecasts of long-term conditions and outlines development goals and policies; exhibits and diagrams; and the objectives, principles, standards, and plan proposals throughout its various elements. The GPU can be found online at https://www.santa-ana.org/general-plan. The General Plan Policy Framework can be accessed at https://www.santa-ana.org/sites/default/files/pb/general- plan/documents/GeneralPlanPolicyFrameworkMaster.DRAFT.cmo2.pdf Coordination and consistency are essential between the elements of the GPU, but in particular with the land use element. The circulation element, which identifies proposed improvements to the transportation system, may impact surrounding land uses and future development. The urban design element sets forth policies and programs to improve the city’s design and urban form. The conservation element protects and maintains the city’s natural, cultural, and other resources, with a focus on preserving aesthetics and the environmental quality of the city. Both the land use element and the circulation element are described in more depth below. Focus areas and specific plan/special zoning areas are also described. Updated Land Use Element The updated land use element will guide growth and development (e.g., infill development, redevelopment, use, and revitalization/restoration) within the plan area by designating land uses as shown in the proposed land use map. Figure 3-7 of the Draft PEIR shows the 13 proposed land use designations of the General Plan update, and Table 3-4 of the Draft PEIR gives a general description of the land use designations that are added to the GPU and were not in the current General Plan. Land use designations define the type and nature of development that would be allowed in a given location of the plan area. The land use designations and patterns are intended to provide the basis for more detailed zoning designations and development intensities, requirements, and standards established in the City’s development code. It is important to note that the updated land use element is a regulatory document that defines the framework for future growth and development in the plan area but does not directly result in development in and of itself. Before any project can be developed in the plan area, it must be 2 - 27 analyzed for conformance with the General Plan Update, zoning requirements, and other applicable local and state requirements; comply with the requirements of CEQA; and obtain all necessary clearances and permits. Updated Mobility (Circulation) Element The Mobility Element update is integrally related to federal, state, and regional transportation programs as well as local plans and regulations. The City’s role in transportation planning has become increasingly important because recent legislation in the areas of growth management, congestion management, and air quality require more active local coordination to meet regional objectives. Furthermore, the Mobility Element update is intended to guide future development of the city’s transportation system in a manner consistent with the updated land use element. The Master Plan of Streets and Highways (MPSH) details proposed street classifications to reflect buildout of the city’s roadway system. The street classifications include Freeway, Major Arterial, Primary Arterial, Secondary Arterial, Divided Collector Arterial, and Collector Arterial. As part of the implementation of complete streets principles,1 a series of modifications to the city’s roadway network has been identified and includes both the reclassification of roadways and assignment of new MPSH roadway classifications to selected existing streets. A number of proposed roadway reclassifications, adoptions, and removals from the MPSH are as follows: § Reclassified as Divided Collector Arterial: l Santa Clara Avenue between Grand Avenue and SR-55 freeway (currently Secondary Arterial) l Flower Street between Warner Avenue and 1st Street (currently Secondary Arterial) l Chestnut Avenue between Standard Avenue and eastern city limit (currently Secondary/Primary Arterial) l Raitt Street between Segerstrom Avenue and Santa Ana Boulevard (currently Secondary Arterial) l Civic Center Drive between Fairview Street and Bristol Street (currently Secondary Arterial) l Penn Way between I-5 on/off ramps and Washington Avenue (currently Secondary Arterial) l Santiago Street between Washington Avenue and 6th Street (currently Secondary Arterial) l Standard Avenue between 6th Street and Warner Avenue (currently Secondary Arterial) 1 Complete streets are transportation facilities that are planned, designed, operated, and maintained to provide safe mobility for all users, including bicyclists, pedestrians, transit vehicles, truckers, and motorists, appropriate to the function and context of the facility. 2 - 28 l Santa Ana Boulevard between French Street and Santiago Street (currently Primary Arterial) l Santa Ana Boulevard between Raitt Street and Flower Street (currently Major Arterial) l Cambridge Street between Fairhaven Avenue and SR-22 freeway (currently Secondary Arterial) l Hazard Avenue between Euclid Street and Harbor Boulevard (currently Secondary Arterial) l Halladay Avenue between Warner Avenue and Dyer Road (currently Secondary Arterial) l McFadden Avenue between Harbor Boulevard and Grand Avenue (currently Secondary Arterial) l Broadway between 1st Street and 17th Street (currently Secondary Arterial) l 4th Street between French Street and Grand Avenue (currently Primary/Secondary Arterial) l Fairhaven Avenue from Grand Avenue to Tustin Avenue (currently Secondary Arterial) § Reclassified as Primary Arterial: l Santa Ana Boulevard between Flower Street and Ross Street (currently a Major Arterial) l 1st Street between Bristol Street and Tustin Avenue (currently Major Arterial) § Reclassify as Collector Arterial: l Civic Center Drive between French Street and Santiago Street (currently a Secondary Arterial) § Add the following to the MPSH as Divided Collector Arterial: l Greenville Street between Segerstrom Avenue and Warner Avenue § Add the following to the MPSH as Collector Streets: l Greenville Street between Edinger Avenue and Warner Avenue § Remove the following from the MPSH l Flower Street between 17th Street and its northern terminus l Logan Street between Civic Center Drive and Santa Ana Boulevard The majority of the proposed reclassifications aim to reduce existing rights-of-way for vehicular traffic lanes to make room for bicycle and pedestrian improvements. Landmark streets are also identified within or adjacent to the Santa Ana Downtown Historic District, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The Mobility Element update incorporates the proposed Santa Ana-Garden Grove Fixed Guideway project, which will introduce new transit service to the city. Santa Ana is working with Garden Grove and Orange County Transit Authority to build a fixed guideway system called the 2 - 29 OC Streetcar. Expected to begin operations in 2022, the OC Streetcar will link the Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center to a new multimodal hub at Harbor Boulevard/Westminster Avenue in Garden Grove. OC Streetcar will serve historic downtown Santa Ana and Civic Center. Along its four-mile route, OC Streetcar will connect with 18 Orange County Transit Authority bus routes and increase transportation options along Santa Ana Boulevard, 4th Street, the Pacific Electric right-of-way, and Harbor Boulevard. Focus Areas 1. South Main Street Focus Area The South Main Street focus area introduces the opportunity for greater flexibility and a more dynamic mix of land uses and urban design along the properties fronting Main Street. The intent is to transition an auto-dominated corridor into a transit- and pedestrian-friendly corridor through infill development without disrupting the surrounding lower-density neighborhoods. The objectives of this focus area are: § Facilitate redevelopment and property improvements along Main Street. § Create a more active and dynamic streetscape. § Protect established residential neighborhoods. § Support transit, pedestrian, and nonmotorized travel. The majority of properties fronting Main Street will be designated Urban Neighborhood, allowing for future development to include commercial uses, low- and medium-density housing, or a combination of both in a vertically mixed-use format. South of Warner Avenue, the Industrial/Flex designation will offer new options for small-scale manufacturing, live-work, and retail opportunities. The balance of the focus area will remain designated for Low Density Residential or Institutional to reflect the existing development patterns and land uses. New buildings and spaces will be sensitive to the surrounding low-density neighborhoods while still emphasizing the creation of active and attractive urban spaces. 2. Grand Avenue / 17th Street Focus Area The Grand Avenue / 17th Street focus area will foster the development of an urban mixed-use corridor connecting into the city’s downtown and transit core. The intent is to create opportunities for a new mix of land uses and design to transition Grand Avenue from a series of auto-oriented shopping plazas to a series of dynamic urban spaces. The objectives of this focus area are: § Create mixed-use corridors and urban villages. § Promote infill development while respecting established neighborhoods. § Foster community spaces and neighborhood-serving amenities. § Develop opportunities for live-work, artist spaces, and small-scale manufacturing. § Maintain compatible nodes of commercial activity. 2 - 30 The majority of land in this focus area is planned for Urban Neighborhood or District Center land use designations, which will allow a blend of residential and commercial uses to develop simultaneously, as market conditions allow. An intense mixed-use area is envisioned adjacent to the Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center, along the east side of Grand Avenue south of I-5. This part of the focus area will support larger, more visually dynamic buildings and urban spaces that complement and benefit from the adjacent regional transit center. North of I-5, the buildings and spaces will be sensitive to the surrounding low-density neighborhoods but will still emphasize the creation of active and attractive urban spaces. A mix of residential, retail, and office will be interspersed along the frontage of Grand Avenue, with a concentrated node of commercial and mixed-use residential uses at Grand Avenue and 17th Street. A small portion of the focus area is designated for Industrial/Flex and General Commercial to support small-scale manufacturing, live-work, and retail opportunities will be located along 17th Street near the Regional Transportation Center. 3. West Santa Ana Boulevard Focus Area The West Santa Ana Boulevard focus area connects the Harbor Mixed Use Transit Corridor Specific Plan area and Downtown Santa Ana, and the OC Streetcar Project improvements will create the physical transit link in 2022. The intent is to transition a group of auto-oriented neighborhoods, businesses, and institutions into a series of transit-oriented neighborhoods that support and benefit from future streetcar stops. The objectives of this focus area are: § Develop housing and mixed-use opportunities near streetcar stations. § Promote infill development while respecting established neighborhoods. § Buffer industrial land uses and residential neighborhoods. § Create opportunities for clean industrial/maker-type spaces. 4. 55 Freeway / Dyer Road Focus Area The 55 Freeway / Dyer Road focus area will transition from almost exclusively professional office to a range of commercial, industrial/flex, and mixed-use development. The intent is to create opportunities for a truly urban lifestyle with easy access to Downtown Santa Ana, multiple transit options, and the new investments and amenities in adjacent communities. The objectives of this focus area are: § Provide housing opportunities at an urban level of intensity at the city’s edge. § Enhance opportunities for corporate offices. § Attract economic activity into the city from surrounding communities. § Protect industrial and office employment base. § Maintain hotel and commercial uses. The overall scale and experience of the focus area along the freeway and city boundary will reflect an urban intensity and design, with inspiring building forms and public spaces. At the southeastern edge, the District Center land use designation will facilitate large residential mixed-use 2 - 31 developments in structures that incorporate high-density housing, hotels, and complementary expansions of commercial uses. Adjacent to the 55 freeway, the Industrial/Flex land use designation will promote large-scale office-industrial flex spaces, multilevel corporate offices, and research and development uses. The node surrounding the freeway interchange will remain as currently planned for General Commercial uses, with new improvements introducing development and spaces that complement the existing examples and elements. South Bristol Street Focus Area The South Bristol Street focus area represents Santa Ana’s southern gateway and is a part of the South Coast Metro area. Between Sunflower and Alton Avenues, the District Center land use designation will create opportunities to transform auto-oriented shopping plazas to walkable, bike- friendly, and transit-friendly urban villages that incorporate a mix of high intensity office and residential living with experiential commercial uses. The objectives of this focus area are: § Capitalize on the success of the South Coast Metro area. § Introduce mixed-use urban villages and encourage experiential commercial uses that are more walkable, bike friendly, and transit oriented. § Provide for mixed-use opportunities while protecting adjacent, established, low-density neighborhoods. Between MacArthur Boulevard and Alton Avenue, the form and intensity will scale down but remain distinctly urban in nature. The redevelopment of the auto-oriented commercial plazas will result in the construction of landmark buildings and structures set in and around spaces accessible to future occupants and the general public. The corridor north of Alton Avenue is planned with the Urban Neighborhood land use designation, allowing for commercial and residential projects, frequently in a mixed-use format, to develop in accordance with market fluctuations. The buildings and spaces in this part of the focus area will be sensitive to the surrounding low-density neighborhoods but will still emphasize the creation of active and attractive urban spaces. Specific Plan/Special Zoning There are seven planning areas that represent specific plans and other special zoning areas that were previously adopted: Adaptive Reuse Project Incentive Area (2014), Bristol Street Corridor Specific Plan (1991/2018), Harbor Mixed Use Transit Corridor Specific Plan (2014), MainPlace Specific Plan (2019), Metro East Mixed-Use Overlay Zone (2007/2018), Midtown Specific Plan (1996), and Transit Zoning Code Specific Development (2010). The most recent adoption/amendment date for each document is noted in parentheses. 2 - 32 Adaptive Reuse Project Incentive Area The Adaptive Reuse Ordinance, Section 41-1651 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, provides alternative building and fire standards for the conversion of eligible buildings, or portions thereof, from nonresidential uses to dwelling units, guest rooms or joint living, and work quarters. Eligible structures are buildings within the Adaptive Reuse project incentive area that were constructed in accordance with building and zoning codes in effect prior to July 1, 1974, or which have been determined to be a Historically Significant. The Project Incentive Area includes properties in the Midtown Specific Plan area; the Transit Zoning Code area; the Metro East Mixed-Use Overlay Zone; the North Main Street Corridor on both sides of Main Street, from 17th Street to the northernmost MainPlace Drive; and the East 1st Street Corridor on both sides of 1st Street from Grand Avenue to Elk Lane. Residential uses are allowed in the Project Incentive Area irrespective of the underlying zoning as part of an approved Adaptive Reuse Project. Harbor Mixed Use Transit Corridor Specific Plan The Harbor Mixed Use Transit Corridor Specific Plan covers the 2.5-mile segment of Harbor Boulevard on the west side of Santa Ana. The approximately 305-acre planning area includes parcels adjacent to Harbor Boulevard between Westminster Avenue and Lilac Avenue as well as parcels along Westminster Avenue, 1st Street, and 5th Street. The Harbor Mixed Use Transit Corridor Specific Plan creates the zoning necessary to take advantage of the regional and local transit investments made along and around Harbor Boulevard. The plan expands development options to include residential alongside or integrated into a mix of nonresidential uses. MainPlace Specific Plan The purpose of the MainPlace Specific Plan is to transform MainPlace Mall into a family‐oriented retail, entertainment, and dining destination. The plan creates a mixed-use urban village with a revitalized mall at its central core. The Specific Plan area is on the north edge of Santa Ana, between Main Street on the east and SR-22 and I-5 to the north and west. The property is identified in the current General Plan land use element as District Center. The District Center designation includes the major activity areas of the city, designed to serve as anchors to the city’s commercial corridors and to accommodate major development activity. No General Plan amendment is required for the specific plan, and the MainPlace Specific Plan is the zoning for the property and defines the allowable uses within its boundaries. Metro East Mixed-Use Overlay Zone The Metro East Mixed Use (MEMU) Overlay Zone consists of an original MEMU Overlay Zone and an expansion component. The original MEMU Overlay Zone is largely developed with commercial and office uses and comprises approximately 200 acres immediately east of the I-5 and immediately west of SR-55. It is bounded by I-5 on the west and south, Tustin Avenue on the east, and East Sixth Street on the north. The MEMU expansion area added 33.52 acres or approximately 48 parcels to the original MEMU Overlay Zone area. The additional project area 2 - 33 extends west primarily along First Street and is generally bounded by the I-5 to the east, Grand Avenue to the west, East Chestnut Avenue to the south, and Fourth Street to the north. The overall objectives of the MEMU Overlay Zone are to encourage a more active commercial and residential community, provide an expanded economic base, maximize property sales tax revenues, improve the jobs/housing balance within the city, and provide for a range of housing options identified in the 2014 housing element. Midtown Specific Plan The Midtown Specific Plan area is generally bounded by 17th Street to the north, Civic Center Drive to the south, North Ross Street to the west, and North Spurgeon Street to the east. The Midtown area is readily accessible from the Santa Ana Freeway (I-5). Midtown is envisioned as an integrated district of civic, business, cultural, and retail activity with a small residential component. Transit Zoning Code Specific Development The City adopted a Transit Zoning Code to provide zoning for the integration of new infill development into existing neighborhoods; to allow for the reuse of existing structures; to provide for a range of housing options, including affordable housing; and to provide a transit-supportive, pedestrian-oriented development framework to support the addition of new transit infrastructure. The code encompasses an area in the central urban core of Santa Ana that comprises over 100 blocks and 450 acres. The area is west of I-5 and bounded by First Street on the south, Flower Street on the west, Grand Avenue on the east, and Civic Center Drive on the north. General Plan Buildout Scenario In general, many areas currently designated for General Commercial and Professional Office will expand opportunities for residential development by a proposed change in General Plan land use designation to Urban Neighborhood or District Center. Industrial Flex will be introduced in each of the five focus areas and replace Industrial land use designations that currently exist to allow for cleaner industrial and commercial uses with live-work opportunities. Furthermore, state law allows a graduated density bonus for the inclusion of affordable housing units For an increasing amount of affordable units (by percentage), a project is allowed an increasing ability to exceed the permitted density (up to a cap of 35 percent). Recent updates to state housing law (Assembly Bill 1763, effective January 1, 2020), enables projects that are 100 percent affordable (either 100 percent lower income or 80 percent lower and 20 percent limited moderate), to obtain a density bonus of 80 percent, or no limit if within one-half mile of a major transit stop. However, not every proposed project pursuant to the GPU would include affordable units, and not every project that includes affordable units would need a density bonus. Proposed projects pursuant to the GPU are not required to build at densities that exceed maximum limits; the law only requires that jurisdictions grant the density bonus if requested. The buildout methodology for the GPU was based on past development trends, current development trends, 2 - 34 and a forecast market analysis. These trends accounted for any units approved (density bonus or otherwise), to determine the appropriate density and amount of development to assume. Additionally, the optimal density of affordable units is at or below the density levels assumed for forecasting buildout. Generally, projects beyond 50 to 70 units per acre require Type 1 construction (steel and concrete structure), which is much more expensive than Type V construction (wood structure). Accordingly, affordable projects are rarely greater than 70 units per acre except for very small parcels. The average densities used to calculate projected buildout at 2045 are 50 to 90 units per acre in the three most intense focus areas; 55 Freeway/Dyer Road, Grand Avenue/17th Street, and South Bristol Street focus areas. For the remaining two focus areas, a residential assumption at 30 units per acre was used over a broad area to account for development at or above the maximum density of 30 units per acre. The maximum is 20 units per acre for projects proposed exclusively residential in the South Main Focus Area. The maximum is 30 units per acre for a relatively small part of the West Santa Ana Boulevard Focus Area. The City’s buildout projections are therefore considered to include and account for the application of density bonus provisions of state law to future projects. Furthermore, the potential for development in specific plan and special zoning areas is based on the forecast buildout at the time of the respective zoning document’s adoption, minus the amount of new development built between the adoption date and 2019. Growth outside of the focus areas and special planning areas is expected to be incremental and limited. Some growth was projected for the professional office surrounding the Orange County Global Medical Center and along Broadway north of the Midtown Specific Plan. Some growth was also projected for the commercial and retail area south of the West Santa Ana Boulevard focus area. Finally, some additional residential development is expected on a small portion (5 percent) of single-family and multifamily lots through the construction of second units. For the focus areas, the forecast buildout is based on development at approximately 80 percent of the maximum allowed development for each respective land use designation. C. DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS AND APPROVALS Project development requires the following discretionary actions and approvals from the City: § Adoption of the Santa Ana General Plan update § Certification of PEIR § Adoption of Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations § Adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring Program § Adoption of any ordinances, guidelines, programs, actions, or other mechanisms that implement the Santa Ana General Plan update 2 - 35 D. STATEMENT OF PROJECT OBJECTIVES The updated General Plan is based on a vision statement and core values established as part of an extensive, multiyear community outreach effort. The City has identified the following core values to guide the General Plan Update (GPU): § Health. The people of Santa Ana value a physical environment that encourages healthy lifestyles, a planning process that ensures that health impacts are considered, and a community that actively pursues policies and practices that improve the health of our residents. § Equity. Residents value taking all necessary steps to ensure equitable outcomes, expanding access to the tools and resources that residents need, and balancing competing interests in an open and democratic manner. § Sustainability. Santa Ana values land use decisions that benefit future generations, plans for the impacts of climate change, and incorporates sustainable design practices at all levels of the planning process. § Culture. The Santa Ana’s community values efforts that celebrate our differences as a source of strength, preserve and build upon existing cultural resources, and nurture a citywide culture of empowered residents. § Education. Santa Ana values the creation of lifelong learners, the importance of opening up educational opportunities to all residents, and investing in educational programs that advance residents’ economic well-being. These core values were used as the basis to define more specific project objectives to aid decision makers in their review of the GPU and associated environmental impacts. The objectives include: 1. Promote infill development while respecting and protecting established neighborhoods. 2. Optimize high density residential and mixed-use development that maximizes potential use of mass transit. 3. Provide locations for new housing development that maximizes affordable housing opportunities to achieve both City and regional housing goals. 4. Facilitate new development at intensities sufficient to generate community benefits and attract economic activity. 5. Provide housing and employment opportunities at an urban level of intensity at the City’s edge. 6. Introduce mixed-use urban villages and encourage experiential commercial uses that are more walkable, bike-friendly, and transit-oriented. 7. Develop opportunities for live/work, artist spaces, and small-scale manufacturing. 2 - 36 III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS In conformance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Santa Ana CEQA Guidelines, the City conducted an extensive environmental review of the proposed project. § The City of Santa Ana concluded that a PEIR should be prepared, and the Notice of Preparation (NOP) was released for a 30-day public review period from February 26, 2020, through March 27, 2020. The NOP was posted at the Orange County Clerk’s Office on February 26, 2020. The notice was published in the Orange County Register, a newspaper of general circulation. Under CEQA, a lead agency may proceed directly with preparation of a PEIR without preparation of an Initial Study if it is clear that a PEIR will be required (State CEQA Guidelines § 15060[d]). The City of Santa Ana made such a determination for this project and did not prepare an Initial Study. § Completion of a scoping process, in which the public was invited by the City of Santa Ana to participate. The scoping meeting for the PEIR was held on March 5, 2020, at 6:00 p.m. at the Santa Ana Police Community Room at 60 Civic Center Plaza in Santa Ana. The notice of a public scoping meeting was included in the NOP distributed on February 26, 2020. § Preparation of a Draft PEIR by the City of Santa Ana, which was made available for a 45- day public review period (August 3, 2020, through September 16, 2020) and extended to October 6, 2020. The Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft PEIR was sent to all persons, agencies, and organizations on the list interested persons, sent to the State Clearinghouse in Sacramento for distribution to public agencies, and published in the August 3, 2020, Orange County Register. The NOA was posted at the Orange County Clerk’s Office on August 3, 2020. Copies of the Draft PEIR were made available for public review at the City of Santa Ana, Planning Division Counter at 20 Civic Center Plaza, M-20, Santa Ana, CA 92701, and the City of Santa Ana Public Library at 26 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701. The Draft EIR was also available for review and download on City website: https://www.santa- ana.org/general-plan. § The Final PEIR contains comments on the Draft PEIR, responses to those comments, revisions to the Draft PEIR, if any, and appended documents. The Final PEIR was released for a 10-day agency review period prior to certification of the Final PEIR. § After considering the PEIR and in conjunction with making these findings, the City of Santa Ana hereby finds that, pursuant to Section 15092 of the CEQA Guidelines, approval of the project will result in significant effects on the environment; however, the significant effects will be eliminated or substantially lessened where feasible, and the City has determined that remaining significant effects are acceptable under Section 15093. § The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is hereby adopted to ensure implementation of feasible mitigation measures identified in the PEIR. The City of Santa Ana finds that these mitigation measures are fully enforceable conditions on the project and shall be binding upon the City and affected parties. 2 - 37 § The City of Santa Ana finds that the project is in the public interest and is necessary for the public health, safety, and welfare. § The City of Santa Ana hereby certifies the Final PEIR in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. § Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15095, staff is directed as follows: a) copy of the Final PEIR and CEQA Findings of Fact shall be retained in the project files; b) copy of the Final PEIR and CEQA Findings of Fact shall be provided to the project applicant who is responsible for providing copy of same to all CEQA "responsible" agencies. 2 - 38 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES THAT WERE DETERMINED NOT TO BE POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT A. IMPACTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT DURING THE SCOPING PROCESS Based on the public scoping process (including review of NOP responses and input at the public scoping meeting), in addition to analysis prepared for the Draft PEIR, the City determined, based upon the threshold criteria for significance, that the project would have no impact or a less than significant impact on the following potential environmental issues (see Draft PEIR, Chapter 8, Impacts Found Not to Be Significant). It was determined, therefore, that these potential environmental issues would be precluded from detailed discussion in the Draft PEIR. Based upon the environmental analysis presented in the Draft PEIR, and the comments received by the public on the Draft PEIR, no substantial evidence was submitted to or identified by the City which indicated that the project would have an impact on the following environmental areas: (a) Agriculture and Forestry Resources: The City does not have any significant agricultural resources. Additionally, Santa Ana has no land designated or zoned for agricultural use and does not have any land subject to a Williamson Act contract. Santa Ana does not have any land designated or zoned for forestland, timberland, or zoned Timberland Production. (b) Wildfire: According to CAL FIRE, the nearest fire hazard severity zone (FHSZ) in an SRA to the City of Santa Ana is a high FHSZ about 4.0 miles east along the western edge of Loma Ridge. The nearest FHSZ in an LRA is about 3.8 miles away at the southern tip of the Peters Canyon Regional Park. The city is not in or near SRAs or lands classified as very high FHSZs. Additionally, no area in the city is on the wildland-urban interface. All other topical areas of evaluation included in the Environmental Checklist were determined to require further assessment in the Draft PEIR. B. IMPACTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IN THE DRAFT PEIR This section identifies impacts of the proposed project determined to be less than significant without implementation of project-specific mitigation measures. This determination, however, does assume compliance with existing regulations, as detailed in each respective topical section of Chapter 5 in the Draft PEIR. (a) Aesthetics: Buildout under the GPU will be at a greater intensity/density in all five focus areas compared to existing conditions. While maximum height would generally be similar to existing buildings, the overall increase in allowed intensity and height across the focus areas would lead to a visually denser urban setting and alter Santa Ana’s existing skyline. Buildout under the GPU would not have a substantial adverse effect on scenic vistas (such as the Santa Ana River and Santiago Creek) since these existing open space parcels would remain unchanged. Additionally, no state scenic highways, eligible or officially designated, traverse the city nor are located near the city. Therefore, the GPU would not damage scenic resources, including rock outcroppings, trees, and historic buildings within state scenic 2 - 39 highways. The GPU would also create new sources of light or glare in the project area, but adverse impacts would be minimized with compliance to building codes. (b) Biological Resources: Development pursuant to the GPU would not impact riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities. Additionally, the GPU would not impact wetlands and jurisdictional waterways. The GPU would not conflict with an adopted NCCP/HCP as the City is not within a NCCP/HCP area and would not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. (c) Cultural Resources: The likelihood that human remains may be discovered during clearing and grading activities is considered extremely low. In the unlikely event human remains are uncovered, impacts would be less than significant upon compliance with California and Safety Code Section 7050.5. (d) Energy: Implementation of proposed policies under the GPU, in conjunction with and complementary to regulatory requirements, will ensure that energy demand associated with growth under the GPU would not be inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary. Additionally, the GPU would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. (e) Geology and Soils: The plan area’s location and underlying geology make it likely to experience seismic hazards, including strong seismic ground shaking, and secondary hazards, like liquefaction. No active surface faults are mapped and zoned under the AP Zoning Act in the plan area. Additionally, all structures that would be constructed in accordance with the GPU would be designed to meet or exceed current design standards as found in the latest CBC. Most of the plan area is within an area susceptible to liquefaction; however, all structures constructed under the GPU would be designed in accordance with current seismic design standards as found in the CBC. There are no substantial hazards with respect to slope stability, as the plan area is mostly flat. Unstable geologic unit or soils conditions, including soil erosion, could result from development of the GPU. Mandatory compliance with existing regulations, including the preparation and submittal of a SWPPP and a soil engineering evaluation, would reduce soil erosion impacts to a less than significant level. Implementation of the CBC design code, which has been adopted by the City and requires that structures be designed to mitigate expansive and compressible soils, would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. The probability of subsidence impacts is generally low in the majority of Santa Ana; however, the statutorily required sustainable groundwater management practices of the Orange County Water District would ensure that impacts would be less than significant. Future development in the plan area would require connection to the City’s sewer system as the City of Santa Ana does not allow for the installation of septic tanks. (f) Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The GPU would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. 2 - 40 (g) Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Construction and operations under the GPU would involve the transport, use, and/or disposal of hazardous materials; however, compliance with existing regulations would ensure that construction workers and the general public are not exposed to any risks related to hazardous materials during demolition and construction. Furthermore, strict adherence to all emergency response plan requirements set by the Orange County Fire Authority would be required throughout the duration of project construction. GPU buildout is expected to result in some increase in the number of hazardous waste generators; however, hazardous wastes would be stored, transported, and disposed of in conformance with existing regulations of the EPA, US Department of Transportation, CalRecycle, and other agencies. Use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials in conformance with regulations would reduce both the likelihood of an accidental release and the potential consequences in the event of an accidental release. The plan area includes 555 sites on a list of hazardous materials compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 that could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Any development, redevelopment, or reuse on or next to any of these sites would require environmental site assessment by a qualified environmental professional to ensure that the project would not disturb hazardous materials on any of the hazardous materials sites or plumes of hazardous materials diffusing from one of the hazardous materials sites, and that any proposed development, redevelopment, or reuse would not create a substantial hazard to the public or the environment. Santa Ana is in the vicinity of an airport or within the jurisdiction of an airport land use plan. Projects approved under the proposed GPU would be required to comply with FAA airspace protection regulations using the AELUP consistency determination process. The buildout of the GPU would not result in substantial changes to the circulation patterns or emergency access routes, and would not block or otherwise interfere with use of evacuation routes. Buildout would not interfere with operation of the City’s Emergency Operations Center and would not interfere with operations of emergency response agencies or with coordination and cooperation between such agencies. Santa Ana is not in a designated fire hazard zone, and implementation of the GPU will not expose structures and/or residences to wildland fire danger. (h) Hydrology and Water Quality: Projects pursuant to the GPU would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. Development pursuant to the GPU would increase the demand on groundwater use but would not impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. Development pursuant to the GPU would increase the amount of pervious surfaces in the plan area, but could substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in some focus areas in a manner which would result in flooding off-site or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, development pursuant to the GPU would not risk release of pollutants due to project inundation or impede or redirect flood flows. Development 2 - 41 pursuant to the GPU would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. (i) Land Use Planning: Implementation of the GPU would not divide an established community. Additionally, the GPU would be consistent with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for the John Wayne Airport. Implementation of the GPU would be consistent with the goals of the Southern California Association of Governments’ RTP/SCS. Implementation of the GPU would also be consistent with the OCTA Congestion Management Plan. (j) Mineral Resources: Project implementation would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. (k) Noise: The proximity of the plan area to an airport or airstrip would not result in exposure of future residents and/or workers to excessive airport-related noise. (l) Population and Housing: The proposed GPU would provide more housing opportunities than currently exist. Therefore, implementation of the GPU would not displace people and/or housing. (m) Public Services: The GPU would introduce new structures and allow for up to 22,361 new residents and workers in the OCFA and Santa Ana Police Department service boundaries, thereby increasing the requirement for fire protection facilities and personnel, as well as increasing the service needs for the Main Library and the Newhope Library Learning Center. The GPU would also generate additional students who would impact the school enrollment capacities of the Santa Ana Unified School District, Garden Grove Unified School District, and Orange Unified School District. However, upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval the project would not create significant impacts related to fire protection services, police protection, library services, or school services. (n) Recreation: The GPU would generate additional residents that would increase the use of existing park and recreational facilities. However, upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, impacts would not be significant. Project implementation would result in environmental impacts to provide new and/or expanded recreational facilities, but potentially adverse impacts to the environment that may result from the expansion of parks, recreational facilities, and multiuse trails pursuant to buildout of the proposed land use plan would be less than significant upon the implementation of the GPU’s goals, policies, and actions and existing federal, state, and local regulations. Subsequent environmental review for future individual park developments would also be required. (o) Transportation and Traffic: The GPU is consistent with adopted programs, plans, and policies addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Additionally, GPU implementation would result in a reduction of vehicle miles traveled per service population (VMT/SP) in comparison to existing City conditions, and would achieve a VMT/SP at least 15 percent lower than the countywide VMT/SP. Finally, 2 - 42 circulation improvements associated with future development that would be accommodated by the GPU would be designed to adequately address potentially hazardous conditions (sharp curves, etc.), potential conflicting uses, and emergency access. (p) Utilities and Service Systems: Development pursuant to the GPU would require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater facilities. However, Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) has a functioning and effective process in place to ensure the regional sewer infrastructure will support future developments under the Santa Ana GPU. Additionally, OCSD and OC Water District have adequate capacity to serve development pursuant to the GPU in addition to the providers existing commitments. Development pursuant to the GPU would require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water facilities. However, the City would have adequate capacity for the proposed increases in water flows across the city under implementation of the GPU and would be able to serve the additional dwelling units and commercial square footage proposed. Furthermore, GPU policies encourage the maintenance and upgrade of water infrastructure through impact fees from new development, and the exploration of other funding sources. Water supply would be adequate to meet development pursuant to the GPU. Existing and/or proposed stormwater drainage facilities would be able to accommodate proposed development pursuant to the GPU. Existing and/or proposed solid waste facilities would be able to accommodate development pursuant to the GPU and comply with related solid waste regulations. Development pursuant to the GPU would require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded electric power and natural gas. However, the net increases in natural gas demands due to the GPU buildout are within the amounts that SoCalGas forecasts that it will supply to its customers, and buildout would not require SoCalGas to obtain increased natural gas supplies over its currently forecast supplies. 2 - 43 V. FINDINGS REGARDING POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The following potentially significant environmental impacts were analyzed in the Draft PEIR, and the effects of the project were considered. Because of environmental analysis of the project and the identification of relevant General Plan policies; compliance with existing laws, codes, and statutes; and the identification of feasible mitigation measures, some potentially significant impacts have been determined by the City to be reduced to a level of less than significant, and the City has found—in accordance with CEQA Section 21081(a)(1) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a) (1)—that “Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.” This is referred to herein as “Finding 1.” Where the City has determined—pursuant to CEQA Section 21081(a)(2) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(2)—that “Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency,” the City’s finding is referred to herein as “Finding 2.” Where, as a result of the environmental analysis of the project, the City has determined that either (1) even with the identification of project design features, compliance with existing laws, codes and statutes, and/or the identification of feasible mitigation measures, potentially significant impacts cannot be reduced to a level of less than significant, or (2) no feasible mitigation measures or alternatives are available to mitigate the potentially significant impact, the City has found in accordance with CEQA Section 21081(a)(3) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3) that “Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.” This is referred to herein as “Finding 3.” A. IMPACTS MITIGATED TO LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT The following summary describes impacts of the proposed project that, without mitigation, would result in significant adverse impacts. Upon implementation of the mitigation measures provided in the Draft PEIR, the impacts would be considered less than significant. 1. Air Quality Impact 5.2-6: Industrial land uses accommodated under the General Plan update could create other emissions, such as those leading to objectionable odors, that would adversely affect a substantial number of people. Industrial land uses associated with the GPU may generate potentially significant odor impacts for a substantial number of people. Impacts from potential odors generated from residential and other nonresidential land uses associated with the GPU are considered less than significant. Impacts associated with construction-generated odors are considered less than significant. 2 - 44 The Industrial and Industrial Flex land uses are not anticipated to produce odors, and Mitigation Measure AQ-4 would ensure that odor impacts are minimized and facilities would comply with South Coast AQMD Rule 402. Therefore, Impact 5.2-6 would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures AQ-4 Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Santa Ana, if it is determined that a development project has the potential to emit nuisance odors beyond the property line, an odor management plan shall be prepared by the project applicant and submitted to the City of Santa Ana for review and approval. Facilities that have the potential to generate nuisance odors include, but are not limited to: • Wastewater treatment plants • Composting, green waste, or recycling facilities • Fiberglass manufacturing facilities • Painting/coating operations • Large-capacity coffee roasters • Food-processing facilities The odor management plan shall demonstrate compliance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Rule 402 for nuisance odors. The Odor Management Plan shall identify the best available control technologies for toxics (T-BACTs) that will be utilized to reduce potential odors to acceptable levels, including appropriate enforcement mechanisms. T-BACTs may include but are not limited to scrubbers (i.e., air pollution control devices) at the industrial facility. T-BACTs identified in the odor management plan shall be identified as mitigation measures in the environmental document prepared for the development project and/or incorporated into the project’s site plan. Finding Finding 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft PEIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measure above. The City of Santa Ana hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measure is feasible, and the measure is therefore adopted. 2. Biological Resources Impact 5.3-1: Implementation of the General Plan Update could result in adverse impacts to candidate, sensitive, or special-status species. The inventory of existing conditions determined that no parcels with a proposed land use designation that allows for development (i.e., not an open space designation) currently has 2 - 45 sensitive vegetation. All parcels currently have ruderal vegetation and little to no biological value. Therefore, there is no current indication that future development in accordance with the GPU would have significant unavoidable biological impacts. However, the programmatic analysis prepared for this GPU was not at the detailed, site-specific analysis required for a specific development project. Site-specific analyses could reveal biological resources not identified in the Biological and Natural Resources Report. Therefore, there is a potential for biological impacts associated with implementation of the GPU. Therefore, implementation of the GPU could result in a potentially significant impact. The letter received from CDFW states that the Santa Ana River and its tributaries historically supported federally endangered southern California steelhead. CDFW’s letter requests that the Draft Program EIR include an analysis of any proposed major stream crossings in the context of fish passage, and states that the analysis should include, but not be limited to, steelhead presence or historic presence, existing conditions including habitat and barrier assessments, any known projects to remove barriers or restore habitat that would affect or be affected by this project, and cumulative impacts to steelhead populations and/or habitat resulting from this project. The GPU does not propose any major stream crossings. If any future development project entails improvements for stream crossings (e.g. Santa Ana River and Santiago Creek), project-level CEQA compliance would require a biological resources report that would address potential impacts to endangered species, including the California steelhead. Impact 5.3-1 would be less than significant with compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations and incorporation of mitigation measure BIO-1. Mitigation Measures BIO-1 For development or redevelopment projects that would disturb vegetated land or major stream and are subject to CEQA, a qualified biologist shall conduct an initial screening to determine whether a site-specific biological resource report is warranted. If needed, a qualified biologist shall conduct a field survey for the site and prepare a biological resource assessment for the project, including an assessment of potential impacts to sensitive species, habitats, and jurisdictional waters. The report shall recommend mitigation measures, as appropriate, to avoid or limit potential biological resource impacts to less than significant. Finding Finding 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft PEIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measures above. The City of Santa Ana hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measure is feasible, and the measure is therefore adopted. 2 - 46 Impact 5.3-4: Implementation of the General Plan Update could result in adverse impacts to candidate, sensitive, or special-status species. The City of Santa Ana is largely urbanized, and migration corridors are generally limited to the Santa Ana River and the Santiago Creek. Development under the GPU would result in the further infill of the city and removal of vacant sites. The GPU would not change land use designations of parcels that encompass the Santa Ana River or the Santiago Creek. However, development under the GPU could further result in vegetation removal, intrusion by humans and pets, and increased noise and air pollutants, which could impact wildlife movement and nesting sites. Therefore, the buildout of the GPU could affect wildlife movement, nesting sites, and migratory birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act as well as state law. Impact 5.3-4 would be less than significant with compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations and incorporation of mitigation measure BIO-1. Mitigation Measures Refer to BIO-1 above. Finding Finding 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft PEIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measure above. The City of Santa Ana hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measure is feasible, and the measure is therefore adopted. 3. Cultural Resources Impact 5.4-2: Development in accordance with the General Plan Update could impact archaeological resources. Development involving ground disturbance within the plan area has the potential to impact known and unknown archaeological resources. Typically, surface-level and subsurface archaeological sites and deposits can be affected by ground-disturbing activities associated with most types of construction. Based on literature review and records searches, eight archaeological resources have been recorded within the plan area, including four prehistoric sites, one multicomponent site, and three historic isolates. The plan area includes many locations that would have been favorable for prehistoric Native American occupation. While most of the plan area has been developed over the course of the twentieth century, buried resources may remain in areas where developments such as parking lots, parks, or structures with shallow foundations have required only minimal ground disturbance. A review of historical and ethnographic maps indicates a moderate likelihood that intact subsurface archaeological resources would be encountered during redevelopment. Archaeological resources impacts are site specific, but more intensive development can result in cumulative impacts on a regional level and should be considered in addition to individual project 2 - 47 impacts on individual sites. As determined by the respective lead agency on a project by project basis, Phase I Cultural Resources studies would be required before ground disturbances and demolition activities are permitted to occur. The study would identify resources on the affected project sites that are, or appear to be, eligible for listing on the National or California Register. Such studies would also recommend mitigation measures to protect and preserve archaeological and tribal cultural resources. Mitigation Measures CUL-4 through CUL-7 were developed to reduce potential individual and cumulative impacts associated with future development and redevelopment. Mitigation Measure CUL-4 requires an archaeological resources assessment be conducted for future development projects to identify any known archaeological resources and sensitivity of the site. Mitigation Measures CUL-5 through CUL-7 detail the next steps required should the archaeological resources assessment identify known resources or determine the site to have high or moderate resource sensitivity. Upon compliance with Mitigation Measures CUL-4 through CUL-7, individual and cumulative impacts to archaeological resources would be reduced to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measures CUL-4 For projects with ground disturbance—e.g., grading, excavation, trenching, boring, or demolition that extend below the current grade—prior to issuance of any permits required to conduct ground-disturbing activities, the City shall require an Archaeological Resources Assessment be conducted under the supervision of an archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professionally Qualified Standards in either prehistoric or historic archaeology. Assessments shall include a California Historical Resources Information System records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center and of the Sacred Land Files maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission. The records searches will determine if the proposed project area has been previously surveyed for archaeological resources, identify and characterize the results of previous cultural resource surveys, and disclose any cultural resources that have been recorded and/or evaluated. If unpaved surfaces are present within the project area, and the entire project area has not been previously surveyed within the past 10 years, a Phase I pedestrian survey shall be undertaken in proposed project areas to locate any surface cultural materials that may be present. CUL-5 If potentially significant archaeological resources are identified, and impacts cannot be avoided, a Phase II Testing and Evaluation investigation shall be performed by an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards to determine significance prior to any ground-disturbing activities. If resources are determined significant or unique through Phase II testing, and site avoidance is not possible, appropriate site-specific mitigation measures shall be undertaken. These might include a Phase III data recovery program implemented by a qualified archaeologist 2 - 48 and performed in accordance with the Office of Historical Preservation’s “Archaeological Resource Management Reports (ARMR): Recommended Contents and Format” (OHP 1990) and “Guidelines for Archaeological Research Designs” (OHP 1991). CUL-6 If the archaeological assessment did not identify archaeological resources but found the area to be highly sensitive for archaeological resources, a qualified archaeologist shall monitor all ground-disturbing construction and pre-construction activities in areas with previously undisturbed soil. The archaeologist shall inform all construction personnel prior to construction activities of the proper procedures in the event of an archaeological discovery. The training shall be held in conjunction with the project’s initial on-site safety meeting and shall explain the importance and legal basis for the protection of significant archaeological resources. In the event that archaeological resources (artifacts or features) are exposed during ground-disturbing activities, construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall be halted while the resources are evaluated for significance by an archaeologist who meets the Secretary’s Standards, and tribal consultation shall be conducted in the case of a tribal resource. If the discovery proves to be significant, the long-term disposition of any collected materials should be determined in consultation with the affiliated tribe(s), where relevant; this could include curation with a recognized scientific or educational repository, transfer to the tribe, or respectful reinternment in an area designated by the tribe. CUL-7 If an Archaeological Resources Assessment does not identify potentially significant archaeological resources but the site has moderate sensitivity for archaeological resources (Mitigation Measure CUL-4), an archaeologist who meets the Secretary’s Standards shall be retained on call. The archaeologist shall inform all construction personnel prior to construction activities about the proper procedures in the event of an archaeological discovery. The pre-construction training shall be held in conjunction with the project’s initial on-site safety meeting and shall explain the importance and legal basis for the protection of significant archaeological resources. In the event that archaeological resources (artifacts or features) are exposed during ground-disturbing activities, construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall be halted while the on-call archaeologist is contacted. The resource shall be evaluated for significance and tribal consultation shall be conducted, in the case of a tribal resource. If the discovery proves to be significant, the long-term disposition of any collected materials should be determined in consultation with the affiliated tribe(s), where relevant. Finding Finding 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft PEIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation 2 - 49 measures above. The City of Santa Ana hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measures is feasible, and the measures are therefore adopted. 4. Geology and Soils Impact 5.6-4: Future development that would be accommodated by the General Plan Update could impact known and unknown paleontological resources. Paleontological resources are recognized as nonrenewable and therefore receive protection under the California Public Resources Code and CEQA. Adoption of the GPU in itself will not directly affect paleontological resources. Long-term implementation of the GPU land use plan could allow development (e.g., infill development, redevelopment, and revitalization/restoration), including grading, of known and unknown sensitive areas. Grading and construction activities of undeveloped areas or redevelopment that requires more intensive soil excavation than in the past could potentially disturb paleontological resources. Therefore, future development that would be accommodated by the GPU could potentially unearth previously unrecorded resources. Review and protection of paleontological resources are also afforded by CEQA for individual development projects that would be accommodated by the GPU, subject to discretionary actions that are implemented in accordance with the land use plan of the GPU. Fossil localities have been found in the vicinity of the plan area, although not in the plan area itself. Mitigation Measures GEO-1 through GEO-3 prescribe requirements for monitoring based on the sensitivity of sites for paleontological resources. Under GEO-1, areas that range from high to low sensitivity are required to prepare a Paleontological Resources Monitoring and Mitigation Plan. With adherence to mitigation measures GEO-1 through GEO-3, Impact 5.6-4 would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures GEO-1 High Sensitivity. Projects involving ground disturbances in previously undisturbed areas mapped as having “high” paleontological sensitivity shall be monitored by a qualified paleontological monitor on a full-time basis. Monitoring shall include inspection of exposed sedimentary units during active excavations within sensitive geologic sediments. The monitor shall have authority to temporarily divert activity away from exposed fossils to evaluate the significance of the find and, if the fossils are determined to be significant, professionally and efficiently recover the fossil specimens and collect associated data. The paleontological monitor shall use field data forms to record pertinent location and geologic data, measure stratigraphic sections (if applicable), and collect appropriate sediment samples from any fossil localities. GEO-2 Low-to-High Sensitivity. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for projects involving ground disturbance in previously undisturbed areas mapped with “low-to-high” paleontological sensitivity, the project applicant shall consult with a geologist or paleontologist to confirm whether the grading would occur at depths that could encounter highly sensitive sediments for paleontological resources. If confirmed that 2 - 50 underlying sediments may have high sensitivity, construction activity shall be monitored by a qualified paleontologist. The paleontologist shall have the authority to halt construction during construction activity as outlined in Mitigation Measure GEO-3. GEO-3 All Projects. In the event of any fossil discovery, regardless of depth or geologic formation, construction work shall halt within a 50-foot radius of the find until its significance can be determined by a qualified paleontologist. Significant fossils shall be recovered, prepared to the point of curation, identified by qualified experts, listed in a database to facilitate analysis, and deposited in a designated paleontological curation facility in accordance with the standards of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (2010). The most likely repository is the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. The repository shall be identified and a curatorial arrangement shall be signed prior to collection of the fossils. Finding Finding 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft PEIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measures above. The City of Santa Ana hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measures is feasible, and the measures are therefore adopted. 5. Noise Impact 5.12-3: Buildout of the individual land uses and projects for implementation of the GPU may expose sensitive uses to excessive levels of groundborne vibration. Construction Vibration Impacts. Construction activity at projects within the plan area would generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the construction procedures and equipment. Operation of construction equipment generates vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish with distance from the source. The effect on buildings in the vicinity of the construction site varies depending on soil type, ground strata, and receptor-building construction. The results from vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibrations at moderate levels, to slight structural damage at the highest levels. Vibration from construction activities rarely reaches the levels that can damage structures but can achieve the audible and perceptible ranges in buildings close to the construction site. Vibration generated by construction equipment has the potential to be substantial, since it has the potential to exceed the FTA criteria for architectural damage (e.g., 0.12 inches per second [in/sec] PPV for fragile or historical resources, 0.2 in/sec PPV for non-engineered timber and masonry buildings, and 0.3 in/sec PPV for engineered concrete and masonry). Construction details and equipment for future project-level developments under the GPU are not known at this time but may cause vibration impacts. 2 - 51 With implementation of Mitigation Measures N-2, N-3, and N-4, coupled with adherence to associated performance standards, Impact 5.12-3 would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. Specifically, Mitigation Measure N-2 would reduce potential vibration impacts during construction below the pertinent thresholds, and Mitigation Measures N-3 and N-4 (operations- related vibration) would reduce potential vibration impacts from commercial/industrial uses and proposed uses near existing railroads and facilities to less-than-significant levels. No significant and unavoidable vibration impacts would remain. Operational Vibration Impacts. Commercial and industrial operations within the plan area would generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the operational procedures and equipment. Such equipment-generated vibrations would spread through the ground and diminish with distance from the source. The effect on buildings in the vicinity of the vibration source varies depending on soil type, ground strata, and receptor-building construction. The results from vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibrations at moderate levels, to slight structural damage at the highest levels. In addition, future sensitive receptors could be placed within close proximity to existing railroad lines through buildout in the plan area. Because specific project-level information is not available at this time, it is not possible to quantify future vibration levels at vibration-sensitive receptors that may be near existing and future vibration sources. With implementation of Mitigation Measures N-2, N-3, and N-4, coupled with adherence to associated performance standards, Impact 5.12-3 would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. Specifically, Mitigation Measure N-2 would reduce potential vibration impacts during construction below the pertinent thresholds, and Mitigation Measures N-3 and N-4 (operations- related vibration) would reduce potential vibration impacts from commercial/industrial uses and proposed uses near existing railroads and facilities to less-than-significant levels. No significant and unavoidable vibration impacts would remain. Mitigation Measures N-2 Prior to issuance of a building permit for a project requiring pile driving during construction within 135 feet of fragile structures, such as historical resources, 100 feet of non-engineered timber and masonry buildings (e.g., most residential buildings), or within 75 feet of engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster); or a vibratory roller within 25 feet of any structure, the project applicant shall prepare a noise and vibration analysis to assess and mitigate potential noise and vibration impacts related to these activities. This noise and vibration analysis shall be conducted by a qualified and experienced acoustical consultant or engineer. The vibration levels shall not exceed Federal Transit Administration (FTA) architectural damage thresholds (e.g., 0.12 inches per second [in/sec] peak particle velocity [PPV] for fragile or historical resources, 0.2 in/sec PPV for non-engineered timber and masonry buildings, and 0.3 in/sec PPV for engineered concrete and masonry). If vibration levels would exceed 2 - 52 this threshold, alternative uses such as drilling piles as opposed to pile driving and static rollers as opposed to vibratory rollers shall be used. If necessary, construction vibration monitoring shall be conducted to ensure vibration thresholds are not exceeded. N-3 New residential projects (or other noise-sensitive uses) located within 200 feet of existing railroad lines shall be required to conduct a groundborne vibration and noise evaluation consistent with Federal Transit Administration (FTA)-approved methodologies. N-4 During the project-level California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process for industrial developments under the General Plan Update or other projects that could generate substantial vibration levels near sensitive uses, a noise and vibration analysis shall be conducted to assess and mitigate potential noise and vibration impacts related to the operations of that individual development. This noise and vibration analysis shall be conducted by a qualified and experienced acoustical consultant or engineer and shall follow the latest CEQA guidelines, practices, and precedents. Finding Finding 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft PEIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measures above. The City of Santa Ana hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measures is feasible, and the measures are therefore adopted. 6. Tribal Cultural Resources Impact 5.17-1: The proposed project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k). The Sacred Land File search yielded positive results, indicating that known tribal resources exist within the plan area. Further, a CHRIS records search at SCCIC indicates that 23 archaeological resources were previously recorded within 0.5 mile of the plan area. Of these resources, eight archaeological resources were located within the plan area; these include four prehistoric sites with habitation debris and lithic scatters, one multicomponent site, and three historic isolates. The plan area includes many locations that would have been favorable for prehistoric Native American occupation. While the city is urbanized and most of the plan area has been developed, buried resources may remain in areas of minimal ground disturbance, such as parks, parking lots, and structures with shallow foundations. Tribal cultural resources are site specific in nature. 2 - 53 Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-4 through CUL-7 would reduce impacts relating to tribal cultural resources to less than significant. Mitigation Measures Refer to Mitigation Measures CUL-4 through CUL-7 in section A.3, above. Finding Finding 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft PEIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measures above. The City of Santa Ana hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measures is feasible, and the measures are therefore adopted. Impact 5.17-2: The proposed project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is determined by the lead agency to be significant pursuant to criteria in Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(c). Future development as a result of the implementation of the GPU could include grading in portions of the City with sensitivity to tribal cultural resources. Grading and construction activities that require more intensive soil excavation than in the past could potentially cause disturbance to tribal cultural resources. Future development could potentially unearth previously unknown or unrecorded tribal cultural resources. Because the NAHC SLF search yielded positive results and the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation identified sensitive areas within the city, the buildout of the GPU may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of tribal cultural resources. Earthwork activities may occur with buildout under the GPU that could impact previously undisturbed tribal cultural resources. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-4 through CUL-7 would reduce impacts relating to tribal cultural resources to less than significant. Mitigation Measures Refer to Mitigation Measures CUL-4 through CUL-7 in section A.3, above. Finding Finding 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft PEIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measures above. The City of Santa Ana hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measures is feasible, and the measures are therefore adopted. 2 - 54 B. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS The following summary describes the unavoidable adverse impact of the GPU where mitigation measures were found to be either infeasible or would not lessen impacts to less than significant. The following impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. 1. Air Quality Impact 5.2-1: The additional population growth forecast for the General Plan Update and the associated emissions would not be consistent with the assumptions of the air quality management plan. Support for this environmental impact conclusion is fully discussed in Section 5.2, Air Quality, starting on page 5.2-28 of the Draft PEIR. The GPU would be inconsistent with the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) because buildout under the GPU would exceed the population estimates assumed for the AQMP and would cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB). Buildout of the GPU would exceed current population estimates for the city, and therefore the emissions associated with the additional population are not included in the current regional emissions inventory for the SoCAB. Additionally, air pollutant emissions associated with buildout of the GPU would cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations in the SoCAB. Therefore, overall, the GPU would be inconsistent with the AQMP. Incorporation of Mitigation Measure AQ-2 into future development projects for the operation phase would contribute to reduced criteria air pollutant emissions associated with buildout of the GPU. Additionally, goals and policies in the GPU would promote increased capacity for alternative transportation modes and implementation of transportation demand management strategies. However, due to the magnitude and scale of the land uses that would be developed, no mitigation measures are available that would reduce operation and construction impacts below South Coast AQMD thresholds. In addition, the population and employment assumptions of the AQMP would continue to be exceeded until the AQMP is revised and incorporates the projections of the GPU. Therefore, Impact 5.2-1 would remain significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure AQ-2 Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Santa Ana for development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., non-exempt projects), project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project operation phase-related air quality impacts to the City of Santa Ana for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) methodology in assessing air quality impacts. If operation-related air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the South Coast AQMD’s adopted thresholds of significance, the City of Santa Ana shall require that applicants for new development 2 - 55 projects incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during operational activities. The identified measures shall be included as part of the conditions of approval. Possible mitigation measures to reduce long-term emissions could include, but are not limited to the following: • For site-specific development that require refrigerated vehicles, the construction documents shall demonstrate an adequate number of electrical service connections at loading docks for plug-in for the anticipated number of refrigerated trailers to reduce idling time and emissions. • Applicants for manufacturing and light industrial uses shall consider energy storage and combined heat and power in appropriate applications to optimize renewable energy generation systems and avoid peak energy use. • Site-specific developments with truck delivery and loading areas and truck parking spaces shall include signage as a reminder to limit idling of vehicles while parked for loading/unloading in accordance with California Air Resources Board Rule 2845 (13 CCR Chapter 10 § 2485). • Provide changing/shower facilities as specified in Section A5.106.4.3 of the CALGreen Code (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures). • Provide bicycle parking facilities per Section A4.106.9 (Residential Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code and Sec. 41-1307.1 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code. • Provide preferential parking spaces for low-emitting, fuel-efficient, and carpool/van vehicles per Section A5.106.5.1 of the CALGreen Code (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures). • Provide facilities to support electric charging stations per Section A5.106.5.3 (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures) and Section A5.106.8.2 (Residential Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code. • Applicant-provided appliances (e.g., dishwashers, refrigerators, clothes washers, and dryers) shall be Energy Star–certified appliances or appliances of equivalent energy efficiency. Installation of Energy Star–certified or equivalent appliances shall be verified by Building & Safety during plan check. • Applicants for future development projects along existing and planned transit routes shall coordinate with the City of Santa Ana and Orange County Transit Authority to ensure that bus pad and shelter improvements are incorporated, as appropriate. Finding Finding 3. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the GPU that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft PEIR. These 2 - 56 changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measure above. The City of Santa Ana hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measure is feasible, and the measure is therefore adopted. However, the City finds that there are no other mitigation measures that are feasible, taking into consideration specific economic, legal, social, technological or other factors, that would mitigate this impact to a less-than-significant level, and further, that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the alternatives identified in the PEIR, as discussed in Section G of these Findings (Public Resources Code §§ 21081(a)(1), (3); Guidelines §§ 15091(a)(1), (3)). As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has determined that this impact is acceptable because specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of the GPU outweigh its significant effects on the environment. Impact 5.2-2: Construction activities associated with future development that would be accommodated under the General Plan Update could generate short-term emissions in exceedance of the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s threshold criteria. Support for this environmental impact conclusion is fully discussed in Section 5.2, Air Quality, starting on page 5.2-30 of the Draft PEIR. Buildout of the GPU would occur over a period of approximately 25 years or longer. Construction activities associated with buildout of the GPU could generate short-term emissions that exceed the South Coast AQMD’S significance thresholds during this time and cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the SoCAB. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would reduce criteria air pollutant emissions from construction-related activities to the extent feasible. However, construction time frames and equipment for site-specific development projects are not available at this time, and there is a potential for multiple development projects to be constructed at one time, resulting in significant construction-related emissions. Therefore, despite adherence to Mitigation Measure AQ-1, Impact 5.2-2 would remain significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measures AQ-1 Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Santa Ana for development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., non-exempt projects), project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project construction-related air quality impacts to the City of Santa Ana for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) methodology for assessing air quality impacts. If construction-related criteria air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the South Coast AQMD’s adopted thresholds of significance, the City of Santa Ana shall require that applicants for new development projects incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant 2 - 57 emissions during construction activities. These identified measures shall be incorporated into all appropriate construction documents (e.g., construction management plans) submitted to the City and shall be verified by the City. Mitigation measures to reduce construction-related emissions could include, but are not limited to: • Require fugitive-dust control measures that exceed South Coast AQMD’s Rule 403, such as: § Use of nontoxic soil stabilizers to reduce wind erosion. § Apply water every four hours to active soil-disturbing activities. • Use construction equipment rated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as having Tier 3 (model year 2006 or newer) or Tier 4 (model year 2008 or newer) emission limits, applicable for engines between 50 and 750 horsepower • Ensure that construction equipment is properly serviced and maintained to the manufacturer’s standards. • Limit nonessential idling of construction equipment to no more than five consecutive minutes. • Limit on-site vehicle travel speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. • Install wheel washers for all exiting trucks or wash off all trucks and equipment leaving the project area. • Use Super-Compliant VOC paints for coating of architectural surfaces whenever possible. A list of Super-Compliant architectural coating manufactures can be found on the South Coast AQMD’s website. Finding Finding 3. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the GPU that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft PEIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measure above. The City of Santa Ana hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measure is feasible, and the measure is therefore adopted. The City finds that there are no other mitigation measures that are feasible, taking into consideration specific economic, legal, social, technological or other factors, that would mitigate this impact to a less-than-significant level, and further, that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the alternatives identified in the PEIR, as discussed in Section G of these Findings (Public Resources Code §§ 21081(a)(1), (3); Guidelines §§ 15091(a)(1), (3)). As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has determined that this impact is acceptable because specific overriding economic, legal, social, 2 - 58 technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of the GPU outweigh its significant effects on the environment. Impact 5.2-3: Implementation of the General Plan Update would generate long-term emissions in exceedance of South Coast AQMD’s threshold criteria. Support for this environmental impact conclusion is fully discussed in Section 5.2, Air Quality, starting on page 5.2-31 of the Draft PEIR. Buildout in accordance with the GPU would generate long-term emissions that would exceed South Coast AQMD’s regional significance thresholds and cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the SoCAB. Mitigation Measure AQ-2, in addition to the goals and policies of the GPU, would reduce air pollutant emissions to the extent feasible. The measures and policies covering topics such as expansion of the pedestrian and bicycle networks, promotion of public and active transit, and support to increase building energy efficiency and energy conservation would also reduce criteria air pollutants in the city. Further, compared to existing baseline year conditions, emissions of NOx, CO, and SOx are projected to decrease from current levels despite growth associated with the GPU. However, Impact 5.2-3 would remain significant and unavoidable due to the magnitude of the overall land use development associated with the GPU. Contributing to the nonattainment status would also contribute to elevating health effects associated with these criteria air pollutants. Reducing emissions would further contribute to reducing possible health effects related to criteria air pollutants. It is speculative for this broad-based GPU to determine how exceeding the regional thresholds would affect the number of days the region is in nonattainment, since mass emissions are not correlated with concentrations of emissions, or how many additional individuals in the air basin would suffer health effects. South Coast AQMD is the primary agency responsible for ensuring the health and welfare of sensitive individuals to elevated concentrations of air quality in the SoCAB, and at the present time it has not provided methodology to assess the specific correlation between mass emissions generated and the effect on health in order to address the issue raised in the Friant Ranch case. Ozone concentrations are dependent upon a variety of complex factors, including the presence of sunlight and precursor pollutants, natural topography, nearby structures that cause building downwash, atmospheric stability, and wind patterns. Because of the complexities of predicting ground-level ozone concentrations in relation to the National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards, it is not possible to link health risks to the magnitude of emissions exceeding the significance thresholds. To achieve the health-based standards established by the EPA, the air districts prepare air quality management plans that detail regional programs to attain the ambient air quality standards. However, because cumulative development within the city would exceed the regional significance thresholds, the proposed project could contribute to an increase in health effects in the basin until the attainment standards are met in the SoCAB. 2 - 59 Mitigation Measures Refer to Mitigation Measure AQ-2, above. Finding Finding 3. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the GPU that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft PEIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measure above. The City of Santa Ana hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measure is feasible, and the measure is therefore adopted. The City finds that there are no other mitigation measures that are feasible, taking into consideration specific economic, legal, social, technological or other factors, that would mitigate this impact to a less-than-significant level, and further, that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the alternatives identified in the PEIR, as discussed in Section G of these Findings (Public Resources Code §§ 21081(a)(1), (3); Guidelines §§ 15091(a)(1), (3)). As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has determined that this impact is acceptable because specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of the GPU outweigh its significant effects on the environment. Impact 5.2-4: Operation of industrial and warehousing land uses accommodated under the General Plan Update could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Support for this environmental impact conclusion is fully discussed in Section 5.2, Air Quality, starting on page 5.2-34 of the Draft PEIR. Buildout of the GPU could expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of toxic air contaminants (TAC). Buildout could result in new sources of criteria air pollutant emissions and/or TACs near existing or planned sensitive receptors. Review of development projects by South Coast AQMD for permitted sources of air toxics (e.g., industrial facilities, dry cleaners, and gasoline dispensing facilities) would ensure that health risks are minimized. Additionally, Mitigation Measure AQ-3 would ensure mobile sources of TACs not covered under South Coast AQMD permits are considered during subsequent, project-level environmental review by the City of Santa Ana. Individual development projects would be required to achieve the incremental risk thresholds established by South Coast AQMD, and TACs would be less than significant. However, implementation of the GPU would generate TACs that could contribute to elevated levels in the air basin. Though individual projects would achieve the project-level risk threshold of 10 per million, they would nonetheless contribute to the higher levels of risk in the SoCAB. Therefore, the GPU’s cumulative contribution to health risk is significant and unavoidable. 2 - 60 Mitigation Measures AQ-3 Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Santa Ana, project applicants for new industrial or warehousing development projects that 1) have the potential to generate 100 or more diesel truck trips per day or have 40 or more trucks with operating diesel- powered transport refrigeration units, and 2) are within 1,000 feet of a sensitive land use (e.g., residential, schools, hospitals, or nursing homes), as measured from the property line of the project to the property line of the nearest sensitive use, shall submit a health risk assessment (HRA) to the City of Santa Ana for review and approval. The HRA shall be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and the South Coast Air Quality Management District. If the HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk and/or noncancer hazard index exceed the respective thresholds, as established by the South Coast AQMD at the time a project is considered, the project applicant will be required to identify and demonstrate that best available control technologies for toxics (T-BACTs), including appropriate enforcement mechanisms, are capable of reducing potential cancer and noncancer risks to an acceptable level. T-BACTs may include, but are not limited to, restricting idling on-site, electrifying warehousing docks to reduce diesel particulate matter, or requiring use of newer equipment and/or vehicles. T BACTs identified in the HRA shall be identified as mitigation measures in the environmental document and/or incorporated into the site plan. Finding Finding 3. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the GPU that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft PEIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measure above. The City of Santa Ana hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measure is feasible, and the measure is therefore adopted. The City finds that there are no other mitigation measures that are feasible, taking into consideration specific economic, legal, social, technological or other factors, that would mitigate this impact to a less-than-significant level, and further, that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the alternatives identified in the PEIR, as discussed in Section G of these Findings (Public Resources Code §§ 21081(a)(1), (3); Guidelines §§ 15091(a)(1), (3)). As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has determined that this impact is acceptable because specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of the GPU outweigh its significant effects on the environment. 2 - 61 Impact 5.2-5: Development and operation of land uses accommodated by the General Plan Update could generate emissions that exceed the localized significance thresholds and expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of criteria air pollutants. Support for this environmental impact conclusion is fully discussed in Section 5.2, Air Quality, starting on page 5.2-35 of the Draft PEIR. Because existing sensitive receptors may be close to project-related construction activities and large emitters of on-site operation-related criteria air pollutant emissions, construction and operation emissions generated by individual development projects have the potential to exceed South Coast AQMD’s Local Significance Thresholds (LSTs). Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 would reduce the regional construction and operation emissions associated with buildout of the GPU and therefore also result in a reduction of localized construction- and operation-related criteria air pollutant emissions, to the extent feasible. However, even with the implementation of these mitigation measures, Impact 5.2-5 would remain significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 would also be applicable in reducing construction- and operation-related LST impacts. Finding Finding 3. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the GPU that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft PEIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measures above. The City of Santa Ana hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measures is feasible, and the measures are therefore adopted. The City finds that there are no other mitigation measures that are feasible, taking into consideration specific economic, legal, social, technological or other factors, that would mitigate this impact to a less-than-significant level, and further, that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the alternatives identified in the PEIR, as discussed in Section G of these Findings (Public Resources Code §§ 21081(a)(1), (3); Guidelines §§ 15091(a)(1), (3)). As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has determined that this impact is acceptable because specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of the GPU outweigh its significant effects on the environment. 2 - 62 2. Cultural Resources Impact 5.4-1: Buildout consistent with the General Plan Update could impact an identified historic resource. Support for this environmental impact conclusion is fully discussed in Section 5.4, Cultural Resources, starting on page 5.4-26 of the Draft PEIR. Generally, potential impacts to historical resources resulting from future projects developed pursuant to the GPU would be mitigated by the City’s fulfillment of its statutory responsibilities under CEQA. However, for certain development pursuant to the GPU, the City may determine that significant impacts to historical resources cannot be avoided. The City shall require, at a minimum, that the affected historical resources be thoroughly documented before issuance of any permits. Though the possible demolition or alteration of a historical resource cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level, recordation of the resource will reduce significant adverse impacts to historical resources to the maximum extent feasible. With fulfillment of the CUL-1 and CUL-2, future development consistent with the GPU would result in a less than significant impact to cultural resources. However, if significant impacts cannot be avoided, the City shall require, at a minimum, that the affected historical resources are documented consistent with Mitigation Measure CUL-3. The Historical Resources Technical Report determined that unavoidable impacts to historical resources resulting from future development under the GPU will be reduced to the maximum extent feasible, but will still be significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-3. Therefore, the development under the GPU would result in significant and unavoidable impacts. Mitigation Measures CUL-1 Identification of Historical Resources and Potential Project Impacts. For structures 45 years or older, a Historical Resources Assessment (HRA) shall be prepared by an architectural historian or historian meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards. The HRA shall include: definition of a study area or area of potential effect, which will encompass the affected property and may include surrounding properties or historic district(s); an intensive level survey of the study area to identify and evaluate under federal, State, and local criteria significance historical resources that might be directly or indirectly affected by the proposed project; and an assessment of project impacts. The HRA shall satisfy federal and State guidelines for the identification, evaluation, and recordation of historical resources. An HRA is not required if an existing historic resources survey and evaluation of the property is available; however, if the existing survey and evaluation is more than five years old, it shall be updated. CUL-2 Use of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties shall be used to the maximum extent practicable to ensure that projects involving the relocation, conversion, 2 - 63 rehabilitation, or alteration of a historical resource and its setting or related new construction will not impair the significance of the historical resource. Use of the Standards shall be overseen by an architectural historian or historic architect meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards. Evidence of compliance with the Standards shall be provided to the City in the form of a report identifying and photographing character-defining features and spaces and specifying how the proposed treatment of character-defining features and spaces and related construction activities will conform to the Standards. The Qualified Professional shall monitor the construction and provide a report to the City at the conclusion of the project. Use of the Secretary’s Standards shall reduce the project impacts on historical resources to less than significant. CUL-3 Documentation, Education, and Memorialization. If the City determines that significant impacts to historical resources cannot be avoided, the City shall require, at a minimum, that the affected historical resources be thoroughly documented before issuance of any permits and may also require additional public education efforts and/or memorialization of the historical resource. Though demolition or alteration of a historical resource such that its significance is materially impaired cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level, recordation of the resource will reduce significant adverse impacts to historical resources to the maximum extent feasible. Such recordation should be prepared under the supervision of an architectural historian, historian, or historic architect meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards and should take the form of Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) documentation. At a minimum, this recordation should include an architectural and historical narrative; archival photographic documentation; and supplementary information, such as building plans and elevations and/or historic photographs. The documentation package should be reproduced on archival paper and should be made available to researchers and the public through accession by appropriate institutions such as the Santa Ana Library History Room, the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton, and/or the HABS collection housed in the Library of Congress. Depending on the significance of the adversely affected historical resource, the City, at its discretion, may also require public education about the historical resource in the form of an exhibit, web page, brochure, or other format and/or memorialization of the historical resource on or near the proposed project site. If memorialized, such memorialization shall be a permanent installation, such as a mural, display, or other vehicle that recalls the location, appearance, and historical significance of the affected historical resource, and shall be designed in conjunction with a qualified architectural historian, historian, or historic architect. Finding Finding 3. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the GPU that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft PEIR. These 2 - 64 changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measures above. The City of Santa Ana hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measures is feasible, and the measures are therefore adopted. The City finds that there are no other mitigation measures that are feasible, taking into consideration specific economic, legal, social, technological or other factors, that would mitigate this impact to a less-than-significant level, and further, that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the alternatives identified in the PEIR, as discussed in Section G of these Findings (Public Resources Code §§ 21081(a)(1), (3); Guidelines §§ 15091(a)(1), (3)). As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has determined that this impact is acceptable because specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of the GPU outweigh its significant effects on the environment. 3. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact 5.7-1: Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would result in a decrease in GHG emissions in horizon year 2045 from existing baseline but may not meet the long-term GHG reduction goal under Executive Order S-03-05. Support for this environmental impact conclusion is fully discussed in Section 5.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, starting on page 5.7-31 of the Draft PEIR. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would ensure that the City is tracking and monitoring the City’s GHG emissions in order to chart a trajectory to achieve the long-term, year 2050, GHG reduction goal set by Executive Order S-03-05. However, at this time, there is no plan past 2030 that achieves the long-term GHG reduction goal established under Executive Order S-03-05. As identified by the California Council on Science and Technology, the state cannot meet the 2050 goal without major advancements in technology. Advancements in technology in the future could provide additional reductions and allow the state and City to meet the 2050 goal, but in the meantime, Impact 5.7-1 would be significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measures GHG-1 The City of Santa Ana shall update the Climate Action Plan (CAP) every five years to ensure the City is monitoring the plan’s progress toward achieving the City’s greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction target and to require amendment if the plan is not achieving the specified level. The update shall consider a trajectory consistent with the GHG emissions reduction goal established under Executive Order S-03-05 for year 2050 and the latest applicable statewide legislative GHG emission reduction that may be in effect at the time of the CAP update (e.g., Senate Bill 32 for year 2030). The CAP update shall include the following: 2 - 65 • GHG inventories of existing and forecast year GHG levels. • Tools and strategies for reducing GHG emissions to ensure a trajectory with the long-term GHG reduction goal of Executive Order S-03-05. • Plan implementation guidance that includes, at minimum, the following components consistent with the proposed CAP: § Administration and Staffing § Finance and Budgeting § Timelines for Measure Implementation § Community Outreach and Education § Monitoring, Reporting, and Adaptive Management § Tracking Tools Finding Finding 3. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the GPU that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft PEIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measure above. The City of Santa Ana hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measure is feasible, and the measure is therefore adopted. The City finds that there are no other mitigation measures that are feasible, taking into consideration specific economic, legal, social, technological or other factors, that would mitigate this impact to a less-than-significant level, and further, that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the alternatives identified in the PEIR, as discussed in Section G of these Findings (Public Resources Code §§ 21081(a)(1), (3); Guidelines §§ 15091(a)(1), (3)). As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has determined that this impact is acceptable because specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of the GPU outweigh its significant effects on the environment. 4. Noise Impact 5.12-1: Construction activities associated with buildout of the plan area would result in temporary noise increases at sensitive receptors. Support for this environmental impact conclusion is fully discussed in Section 5.12, Noise, starting on page 5.12-29 of the Draft PEIR. Implementation of Mitigation Measure N-1 would reduce potential noise impacts during construction to the extent feasible. However, due to the potential for proximity of construction activities to sensitive uses, the number of construction projects occurring simultaneously, and the potential duration of construction activities, construction noise could result in a temporary 2 - 66 substantial increase in noise levels above ambient conditions. Therefore, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. It should be noted that the identification of this program-level impact does not preclude the finding of less-than-significant impacts for subsequent projects analyzed at the project level. Mitigation Measures N-1 Construction contractors shall implement the following measures for construction activities conducted in the City of Santa Ana. Construction plans submitted to the City shall identify these measures on demolition, grading, and construction plans submitted to the City: The City of Santa Ana Planning and Building Agency shall verify that grading, demolition, and/or construction plans submitted to the City include these notations prior to issuance of demolition, grading, and/or building permits. • Construction activity is limited to the hours: Between 7 AM to 8 PM Monday through Saturday, as prescribed in Municipal Code Section 18-314(e). Construction is prohibited on Sundays. • During the entire active construction period, equipment and trucks used for project construction shall use the best-available noise control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment re-design, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds), wherever feasible. • Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers and hoe rams) shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible. Where the use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used along with external noise jackets on the tools. • Stationary equipment, such as generators and air compressors shall be located as far as feasible from nearby noise-sensitive uses. • Stockpiling shall be located as far as feasible from nearby noise-sensitive receptors. • Construction traffic shall be limited, to the extent feasible, to approved haul routes established by the City Planning and Building Agency. • At least 10 days prior to the start of construction activities, a sign shall be posted at the entrance(s) to the job site, clearly visible to the public, that includes permitted construction days and hours, as well as the telephone numbers of the City’s and contractor’s authorized representatives that are assigned to respond in the event of a noise or vibration complaint. If the authorized contractor’s representative receives a complaint, he/she shall investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and report the action to the City. • Signs shall be posted at the job site entrance(s), within the on-site construction zones, and along queueing lanes (if any) to reinforce the prohibition of 2 - 67 unnecessary engine idling. All other equipment shall be turned off if not in use for more than 5 minutes. • During the entire active construction period and to the extent feasible, the use of noise-producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells, shall be for safety warning purposes only. The construction manager shall use smart back-up alarms, which automatically adjust the alarm level based on the background noise level or switch off back-up alarms and replace with human spotters in compliance with all safety requirements and laws. • Erect temporary noise barriers (at least as high as the exhaust of equipment and breaking line-of-sight between noise sources and sensitive receptors), as necessary and feasible, to maintain construction noise levels at or below the performance standard of 80 dBA Leq. Barriers shall be constructed with a solid material that has a density of at least 4 pounds per square foot with no gaps from the ground to the top of the barrier. Finding Finding 3. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the GPU that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft PEIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measure above. The City of Santa Ana hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measure is feasible, and the measure is therefore adopted. The City finds that there are no other mitigation measures that are feasible, taking into consideration specific economic, legal, social, technological or other factors, that would mitigate this impact to a less-than-significant level, and further, that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the alternatives identified in the PEIR, as discussed in Section G of these Findings (Public Resources Code §§ 21081(a)(1), (3); Guidelines §§ 15091(a)(1), (3)). As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has determined that this impact is acceptable because specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of the GPU outweigh its significant effects on the environment. Impact 5.12-2: Buildout of the plan area would cause a substantial traffic noise increase on local roadways and could locate sensitive receptors in areas that exceed established noise standards. Support for this environmental impact conclusion is fully discussed in Section 5.12, Noise, starting on page 5.12-30 of the Draft PEIR. Mitigation Measure N-2 would reduce potential interior noise impacts to future noise-sensitive receptors below the thresholds. However, there are no feasible or practical mitigation measures available to reduce project-generated traffic noise to less than significant levels for existing 2 - 68 residences along affected roadways. No individual measures and no set of feasible or practical mitigation measures are available to reduce project-generated traffic noise to less than significant levels in all cases. Thus, traffic noise would remain a significant and unavoidable impact. It should be noted that the identification of this program-level impact does not preclude the finding of less- than-significant impacts for subsequent projects analyzed at the project level. Mitigation Measures Refer to Mitigation Measure N-2, above. Finding Finding 3. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the GPU that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft PEIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measure above. The City of Santa Ana hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measure is feasible, and the measure is therefore adopted.” The City finds that there are no mitigation measures that are feasible, taking into consideration specific economic, legal, social, technological or other factors, that would mitigate this impact to a less-than-significant level, and further, that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the alternatives identified in the PEIR, as discussed in Section G of these Findings (Public Resources Code §§ 21081(a)(1), (3); Guidelines §§ 15091(a)(1), (3)). As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has determined that this impact is acceptable because specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of the GPU outweigh its significant effects on the environment. 5. Population and Housing Impact 5.13-1: The GPU would directly induce substantial unplanned population growth. Support for this environmental impact conclusion is fully discussed in Section 5.13, Population and Housing, starting on page 5.13-12 of the Draft PEIR. Full buildout of the GPU would result in a population of 431,629, and the city’s 2045 population growth would be approximately 20 percent greater than the Orange County Council of Governments’ 2045 projections. Furthermore, the city’s housing units at buildout would be 115,053, which exceeds the Orange County Council of Governments’ projection by 38 percent. There are no feasible mitigation measures to mitigate the population and housing growth at buildout, and impacts would be significant and unavoidable. 2 - 69 Mitigation Measures There are no feasible mitigation measures to mitigate the population and housing growth at buildout. Finding Finding 3. The City finds that there are no mitigation measures that are feasible, taking into consideration specific economic, legal, social, technological or other factors, that would mitigate this impact to a less-than-significant level, and further, that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the alternatives identified in the PEIR, as discussed in Section G of these Findings (Public Resources Code §§ 21081(a)(1), (3); Guidelines §§ 15091(a)(1), (3)). As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has determined that this impact is acceptable because specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of the GPU outweigh its significant effects on the environment. 2 - 70 VI. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES CEQA requires that an EIR include a discussion of reasonable project alternatives that would “feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project, but would avoid or substantially lessen any significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives” (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6[a]). As discussed above, the Draft PEIR identified significant impacts in a number of categories. The following impacts could be mitigated below a level of significance: air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, noise, tribal cultural resources impacts. The following impacts cannot be mitigated below a level of significance: certain air quality, cultural resources, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, noise, and population and housing impacts. The Draft PEIR analyzed four alternatives to the proposed project that could reduce some, if not all, of the impacts. A. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED DURING THE SCOPING/PROJECT PLANNING “Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are: (i) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, (ii) infeasibility, or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts” (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6[c]). Alternative Circulation Element – Roadway Classifications. The proposed circulation element in the GPU evolved over a long process and coordination with the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). During this process, alternative packages of arterial roadway classifications were considered that involved roadways in OCTA’s Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH). The majority of reclassifications proposed were identified for bicycle facility safety improvements in the City’s Safe Mobility Santa Ana (SMSA) Plan, prepared in 2016. Most of the reclassifications identified were for roadways where bicycle and pedestrian safety improvements would require roadway reconfiguration and a reduction in the number of existing or planned travel lanes. Many of the SMSA recommendations across the city have already been, or are in the process of being, implemented along arterial roadways without reducing the number of lanes. A cursory review of two optional roadway reclassification packages was conducted to determine whether these optional plans would have the potential to eliminate significant impacts of the proposed GPU and meet most the project objectives. It was determined that a detailed evaluation of this alternative was not needed to provide a reasonable range of EIR project alternatives. Transportation/traffic impacts of the proposed project were determined to be less than significant (VMT/SP falls below the significance threshold for the GPU without mitigation). Although these alternatives may have some potential to reduce VMT (by reducing the number of travel lanes for some roadways) and thereby also potentially reduce air quality, greenhouse gas, and traffic noise impacts, these alternatives would also result in more inconsistencies with the MPAH and result in more traffic congestion. Although traffic congestion is no longer a CEQA consideration, the GPU sets forth standards for level of service that will be considered by decision-makers. Moreover, the 2 - 71 Reduced Density and RTP/SCS Consistency alternatives were determined to be meaningful alternatives to consider for the potential of reducing air quality, GHG, and traffic noise impacts. Reduced Traffic Noise Alternative. Since traffic noise was determined to be a significant, unavoidable impact of the proposed GPU, a project alternative designed to eliminate this significant impact was considered. The required reductions in traffic volumes (ADT) were determined along roadways where buildout of the GPU would result in significant noise increases. These estimates were compared to the surrounding land uses that would generate ADTs for those roadway segments. Traffic noise along these roadways would both exceed the noise standard and abut sensitive land uses (e.g., residences, schools, hospitals). Several segments would experience significant, unavoidable traffic noise impacts without the land use changes proposed under the GPU. Since significant traffic noise could not be avoided, further evaluation of this alternative was not deemed to be meaningful. B. ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS Given the significant, unavoidable impacts identified for the proposed GPU, project alternatives with the potential to substantially reduce development were identified for further review. Significant GPU impacts to long-term air quality, GHG emissions, and population and housing all directly relate to the level of development that would occur within the city. At the programmatic level of this GPU PEIR, site-specific information regarding potential significant historical impacts is not available, and therefore, an alternative could not be customized to reduce that impact. A reduced intensity alternative would also be expected to reduce the significant traffic noise impact (as discussed above). The following development alternatives to the proposed GPU were chosen for further analysis. No Project / Current General Plan Alternative The evaluation of the No Project alternative is required by CEQA. The No Project alternative is typically defined as the development scenario that would occur if the project as proposed is not adopted. For a General Plan, the No Project alternative is typically represented by the jurisdiction’s existing General Plan, including land use plan, circulation master plan, and policies in each General Plan element. Therefore, this alternative assumes that the existing General Plan—with various adoption dates for different elements between 1982 and 2014—would remain in effect. This existing General Plan also reflects amendments, including new Specific Plans and special zoning areas that have been adopted through the Notice of Preparation for this GPU. Finding. The City Council rejects the No Project/Current General Plan Alternative on the basis of policy and economic factors as explained herein. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21061.1; CEQA Guidelines, § 15364; see also City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417; California Native Plant Soc. v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 1001; Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715.) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible this project alternative identified in the Final PEIR. 2 - 72 This alternative would result in similar impacts to 11 impact categories, reduced impacts to 5 environmental impacts, and increase impacts to 4 categories. Impacts would be similar for agricultural resources, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, mineral resources, noise, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire. This alternative would reduce impacts for aesthetics, population and housing, public services, recreation, and utilities and service systems. Impacts to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, land use and planning, and transportation would increase. This alternative does not mitigate any of the significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the GPU to a less than significant impact. It would also exceed the City’s VMT threshold. Overall, impacts under this alternative would decrease in comparison to the proposed project. The No Project/Current General Plan alternative would not achieve many of the proposed project objectives. The existing land use plan does not provide the opportunities to provide housing and employment at the levels required to meet local and regional goals. Moreover, the No Project alternative would not provide numerous general policies as included in the GPU to achieve these goals and invigorate communities. The current General Plan, however, protects established neighborhoods and several Specific Plans and Special Zoning areas would provide for infill opportunities, protect established neighborhoods, and result in mixed-use villages and bike- and pedestrian-friendly communities. Reduced Intensity Alternative (Reduced capacity for the 55 Freeway/Dyer and South Bristol focus areas) Under the GPU, the only areas that include revisions to land use designations to accommodate new growth are within the five focus areas. The majority of remaining growth would occur within previously approved Specific Plans and Special Zoning areas. A nominal amount of growth is assumed to occur in other areas of the city and would not require land use amendments. The Reduced Intensity Alternative would substantially reduce development capacity within two focus areas, 55 Freeway/Dyer and South Bristol Street, which accommodate approximately 65 percent of the housing unit growth and 72 percent of the nonresidential use (by building square footage) of the growth projected for the combined focus areas under the GPU. For the focus areas, the forecast buildout is based on development at approximately 80 percent of the maximum allowed development for each respective land use designation. For this alternative, development of the 55 Freeway/Dyer and South Bristol focus areas would be reduced to approximately 50 percent of the maximum allowed per the land use designations. This alternative would reduce housing units by a total of 5,383 and would reduce total building square footage by approximately 4.2 million square feet distributed between these two focus areas. This alternative would also reduce population by 19,825 and jobs by 9,184. Overall, this alternative would reduce the housing growth accommodated by the GPU land use changes by approximately 18 percent and reduce nonresidential building square footage by approximately 27 percent. Finding. The City Council rejects the Reduced Intensity Alternative on the basis of policy and economic factors as explained herein. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21061.1; CEQA Guidelines, § 15364; see also City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417; California 2 - 73 Native Plant Soc. v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 1001; Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715.) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible this project alternative identified in the Final PEIR. This alternative would result in similar impacts to 7 impact categories, reduce impacts to 12 categories, and increase impacts to 1 category. Impacts would be similar for aesthetics, agricultural resources, biological resources, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, mineral resources, and wildfire. This alternative would decrease impacts to air quality, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, tribal cultural resources, transportation, and utilities and services. It would be expected to increase land use and planning impacts relative to the GPU. As with the GPU, impacts to air quality, cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and population and housing would remain significant and unavoidable. Overall, impacts under this alternative would be decreased in comparison to the proposed project. The Reduced Density Alternative reduces the level of development for two of the five focus areas (55 Freeway/Dyer Road and South Bristol Street) relative to the GPU. No other changes to the GPU are made for this alternative. It is assumed to include the same General Plan policies and would not modify the circulation element or related improvements. Therefore, this alternative would attain many of the project’s objectives. It would not “optimize” high density housing and mass transit opportunities, and so was found not to attain objective No. 2. It would, however, achieve objectives Nos. 3 through 5, but to a lesser extent than the proposed GPU. With the reduced opportunities in the 55 Freeway/Dyer Road and South Bristol focus areas, it would not be as effective in providing affordable housing opportunities, and may not be as economically feasible in terms of funding community benefits. It would provide mixed-use opportunities that are bike and pedestrian friendly and provide opportunities for live-work, artist spaces, and small-scale manufacturing. 2020 RTP/SCS Consistency Alternative (Reduced development for RTP/SCS population/housing consistency) This alternative was developed to evaluate an update to the General Plan that would be consistent with the population and housing projections used to develop the Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG) most recent Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS)—Connect SoCal (adopted May 7, 2020). Connect SoCal is a long-range visioning plan that balances future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental, and public health goals. The plan embodies a collective vision for the region’s future and is developed with input from local governments, county transportation commissions, tribal governments, nonprofit organizations, businesses, and local stakeholders in the counties of Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura. The proposed GPU would result in a significant population and housing impact because development under the GPU would substantially exceed the projections used in Connect SoCal. SCAG uses locally prepared population and housing projections to develop the regional plan. For the City of Santa Ana, those projections were 2 - 74 provided by the Orange County Council of Governments, as prepared by the Center for Demographic Research. The population/housing figures reflected for Santa Ana in the regional plan for 2045 are: population, 360,100; total housing units, 80,100; and total jobs, 176,400. Projections for the RTP/SCS (Connect SoCal) use land use designations as approved in adopted general plans. The employment projections are similar for the GPU and RTP/SCS scenarios, but the RTP/SCS projections for population and housing units are substantially lower than GPU projections (18 percent and 27 percent lower, respectively). The RTP/SCS alternative, therefore, represents the least-development-intensive project alternative evaluated for the Draft PEIR. § This alternative would substantially reduce the growth that would be accommodated within the focus areas under the GPU. New growth within the focus areas would total 6,380 housing units and approximately 3.7 million square feet of nonresidential uses, instead of a total additional 23,955 housing units and approximately 15.7 million square feet within the focus areas. This alternative distributes anticipated development through the focus areas and the approved Specific Plans/Special Zoning areas. For purposes of this alternative, it is assumed that a development cap would be used to limit total growth to the projections shown. § Subsequent updates of the regional plan would incorporate updated land use from the GPU and resolve the substantial discrepancy between the population and housing projections. Note also that the Draft PEIR concludes that the GPU is consistent with the goals of the RTP/SCS. This alternative has been defined to eliminate the significant impact associated with substantial population growth that is inconsistent with the regional plan, as well as reduce other significant growth-related (AQ/GHG, traffic noise) impacts associated with the GPU as proposed. Finding. The City Council rejects the 2020 RTP/SCS Consistency Alternative on the basis of policy and economic factors as explained herein. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21061.1; CEQA Guidelines, § 15364; see also City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417; California Native Plant Soc. v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 1001; Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715.) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible this project alternative identified in the Final PEIR. This alternative would reduce impacts to 12 environmental impacts, result in similar impacts to 6 categories, and increase impacts to 1 category. It would reduce impacts to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, tribal cultural resources, and utilities and service systems. Impacts would be very similar for aesthetics, agricultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, mineral resources, and wildfire. It would increase impacts to land use and planning. It would also increase impacts to transportation and potentially introduce a new significant impact. It is anticipated, however, that under this alternative, transportation could be mitigated to less than significant. Under the GPU, transportation impacts are less than significant without mitigation. As with the GPU, impacts to air quality, cultural 2 - 75 resources, greenhouse gas emissions, and noise would remain significant and unavoidable. The impact to population and housing would be reduced to less than significant. Overall, impacts under this alternative would be reduced in comparison to the proposed project. Due to the substantial reduction in housing opportunities citywide, this alternative is the least effective in achieving the project objectives of the GPU. By setting a development cap to limit housing and nonresidential development to the projections for the city in the 2020 RTP/SCS, this alternative reduces housing units by 31,515 compared to the GPU. It reduces housing development potential within the focus areas by 73 percent in comparison to the GPU, and reduces overall city future development by 27 percent. To achieve this reduction, the development cap would not only limit focus area development but would restrict the entitled housing in Specific Plans/Special Zoning areas (reducing total housing within these areas by almost 14,000 units). This alternative clearly would not optimize high density housing that maximizes mass transit use (objective No. 2) or provide urban-level intensities at the urban edges (objective No. 3). Moreover, it would not facilitate intensities that attract economic activities, particularly since it would not allow the maximum entitlement of approved Specific Plans and Special Zoning areas. It would achieve the remainder of the objectives, but to a lesser extent than the GPU. It would protect established neighborhoods, but not promote infill development as much as the GPU or other alternatives (objective No. 1). It would provide only limited opportunities for live-work and artist spaces and small-scale manufacturing (objective No. 7). C. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE CEQA requires a lead agency to identify the “environmentally superior alternative” and, in cases where the “No Project” Alternative is environmentally superior to the GPU, the environmentally superior development alternative must be identified. One alternative has been identified as “environmentally superior” to the GPU: § The RTP/SCS Consistency Alternative is concluded to be the environmentally superior alternative. The No Project alternative is not environmentally superior to the proposed GPU. Both the Reduced Density and RTP/SCS alternatives reduce environmental impacts in comparison to the GPU, but the RTP/SCS reduces more impacts and eliminates a significant, unavoidable impact of the GPU. This alternative was designed to eliminate the significant population impact of the GPU, but it also reduces potential future development more than any of the other alternatives. 2 - 76 VII. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS A. INTRODUCTION The City of Santa Ana is the Lead Agency under CEQA for preparation, review and certification of the PEIR for General Plan Update PEIR (project). As the Lead Agency, the City is also responsible for determining the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action and which of those impacts are significant, and which can be mitigated through imposition of mitigation measures to avoid or minimize those impacts to a level of less than significant. CEQA then requires the Lead Agency to balance the benefits of a proposed action against its significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts in determining whether or not to approve the proposed project. In making this determination the City is guided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, Statement of Overriding Considerations, which states: a. CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered “acceptable.” b. When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. c. If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section 15091. In addition, Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) requires that where a public agency finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in an EIR and thereby leave significant unavoidable effects, the public agency must also find that overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects of the project. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) and the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City has balanced the benefits of the proposed project against the unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the project and has adopted all feasible mitigation measures 2 - 77 with respect to these impacts. The City also has examined alternatives to the proposed project, none of which both meets the project objectives and is environmentally preferable to the proposed project, for the reasons discussed in the Findings and Facts in Support of Findings. The City of Santa Ana, as the Lead Agency for this project, and having reviewed the PEIR for the GPU, and reviewed all written materials within the City’s public record and heard all oral testimony presented at public hearings, adopts this Statement of Overriding Considerations, which has balanced the benefits of the project against its significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts in reaching its decision to approve the project. B. OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The City, after balancing the specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the project, has determined that the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts identified above may be considered acceptable due to the following specific considerations, which outweigh the unavoidable, adverse environmental impacts of the project, and each of which, standing alone, is sufficient to support approval of the project, in accordance with CEQA Section 21081(b) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093. The specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project are as follows: 1. The community, land use, and public services elements of the project encourage healthy lifestyles, a planning process that ensures that health impacts are considered, and policies and practices that improve the health of residents. The policies also affirm and support a socially and economically diverse community with equitable distribution of resources. 2. Implementation of the GPU fulfills one of the key strategies identified in the Santa Ana Strategic Plan in the completion of a comprehensive update of the existing General Plan. 3. The project improves the jobs-housing balance; the ratio of 1.5 would give the city a more equal distribution of employment and housing. The population growth resulting directly from the proposed GPU would be offset by the level of employment opportunity provided to the city’s residents and workers commuting into Santa Ana. 4. The project results in a reduction of vehicle miles traveled per service population (VMT/SP) and a reduction in related traffic congestion, air quality, and greenhouse gas emissions compared with existing conditions because the GPU includes policies that promote the reduction of VMT. Policy 2.5 of the land use element encourages infill mixed-use development at all ranges of affordability to reduce VMT, and policy 4.5 aims to concentrate development along high-quality transit corridors. Policy 4.6 of the circulation element promotes reductions in automobile trips and VMT by encouraging transit use and nonmotorized transportation as alternatives to augmenting roadway capacity. 5. The project provides additional housing to support the regionally forecasted increase in economic activities and employment increases. 2 - 78 6. Implementation of the project would introduce policies and actions that address the importance of protecting the health of residents and the environment by improving air quality, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and encouraging active transportation. 7. The project implements the SCAG Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) land use policies related to population and housing by providing additional housing near employment centers. 8. The project facilitates the economic development of the city by promoting development that is mixed use, pedestrian friendly, transit oriented, and clustered around activity centers through new and infill residential development. Additionally, the proposed project would improve the city’s jobs/housing balance by supporting development that provides housing and employment opportunities to enable people to live and work in Santa Ana. 9. Implementation of the project would coordinate air quality planning efforts to meet state and federal ambient air quality standards by considering the goals of the Climate Action Plan in all major decision on land use and public infrastructure investment and investing in low- to zero-emission vehicles. These policies also promote development that meets or exceeds standards for energy-efficient building design, and the consideration of sensitive of potential emission sources on sensitive uses. 10. The project promotes economic growth and diversity within the city. The economic prosperity element of the GPU includes policies related to improving Santa Ana’s economy and its role within the region. 2 - 79 VIII. RESOLUTION REGARDING CERTIFICATION OF THE PEIR The City of Santa Ana finds that it has reviewed and considered the Final PEIR in evaluating the proposed project, that the Final PEIR is an accurate and objective statement that fully complies with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, and that the Final PEIR reflects the independent judgment of the City. The City of Santa Ana declares that no new significant information, as defined by State CEQA Guidelines, section 15088.5, has been received by the City after circulation of the Draft PEIR that would require recirculation. The City of Santa Ana certifies the PEIR based on the entirety of the record of proceedings, including but not limited to the following findings and conclusions: Findings: The following significant environmental impacts have been identified in the PEIR and will require mitigation as set forth in Section V of this Resolution but cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance: air quality (project-related and cumulative), cultural resources (project- related), greenhouse gas emissions (project-related), noise (project-related), and population and housing (project-related). Conclusions 1. Except the impacts (stated above) relating to air quality, cultural resources, greenhouse gas, noise, and population and housing, all significant environmental impacts from the implementation of the proposed project have been identified in the PEIR and, with implementation of the mitigation measures identified, will be mitigated to a level of insignificance. 2. Other alternatives to the proposed project, which could potentially achieve the basic objectives of the proposed project, have been considered and rejected in favor of the proposed project. 3. Environmental, economic, social, and other considerations and benefits derived from the development of the proposed project override and make infeasible any alternatives to the proposed project or further mitigation measures beyond those incorporated into the proposed project. 2 - 80 IX. RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the City of Santa Ana hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. In the event of any inconsistencies between the mitigation measures as set forth herein and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan shall control. 2 - 81 X. RESOLUTION REGARDING CONTENTS AND CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings have been based are located at the City of Santa Ana Planning Division Counter. The custodian for these records is the City of Santa Ana. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code section 21081.6. The record of proceedings for the City’s decision on the project consists of the following documents, at a minimum: 1. The NOP and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the project. 2. All comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the 45-day comment periods on the Draft PEIR and the 20-day extension to the comment period. 3. The Final PEIR for the Santa Ana General Plan Update, including comments received on the Draft PEIR, responses to those comments, and technical appendices. 4. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the project. 5. All findings, resolutions, and ordinances adopted by the City in connection with the General Plan Update, and all documents cited or referred to therein. 6. All reports, studies, memoranda, maps, staff reports, or other planning documents relating to the project prepared by the City, consultants to the City, or responsible or trustee agencies with respect to the City’s compliance with the requirements of CEQA and with respect to the City’s action on the Santa Ana General Plan Update. 7. All documents submitted to the City by other public agencies or members of the public in connection with the General Plan Update PEIR up through project approval. Matters of common knowledge to the City, including, but not limited to federal, state, and local laws and regulations. 8. Any documents expressly cited or referenced in these findings, in addition to those cited above. 9. Any other materials required for the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code section 21167.6, subdivision (e). The following location is where the record may be reviewed: City of Santa Ana, Planning Division Counter 20 Civic Center Plaza, M-20 Santa Ana, CA 92701 2 - 82 EXHIBIT C October 2020 | Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Santa Ana General Plan Update City of Santa Ana Prepared for: City of Santa Ana Contact: Verny Carvajal, Principal Planner 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92702 vcarvajal@santa-ana.org Prepared by: PlaceWorks Contact: JoAnn Hadfield, Principal 3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100 Santa Ana, California 92707 714.966.9220 info@placeworks.com www.placeworks.com 2 - 83 2 - 84 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program October 2020 Page i Section Page 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 PURPOSE OF MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ............................ 1 1.2 PROJECT SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 PROJECT LOCATION ....................................................................................................................................... 5 1.4 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ORGANIZATION ........................................................... 6 List of Tables Table Page Table 1-1 Proposed Land Use Designations and Statistics .............................................................................. 3 Table 1-2 Buildout Statistical Summary .............................................................................................................. 5 Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements ...................................................................... 7 2 - 85 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page ii PlaceWorks This page intentionally left blank. 2 - 86 October 2020 Page 1 1. Introduction 1.1 PURPOSE OF MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been developed to provide a vehicle to monitor mitigation measures and conditions of approval outlined in the Final Program Environmental Impact Report. The MMRP has been prepared in conformance with Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code and City of Santa Ana monitoring requirements. Section 21081.6 states: (a) When making the findings required by paragraph (1) of subdivision subsection (a) of Section 21081 or when adopting a mitigated negative declaration pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 21080, the following requirements shall apply: (1) The public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. For those changes which have been required or incorporated into the project at the request of a responsible agency or a public agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the project, that agency shall, if so requested by the lead agency or a responsible agency, prepare and submit a proposed reporting or monitoring program. (2) The lead agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which its decision is based. (b) A public agency shall provide that measures to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment are fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. Conditions of project approval may be set forth in referenced documents which address required mitigation measures or, in the case of the adoption of a plan, policy, regulation, or other public project, by incorporating the mitigation measures into the plan, policy, regulation, or project design. (c) Prior to the close of the public review period for a draft environmental impact report or mitigated negative declaration, a responsible agency, or a public agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the project, shall either submit to the lead agency complete and detailed performance objectives for mitigation measures which would address the significant effects on the environment identified by the responsible agency or agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the project, or refer the lead agency to appropriate, readily available guidelines or reference documents. Any mitigation measures submitted to a lead 2 - 87 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 2 PlaceWorks agency by a responsible agency or an agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the project shall be limited to measures which mitigate impacts to resources which are subject to the statutory authority of, and definitions applicable to, that agency. Compliance or noncompliance by a responsible agency or agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by a project with that requirement shall not limit the authority of the responsible agency or agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by a project, or the authority of the lead agency, to approve, condition, or deny projects as provided by this division or any other provision of law. The MMRP will serve to document compliance with adopted/certified mitigation measures that are formulated to minimize impacts associated with future development that would be accommodated by the Santa Ana General Plan. 1.2 PROJECT SUMMARY The GPU is the comprehensive update of the Santa Ana General Plan. The purpose of the General Plan Update is to comprehensively update the 1982 plan to reflect current conditions, establish a shared vision of the community’s aspirations, and create the policy direction to guide Santa Ana’s long-term planning and growth over the next two decades. The General Plan Update will include the City’s future development goals and will provide policy statements to achieve those goals. Implementation actions related to each goal or policy will be included as a separate Implementation Plan to ensure successful monitoring of progress as a community. Furthermore, the GPU will focus on five areas in Santa Ana that are better suited for future development or overall improvement. These focus areas are: § South Main Street § Grand Avenue/17th Street § West Santa Ana Boulevard § 55 Freeway/Dyer Road § South Bristol Street General Plan Update The updated General Plan is organized into three sections: Services and Infrastructure (I), Natural Environment (II), and Built Environment (III). The proposed GPU addresses the seven topics required by state law as well as five optional topics. State law gives jurisdictions the discretion to incorporate optional topics and to address any of these topics in a single element or across multiple elements. The 12 proposed elements of the GPU will replace 16 existing elements. The GPU will incorporate the current 2014–2021 Housing Element, and no substantive changes are anticipated. The topic of housing will be addressed as a separate effort in late 2021 in accordance with State law. The topic of environmental justice will be incorporated throughout the GPU, with goals and policies incorporated into multiple elements. The 12 elements of the proposed GPU are: 2 - 88 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANATA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program October 2020 Page 3 Mandatory Topics Optional Topics § Land Use Element § Circulation Element § Housing Element § Open Space Element § Conservation Element § Safety Element § Noise Element § Public Services Element § Urban Design Element § Community Element § Economic Prosperity Element § Historic Preservation Element The GPU will guide growth and development (e.g., infill development, redevelopment, and revitalization/restoration) in the plan area by designating land uses in the proposed land use map and through implementation of updated goals and policies of the GPU. Table 1-1 outlines the proposed land use designations under the GPU. Table 1-1 Proposed Land Use Designations and Statistics Land Use Designation Acres % of Total Grand Avenue/17th Street 171.5 — District Center 23.7 13.8 General Commercial 19.9 11.6 Industrial/Flex 7.1 4.1 Open Space 1.1 0.6 Urban Neighborhood 119.7 69.8 55 Freeway/Dyer Road 354.5 — District Center 158.0 44.6 General Commercial 68.0 19.2 Industrial/Flex 127.4 35.9 Open Space 1.1 0.3 South Bristol Street 199.9 — District Center 108.3 54.2 Open Space 6.0 3.0 Urban Neighborhood 85.7 42.9 South Main Street 312.2 — Industrial/Flex 29.0 9.3 Institutional 19.2 66.1 Low Density Residential 162.3 845.8 2 - 89 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 4 PlaceWorks Table 1-1 Proposed Land Use Designations and Statistics Land Use Designation Acres % of Total Urban Neighborhood 101.7 62.7 West Santa Ana Boulevard 481.6 — Corridor Residential 10.0 2.1 General Commercial 21.5 4.5 Industrial/Flex 87.9 18.3 Institutional 45.5 9.4 Low Density Residential 108.1 22.4 Low-Medium Density Residential 6.8 1.4 Medium Density Residential 27.0 5.6 Open Space 133.6 27.7 Professional and Administrative Office 6.2 1.3 Urban Neighborhood 35.0 7.3 Balance of City 11,598.8 — District Center 124.2 1.1 General Commercial 424.2 3.7 Industrial 2,159.6 18.6 Institutional 886.7 7.6 Low Density Residential 6,173.3 53.2 Low-Medium Density Residential 429.0 3.7 Medium Density Residential 335.3 2.9 One Broadway Plaza District Center 4.1 0.0 Open Space 793.8 6.8 Professional and Administrative Office 260.4 2.2 Urban Neighborhood 4.1 0.0 Not Specified 4.1 0.0 Total 13,118.5 100% Source: Figures aggregated and projected by PlaceWorks, 2020. The full buildout scenario is analyzed in comparison to existing conditions. Table 1-2 details buildout statistics. Similarly, the PEIR provides conclusions regarding impact significance for this scenario for both the proposed GPU and project alternatives. 2 - 90 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANATA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program October 2020 Page 5 Table 1-2 Buildout Statistical Summary PLANNING AREA BUILDOUT Housing Units Bldg. Sq. Ft.1 Jobs FOCUS AREAS 23,955 15,684,285 35,044 55 Freeway/Dyer Road 9,952 6,142,283 13,302 Grand Avenue/17th Street 2,283 703,894 1,622 South Bristol Street 5,492 5,082,641 11,192 South Main Street 2,308 946,662 2,151 West Santa Ana Boulevard 3,920 2,808,805 6,777 SPECIFIC PLAN / SPECIAL ZONING 20,524 16,958,445 39,702 Adaptive Reuse Overlay Zone2 1,260 976,935 2,567 Bristol Street Corridor Specific Plan 135 143,139 282 Harbor Mixed Use Transit Corridor Specific Plan 4,622 1,967,982 1,578 MainPlace Specific Plan 1,900 2,426,923 5,380 Metro East Mixed-Use Overlay Zone 5,551 4,685,947 12,258 Midtown Specific Plan 607 1,818,253 4,615 Transit Zoning Code 6,449 4,939,266 13,022 ALL OTHER AREAS OF THE CITY3 70,574 40,325,086 95,670 CITYWIDE TOTAL 115,053 72,967,816 170,416 Source: City of Santa Ana 2020. 1 Only includes nonresidential building square footage. 2 The figures shown on the row for the Adaptive Reuse Overlay represents parcels that are exclusively in the Adaptive Reuse Overlay boundary. Figures for parcels that are within the boundaries of both the Adaptive Reuse Overlay Zone and a specific plan, other special zoning, or focus area boundary are accounted for in the respective specific plan, other special zoning, or focus area. 3 The City has included an assumption for growth on a small portion (5 percent) of residential parcels through the construction of second units, which is distributed throughout the city and is not concentrated in a subset of neighborhoods. Additional growth includes known projects in the pipeline and an increase of 10 percent in building square footage and employment for the professional office surrounding the Orange County Global Medical Center and along Broadway north of the Midtown Specific Plan. 1.3 PROJECT LOCATION The City of Santa Ana is in the western central portion of Orange County, approximately 30 miles southwest of the city of Los Angeles and 10 miles northeast of the city of Newport Beach. The city is bordered by the city of Orange and unincorporated areas of Orange County to the north, the city of Tustin to the east, the cities of Irvine and Costa Mesa to the south, and the cities of Fountain Valley and Garden Grove to the west. In November 2019, the City annexed the 17th Street Island, a 24.78-acre area in the northeast portion of the city. The 17th Street Island is bounded by State Route 55 to the east, 17th Street to the south, and North Tustin Avenue to the west. The city also includes a portion of the Santa Ana River Drainage Channel within its sphere of influence (SOI). The city and its SOI are defined and referred to herein as the plan area. 2 - 91 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 6 PlaceWorks 1.4 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ORGANIZATION CEQA requires that a reporting or monitoring program be adopted for the conditions of project approval that are necessary to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment (Public Resources Code 21081.6). The mitigation monitoring and reporting program is designed to ensure compliance with adopted mitigation measures during project implementation. For each mitigation measure recommended in the Draft PEIR, specifications are made herein that identify the action required and the monitoring and reporting that must occur. In addition, a responsible agency is identified for verifying compliance with individual conditions of approval contained in the MMRP. To effectively track and document the status of mitigation measures, a mitigation matrix has been prepared (see Table 1-3). 2 - 92 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program October 2020 Page 7 Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible Implementing Party Responsible Monitoring Party Document Location (Monitoring Record) Completion Date Responsible Monitoring Party Project Mitigation Monitor 5.2 AIR QUALITY AQ-1 Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Santa Ana for development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., non-exempt projects), project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project construction-related air quality impacts to the City of Santa Ana for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) methodology for assessing air quality impacts. If construction-related criteria air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the South Coast AQMD’s adopted thresholds of significance, the City of Santa Ana shall require that applicants for new development projects incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during construction activities. These identified measures shall be incorporated into all appropriate construction documents (e.g., construction management plans) submitted to the City and shall be verified by the City. Mitigation measures to reduce construction-related emissions could include, but are not limited to: • Require fugitive-dust control measures that exceed South Coast AQMD’s Rule 403, such as: § Use of nontoxic soil stabilizers to reduce wind erosion. § Apply water every four hours to active soil-disturbing activities. § Tarp and/or maintain a minimum of 24 inches of freeboard on trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials. • Use construction equipment rated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as having Tier 3 (model year 2006 or newer) or Tier 4 (model year 2008 or newer) emission limits, applicable for engines between 50 and 750 horsepower. • Ensure that construction equipment is properly serviced and maintained to the manufacturer’s standards. • Limit nonessential idling of construction equipment to no more than five consecutive minutes. Prior to discretionary approval Project Applicant and Construction Contractor City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division 2 - 93 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 8 PlaceWorks Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible Implementing Party Responsible Monitoring Party Document Location (Monitoring Record) Completion Date Responsible Monitoring Party Project Mitigation Monitor • Limit on-site vehicle travel speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. • Install wheel washers for all exiting trucks or wash off all trucks and equipment leaving the project area. • Use Super-Compliant VOC paints for coating of architectural surfaces whenever possible. A list of Super-Compliant architectural coating manufactures can be found on the South Coast AQMD’s website. AQ-2 Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Santa Ana for development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., non-exempt projects), project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project operation phase-related air quality impacts to the City of Santa Ana for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) methodology in assessing air quality impacts. If operation-related air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the South Coast AQMD’s adopted thresholds of significance, the City of Santa Ana shall require that applicants for new development projects incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during operational activities. The identified measures shall be included as part of the conditions of approval. Possible mitigation measures to reduce long-term emissions could include, but are not limited to the following: • For site-specific development that requires refrigerated vehicles, the construction documents shall demonstrate an adequate number of electrical service connections at loading docks for plug- in of the anticipated number of refrigerated trailers to reduce idling time and emissions. • Applicants for manufacturing and light industrial uses shall consider energy storage and combined heat and power in appropriate applications to optimize renewable energy generation systems and avoid peak energy use. Prior to the discretionary approval Property Owner/ Developer City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division 2 - 94 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program October 2020 Page 9 Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible Implementing Party Responsible Monitoring Party Document Location (Monitoring Record) Completion Date Responsible Monitoring Party Project Mitigation Monitor • Site-specific developments with truck delivery and loading areas and truck parking spaces shall include signage as a reminder to limit idling of vehicles while parked for loading/unloading in accordance with California Air Resources Board Rule 2845 (13 CCR Chapter 10 § 2485). • Provide changing/shower facilities as specified in Section A5.106.4.3 of the CALGreen Code (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures). • Provide bicycle parking facilities per Section A4.106.9 (Residential Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code and Sec. 41-1307.1 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code. • Provide preferential parking spaces for low-emitting, fuel-efficient, and carpool/van vehicles per Section A5.106.5.1 of the CALGreen Code (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures). • Provide facilities to support electric charging stations per Section A5.106.5.3 (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures) and Section A5.106.8.2 (Residential Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code. • Applicant-provided appliances (e.g., dishwashers, refrigerators, clothes washers, and dryers) shall be Energy Star–certified appliances or appliances of equivalent energy efficiency. Installation of Energy Star–certified or equivalent appliances shall be verified by Building & Safety during plan check. • Applicants for future development projects along existing and planned transit routes shall coordinate with the City of Santa Ana and Orange County Transit Authority to ensure that bus pad and shelter improvements are incorporated, as appropriate. 2 - 95 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 10 PlaceWorks Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible Implementing Party Responsible Monitoring Party Document Location (Monitoring Record) Completion Date Responsible Monitoring Party Project Mitigation Monitor AQ-3 Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Santa Ana, project applicants for new industrial or warehousing development projects that 1) have the potential to generate 100 or more diesel truck trips per day or have 40 or more trucks with operating diesel-powered transport refrigeration units, and 2) are within 1,000 feet of a sensitive land use (e.g., residential, schools, hospitals, or nursing homes), as measured from the property line of the project to the property line of the nearest sensitive use, shall submit a health risk assessment (HRA) to the City of Santa Ana for review and approval. The HRA shall be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and the South Coast Air Quality Management District. If the HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk and/or noncancer hazard index exceed the respective thresholds, as established by the South Coast AQMD at the time a project is considered, the project applicant will be required to identify and demonstrate that best available control technologies for toxics (T- BACTs), including appropriate enforcement mechanisms, are capable of reducing potential cancer and noncancer risks to an acceptable level. T-BACTs may include, but are not limited to, restricting idling on- site, electrifying warehousing docks to reduce diesel particulate matter, or requiring use of newer equipment and/or vehicles. T BACTs identified in the HRA shall be identified as mitigation measures in the environmental document and/or incorporated into the site plan.. Prior to future discretionary project approval Property Owner/ Developer City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division AQ-4 Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Santa Ana, if it is determined that a development project has the potential to emit nuisance odors beyond the property line, an odor management plan shall be prepared by the project applicant and submitted to the City of Santa Ana for review and approval. Facilities that have the potential to generate nuisance odors include, but are not limited to: • Wastewater treatment plants • Composting, green waste, or recycling facilities • Fiberglass manufacturing facilities Prior to future discretionary project approval Property Owner/ Developer City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division 2 - 96 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program October 2020 Page 11 Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible Implementing Party Responsible Monitoring Party Document Location (Monitoring Record) Completion Date Responsible Monitoring Party Project Mitigation Monitor • Painting/coating operations • Large-capacity coffee roasters • Food-processing facilities The odor management plan shall demonstrate compliance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Rule 402 for nuisance odors. The Odor Management Plan shall identify the best available control technologies for toxics (T-BACTs) that will be utilized to reduce potential odors to acceptable levels, including appropriate enforcement mechanisms. T-BACTs may include but are not limited to scrubbers (i.e., air pollution control devices) at the industrial facility. T-BACTs identified in the odor management plan shall be identified as mitigation measures in the environmental document prepared for the development project and/or incorporated into the project’s site plan. 5.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES BIO-1 For development or redevelopment projects that would disturb vegetated land or major stream and are subject to CEQA, a qualified biologist shall conduct an initial screening to determine whether a site- specific biological resource report is warranted. If needed, a qualified biologist shall conduct a field survey for the site and prepare a biological resource assessment for the project, including an assessment of potential impacts to sensitive species, habitats, and jurisdictional waters. The report shall recommend mitigation measures, as appropriate, to avoid or limit potential biological resource impacts to less than significant. Concurrent with submittal of site development plans and prior to the issuance of grading permits Project Applicant/ Developer City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division 5.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES CUL-1 Identification of Historical Resources and Potential Project Impacts. For structures 45 years or older, a Historical Resources Assessment (HRA) shall be prepared by an architectural historian or historian meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards. The HRA shall include: definition of a study area or area of potential effect, which will encompass the affected property and may include surrounding properties or historic district(s); Prior to issuance of grading permits Project Applicant/ Developer City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division 2 - 97 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 12 PlaceWorks Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible Implementing Party Responsible Monitoring Party Document Location (Monitoring Record) Completion Date Responsible Monitoring Party Project Mitigation Monitor an intensive level survey of the study area to identify and evaluate under federal, State, and local criteria significance historical resources that might be directly or indirectly affected by the proposed project; and an assessment of project impacts. The HRA shall satisfy federal and State guidelines for the identification, evaluation, and recordation of historical resources. An HRA is not required if an existing historic resources survey and evaluation of the property is available; however, if the existing survey and evaluation is more than five years old, it shall be updated. CUL-2 Use of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties shall be used to the maximum extent practicable to ensure that projects involving the relocation, conversion, rehabilitation, or alteration of a historical resource and its setting or related new construction will not impair the significance of the historical resource. Use of the Standards shall be overseen by an architectural historian or historic architect meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards. Evidence of compliance with the Standards shall be provided to the City in the form of a report identifying and photographing character-defining features and spaces and specifying how the proposed treatment of character-defining features and spaces and related construction activities will conform to the Standards. The Qualified Professional shall monitor the construction and provide a report to the City at the conclusion of the project. Use of the Secretary’s Standards shall reduce the project impacts on historical resources to less than significant. Prior to any disturbance of a historical resource, as determined by the intensive-level historical evaluation of a property Property Owner or Project Applicant/ Developer City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division 2 - 98 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program October 2020 Page 13 Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible Implementing Party Responsible Monitoring Party Document Location (Monitoring Record) Completion Date Responsible Monitoring Party Project Mitigation Monitor CUL-3 Documentation, Education, and Memorialization. If the City determines that significant impacts to historical resources cannot be avoided, the City shall require, at a minimum, that the affected historical resources be thoroughly documented before issuance of any permits and may also require additional public education efforts and/or memorialization of the historical resource. Though demolition or alteration of a historical resource such that its significance is materially impaired cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level, recordation of the resource will reduce significant adverse impacts to historical resources to the maximum extent feasible. Such recordation should be prepared under the supervision of an architectural historian, historian, or historic architect meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards and should take the form of Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) documentation. At a minimum, this recordation should include an architectural and historical narrative; archival photographic documentation; and supplementary information, such as building plans and elevations and/or historic photographs. The documentation package should be reproduced on archival paper and should be made available to researchers and the public through accession by appropriate institutions such as the Santa Ana Library History Room, the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton, and/or the HABS collection housed in the Library of Congress. Depending on the significance of the adversely affected historical resource, the City, at its discretion, may also require public education about the historical resource in the form of an exhibit, web page, brochure, or other format and/or memorialization of the historical resource on or near the proposed project site. If memorialized, such memorialization shall be a permanent installation, such as a mural, display, or other vehicle that recalls the location, appearance, and historical significance of the affected historical resource, and shall be designed in conjunction with a qualified architectural historian, historian, or historic architect. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, and for any subsequent permit involving excavation to increased depth Project Applicant/ Developer City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division 2 - 99 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 14 PlaceWorks Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible Implementing Party Responsible Monitoring Party Document Location (Monitoring Record) Completion Date Responsible Monitoring Party Project Mitigation Monitor CUL-4 For projects with ground disturbance—e.g., grading, excavation, trenching, boring, or demolition that extend below the current grade—prior to issuance of any permits required to conduct ground-disturbing activities, the City shall require an Archaeological Resources Assessment be conducted under the supervision of an archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professionally Qualified Standards in either prehistoric or historic archaeology. Assessments shall include a California Historical Resources Information System records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center and of the Sacred Land Files maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission. The records searches will determine if the proposed project area has been previously surveyed for archaeological resources, identify and characterize the results of previous cultural resource surveys, and disclose any cultural resources that have been recorded and/or evaluated. If unpaved surfaces are present within the project area, and the entire project area has not been previously surveyed within the past 10 years, a Phase I pedestrian survey shall be undertaken in proposed project areas to locate any surface cultural materials that may be present. Prior to the issuance of grading permits Project Applicant/ Developer City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division CUL-5 If potentially significant archaeological resources are identified, and impacts cannot be avoided, a Phase II Testing and Evaluation investigation shall be performed by an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards to determine significance prior to any ground-disturbing activities. If resources are determined significant or unique through Phase II testing, and site avoidance is not possible, appropriate site-specific mitigation measures shall be undertaken. These might include a Phase III data recovery program implemented by a qualified archaeologist and performed in accordance with the Office of Historical Preservation’s “Archaeological Resource Management Reports (ARMR): Recommended Contents and Format” (OHP 1990) and “Guidelines for Archaeological Research Designs” (OHP 1991). Prior to any ground disturbing activities Project Applicant/ Developer City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division 2 - 100 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program October 2020 Page 15 Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible Implementing Party Responsible Monitoring Party Document Location (Monitoring Record) Completion Date Responsible Monitoring Party Project Mitigation Monitor CUL-6 If the archaeological assessment did not identify archaeological resources but found the area to be highly sensitive for archaeological resources, a qualified archaeologist and a Native American monitor approved by a California Native American Tribe identified by the Native American Heritage Commission as culturally affiliated with the project area shall monitor all ground-disturbing construction and pre- construction activities in areas with previously undisturbed soil of high sensitivity. The archaeologist shall inform all construction personnel prior to construction activities of the proper procedures in the event of an archaeological discovery. The training shall be held in conjunction with the project’s initial on-site safety meeting and shall explain the importance and legal basis for the protection of significant archaeological resources. The Native American monitor shall be invited to participate in this training. In the event that archaeological resources (artifacts or features) are exposed during ground-disturbing activities, construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall be halted while the resources are evaluated for significance by an archaeologist who meets the Secretary’s Standards. and This will include tribal consultation and coordination with the Native American monitor shall be conducted in the case of a prehistoric archaeological resource or tribal resource. If the discovery proves to be significant, the long-term disposition of any collected materials should be determined in consultation with the affiliated tribe(s), where relevant; this could include curation with a recognized scientific or educational repository, transfer to the tribe, or respectful reinternment in an area designated by the tribe. Prior to construction activities Project Applicant/ Developer City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division 2 - 101 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 16 PlaceWorks Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible Implementing Party Responsible Monitoring Party Document Location (Monitoring Record) Completion Date Responsible Monitoring Party Project Mitigation Monitor CUL-7 If an Archaeological Resources Assessment does not identify potentially significant archaeological resources but the site has moderate sensitivity for archaeological resources (Mitigation Measure CUL-4), an archaeologist who meets the Secretary’s Standards shall be retained on call. The archaeologist shall inform all construction personnel prior to construction activities about the proper procedures in the event of an archaeological discovery. The pre-construction training shall be held in conjunction with the project’s initial on-site safety meeting and shall explain the importance and legal basis for the protection of significant archaeological resources. In the event that archaeological resources (artifacts or features) are exposed during ground-disturbing activities, construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall be halted while the on-call archaeologist is contacted. The resource shall be evaluated for significance and tribal consultation shall be conducted, in the case of a tribal resource. If the discovery proves to be significant, the long-term disposition of any collected materials should be determined in consultation with the affiliated tribe(s), where relevant. Prior to construction activities Project Applicant/ Developer City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division 5.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS GEO-1 High Sensitivity. Projects involving ground disturbances in previously undisturbed areas mapped as having “high” paleontological sensitivity shall be monitored by a qualified paleontological monitor on a full-time basis. Monitoring shall include inspection of exposed sedimentary units during active excavations within sensitive geologic sediments. The monitor shall have authority to temporarily divert activity away from exposed fossils to evaluate the significance of the find and, if the fossils are determined to be significant, professionally and efficiently recover the fossil specimens and collect associated data. The paleontological monitor shall use field data forms to record pertinent location and geologic data, measure stratigraphic sections (if applicable), and collect appropriate sediment samples from any fossil localities.. During ground disturbing activities Project Applicant/ Developer City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division 2 - 102 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program October 2020 Page 17 Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible Implementing Party Responsible Monitoring Party Document Location (Monitoring Record) Completion Date Responsible Monitoring Party Project Mitigation Monitor GEO-2 Low-to-High Sensitivity. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for projects involving ground disturbance in previously undisturbed areas mapped with “low-to-high” paleontological sensitivity (see Figure 5.6-3), the project applicant shall consult with a geologist or paleontologist to confirm whether the grading would occur at depths that could encounter highly sensitive sediments for paleontological resources. If confirmed that underlying sediments may have high sensitivity, construction activity shall be monitored by a qualified paleontologist. The paleontologist shall have the authority to halt construction during construction activity as outlined in Mitigation Measure GEO-3. Prior to the issuance of grading permits Project Applicant/ Developer City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division GEO-3 All Projects. In the event of any fossil discovery, regardless of depth or geologic formation, construction work shall halt within a 50-foot radius of the find until its significance can be determined by a qualified paleontologist. Significant fossils shall be recovered, prepared to the point of curation, identified by qualified experts, listed in a database to facilitate analysis, and deposited in a designated paleontological curation facility in accordance with the standards of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (2010). The most likely repository is the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. The repository shall be identified and a curatorial arrangement shall be signed prior to collection of the fossils. During ground disturbing activities Project Applicant/ Developer City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division 5.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS GHG-1 The City of Santa Ana shall update the Climate Action Plan (CAP) every five years to ensure the City is monitoring the plan’s progress toward achieving the City’s greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction target and to require amendment if the plan is not achieving the specified level. The update shall consider a trajectory consistent with the GHG emissions reduction goal established under Executive Order S-03-05 for year 2050 and the latest applicable statewide legislative GHG emission reduction that may be in effect at the time of the CAP update (e.g., Senate Bill 32 for year 2030). The CAP update shall include the following: Every five years City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division in coordination with Project Applicant/ Developer City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division 2 - 103 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 18 PlaceWorks Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible Implementing Party Responsible Monitoring Party Document Location (Monitoring Record) Completion Date Responsible Monitoring Party Project Mitigation Monitor • GHG inventories of existing and forecast year GHG levels. • Tools and strategies for reducing GHG emissions to ensure a trajectory with the long-term GHG reduction goal of Executive Order S-03-05. • Plan implementation guidance that includes, at minimum, the following components consistent with the proposed CAP: § Administration and Staffing § Finance and Budgeting § Timelines for Measure Implementation § Community Outreach and Education § Monitoring, Reporting, and Adaptive Management § Tracking Tools Furthermore, the following measures will be considered when the City updates the Climate Action Plan: • Measures to protect the most vulnerable populations • Measure to increase carbon sinks • Standards for electric vehicle parking • Standards for construction projects 5.12 NOISE N-1 Construction contractors shall implement the following measures for construction activities conducted in the City of Santa Ana. Construction plans submitted to the City shall identify these measures on demolition, grading, and construction plans submitted to the City: The City of Santa Ana Planning and Building Agency shall verify that grading, demolition, and/or construction plans submitted to the City include these notations prior to issuance of demolition, grading, and/or building permits. • Construction activity is limited to the hours: Between 7 AM to 8 PM Monday through Saturday, as prescribed in Municipal Code Section 18-314(e). Construction is prohibited on Sundays. • During the entire active construction period, equipment and trucks used for project construction shall use the best-available noise control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment re-design, Prior to issuance of demolition, grading, and/or building permits Project Applicant/ Developer and Architect City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division 2 - 104 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program October 2020 Page 19 Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible Implementing Party Responsible Monitoring Party Document Location (Monitoring Record) Completion Date Responsible Monitoring Party Project Mitigation Monitor use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds), wherever feasible. • Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers and hoe rams) shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible. Where the use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used along with external noise jackets on the tools. • Stationary equipment, such as generators and air compressors shall be located as far as feasible from nearby noise-sensitive uses. • Stockpiling shall be located as far as feasible from nearby noise-sensitive receptors. • Construction traffic shall be limited, to the extent feasible, to approved haul routes established by the City Planning and Building Agency. • At least 10 days prior to the start of construction activities, a sign shall be posted at the entrance(s) to the job site, clearly visible to the public, that includes permitted construction days and hours, as well as the telephone numbers of the City’s and contractor’s authorized representatives that are assigned to respond in the event of a noise or vibration complaint. If the authorized contractor’s representative receives a complaint, he/she shall investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and report the action to the City. • Signs shall be posted at the job site entrance(s), within the on-site construction zones, and along queueing lanes (if any) to reinforce the prohibition of unnecessary engine idling. All other equipment shall be turned off if not in use for more than 5 minutes. • During the entire active construction period and to the extent feasible, the use of noise-producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells, shall be for safety warning purposes only. The construction manager shall use smart back-up alarms, which automatically adjust the alarm level based on the 2 - 105 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 20 PlaceWorks Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible Implementing Party Responsible Monitoring Party Document Location (Monitoring Record) Completion Date Responsible Monitoring Party Project Mitigation Monitor background noise level or switch off back-up alarms and replace with human spotters in compliance with all safety requirements and laws. • Erect temporary noise barriers (at least as high as the exhaust of equipment and breaking line-of-sight between noise sources and sensitive receptors), as necessary and feasible, to maintain construction noise levels at or below the performance standard of 80 dBA Leq. Barriers shall be constructed with a solid material that has a density of at least 4 pounds per square foot with no gaps from the ground to the top of the barrier. N-2 Prior to issuance of a building permit for a project requiring pile driving during construction within 135 feet of fragile structures, such as historical resources, 100 feet of non-engineered timber and masonry buildings (e.g., most residential buildings), or within 75 feet of engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster); or a vibratory roller within 25 feet of any structure, the project applicant shall prepare a noise and vibration analysis to assess and mitigate potential noise and vibration impacts related to these activities. This noise and vibration analysis shall be conducted by a qualified and experienced acoustical consultant or engineer. The vibration levels shall not exceed Federal Transit Administration (FTA) architectural damage thresholds (e.g., 0.12 inches per second [in/sec] peak particle velocity [PPV] for fragile or historical resources, 0.2 in/sec PPV for non-engineered timber and masonry buildings, and 0.3 in/sec PPV for engineered concrete and masonry). If vibration levels would exceed this threshold, alternative uses such as drilling piles as opposed to pile driving and static rollers as opposed to vibratory rollers shall be used. If necessary, construction vibration monitoring shall be conducted to ensure vibration thresholds are not exceeded. Prior to the issuance of building permits Project Applicant/ Developer City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division N-3 New residential projects (or other noise-sensitive uses) located within 200 feet of existing railroad lines shall be required to conduct a groundborne vibration and noise evaluation consistent with Federal Transit Administration (FTA)-approved methodologies. Prior to the issuance of building permits Project Applicant/ Developer City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division 2 - 106 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program October 2020 Page 21 Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible Implementing Party Responsible Monitoring Party Document Location (Monitoring Record) Completion Date Responsible Monitoring Party Project Mitigation Monitor N-4 During the project-level California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process for industrial developments under the General Plan Update or other projects that could generate substantial vibration levels near sensitive uses, a noise and vibration analysis shall be conducted to assess and mitigate potential noise and vibration impacts related to the operations of that individual development. This noise and vibration analysis shall be conducted by a qualified and experienced acoustical consultant or engineer and shall follow the latest CEQA guidelines, practices, and precedents. Prior to the issuance of building permits Project Applicant/ Developer and Acoustical Engineer City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division 5.16 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES CUL-4 For projects with ground disturbance—e.g., grading, excavation, trenching, boring, or demolition that extend below the current grade—prior to issuance of any permits required to conduct ground-disturbing activities, the City shall require an Archaeological Resources Assessment be conducted under the supervision of an archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professionally Qualified Standards in either prehistoric or historic archaeology. Assessments shall include a California Historical Resources Information System records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center and of the Sacred Land Files maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission. The records searches will determine if the proposed project area has been previously surveyed for archaeological resources, identify and characterize the results of previous cultural resource surveys, and disclose any cultural resources that have been recorded and/or evaluated. If unpaved surfaces are present within the project area, and the entire project area has not been previously surveyed within the past 10 years, a Phase I pedestrian survey shall be undertaken in proposed project areas to locate any surface cultural materials that may be present. Prior to the issuance of grading permits Project Applicant/ Developer City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division 2 - 107 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 22 PlaceWorks Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible Implementing Party Responsible Monitoring Party Document Location (Monitoring Record) Completion Date Responsible Monitoring Party Project Mitigation Monitor CUL-5 If potentially significant archaeological resources are identified, and impacts cannot be avoided, a Phase II Testing and Evaluation investigation shall be performed by an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards to determine significance prior to any ground-disturbing activities. If resources are determined significant or unique through Phase II testing, and site avoidance is not possible, appropriate site-specific mitigation measures shall be undertaken. These might include a Phase III data recovery program implemented by a qualified archaeologist and performed in accordance with the Office of Historical Preservation’s “Archaeological Resource Management Reports (ARMR): Recommended Contents and Format” (OHP 1990) and “Guidelines for Archaeological Research Designs” (OHP 1991). Prior to any ground disturbing activities Project Applicant/ Developer City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division CUL-6 If the archaeological assessment did not identify archaeological resources but found the area to be highly sensitive for archaeological resources, a qualified archaeologist shall monitor all ground-disturbing construction and pre-construction activities in areas with previously undisturbed soil. The archaeologist shall inform all construction personnel prior to construction activities of the proper procedures in the event of an archaeological discovery. The training shall be held in conjunction with the project’s initial on-site safety meeting and shall explain the importance and legal basis for the protection of significant archaeological resources. In the event that archaeological resources (artifacts or features) are exposed during ground-disturbing activities, construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall be halted while the resources are evaluated for significance by an archaeologist who meets the Secretary’s Standards, and tribal consultation shall be conducted in the case of a tribal resource. If the discovery proves to be significant, the long-term disposition of any collected materials should be determined in consultation with the affiliated tribe(s), where relevant; this could include curation with a recognized scientific or educational repository, transfer to the tribe, or respectful reinternment in an area designated by the tribe. Prior to construction activities Project Applicant/ Developer City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division 2 - 108 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program October 2020 Page 23 Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible Implementing Party Responsible Monitoring Party Document Location (Monitoring Record) Completion Date Responsible Monitoring Party Project Mitigation Monitor CUL-7 If an Archaeological Resources Assessment does not identify potentially significant archaeological resources but the site has moderate sensitivity for archaeological resources (Mitigation Measure CUL-4), an archaeologist who meets the Secretary’s Standards shall be retained on call. The archaeologist shall inform all construction personnel prior to construction activities about the proper procedures in the event of an archaeological discovery. The pre-construction training shall be held in conjunction with the project’s initial on-site safety meeting and shall explain the importance and legal basis for the protection of significant archaeological resources. In the event that archaeological resources (artifacts or features) are exposed during ground-disturbing activities, construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall be halted while the on-call archaeologist is contacted. The resource shall be evaluated for significance and tribal consultation shall be conducted, in the case of a tribal resource. If the discovery proves to be significant, the long-term disposition of any collected materials should be determined in consultation with the affiliated tribe(s), where relevant. Prior to construction activities Project Applicant/ Developer City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division 2 - 109 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 24 PlaceWorks This page intentionally left blank. 2 - 110 EXHIBIT 2 2 - 111 Resolution No. 2020-xx Page 1 LS 11.9.20 RESOLUTION NO. 2020-xx A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2020-06 FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE TO THE SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines and declares as follows: WHEREAS, Article 5 of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 (commencing with Section 65300) of the Government Code requires the City to prepare and adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the City; and WHEREAS, in 1982, the City of Santa Ana last completed a comprehensive update to the General Plan; and WHEREAS, various elements of the General Plan have been amended and adopted from time to time; and WHEREAS, the City of Santa Ana seeks to adopt a comprehensive update to the Santa Ana General Plan; and WHEREAS, the City created a General Plan Advisory Group (GPAG) to formulate the five Core Values of Culture, Sustainability, Health, Education and Equity that were developed to be interwoven throughout the document; and, WHEREAS, per SB 1000, the City is required to address Environmental Justice in the General Plan update due to a number of disadvantaged communities located within the City; and, WHEREAS, the goals, policies, and implementation items associated with environmental justice have been selectively placed within the majority of the updated Elements due to their importance; and, WHEREAS, the Project as currently proposed entails, among other things, (1) the revision to the State mandated Elements of the General Plan; (2) the inclusion of optional Elements to the General Plan; (3) approval of General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 2020-06, which would result in a comprehensive update to the existing General Plan; and 2 - 112 Resolution No. 2020-xx Page 2 WHEREAS, the General Plan is a community-wide vision document that is intended to address and respond to community needs, with staff conducting outreach with community members about the process to as wide an audience as possible; and, WHEREAS, over the past five years, an extensive public outreach campaign to engage the public was conducted to supplement the feedback, input and direction for the comprehensive update to the General Plan. Public outreach efforts included hosting over 60 community meetings and workshops; hosting individual community workshops within each of the five Focus Areas with over 300 residents, business leaders, and community stakeholders participating in the workshops; distributing an online community survey with over 650 respondents to collect input on the content of the General Plan; the mailing of approximately 44,000 informational flyers to property owners and tenants; presentations at neighborhood Communication Linkages (CommLink) meetings; outreach meetings with Environmental Justice groups (Madison Park Neighborhood Association, Logan Neighborhood Association, Artesia-Pilar Neighborhood Association); and, attendance at approximately 100 Cares events (daily neighborhood functions and evening City Park events) from late-August through the end of October within Environmental Justice communities to discuss the General plan update with residents; and, WHEREAS, Environmental Impact Report No. 2020-03 (State Clearinghouse/SCH No. 2020029087) (“EIR”) for the proposed General Plan update was circulated between August 3, 2020 and September 16, 2020; and WHEREAS, due to feedback from the community, the comment period was extended another 20-days and closed on October 6, 2020; and WHEREAS, on August 3, 2020, the City invited recognized Native American tribes to engage in consultation regarding the proposed General Plan Amendment pursuant to Government Code Section 65352.3; and WHEREAS, on August 4, 2020, the City received a comment letter from the Juanero Band of Mission Indians, with the group providing comments but not requesting to consult with the City, with comments responded to in the Final EIR; and WHEREAS, during the public comment period, Planning Commission work- study sessions were held on August 24, 2020 and September 14, 2020 where staff presented the proposed General Plan update and the Draft EIR for review and comment; and WHEREAS, on November 9, 2020, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the EIR and General Plan Amendment No. 2020-06. After hearing all relevant testimony from staff, the public and the City’s consultant team, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council certify the EIR and adopt the findings of fact, the statement of overriding considerations and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program and approve the Project; and 2 - 113 Resolution No. 2020-xx Page 3 WHEREAS, the “EIR” consists of the Final EIR and its attachments and appendices, as well as the Draft EIR and its attachments and appendices (as modified by the Final EIR); and WHEREAS, on November 20, 2020, the City gave public notice of a City Council public hearing for consideration of Environmental Impact Report No. 2020-03 (State Clearinghouse No. 2020029087) by noticing in the Orange County Register, a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Santa Ana, and by mailing to owners of property and residents within 500 feet of the five Focus Areas, those listed in the Permanent Notification Binder, those listed on the Notice of Availability distribution list, and those listed on the General Plan interest list; and WHEREAS, on December 1, 2020, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the EIR and General Plan Amendment No. 2020-06, at which hearing members of the public were afforded an opportunity to comment upon Environmental Impact Report No. 2020-03. After hearing all relevant testimony from staff, the public and the City’s consultant team, the City Council voted to certify the EIR, adopt the findings of fact, the statement of overriding considerations and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program and approve the Project. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE, FIND, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT: The City Council has reviewed, certified and adopted Environmental Impact Report No. 2020-03, adopted the Findings of Fact, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), and Statement of Overriding Consideration for the proposed Project, including General Plan Amendment No. 2020-06. Section 3. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: The General Plan Amendment consists of amendments to 11 Elements of the General Plan and text updates, as shown in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Section 4. LOCATION OF DOCUMENTS: The General Plan Amendment, Environmental Impact Report and all supporting documents are online, and on file and available for public review at Santa Ana City Hall, 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, California 92702. Section 5. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY: The City Council hereby finds that the proposed General Plan Amendment is compatible with the objectives, policies, and general plan land use programs specified in the General Plan for the City of Santa Ana in that: A. The City of Santa Ana has officially adopted a General Plan. 2 - 114 Resolution No. 2020-xx Page 4 B. The proposed Project is a comprehensive update to the current General Plan. The current General Plan will be consolidated into 12 elements, with 11 Elements being comprehensively updated including the Community Element, the Mobility Element, the Economic Prosperity Element, the Public Services Element, the Conservation Element, the Open Space Element, the Noise Element, the Safety Element, the Land Use Element, the Historic Preservation Element, and the Urban Design Element. C. The Housing Element is on a separate update schedule and will be updated in 2021 in compliance with State law. D. The new and updated goals/objectives and policies of the General Plan will be coordinated and consistent throughout the General Plan document. E. The proposed General Plan Amendment will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare in that the General Plan Amendment is a comprehensive update to the existing General Plan that is intended to address issues such as incompatible land uses on adjacent properties, inconsistencies between General Plan goals or policies, and will mitigate adverse impacts to the environment. Section 6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: The City Council hereby takes the following action: 1. The City Council approves General Plan Amendment No. 2020-06 as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, subject to compliance with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and upon satisfaction of the conditions set forth below: A. The General Plan Amendment shall not take effect unless and until Environmental Impact Report No. 2020-03 is certified by the City Council. B. General Plan Amendment No. 2020-06 shall not take effect unless and until the City Council overrules the Determination of Inconsistency by the Airport Land Use Commission. Section 7. EXECUTION OF RESOLUTION. The Mayor shall sign this Resolution and the Clerk of the Council shall attest and certify to the adoption thereof. ADOPTED this ____ day of___________, 2020. _______________________ Miguel A. Pulido Mayor 2 - 115 Resolution No. 2020-xx Page 5 APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sonia R. Carvalho City Attorney By:________________________ Lisa Storck Assistant City Attorney AYES: Councilmembers ___________________________________ NOES: Councilmembers ___________________________________ ABSTAIN: Councilmembers ___________________________________ NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers ___________________________________ CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, DAISY GOMEZ, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2020-xx to be the original resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on ___________________, 2020. Date: ____________ ____________________________ Daisy Gomez, Clerk of the Council City of Santa Ana 2 - 116 EXHIBIT 3 2 - 117 EIR No. 2020-03 and GPA No. 2020-06 Comprehensive Update to the General Plan The Final EIR and Technical Appendices are available online at: https://www.santa-ana.org/general-plan/general-plan-environmental-documents Physical copies are also available for viewing by appointment only. Please contact PlanningDepartment@santa-ana.org before visiting the Planning Division public counter located at: 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701 EXHIBIT 3 – Link to EIR 2 - 118 EXHIBIT 4 2 - 119 EIR No. 2020-03 and GPA No. 2020-06 Comprehensive Update to the General Plan The Updated General Plan Elements are available online at: https://www.santa-ana.org/general-plan/draft-documents Physical copies are also available for viewing by appointment only. Please contact PlanningDepartment@santa-ana.org before visiting the Planning Division public counter located at: 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701 EXHIBIT 4 – Link to General Plan Elements 2 - 120