Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout93-036 - Environmental Impact Report for the Main Street Concourse ProjectRESOLUTION NO. 93-036 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE MAIN STREET CONCOURSE PROJECT AND ADOPTING FINDINGS REGARDING SUCH PROJECT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMEN- TAL QUALITY ACT. W~EREAS, Orient Corporation of America, Inc., owns 18.9 acres of real property located at the northeast corner of Main Street and Owens Drive in the City of Santa Ana (hereinafter referred to as the "subject property"); and WHEREAS, Orient Corporation of America, Inc. now seeks approval from the city of Santa Ana for development on the subject property, consisting, at a maximum, of 1,537,110 square feet of commercial-office space and 280 residential units (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, the approvals sought by Orient Corporation of America, Inc. include a general plan amendment, a change in zoning district designation for the property, a Specific Development Plan to establish zoning regulations governing the Project, a zoning variance and conditional use permit, a tentative subdivision map, and a Development Agreement between Orient Corporation of America, Inc., and the City of Santa Ana to provide Orient Corporation of America, Inc. with certain vested rights with regard to the Project; and WHEREAS, an environmental impact report (consisting of a document entitled "Revised Draft Environment Impact Report, Main Street Concourse," dated April 15, 1992, a second document entitled "Main Street Concourse, Response to Comments," dated December 29, 1992, and a third document, entitled "Addendum to Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report, Main Street Concourse, SCII #9001049- 5," dated April 8, 1993) has been prepared for the Project (the "E.I.R.); and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act and the State CEQA Guidelines require that, prior to any approval of the Project, the city Council must make certain certifications and findings; 0 0 0 0 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS FOLLOWS: 1. The City council hereby certifies that the E.I.R. has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and that the E.I.R. has been presented to the City Council, and that the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the E.I.R. prior to approving the Project. 2. The findings and statements set forth in that certain "Statement of Compliance with California environmental Quality Act, Findings of Fact, and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Main Street Concourse," set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto, and that certain Mitigation/ Monitoring Program set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto, are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth. The City Council hereby adopts and approves said findings, statements, and program. ADOPTED this 19th day of April , 1993. ATTEST: COUNCILMEMBERS: Young Aye Pulido Aye Lutz Aye Mills Aye Moreno Aye Norton Absent Richardson Aye APPROVED AS TO FORM: city Attorney 2 284 CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY State of California County of Orange I, JANICE C. GUY, Clerk of the Council, do hereby certify the attached Resolution ~J--U3~ to be the original resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Aha on City of Santa Ana Date 285 FINDINGS OF FACT, AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS MAIN STREET CONCOURSE SCH #90010495 Lead Agency: City of Santa Ana Planning Division 206 West Fourth Street M-20 P.O. Box 1988 Santa Ana, California 92702 (714) 667-2700 Contact: Charles View, Senior Planner April 8, 1993 EXHIBIT A TABLE OF CONTENTS STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, FINDINGS OF FACT, AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE MAIN STREET CONCOURSE INTRODUCTION II. STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND FINDINGS FOR CERTIFICATION OF REVISED DRAFT EIR A. GENERAL FINDINGS OF COMPLIANCE B. DETAILED FINDINGS FOR CERTIFICATION 1. Initial Draft EIR 2. Revised Draft EIR 3. Response to Comments and Project Approval III. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED MAIN STREET CONCOURSE DEVELOPMENT IV. INVENTORY OF SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS A. TRAFFIC B. AIR QUALITY C. NOISE AND VIBRATION D. JOBS/HOUSING E. AESTHETICS ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS, MITIGATION MEASURES AND FINDINGS A. EARTH RESOURCES 1. Environmental Effects 2. Findings B. AIR QUALITY i 1 . 2 · 2 2 3 · 4 · 5 6 6 6 6 · 7 · 7 · 8 · 8 · 8 · 8 · 9 287 Ce Environmental Effects Findings . Unavoidable Significant Environmental Effects WATER RESOURCES . 1. Environmental Effects 2. Findings NOISE 1. Environmental Effects 2. Findings 3. Unavoidable Significant Environmental Effects LIGHT AND GLARE, SHADE AND SHADOW 1. Environmental Effects 2. Findings LAND USE 1. Environmental Effects 2. Findings NATURAL RESOURCES 1. Environmental Effects 2. Findings RISK OF UPSET AND HUMAN HEALTH 1. Environmental Effects 2. Findings POPULATION AND HOUSING Environmental Effects Findings Unavoidable Significant Environmental Effects ii 9 12 12 12 12 14 14 14 17 17 17 17 18 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 2O 21 21 22 288 Me TP~%NSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 1. Environmental Effects 2. Findings 3. Potential Infeasibility of Certain Measures 4. Unavoidable Significant Environmental Effects PAR]lING 1. Environmental Effects 2. Findings PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION 1. Environmental Effects 2. Findings FIRE PROTECTION 1. Environmental Effects 2. Findings POLICE PROTECTION 1. Environmental Effects 2. Findings SCHOOLS . 1. Environmental Effects 2. Findings SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL 1. Environmental Effects 2. Findings 3. Unavoidable Environmental Effects PUBLIC UTILITIES 1. Environmental Effects iii 22 22 24 Mitigation 25 25 25 25 26 26 26 26 27 27 27 28 28 28 28 28 29 29 29 29 29 3O 3O 289 Te 2. Findings COMMUNICATION SERVICES - TELEPHONE 1. Environmental Effects 2. Findings WATER 1. Environmental Effects 2. Findings WASTEWATER 1. Environmental Effects 2. Findings AESTHETICS 1. Environmental Effects 2. Findings 3. Unavoidable Environmental Effects RECREATION 1. Environmental Effects 2. Findings CULTURAL RESOURCES 1. Environmental Effects 2. Findings . VI. INFEASIBILITY OF ALTERNATIVES A. NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE (ALTERNATIVE A) 1. Findings . 2. Facts in Support of the Finding B. REDUCED DENSITY GARDEN OFFICE ALTERNATIVE (ALTERNATIVE B) iv 3O 30 30 3O 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 32 32 32 32 33 33 33 33 33 34 34 34 34 VII · Ce Findings Facts in Support of the Finding (ALL OFFICE) ALTERNATIVE LAND USE (ALTERNATIVE C) 1. Findings 2. Facts in Support of the Finding GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY ALTERNATIVE (FAR 1.5) (ALTERNATIVE D) 1. Findings 2. Facts in Support of the Finding STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 34 34 36 36 36 37 37 37 39 v STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, FINDINGS OF FACT, AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE MAIN STREET CONCOURSE I. INTRODUCTION The Orient Corporation of America, Inc. ("Orient") as property owner and Shimizu America Corporation ("Shimizu"), as project proponent ("Orient" and "Shimizu" are collectively sometimes referred to as the "Applicant" for purposes herein) propose to develop a mixed-use project containing commercial office/retail/hotel/residential uses and related incidental function areas and parking facilities (the "Main Street Concourse" development, more particularly described below). The proposed development will be located on 18.9 acres of primarily vacant land owned by Orient at the northeast corner of Main Street and Owens Drive in the City of Santa Ana, California. The environmental consequences of the Main Street Concourse were evaluated and assessed in a "Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report for Main Street Concourse" dated April 15, 1992 (the "Revised Draft EIR"). This Statement includes the environmental effects, including significant effects, of the proposed Main Street Concourse development, mitigation measures, findings with respect to environmental effects, the rationale for the findings, and the overriding considerations for the development. A separate mitigation monitoring program has been prepared and adopted concurrently with this Statement (the "Mitigation Monitoring Program"). This Statement is not a new assessment of the environmental effects which will result from the construction and development of the Main Street Concourse, nor does it replace or supersede any provisions of the Revised Draft EIR. This Statement is merely a recompilation and extrapolation of data and information contained in the revised draft EIR regarding the environmental impacts and mitigation measures. The purpose of this Statement is to bridge the analytic gap between the data and information contained in the Revised Draft EIR and the findings required to be made in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). & '~'lTl~4l~qT (~ C~t4PI,L~E WJ.'~ ~ (::~.~ ~ ~.~'I'Y ~-T FTNDINGS FOR CERT'rFTCATION OF REV'FSED DI~AFT ETR A. GENERAL FINDINGS OF COMPLIANCE The City of Santa Ana (the "city") is the Lead Agency with respect to the preparation of the Revised Draft EIR. The Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15000 et seq.) to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA," Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq) require the Lead Agency to certify that (a) the Revised Draft EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA, and (b) the Revised Draft EIR was presented to the decision-making body of the Lead Agency and that the decision-making body reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to approving the project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15090). The City Council (the "Council") of the City of Santa Ana is the decision-making body for the city. The City hereby finds that the Revised Draft EIR for the Main Street Concourse has been completed in compliance with CEQA, and that the Revised Draft EIR has been presented to the Council and the Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Revised Draft EIR prior to approving the project. B. DETAILED FINDINGS FOR CERTIFICATION INITIAL D~AFT EIR The Initial Draft EIR was prepared pursuant to an initial study dated May 14, 1990, based upon the project's potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, and the potential to contribute to possible environmental effects which are independently limited but cumulatively considerable. 1,2. On May 15, 1990, a notice of preparation of sent to affected public agencies and organizations and individuals, and to Clearinghouse. the EIR was interested the State 1.3. A notice of completion of the Initial Draft EIR was filed with the California Office of Planning and Research on December 13, 1991, briefly describing the project and its location and indicating that the Initial Draft EIR was available. 1.4. Copies of the Initial Draft EIR were sent to affected public agencies, interested organizations and individuals, and the State Clearinghouse for state agencies review for a 45-day review period. In addition, three copies were sent to the Santa Ana Public Library. 293 1,5. 2.1o 2°2. 2.3. 2.4. 2.5. 2.6 Interested agencies, individuals, and jurisdictions submitted their written comments on the Initial Draft EIR to the Lead Agency. The staff of the Lead Agency reviewed the comments. REVISED DRAFT EIR A Revised Draft EIR was prepared at the City's request after the City's additional review on the Initial Draft EIR showed that additional analysis and clarification were required for the anticipated traffic related to the Main Street Concourse development. An addendum and revision to the original traffic report was prepared at the city's direction. On April 15, 1992, the Revised Draft EIR was sent to affected public agencies and interested organizations and individuals, and to the State Clearinghouse. A Notice of Completion of the Revised Draft EIR was filed with the California Office of Planning and Research on April 15, 1992, briefly describing the project and its location and indicating that the Revised Draft EIR was available. Copies of the Revised Draft EIR were sent to affected public agencies, interested organizations and individuals, and the State Clearinghouse for state agencies review for a 45-day review period, beginning on April 15, 1992 and ending on June 1, 1992. In addition, three copies were sent to the Santa Ana Public Library. Notice of the public hearing at which the City solicited public comment on the Initial Draft EIR was published in a newspaper of general circulation in the affected area, The Orange County Register, on May 17, 1992, May 23, 1992, and May 24, 1992. A noticed public hearing was held before the City to entertain public comment on the Initial Draft EIR on May 26, 1992. At the request of the public at the hearing, the City's Planning Commission approved an extension of the comment period to June 10, 1992. Comments were accepted as late as June 15, 1992. Interested agencies, individuals, and jurisdictions submitted their written comments on the Revised Draft EIR to the Lead Agency. The staffs of the Lead Agency reviewed the comments. 3.1, 3,2. 3.3. 3,4, 3.5. RESPONSE TO COIO4ENTS AND PROJECT APPROVAL A Response to the Comments document was prepared and circulated to the public on December 29, 1992. On that date, the Lead Agency also prepared and released a draft mitigation monitoring program. Notice of a public hearing concerning consideration of the project by the City Planning Commission was published in a newspaper of general circulation in the affected area, the Orange County Register on February 26, 1993. A public hearing was held before the Planning Commission to entertain public comment on approval of the project on March 8, 1993. In response to several questions raised at the public hearing, Lead Agency staff provided further clarification and information to the Planning commission in the form of a March 22, 1993 staff report. The information contained in the staff report did not alter any of the conclusions contained in the Draft EIR but rather provided further clarification with respect to the intent and interpretation of different mitigation measures and included additional economic information supporting the Lead Agency staff's recommendation that the project be approved. Included in the package was a report prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. dated March 18, 1993, containing a tax revenue analysis of the project. On March 22, 1993, the Planning Commission approved those portions of the approval within its jurisdiction and forwarded the entire project to the City Council with the recommendation that the project be approved. Notice of a Public Hearing at which the City Council would take action on the project was published in a newspaper of general circulation in the affected area, the Orange County Register on April 5th and April 12, 1993. A noticed public hearing was held before tile city Council to consider approval of the project on April 19, 1993. 4 295 III. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED MAIN STREET CONCOURSE DEVELOPMENT The Revised Draft EIR describes, evaluates and analyzes the environmental effects of the Main Street Concourse development as follows: . The applicant is proposing to develop 18.9 acres of primarily vacant land at the northeast corner of Main Street and Owens Drive in Santa Ana. The land is owned by Orient Corporation of America, Inc. The proposed project includes a mix of commercial and residential land uses to be developed in two or more phases. The proposed commercial uses (1,537,110 gross square feet) include two office towers, retail stores, restaurants, cinemas, a community theater, and a hotel. Phase I includes the 32-story office building, parking structure, retail commercial and entertainment space, and 64 low-rise (2-story-single-family attached housing units). Phase II includes the 20-story office building, the hotel, additional retail space, an addition to the Phase I parking structure, and a 216-unit residential tower. Enhancement of Santiago Park south of the project site through contributions to the city for this purpose, and offer of potential dedication of an easement for a potential fixed guideway transit station are included in the project. Parking for the project's commercial uses will be provided in subterranean and aboveground garages. Parking for these uses will be separately secured. 0 0 0 0 I 96 IV. INVENTORY OF SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS Implementation of the proposed project will aid in developing the surrounding area as a regional center. As a regional attraction, the proposed project will generate a significant increase in vehicular trips into the area. As a result, the amount of traffic congestion and vehicular emissions will significantly increase, which will induce increased noise and air quality impacts. Additionally, the proposed project will add to the existing job/housing imbalance within Santa Ana. A. TRAFFIC Main at Buffalo will remain adversely impacted from Phase I into Phase II of the project. Of the four additional intersections adversely impacted by Phase II, all four intersections can be completely mitigated to acceptable levels of service. Of the 39 intersections studied, nine will operate at unacceptable levels at the completion of Phase II. Eight of these are adversely impacted by the entitled projects, and one (Main at Buffalo) is adversely impacted by the proposed project and cannot be mitigated to acceptable levels. The adverse project impact of that one intersection is a significant, unavoidable adverse impact. With the expected cumulative projects, 23 intersections will operate at unacceptable levels prior to mitigation. With mitigation, including planned improvements to Interstate 5, 16 intersections remain adversely impacted by cumulative projects. B. AIR QUALITY Upon implementation of the mitigation measures contained in the RDEIR, short-term emissions generated by construction equipment would be reduced to a level which is less than significant. However, the proposed project has the potential to generate substantial emissions and will contribute long-term air emissions to a non-attainment area. Any increase in emissions is considered significant. The impact of vehicular emissions can be reduced through the use of TDM and other measures, but cannot be mitigated completely, especially localized emissions such as carbon monoxide. Thus, the proposed project will generate a significant unavoidable adverse impact on air quality. C. NOISE AND VIBRATION If pile driving for the high-rise building foundations is necessary, a significant unavoidable adverse temporary noise impact on project and adjacent residences and businesses may result during construction. 6 '297 D. JOB~HOUS~NG The proposed project would indirectly result in an unavoidable adverse effect on the city's job/housing balance by increasing employment opportunities without supplying a corresponding increase in housing. The effect is not project-specific and cannot be altogether mitigated by the project applicant; it is a city and regional concern. E. AESTHETICS The proposed project would result in the intensification and urbanization of an undeveloped site. As discussed at Page 4-153 of the Revised Draft EIR, the construction of the 32 story office building, as well as other planned high-rise buildings, would result in a significant change of the visual character of the site. Mitigation measures have been proposed and implemented which reduce these adverse impacts. The Response to Comments concludes that the mitigation measures proposed for aesthetics will reduce potential aesthetic and visual impacts to a level that is less than significant. (See, for example, Response to Comment 12-WWW). However, aesthetic impacts are subjective. Based upon testimony in the record from surrounding residents who feel the visual impacts will be significant, for purposes of project approval, ~he City Council hereby finds and determines that distant views of the mountains to the north and east would be obstructed and this impact is considered an unavoidable adverse impact of this project. 7 V. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS, MITIGATION MEASURES A~D FINDINGS A. EARTH RESOURCES 1 · ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS Implementation of the Main Street Concourse will require grading in order to develop surfaces suitable for the construction of residential and commercial structures, soils exposed during grading will be subject to wind erosion, which could potentially increase the amount of dust in the area. Although soils are currently in moist condition, the hauling of excavated soils could result in dust generation. Approximately 460,000 cubic yards of earth material will be exported from the project site: 300 cubic yards during Phase I, and 160,000 cubic yards during Phase II. As is typical throughout most of Southern California, the project site is subject to sometimes violent shaking from periodic earthquakes. The San Andreas fault lies 43 miles to the northeast of the project site and has the potential to generate an earthquake with a Richter magnitude of 8.3. An event of this size would cause groundshaking intensity of VII (based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale) at the project site. The Newport-Inglewood fault zone lies off the coast of Southern California and extends from Dana Point inland through Newport Beach, Long Beach, Torrance, and up to Beverly Hills. The fault is situated 15 miles to the west of the project site and has the potential Richter magnitude of a 7.0 event. An earthquake of this magnitude will create intensities of VIII at the site. The Whittier fault parallels the Newport-Inglewood fault zone and is located in northeast Orange County. It is approximately 11 miles north of the project site. Recent activity suggests that it has the ability of generating a 7.0 Richter magnitude earthquake. This, too, would result in high intensities (VIII) at the project site. As with contiguous developments, the site is situated within the Santiago and Villa Park Dam inundation areas, 100-year flood zones, and standard project flood areas. In the event of the failure of the Villa Park and Santiago Dams, intense storms, and severe hydrologic conditions, the project site and neighboring developments could be inundated. FINDINGS The mitigation measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring Program as Mitigation Numbers 1 through 9 have been required in, or incorporated into, the project and those mitigation measures mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects identified in this EIR and outlined above. Substantial evidence supporting this finding is contained in the record at pages 4-6 and 4-10 of the Revised Draft EIR. AIR QUALITY 1 · ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS Short-Term Temporary air quality impacts will result from project construction activities. Air pollutants will be emitted by construction equipment and vehicles, and dust will be generated during grading and site preparation. At this time, construction impacts upon air quality are difficult to quantify. Complete data regarding the amount and types of construction equipment to be used for this project (as well as the days of operation during project construction) are not available. Thus, estimates were employed when attempting to quantify this impact. A diesel-powered scraper is the most common type of equipment used for grading operations. For this type of project, four pieces of heavy equipment may be expected to operate at one time. If all the equipment operates for 8 hours per day, the following construction-related emissions would result: 30 pounds per day of carbon monoxide, 80 pounds per day of nitrogen oxides, 6 pounds per day of hydrocarbons, 10 pounds per day of sulfur oxides, and approximately 7 pounds per day of particulate matter. Lonq-term The main source of regional emissions generated by the project will be from motor vehicles. Estimates were made of the vehicular emissions that would be generated by the proposed project. The traffic report for the project forecasts 34,236 vehicle trips per day at an average trip length of ten miles. An average vehicle speed of 25 miles per hour was assumed for the projections. The following traffic-related emissions would result: 2.32 pounds per day of carbon monoxide, 0.42 pounds per day of nitrogen oxide, 0.09 pounds per day of sulfur oxide, 0.10 pounds per day of particulates, and 0.20 pounds per day of hydrocarbons. Emissions will be generated on-site by the combustion of natural gas for space heating and water heating. Off-site emissions will be generated due to electrical usage. The generation of electrical energy by the combustion of fossil fuels results in additional emissions off-site, some businesses may locate within the site which have processes that generate emissions in addition to those listed above. Information is not available regarding the type of firms that might locate in the Main Street Concourse and what types of equipment may be installed; therefore, projections of process emissions is not possible. However, these emissions will be regulated and controlled through the SCAQMD. As indicated above, the main source of emissions generated by the project will be from motor vehicles. Other sources of emissions will be natural gas combustion for space heating, electrical 9 3O0 generation, restaurant vents, and various activities that are yet to be defined and quantified. Regional increases in all pollutants when compared to Orange County emissions will be less than 0.5 percent. Specific receptor area increases in all pollutants due to the proposed project will be less than 0.62 percent. The increases in regional emissions are not considered significant on an individual basis, and significant changes in the regional air quality are not expected in the future. Subregional emissions are also not projected to increase significantly. However, any increase in emissions in a non-attainment area is considered significant. Kings County Farm Bureau v. city @f Hanford, 221 Cal. App. 3d 692 (1990). As a general development project, the proposed development is subject to conformity review by the District and SCAG. This review is required for all general development projects that are approved prior to a local government's adoption of a District-approved air quality plan consistent with the locally adopted general plan. Since the City of Santa Ana has not yet adopted an air quality element, this conformity review is required. Both of the conformity test conditions are met in tile Main Street Concourse project. The City of Santa Ana has not adopted an Air Quality Element and/or revised the Land Use and Circulation Elements of their General Plan to be consistent with the AQMP/SIP and the project does exceed some of the "Minimum Criteria for Genera-1 Development Project Review." Therefore, the project is subject to a AQMP/SIP conformity review. The goals of the AQMP/SIP conformity procedures include the mitigation of impacts of growth in an manner which is consistent with AQMP/SIP policies, attainment of the NAAQS (National Ambient Air Quality Standards) during a period of continued growth in Southern California, and the reduction of vehicle miles traveled and vehicle trips consistent with AQMP/SIP policies. (2RXTI~RXON 1~ JOBS/HouszN~ BALANCE SCAG is encouraging a more evenly balanced jobs and housing mix throughout the basin. Certain areas have been identified as being particularly weighted in favor of jobs or housing. Currently, Santa Aha is considered to be job rich. The first test requires that the project demonstrate a positive or neutral effect on the jobs/housing balance in the subregion in which the project is located. A positive impact would bring the region closer to the balance ration for the basin. The project as it is currently designed will generate 4,029 jobs in the city, but will only provide 280 residential dwelling units. This results in a project jobs/housing ratio of 14:4. This will have a negative impact on the jobs/housing balance in the City and adjacent communities. This aspect of the impact potential results because the scope of the project is as a regional employment 10 301 center, drawing employees from outlying areas. Therefore, the project, as proposed, will not achieve a targeted job/housing balance. Using SCAG's jobs/housing ratios, 691 units would be required of the project. Therefore, a deficiency of approximately 489 units results. Making the assumption that more than one worker per unit will reside within the project, the deficiency is reduced but not eliminated. Because the proposed project provides many more new jobs than new housing to a job-rich region, its affect on the jobs/housing balance is considered significant. In the SCAG Northwest Orange County subregion in 1984, the job/housing ratio was 1:34. The projected trend for the jobs/housing ratio in 2010 is 1.57. The SCAG Regional Management Plan preferred jobs/housing ratio for 2010 is 1:44. For the project to have a neutral impact on the regional jobs/housing balance in Northwest Orange County, the "Guidelines for Implementing 1989 AQMP/SIP Conformity Procedures Related to General Development Projects" would allow a maximum jobs/housing ratio of 5:85. To have a jobs/housing ratio of 5:85 and a neutral effect on the jobs/housing balance, the project could produce only 1,641 jobs. The project is expected to generate 4,029 jobs. Since the project is a regional center, it is expected to create employment opportunities for the City of Santa Ana and the region in general. More housing would also achieve a jobs/housing balance in compliance with the AQMP, except for the fact that SCAG projections do not indicate a housing shortfall for future conditions. Significant impact is anticipated because the project is not consistent with jobs/housing ratios of the Growth Management Plan of the AQMP/SIP. CRITERION 2: VEHICLE TRIP AND VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED REDUCTION A project is required to demonstrate that vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled have been reduced to the greatest extent feasible. The project design should include consideration of transportation demand management (TDM) strategies. A TDM program has been prepared in accordance with city Ordinance NS2124 and is consistent with this ordinance. This TDM program is to be designed to reduce project trips in order to reduce traffic congestion and project emissions. Thus, for example, the TDM program provides measures to reduce morning peak-hour office traffic by 15 percent through a variety of incentives, including ridesharing/carpooling incentives and inducements to reduce peak-hour office trips. The mixed uses of the proposed project will create internal capture of multiple trips, thereby reducing vehicle miles traveled. CRITERION 3: AIR QUALITY The third test specifies that the project may not have a long-term negative impact upon the region's air quality; that transportation, land use, and energy conservation measures must be used to the extent possible to mitigate the impact of the project on air 0 0 0 0 11 quality; and that the impact of the project on air quality must be analyzed on a city, county, Regional Statistical Area, or subregional level, depending on the scope of the project. Previous sections of the conformity analysis show that the project will not itself have a significant adverse impact on regional air quality, but is nevertheless significant because it will contribute long-term emissions to an existing non-attainment area. 2. FINDINGS Mitigation measures numbers 10 through 21 contained in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been required in, or incorporated into, the project and those mitigation measures mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects identified in this EIR and outlined above. Substantial evidence supporting this finding is contained in the record at pages 4-18, 4-25 to 4-27 of the Revised Draft EIR and Responses to Comments numbers 12-00, 12-QQ, 21-K. UNAVOIDAI~LE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS The proposed project has the potential to generate substantial emissions and will contribute air emissions to a non-attainment area. Any increase is considered significant. Because the proposed project provides many more new jobs than new housing to a job-rich region, its affect on the jobs/housing balance is considered significant. Short-term construction impacts can be mitigated to a level of insignificance. The impact from vehicular emissions can be reduced by the mitigation measures, but cannot be mitigated completely, especially localized emissions such as carbon monoxide. The impact from the proposed project, plus related and entitled projects will contribute cumulatively significant emissions to the basin, a non-attainment area. This impact is significant and cannot be mitigated to levels of insignificance. Even though the proposed project will generate a significant adverse impact on air quality, the benefits of the project outweigh that impact, as discussed in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. C. WATER RESOURCES 1 . ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS Surface Watgr The project will add a net 52 cfs to the Santiago Creek flow. New facilities will be incorporated to alleviate existing system deficiencies. Crank case oil, landscaping chemicals, and other types of contaminants can be carried in site runoff. However, the problem is considered insignificant. Contributory drainage to Lawson Way from the Tishman Executive Tower's parking structure 12 3.03 near the northeast corner of the Main Street Concourse will be a nuisance to pedestrians and a safety hazard. Present conceptual plans call for the construction of a new storm drain in Owens Drive which will intercept the flood waters at the intersection of Owens Drive and Main Street. The east side of Main Street, the north side of Owens Drive, and the westerly half of the project site will contribute flows to this new storm drain. Catch basins will be located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Main Street and Owens Drive. The new storm drain will be aligned in Owens Drive from Main Street approximately 900 feet east and connected to the storm drain that leads directly from the project site to Santiago Creek. The impact of an Owens Drive storm drain includes: Reduction of the drainage impact on the existing Main Street and Lawson Way storm drains. Reduction of the size and cost to upgrade existing storm drain systems. An insignificant impact on flows in proportionally, a less incremental Aha River. Santiago Creek, and impact on the Santa Reduction of more flexibility for site design elevation on the proposed project site. Reduction of site development coordination controls, underground utilities, and development. for traffic surrounding Requirement for installation in conjunction or coordination with the Owens Drive realignment construction project proposed by the City of Santa Ana. Requirements for design and construction coordination with the County Sanitation District of Orange County Trunk Sewer. In addition, the downstream end of the Lawson Way storm drain from the north side of Owens Drive to Santiago Creek will be upsized to provide for the future up-sizing of the existing pipe in Lawson Way. The exact diameter of this segment will be determined in the detailed drainage study. Groundwater The project will increase the proportion of impervious surface and reduce the amount of infiltration on-site. The amount of reduced 0 0 0 0 :i 13 recharge to the local aquifer is considered insignificant. The proposed project will not significantly impact the groundwater. 2 · FINDINGS The mitigation measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring Program as Mitigation Number 22 through 28 have been required in, or incorporated into, the project and those mitigation measures mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects identified in this EIR and outlined above. Substantial evidence supporting this finding is contained in the record at pages 4-30 through 4-34 of the Revised Draft EIR and Technical Appendices, Volume I, Appendix E, p. 15. D. NOISE 1 · ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS Helistop A helistop is to be included in the development. The loudest types of helicopters that will likely use the facility are the Augusta 109 and the Sikorsky S-76 helicopter. Three other types of aircraft which could use of the facility are the Boelkow 117, the Bell 206L, and the McDonnell Douglas 500. The project noise level of the loudest of these aircraft, the Augusta 109, is between 91 and 92 dB at a 1,000 foot approach. When the approach attitude is 450 feet, projected noise levels would increase by about 5 dB. Operation of the helipad will contribute to neighborhood noise levels when in operation. Short-Term Construction Noise Construction noise will occur as a result of the development of the proposed project. Although construction noise represents a short-term impact on ambient noise levels, construction equipment and construction activities can generate high noise levels. Construction equipment noise comes under the control of the Environmental Protection Agency's Noise Control Program (Part 204 of Title 40, Code of Federal Regulation). On the construction site, the use of pile drivers presents the greatest intensity potential for construction noise impacts. Noise associated with the use of pile drivers, however, could reach as high as 105 dBA at 50 feet. These noise levels are based upon worst-case conditions. Actual noise levels on the site could be much less. These noise impacts, while significantly loud, represent a short-term noise impact. Due to the preliminary stage of the project, however, it is not possible to determine whether the use of pile drivers will be necessary for this project. If pile drivers are not needed, the noise levels produced will be substantially less than pile driving equipment. 14 305 Excavation activities present the second greatest intensity potential for noise impacts on the adjacent residents. The equipment directly involved in the excavation of the site, as well as the trucks used to haul the dirt from the site, could produce high noise levels. With the exception of pile driver equipment, the peak noise level for most of the equipment that will be used during the construction of the Main Street Concourse is 96 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. There may be noise impacts on Phase I single-family attached residences from construction of the later portions of Phase I and Phase II residential tower, hotel and parking structure. Construction noise generally produces short-term impacts. During the construction of Phase II, heavy equipment noise may impact the residents occupying the buildings constructed during Phase I. This equipment would probably include scrapers, graders, front loaders and heavy trucks. Moreover, if pile driving is used for the foundations of the high-rise, the noise impact would be significant. The distance between Phase I buildings and Phase II construction sites could be as close as 50 feet. At this distance, the noise generated by construction equipment can be substantial. Because the project is not far enough along in the design stage, no final determination has been made as to whether pile-drivers will be used during the construction phases of this project. The need for pile-drivers will be determined as part of the subsequent architectural and engineering design stages of the project. At that time, detailed subsurface conditions, building configurations, and column loading conditions will be assessed and the determination of the need for pile-driving will be made. In addition to driven piles, possible foundation types for various structures include large concrete mat foundations, shallow spread foundations, and drilled caissons. If, from an engineering standpoint, the buildings can be constructed without pile-driving, the applicant will endeavor to do so. However, it is probable that pile-driving will be used. Long-Term Traffic Noise Impacts The impact of the Main Street Concourse development on land uses along access roadways is assessed by determining the existing noise levels along these roadways, and comparing these levels with the noise levels that would exist with the traffic generated by the completed project. The roadway with the greatest increase in future noise levels is Owens Drive (west of Lawson Way), with an increase of 6.3 dBA. However, this area will experience a noise level increase of 4 dBA without development of the Main Street Concourse due to increase in traffic levels. This means that the actual noise level increase due to the project on Owens Drive will be 2.3 dBA and will not exceed 65 CNEL. Increases in the noise 15 6 levels due to the project will be less than 3 dBA on all roadways. All other roadways will experience a smaller increase in noise levels (0.8 dBA or less). Project-generated noise levels at this location (and also in adjacent residential areas) will not exceed 65 CNEL. Ail other land uses adjacent to roadways will experience traffic noise level increases due to the project of 0.8 dBA or less. Thus, the project will not have a significant noise impact on existing residential land uses. The project will not result in significant increases in the noise environment in any adjacent land uses. Future Noise Levels on the Pro~ect Site Although future traffic noise levels on the project site and in the project vicinity have been estimated to be significantly higher in the year 2010 with the project than without it, these values do not take into account the effect of topographic features or intervening structures that may change the ambient noise levels. The trees, walls, and buildings which surround the project site will in actuality reduce noise to a lesser level. This reduction is not included in these projections, as well as slightly reduced traffic volumes. Therefore, these projections represent the worst case noise levels that will actually be generated from future vehicles. Exterior Noise Levels If any outdoor sensitive land use areas are to be constructed within these noise contours, mitigation measures may be required to satisfy the city's noise criteria. Outdoor living areas are subject to the city of Santa Ana 65 CNEL exterior noise standard. Outdoor living areas can include patios, backyards, balconies, etc. As precise grading plans are not yet available, locations where mitigation may be required cannot be precisely identified. In the event that noise sensitive land uses are located within the 65 CNEL traffic noise contour, the mitigation of such noise through the construction of a noise barrier and/or proper design of the dwelling units to insulate against exterior noise is feasible. A typical perimeter barrier might be required to protect project residential areas within the project site. The barrier would need to be approximately 6 feet high. The residential portion of Phase I may be adversely affected by construction of Phase II structures, particularly the residential tower. Although grading and excavation will have been completed during Phase I, the construction of mid-rise and high-rise structures in Phase II will generate noise impacts, particularly on Phase I residents. Mechanical Equipment The long-term increases in mechanical equipment onsite will contribute to increased ambient noise levels. 16 307 FINDINOS The mitigation measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring Program as Mitigation Monitoring Program Numbers 29 through 41 have been required in, or incorporated into, the project and those mitigation measures mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects identified in this EIR and outlined above. Substantial evidence supporting this finding is contained in the record at pages 4-43, 4-44, 4-47, 4-51 to 4-43 of the Revised Draft EIR and Responses, p. 14 and p. 16. UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT ENV'rRONMEITTAL EFFECTS If pile-driving for the high-rise building foundations is necessary, a significant unavoidable adverse temporary noise impact on the project, adjacent residences, and businesses may result during construction. The mitigation measures above will assist in minimizing the potential risk of damage from pile-driving, but not to a level of insignificance. E. LIGHT AND GLARE, SHADE AND SHADOW ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS LIGHT ANp GLARE Major sources of project-generated light will be interior lighting from the high-rise office structures and the hotel, as well as exterior lighting used for both security and signage. All of these project components will be illuminated at night to varying degrees. As the most intensive land uses are planned for the commercial portion of the site at Main Street, nighttime lighting will be greatest in this area. There are no residential buildings adjacent to the proposed office tower, although the building will be visible for several blocks. Nighttime lighting is required for the helistop. Some interior and exterior building lighting is also expected. The health club/theater/cinema complex is expected to produce the most artificial light, since these functions are generally used at night and/or have well-lit signage from the cinema marquee. These buildings are located at the interior of the Main Street Concourse, and most light will be blocked from neighboring land uses on the west, north, and east by other buildings in the development. During Phase I of the development, light from the health club/theater/cinema complex will be visible from Owens Drive, south of the project site. However, existing land uses on the south side of Owens Drive--an office building, parking garage, and Santiago Park--are not considered sensitive to night lighting. On-site light-sensitive uses consist of the 2-story single-family attached housing planned for the east end of the project site. Lighting from the office tower and the health club/theater/cinema complex 0 0 17 will impact the units nearest the complex. The intensity of impact will depend on the final lighting design and the orientation of the residential units. Lights from automobiles entering and exiting the site at night could also cause impacts. Vehicle access to the site during Phase I will be provided on Main Street, Owens Drive and Lawson Way. Access on Lawson Way is directly across the street from the senior citizen center and lights from vehicles exiting the project could impact residents of that facility. However, all parking for the project will be in structures or underground, reducing light impacts on neighboring land uses. These impacts are typical in urban settings and are not considered significant. Shade and Shadow Potential adverse project shadow impacts related to the casting of shadows will be associated with the 32- and 20-story office towers, the 27-story hotel tower, the 19-story residential tower, and the parking structure. In general, the greatest impacts will be during the winter months and during early morning and evening periods on clear days throughout the year. The Phase I 32-story office building will cast shadows onto northerly adjacent property only at midday during the winter season. The analysis indicates that the greatest shadow impact from the high-rise residential tower will be early mornings and evening shadows cast on the most northerly 2-story attached single-family homes of the proposed project itself. Shadows cast from the proposed Phase II 19-story residential tower will affect the south-facing units at the northerly portion of the site, as well as the semi-public courtyard created in the center of the residential project in Phase II. Shadows from the parking structure will extend to areas just north of the project. Shadows cast from the proposed Phase I 20-story office tower and the Phase II 27-story hotel tower will affect the outdoor plazas created within the proposed development. This may be desirable in the summer season in Southern California but is not viewed as a benefit during the winter season. Shadows cast by the two office towers will extend beyond the site but do not have a significant off-site impact, since they affect only adjacent existing commercial uses. Shadows cast on-site will not have a significant impact since they primarily affect the plazas and commercial area. No major areas are within shadows for the entire day. 2 · FINDINGS The mitigation measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring Program as Mitigation Monitoring Program Numbers 42 through 46 have been required in, or incorporated into, the project and those mitigation measures mitigate or avoid the significant environmental 18 309 effects identified in this EIR and outlined above. Substantial evidence supporting this finding is contained in the record at pages 4-57 to 4-58 of the Revised Draft EIR. F. LAND USE 1. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS The proposed project will increase currently allowed building intensity onsite. The project will conform to zoning and general plan designations with changes as requested. It will also involve the demolition or relocation of the existing restaurant (Polly's Pies) prior to certification of occupancy. In order to accommodate the city's pre-existing Owens Drive widening plans, the two houses were already the subject of a proposed condemnation, relocation and demolition. 2 · FINDINGS The mitigation measure contained in the Mitigation Monitoring Program as Mitigation Monitoring Program Number 47 has been required in, or incorporated into, the project and that mitigation measure mitigates or avoids the significant environmental effects identified in this EIR and outlined above. Substantial evidence supporting this finding is contained in the record at page 4-62 of the Revised Draft EIR. G. N~TURAL RESOURCES 1 . ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS The development and operation of the proposed project will increase the rate of consumption of some natural resources, both in the short-term and long-term. During construction, the use of building materials produced primarily from raw materials will contribute to the local depletion of these materials, including aggregate and concrete. Other materials, such as steel and glass, will be produced in regions outside of the local area, but will contribute to the depletion of natural resources in the areas from which these materials are produced. Additionally, the physical construction of the project will require the consumption of fossil fuels for the operation of construction equipment. In the long-term, the operation of the proposed project will contribute to the continued depletion of natural resources, primarily in the form of fossil fuels for vehicle operation and on- site energy consumption. A minimal amount of natural resources will be used on-site after completion of the construction buildout of the project. 19 $10 FINDINGS Although no significant adverse impacts on natural resources will result even if no recycled materials are used at the project, the mitigation measure contained in the Mitigation Monitoring Program as Mitigation Monitoring Program Number 48 will minimize the use of natural resources used at the project. Substantial evidence supporting this finding is contained in the record at page 4-66 of the Revised Draft EIR. H. RISK OF UPSET AND HUMAN HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS Earthquake Hazard The upper floors of the 32-story office building may be exposed to intense motion during an earthquake which can result in damage: pictures falling, book cases toppling, etc. Jet Fuel Line The project applicant and the city will design the street improvements which will involve the grading of Owens Drive which will expose the jet fuel pipe. The jet fuel line has been relocated and no impact or risk of upset occurred. Other Hazards The increase in traffic generated by the project could interfere with emergency response and evacuation plans for adjacent developments. Fire and police accessibility to the area may be hampered by development of structures and the accompanying vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Construction activities carry the potential for construction worker injury due to accidents, equipment failure or human error. The construction of high-rise office buildings carries additional hazards associated with soil movement and falling debris. The risks associated with construction of the project are consistent with other high-rise developments. Because of the proposed helistop, the project has an increased potential for helicopter crashes. This would mean potential damage to property and surrounding buildings and injury to persons present at the site. FINDINGS The mitigation measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring Program as Mitigation Monitoring Program Numbers 49 through 55 have been required in, or incorporated into, the project and those 20 $11 mitigation measures mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects identified in this EIR and outlined above. Substantial evidence supporting this finding is contained in the record at pages 4-69, 4-70, 4-71 of the Revised Draft EIR. I. POPULATION AND HOUSING 1. ENVIRONMENTAL I~.FFECTS Population The proposed Main Street Concourse includes the development of 64 single-family attached housing units during Phase I of the project and 216 units in a high-rise single-family attached during Phase II, for a total of 280 dwelling units. Construction of these units will increase the city's housing stock and will result in a population increase of 896 residents. Housinq The net housing increase resulting from complete (Phase I, 3.5 percent and Phase II, 11.8 percent) project implementation (280 units) would represent 15.3 percent of new housing units in the city of Santa Ana between 1990 and 1995 (1,827 units). It is expected that the housing demand generated by the proposed project may increase the demand for local housing stock and contribute to pressure on vacancy rates. The project includes high-end market rate residential units, with no provision for affordable housing. This impact is offset by the other affordable housing opportunities in the City of Santa Ana. This may be considered an adverse effect on attempts to balance jobs and housing within the area. The 5- year projected housing need in Santa Ana of 5,932 dwelling units is not anticipated to be entirely met due to the lack of available land in the city and the anticipated growth of its office and industrial development base. As discussed above, the potential of more than one family sharing a residential unit is of concern to the city. Employment It is estimated that implementation of the proposed project would result in the development of a mix of office, retail, entertainment (theater and cinema), hotel, commercial (health club), and restaurant uses. This mix of proposed land uses would generate approximately 4,029 jobs. Approximately 12,267 job opportunities will become available in the City of Santa Ana between 1995 and 2000, the projected years of project buildout. The net 4,029 jobs generated by the proposed project represents approximately 32.8 percent of the city's projected employment increase during this period. 21 Job/Housing Balance According to SCAG, to have a jobs/housing ratio of 5.85 and neutral effect on the jobs/housing balance, the project could produce only 1,641 jobs. The project as it is currently designed will generate 4,029 jobs in the city, but provides 280 residential dwelling units. This results in a project jobs/housing ratio of 14.4. Therefore, the project would have a negative impact on jobs/housing balance in the Northwest Orange County subregion. FINDINGS The mitigation measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring Program as Mitigation Monitoring Program Numbers 56 and 57 have been required in, or incorporated into, the project and those mitigation measures mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects identified in this EIR and outlined above. Substantial evidence supporting this finding is contained in the record at pages 4-79 and 4-82 of the Revised Draft EIR. UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT P. NVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS The project does not conform to AQMP/SIP requirements. Thus, the proposed project would indirectly result in an unavoidable adverse effect on the city's job/housing balance by increasing employment opportunities without supplying a corresponding increase in housing. The jobs/housing balance is an impact which must be addressed on a regional basis. The mitigation measures that have been incorporated into the project will assist in the achievement of a job/housing balance. No further, feasible mitigation measures have been identified with respect to the jobs/housing balance. J. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 1. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS PHASE I Prior to project implementation under existing plus entitled conditions, nine intersections with mitigation will operate a level of service E or worse. The addition of Phase I project traffic is estimated to result in three additional intersections operating at a level of service E or worse for a total of 12 intersection operations at level of service E or worse prior to mitigation. The additional three intersections are: Main Street at Town & Country Main Street at Buffalo Street Town & Country at SR-22 Ramps/Lawson(s) 22 313 Additionally, the existing Lincoln property driveway will be reduced to right-turn in/out only with the installation of a raised median in Owens Drive for Phase I construction. A bus turn-out will be constructed with Phase I on the east side of Main Street in order to efficiently accommodate traffic flow on Main Street. Phase I is estimated to generate approximately 18,312 average daily trips with 1,453 estimated to occur during the morning peak hour and 2,043 during the evening peak hour. PHASE II Phase II of the project, and other existing plus entitled projects, will result in a total of 13 intersections operating at level of service E or worse. Four of these are new intersections which are directly impacted by Phase II traffic which will result in deterioration to level of service E or worse. They are: Main Street at Main Place Main Street at Owens Drive Broadway at Seventeenth Street Parker at LaVeta Avenue Phase II traffic conditions include unacceptable LOS at Main and Buffalo. the continuation of Phase II installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Lawson at the projects most northerly driveway will result in altering the neighboring driveways as follows: The driveway for the Town & Country Manor Retirement Center would be the fourth leg of the intersection and would be controlled by the signal, once installed. One of the Town & Country office park driveways on Lawson Way, immediately to the north of the retirement center, will be restricted to right-turn in and out only to avoid conflict with the signalized intersection. The access drive to the Tishman project located immediately north of Main Street Concourse will also be affected by the installation of the traffic signal. The driveway to the Tishman project parking structure is located approximately 124 feet north of the signalized intersection. The loading area for Tishman is approximately 240 feet. It is possible that during peak traffic periods, particularly the a.m. peak hour, vehicle queues at the southbound approach to the signalized intersection could interfere with Tishman project ingress/egress. The bus turn-out constructed on the east side of Main Street with Phase I will be relocated as a part of Main Street project redesign for Phase II construction. 23 314 Phase II is estimated to generate approximately 15,924 average daily trips with 1,068 trips occurring during the a.m. peak hour and 1,538 during the p.m. peak hour. NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACTS Four residential neighborhoods have been identified (two in Santa Ana, two in Orange) surrounding the proposed Main Street Concourse project which could potentially result in project-related traffic impacts. They are: Parker neighborhood in Orange northeast of the proposed project; Batavia neighborhood in Orange Northwest of the proposed project; Northwest neighborhood in Santa Ana west of the project; Northeast neighborhood in Santa Ana south of the project. Based on review of the four neighborhoods surrounding the proposed Main Street Concourse project, the neighborhoods of Parker and Batavia are not anticipated to be significantly affected by the proposed development. No direct north-south arterial connection is presently, or anticipated to be available. The Northeast neighborhood south of the project is also not anticipated to be significantly affected. There is presently no connection between Owens Drive and the neighborhood. Tile Northwest neighborhood is located across the freeway and is not anticipated to be affected by the Project. Even though the quantitative analysis in the Draft EIR concludes that there will be no significant impacts to neighborhoods, the revised Draft EIR recognizes the difficulty of developing traffic forecasts for each individual neighborhood street. Consequently, neighborhood mitigation has been included to study and mitigate any future impacts identified to be resulting from this project. (See, for example, response to comment 12-GGG, 12-LLL). WorSt-case scenario. For purposes of consideration of traffic impacts, the cumulative traffic analysis has assumed that every parcel of vacant or underutilized land within the projects area of impact in either Santa Ana or the City of Orange will be developed to full general plan intensity. Consequently, the cumulative project list and the cumulative traffic analysis represent a worst case scenario. (Response to Comments 12-B, 18-A, 18-E, 18-F, and 19-H) 2 · FINDINGS The mitigation measure contained in the Mitigation Monitoring Program as Mitigation Monitoring Program Numbers 58 through 92 have been required in, or incorporated into, the project and those mitigation measures mitigate or avoid the majority of significant environmental effects identified in the EIR and outlined above. Substantial evidence supporting this finding is contained in the 24 record at pages 4-84 to 4-110 of the Revised DEIR and Response to Comment 9-A. POTENTIAL TNFF~SIBILIT¥ OF CERTAIN MITTQATION ~ASURES Implementation of several of the mitigation measures which address project-related transportation and circulation impacts require approval from the City of Orange. These mitigation measures which require implementation approval from the City of Orange are as follows: Mitigation Measure Number 67 Lawson Way at Town and Country Road improvements Mitigation Measure Number 84 Lawson Way improvements Mitigation Measure Number 85 Lawson Way at project driveway traffic signal Mitigation Measure Number 86 Parker Street at LaVeta Avenue improvements These mitigation measures can and should be approved by the City of Orange. However, if the City of Orange declines to approve their implementation, then these mitigation measures would be infeasible, and there may be further adverse traffic impacts of the project. Nonetheless, the City would approve this project. UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS Implementation of mitigation measures will reduce the traffic impacts however, the project will cause the intersection of Main at Buffalo to operate at a level of service of E or worse and will only improve one of the nine intersections (Main at Owens) from continuing to operate at a level of service of E or worse in the pre-project condition of existing plus entitled projects. As discussed in the statement of overriding considerations, though, the benefits from the proposed Main Street Concourse project outweigh the adverse impacts on transportation and circulation. K. PARKING ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS Parking Supply Phase I of the project will provide 3,956 parking spaces and will provide more parking than required by city Code. Phase II of the project will provide 5,464 parking spaces and will exceed the minimum number of parking spaces identified as need by the "Shared Parking Analysis" and will provide 80 percent of the City Code required parking as suggested by City staff. 25 316 Parking Access and Operating Characteristics Paid parking can result in parking impacts to nearby users if visitors park offsite to avoid parking charges. An operating plan has been prepared by AMCO Parking for the parking facilities to increase the efficiency with which vehicles enter, exit and circulate within the parking garage. Bottleneck conditions will be avoided by measures in the parking operations plan. Personal safety within the parking structures is a concern of the applicant and City staff. Circulation deficiencies could be exacerbated on Main Street and Owens Drive, if project access is not properly designed. 2 · ~IND, INGE The mitigation measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring Program as Mitigation Numbers 93 through 121 have been required in, or incorporated into, the project and those mitigation measures mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR and outlined above. Substantial evidence supporting this finding is contained in the record at pages 4-115 to 4-118 of the Revised Draft EIR. L. PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION 1 · ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS The proximity of a variety of complementing uses on the site is expected to encourage pedestrian traffic. Office workers and residents will use retail facilities and the health club, as well as hotel facilities and the theater. Hotel guests have access to the uses on the site as well as the variety of surrounding retail and restaurant opportunities. Efforts have also been made in designing the project to encourage pedestrian interaction with surrounding uses. The project has been designed to encourage pedestrian circulation. No significant adverse impacts are expected. 2 · FINDINGS Due to the large number of people anticipated to be onsite, a potential exists for traffic to create an onsite pedestrian hazard. The on-site pedestrian circulation between the parking areas and the proposed uses has been designed for convenience to preclude any conflicts with major vehicle movements and to provide direct connection between parking and building entrances and to ensure security. The sidewalk proposed along Main Street is to be constructed adjacent to the curb with Phase I of the project. In Phase II, the sidewalk will be relocated adjacent to retail space 26 317 fronting on Hain Street. It will be separated from the curb by landscape tree.est. In each phase, ~he sidewalk will accommodate safe, unobstructed and continuous pedestrian circulation. Although no significant adverse impacts are anticipated, the mitigation measures contained in the Mitigation MonitoringProgram as N/tigation Monitoring Program Nu~ere 122 and 123 ars recommended to further encourage pede~rien circulation. Substantial evidence supporting this finding is contained in the record at pages 4-121 a~d 4-122 of ~he Revised Draft EIR. The proposed project is a mixed-use development consisting of office, retail/commercial, a hotel, and residential unite. Due to the size and complexity of the project design, the firs department ~ay require additional ~ereonnel, equipm~nt, and facilities in order to provide adeclllate service for the project site and surrounding community. Fire protection of the proposed 32-story high rise structure, as well as subterranean parking facilities, may be especially difficult to provide due tothe fire fighting hazards involved with these types of structures. Additionally, construc~cion of the proposed 280 residential unite ia ex~ected to increase the demand on paramedic services provided by the fire department. C~rrently, an estimated 80 percent of the fire depar~ent emergency responses ars for paramedic ~ervices, while only 20 percent are for fire fighting services. Because state-of-the-art fire suppreuion equipment will be provided to all structures, the demand on fire services will be lessened. The Santa Asa Fire Department has conducted a fire flow test and concluded that the capacity of the existing offside water system is more than ads.ate to provide the required 1,500 gallon per minute hydrant flow for the fire protection needs of ~he proposed project. The mitigation measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring Program as Mitigation Monitoring Program Numbers 124 through 130 have been required in, or incorporated into, the project and those mitigation measures mitigate or avoid the signifioante~viror~en~al effects identified in this ~IR and outlined above. Substantial evidence supporting this finding is contained in the record at pages 4-124 and 4-125 of the Revised Draft EIR. 27 318 N. POLICE PROTECTION 1 · ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS Implementation of the proposed project may increase the incidence of auto theft because of the large number of cars associated with the project and because there are subterranean parking structures proposed for the site. Subterranean parking structures are generally unsupervised, enclosed, and, thus, are considered potential crime areas. According to the Santa Ana Police Department, the addition of residential units at the project site may increase the number of residential burglaries reported in the Santiago District. Other concerns cited by the Police Department include potential crime impacts related to pedestrian paths in Santiago Park and a drain on police manpower due to increased traffic resulting from the proposed project. An on-site security plan for the proposed project was submitted to the Santa Ana Police Department in July 1991 by Central Security patrol consultants. This document has been reviewed and approved by the Santa Ana Police Department. The plan outlines a security network for the proposed project area which will include a command center staffed by a manager, supervisor, and closed circuit television (CCTV) operator. In addition, security personnel will patrol all areas of the project site, including parking structures, and hotel and office lobby areas. Electronic systems described in the security plan, such as intrusion alarms, CCTV system, and elevator telephones will also help to prevent crime at the project site. Because private security is provided, no significant impacts are anticipated. FINDINGS Although the proposed project is not anticipated to cause a significant adverse Smpact, the mitigation measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring Program as Mitigation Monitoring Program Numbers 131-135 have been incorporated into the project. Substantial evidence supporting this finding is contained in the record at page 4-127 of the Revised Draft EIR. O, SCHOOLS 1. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS The residential units on the project site will be served by Fairhaven Elementary School, Portola Middle School and Orange High School. The Orange Unified School District estimates that the proposed project will generate approximately 39 students (7 in Phase I and 32 in Phase II). Of these, 11 will be elementary (K-6) students, 17 middle school (7-8), and 11 high school. 28 319 Capacity is available for the middle and high school levels. The Fairhaven Elementary School is already over capacity. The additional students from the proposed project may necessitate the use of additional portable classrooms at the Fairhaven Elementary site. The Orange Unified School District does not consider this impact significant. 2. FINDINGS Although the proposed project is not anticipated to cause a significant adverse environmental effect, the mitigation measure contained in the Mitigation Monitoring Program as Mitigation Monitoring Program Number 136 has been incorporated into the project. Substantial evidence supporting this finding is contained in the record at page 4-129 of the Revised Draft EIR. P. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL 1. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS The proposed project will generate solid waste, contributing an additional 1,295 tons of solid waste to landfills annually. It has been determined through site plan review that inadequate access and turning space is provided for the residential uses proposed for the site. Therefore at the direction of the city and per written correspondence between the City and project applicant of October 11, 1992 and October 30, 1991, a covenant outlining a trash pick-up operation plan shall be included in the projects C,C&R's and recorded against the property which will define the residential trash pick-up for condominiums as a two-staged process. 2, FINDINGS The mitigation measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring Program as Mitigation Monitoring Program Numbers 137 through 143 have been required in, or incorporated into, the project and those mitigation measures mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects identified in this EIR and outlined above. Substantial evidence supporting this finding is contained in the record at pages 4-132 to 4-134 of the Revised Draft EIR and p. 27 of the Responses to Comments. 3o UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS Implementation of mitigation measures will reduce the impacts of the proposed projection on solid waste disposal. Even with a reduction of solid waste generated at the site, however, the project will add solid waste to regional landfills, which have a limited capacity. As discussed in the statement of overriding considerations, though, the benefits from the proposed Main Street Concourse project outweigh the adverse impacts on solid waste disposal. 29 · 3: 0 Q. PUBLIC UTILITIES I o ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS The proposed project will require approximately 15.44 million kWh of electricity per year. Southern California Edison Company (SCE) has indicated that the electrical loads of the proposed project are within the parameters of proposed load growth that the company plans to meet for the area. Modifications to existing power lines on Main Street may be needed to accommodate power demand. The proposed project is not expected to have a significant effect on service availability or capacity of natural gas service since it is located in a mature urban area that is well served by gas lines on all peripheral streets. Gas service to the project will be provided through existing mains along peripheral streets. According to the Southern California Gas Company, anticipated natural gas requirements for the proposed project can be accommodated with existing facilities. There are no improvements planned nor are they necessary to handle projected natural gas loads. No significant impacts are anticipated. 2 · FINDINGS Even though no significant adverse impact on public utilities is anticipated, the mitigation measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring Program as Mitigation Monitoring Program Numbers 144 through 146 have been required in, or incorporated into, the project. Substantial evidence supporting this finding is contained in the record at pages 4-137 and 4-139 of the Revised Draft EIR. R. COMMUNICATION SERVICES - TELEPHONE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS Because Pacific Bell has nc existing facilities for serving the site, implementation of the proposed project will have significant impact on the existing telephone communication system. Pacific Bell facilities will require major reinforcement to provide adequate service to the development. FINDINGS The mitigation measure contained in the Mitigation Monitoring Program as Mitigation Monitoring Program Number 147 has been required in, or incorporated into, the project and that mitigation measure mitigates or avoids the significant environmental effects identified in this EIR and outlined above. Substantial evidence supporting this finding is contained in the record at page 4-140 of the Revised Draft EIR. 30 381 WATER 1, ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS The proposed project will result in the demand for 451,419 gallons of water per day. The water supply from the City of Santa Ana Water Department exceeds this demand. The City of Santa Ana Water Department does not anticipate an impact on water service as a result of the project. 2. FINDINGS The mitigation measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring Program as Mitigation Monitoring Program Numbers 148 and 149 have been required in, or incorporated into, the project and those mitigation measures mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects identified in this EIR and outlined above. Substantial evidence supporting this finding is contained in the record at page 4-144 of the Revised Draft EIR and page 105 of the Responses to Comments. T, WABTEWATER 1. E....NV I RONMENTAL EFFECTS The proposed project will create wastewater discharge flows of 0.84 mgd. The construction of a new regional collector sewer to be named the Memory Lane Interceptor (MLI) will be used to serve the project. FINDINGS The mitigation measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring Program as Mitigation Monitoring Program Numbers 150 through 152 have been required in, or incorporated into, the project and those mitigation measures mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects identified in this EIR and outlined above. Substantial evidence supporting this finding is contained in the record at page 4-147 of the Revised Draft EIR. U. ~EBTHETICB 1. E.~VI RONMENTAL EFFECTS Implementation of the proposed project will result in a significant change in the visual character of the project site. The major aesthetic impacts of the project relate to the bulk and height of proposed structures and the density of planned land uses. Project development will result in four high-rise structures ranging from 19 to 32 stories in height, two combined 8-level parking structures, and several low-rise buildings. Bulk impacts can be reduced by reducing the footprint or increasing the height of the 31 322 proposed structures. including views of the obstructed. Existing views of mountains to the neighboring landscapes, north and east, will be This project is considered aesthetically compatible with the nature of the surrounding land uses. ImDacts to the adjacent senior residences and existing residential area are not considered significant because the project will be compatible with City designated land uses in place of a vacant site. 2. FINDXNOS The mitigation measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring Program as Mitigation Monitoring Program Numbers 153 through 157 have been required in, or incorporated into, the project and those mitigation measures mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects identified in this EIR and outlined above. Substantial evidence supporting this finding is contained in the record at page 4-153 of the Revised Draft EIR. 3 · UNAVOIDAELE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS The proposed project would result in the intensification and urbanization of an undeveloped site. The construction of a 32- story office building as well as other planned high rise buildings would result in a significant change of the visual character of the site. Distant views of the mountains to the north and east would be obstructed and is considered an unavoidable adverse impact of the project. V. RECREATION 1 · ENVXRONMENTAL EFFECTS The proposed project is designed to achieve a physical and visual link from the project site to Santiago Park to the south. The proposed street linking Main Street and Owens Drive will lead into the park, providing landscaped pedestrian access. The street treatment in the project site will be carried across Owens Drive, creating a visual link between the proposed project and the park. The proposed project includes funding for the enhancement of the existing Santiago Park with additional landscaping consistent with both existing landscaping and landscaping used within the proposed project. Other improvements anticipated within Santiago Park include a baseball diamond, restrooms, renovation of walkways and jogging/par course, security lighting, and other improvements. The City of Santa Ana plans to hold public meetings to determine the appropriate allocation of funds for necessary and desirable park improvements. In addition, the developer will also be responsible for city-wide park acquisition and development fees. 32 333 The proposed project is consistent with the City of Santa Ana General Plan, Open Space, and Parks and Recreation goals and objectives. The proposed development will have a positive impact on limited resources for the improvement of existing parks in the City of Santa Aha. 2. FINDINGS The mitigation measure contained in the Mitigation Monitoring Program as Mitigation Monitoring Program Number 158 has been required in, or incorporated into, the project even though no significant adverse environmental effects are expected. Substantial evidence supporting this finding is contained in the record at page 4-155 of the Revised Draft EIR and Response to Comments 16-KK, 16-LL, 16-MM, 21-E. W. CULTURAL RESOURCES ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS Implementation of the project may have an impact on unknown archaeological resources, paleontological resources, or historical structures and sites, as Santa Aha is an archaeologically sensitive area. This is supported by the presence of recorded surveys and excavation sites adjacent to the project area which generally have similar characteristics. Additional inference for the likelihood of discovering cultural resources comes from the proximity of the Santiago Creek site. There is potential for the existence of archaeological resources on-site which have not been discovered. Grading and redevelopment activities may destroy any cultural resources remaining within the project site and mitigation measures may need to be observed to properly preserve these resources. 2 · FINDINGS The mitigation measure contained in the Mitigation Monitoring Program as Mitigation Monitoring Program Number 159 has been required in, or incorporated into, the project and that mitigation measure mitigates or avoids the significant environmental effects identified in this EIR and outlined above. Substantial evidence supporting this finding is contained in the record at page 4-157 of the Revised Draft EIR. VI. INFEASIRILITY OF ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY: The Revised Draft EIR evaluates the comparative merits of a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project. The Revised Draft EIR evaluates the required "No Project" alternative, a reduced density garden office alternative, an alternative that replaces the single-family attached housing and the high-rise 33 0 0 0 0 residential tower with two, 2-story office buildings, and a reduced density alternative. A. NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE (ALTERNATIVE A) 1. FINDING: Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternative identified in the EIR. 2. FACTS IN [~UPPORT OF THE FINDING: Under the No Project alternative, the project site would retain its existing use. The site would continue to accommodate Polly's Pies, but the two single-family residences, which have been removed to allow for the planned expansion of Owens Drive, would no longer be on the site. The No Project alternative would not result in the adverse environmental effects identified in the Revised Draft EIR. However, the present usage of the site would remain inconsistent with the City's designation of the site as DC (District Center). The city's increased housing goals would riot be met, and increased job opportunities would not be met. Roadway improvements associated with the project may not be implemented. No pedestriaI~ links or improvements would be developed at the site, nor would transportation facilities or traffic controls be provided to the site. Upgrading and improvements to Santiago Park would not be realized. Finally, the No Project alternative would result in no new housing, no new cinema, no hotel, and no retail and office space. [Revised Draft EIR, pp. 6-4 to 6-9] REDUCED DENSITY GARDEN OFFICE ALTERNATIVE (ALTERNATIVE B) FINDINGS Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR. 2. FACTS IN ~UPPORT OF THE FINDING: Under the Reduced Density Garden Office Alternative, approximately 244,000 square feet (FAR 0.33) of retail center and garden office space would be developed over the entire site. Phase I would include 60,000 square feet of retail and 76,900 square feet of garden office space. Phase II would have 30,000 square feet of retail and 76,000 square feet of garden office space. The 34 335 resulting development would represent 12.4 percent of the proposed development and would exclude the proposed hotel, residential tower, and single-family attached housing. Polly's Pies could remain as part of the development plan. The reduced development alternative would reduce some impacts compared to the proposed project, but many others would remain. Less excavation would be required; however, grading impacts similar to the proposed project would occur on a smaller scale. Fewer people would work at the project, so impacts from potentially hazardous geological conditions such as earthquakes and floods would be reduced. Because of the reduction in constructed square footage, air quality impacts would be comparably reduced, but the project still would contribute to a significant cumulative air quality impact. The reduced maximum height and development density would have a reduced impact on light, glare and shadow impacts and exclusion of the proposed hotel, residential tower, and single- family attached housing would eliminate nighttime illumination of these project components from nighttime light-sensitive land uses. Although the proposed hotel, residential tower, and single-family attached housing would be omitted under this alternative, development of retail, office and other commercial structures on the majority of the site will incur similar environmental impacts as those analyzed in the proposed project, although on a proportionately smaller scale. One intersection, Main Street at Owens Drive, would be improved under this alternative, but seven others would remain at an unacceptable level of service of E or worse. Less parking would be necessary to service these uses. The reduction in the size of the project would reduce the need for additional fire and police personnel, and there would be no impact on schools. Approximately 82% less waste would be generated, and 87.6% fewer utilities would be consumed. As with the proposed project, these impacts can be mitigated to a level of insignificance, communications would still need to be improved, but on a smaller scale. Because there are no building designs available, the aesthetic impacts of this alternative are not fully determinable, but would likely be less intense than those associated with the proposed project. Implementation of this alternative would produce some impacts which are more negative than those produced by the proposed project. The alternative would not result in the proposed storm drain capacity increase necessary to serve the entire project vicinity. Implementation of the alternative would potentially affect the City's housing element goals by not encouraging the growth of Santa Ana's housing stock. Because the alternative would generate only approximately 17 percent of the employment opportunities associated with the proposed project, it is anticipated that this alternative would contribute to the difficulty associated with balancing job opportunities with the demand for suitable housing in the area. Housing and employment impacts are anticipated to be greater than 0 0 35 32,6 the proposed project. The level of enhancement of Santiago Park would be reduced because there would be fewer developer contributions. Most importantly, this alternative would not fully attain the city of Santa Ana's basic objectives with respect to the proposed project. For example, the alternative would not result in the preferred mix of land uses, and tax revenues would not be maximized for the city. Infrastructure improvements for the surrounding areas would take place at a reduced level or not at all. The reduced level of development could not support the same level of exactions being provided by the project as proposed. No benefits from mixed-use commercial and residential uses combined on-site would occur. Thus, while the alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed project, this alternative would not attain the city's basic objectives with respect to the proposed project because it is not mixed use. [Revised Draft EIR, pp. 6-10 to 6-17, and Appendix F, p. 111] ALTERNATIVE LAND USE (ALL OFFICE) (ALTERNATIVE C) FINDINGS Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives in the EIR. 2. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDIN(t: The Ail office Alternative would alter the proposed project by removing the single-family attached housing and the high-rise residential tower (a total of 280 units or 427,660 square feet of residential uses) and replacing them with the two 92,000 square foot 2-story office buildings. These low-rise office buildings would be located on the eastern third of the project site (the location of the residential uses is on the western half of the proposed project) and would be surrounded by landscaping to create a garden-like business environment. The office, retail and other commercial uses on the western half of the site would remain the same as that proposed. The project would total 1,634,950 square feet: 817,125 square feet for Phase I and 817,825 square feet for Phase II. It would have a FAR of 2.3. Many environmental impacts of this alternative would be similar to those expected from the proposed project. Grading and geological impacts associated with the development of this alternative would be similar in intensity and extent as those anticipated with the proposed project. Because the amount of grading is similar, the amount of fugitive dust emissions associated with this alternative would be similar to that of the proposed project. Impacts on surface drainage and groundwater recharge would be about the same 36 as for the proposed project because of similar site coverage. Land use impacts are anticipated to be similar to the proposed project. The impact on natural resources would likely be similar. Human health impacts would likely be similar. Pedestrian site access and circulation would be similar to that of the proposed project. Impacts on the fire and police departments would be similar. Aesthetics are anticipated to be similar, and recreational opportunities, as with the proposed project, would improve for local residents. A few impacts would improve. Because the alternative does not include residential facilities, the alternative would have no impact on schools. Because of the reduced size of the project as modified by the alternative, use of public utilities would decrease. The overall noise environment would be slightly quieter because of reduced evening activity. Many more impacts, however, would increase substantially. Because the alternative does not include residential facilities, impacts to the city's job/housing balance are anticipated to be greater than the proposed project. Housing impacts would be greater that of the proposed project due to the loss of the needed housing units. Twenty-six percent more solid waste would be generated under this alternative because of the increase in office uses. Impacts on the currently deficient sewer, although reduced, would result unless improvements were provided to accommodate the existing deficiency. Again, while, for the most part, environmental impacts would be similar to those of the proposed project, this alternative would not fully attain the City's basic objectives with respect to the proposed project because it is not mixed-use. It would serve as a regional employment center, satisfying goals of developing a regional center, but it would not serve 24-hour mixed use goals. [Revised Draft EIR, pp. 6-18 to 6-25] D. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY ALTERNATIVE (FAR 1.5) (ALTERNATIVE D) 1. FINDINGS Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives in the EIR. 2. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: The reduced density alternative involves keeping the reduction of the total floor-area-ratio of the site at 1.5, with a resulting square footage reduction of approximately 35 percent, a total of 1,107,660 square feet. This is the FAR permitted on the project site under the current General Plan. The mix of land uses is assumed to remain the same as the proposed project, with square 37 328 footage reduced proportionately for each of the proposed structures. Structures would be located in the same positions as in the proposed project, with building heights approximately 65 percent of those in the proposed plan. The Phase I office building would be 23 stories and the Phase II office and hotel would be 15 and 17 stories tall, respectively. A conditional use permit for the hotel would be required. Most of the project impacts would remain the same or would be reduced under this alternative. Grading impacts would be similar to those of the proposed project because the entire site still would have to be graded. Geological impacts would decrease because fewer people would be exposed to potential earthquakes and floods. Impacts on long-term air quality would be less because of a decrease in local emissions during peak-hours. Because the entire site would be developed, impacts on surface water and groundwater would be the same. Because of a decrease in traffic (and therefore traffic noise), noise impacts would be imperceptibly less compared to the proposed project. The reduction in building heights would reduce light, glare and shade and shadow impact. Fewer natural resources would be required, and there would be less risk of upset and human health because there would be fewer employees and residents on-site at any given point in time. Impacts on population and housing would be similar but on a proportionally reduced basis. Prior to mitigation, three fewer intersections are anticipated to deteriorate to unacceptable levels because the number of daily trips under the alternative would be 65 percent of that of the proposed project. A twenty percent reduction in required parking spaces would result, and utility consumption and waste generation would decrease. Need for fire service and police service would remain the same. Impacts on the sewer system would be less, and the impacts on aesthetics would decrease. This alternative would not fully attain the basic objectives of the proposed project. Although a stated objective is to maximize public tax revenues by developing the site within permissible and sound parameters, this alternative proposes a substantially reduced development with a commensurate reduction in public revenue. Annual revenue under this alternative would be $3.5 million, compared to $6.0 million with buildout of the proposed project (1993 dollars). Moreover, the reduced size of the project would result in a commensurate decrease in the amount of recreational, sewer, and roadway upgrades which could otherwise be paid for by the participant. Thus, although it is clear that the environmental impacts of this alternative would be less than that of the proposed project, the alternative would not meet with the Lead Agency's stated objectives of developing a regional center because the density and associated revenues and improvements would not be sufficient to generate a high activity level. [Revised Draft EIR, pp. 6-26 to 6-33] 38 329 VII. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The benefits of the proposed project have been balanced against and outweigh the unavoidable environmental impacts in the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report as set forth above, and thus the adverse environmental effects are considered acceptable. The City makes the following Statement of Overriding Considerations, identifying the general benefits of the project which outweigh the unavoidable environmental impacts of the project, including those resulting from the failure of a public agency to implement a mitigation measure within its responsibility and jurisdiction. 1. Tile project will directly provide 4,029 new jobs. The project will result in economic benefit for the City of Santa Ana and Orange County. The economic gain that the City of Santa Ana will receive will help enable the City to meet its budget and to use any remaining money for vital public improvements. Revenues to the Redevelopment Agency from its share of tax involvement after buildout are estimated to be $2,693,000, annually (1993 dollars). These funds can provide new public infrastructure and aid the elimination of blight. (Source: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc., March 18, 1993) The project will result in annual revenues, at buildout, of approximately $6,027,000 (1993 dollars). This net annual surplus to the City of Santa Ana consists of revenues from tax increment ($2,693,000), sales taxes ($312,000), and transient occupancy taxes ($3,022,000). These revenues can be used by the City to improve city-run programs, thereby making the City of Santa Aha a more desirable place to live and to visit. (Source: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc., March 18, 1993) The performing arts and film theater in the project will provide community cultural events, thereby increasing access to such events by a large segment of Santa Ana residents. The performing arts and film theater will also provide a reason, in itself, for people to come to Santa Ana. This will provide business for local shops and restaurants. In conjunction with the cumulative intensification of land use in the area, the project will further strengthen the identification of the Central District as the urban core of the City of Santa Aha. The Main Street Concourse will provide 24-hour a day activity and dynamic appeal to the city of Santa Aha. The project will attract people to the City of Santa Aha. The project will implement landscaping and architectural design of a world-class nature to achieve a harmonious 39 10. 11. 12. blending of uses. The design of the building itself will provide a reason for people to visit the City of Santa Ana. The project will provide a pedestrian environment of beauty and safety for the daytime and evening enjoyment of employees, local residents, and visitors to the city of Santa Ana. Citizens of the City of Santa Ana will desire to stay within the City and take part in the ongoing activities. This will foster a sense of community within the City, thereby leading to improved quality of life for all. The project will provide numerous services for the enhancement of the quality of life for area employees and visitors to the area, such as restaurants, gift shops, performing arts and film theaters and conference rooms. Tax revenues attributable to the project will increase the money available for additional police and fire services. The provision of better police and fire services will help the city of Santa Ana to project the positive image of a safe City. People will desire to move to the City and, accordingly, property values will increase. Implementation of the project will result in funding for a wide variety of public infrastructure and other improvements to the area, including sewer improvements, street improvements, and park improvement. These improvements will increase the quality of the City for all residents. Implementation of the project will allow for various improvements to be completed at an earlier date that without the project. 40 331 MAIN STREET CONCOURSE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Slate Clearinghouse Number 90010495 Lead Agency: City of Santa Aha Planning Division 206 West Fourth Street Santa Aha, California 92702 (714) 667-2700 Contact: Charles View, Senior Planner Prepared in cooperation with the City of Santa Aha by: Michael Brandman Associates Carnegie Centre 2530 Red Hill Avenue Santa Ana, California 92705 (714) 250-5555 Contact: Joan Patronite Kelly, AICP, Principal Applicant: Orient Corporation of America Shimizu America Corporation 1055 West 7th Street, Suite 1800 Los Angeles, California 90017 (213) 362-7500 Contact: Michael Cutri, Consultant December 29, 1992 EXHIBIT B Section 1 2 Attachments A B TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION .................................... 1-1 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ............................ 2-1 2.1 Responsibilities ................................ 2-1 2.2 General Procedures .............................. 2-2 Mitigation Monitoring Plan ............................... A-I Sample Compliance Verification Form ........................ B-I 333 SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION Section 21081.6 to the State of California Public Resources Code requires a lead or responsible agency that approves or carries oot a project where an environmental impact report (EIR) has identified significant environmental effects to adopt a "reporting or monitoring program for adopted or required changes to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects." The City of Santa Ana is the lead agency for the Main Street Con.course project and, therefore, is responsible for implementation of the mitigation monitoring program. An EIR has been prepared for this project which addresses the potential environmental impacts and, where appropriate, recommends measures to mitigate these impacts. As such, a mitigation reporting or monitoring program is required to ensure that adopted mitigation measures are implemented. Section 2 describes the roles of responsible parties in implementing and monitoring the adopted mitigation measures, and generally describes the program procedures. Attachment A inclndes the list of mitigation measures and identifies the timing of the implementation or verification of each measure, the method of verification, and the party responsible for verifying that the measure is complete. The applicant is responsible for the implementation of each measure, and the City representative is responsible for verifying that the measure has been satisfactorily completed via plan check and field inspection, and/or written evidence submitted to the City by the applicant, or the applicant's agent, wbich verifies that the measure has been satisfactorily completed. Attachment B includes a sample "compliance verification" form which can be used to report the project's compliance of each measure. The City may develop alternative forms for use in compliance verification. 33d SECTION 2 PROJECT MANAGEMENT 2.1 RESPONSIBILITIES The mitigation monitoring plan (MMP) for the development of the Main Street Concourse will be in place through all phases of the project, including design, construction, and operation. Enforcement of the MMP will be the responsibility of the City of Santa Ana. The primary City of Santa Ana personnel responsible for verifying compliance with the mitigation measures are listed below, with the Environmental Coordinator, Planning Division, Planning and Building Agency having the primary role of coordinating the compliance verifications of all other parties. These parties, or designated assignees, are responsible for ensuring that the mitigation measures are completed by the applicant, and are vested with the authority to act accordingly. Planning and Building Agency · Planning Division · Building Division Public Works Agency · Development Engineering Division · Water Resources Division Fire Department · Fire Prevention Division Police Department · Community Services Division · Police Administration -- Planning Manager -- Senior Planner, Development Environmental Coordination -- Environmental Coordinator -- Case Planner -- Landscape Associate -- Supervisor of Inspections ~- Senior Plan Check Engineer -- Engineering Services Manager -- Water Resources Manager Fire Marshal -- Deputy/Chief -- Community Services Specialist and IB3/S:I 1340001 .MM 2- I 335 Recreation and Commnnity Services Agency · Park, Landscape Design Manager Community Development Agency · Real Estate Division, Redevelopment and Real Estate Manager 2.2 GENERAL PROCEDURES The Environmental Coordinator, or designated assignee, will, primarily through plan checks and field inspections, supervise the design and construction of the project, and will be responsible for the overall management of the MMP. For mitigation requiring ongoing verification, the applicant shall contract with a consultant to help perform the monitoring. Assignments of responsibility shall be established prior to approval of this mitigation monitoring plan by the City Council and are included in Attachment A. The above-noted designated "monitors" shall oversee elements of the MMP and review compliance throagh the use of compliance verification forms to be developed by the City and supported by a mitigation monitoring consultant. A sample of a "Compliance Verification" form is provided in Attachment B. Designated monitors shall ensure compliance verification forms are filled out correctly and proper action is being taken on each measure. Designated monitors will also be responsible for filing and updating the verification forms during all phases of the project. During the design and construction phases, the designated monitors from the Planning and Building Agency will determine the need for a measure to be modified and ensure the use of a mitigation specialist if technical expertise beyond the monitor's ability is required. If it is found that an adopted mitigation measure is not being properly implemented, the designated monitors shall require corrective actions to ensure adequate implementation. 0 0 /B3/S:II3400OI.MM 2-2 ATTACHMENT A MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN 337 EARTH RESOURCES GRADING 1. 2. (1)~ Mitigation Measures 10-18, in Air Quality, list mitigation measures to minimize dust generated during grading. Tilnine of Imnlementation/Verification Prior to grading permit issuance; during grading operations Method of Verification Grading plan check and periodic field inspection during grading operations Responsible Parties Environmental Consultant, and Supervisor of Inspections, Building Division Best Management Practices for dust control and washing tires as trucks leave the site shall minimize grading impacts. (See MMP No. 10) Timing, of lmolementation/Verification Method of Verification Responsible Parties During grading operations Grading plan check and periodic field inspection during grading operations Environmental Consultant, and Supervisor of Inspections, Building Division The mitigation measure number set forth in the RDEIR is shown in parentheses throughoat the mitigation monitoring report. JB3/~:11340001 .MM A-I 3. (2) Temporary Excavations: a. All excavations will comply with the current requirements of Cai-OSHA. All cuts greater than 5 feet in depth shall be sloped and/or shored. Temporary excavations may be sloped at 1.5(h): 1 (v) or flatter, up to a maximum depth of l0 feet below surrounding grade. Flatter slopes shall be accomplished if clean and/or loose sandy soils are encountered along the slopeface. Steeper cuts may be used for excavations less than 5 feet deep in the fine-grained soils, but not in the granular soils. In order to protect existing roadways and neighboring structures, temporary excavations may require shoring systems depending on their depth and proximity to the property lines. All grading and earthwork shall be performed under the observation of a geo- technical engineer to ensure proper subgrade preparation, selection of satisfactory materials, and placement and compaction of all structural fills. A geotechnical engineer shall be onsite or immediately available to observe this work. Haul routes from the site in the project vicinity shall be limited to Owens Drive or the north portion of Lawson Way. Haul routes shall be approved by the City prior to grading and excavation. (See MMP Nos. 13 and 32) Timin~ of Imolementafion/Verification Prior to grading permit issuance; during construction Method of Verification Grading plan check and field inspection Responsible Parties Inspection Services Manager, Building Division; Engineering Services Manager, Development Engineering Division; and Environmental Coordinator, Planning Division JB3/S:II340001.MM A-2 339 4. (3) Site Earthwork: The following measures are recommended during site preparation: a. Prior to general site grading, all vegetation and debris shall be stripped and disposed of outside the construction limits. b. All active or inactive utilities within the building areas shall be relocated or aban- doned. No pipelines shall be abandoned in-place for this project. The preliminary geotechnical investigation indicates that surface soils to a depth of 3 feet may need to be excavated and recompacted where basements will not be constructed. The exposed surface of the underlying silty/clayey layer may need to be proof rolled prior to replacing the surficial material as fill. Timing of Implementation/Verification Prior to grading permit issuance; during construction Method of Verification Grading plan check and field inspection Responsible Parties Inspection Services Manager, Building Division; and Engineering Services Manager, Development Engineering Division 5. (4) Fills and Backfills: The following measures are recommended during placement of fills: General area fills, utility trench backfills, and backfill around pile caps, footings, and other structures shall be placed during construction of this project. These fills shall either be structural or nonstructural in nature. Structural fills shall be placed to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density per ASTM D1557. Nonstructural fills shall be placed to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density unless specified otherwise by the landscape architect. Timing of Implementation/Verification Prior to grading permit issuance; during construction Method of Verification Grading plan check and field inspection Responsible Parties Senior Plan Check Engineer, Building Division; Inspection Services Manager, Building Division; and Engineering Services Manager, Development Engineering Division JB3/S:I 13400OI .MM A-3 $40 6. (5) Lateral Earth Pressures: The following measures are recommended during the design and placement of retaining walls: Retaining walls used in this project shall be designed to res, ist the earth pressure exerted by the retained compacted backfill plus any additional lateral forces that will be applied to the walls due to surface loads placed at or near the wall. Timine of lmolementation/Verification Prior to grading permit issuance; during construction Method of Verification Grading plan check and field inspection Responsible Parties Senior Plan Check Engineer, Building Division; Inspection Services Manager, Building Division 7. (6) Floor Slabs: The following measures are recommended to mitigate expansive soils: Prior to placing floor slabs, subgrade soils should be scarified to a depth of 6 inches, moisture conditioned, and recompacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557. A moisture barrier is recommended under all floor slabs. A plastic or vinyl membrane may be used for this purpose and should be placed between two layers of moist sand, each at least 2 inches thick, to promote uniform concrete curing and to protect the membrane during construction. Timing of Implementation/Verification Prior to grading permit issuance; during construction Method of Verification Grading plan check and field inspection Responsible Parties Senior Plan Check Engineer, Building Division; Inspection Services Manager, Building Division JB3/S:11340001 .MM A-4 GEOLOGY 8. (1) 9. (2) All structures shall be designed in accordance with the current Uniform Building Code and the seismic design parameters of the Structural Engineers Association of California and to meet the requirements of the City. Timing of Implementation/Verification Prior to approval of any grading permits; during grading/ construction phase Method of Verification Grading plan check and field inspection Responsible Parties Senior Plan Check Engineer, Building Division; Inspection Services Manager, Building Division. Frequent in-grading inspections should be conducted during construction. These inspections are necessary to substantiate previous geologic findings and to discover unforeseen conditions that may be exposed during grading. Any unanticipated adverse conditions encountered should be evaluated by the project engineering geologist and the soils engineer. Feasible and appropriate recommendations made shall be followed. Timing of Implementation/Verification During grading phase Method of Verification Grading plan check and field inspection Responsible Parties Senior Plan Check Engineer, Building Division; Inspection Services Manager, Building Division 841 0 0 /B3/S:l 1340001 .MM A-5 342 AIR 0UALIT¥ Short-Term Construction Impacts 10. (1) To minimize dust generated during grading operations, SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to. This will require watering during earthmoving operations. In addition, soil binders shall be spread on construction sites or unpaved roads and/or parking areas. Also, street sweeping of roads adjacent to the project site shall be done weekly during active grading to reduce fugitive dust from traffic. Finally, truck wheels shall be washed off and loads covered each time trucks leave the construction site. These measures will be incorporated as conditions of any grading permit. Timing of Imolementation/Verification Prior to grading permit issuance; during construction Method of Verification Grading plan check and periodic field inspection during grading operations Responsible Parties Environmental Coordinator, and Supervisor of Inspections, Building Division 1 I. (2) Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and tuned at least monthly to reduce pollutant emissions. Timing of Implementation/Verification Method of Verification Responsible Parties During grading/construction operations Grading plan check and field inspection Environmental Coordinator, and Supervisor of Inspections, Building Division A-6 343 12. (3) 13. 14. (4) In order to minimize traffic congestion, short-term construction affecting roadways shall be performed during non-peak traffic hours (i.e., 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.). Long-term roadwork, such as for the realignment of Owens Drive, shall have traffic control plans during construction to reduce congestion and delay, subject to approval of the City of Santa Aha. Timing of Implementation/Verification Prior to grading permit issuance; during construction; posting of complaint hotline number to field office Method of Verification Grading plan check and field inspection Responsible Parties Environmental Coordinator, Planning Department, and Development Engineering, Engineering Services Manager Prior to issuance of a grading permit, haul routes for trucks shall be identified in order to minimize travel through residential neighborhoods, thereby minimizing exposure of sensitive receptors to potential air quality impacts related to grading truck emissions and fugitive dust. Timing of Implementation/Verification Condition of grading permit issuance .Method of Verification Grading plan check Responsible Parties Development Engineering Division, Engineering Services Manager Grading activities shall be stopped during high wind conditions greater than 25 miles per hour. Timing of Implementation/Verification Condition of grading permit; wind speed gauge with warning light; grading contractor Method of Verification Grading plan check and field inspection Responsible Parties Inspection Services Manager, Building Division; Environmental Coordinator 0 0 0 0 0 A-7 15. 16. 17. To reduce short-term particulate emissions related to construction activities, incentives such as monthly bus passes, transit information and vanpools will be provided, at no cost to all construction workers who request them, to reduce trips. Prior to submission of the grading plan, the developer shall submit to the City the incentives which are prqposed to reduce work trips. The effectiveness of these measures shall be monitored every month by the developer and verified by tile City. Timine of Implementation/Verification Prior to issuance of grading permit; Method of Verification Written report documenting monthly bus passes issued and vanpool ridership Responsible Parties Developer/applicant; Environmental Coordinator, Planning Division, and Development Engineering, Engineering Services Manager Groundcover shall be reestablished on graded areas not scheduled for construction within 90 days of grading. Timing of Implementation/Verification Condition of grading plan approval Method of Verification Grading plan check and field inspection Responsible Parties Landscape Associate, Case Planner, Planning Division Traffic speeds on all unpaved road surfaces shall be restricted to 15 miles per hour or less. Timing of Implementation/Verification Condition of grading plan approval Method of Verification Grading plan check and field inspection Responsible Parties Building Division; grading contractor, Development Engineering, Engineering Services Manager JB3/S:11340001 .MM A-8 345 18. The use of low sulfur fuel or Iow emission state-approved fuels may be used for stationary construction equipment which are commercially available. Timing of Implementation/Verification Condition of all bid permits (as specified in bid packet) Method of Verifi{;ation Grading plan check and field inspection Responsible Parties Building Inspector, Building Division Lang-Term Vehicular Emissions 19. (5) The applicant shall implement the City-mandated transportation demand management (TDM) program, consistent with the TDM Strategy Plan, described in Section 4.10 and Appendix F of the RDEIR. The TDM program shall include ridesharing/carpooling inducements and inducements to reduce peak hour trips to and from the project. The effectiveness of the TDM in reducing a.m. peak-hour trips shall be documented and fines shall be imposed by the City for the nonattainment of TDM goals. (See MMP No. 79) Timing of Implementation/Verification Prior to occupancy permit issuance; ongoing during life of project Method of Verification Driveway counts (for specifics see TDM program), field inspection after occupancy, verification of traffic report for Phases I and II. Written report to be provided by applicant annually. Responsible Parties Engineering Services Manager, Development Engineering Division; owner; tenants JB3/S:II340001.MM A-9 20. 21. To reduce emissions generated by increased traffic, parking spaces with electrical outlets for electric vehicles shall be provided onsite, and included in the total number of parking spaces provided. Ten electric vehicle parking spaces will be provided as part of the Phase I parking space requirements. At the completion of Phase I, the project applicant, the City, and project property manager shall determine if, based upon usage of the ten spaces, additional electric vehicle parking spaces are needed. If the determination is made that additional spaces are needed, existing parking spaces shall be retrofitted to accommodate the need. Timing of Implementation/Verification Site plan review and plan check Method of Verification Plan check and field inspection Responsible Parties Case Planner, Planning Division; Building Inspector To reduce stationary emissions of operation and related activities, the thermal integrity of buildings shall be improved and the thermal load reduced through incorporation of automated time clocks or occupant sensors where feasible. Efficient heating and other appliances such as water heaters, cooking equipment, refrigerators, furnaces, and boiler units shall be utilized. Where feasible, appropriate passive solar designs shall be incorporated into the residential units. Timing of Implementation/Verification Site plan review and plan check Method of Verification Plan check review and inspection Responsible Parties Case Planner, Building Inspector, Mechanical Plan checker, Planning and Building Agency, Engineering Division JB3/S: 11340001 ,MM A- 10 347 WATER RESOURCES SURFACE WATER 22. (1) The applicant shall upgrade or add catch basins and storm drain pipes in conjunction with roadway improvements (exact size and location to be determined). Timing of Implementation After street improvement and surface drainage plan check approval Method of Verification Field inspection Resnonsible Parties Inspection Services Manager, Building Division; and Engineering Services Manager, Development Engineering Division (2) The applicant shall coordinate development of the project with the Owens Drive realignment construction and utility relocation, including verification of the location of the jet fuel line, sewer, water, and other utilities within Owens Drive. Timing of Implementation Prior to grading permit issuance; during construction and roadway improvements Method of Verification Grading plan check and field inspection Responsible Parties Inspection Services Manager, Building Division; and Engineering Services Manager, Development Engineering Division ]B3/S:11340001 .MM A-I I 348 24. (3) 25. (4) The City of Santa Ana has stipulated that a proposed storm drain (36- to 42-inch reinforced concrete pipe) for the Main Street Concourse project under Owens Drive from the northeast corner of the intersection of Main Street and Owens Drive to 900 feet east of that intersection and south to Santiago Creek shall be designed and installed with the City's improvements for Owens Drive. In addition, the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County sewer line improvements, defined as the Memory Lane Interceptor Project 2-30, subject to separate CEQA analysis by the Sanitation Districts, shall be completed during the Owens Drive realignment. Timing of lmplementotion Prior to grading permit issuance; during construction and roadway improvements Method of Verification Grading plan check and field inspection Responsible Parties Inspection Services Manager, Building Division; Engineering Services Manager, Development Engineering Division, and Water Resources Manager, Water Resources Division Work to be performed on the existing or proposed storm drains, or within the Santiago Creek, will require prior review by the City of Santa Ana. For discharge into Santiago Creek, the applicant shall obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit. Timing of Verification Prior to grading permit issuance; during construction of the storm drain improvements Method of Verification Grading plan check and field inspection Responsible Parties Regional Water Quality Control Board; Orange County Flood Control District; Engineering Services Manager, Development Engineering Division; CDFG; USFWS; and Water Resources Manager, Water Resources Division JB3/S: 11340OO 1 .MM A~I2 26. (5) 27. (6) Discharge of storm waters from the project site reqnires the review of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Aha Region, as well as the City of Santa Aha. This includes discharge from water amenities such as decorative ponds. Water amenities will be regulated by the appropriate agency. Per the NPDES, wastewater shall not be discharged into the storm drain. Storm water overflows will be controlled as approved by the City of Santa Aha. Timing of Verification Prior to grading permit issuance; during construction of storm drain improvements Method of Verification Grading plan check and field inspection Responsible Parties Regional Water Quality Control Board; Orange County Flood Control District; Engineering Services Manager, Development Engineering Division; and Water Resources Manager, Water Resources Division The applicant shall provide approved erosion control measures to minimize sediment transport during all periods of construction, as stipulated on the grading plan. All grading approvals must be obtained prior to commencement of earth work. Timing of Verification Prior to grading permit issuance; weekly inspection during construction Method of Verification Grading plan check and field inspection Supervisor of Inspections, Building Division; and Engineering Services Manager, Development Engineering Division, water Resources Manager, Water Resonrces Division Responsible Parties tB3/S:II340(X) I MM A-[3 35O 28. (7) The existing parkway drain shall be intercepted at the northeast corner of the Main Street Concourse and the storm water conveyed from the proposed intersection as part of the drainage system. Timing of Implementation Prior to Phase I Certificate of Occupancy Method of Verification Surface drainage plan check/grading plan check and field inspection Resoonsible Parties Inspection Services Manager, Building Division; and Engineering Services Manager, Development Engineering Division l B3/S: I 1340001 .MM A- 14 351 NOISE Short-Term Construction Noise Impacts 29. (1) Hours of construction operation shall comply with .the City of Santa Aha Noise Ordinance limiting construction between the hours of 7 a.m. and 8 p.m. on any weekday, including Saturday. Construction activities (except for those occurring in connection with emergency situations) are prohibited at any other time. Special conditions to allow the fast-track, possibly 24-hour/7-day construction schedule for the realignment of Owens Drive shall be stipulated as a condition of approval. Timing of Implementation Prior to grading permit issuance; during construction; posting of complaint hotline number to field office Method of Verification Field inspection Responsible Parties Engineering Services Manager; Development Engineer; Environmental Coordinator, Planning Division 30. (2) All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers. Timing of Implementation Prior to grading permit issuance; monthly inspection Method of Verification Grading plan check; written verification provided by the applicant; and field inspection Responsible Parties Environmental Coordinator, and Supervisor of Inspections, Building Division JB3/S:i1340OOl.MM A-I5 31. (3) 32. (4) Exterior Noise 33. (5) Prior to construction of the Phase II residential tower, a 10-foot high construction barrier wall shall he constructed around the construction area of the residential tower on all sides facing occupied residences in order to minimize noise intrusion into the Phase I housing units. The construction barrier wall shall have a closed surface free from large cracks or gaps (all joints will be sealed). The wall will consist of 2" x 6" wood framing with a 3/4" plywood surface. Timing of ImplementatiQn Prior to Phase II grading/ construction permit issuance; verification of completion; monthly inspection Method of Verification Grading plan check; written verification provided by the applicant; and field inspection Responsible Parties Environmental Coordinator, Planning Division Excavation haul routes and hauling operations shall be selected and carried out to avoid the intersection of Lawson Way and Owens Drive and to comply with the Noise Ordinance of the City. (See MMP No. 3e and 13) Timing of Implementation/Verification Prior to grading permit issuance Method of Verification Grading plan check and field inspection Responsible Parties Engineering Services Manager, Development Engineering Division; and Environmental Coordinator, Planning Division Stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from residential land uses. Timing of Implementation Prior to building permit issuance; monthly verification inspection Method of Verification Grading plan check; written verification provided by the applicant; and field inspection Responsible Parties Inspection Services Manager, Building Division; and Environmental Coordinator, Planning Division m3/s:~ ~3400O~.MM A-16 353 34. (6) 35. (7) 36. (8) The California State Noi~ .,sulation Standards and the City of Santa Ana require that the interior noise levels for residential land uses be no greater than 65 CNEL. At the time of building permit application, the architectural and site plans shall be reviewed to ensure that the interior noise levels do not exceed 45 CNEL. Timin~ of Imnlementation/Verification Prior to issuance of building permit Method of Verification Architectural plans check and field inspection Responsible Parties Senior Plan Check Engineer, Building Division; Case Planner, and Environmental Coordinator, Planning Division During the construction of Phase [1, an evaluation of noise impacts on Phase I residents shall be conducted by a certified acoustical engineer. Measurements shall occur at least three times during the first six months of Phase II construction, with results submitted to the City of Santa Aha for review (See MMP No. 31). Prior to sale/rental of each phase I residential unit, residents shall read and sign a noise disclosure statement to notify residents of potential Phase II construction noise. Timing of Implementation/Verification During Phase 11 construction Method of Verification Field inspection and written verification from a certified acoustical engineer Responsible Parties Certified acoustical engineer, Case Planner, and Environmental Coordinator, Planning Division If pile-driving is used, a noise assessment shall be submitted to the City and approved prior to initiation of grading or construction to the satisfaction of the City of Santa Aha so as to minimize impacts. (See MMP Nos. 31, 35 and 37) Timing of Implementation Prior to grading permit issuance Method of Verification Grading plan check; written verification provided by the applicant; field inspection prior to notification; and posting of hotline phone number Responsihle Parties Environmental Coordinator, Planning Division, or Certified Acot,stical Engineer Je3/s: 11340001 .MM A-17 37. The vibration conditions shall be monitored offsite by a certified acoustical engineer, at a point deemed appropriate by the project geologist at the start of pile-driving and thereafter when pile-driving would occur in close proximity to adjacent or nearby structures, and sensitive receptors. The monitoring shall be accomplished using portable seismograph equipment capable of detecting and recording three-dimensional vibrational characteristics. Such monitoring can be accomplished directly on adjacent structures and can detect vibrations well below the threshold of potential structural damage identified by the project geologist. If structural damage from pile-driving operations adversely affect the structural integrity of surrounding structures both onsite and offsite, alternative methods of construction would be required to minimize the potential risk of damage. Timim, of Implementation During project construction Method of Verification Field inspection and written verification from a certified acoustical engineer Responsible Parties Certified Acoustical Engineer; Geological Engineer; Environmental Coordinator, Planning Division; Building Inspector Long-Term Traffic Noise Impacts 38. (9) If vehicular noise levels exceed 65 CNEL in onsite outdoor noise sensitive use areas, mitigation measures shall be implemented. Mitigation may include the design and construction of a noise barrier (wall, berm, or combination wall/berm). Timint, of Implementation/Verification Annual report submitted to City after completion of Phase I Method of Verification Architectural plans check and field inspection Responsible Parties Environmental Consultant, Case Planner, Environmental Coordinator, Planning Division, or Certified Acoustical Engineer SB3/S:11340001 .MM A- 18 355 Mechanical Equipment 39. (10) All mechanical equipment within the project boundaries shall be made to comply with City and County of Orange Noise Ordinance noise level limits and shall be monitored annually until complete buildout of the project. Timing of Implementation/Verification Prior to grading permit issuance Method of Verification Architectural plans check and annual field inspection Responsible Parties Environmental Consultant, Case Planner, and Environmental Coordinator, Planning Division; Building Inspector Helicopter Operations 40. (1 I) A written operations and protocols manual shall be developed by the property manager for the helistop and shall include measures to minimize impact to residential land uses to less than 65 CNEL. These measures shall limit total operations to 8 flights per day; no more than one per hour; and shall restrict non-emergency operation of the helistop facility to the hours between 7:00 a.m and 7:00 p.m., daily. All assumptions used in the preparation of the noise analysis shall be incorporated as conditions associated with the use of the helistop. Timing of Implementation/Verification Prior to Phase I Certificate of Occupancy for the building on which the helipad will occur Method of Verification Architectural plans check and field inspection Responsible Parties Planning Manager and Environmental Coordinator, Planning Division; Building Manager /B3/S:11340001 .MM A-19 41. The applicant shall provide each helicopter operator with an information sheet identifying flight paths, hours of operation, and other pertinent information. This data shall be disseminated to all helicopter operators requesting to use the Main Street Concourse helistop. Operators using the facility on a regular basis shall be required to execute a letter of agreement ensuring compliance with the regulations detailed in the information sheet. Additionally, the property owners shall maintain a helistop log indicating the time of helistop operation, the registration number of the aircraft, the pilot, the helicopter type, and other pertinent data necessary to maintain the provisions of the operations and protocols manual. Timing of Implementation Prior to issuance of the CUP for the helistop Method of Verification Prior to operation and annual report Responsible Parties Applicant; Property Manager; Environmental Coordinator, Planning Division JB3/S:11340001 .MM A-20 LIGHT AND GLARE/SHADE AND SHADOW Light and Glare 42. (1) Security and exterior security lighting shall be directed away from adjacent light-sensi- tive uses and shielded such that the light source will not adversely affect offsite or onsite land uses. Timing of Implementation/Verifica0on Method of Verification Responsible Parties Shielded low wattage security lights shall be used development. Timing of Implementation/Verification Method of Verification 43. (2) 44. (3) Responsible Parties Prior to building permit issuance; verify prior to occupancy Architectural plans check and field inspection Case Planner and Environmental Coordinator, Planning Division; Police Administration in the residential portions of the Prior to building permit issuance; verify prior to occupancy Architectural plans check and field inspection Case Planner and Environmental Coordinator, Planning Division; Police Administration The use of reflective glass shall be minimized on the exterior snrfaces of the 9ffice and hotel towers. Timing of Implementation/Verification Prior to huilding permit issuance Method of Verification Architectural plans check and field inspection Responsible Parties Cas,e Planner and Environmental Coordinator, Planning Division 357 JB3/S:II34(X~)I.MM A-21 358 45, 46, (4) (5) Funding for lighting, as reviewed and approved by the City in the improvement plans, shall be provided in Santiago Park: for security. Timim, of Imnlementafion/Verification Method of Verification Resnonsible Parties Prior to issuance of building permit Architectural plans check and field inspection Case Planner and Environmental Coordinator, Planning Division; Recreation and Community Services Agency; Police Administration A sign program shall be implemented for the project to minimize offsite light and glare intrusion into surrounding residential uses. Timing of Implementation/Verification Method of Verification Responsible Parties Prior to building permit issuance Architectural plans check and field inspection Case Planner and Environmental Coordinator, Planning Division JI]3/S:11340001 ,MM A-22 359 LAND USE 47. (1) If Polly's Pies is acquired by the City of Santa Ana Redevelopment Agency, the Agency shall provide to the owner of Polly's Pies full market value and relocation assistance as legally required. Timin~ of Implementation/Verification Prior to approval and recordation of the final tract maps and Phase I building permit issuance Me[hod of Verification File memorandum, legal documentation Responsible Parties Case Planner and Environmental Coordinator, Planning Division', and Community Development Agency; Development Engineering Manager, Public Works Agency JB3/S:I 1340001 ,MM A-23 NATURAL RESOURCES 48. (I) Building materials containing recycled components shall be incorporated in the construction of the proposed project to reduce the natural materials needs of the project. Additionally, the recycling of materials used during project operation will minimize the use of natural resources and include fuels, wood, cement, gravel, steel, aluminum, and asphalt. Measures for solid waste disposal and recycling are discussed in MMP Nos. 136 through 143. Timine of Implementation/Verification Prior to construction permit issuance Method of Verification Architectural plans check; verification from applicant; and field inspection Responsible Parties Case Planner and Environmental Coordinator, Planning Division JB3/S:11340001 .MM A-24 RISK OF UPSET AND HUMAN HEALTH 49. (1) All structures shall be designed to withstand maximum probable groundshaking by complying with standards contained in the Uniform Building Code, Seismic Safety Code, and City codes. The plan check process shall ensure implementation of this measure. Timing of Implementation/Verification Prior to approval of any grading permits and implementation dnring construction phase Method of Verification Grading plan check and field inspection Resvonsible Parties Senior Plan Check Engineer, Building Division; Inspection Services Manager, Building Division 50. (2) Coordination by the City of Santa Aha with the U.S. Marine Corps for the relocation of the jet fuel line shall be obtained prior to the commencement of the Owens Drive realignment construction. (See MMP No. 23) Timing of Implementation/Verification Prior to approval of any grading permits Method of Verification Grading plan check and field inspection Responsible Parties Engineering Services Manager, Development Engineering Division; the U.S. Marine Corps; and Orange County Sanitation District 51. (3) Annual emergency drills shall be conducted, and may be supervised, by the Fire Department, to maintain emergency preparedness at all times. (See MMP No. 128) Timing of Implementation/Verification Program designed prior to building permit issuance; program implemented on an annual basis Method of Verification Written verification from the property manager to the Fire Department Responsible Parties Fire Department 361 J B3/S: 1134(IO(}1 .MM A -25 362 52. (4) 53. (5) 54. (6) To ensure emergency accessibility to the site, excavation plans and emergency response plans for the site shall be coordinated with fire and police personnel prior to issuance of building permits. Information on emergency responses and excavation plans shall be disseminated to residents, employees, and users of the facility. Timine of Implementation/Verification Prior to building permit issuance Method of Verification Written verification from applicant and fire and police departments; and field inspection Responsible Parties Case Planner, Planning Division; and Fire and Police Departments All workers shall be informed of safety measures to be observed during construction and established procedures of Cai-OSHA shall be followed to maintain a safe environment. Timine of Implementation/Verification Prior to approval of any grading permits and implementation during grading phase Method of Verification Grading plan check and field inspection Responsible Parties Supervisor of Inspections, Building Division The flight path for the helistop shall parallel area freeways as permitted by air traffic control authorities to minimize noise impacts on residential areas and minimize crash hazards. Timing of Implementation/Verification Prior to Phase I Certificate of Occupancy for the building which will have the helipad Method of Verification Written verification and field inspection; operations and protocol manual Responsible Parties Environmental Coordinator, Planning Division; the FAA; and the applicant JB3/S:I 134OOO I .MM A-26 55. (7) Helicopter landing procedures shall follow safety precautions and measures such as adequate night lighting and marked landing area, as required by the FAA regulations. Timing of Implementation/Verification Method of Verification Responsible Parties Prior to building permit issuance Written verification and field inspection Case Planner and Environmental Coordinator, Planning Division; Fire and Police Departments; and the FAA JB31S:I [3400OI MM A-27 POPULATION AND HOUSING 56. O) In order to encourage onsite workers to live onsite, advertisements for high-rise condominium units in the residential tower shall be circulated at the commercial and office buildings one week before they are offered to outside parties for the first time sale. Timing of Implementation/Verification After completion of final inspection Method of Verification File memorandum of posting/notification process Responsible Parties Case Planner, Planning Division; and Property Manager, Residential Tower 57. (2) A deed restriction on all residential units shall stipulate that the residential property manager shall be responsible for monitoring unit occupancies to ensure that the residential portion of the site does not exceed levels set by the City of Santa Aha. The residential property manager shall report suspected violations to the property management for further action. Timing of Implementation/Verification Annual report after initial occupation from homeowners association to property manager Method of Verification File memorandum Responsible Parties Case Planner, Code Enforcement, Planning Division; and residential property manager Homeowners Association IB3/S:11340001 .MM A-28 365 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Main Street Improvements 58. (1) 59. (2) 60. (3) Dedicate additional Main Street right-of-way Channelization Plan. Timing of Implementation/Verification Method of Verification .R.e~ponsible Parties per the City-approved Street By May 1993 Written verification and acceptance Engineering Services Manager, Department of Engineering Timin~ of lmnlementation/Verification Method of Verification Responsible Parties Improve the intersection of Main Street at Main Place to become the main entrance to the Phase I project. Improvements will include widening the northbound approach to provide three through lanes and dual left-turn lanes, restriping the southbound approach for dual left-turn lanes and three through lanes, and modifying the signal to accommodate the project driveway and the above improvements. Prior to issuance of Phase ! Certificate of Occupancy Inspection and acceptance Engineering Services Manager, Department of Engineering During Phase I of project development, a bus turn-out shall be built along Main Street north of Owens Drive to accommodate bus transportation. Timing of implementation/Verification Method of Verification _Resnonsible Parties After street improvement plan check Inspection Engineering Services Manager, Development Engineering Division JB3/S:11340OO1 .MM A-29 61. (4) In order to make improvements at the intersection of Main Street at Town and Country Road, the applicant shall contribute $350,000 to fund the following improvements: Acquire approximately 2,100 square feet of additional right-of-way on the north- west side of the west leg of Town and Country Road, in the City of Santa Ana, to provide dual left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and two receiving lanes. b. Replace approximately 27 parking spaces for the Main Place site to accommodate the alignment and restriping of the roadway. c. Stripe the east leg for dual left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and two receiving lanes. d. Modify the signal to accommodate the recommended improvements. Timing of Implementation/Verification Prior to Phase I building permit Method of Verification Written verification Responsible Parties Engineering Services Manager, Development Engineering Division Owens Drive Improvements 62. (5) The applicant shall widen Owens Drive between Main Street and Lawson Way. Ultimately, the improvement will result in Owens Drive being a six-lane roadway with a raised median from Broadway to Lawson Way, which will make a transition to four lanes with a raised median to the eastern city limits. The intersection of Owens Drive at Main Street will be improved to provide dual left-turn lanes, three through lanes and a separate right-turn lane on the westbound approach of Owens Drive at Main Street, and dual left-turn lanes and three through lanes on the eastbound approach of Owens Drive and Lawson Way. The interim improvement to occur with project Phase l prior to acquisition of the right-of-way on Owens, west of Main Street, will include dual left- turn lanes, two through lanes, and'a right-turn only lane on the Owens Drive westbound approach at Main Street. Timing of Implementation/Verification Prior to May 1993 Method of Verification Inspection and Acceptance Responsible Parties Executive Director, Public Works Agency ]B3/S:I 1340001 .MM A-30 63. (6) 64. (7) 65. (8) 66. Modify the signal at Main Street and Owens Drive to accommodate the proposed improvements. Timing of Implementation/Verification Method of Verification Responsible Parties Prior to May 1993 Inspection and acceptance ExecutiveDirector, PublicWorks Agency Install a traffic signal at the proposed intersection of Owens Drive and Lawson Way. Timing of Implementation/Verification Method of Verification Responsible Parties Prior to May 1993 Inspection and acceptance Executive Director, Public Works Agency Install a traffic signal at the proposed intersection of Owens Drive and the project driveway. This will change the circulation pattern on the Lincoln Property site on the south side of Owens Drive. The fourth leg of this intersection will be the second access drive to the Lincoln Property site, providing the site with fl.,Il signalization access opportunity. Timing of Implementation/Verification Prior to issuance of Phase 1 Certificate of Occupancy Method of Verification Inspection and acceptance Responsible Parties Executive Director, Public Works Agency Prior to constructing a traffic signal at Owens Drive and the project driveway, the applicant shall pay for and secure approval to bnild onsite modifications (e.g., landscaping, driveway modifications, and utility pole relocations) to Lincoln Properties in order to reduce impacts associated with signalization. Timing of Implementation/Verification Prior to issuance of Phase Certificate of Occupancy Method of Verification Written approval from Lincoln Properties, inspection, and acceptance Responsible Parties Executive Director, Pablic Works Agency 367 /B3/S:11340001 .MM A-31 Lawson Way at Town and Country Road 67. (9) In order to mitigate the impacts to the intersection of Lawson Way at Town and Country Road, the following Phase I improvements are necessary. a. Stripe the eastbound approach for dual left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and two receiving lanes. b. Stripe the northbound approach for one left-turn lane, two through lanes, and two receiving lanes. Timing of Implementation/Verification Method of Verification Responsible Parties Other Required Mitigation Measures Prior to Phase I Certificate of Occupancy Written verification/inspection Engineering Services Manager, Development Engineering Division; Cities of Santa Ana and Orange The following measures (MMPs 68-74) must be satisfied in time to allow for the widening of Owens Drive by May 1993: 68. (10) Dedicate Owens Drive per City-approved Street Channelization Plan. Timing of Implementation/Verification Method of Verification Responsible Parties By May 1993 Copy of recorded dedicate 69. (10) offer to Engineering Services Manager, Development Engineering Division Dedicate Main Street per City-approved Street Channelization Plan. Timing of Implementation/Verification By May 1993 Method of Verification Responsible Parties Copy of recorded offer to dedicate Engineering Services Manager, Development Engineering Division Ul3/S:I 1340001 .MM A-32 369 70. (10) 71. 0o) 72. (10) 73. (10) Dedicate 25-foot x 25-foot corner cutoff triangles at the northeast corner of Main Street and Owens Drive and the northwest corner of Owens Drive and Lawson Way. Timing of Implementation/Verification By May 1993 Method of Verification Copy of recorded offer to dedicate Responsible Parties Engineering Services Manager, Development Engineering Division Dedicate onsite traffic signal easements on Lawson Way, Main Street, and Owens Drive per approved Traffic Signal Plans. Timing of Implementation/Verification Phase I Building Permit for first building Method of Verification Copy of recorded easement Responsible Parties Engineering Services Manager, Development Engineering Division The project applicant shall make a cash payment for completing Owens Drive right-of- way to ultimate street widths per the Owens Drive Street Improvement Plan and Main Street Concourse Phase I Development Site Plan. Timing of hnnlementation/Verification By May 1993 Method of Verification Copy of receipt tbr payment Responsible Parties Engineering Services Manager, Development Engineering Division The project applicant shall be responsible for completing right-of-way construction on Main Street. Timing of Implementation/Verification By May 1993 Method of Verification Inspection Responsible Parties Engineering Services Manager, Development Engineering Division JB3/S:11340001 .MM A-33 74. (10) 75. (lO) 76. The project applicant shall pay a cash deposit in the amount of $448,000 to fund a portion of the construction and design for a sewer line from the Orange County Sanitation District trunk system to the project site. Timine of Imolementation/Verification By May 1993 Method of Verification Copy of receipt for payment Resnonsible Partie~ Engineering Services Manager, Development Engineering Division Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for Phase I, the project applicant shall secure a traffic signal easement from the adjacent "Lincoln" Property, per approved traffic signal plan. (See Mitigation Measure 66) Timing of Implementation/Verification Prior to issuance of Phase I building permit Method of Verification Written verification Responsible Parties Engineering Services Manager, Development Engineering Division Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for Phase 1, the project applicant shall pay a cash deposit in the amount of $350,000 for the improvement of the intersection of Main Street and Town and Country Road. Timing of Implementation/Verification Prior to issuance of Phase I buildingpermit Method of Verification Copy of receipt for payment Responsible Parties Engineering Services Manager, Development Engineering Division 77. (I 1) The applicant shall pay TSIA fees until buildout. Timing of Implementation/Verification Method of Verification Resnonsible Parties Upon issuance of building permits, as stipulated in TSIA agreement Written verification with verification of canceled checks Engineering Services Manager, Development Engineering Division JB3/S:[ 1340001 .MM A-34 78. (12) 79. (13) The applicant shall agree to grant an easement for the purpose of locating a future monorail or other fixed-guideway rail transit station on the property, such grant to be to either the City of Santa Ana or to such entity as may have jurisdiction over the passenger stations serving such a future fixed-guideway transit system and to be without cost to the grantee, provided that the conditions as set forth in the Development Agreement section 10(a) are satisfied. Timing of Implementation/Verification Prior to termination of Development Agreement Method of Verification Plan check/tract map review Responsible Parties Case Planner, Planning Division; Engineering Services Manager, Development Engineering Division; and Real Estate Manager, Community Development The applicant shall agree to grant an easement and construction agreements for the purpose of locating a pedestrian bridge across Main Street on the property, at no cost to the grantee provided that the conditions as set forth in the Development Agreement section 10(a) are satisfied. Timing of Implementation/Verification Prior to termination of Development Agreement Method of Verification Plan check/tract map review Responsible Parties Case Planner, Planning Division; Engineering Services Manager, Development Engineering Division; and Real Estate Manager, Community Development 371 J B3/S: I 1340001 .MM A-35 80. (14) The applicant shall accommodate service truck movement fully onsite. Timin~ of Implementation/Verification Prior to building permit; during construction Method of Verification Plan check; radius/template analysis Responsible Parties Case Planner, Planning Division; Engineering Services Manager, Development Engineering Division; and Supervisor of Inspections, Building Division Transportation Management 8i. (15) The applicant shall implement a Transportation Demand Management Program, approved by the City, to reduce morning peak-hour office trip-making by 15 percent. The Phase ! Performance Requirement specifies that a.m. peak-hour project trips shall not exceed 1,312 trips. With Phase Il, the project a.m. peak-hour trips shall not exceed 2,306 trips. If the Performance Requirement is not met, even after a 180-day period of implementation of contingency measures, a TDM penalty fee will be imposed. The penalty fee is to be $889.00 per a.m. peak-hour trip exceeding the Performance Requirement, subject to a maximum of $125,000 upon completion of Phase I and $200,000 upon completion of Phase Il. Table 4-23 of the RDEIR shows the project trip generation with the TDM included for both Phases I and Il. The TDM strategy plan is discussed in full in Appendix F of the EIR. Timing of Implementation/Verification Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for the first building of each phase; recorded in CC&Rs Method of Verification Annual traffic report on vehicle counts and recorded in CC&Rs Responsible Parties Engineering Services Manager, Development Engineering Division; applicant JB3/S: 11340001 .MM A-36 373 Phase II Mitigation Measures Owens Drive Improvements 82. (16) The applicant shall contribute its fair-share of funds for the completion of the Owens Drive ultimate street improvements from the eastern City limit to Broadway. Timing of Implementation/Verification Method of Verification Responsible Parties Main Street Improvements ~. (17) Prior to Phase II Building Permit Inspection Engineering Services Manager, Development Engineering Division Restripe Main Street Concourse exit to provide dual westbound left-turn lanes and modify signal operation. Timing of Implementation/Verification Method of Verification Responsible Parties Lawson Way Improvetnents Prior to Phase Il Certificate of Occupancy Inspection Engineering Services Manager, Development Engineering Division 84. (18) The applicant shall stripe Lawson Way for four lanes and a two-way left-turn lane from Owens Drive to Town and Country Road. Timing of Implementation/Verification Prior to issuance of first Building Permit of Phase I1 Method of Verification Inspection/coordinated with the City of Orange Responsible Parties Engineering Services Manager; Development Engineering Division; Cities of Santa Ann and Orange .~B3/S:11340001 .MM A-37 85. (19) The applicant shall install a traffic signal at the intersection of Lawson Way and the project driveway. This improvement will be coordinated with staffs of the Cities of Orange and Santa Ana and representatives of affected properties. Timing of Implementation/Verification Prior to Phase I1 Certificate of Occupancy Method of Verification Plan check and field investigation Responsible Parties Cities of Orange and Santa Aha, Public Works Departments Parker Street at La Veta Avenue Improvements 86. (20) Restripe Parker Street to provide dual northbound left-turn lanes. Timing of Implementation/Verification Prior to Phase II Certificate of Occupancy Method of Verification Written verification/Inspection, City of Orange Responsible Parties Engineering Services Manager, Development Engineering Division 87. (21) The applicant shall pay TSIA fees until buildout. Timing of Implementation/Verification Upon issuance of building permits, as stipulated in TSIA agreement Method of Verification Written verification with verification of canceled checks Responsible Parties Engineering Services Manager, Development Engineering Division IB3/S:I 1340001 .MM A-38 Transportation Management 88. (23) Expansion of the TDM Program to include Phase II development with a Performance Requirement not to exceed 2,306 a.m. peak-hour trips to/from the project and a maximum annual penalty fee of $200,000. Timing of Implementation/Verification Prior to Phase II building permits; CC&Rs Method of Verification Annual traffic counts of all access points; CC&Rs Responsible Parties Engineering Services Manager, Development Engineering Division; applicant Neighborhood Mitigation 89. (24) Although the RDEIR prepared for the Development concludes that there will be no adverse impact on the adjacent residential neighborhoods commonly known as Parker, Batavia, Northeast, Northwest and Floral Park (the "Neighborhoods"), the Developer and the City acknowledge that existing traffic modeling methodology cannot predict with absolute certainty that there will be no impacts on the Neighborhoods. Accordingly, the Developer agrees as follows: (1) Prior to the issuance of any building permit for the first phase of the Development, the Developer will deposit with the City $20,000, to be used by the City for a traffic study or studies by city staff or by a traffic consultant or consultants selected by the City, which study or studies will: (i) create an "existing conditions database" describing traffic conditions existing in the Neighborhoods after completion of the I-5 Improvements but before initial occupancy of the first phase; (ii) entail average daily trip counts, turning movement counts, speed surveys and license plate surveys, as determined appropriate by the City; and (iii) at the City's election, evaluate the effectiveness and continued need for the traffic control measures implemented as part of the 1-5 Improvements. Any portion of the amount of the said $20,000 deposit which is not expanded for the abovesaid study shall be refunded to the Developer. (2) Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for any nonresidential building in Phase I of the Development, the Developer agrees to deposit with the City $50,000, to be used by the City for an additional traffic study or studies by City staff or by a traffic consultant or consultants selected by the City, which study or studies will identify traffic impacts in the Neighborhoods, if any, attributable to Phase I of the Development. Any portion of the said $50,000 deposit which is not expanded for Phase I traffic s~ lies will be refimded to tbe Developer. 375 JB3/S: 11340001 .MM A-39 90. (3) Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any building in Phase II of the Development, the Developer agrees to deposit with the City an additional $50,000, to be used by the City for an additional traffic study or studies by City staff or by a traffic consultant or consultants selected by the City, which study will identify additional traffic impacts in the Neighborhoods, if any, attributable to development occurring during Phase Il of the Development. If any traffic study done pursuant to paragraphs (2) or (3) identifies traffic intrusion into the Neighborhoods attributable to the Development, the study shall also develop suitable mitigation measures which could alleviate the identified adverse traffic impacts in the Neighborhoods. With regard to any such traffic study, Developer shall be provided the opportunity to review and comment on the findings and recommendations contained within it prior to any determination by the City to implement those findings and recommendations. Timing of Implementation/Verification Prior to issuance of Phase building permit Method of Verification Specified traffic report Responsible Parties Engineering Services Manager, Development Engineering Division, City of Santa Ana The applicant agrees to contribute a maximum total amonnt of $750,000 for the implementation, construction, and/or completion of the traffic stody or studies identified in Mitigation Measure 88, subject to the following terms and conditions as set forth in Section 10(d) of the Development Agreement, and described below: Prior to tile issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first office building in Phase I of the developlnent, the applicant shall deposit $100,000 (as part of tile required $750,000 commitment for the cost of mitigation measures) with the City, to be used solely to fund mitigation measures for physical improvements in any traffic study performed as part of Mitigation Measure 88. As stated in the Development Agreement Section 10(d) and Mitigation Measure 88, the applicant shall deposit with the City $20,000, to be used by the City for a traffic study or studies by city staff or by a traffic consultant or consultants selected by the City, which study or studies will create an "existing conditions database" describing traffic conditions existing prior to the project and $50,000, to be used by the City for an additional traffic study or studies by City staff or by a traffic consultant or consultants selected by the City, which study or studies will identify traffic impacts in the Neighborhoods, if any, attributable to Phase I of the development. Finally, as stipulated in the Development Agreement, the applicant shall also deposit with the City an additional $50,000, to be used by the City for an additional traffic study or studies by City staff or by a traffic consnltant or consultants selected by the City, which study will identify additional traffic impacts in the Neighborhoods, if any, attribntable to development occurring during Phase Il of the development. Jkl3/S:11340001 MM A-40 377 91. (25) Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for either the second office building in Phase I1 of the development or for a hotel, whichever comes first, the applicant shall also deposit an additional $650,000 (as the remainder of its total $750,000 commitment for the cost of mitigation measures) with the City, to be used solely to fund mitigation measures which have been identified in any traffic study or studies pursuant to Mitigation Measure 88. Of the total $750,000, $250,000 may be used for traffic mitigation measures located in either the City of Santa Ana or the City of Orange, and the balance of the total shall be used solely for mitigation measures located in the City of Santa Aha. Any mitigation measures to be funded by the applicant shall be approved by the City of Santa Ana, if located in said City, or by the City of Orange, if located in said City. Each city shall have complete discretion to determine whether a measure within its jurisdiction has adequate resident support and is otherwise warranted. Any measure shall be selected and approved no later than 10 years following the completion of Phase II of the project or the end of the term specified in the Development Agreement, whichever first occurs. Timing of Implementation/Verification Upon issuance of Phase I Certificate of Occupancy and prior to issuance of the second building permit in Phase Il Method of Verification Development Agreement Reanonsible Parties Engineering Services Manager, Development Engineering Division, City of Santa Aha To assure use of onsite parking as intended, the project CC&Rs will require that all commercial tenants' leases specify that employees must park onsite at the Main Street Concourse. In addition, the property manager will require that parking personnel patrol adjoining properties on a daily basis to enforce such provisions. This daily patrol will be performed by a uniformed parking employee driving a utility vehicle that will be signed to identify it as part of the Main Street Concourse Management. The areas to be patrolled will be marked on a grid map of the streets surrounding Main Street Concourse and will include Main Place along Main Street, surrounding residential, and other appropriate areas. The appearance of a patrol is a deterrent to offsite parking. The patrol will operate as follows to bring additional emphasis to the need for proper parking: ~B3/S:I 1340001 .MM A-41 92. (I) a. To be in operation during the hours of 6:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. The patrol will watch for cars that park offsite and whose occupant (parker) walks toward Main Street Concourse. The patrol will record license plate number and description of the car on a form. The patrolman will report the license plate number to the project TDM manager, who will keep a record of all employees license plate numbers. The project TDM manager will issue a strong warning to the.tenant (employer of the parking violator) if the offsite parking violation is a first offense. If there are subsequent violations by the same tenant's employees, the tenant will be fined $15 per occurrence, which will be defined in the tenant lease agreement and secured by the tenant's rental deposit. A separate account would be managed by the onsite coordinator for TDM uses. The telephone number of the TDM manager will be available to neighborhood residents to report suspect cars parked by project employees. This will trigger the same patrol check with a subsequent warning or fine. If the area residents desire a permit parking program, in accordance with City code requirements, the City will initiate a permit program in the neighborhood, at the applicant's expense. Timing of Implementation/Verification Upon operation of Phase I Method of Verification Written confirmation; CC&Rs Resoonsible Parties Property Manager, Main Street Concourse; Case Planner, Planning Division; Engineering Services Manager The Parker Street area will be included in future neighborhood traffic impact studies subsequent to completion of Phases I and II of the project. ) Timing of Implementation/Verification Upon issuance of Phase I & Il Certificate of Occupancy Method of Verification Specified traffic report Responsible Parties Engineering Services Manager, Development Engineering Division; Cities of Santa Aha and Orange IB3/S:11340001 .MM A-42 PARKING 93. (1) 94. (2) 95. (3) The applicant shall provide Phase I1 parking to City code requirements. Twenty percent shared parking reduction for Phase Il, if supported by City staff and confirmed by a shared parking analysis, may be approved by variance. Timing of Implementation/Verification Plan check Method of Verification Plan review R. esponsible Parties Case Planner and Environmental Coordinator, Planning Division; City of Santa Ana Planning Commission and City Council Entrances to, and vertical clearances within, parking structures shall have a minimum vertical clearance of 8 feet, 2 inches to accommodate vanpools. Timing of Implementation/Verification Plan check/construction Method of Verification Review/inspection .R. esponsible Parties Senior Plan Check Engineer, Building Division The proposed Phase Il parking reduction shall not be greater than 20 percent of the required nonresidential parking. Further examination of the parking requirements may be allowed upon application by the applicant to the City accompanied by a parking demand study of an occupied Phase I. Upon application, the parking requirement may be adjusted up or down by the Planning Commission as a condition of Phase II bnilding permits. Timing of Implementation/Verification Plan check; Phase Il building permit application [ylethod of Verification Plan check review Responsible Parties Case Planner, Planning Division; Engineering Services Manager, Development Engineering Division 379 0 0 0 $B3/S:11340001 .MM A-43 96. (4) 97. (5) 98. (6) The Property Management General Manager and the Manager of Parking Operatibns will ensure that residents, employees, and visitors to Main Street Concourse will not use the parking facilities at nearby properties with uncontrolled parking. If illegal parking becomes a problem, signs shall be poste, d at the property being impacted stating who is allowed to park and the penalty for illegal parking. This will require an agreement between the property managers of the Main Street Concourse and adjacent affected properties, to facilitate the posting of signs and towing on private property. Timin~ of Imnlementation/Verification Prior to operation of Phase l, at least twice per calendar year Method of Verification Development Agreement, visual inspection; written verification provided by project owner report; and hotline posting Responsible Parties Project Owner, Case Planner, Planning Department; Engineering Services Manager, Development Engineering Division The manager of parking operations shall clearly post parking rates which shall be visible to a vehicle prior to entry. Timing of Implementation/Verification In sign program; Prior to operation of Phase I Method of Verification Onsite Inspection Responsible Parties Case Planner, Planning Division; Development Engineering Division A 6-minute grace period shall be provided to allow a car that has entered the garage by mistake to turn around and exit without any payment. Timing of Implementation/Verification Prior to operation of Phase [ Method of Verification Parking operator's contract; CC&Rs Responsible Parties Case Planner; Engineering Division; Manager Parking Operations JB3/S:I 1340001 .MM A-44 99. (7) lOO. (8) 101. (9) '381 Upon operation of Phase I, a comprehensive validation program will be instituted by the property management and the manager of parking operations. Timing of Imolem_e_ntation/Verification Prior to operation of Phase I Method of Verification Parking operator's contract; CC&Rs Responsible Parries Case Planner; Engineering Division; Property Manager and Manager of Parking Operations A 2-hour free validated parking period shall be provided to retail visitors. Timing of Implementation/Verification Method of Verification Prior to operation of Phase I Parking operator's contract; CC&Rs Responsible Parties Case Planner; Engineering Division; Manager Parking Operations All parking areas shall have 90 degree stalls with two-way traffic on all drive aisles. Timing of Implementation/Verification Method of Verification Responsible Parties Plan check, prior to issuance of building permit Review of working drawings and inspection Case Planner, Planning Division JBMS:II3400OlMM A-43 102. (10) 103. (11) 104. (12) 105. (13) Level 1, level 2, and sub-level I in Phase I and" Phase II of the garage shall be designated for visitor parking Timing of Implemedtati0n/Verifiq:ation Method of Verification Resvonsible Parties Plan check, prior to issuance of occupancy for Phase I and Phase II Review Case Planner, Planning Division Monthly parking spaces shall be located on Sublevel 2, and Level 3, and above. Timing of Imvlementation/Verificati0n Method of Verification Responsible Parties Plan check, prior to issuance of occupancy for Phase I and Phase Il Review and inspection Case Planner, Planning Division Timing of Implementation/Verification Method of Verification Responsible Parties Each entry/exit will have closed circuit network coverage, and each parking lane drive will have a security gate. Prior to operation Inspection Case Planner; Building Inspection and Engineering Services Manager, Development Engineering Division Each entry lane will have a bypass key (knox box) to allow entry by emergency vehicles. Timing of Implementation/Verification Method of Verification Responsible Parties Prior to operation Inspection Supervisor of Building Division Inspections, JB3/S:I 1340001 .MM A-46 106. (14) 107. (15) 108. (16) 109. (17) All monthly parking shall be via keycard. Timing of Implementation/Verification Method of Verification Responsible Parties Prior to operation Inspection; plan check review; operations plan; CC&Rs Case Planner; Engineering Services; Supervisor of Inspections, Building Division All visitor parking shall be controlled with a machine-issued ticket. Timin~ of Implementation/Verification Prior to operation Method of Verification Inspection; plan check review; operations plan; CC&Rs Responsible Parties Case Planner; Engineering Services; Supervisor of Inspections, Building Division All residential parking entry shall be via radio wave units, issued to residences. Inter- coms and instructions shall be installed at all residential gates to allow visitors to contact residents. Timing of Implementation/Verification Prior to operation Method of Verification Inspection; plan check review; operations plan; CC&Rs Responsible Parties Case Planner; Engineering Services; Supervisor of Inspections, Building Division Intercom units will be provided at pedestrian gates to allow visitors who park in visitor spaces located outside the security gates to contact residents for entries. Timing of Implementation/Verification Method of Verification Responsible Parties Prior to operation Inspection; plan check review; operations plan; CC&Rs Case Planner; Engineering Services; Supervisor of Inspections, Building Division 383 IR3/S:11340001 .MM A-47 IlO. (18) 111. (19) 112. (20) Timing of Implementation/Verification Method of Verification Responsible Parties Residential parking shall be separated from parking for other uses with fencing. Fencing materials shall be as identified in the specifications. Plan check Plan check review; inspection Case Planner, Planning Division; and Senior Plan Check Engineer, Building Division Residential visitors shall be provided a separate entry and exit in Phase I & II and a separate parking area that is clearly identified and defined. Timin~ of Implementation/Verification Method of Verification Responsible Parties Plan check, prior to operation in Phase ! & Il Plan Check Review Case Planner, Building Division All parking spaces for the high-rise residential shall be numbered and assigned to residences. Timing of Implementation/Verification Plan check and construction prior to operation of Phases I & II Method of Verification Plan Check Review/CC&R's/Inspectio n Responsible Parties Senior Plan Check Engineer, Building Division; Inspector J B3/S: I 1340001 .MM A-48 113. (21) 114. (22) All peak-hour traffic events planned at Main Street Concourse shall require a land use permit, and shall be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Traffic entering ,rom Owens at Concourse would be directed down to Sub-Level I, initially, separating traffic to side aisles to reduce congestion in any one place. Traffic would be directed down to sublevel 2 after Sub-Level I is filled. Main Street traffic will enter on Sub-Level 1. Traffic directors will separate traffic, immediately sending half down to Sub-Level 2 and half to remain on Sub- Level 1. Traffic entering from Lawson will be split between Level I and the rest sent up to Level 2 and above. Timin~ of Imnlementation/Verification Prior to major events Method of Verification Inspection; CC&Rs; Parking Operations Plan; Specific Development Agreement Responsible Parties Police Department; Property Manager; Case Planner, Planning Division; Engineering Services Manager, Development Engineering Division Traffic directors must remain in evidence throughout the garage during peak events so people may be directed to elevators and escalators after they park. Individual parking shall be broken up so entering cars are taken out of the stream and sent up parking aisles in groups of two or three vehicles. Timing of Implementation/Verification Prior to operation Method of Verification CC&Rs; Parking Operations Plan Responsible Parties Property Manager; Case Planner, Planning Division; Engineering Services Manager, Development Engineering Division 385 JB3/S: I 134000l .MM A-49 115. (23) Il6. (24) All circulation and parking operational procedures for the entire project, including but not limited to the bollards, security gates, loading zones, reverse traffic lanes, parking management, valet, and trash pick-up shall be maintained by the project management and included by reference in the CC&Rs. Timing, of Imolementation/Verdication Include in CC&Rs Method of Verification Review/CC&Rs Responsible Parties Property Manager, Case Planner, Planning Division; Engineering Services Manager, Development Engineering Division When Main Street Concourse is operating only Phase 1, The Concourse Drive connecting with Owens Drive and Main Street shall be set up with bollards to prohibit through traffic during the evening peak hours of 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. or for such time period as best suits the needs for traffic control in the area of Main Street Concourse. During special events, a temporary sign will be put out with the bollards that states "no through traffic." The property management department of Main Street Concourse shall be responsible for interfacing with the traffic control of the City of Santa Ana and, subsequently, ordering the parking company when to put out and take in the bollards. Timin~ of Imnlementation/Verification During Phase I operation every 6 months and special events Method of Verification Inspection Responsible Parties Property Manager; Environmental Consultant; Engineering Services Manager, Development Engineering Division; and Police Department JB3/S: I 1340001 .MM A-50 117. (25) 118. (26) Per the Operation Plan and the City of Santa Ana, the Concourse Road, which carries traffic from Owens Drive to the Main Street intersection, will be restricted by bollards at two points. The first set of bollards will force all traffic to drive into the loop to access valet parking. The second point will prevent all traffic from continuing on to the Main Street intersection. All traffic coming out of the loop will be required to turn left to the Owens exit from Main Street Concourse. Timing of Implementation/Verification Plan check Method of Verification Review; CC&Rs; Inspection Responsible Parties Senior Plan Check Engineer, Building Division; and Case Planner, Planning Division; Engineering Services Manager; applicant responsible for bollarding Two valet operations shall be located at the semi-circular driveway on the east side of the Grand Roadway between the Phase I office tower and the hotel. This driveway will be one-way traffic, entering off the Concourse in front of the hotel and following the semi-circular driveway to the following stations or features: · Hotel valet station · Valet only entry/exit ramp to sublevel 1 · Valet station for office/restaurant · Stop sign at exit of Valet loop Timing of Implementation/Verification Plan check Review; CC&Rs Property Manager, Senior Plan Check Engineer, Building Division; and Case Planner, Planning Division; Engineering Services Manager, Development Engineering Division Method of Verification Responsible Parties JB3/S:11340001 .MM A-51 119, (27) 120. (28) 121. (29) Carefully worded signing shall mark the guest entry and explain that a token must be used for exit. The tenant shall give their guest a token to exit the guest parking via a token machine and barrier gate. This will place all guest cars in the secure area to guard against auto theft. Timing of Implementation/Verification Prior to operation; plan check Method of Verification. Inspection; sign program; plan check Responsible Parties Engineering Services Manager, Development Engineering Division; Case Planner, Planning Division; Building Division The exit to Owens Drive shall have a sequencer that will meter the lanes so that only one car can exit at a time. This will allow existing traffic to merge prior to entering the Owens traffic flow. Timing of Imnlementation/Verificafion Prior to operation of Phase II Method of Verification Inspection/Parking Operations Plan Responsible Parties Engineering Services Manager, Development Engineering Division; and Supervisor of Inspections, Building Division The overnight hotel guest parking area shall occupy a fenced portion of sublevel 2. It is anticipated that hotel guests shall use valet parking. Rolling security gates, clicker controlled, will be activated by the valet attendant. This area shall have increased lighting and may have additional security measures if it is determined that the fencing and secure access is not satisfactory. Closed-circuit television coverage is planned. Timing of Implementation/Verification Prior to operation of Phase 11 Method of Verification Inspection/Operations Plan Responsible Parties Property Manager; Police; Supervisor of Inspections, Building Division; and Case Planner, Planning Division JB3/S:11340001 .MM A-52 389 PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION 122. (1) Pedestrian pathways shall be physically separated by curb and gutter from motor vehicle driveways. This shall prevent vehicular traffic from conflicting ,with pedestrian traffic. Timing of Implementation/Verification Plan check Method of Verification Plan Check Review and Inspection Responsible Parties Case Planner, Planning Division; Engineering Services Manager, Development Engineering Division; Senior Plan Check Engineer, Building Division 123. (2) Pedestrian circulation shall be reviewed by the City again when major developments, including the fixed guideway mass transit systems, are planned or implemented. Timin£ of Implementation/Verification As needed Method of Verification Plan Check Review/inspection Responsible Parties Case Planner, Planning Division; Engineering Services Manager, Development Engineering Division /B3/S:11340001 .MM A-53 390 PUBLIC SERVICES FIRE PROTECTION 124. (1) Prior to the certification of occupancy, the applicant shall pay the required fire facilities fees and shall complete required fire inspections throughout project construction. Timing of Implementation/Verification Method of Verification Responsibl~ Parties 125. (2) 126. (3) Prior to certificate of occupancy issuance for Phase I Written memo with copy of · canceled check Fire Department, project applicant The project shall comply with all Fire Department requirements regarding project design and construction, including the Standard Requirements for New High Rise Buildings. Project design features that will help to reduce the impact on fire protection services that have been incorporated into the proposed project include the following: · Automatic fire sprinklers and stand-pipes. · Smoke detectors and alarm systems. · Smoke management system. · High rise life safety systems · Emergency helicopter landing pad on high rise roof. Timing of Implementation/Verification Method of Verification Responsible Parties Plan check Review Senior Plan Check Engineer, Building Division; and Fire Department Fire access lanes shall be posted "no stopping/fire lane" and restricted to fire apparatus only and shall not be used to meet other parking, loading, or staging needs. Timing of Implementation/Verification Plan check; construction Method of Verification Review and inspection Responsible Parties Senior Plan Check Engineer and Supervisor of Inspections, Building Division; and Fire Department JB3/S:11340001 .MM A-54 391 127. (4) 128. (5) 129. (6) Mechanical smoke removal system shall be provided in all subterrgnean parking structures and high-rise buildings. Timin~ of Imolementation/Verifigation Method of Verification Responsible Parties Plan check; construction Review and inspection Senior Plan Check Engineer and Supervisor of Inspections, Building Division; and Fire Department All buildings in excess of 14 stories shall be provided with an emergency helicopter pad. Timing of Implementation/Verification Method of Verification Responsible Parties Annual emergency drills shall be conducted and Department to maintain emergency preparedness at Timing of Implementation/Verification Method of Verification Responsible Parties Plan check; construction Review and inspection Supervisor of Inspections and Senior Plan Check Engineer, Building Division, Case Planner, Planning Division, Fire Department may be supervised by the Fire all times. Annually Report initialed by Fire Department Planning Division; Fire Department JB3/S:I 1340001 .MM A-55 392 130. The applicant shall provide a minimum of one Deputy Fire Inspector, approved by the City of Santa Aha Fire Department, as an onsite Fire Inspector for construction phase of the project. Such inspector shall be available from the beginning of construction of the first building through final sign-off on the last shell structure for the last tenant improvement space, and the applicant shall provide the funds to cover the cost of: · Fire facilities fees based on square footage. One-half of the cost of a Fire Safety Analyst for the period beginning with the first building plant submittal and extending through the last Certificate of Occupancy issued on last tenant improvement space. One-half of the cost of a Fire Safety Specialist for the time of the first fire inspection through last Certificate of Occupancy issued on the last tenant improvement space. · Man days each year for a fire inspector based on the following schedule: Stories Inspector Days 1-5 1 6-10 2 11-15 3 16-20 4 21-25 5 26-30 6 31-35 7 Timing of Implementation Concurrent with issuance of Phase I building permit Method of Verification Field inspection and written verification from project applicant Responsible Parties Fire Department; Case Planner; Project Applicant POLICE PROTECTION 131. (I) Street and project lighting shall be provided per Santa Ana Police Department, and Planning and Public Works Agency standards. Timing of Implementation/Verification Plan cheek; construction Method of Verification Review and inspection Responsible Parties Engineering Services Manager, Development Engineering Division; Case Planner, Planning Division; Police Department; Sul)ervisor of Inspections and Senior Plan Check Engineer, Building Division. IB3/S:1134000l .MM A-56 393 132. (2) 133. (3) 134. (4) 35. (5) All main entry ways to the residential units ghall be properly illuminated. Timing of Implementation/Verification Method of Verification Responsible Parties Plan check; construction Review and inspection Case Planner, Planning Division; Police Department; Supervisor of Inspections and Senior Plan Check Engineer, Building Division The Security Plan submitted to, and approved by, the police department shall be adhered to. A copy of the plan is provided in Appendix K of the RDEIR. Timing of Implementation/Verification Method of Verification Responsible Parties Plan check; periodic operation inspection after certificate of occupancy Review and inspection Police Department; Environmental Consultant The Santa Aha Police Department will be involved with the planning process at the earliest stages. Timing of Implementation/Verification Method of Verification Responsible Parties Plan check Review Case Planner, Planning Division; Police Department Glass store fronts with open visibility shall be used thronghout the project in all pedes- trian corridor areas. Timing of Implementation/Verification Method of Verification Responsible Parties Plan check Review Case Planner, Planning Division; Police Department JB3/S:11340001 .MM A-57 394 SCHOOLS 136. (1) The applicant shall pay school impact fees to the Orange Unified School District and Santa Ana Unified School District to cover costs for the impacts from the proposed project. An acceptable negotiated agreement shall be reached prior to project approval. Timim, of lmnlementation/Verification Concurrent with issuance of Building Permits for Phase I and II Method of Verification Written report summarizing agreement and copy of canceled check Responsible Parties Case Planner and Environmental Coordinator, Planning Division; Orange Unified School District; Santa Ana Unified School District SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL 137. (1) All residential waste collected shall be transported to transfer/recycling centers by the City's trash service provider . Office and retail tenants shall be provided with information on starting office waste paper recycling programs. White paper will be sorted in offices onsite. Separate pick-up of office and computer paper will be provi- ded by the leasing management to those who participate. Timing of Implementation/Verification Within 6 months of occupation Method of Verification Written report Responsible Parties Engineering Services Manager, Development Engineering Division; Administrative Services; and Great Western Waste 138. (2) The project shall comply with the City's source reduction program when adopted. Timing of Implementation/Verification As stipulated in the program; ongoing Method of Verification As stipulated in the program Responsible Parties Environmental Consultant; Enterprise Manager, Administrative Services; Public Works Agency JB3/S:I t 340L~ 1 .MM A-58 395 139. (3) At the direction of the City of Santa Ana, (per written correspondence between the City of Santa Aha and the project applicant of October 11, 1991 and October 30, 1991) a covenant outlining a trash pick-up operation plan, shall be inclnded in the project's CC&Rs and recorded against the property which will define the residential trash pick- up for the condominiums as a two-staged process. The covenant shall clearly specify that the residential trash pick-up for the condominiums is a two-staged process. The first stage being carried out by a cart, bin, and driver system whereby each unit's trash area is generally accessed by the driver; and refi~se then carted to a general collection point at either the high rise residential tower area or health club trash area for consolidation and pick up by the City's trash service provider. The second stage is when City trash service provider collects the trash at the collection points throughout the project for removal to, and disposal to a local landfill or transfer station. The covenant shall clearly state that under no circumstances can the first stage trash pick up service be aborted. It may be carried out by others for a fee but never eliminated. The two-staged system for addressing the method of trash pick up for the condominiums cannot be appealed to City Council and/or Planning Commission. Timing of Implementation/Verification Included in CC&Rs Method of Verification Review CC&Rs and inspection; review of above referenced correspondence on file with the City Responsible Parties Case Planner, Planning Division; Engineering Services Manager, Development Engineering Division; Homeowners' Association H~3/S:113400OI MM A-59 40. (5) 141. (6) 142. (7) Circulation operational procedures, including trash pick-up, shall be maintained by the project management and included in the CC&Rs. Timing of Imolementation/Verification Included in CC&Rs Method of Verification Review CC&Rs; and inspection Responsible Parties Case Planner, Planning Division; Engineering Services Manager, Development Engineering Division All landscape wastes shall be composted by landscaping personnel offsite, or transported to a compost facility. Timing of Implementation/Verification Review of landscape maintenance disposal records prior to issuance of Phase Il Certificate of Occupancy Method of Verification Written report with copies of receipts Responsible Parties Case Planner; Landscape Associate; and Environmental Coordinator, Planning Division In order to facilitate asphalt recycling, the site shall accommodate an asphalt croshing facility and pavement material storage area during the widening and realignment of Owens Avenue. Pavement material taken from the roadways shall be crushed and stored onsite for reuse on the new roadways. If Main Street is widened during the same time period, materials from that effort shall also be removed, crushed, and reused. The facility shall be located in the central or western third of the project site along Owens Drive to avoid noise and dust impacts on the senior center across Lawson Way and Town and Country Center north of the project site. Plans and proposed accessways shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Santa Aha as part of the Owens Drive realignment program. Timing of Implementation/Verification Plan check; roadway improvement construction Method of Verification Inspection Responsible Parties Engineering Services Manager, Development Engineering Division; Case Planner and Environmental Coordinator, Planning Division, Orange County Sanitation District JB3/S:II340001.MM A-60 397 143. (8) The proposed project will comply with all City ordinances pertaining to waste minimization and recycling. Timin~ of Implementation/Verification Quarterly Me,hod of Verification Environmental Consultant to monitor Responsible Parties Environmental Coordinator, Planning Division; and Enterprise Manager, Administrative Services ~1B3/S: I 1340001 .MM A-6 1 PUBLIC UTILITIES ELECTRICITY 144. (1) The applicant shall submit electrical plans to SCE and coordinate with SCE any system modifications that may be needed to serve the project. Timing of Implementation/Verification Plan check Method of Verification Review Responsible Parties Case Planner, Planning Division; Senior Plan Check Engineer, Building Division; and Engineering Services Manager, Development Engineering Division 145. (2) The applicant shall coordinate with Southern California Edison to incorporate energy savings programs into the construction and operation of the Main Street Concourse project. Incorporation of these programs and energy savings technologies in the design and operation of the project will contribute to overall regional reduction in long-term energy needs. Timing of Implementation/Verification Plan check Method of Verification Review Responsible Parties Environmental Coordinator, and Case Planner, Planning Division; Senior Plan Check Engineer, Building Division; and Engineering Services Manager, Development Engineering Division NATURAL GAS 146. (1) The project shall be required to meet the energy building regulations adopted by the California Energy Commission (Title 24) and the City as part of the building permit procedure. Timing of Implementation/Verification Plan check Method of Verification Review Responsible Parties Case Planner, Planning Division; and Engineering Services Manager, Development Engineering Division JB3/S:11340001 .MM A-62 399 COMMUNICATION SERVICES - TELEPHONE 47. The project developer shall be required to pay cable provider for its fair-share of the necessary telephone improvements, including a main conduit structured to bring lines to the site. Coordination with Pacific Bell during the development stage will facilitate telephone service connection. Timing, of Implementation/Verification Plan check; construction Method of Verification Review Responsible Parties Engineering Services Manager, Development Engineering Division; Pacific Bell; cable provider JB3/S:II340001.MM A-63 4OO WATER 148. (1) Use of all available water conservation techniques in plumbing and landscaping is highly advisable. The project shall meet the following standards. Plumbing, a. Health and Safety Code (Section 17921.3) requiring installation of low flow toilets and showerheads. b. Title 20 of the California Administrative Code requiring efficient showerheads, lavatory faucets, and sink faucets. c. Government Code (Section 7800) specifies laboratories in public facilities be equipped with self-closing faucets. d. Water pressure within the proposed buildings shall be maintained at 50 psi or less. e. Recirculating hot water systems shall be installed to minimize water consumption. f. Plumbing fixtures that reduce the potential water leakage due to excessive wear of washers shall be installed. g. Water-conserving models of dish washers shall be used in the restaurant. h. Low water-using plants shall be used for landscaping. i. Setting automatic sprinkler systems to irrigate during early morning or evening hours shall be implemented. j. Use of efficient irrigation systems which minimize run-off and evaporation shall be used. k. grouped together to reduce over- Plants with similar water requirements shall be irrigation. Timing of Implementation/Verification Method of Verification Responsible Parties Plan check; during construction Review and inspection Engineering Services Manager, Development Engineering Division; Case Planner, Planning Division; Water Resources Manager, Water Resources Division; Building Division J B3/S: I 1340001 .MM A-64 149. WASTEWATER 150. (2) t5 . (3) When available, the Main Street Concourse project shall utilize reclaimed water for onsite project landscaping. Timing of Implementation/Verificgtion Method of Verification Resp0ns ble Parties Plan check; during construction Review and inspection Environmental Coordinator, Planning Division; Engineering Services Manager, Development Engineering Division; Water Resources Manager, Public Works Agency Water conserving and low-flow fixtures shall be installed as provided for by existing statutes and building and water codes. Timing of Implementation/Verification Plan check; construction Method of Verifica, tion Review and inspection Responsible Parties Supervisor of Inspections and Senior Plan Check Engineer, Building Division Orange County Sanitation Districts (OCSD) is planning for the construction of a Memory Lane sewer interceptor that will relieve regional sewer capacity needs. The sewer will be a joint venture between the OCSD, City of Santa Ana, and City of Orange. The interceptor is planned to be in place by December 1992, prior to the development of the project. The applicant shall pay a fair share contribution for these sewer improvements no later than May 8, 1992, or 7 days after entitlement is granted, whichever occurs first. Timing of Imnlementation/Verification As stipulated Method of Verification Written memo and copy of canceled check Responsible Parties Environmental Coordinator, Planning Division; Engineering Services Manager, Development Engineering Division 401 JB3/S:I 1340001 .MM A-65 152. (4) Orange County Sanitation Districts (OCSD) is expanding its capacity to provide reclaimed water suitable for irrigation for certain landscaping and for flushing of toilets. For future requirements and to serve as a regional example, the proposed project design shall include dual piping for future connection to the reclaimed water system for at least the office and commercial portion of the project. Timine of Imolementation/Verification Plan check; construction Method of Verification Review and inspection Responsible Parties Engineering Services Manager, Development Engineering Division; Case Planner and Environmental Coordinator, Planning Division; Water Resources manager, Public Works Agency J B3/S:I 1340OO1 .MM A-66 AESTHETICS 153. (1) A landscaping plan for the project must be approved by the Planning Division prior to 54. (2) project implementation. Timing of Implementation/Verification Method of Verification Responsible Parties Plan check Plan check review Landscape Associate, Case Planner, and Environmental Coordinator, Planning Division Aesthetic design features shall be integrated into architectural plans to make it compatible with the surrounding environment, and to add visual interest to structures. 155. (3) 156. (4) 157. (5) Timing of Implementation/Verification Method of Verification Responsible Parties Plan check Plan Check review/Inspection Case Planner, Planning Division Landscape, accent, and safety lighting shall be Iow-level, with appropriate brightness matched to use to minimize glare. (See MMP Nos. 42-46 and MMP Nos. 130-134) Timing of Implementation/Verification Method of Verification Responsible Parties Plan check Plan Cbeck Review/Inspection Case Planner, Landscape Associate, Planning Division All roof and mechanical eqnipment, garbage dumpsters, and other equipment shall be screened from view by design. Timing of Implementation/Verification Method of Verification Responsible Parties Plan check Plan Check Review/Inspection Case Planner and Environmental Coordinator, Planning Division The proposed project will be subject to a review by the City of Santa Ana Planning Division to ensure the City's design goals and objectives are met. Timing of Implementation/Verification Method of Verification Responsihle Parties Plan check; construction Plan Check Review/Inspection Case Planner, Phmning Division 403 1B3/S: t 1340001 .MM A-67 404 RECREATION 158. (l) Total payments in the sum of $3,230,000 shall be made to the City by the applicant for the improvement and provision of facilities in Santiago Park. Citywide acquisition and development fees shall also be paid by the applicant. Timing of Implementation/Verification Prior to issuance of building permits for Phase 1 and Phase II Method of Verification Written memo and copy of canceled check Responsible Parties Case Planner and Environmental Coordinator, Planning Division; Recreation and Community Services Agency IB31S:113400OI .MM A-68 405 CULTURAL RESOURCES 159. (1) A qualified archaeologist shall be onsite or available on short notice to review soil samples and excavation logs. Archaeologic impact, if found during development, shall be mitigated by the stipulations of Appendix K of CEQA guidelines as follows: In general, buried remains which go undetected during a surface survey could be encountered during the development. If evidence of archaeological resources is encountered during project grading, all grading and related activity shall cease in the area of the find and a qualified archaeologist will be consulted to assess the significance of the resource and to recommend appropriate protection measures. If requested by the Native American Heritage Commission, the applicant will meet with and make arrangements for a Native American observer together with an archaeologist to be present onsite during grading operations as recommended by the State Native American Heritage Commission. If human remains of possible Native American origin are encountered during the project, the Orange County coroner's office and the Native American Heritage Commission will be contacted for preservation and protection of the remains, per the California Native Commission pamphlet in Appendix F of the RDEIR. Timing of Implementation/Verification During excavation and Phases I and II of construction Method of Verification Documentation in the boring log; special surveys if needed I,tespousible Parties Supervisor of Inspections, Building Division; Environmental Coordinator, Planning Division IB3/S:II340001.MM A-69 ATTACHMENT B MAIN STREET CONCOURSE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM SAMPLE COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION FORM Mitigation Measure: # Location: Impact Issue: Onsite Project Phase: Design Description of Activity/Method of Implementation: Offsite Construction (Earth, Water, Traffic, etc.) Administrative Operation Disposition: Comments/Revisions: Mitigation measure for the above-noted project phase implemented. No further action is required. Mitigation measure for the above-noted project phase is not fully implemented. Further action required. (please explain below) The mitigation measure for the above-noted project phase is not in compliance. Further action required. (please explain below) Completed by: Name: Title: Date: Approved by: Name: Title: Date: 11340001 ,MM B-I