The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2009-034 (2) - Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for Fairhaven/LincolnRESOLUTION 2009 -034 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA CERTIFYING THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR FAIRHAVEN /LINCOLN AND SANTA CLARA/LINCOLN INTERSECTION MODIFICATIONS, SUPPLEMENT TO THE SANTA ANA SECOND MAIN TRACK ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines and declares as follows: A. As part of the proposal to construct a second track to replace the single track from the north city limits to Santa Ana Boulevard (the "Double Track project "), an Environmental Impact Report ( "EIR ") was prepared and certified. After certification, it was determined that the intersection of Fairhaven and the new Double Track could require additional safety enhancements. Additional environmental review was conducted covering the proposal to close the intersection of Fairhaven and Lincoln for the foreseeable future ( "the Project "). B. Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study for the additional environmental review necessary to consider the Project was released fora 30 -day public review period from January 27, 2009 to February 26, 2009. C. A Draft Supplement to an Environmental Impact Report ( "DSEIR "), attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and by this reference incorporated herein, for the Project (State Clearinghouse #2008101006) was prepared and circulated on March 6, 2009 for a shortened 30 -day public review period pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") as amended (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et. seq. D. Notice was provided to the public, government agencies and all other interested parties that they may submit written comments on the NOP and DSEI R to the City. E. A Final Supplement to an Environmental Impact Report ( "FSEIR "), attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and by this reference incorporated herein, for the Project has been prepared in accordance with CEQA as amended (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et. seq.) and incorporates the DSEIR with changes and revisions thereto, Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 1 of 130 comments received on the DSEIR, a list of persons, organizations and public agencies that commented on the DSEIR, and the written responses to comments. F. No significant environmental impacts were identified in the DSEIR or the FSEIR, pursuant to Sections 15091 and 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines and Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code, no written findings for alternatives and significant environmental impacts are required. G. No mitigation measures were required to reduce or avoid significant environmental impacts of the Project, and for this reason no Mitigation and Monitoring Program is required pursuant to Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code. H. The City Council has reviewed the FSEIR and accompanying attachments. 1. An Initial Study, DSEIR, and FSEIR have been prepared, advertised, and circulated for public comment pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 2. The City Council has reviewed and considered the environmental documentation and information included in the staff report prior to certifying the FSEIR in Exhibit "B" hereto, and finds and determines that the FSEIR fully addresses the potential environmental impacts, and that the document reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. Section 3. The City Council hereby certifies the FSEIR for the Project incorporated in this Resolution by reference, based on the information and findings presented in the staff report, supporting exhibits and attachments, and the following: A. The FSEIR for the Project has been prepared in compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines; and B. The information contained in the FSEIR for the Project provides an adequate assessment of the potentially significant impacts incurred by the Project. Section 4. The City Council declares that should any provision, section, paragraph, sentence, or word of this Resolution be rendered or declared invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences and words of this Resolution shall remain in full force and effect. Section 5. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the Clerk of the Council shall attest to and certify the vote adopting this Resolution. Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 2 of 130 \r ADOPTED this 6th day of July, 2009. APPROVED AS TO FORM: Joseph W. Fletcher, City Attorney City Attorney AYES: Councilmembers: Alvarez Benavides Bustamante, Martinez, Pulido. Tinaiero (6) NOES: Councilmembers: None (0) ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: None (0) NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers: Sarmiento (1) CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, PATRICIA E. HEALY, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2009 -034 to be the original resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on July 6, 2009. Date: o Clerk of the Council City of Santa Ana Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 3 of 130 Attachments: Exhibit A -Draft Fairhaven /Lincoln and Santa Clara/ Lincoln Intersection Modifications, Supplement to the Santa Ana Second Main Track Environmental Impact Report (2000091065). SCH #2008101006. March 2009 Exhibit B -Final Fairhaven /Lincoln and Santa Clara/ Lincoln Intersection Modifications, Supplement to the Santa Ana Second Main Track Environmental Impact Report (2000091065). SCH #2008101006. April 2009 NOTE: Exhibit A, Appendices A through E are located on an electronic Compact Disc (CD) and stored in the Clerk of the Council Office in a permanent file. Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 4 of 130 DRAFT FAI HA ENILIN LN AND SANTA C AI LINCOLN INTERSECTION MODIFICATIONS SUPPLEMENT TO THE SANTA ASIA SECOND MAIN TRACK ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (2000 1065) S H CVO. 2008 ? 1 006 9;04�k Cori repare dfor: CITY OF SANTA ANA Contact: David Biondol}llo Senior Transportation Analyst prepared by: THE PLANNING CENTER Contact., JoAnn Hadfield Director, Environmental Services EXHIBIT A MARCH 2O04 Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 5 of 130 DRAFT FA E LI L AND SANTA, CLARAI LINCOLN INTERSECTION MODIFICATIONS SUPPLE ENT TO THE SANTA ANA SECOND MAIN TRACK ENVIRONMENTAL IMPA T REPORT W 1 065) SCH NO. 2008101006 rfo) r ed or.- CITY OF SANTA ANA Civic Center Plaza Contact: Ross Annex M-20 David iondolrll Santa Ana, CA 92702 Sr. Transportation Analyst Tel. 714.667.2726 *Fax.- 714.973.1462 prepared y.- THE PLANNING CENTER 1 560 !Metro Drive Contact: Costa Mesa, CA 92626 JoAnn Hadfield Te #: 714.966.9220 a Fax: 714.966.9221 Director, F- marl: costamesa@planningcenter.com Environmental Services Webslte: www.planningcenter.com ST =. 1 MARCH 2009 Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 6 of 130 Table of Contents Section Page 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . r■... . ��a��4 * #�i�.��■ JA 1.1 INTRODUCTION ar ... ............................... ....... ...... 1 -1 •..•.r•r•r +.. ...�.rarr..•. . *.asrir�.......•.ris• +ry.r.... ,... 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURE ....... 1 -1 1. 2 •1 EIR Format .�...a....rr + +. ........ .�rr..•rr. +..... •..•■ r. +•..... +....�.r•ar +i.i....... ■+. r.....................•.....r...................... r.....•. r.■•......... ......•..•..................... 1-2 -2 1.2.2 Type and Purpose of this EIR ...... r............. .+...•.r.r... r.. ...... +.r..•.r•rr. ..... ..•ar.rr +. .......... .t•.. 1 -3 1.3 PROJECT ...... ......... 1- •� +r..•ar•r• .r•rr..rr. ....•.•rr,.... 1.4 PROJECT BACKGROUND ..........•....•.• ..............•.•.+...............•. r............ ............................1 - 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..... ........•.•..•................. ..... ...... 1- +r..•rrrr�. .•t..r•rr•rtr, .•ar.ar +r.........•..�.r. 1.6 ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED,,.• .............. .... .......+ 1- +•.r.r•. +.r. • +r..•.r..•rr+ . r..• sr •rr +.•.....� *..ar..•rr......�. 1.7 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY ............. • ............. ........ ..... 1 -7 ••••.r..•rr. .•rr.r• +r•.r, ..�.r•.r. +�.......... ■r.r.. 1.8 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND LEVELS O F SIGNIFICANCE A FT E R MITIGATION ............................. ......................•....•.. 1-7 2. INTRODUCTION ....a■ a■ ...*■ 4444600saon nir■* m namemamessom - l 2.1 PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ............... . ........ 2 -1 2.2 NOTICE OF PREPARATION AND INITIAL STUDY .• r........ r. r•. r.. r....... ...•........................... 2 -2 2.3 SCOPE OF THIS DRAFT SEIR ........... r•...rbrt.......... ... ........ �.r..•rr. +rr. +.rrr•rr..•. .�r..ar..r.r,..... .... +� 2 -2 2.3.1 Impacts Considered Less Than Si nifioant. P..• rr ............... r..•.. ................•...........2 -2 2,3.2 Potentially Significant Adverse Impacts .•. r .............. ar........... ....r.............,......•..... 2.3.3 Unavoidable Significant Adverse Irnpacts ..,,....... ,....... .....+ +•..•.r�rt. +.r.r• +r•r. ....ar..•r• 2 -3 + 2 -3 2.4 INCORPORATION R REFERENCE ...................... ........ ...... rr a +ray. .. +rrr.•ar. .�r..rr + +...........•..ar 2_ 2.5 FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION .....•.• ...................•.•. r............•.....+........... .•....................•.•...... 2 -3 2.6 MITIGATION MONITORING............,........- - .. .... • rr. r• r•.....#. r..•ar• r.,.•. .... P... 4 2-4 3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....... a..........* .................. 4........ a...... 4............. ...�.................,......... -1 3.1 PROJECT L �' /�R \TI N ...............•....•............. r.................................... .....................•......... 3-1 3.2 STATEMENT } ENT �.f F OBJECTIVES ........ 40,db . . . . . . . . . I , , 4 0 , N a d 0 1 . b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . d . . . . . . . m 4 r m o b m m , * 6 d 3- 1 3.3 PROJECT B C R o U N D..............•.. .......... srrrr+r.i......... s rrrr.. i.i .......... ..s...... .......... 3-1 3.4 PROJECT C HA RA T E RI TI ................ .a r..• r..........•. r. rt•+r .............•. .•..•rr +.. +....�f.•rr...r...... - 3.4.1 Description of the Project r........... +...•rr a. ....., ........rrrr • ....... ...r.a• +a•. .............. ..•.•. 3 -2 3. 3 INTENDED U E OF THE E I R .... ........ s ,....... ........... •..•rri4P6.......... 4. 3- 3 4. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING .. \.... \....,.i....# .... f .............. ��.......... L......\., . \............ \..�.. \.... \..... -1 4.1 INTRODUCTION .•. r.. ��...... ...... +a.....•srrrar•rr,....... ....... ........... .4�1 //y F �y�j �j� \� •..r.ar..•ari. .•.r•rr.rri. ..tr..•arr.......... 4,2 REGIONAL EN IR 7-{N E■'�•TAL ETTING ......................................... .•............................. 4 -1 4.2.1 Regional RGL� ion I Location iConsiderations . ............... •....... + ............. •.................. •... rrrr •............................. 4-1 4.2.2 Regional Planning ............. rr..•...... r........•.... ............................... 4 -1 4.3 LOCAL E N VI R O N M E N TA L S ETTI N O....... l■ r++ l..........•r.. lrtr rr..........• 1... rr .rtlr........f...lrr..l..rr...• 1 4.3.1 On-Site and Surrounding Land Use rrr...........•.riiry....,.... ............ 4- .....r•rrirtr, ....i..isrrr 4.4 ASSUMPTIONS REGARDING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS.,..........t r. ... . .................... rr.rtrr.....4 -2 5. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ....;.., ................ -1 5.1 AIR , V+ �Lf � 1 r+•+ �+ ri...... �... •rrir•rr. +ii�rrr ............... ........... .......... 5.1-1 •.r•r..r•..r. .ar•rr■ +rr. .•...ar.arr...•.... ,5.1.1 Impacts Identified In 'h Santa Ana Second Main Tracy EIR (2002) ............... 5.1-1 5.1.2 Environmental S e ti n g ......... rrrr• r .........................• r............. .......•...................•... 5.1-1 5.1.3 Thresholds of Significance ...... ................•.............. ........... .1 -1 •�trr.•..•rt. +. ....rtr..•rtrr• . FalrbavenlLincoln end Santa ClaralLincoln Intersection 1odfica ions City of S n a Ana Page i Supplement t° the Santa Aria Second Main Track Project EIR Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 7 of 130 ,Table of Contents Section tion Page 5.1.4 5.1.5 Environmental Impacts.....,........., .... .. .... •... ..... ..... 5.1 -12 rr.r•. .�.r •■•. .r.■•r. .•rr �. .� *�•. +rr.. .. *• Cumulative Impacts ......... r ... • 4 a • a . ..... . P * r i i i . . 5.1 -15 5.1.6 y Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions .. ....6.........6 ................ • ....... P . * r 5d1 1 5.1.7 Level of Significance Before Mitigation ......... .•• . .............. ..r.r............... ■....6 ..... 5.1 -15 5.1.8 Mitigation Measures. .......... 4 ......... d ......... 4 ....... 4--6 ....... ii......... 4...... •1 -1 5.1.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation . ..rr■•r. ..... .r.6.6. ..• •r •a6. ... .•ar.r6. .... •r. .. .a. . * *isri• 5.1- 5.2 NOISE 5.2.1 {J ..r...rr 66.....,.•. r. 6•........ ��•.•■ r6 ...... . r• a6......... r.••.......... r.......■• a......•.•. r.. ...•.a6.....P..4 ......... 4562 -1 Impacts Identified in the Santa Ana Second Main Track EIR (2 002) ......... i ..... 5.2 -1 5.2.2 Environmental Setting ....... d....... 4- ............. .... *•srai... •aria •.. .....rrr•ri....... •..... *•�ri. .L -� 5.2.3 + Thresholds of Significance......,.... .- ........... ......................... d 2 -8 5.2.4 Environmental Impacts • r•.•. r• 6...... r••r r r.....r...........46......... .•......... .2- 5.2.5 Cumulative Impacts........ ........... ................................ 5.2 -11 5.2.5 Existing Regulations ulation and Standard Conditions ... r..• rr......... rrr .,....•.s•.......•.r....5.2 -1 1 5.2.7 Lever of Significance Before Bef r Mitigation., . ..... . *risr, ... . i. ... . * i -1 5.2.8 Mitigation Measurer .................... 4........ r.* s ................. 4- -6.......... i■dd .............. .2 -11 5.269 Level of Significance After Mitigation...,... ................. 6 .................... 4 ........... 4.6.5.2-11 543 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION, ........ P....... rain..** ii• rrir .......rir•i ......... 4....... P .................. 4 r...... 5.3-1 5.3.1 Impacts Identified in the Santa Ana Second Main Track EIR (2002 ) ........rr.•r..5.3 -1 543.2 Environmental Lt Il �g.t•irir •a •..... .. *.• * pis•....... ** •sri......... 4. • ■............ •r......rrr •ii......... •3 -1 5.343 i+ Thresholds of Significance ....... rr....... P-.. r.......... .... ........................... 6.,.... P.... 5.3 -13 5.3.4 Environmental Impacts . ... 66...........•............. r..•■.......... r. s• a...... ...•..•.r........•ar.r..,5.3 -14 5.3.5 Cumulative Impacts . ....... 6,....... r.......- ....... 4 ................... .a......it *.rr. r..... *P *r.rd..... .3 -1 5.3.0 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions .... . 6d ....... 4 ...... 6....................... •3.10 5.8.7 Level of Significance Before Mitigation.. •a6 d. ..... .r. .4..444 • 5.3 -10 5. I . 8 Mitigation MY a u e ..... 1 ...... • . r . r • .... . . • * . • . r . r • a • . ... . * .. r • r r . a . .. , . . * . • . r . ■ r .. . , .... . . * • r r 46 . .. . ... 1 543-17 543.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation ........... 4--6 .............. 46 ............................ 6.5-3-1 7 6. SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES DUE To THE PROPOSED PROJECT ............ -1 7. IMPACTS FOUND NOT To BE SIG NIFI ANTE .. ■■■■■ 7MI . CROMffH -INDUCING IMPACTS of THE PROPOSED PROJECT.... 01 9. ORGANIZATIONS ARID PERSONS CONSULTED............ ■..■a.a......�M 94 10. QUALIFICATIONS of PERSONS PREPARING EIR ■.a..■. ■... gar..■...■.■ a�. +1■a...a�...■. +4 *.�■a.....■a..r 10 1 ■ BIBLloRPHIf ■.■ t�f��....■ �. �..■.. �# ��*.■.. �..■. a..■...*■ ��*...■. �..■.. ��■.. s...■.■ ��■... �. ..■.� *. +.�.■,......■..i + * *■ *..■ � � -1 11.1 REFERENCES ......•.......................................•...■•............■..■......•. r .... ............r..•..•............ 11-1 11.2 WEB SITES ......... r........•...•.•rr ..............•...... r............... a6.................... ....................•.......... 11-2 APPENDICES Notice of Preparation and Initial Study B Notice of Preparation and Initial Study Comments Air Quality Modeling D Noise Modeling E Traffic Impact Analysis Page ai The Planning Center Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 8 of 130 March 2009 List of Figures figure Page Figure 3 -1 •�rir •. •i•rrr.r. .•arir �. .rri■•. .rr•ara. .rrrrr. . Regional Location .. ... .. ... .. .. ... -5 j� Figure 3 r�rr.. ....rrrr. +. * *rrrar....rrraa.... Local Vicinity . . Figure 3 -3 . . . . 4 ..................... • • ...... • ................... • a r i a • + . , . r ..... • ...................... * 4 4 1 0 6. 4 . * i s • o. 3-7 Proposed Fairhaven/Lincoln Intersection ......... ......... ................ 3 -9 Figure 3-4 •.rar...rr•.s.....•.........•.• proposed Lama Clara/Lincoln Intersection., w to b 6 . . . I I 1 0 b d . . . . . P b a 0 1 . -11 Figure 4 -1 4 rar •r..... s a• r...... *•isr•.. ** Aerial Photograph ........... r ................r.........r,........• r................r.r.. . ...... srr.. +.. 4-3 Figure4-2 Site Photographs......rrrra��..•. + r�rii.....•* rir�....•. r��• rr.... r.••r...,r riar a....,•r Figure4-3 .■rd•.•r•rra........".......r4- Site Photog railhs....rr.....r.••........ Figure 4 -4 r. r• rrr.... rr• rr•.... ..arrr......•.r.r..... boo •..... 40,46.....ra■rir....r�ria... 4 -7 Site Photographs , ..... .... .. ..... +r. •r•rr�. •i•rrar. .ari■•r. .rriri. . *rirr. .�r r�rrr..r.rrrri. 4 -9 Figure .3 -1 ..... .. .•�r�. +•ir•r.. •.. ..� Intersection Geometries -- Intersection r . , Open � 1 . . r . r • i ... P f r i s • ... + . .. .... ..... 5.3-3 •r•�r•. . ri�rr . . rra � + .rr Figure 5.3-2 Traffie Volumes — Intersection open ... ..... .. ..• +rr■�+ .rrir •. .•rrir. .r�i•ar�..•rriarr. -9 Figure .3 -3 .. ....• .3 .•rrar. .•rii Traffic Volumes — intersection Closed ... ..... .. .3 -11 Closed ......... .ri�•ar. . *•rr a ....��r •r....,.rr�•rr... *r •rra... Fa1rhavenlLincoln and Santa Tara L ncoln In ers ctaon Modificationj K'a'ty of a Ana * Page aai Supplement to the Santa Ana Second Main Track Project EIR Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 9 of 130 Lisp of Tables Table Page Table 1 -1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After r Mitigation ...............,r..•.......,...........• ........ 1 -9 Table 3.1 -1 ............................... Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants . r.....,. r..• .......•.r .............•.....r, 5.1-7 Table .1 -2 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin •.. • ............... .1 -3 Table .1 -3 Ambient Air duality Monitoring Summary... ... 1111 1111. ...... ry . .�,r,r•ar. .,F,r•.... .,,a•.. +r,a•. .r,.•. _ . r1 Table ,1 -4 SCAQMD Regional Significance Thresholds ..... ... ..•. ....... 1111 .•ar.w• ....•... .,tr..,.. .• „ •.• .1 -11 Table 5.1-5 SCA LIVID Localized Significance Thresholds ... ... .... .... .. •• + „■•a• ..,. 1111 .ra■•a. .r.,•a. .,ar. ►. .1 -12 +� Table .1- �+' �j + ��'''y QQ �j Construction Phase Regional EI 1 fir. sic 1 .. ..... .... .. ...... -1 Table 5.1-7 a irx�t�r'r'r Daily Construction Emissions Compared with the L T ....................... .1 -1 �y Table .1 -3 Project-Related Greenhouse as Emissions ............. •..... ,. •.. a.................. •......... ,, 5.1-14 Table .2 -1 Change in Sound Pressure Level, •.........•...........•......r, r•....•.. �„ •. ....... ,.•.. ...... .rii....... 5.2 -2 Table 5.2-2 Typical Noise Levels from Noise Sources ,ar.......,. is• ii,....•. riir ...... •,ri.•i....,, - Table 5.2-3 2002 Monitored Noise Lev l ........ r... ar. r....,.,• .ra.,....,s•..ir......�,rir.i.. •.....,.•,.•i...... .#� -4 Table .2 -4 Traffic Noise Modeling Fairhaven /Lincoln ) .. .. . ....... ... 5.2-5 �en .,,r•..,. .�, ■1,1,11 .•,r•.r• •f•,.,. . T/ able • 2- I ” - Traffi c Noise Mode l i ng 4 Fa rl I en Li ncoln Closed) . ............... • .. • .......... • ................ 5.2-6 Table .2- City of Santa Ana Noise Compatibility Guidelines ...... ... ...... 2- Table .2 -7 City of Santa Ana Exterior Eloise Standards ...... .... .... ..... ar.. .•,r•a• .,,.•ar, 11,11.. .,,..,•..,.. ., 3, - Table 5.2-8 Traffic Noise Modeling ....... .. ...• .... ..• ....• ..... ,a. ..,a•.•..�. ., a..■•a.. ..,. •.r.. .r,a•..• .r,■•... ., �,r,.. .,a•■ .2- Table 5.2-9 Construction Noise Levels at Noise - Sensitive Uses .. .. 1111 1111 ., •,.irri►f=.�+ .�.,ar.... .,,a•...... .2 -1 jF�� -�'Yy� Table •3 1 �f y7 Q[�,'r Q + yr City Santa Ana Roadway egrn nt Dail Capacity Stand r1.� 1111 ..,i,•a...... ...,,f•,r 5.3-2 Table .3 -2 Level of Service Criteria for Signalized intersections ICU ,.•.. ....... ,•,.•.r....... •,r....... , - Table .3 -3 Level of Service Criteria for Unsignali ed Int rse tion H M 2000) .................r... 3.3 -0 Table .3 -4 Peak-Hour l Intersection (Fairhaven/Lincoln l f Se vice Open) ...................... 5.3-6 Table . - Pea Hour Intersection Level of Service (Fairhaven/Lincoln Closed) .................... 5.3-7 Table 5.3-6 Peak -Hour Grade Crossing Delays (Fairhaven/Lincoln Open)..,., ........ ................r 5.3-7 Table 5.3-7 Pear -Hour Grade Crossing Delays (Fairhaven /Lincoln Closed) a ........ 5.3-8 Table 5.3-8 Grade Crossing Hazard Index (Fairhaven /Lincoln Open). .. • ............. •.................... •3 -3 Table 5.3-9 Grade Crossing Hazard lnde (Fairhaven /Lincoln Closed) ........................... 6 ........ 5.3-3 Table 5.3-10 Peak-Hour Grade Crossing Delays (with project) .............................................. P. V, -1 Table .3 -11 shade Crossing Hazard Index (with u....P.,i,•.ra.......• „•s. •r........ ,isra..... 5.3-15 Table ,3 -12 2020 CumuIative Project Scenarl .... •••... ....... .... ....... .•ryTr a. ., ■•.., a,. .rr.. •ar. .t,,,r.. .,.i•is•.. •3 -16 Table 7 -1 �"'� /`� Be i }'� + {� Impacts Found Not to B Significant ....,ar ........ ......•.........,,rr,.......... P......................... f -1 Page 1V s The Planning Center Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 10 of 130 Marcb 2009 Abbreviations and Acronyms AAS Ambient Air Quality Standards AB Assembly Bill ADT Average Daily Traffic AMP Air Quality Management Plan AT CM Airborne Toxic Control Measures bgs below ground surface BMP Best Management Practices CAA Clean Air Act DAAS California Ambient Air Quality Standards ltrans California Department of Transportation GARB California Air Resources Board BC California Building Dodo CAA California clean Air Act D R California Code of Regulations EA California Environmental Quality Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations 1P congestion Management Program DNEL Community r Noise Equivalent Level co carbon monoxide dB decibel dB - weighted decibel EIR Environmental Impact Report FHWA Federal Highway Administration FRA Federal Railroad Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration HCM Highway capacity Manual lP C Intergovernmental Panel on climate Change Ldn day -night noise level Leq equivalent continuous noise level LOB Level of Service LSAN Los Angeles to San Diego LST Localized Significance Thresholds NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NP Notice of Preparation r!1B F'airhavenlLincoln and Santa l r i col n In rs c- io n o i� fi ions City of Santa Ana a Page v SuPlement to the Santa Ana Second Main Track ro ec- I Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 11 of 130 Abbreviations and Acronyms N x nitrogen oxides 3 ozone Pb lead P1 particulate matter PPV Peak Particle Velocity ROGNOC Reactive Organic Gases /Volatile Organic Gases B Senate Bill ACID South Coast Air Quality Management District SCAR South Coast Air Basin SCRRA Southern California Regional Rail Authority sox sulfur oxides EIR Supplement to an EIR RA Source Receptor Area svoc Semi- Volatile Organic Compounds TAC Toxic Air Contaminants TNIVI Transportation Noise Model tpd tons per day tpd-6 tens per day (six -day average) UBC Uniform Building Code U D T United States Department of Transportation V/C Volume -to- capacity ratio VdB velocity decibels voc Volatile Organic Compounds Page yr The Planning Venter March 2009 Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 12 of 130 1. Executive Summary i* l INTRODUCTION The California Environmental Quality Act (CE 0A) requires that local government agencies, prier to taping action on projects over which they have discretionary approval authority, consider the environmental consequences of such projects. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR ) is a public document designed to provide the public and kcal and state governmental agency decision makers ith an analysis of potential environmental consequences to support informed decision making. This Supplement to the previously certified Santa Ana Second Main Track Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2900991 065) addresses the environmental effects associated with the implementation of the proposed Fairhaven /Lincoln and Santa Clara /Lincoln Intersection Modifications project. A Supplement to an E I R EIR is prepared when an El has been certified for a project and the Iead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence, that one or more of the criteria listed under Section 15163 of the State CE OA Guidelines are met. A S E I R augrnents a previously certified E I R to the extent necessary to address the changed project or environmental conditions and to examine mitigation and project alternatives accord ingIy. Under Section 1 5103 of the CE QA Guidelines, a S El requires that only changes to the project that would potential ly result in significant irnpacts and that were not evaluated ire the certified E I R be inclu led in the environmental analysis. The City of Santa Ana, as Lead Agency for the next discretionary action associated with this project, is responsible for preparing environmental documentation in accordance with the California Environmental Qual ity Act CEA, as amended. The City of Santa Ana has determined that preparation of a Supplement to an E I R (California God of Reg ulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Article 11 is appropriate. This Draft S E I R has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of CEQA and the City of Santa Ana's CEA procedures. The City of Santa Ana has reviewed and revised as necessary all submitted drafts, technical studies, and reports to reflect its own independent judgment, including reliance on applicable City technical personnel from other and review of all technical reports. I its role as Lead Agency for this project, the City of Santa Ana prepared and circulated an Initial Study and Notice of Preparation (NOP) to the State Clearinghouse, responsible agencies, and interested parties (public review period October 3, 2008, to November 2, 2008). The project was changed prior to release of the Draft SEIR, so a reprised NOP was circulated for another -day public review period (January 2, 2909, to February 20, 2009) . The two NOPs and the IS are included in Appendix A; all comments received during public review are included in Appendix B. In accordance with Section 15163(b) of the CE QA Guidelines, this Supplement to an EIR only contains iinforrnatiion necessary to supplement the 2002 E I R in order to evaluate the changes to the original project. No other changes to the previously certified El are required. Data for this Draft SEIR was obtained from on- site field observations, discussions with affected agencies, analysis of adopted plans and policies, review of available studies, reports, data and similar literature, and specialized environmental assessments. 1.2 ENWR NMENTAL PROCEDURES This Draft SElR has been prepared pursuant to C E A to assess the environmental effects associated with implementation of the proposed project, as well as anticipated future discretionary actions and approvals. The six main objectives of this document as established by CEQA are listed below- FairbavenlLincoln and Santa ClaralLincoln Intersection Modifications City of Santa Ana s Page I -I Supplement o the Santa Ana Second Main Nyack Project r1R Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 13 of 130 1. Executive Summary 1 To disclose to decision makers and the public the significant environmental effects of proposed activities. 2 To identify ways to avoid or reduce environmental damage. To prevent environmental damage by requiring implementation of feasible alternatives or mitigation measures. 4 To disclose to the public reasons for agency approval of projects with significant environmental effects. To foster interagency coordination in the review of projects. To enhance public participation in the planning process. An EIR is the most comprehensive form of environmental documentation Identified in CE QA and the GE A Guidelines and provides the information needed to assess the environmental consequences of a proposed project, to the extent feasible. EIRs are intended to provide objective, factually supported: full - disclosure analysis of the environmental consequences associated with a proposed project that has the potential to result in significant, adverse environmental impacts, Are EIR is also one of various decision-making tools used by a lead agency to consider the merits and disadvantages of a project that is subject to its discretionary authority. Prior to approving a proposed project, the lead agency must consider the information contained in the EIR, determine whether the EIR was properly prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CE QA Guidelines, determine that it reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency, adopt findings concerning the project's significant environmental impacts and alternatives, and adopt a Statement of overriding Considerations if the proposed project would result in significant impacts that cannot be mitigated to less than significant levels. 1.Z f EIR Format This Draft SEIR has been formatted as described below Section 1, Executive Summary: Summarizes the background and description of the proposed project, the format of this EIR, project alternatives, any critical issues remaining to be resolved, and the potential environrneMal impacts and mitigation measures identified for the project. Section 2. Introduction: Describes the purpose of this EIR, background on the project, the Notice of Preparation, the use of incorporation by reference, and Final EIR certification. Section 3. Project Description: A detailed description of the project, the objectives of the proposed project, the project area and location, approvals anticipated to be included as part of the project, the necessary environmental clearances for the project, and the intended uses of this EIR. Section 4. Environmental Setting: A description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project as they existed at the time the Notice of Preparation was published, from both a local and regional perspective. The environmental setting provides baseline physical conditions from which the lead agency determines the significance of environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project. Section 5. Environmental Analysis: Provides, for each environmental parameter analyzed, a description of the thresholds used to determine if a significant impact would occur; the methodology to identify and 'age 1-2 • The Planning Center Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 14 of 130 March 0 1. Executive Summary evaluate the potential impacts of the project; the existing environmental setting; the potential adverse and beneficial effects of the project; the level of impact significance before mitigation; the mitigation measures for the proposed project; the level of significance of the adverse impacts of the project after mitigation is incorporated and the potential cumulative impacts associated with the proposed project and other existing, approved, and proposed development in the area, Section 6. 1 m pacts Found Not to Be Significant: Briefly describes the potential irrrpacts of the project that were determined not to be significant by the Initial Study and were therefore not discussed in detail in this EIR, Section 7. Significant Irreversible Changes Due to the Proposed Project: Describes the significant irreversible environmental changes associated with the project, Section 8. Growth- Inducing Impacts of the Project: Describes the ways in which the proposed project would cause increases in employment or population that could result in new physical or environmental impacts. Section 9. Organizations and Persons Consulted: Lists the people and organizations that were contacted during the preparation of this El for the proposed project. Section 10. Quall ifications of Persons Preparing Ell R: Lists the people who prepared this EIR for the proposed project. Section 1l. Bibliography: A bibliography of the technical reports and other documentation used in the preparation of this EIR for the proposed project. ffl Appendices. The appendices for this document (presented in PDF format on a CD attached to the back corer) contain the following supporting documents: Appendix A: Notice of Preparation and Initial Study Appendix B; Notice of Preparation and Initial Study Comments Appendix : Air Quality Modeling Appendix D: Noise Modeling Appendix E: Traffic Impact Analysis 1. 2.2 Type and Purpose of this EIR The City of Banta Ana has determined that preparation of a Supplement to an EIR (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Article 11 ) is appropriate. This Draft SEIR has been prepared pursuant to the reguirernents of CE A, and the City of Santa Ana's CE QA procedures, The City of Santa Ana has reviewed and revised as necessary all submitted drafts, technical studies, and reports to reflect its own independent judgment, including reliance on applicable City technical personnel from other departments and review of all technical reports. FairhavenlLincoln and Santa ClaralLi'ncoln Intersection 1 or icr onr City of va Aria 0 Page 1 -3 Supplement to the Santa Aria Second Main Track Project EIR Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 15 of 130 1. Executive Summary Supplement to an EIR Supplement to an EIR is authorized by State CEQA Guidelines and cEQA statues (Section 1 6163, Public Resources Code Section 21166) as follows- (a) The Dead or Responsible Agency may choose to prepare a supplement to an EIR rather than a subsequent EIR if: 1 Any of the conditions described in Section 16162 would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR (see below), and (2) QnIy minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation. (b ) The supplement to the EIR need contain only the information necessary to make the previous EIR adequate for the project as revised. (c ) A supplement to are EIR shall be given the same kind of notice and public review as is given to a draft EIR under Section 15087. d supplement to an EIR may be circulated by itself without recirculating the previous draft or final EIR. (e ) When the agency decides whether to approve the project, the decision -mal ing body shall consider the previous EIR as revised by the s upplemental El R. A finding under Section 1 5091 shall be made for each significant effect shown in the previous Ells as revised. Conditions That Require Preparation of a Subsequent EIR Pursuantto CEQA Guidelines and CEQA statues (Section 1 5162, Public Resources code Section 21166), a Subsequent EIR must be prepared if: (a ) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the environmental impact report. b Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions in the environmental impact report. {c New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been mown at the time the environmental impact report was certified as complete, becomes available. This S upplement to the El contains only the information necessary to make the certified Santa Ana Second Main Track EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation. In this way, the S EIR is prepared to augment, through supplementation, the previously certified EIR to the extent necessary to address the conditions described in Section 1 5163 of the cEQA Gu idelines. The lead agency is required to consider the prior EIR as revised by the supplement in its deliberations whether to approve the project. Therefore, the Santa Ana Second Main Tracy Final EIR is included herein by reference. Findings are required for each significant effect shown in the previous EIR. Because this document is a supplement to the previous EIR, impacts and conditions presented in the previous EIR will serge as the primary base of comparison for analysis. This impact analysis will be based on the incremental change between the impacts disclosed for the original project and those anticipated for the proposed project. Page 1 -4 • The Planning Center Marc 2009 Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 16 of 130 mmmm� 1. Executive Summary 1.3 PROJECTLOCATION The project site i Executive Summary complies with applicable safety /quiet zone requirements by CPUC and S RRA. specific roadway improvements would include: Fairhaven /Lincoln Intersection • Reconfigure Fairhaven Avenue to terminate as a cul -de -sac east of the railroad tracks. The cul -de- sac would include emergency access driveways. • Close Lincoln Avenue between Fairhaven Avenue and Park Lane. Install a swing game just north of Park Lane to prohibit vehicles on the northernmost portion of Lincoln Avenue. The gate would allover emergency vehicle access. • Install "right turn only" signs and pavement markings on Park Lane at Lincoln Avenue. • Maintain two-way traffic on Lincoln Avenue from Park Lane to Santa Clara Avenue, Santa Clara /Lincoln Intersection • Install a traffic signal at the Santa Clara Avenue and Lincoln Avenue intersection, • Relocate utilities as necessary (minor) to facilitate signal operations. • Install new warning signals and signage on Santa Clara Avenue east of the track to prevent traffic queuing onto or near the tracks and to prevent vehicles from getting trapped between the railroad crossing gates. Westbound traffic on Santa Clara Avenue would stop before crossing the tracks, Partial take of land is required from the residential property located at the southwest corner of the intersection to r'egrade and raise the surface of the roadway. • Relocate the driveway at the southwest corner property from Lincoln Avenue to Santa Clara Avenue. • Install new landscape at the corner property. 1.6 ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED Section 15123 b 3 of the C EQA Guidelines requires that an El contain issues to be resolved, including the choice among alternatives and whether or how to mitigate significant impacts. With regard to the proposed project, the major issues to be resolved include decisions by the lead agency as to the following: 1. Whether this Draft S E I R adequately describes the environmental impacts of the project 2. Whether the benefits of the project override any possible environmental impacts which cannot be feasibly avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance. 3. whether the mitigation measures should be adopted or modified, 4. Whether there are other mitigation measures that should be applied to the Project besides the Mitigation Measures identified in the Draft SEIR. 5. Whether there are any alternatives to the project that would substantially lessen any of the significant impacts of the proposed project and achieve most of the basic project objectives. Page 1 -6 o The Planning ' r March 2009 Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 18 of 130 1. Executive.Summary 1.7 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY Prier to preparation of this Draft SEIR, a Notice of Preparation NP) (October 3, 2008, and January 2009) was distributed to determine the concerns of state and local agencies and interested parties regarding the proposed project. Issues raised by the agencies and the community p g ty nclude 7 � potential traffic impacts from Fairhaven/Lincoln intersection modifications; potential noise impacts, and potential air quality ir-r� pacts. NoP cernrnent fetters can b � � e found in Ap endix D. No other areas of controversy are known to the Lead Agency. 1.8 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMEWAL IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, RES, AI D LEVELS OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Table 1 T1 surnmari es the conclusions of the environmental analysis contained in this Draft S EIR. All irn acts g are identified as less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. p r Fa1rhavenlLincoln and Santa Cl ral incoln Intersection art o afica ionj City o Santa A na • Page I - 7 SuPlement to the Santa Ana Second Maz-n Track Project I Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 19 of 130 1. Executive Summary This page intentionally left blank. Page 1- * The Planning Center Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 20 of 130 March 2009 ON o� a N V W �i Ct C V Lxi u v Q� �i 4'*�4 . N 22 F� �r �.3 �rt . 200 3 Page 21 of 130 i) C> C.] co - , f; iFm V) en w [n (n [1i � � J Lxi u v Q� �i 4'*�4 . N 22 F� �r �.3 �rt . 200 3 Page 21 of 130 M.r ca 4 FQ ft r .=3 cu 1'+ CIO w W ca m ca w M .. . C� Nth cm tm cm E E 7RI IM c cm cm .. 4ALi+�1 1 LU C5 to t/} {!i O Cl) C ;� Cl] 9 L' CI} CD :3 +a Ln Ln c7 0 Cr'.) X17 Q yy 0 � 75 n Cf] 0 m F * 7�F CL i [,n�� L ck Cl) C En uj 5 LIB 47 0 C) r--y Chi r.L i� C) Q L) en 42 ?.P #+ +} -p+ + - cu - F�1 {f] En La y Q M C] C / Lr � 43 C3 + i5 E L_ , a L Q #r 4} 6 #�1 = q >F wc- M E2 C � In CL UC: CL L6 E Lxi u v Q� �i 4'*�4 . N 22 F� �r �.3 �rt . 200 3 Page 21 of 130 km o� a 'N yV V X W R Sdii Page: co z C] cm co cx .c .,it& No. 2009 -034 22 of 130 CLI �r 0 .o� 4� +�a O 0 O Zi r 2. Introduction 2.1 PURPOSE AND INTENT T F THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPA T REPORT The California Environmental Quality Act (CE QA) requires that all state and local governmental agencies consider the environmental consequences of projects over which they have discretionary authority prior to tal ing action on those projects, This Draft Supplement to are Environmental Impact Report (Draft SElR ) has been prepared to satisfy C E A, as set forth ire the Publr c Resources bode ection 21000 et sq) and the State CE0A Guidelines California code of Regulations, Tale 14, Section 15004 et eq). The Environmental Impact Report EIR is the public document designed to provide decision makers and the public with an analysis of the environmental effects of the proposed project, to indicate possible ways to reduce or avoid environmental damage and to identify alternatives to the project. The ElR must also disclose significant e nviron rn e ntal 1rnpacts that cannot be avoided; growth inducing impacts; effects not found to be significant; and significant cumulative impacts of all past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects. Pursuant to CEQA Section 21067, the Lead Agency means "the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may have a significant effect upon the environment." The City of Santa Ana, as Lead Agency for the next discretionary action associated with this project, is responsible for preparing environmental documentation in accordance with the California Envi ro n rn ental Qual ity Act CE QA , as amended. The intent of this Draft S EIR is to provide sufficient information on the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Fairhaven /Lincoln and Santa Clara /Lincoln intersection Modifications project to allow the city of Santa Ana to make an informed decision regarding denial or approval of the project. Specific discretionary actions to be reviewed by the City are found in Section 3.5. This Draft SEIR has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the: • California Environmental Qual ity Act cE of 1970, as amended (Public Resources code Section 21000 et seq.) • State Guidelines for the Implementation of the CEQA of 1970 (herein referenced as CEQA Guidelines), as amended (California Code of Regulations Sections 15000 et seq.) The overall purpose of this Draft S El is to inform the lead agency, responsible agencies, decision rnaF ers, and the general public of the environmental effects of the development and operation of the proposed Fairhaven /Lincoln and Santa Clara /Lincoln Intersection Modifications project. In accordance with Section 15163(b) of the CEGA Guidelines, this Draft SEIR only contains Informa #Ion necessary to supplement the previous EIR in order to evaluate the changes to the original project. No other changes to the previously certified E I R are required. Data for this Draft S E I R was obtained from on -site field observations, discussions with affected agencies, analysis of adopted Mans and policies, review of available studies, reports, data and similar literature, and specialized environmental assessments, Fa1rhavenlLincoln and Santa ClaralLincoln Intersection Modifications City of a 0 Page 2-1 SuPPIewnt to the Santa Ana Second Main Track Project EIR Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 23 of 130 2,. Introduction 2.2 NOTICE F PREPARATION AND INITIAL STUDY The City of Santa Ana determined that an EIR gourd be required for this project and issued a Notice of Preparation (N OP) and Initial Study (See Appendix A). Corn ments received during the public revie v eriod which extended from October , 2008, to November 2, 2008, are contained in Appendix B � } . The NOP process is used to help determine the scope of the environmental issues to be addressed in the Draft SEI R. Based on this process and the Initial Study for the project, certain environmental categories were identified as having the potential to result in significant impacts. Issues considered Potentially Significant are addressed in this Craft SEIR. Issues identified as Less Than Significant or No Impact are not addressed beyond the discussion contained in the initial Studer. Refer to the Initial Study In Appendix A for discussion of how these initial determinations have been made. Z3 SCOPE OF THIS DRAFT SEIR Based upon the I nitial Study and Environmental Check list Form, the City of Santa Ana staff determined that a Draft SElR should be prepared for the proposed project. The scope of the Draft SElR was determined based upon the Initial Study, and comments received in response to the NOR Pursuant to Sections 15126.2 and 15126.4 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the EIR should identify any potentially significant adverse impacts and recor-n men d mitigation that wouId reduce or elirninate these impacts to I eve Is of insignificance, The information contained in the Project Description establishes the basis for analyzing future project- related environmental impacts, 2.3.1 Impacts Considered Less Than Significant Thirteen environmental impact categories are identified here as not being significantly affected by or affecting the proposed Fairhaven /Lincoln and Santa Clara /Lincoln Intersection Modifications project, and therefore are not discussed in detail in this Draft SEIR. The following topical issues are not addressed in the Draft SEIR: • Aesthetics • Agricultural Resources * Biological Resources • Cultural Resources 0 Geology /Soils • Hazards & Hazardous Materials • Hydrology/ Water Quality • Land Use/Planning 0 Mineral Resources • Population /Housing • Public Services 0 Recreation • Utilities /Service Systems Page 2-2 & The Planning Center March 2009 Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 24 of 130 2. Introduction 2.3.2 Potentially Significant Adverse Impacts Three environmental factors have been identified as potentially significant impacts if the proposed project is implemented. These factors are: Air Quality Noise Traffic and Circulation 2,3.3 Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts This Draft S EIR identifies no significant and unavoidable adverse irnpacts, as defined by A, that would result from implementation of the proposed project. Unavoidable adverse impacts may be considered significant on a project - specific basis, cumulatively significant, and /or potentially significant. If the City of Santa Ana, as the Lead Agency, determines that unavoidable significant adverse 1rnpacts will result from the project, the City must prepare a Statement of Overriding Considerations before it can approve the project. A Statement of Overriding Considerations states that the decision-making body has balanced the benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable significant environmental effects and has determined that the benefits of the project outweigh the adverse effects and, therefore, the adverse effects are considered to be acceptable. Because no irnpacts were found in the Draft S EIR to be significant and unavoidable, a Statement of Overriding Considerations is not required. 2.4 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE The following documents are incorporated by reference in this Draft SEIR, consistent with Section 15150 of the State CEQA Guidelines, and are available for review at the City of Santa Ana. • Santa Ana Second Main Tracy Project Final Environmental Impact Re oft CH No. 2000091065) . Prepared for Southern California Regional Rail Authority. 2002, ,dune, Prepared by Myra L. Fran Associates, Inc. 2.5 FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION This Draft S EIR is being circulated for public review for a period of 30 days, instead of the typical 45 days. This Project meets the criteria for shortened Clearinghouse review as outlined in the CE0A Guidelines Appendix K. A shortened review period may be grarnted when "the document is a supplement to a draft EIR or proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration previously submitted to the State Clearinghouse "'. Interested agencies and rn e rn be rs of the Public are invited to provide written corn ment on the Draft SElR to the City of Santa Ana address shown on the title page of this document and in the Notice of Availability. Upon completion of the -day review period, the City will review all written comments received and prepare written responses for each comment. A Final Supplement to the EIR (Final SEIR ) will then be prepared incorporating all of the comments received, responses to the corn ments and any changes to the Draft S EIR that result from the corny ents received. This Final S El wiI I then be Presented to the Santa Ana for potential certification as the environmental docurnent for the project. All persons who commented on the Draft S EIR will be notified of the availability of the Final SEIR and the date of the public hearing before the City. FairhavenlLincoln and Santa ClaralLincoln Intersection 1 odifi tionj City of Santa Aria s Page -. SuPPlement to the Santa Ana Second Main track Project EIR Resolution N . 2 - 0 009 03 4 Page 25 of 130 2. Introduction The Draf# S E I R is available to the general public for revie r at the folIowir- g locations; • City of Santa Ana, Planning Division - Public Counter, 20 Civic Center Plaza, Ross Annex M-20 Santa Ana, A 92701, • Santa Ana Public Library, 26 Civic Center Drive, Santa Ana, CA 92701 2.6 MITIGATION MONITORING Public Resources Code Section 21 081.6 requires that agencies adopt a monitoring or reporting ro ram for any project for which it has made f'rndin ursuant to Public Reso p g p 9 p urc Dods � 91 or adopted a Negative Declaration pursuant to 2108 (c), Such a program is intended to ensure the 1mplernentation of a] I rn iti ation measures adopted through the preparation of are FIR or Negative Declaration, 9 If mitigation measures are required a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Fairhaven/Lincoln and Santa Clara /Lincoln Intersection Modifications project will be prepared as part of the Final EIR and will be considered by the Santa Ana City Council prior to a decision on the project. Page -4 0 The Planning Center March 2009 Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 26 of 130 3. Project Description 3.1 PROJECTLOCATION The project site is in the City of Santa Aria, in the County of Orange, along Lincoln Avenue, specifically at the intersections of Fairhaven Avenue at Lincoln Avenue and Santa Clara Avenue at Lincoln Avenue, and along Lincoln Avenue from Fairhaven Avenue to Park Lane. Figure 3 -1, Regional Location, and Figure 3-2, Local Vicinity, show the location of the project site within the contexts of orange County and the city of Santa Ana, respectively. 3.2 STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES The following objectives have been established for the Fairhaven /Lincoln and Santa Zara Lincoln Intersection Modifications project and will aid decision makers in their review of the project and associated environmental impacts: • Safely and efficiently more vehicles through the City. • Remove roadway elements that create safety hazards for pedestrians, vehicles, and /or trains. • Improve intersections in a timely manner with few inconveniences to pedestrians and vehicle traffic. PROJECT B ROU The Southern California Regional Pail Authority RRA) prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report EIR in 2000 to complete the final 1.8-mile segment of improvements to stations and track to improve operations for passenger and freight service on the Los Angeles to San Diego LOAN Corridor. The segment covered the stretch between just north of La Leta Avenue in orange to 17th Street in Santa Aria. Except for the 1.3 -mile gap in Orange and Santa Ana, there were at least two main tracks between downtown Los Angeles and control Point Avery a railroad demarcation point near San Juan Capistrano), a distance of approximately 54 miles. The purpose of the project was to eliminate the bottleneck for rail operations created by the remaining section of single track between La Veta Avenue and 17th Street. The City of Santa Ana requested that the SCRRA recirculate the original Draft EIR with new forecasts of freight, intercity, and commuter trains. The Revised Draft EIR was circulated for public review in 2002, and the Final EIR was certified in June 2002 (State clearinghouse No. 2000091065). The installation of a second main track and related intersection, roadway, and landscaping improvements were completed as proposed in the Final EIR. Development of the second railroad track project and associated roadway improvements were completed in April 2007. Since certification of the Santa Aria Second M ain Track Project E nvi ron rn ental Impact Report (El R) by the S RAA on June 4, 2002, and implementation of the project, new information has been received with regard to design hazards that wiII require additicnal environmental analysis, in accordance with Section 1 5103 of the E QA Guidelines. Part of the original project i m p roverne nts at the intersection of Fairhaven /Lincoln Avenues and the railroad tracks included changes to the at -grade street crossing, median improvements, and FairhavenlLincoln and Santa Clan lLi co n Intersection Modifications City of Santa A rya • Page 3 -1 Suplement to the Santa Ana Second Main Track ojec I Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 27 of 130 3. Project Description relocation of railroad safety facilities. Changes to the road right-of-way at this intersects inadequate turn radii for large trucks making a left turn on resulted an 0 from westbound Fairhaven Avenue to southbound Lincoln Avenue, Some trucks were unable to complete the turn, which created an unsafe condition vehicles on the tracks. As a result, in 20 the i of � with May t Santa Ana closed Lincoln Avenue to all traffic from Fairhaven Avenue to Park Lane until this safety issue is resolved. An additional safety issue exists at the intersection of Santa Clara Avenue and Lincoln Avenue and Santa Mara Avenue and the at -grade railroad crossing, The Santa Mara Avenue and Linooln Avenge intersection currently controlled by a four - way stop where westbound Santa Mara Avenue rnotori is st are required # stop prior to the railroad crossing. Stopped motorists and pedestrian bicycl'i is do not have an unobstructed view of trains approaching from either the north or the south or Lincoln Avenue vehicles approaching the intersection. This lack of adequate sight distance is caused b of ma or pp 9 �r ry walls between rs�dntial property and the east side of the railroad right-of-way. Because of the intersection configuration and the westbound vehicle - stopping distance from the center of the Santa Mara Avenue and Lincoln Avenue intersection there has also been some confusion about which vehicle has the right of way. Intersection and roadway improvement plans were drafted and the environmental process was started, A Notice of Preparation and an Initial Study were circulated for public review from October 3, 2008 to November 2, 2008. After the close of public comment Period, the Public Utilities Commission PU informed the City that it would not pe rmit the Fairhaven . Lrncoln Avenue intersection to b e reopened to traffic, The role of the P UC in projects that involve railroads is inspection to ensure that railroads comply with federal railroad safety regulations. The PLIC investigates railroad accidents and responds to safety inquiries male b community officials, the general public, and railroad labor organizations. y The intersection design and project description were revised from a one -weir street to a cul -de -sac, and a reprised Notice of Preparation was circulated for public review and comment (January 27, 2009 to February 26, 2009). 3.4 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS "Project," as defined by the CEQA Guidelines, means "the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and that is any of the following: (1 )...enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances, and the adoption and amendment of local General Plans or elements thereof pursuant to Government Code Sections 65100-65700" 14 Cal. Code of Reg. 15378[a] . 3. 4.1 Description of the Project Several changes to the original 2002 project have been proposed to address the safety issues aloe Lincoln Avenue. Two -way travel at Lincoln Avenue and Fairhaven Avenue is currently 9 u rently blocked with concrete barriers. Revisions to the original project would permanently close the Lincoln Avenue vehicle lanes from Fairhaven Avenue to Park Lane. Two-way traffic would be maintained on Lincoln Avenue from Parr Lane to Santa Clara Avenue. Additionally, to improve safety at the Santa Clara Avenue and Lincoln Avenue intersection a traffic signal would be installed and intersection modifications would occur. Pedestrian access to the east side of the Metrolink tracks and to Santiago Park could be accomplished by two different means. Metrolink will require their own maintenance road on the west side of the tracks and this road could also serge as a pedestrian path; this would not allow direct access to Fairhaven (east side) by pedestrians. Direct pedestrian access across the railroad tracks at Lincoln Avenue Fairhaven Avenue would be maintained if the crossing complies with applicable safety /quiet zone requirements by CPUC and S RRA. The project includes the following elements (see Figure 3 -3, Proposed Fairha en Lincoln Intersection and Figure 3 -4, Proposed Santa CJaralLincolrr briers axon Page 3 -2 & he Planning Center March 2009 Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 28 of 130 3. Pao 'ect Description Fairhaven /Lincoln Intersection • Reconfigure Fairhaven Avenue to terminate as a ui -de -sac east of the railroad tracks. The cu 1-de- sac would include emergency access driveways. • Close Lincoln Avenue bet wreen Fairhaven Avenue and Park Lane. Install a swing gate 'ust north of Park Lane to prohibit vehicles on the northernmost ortion of Li p n Avenue. The gate would allow emergency vehicle access. • Install "right turn only°' signs and pavement markings on Parr Lane at Lincoln Avenue, • Maintained two-way traffic on Lincoln Avenue from Parr Larne to Santa Clara Avenue. Santa Clara /Lincoln Intersection • Install a traffic signal at the Santa Clara Avenue and Lincoln Avenue intersection. • Relocate utilities as necessary (minor) to facilitate signal operations. * Install new warning signals and signage on Santa Clara Avenue east of the track to prevent traffic queuing onto or near the tracks and to prevent vehicles from getting trapped between the railroad crossing gates. Westbound traffic on Santa Clara Avenue would stop before crossing the tracks. • Partial take of land is required from the residential property located at the southwest corner of the intersection to regrade and raise the surface of the roadway. • Relocate the driveway at the southwest corner property from Lincoln Avenue to Santa Clara Avenue. • Install new landscape at the corner property. Construction activities would occur between 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM, Monday through Friday, with some nighttime and weekend work up to two vwreekends). The construction period for the Fa`nrhaven and Santa Clara crossings at Lincoln world be 6 weeks each for a total construction time of 12 creeks. INTENDED USES OF THE EIR This document is a Draft SuPplement to are E IR, which exam i nes tine environmental i impacts of the proposed revisions to the original 2002 project. It is the intent of this Draft SEIR to enable the City of Santa Ana, other responsible agerncies, and interested parties to evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed project; thereby enabling there to make informed decisions about the project. The anticipated approvals required for this project are as follows: ,dead Agency Chy of Santa Ana Responsible Agencies California Public Utilities Commission South Coast Air Quality Management District Action Certification of the Supplement to an Environmental Impact Report otio► Grade Crossings General Order -5. Rules for Altering Public Highway - Rail Crossings Air Quality Permit for Construct on Southern California Regional Rail Authority (S RRA ) Project Funding Orange County Transportation Authority (TA) Project Funding 1?0 EfairhavenlLincoln rind Santa ClaralLincoln Intersection Modifications City of Santa Ana a Page -. Suplement to the Santa Ana Second Main Track Project EIR Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 29 of 130 3. Project description . This pare intentionally left blank. Page -4 • The Planning Center March 2009 Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 30 of 130 3, Project Description wpmmmmw� Regional Locution 0,J) 'W% a4ah2.. C<7) �— Railroad Tracks Fa1rha enlLin oln and Santa ClaralLincoln Intersection Mo afic ions The nnin E o +ut . 2.W9 -034 Su l m nt to the Santa Ana Second Main Track Project EIR Page 31 of 130 3 , project Description This page intentionally /eft blank. Page 3-6 • The Planning Center March 2009 Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 32 of 130 I M IMMI Ll ILE ■ X11 ril a u— �m ■ w = Iw .uw, 212 MW - -- - -- m man II ICI 1; rl� mail IIIS IN all�� I MENESEEN w. Mrs mow. 1li� ■�� MEMiFw■ �� fir_ __� � �� ■� � . some MC 11 ■�� zi zz Il I11 Ills �lill� #I�� il1i11111111111 ill lllilli Ili i1111111111 Pill 111��111111 1111 1t1iN111111 111illillilllllllill � �; ��Ili� #fill X1111 1111111111111111 lit � �_�_ �_ � 11l �� 1lilllillll11l11111� = == , Iltl �� , �� Illiil1111lRlillllll _ __ �� JESS It Illlfl IIl111 _ 111111111 OW111111I 121111 ELI _i =� 11111 :• 1111 �# milli =_ lily I. 1�1 N111! .■■, lilill m,ni Memel a■■I■ 3 Anp Hill LI1�■ ' ■ .11■ ■■8 :: i ...�� oilrl villa �... ��I1111111t111 •• �� SEEM N111 ■� ■al�f1■ isommo■■■■am ��11■ MINE ■■ra� #�� .; �111N i■■■■mpon C X 111 MEMO i■ END 111 ■■wIEM■N■1 := ■■s■■■gen �= X111 ■oi■■■■!s .. X11111 mossellonso INEZ oil �� _ '■�� MEN ' 1�1 � 1 11111 1111= i �I111 #1 #1111 all ••�rilll� �i � I1111111�1111C �- - - _ 111111111M �� wlll Il�lli�l�l ■ ■loi■g �■�� MEN1�IIIIIi� ��1ll��1i11�1 11 X1111 7111 IIJ� ■� MEN �� _i _in, lima: ilk MEN 001001 100100 illy in_ +�� • F _ •� .� z mm �Ilf i EE' 401MM X11■ �■1 !!! i 3. Project Description This {gage intentionally left blank. Page 3-8 • The Planning Conte a c 2009 Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 34 of 130 3. Project description Proposed Fairhaven /Lincoln Intersection ............ „ ...... . ....... ..... et f! FA:I.'R:H'AV%E:N: IP i k :I }` I 1 .'fir. *r} :. OA Ld .. 0 ....... IN f i { . :$ Z.: C aN62. 07 0 80 Scale (Feet) Ea1rhavenlLincoln and Santa ClaralLincoln Interfection Moa afic bons The Pl I SOTI.ltJ& M9 -034 Supplement to the Santa Ana Second Main 'Track Project EIR Page 35 of 130 3. Project description This page intentionally left blank. Page 3 -10 • The Planning Center March 2009 Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 36 of 130 3., Project Description Proposed Fairhaven /Lincoln intersection ..titt. fi J, � •r• �M1M1 A -wok f} ''£ey- rsi... :.£; G'f'•.r {+.':i i #rs�t >r' vii.'. #, #$a` , 3 N #j 6 T. a*144;a V E: N" R X"% y f 771 :. <... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............. :a lk, _ #} # #; „� 1. �• ?# � +# '�� #�sM1� � .�. �. .. � �► .t M1 ,i. v� °E .. IN FE 'R i 0 80 Scale (Feet) EwirbavenlLincoln and Santa ClaralLincoln Interjectim Modifications The Planning qW Ib16ti &9V 9 -034 1 ,upplement to the Santa Ana Second Main Track Project EIR Page 37 of 130 3. Project Description This page intentionally left blank. Page , -1 *The Plannl'ng Center March 2009 Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 38 of 130 4. Environmental Setting 4.7 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this section is to provide, pursuant to provisions of the California Environmental Q uality Act { E A ) and the State CE OA Guidelines, a "description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published, from both a local and a regional perspective." The environmental setting will provide a set of baseline physical conditions from which the lead agency will determine the significance of environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project. 4.2 REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 4. 2.1 Regional Lo ti n As shown previously in Figure 3 -1, Regional Location, and Figure 3 -2, Local Vicinity, the project site is in the City of Santa Ana, in Orange County, Changes to the project include construction of improvements at the intersections of Fairhaven Avenue at Lincoln Avenue, and Banta Clara Avenue t\ Lincoln Avenue, and along Lincoln Avenue from Fairhaven Avenue to Park Lane. These intersections and the roadway segment are approximately 0.2 mile south of State route SR -2 }(Garden Grove Freeway) and approximately one mile east of Interstate 1- (Banta Ana Freeway) . 4.2.2 Regional Planning Considerations Air Quality Management Plan The project site is in the South Coast Air Basin So AB . This air basin contains the largest urban area in the western U.S. The BoCAB is a 6,045- square -mile coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills and is bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west and the Bari Gabriel, Ban Bernardino, and Ban Jacinto Mountains to the north and east. The SoCAB includes all of the nondesert portions of San Bernardino, Las Angeles non— Antelope Malley portion), and Riverside counties, and all of orange County, The South Coast Air Quality Management District BGA M and the Southern California Association of Governments (SLAG) are responsible for formulating and implementing the Air Quality Management Plan ( l f P ) for the SoGAB. The A AMP is a comprehensive plan that includes control strategies for stationary and area sources, as well as for on -road and off -road mobile sources. The AQ M P provides local guidance for the State Implementation Plan (SIP ), which provides the framework for air quality basins to achieve attainment of the state and federal ambient air quality standards. Areas that meet ambient air quality standards are classified as ` ° attainment " areas, while areas that do not meet these standards are classified as 61 nonattainment13 areas, SoCAB is currently in nonattainr ent for Ozone, Fine Particulate Matter (P1 2-1 ), Coarse Particulate Matter (PM,,))- The project's consistency with the applicable policies and standards of the A I P is analyzed in detail in Section 5.1 , Air Quality. FazrhavenlLincoln and Santa ClaralLincoln Intersection Modifications City of Santa Ana 0 Page 4 -1 Sent to the Santa Ana Second Main Track Project r1R Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 39 of 130 4. Environmental Setting 4.3 LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ENTAL SETTING 4. .1 On -Site and Surrounding din Land Use The project site consists of two intersections and a short roadway segment along Lincoln Avenue. All construction would take plane within the read right -of -way, The two intersections and the railroad tracks are in a p red orninantly urban environment. Medi um- to Iow- d ens ity residential land uses, including both single - and multifamily residences, are on either side of the existing rail road rig ht-of-way from Fairhaven Aven ue to Santa Clara Avenue. The railroad tracks parallel ,Lincoln Avenue and the street separates the tracts from the residences on the west side of Lincoln Avenue. Residences on the east side of the tracks are separated from the tracks by a series of backyard galls of primarily concrete block construction, from approximately five to eight feet high. Surrounding land uses are shown in Figure 4 -1, Aerial Photograph. Photographs of the roadway improvement locations are shown in Figures 4-2, 4-3, and 4-4, Site Photographs. As shown on the aerial photograph, Lincoln Avenue is a north /south roadway. Lincoln Avenue on the northern end and Fairhaven Avenue on the western end converge at the railroad tracks to form an is intersection. As shown in the photographs, the Fairhaven /Lincoln intersection currently has the newly constructed railroad track crossing elements (crossing arm assembly with lights, overhead lights, and bells on both sides of the double track), raised medians on both sides of the track on Fairhaven, and solid concrete barriers blocking through traffic. Santa Mara Avenue is located south of Fairhaven Avenue. The newly constructed railroad track crossing at Santa Mara Avenue includes crossing arm assembly with lights and bells on both sides of the double track. The Santa Clara /Lincoln intersection has a four-way stop. This is an unusual intersection because the Santa Mara Avenue and Aspen Street are not aligned to form a straight through street at Lincoln Avenue. Both Santa Mara Avenue and Aspen Street form a slightly offset `T' intersection at Lincoln, with Banta Clara Avenue offset to the south. 4.4 ASSUMPTIONS REGARDING UMUL ITI E IMPACTS Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines states that cumulative impacts shall be discussed where they are significant. It further states that this discussion shall reflect the level and severity of the impact and the likelihood of occurrence, but not in as great a level of detail as that necessary for the project alone, Section 15355 of the Guidelines defines cumulative impacts to be "...too or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts." Cumulative impacts represent the change caused by the incremental impact of a project when added to other proposed or committed projects in the vicinity. The CEQA Guidelines (Section 1 130 [b] [1 ] state that the information utilized In an analysis of cumulative impacts should come from one of two sources, either: 1 list of past, present and probable future projects producing related cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency; or summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document designed to evaluate regional or area -wide conditions. The cumulative impact analyses in Section 5 , Environmental Analysis , of this Draft S E I R uses Method 2. The assumptions are described under Cumulative Impacts in each topical section. Page 4-2 a The Planning Center March 2009 Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 40 of 130 _:. , Z. �` yy yt RIZ. lip yam.. �� :�:::'xff.t�,:,:;�a -. s 'ma�`yy pp--�� .� � '.� ,#..,�• # £M r } °�, r � # � rte:. �•+� � T � � ,�.�> 1W 91 40 iA ,.,:. E 2. 1 ri r Lai ilk LL jW JOE Sol T' a'. _. w. , �•'�:' , '>�� .,.;:<,,.� °�'�°' y 1• fie; .yat'}�'.,y ' m , Alt -g� ilk ju. o let 4% is OLI d " i .. „ f3 "M Ai J b"a ri.a D r�, - ;tr s Y _ q { Set 3 M1' .fix. s tAglrcc Ali oil MUMM 7 jW fmiw oil'yam '��'•+'/ _ mm�� ay... � .• 'f 1F. h .w' C{ .,.,. rt3-gyhyyx•i1N - .C� a M' .'�in'S F � L�l 1 $ I i CAE , r a A Cz :; �-06f`. n ,i'Rye" E w� -:#.� � �t '?°°ik k *� : � y� � i i- ■ xk ,. }+} Alif r:. M1M1� IS Mi Wig I 4. Environmental Setting This page intentionally left bleak. Page 4-4 • The Planning Center Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 42 of 130 March 2009 4. Environmental Setting Site Photographs 8 Photo 2. View looking north along Lincoln Avenue toward Fairhaven Avenue intersection at the railroad tracks. a4a,;6? Cor7i lt-bav nlbn -oln and Santa ClaralLincoln Intersection Modifications The Planning ning ' sotutRgWe. 09 -034 apps rent to b .Santa Ana S'ec'ond Main Track Project EIR Page 43 of 130 4. Environmental Setting This page intentionally left blank. Page -6 a The Planning Center arch 2009 Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 44 of 130 4. Environmental Setting Site Photographs Photo I vier looking east across double tracks along Fairhaven Avenue. Note closed crossing and new median. :a• M1 WIR 411.4 Photo 4, vier ling east from railroad tracks along Fairhaven Avenue. Cawa;.? 07rj FairhavenlLincoln and Santa Claralbiuoln Intersection Modifacxtiotif The Planning Qk4soju t Oft. 09 -034 Sapplement to the Santa Ana Second Main Track Project EIR Page 45 of 130 4. Environmental Setting This page intentionally / ft blank. Page 4-8 al The Planning Center Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 46 of 130 March 2009 4. Environmental Setting Site Photographs Photo 5. Vier looking north along Lincoln Avenue toward Santa Clara Avenue intersection. Note recently installed rail fence and landscaping on Bret side of tracks. Photo 6. Vier looping east from Lincoln Avenue and Santa Clara Avenue intersection. Railroad track are at center of photo. Fa1rhavenlLincoln and Santa ClaralLincoln Intersection Modifications, The Pkmning g)lti(fARg6 9 u1M-034 Supplement t t the Santa Ana Second Alain Track, Project EIR Page 47 of 130 4. Environmental Setting This page intentionally left blank Page 4 -10 • The Planning Center Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 48 of 130 March 2009 5. Environmental Analysis Chapter 5 examines the environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. This chapter is divided into subchapters (or sections) for respective environmental issue areas that were determined during the scoping process to need further study in the EIR. The scope of the environmental analysis was determined using the Initial Study and Notice of Preparation NOP that was published October 2008, the NOP published in January 2009, as well as incorporating public and agency comments received during the NOP comment periods (see Appendix 13). Enviironmental issues and their corresponding sections are listed below- * 5-1 Air Quality o 5.2 Noise • 5.3 Traffic and Circulation Sections 5.1 through 5.3 provide a detailed discussion of the environmental setting, impacts associated with the proposed project, and any mitigation measures that may be required to reduce significant impacts. The residual impacts following the i rn p le me ntati on of any mitigation nneasure wouId also be discussed in these sections. (iVau-6 cf7w) As presented in the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (Appendix A), some specific issues under each of the environmental topics (air quality, noise, traffic and circulation) were determined to not be significantly affected by implementation of the project, and therefore are not included for further discussion. Organization of Environmental Analysis To assist the reader in comparing information about the respective environmental issues, each section (Sections 5.1 to .3) is organized as follows: • Impacts Identified in the Santa Ana Second Main Tracy E I R (2002) • Environmental Setting 0 Thresholds of Significance • Environmental Impacts • cumulative Impacts • Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions + Level of Significance Before Mitigation • litigation Measures • Level of Significance After Mitigation In addition, the Executive Su m rn ary includes a table showing all the impacts by environmental topic. EalrbavenlLincoln and Santa ClaralLincoln Intersection Modifications City of Santa Ana • Page 5 -1 SuPlement to the Santa Ana Second Haan a c4 Proy'ect EIR Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 49 of 130 S. Environmental Analysis Terminology Used in This Draft SEIR For each impact identified in this Draft SElR, a statement of the level of significance of the impact is provided. lJhile criteria for determining significant im pacts are unique to each issue area, the environmental analysis applies a uniform classification of the impacts based on the following definitions consistent with C E A and the CEQA Guidelines: 0 A designation of no impact is given when no changes in the environment would occur. • less-than-significant impact mould cause no substantial adverse change in the environment • A less-than-significant impact with mitigation incorporated avoids substantial adverse impacts on the environment through mitigation measures. • A significant unavoidable impact would cause a substantial adverse effect on the environment, and no feasible mitigation measures would be available to reduce the impact to a less- than - significant level. Pig -2 # The Planning Center Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 50 of 130 Marcb 2009 S. Environmental Analysis 5.1 AIR QUALITY This section of the Draft SEIR evaluates the potential for the Fairhaven /Lincoln and Santa Clara /Lincoln intersection Modifications project to impact air quality in the local and regional context. Although the potential project impacts are compared to the project approved in the Santa Ana Second plain Tracy EIR (2002), this Draft S EIR also analyzes impacts related to greenhouse gases, which were not arddressed in the 2092 EiR. Further, although the S E I R compares the project's impacts to those in the 2002 EIR, the ecisting ambient air quality was also studied and documented to provide an accurate and complete representation of the surrounding environment. The analysis in this section is partially based on the following documents: • Traffic Impact Study Santa Ana Second Main Track Updated Draft Deport, DiVIJM Harris, 2008, March. Santa Ana Second Main Tracy Project Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse No, 2009991 065. Prepared for Southern California Regional Rail Authority SCRRA . Prepared by Myra L. Frank and Associates, Inc, 2002, February. Air quality modeling data sheets used in this analysis are included as Appendix C. 5. 1.1 Impacts Identified in the Santa Ana Second Main Track EIR (2002) The 2992 EIR analyzed all environmental checklist items in the CEQA Guidelines related to construction and operational air quality impacts. The impact analysis ire the 2002 EIR was based on the South coast Air {duality Management District's A MD CE QA Air Quality Handbook methodologies using the URBEMIS2002, EMFAC2002, and CALINE4 computer models. The project analyzed in the 2992 EIR has been completely constructed. Revisions to the project do not result in impacts related to train activity on the main line tracks, therefore, air quality impacts related to train activities that were identified 2092 EIR are not analyzed in this Graft SEiR. The 2992 EIR found that construction activities would result in increased air pollutant emissions from construction equipment exhaust and fugitive dust generated during ground- disturbing activities. The air pollutant emissions generated during the construction phases were not found to exceed the SAMD construction thresholds. odors generated from diesel fuel were found to be reduced by use of low sulfur diesel fuel and would be temporary in nature, consequently, no significant construction - related air quality impacts were identified. However, [litigation Measures Air duality -1 through Air ,duality -4 were included to comply with SAQMD regulations for fugitive dust control. The 2002 EIR analyzed impacts from operation and found that the project would improve vehicular traffic flow at at -grade rail crossings. As a result, the original project would result in an overall net reduction in air pollutant emissions and health risk. No significant operational phase air quality impacts were identified. 5.1.2 Environmental Seffing South Coast Air Basin The project site iies within the South Coast Air Basin (So AB ), which includes al of Orange County and the nondesert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. The air basin is in a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and lover hills and is bounded by the Pacific Ocean in the southwest quadrant, with high mountains forming the remainder of the perimeter, The general region lies in the se rn iperm anent Nigh- pressure zone of the eastern Pacific. As a result, the climate is mild, tern pered by cool FairhavenlLincoln and Santa ClaralLincoln Interjection 11 or i i`c- o .r City of Santa Ana a Page 5. 1 -1 Supplement to the Santa Ana Second lira Track Project EIR Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 51 of 130 S, Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY sea breezes. This usually mild weather pattern is interrupted infrequently by periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, and Santa Ana winds. Temperature and Precipitation The annual average temperature varies little throughout the BocAB, ranging from the lorry to middle 60s, measured in degrees Fahrenheit (OF). With a more pronounced oceanic influence, coastal areas show less variability in annual minimum and maximum temperatures than inland areas. The climatological station nearest to the site in Banta Ana reports a yearly average of 52 °F, The average low is reported at 42.9 °F in ,January while the average high is 84.6 °F in August v RCC 2008). In contrast to a very steady pattern of temperature, rainfall is seasonally and annually highly variable. Almost all rain falls from November through April. Summer rainfall is normally restricted to widely scattered thundershowers near the coast with slightly heavier shower activity in the east and over the mountains. Rainfall averages around 1 3.71 inches per year in the project area, as measured in Santa Ana (WRC C 2008). Humidity Although the BoAB has a semiarid climate, the air near the surface is typically moist because of the presence of a shallow marine layer. Except for infrequent periods when dry, continental air is brought into the o AR by offshore winds, the ocean effect is dominant. Periods of heavy fog, especially along the coastline, are frequent; and low stratus clouds, often referred to as high fog, are a characteristic climatic feature. Annual average humidity is 70 percent at the coast and 57 percent in the east portions of the SoCAB, Wind Wind patterns across the south coastal region are characterized by westerly and southwesterly onshore winds during the day and easterly or northeasterly breezes at night. wind speed is somewhat greater during the dry summer months than during the rainy winter season;. Annually, typical winds in the project area average about 5 to 8 miles per hour during the day and 2 to 5 rn iles per hour during the night. Between periods of wind, periods of air stagnation may occur, both in the morning and evening hours. Air stagnation is one of the critical determinants of air quality conditions on any given day. During the winter and fall months, surface high- pressure systems over the SoCAB, combined with ether meteorological condition , can result in very strong, down slope Santa Ana winds. These winds normally continue a ferny days before predominant meteorological conditions are reestablished. The mountain ranges to the east affect the transport and diffusion of pollutants by inhibiting the eastward transport of pollutants. Air quality in the So AB generally ranges from fair to poor and is similar to air quality in most of coastal southern California. The entire region experiences heavy concentrations of air pollutants during prolonged periods of stable atmospheric conditions. Inversions in conjunction with the two characteristic rrw ind patterns that affect the rate and orientation of horizontal pollu- tant transport, there are two similarly distinct types of temperature inversions that control the vertical depth through which pollutants are rnixed. These inversions are the marine /subsidence inversion and the radiation inversion. The height of the base of the inversion at any given time is no ern as the "mining height." The combination of winds and inversions are critical determinants in leading to the highly degraded air quality in surnmer and the generally good air equality in the winter in the project area. Page .1- a The Planning Center arch 2009 Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 52 of 130 S. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Air Pollutants of Concern Criteria Air Pollutants The air pollutants ern itted into the ambient air by stationary and mobile sources are regulated by federal and state taw. These regulated air pollutants are known as "criteria air pollutants" and are categorized into primary and secondary pollutants, Primary air pollutants are those that are emitted directly from sources. Carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic compounds (VOC), nitrogen oxides (NOx )3 sulfur dioxide (SO,), coarse inhalable particulate matter P M 10 , fine inhalable particulate matter PM , : and lead (Pb ) are primary air pollutants. Of these, CO, S02, NO, P 1,c,, and P 2., are criteria pollutants. VOC and NOx are criteria pollutant precursors and go on to form secondary criteria pollutants through chemical and photochemical reactions in the atmosphere. Ozone 03 and nitrogen dioxide NO are the principal secondary pollutants. Presented below is a description of each of the primary and secondary criteria air pollutants and their known health effects. Other pollutants, such as carbon dioxide (CO2), a natural by-product of animal respiration that is also produced in the combustion process, have been linked to such phenomena as global warming. These emissions are unregulated and there are no thresholds for their release. Carbon Monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless, toxic gas p rod uces# by incornplete cornbu #ion of carbon substances, such as gasoline or diesel fuel. The primary adverse health effect associated with CO is interference with normal oxygen transfer to the blood, which may result in tissue oxygen deprivation (SC AQMD 2005). Volatile Organic Compounds (1100) are compounds comprised primarily of atoms of hydrogen and carbon. Internal combustion associated with motor vehicle usage i s the major source of hydrocarbons. VOCs are synonymous with reactive organic gases. Other sources of VOC include evaporative emissions associated with the use of paints and solvents, the application of asphalt p a vi and the use of household consumer products such as aerosols. Adverse effects on human health are net caused directly by VOC, but rather by reactions of VOC to form secondary pollutants such as ozone (SCAOMD 2005). Nitrogen Oxides NO serge as integral participants in the process of photochemical smog production. The two major forms of NOx are nitric oxide NO and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). NO is a colorless, odorless gas formed from atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen when combustion takes place under high temperature and /or high pressure. NO2 is a reddish - brown irritating gas formed by the corn bination of NO and oxygen. N Ox ants as an acute respiratory irritant and increases susceptibility to respiratory pathogens SCAD 2405. NO is a by- product of fuel combustion. The principal form of NO produced by combustion is NO, but NO reacts with oxygen to form NO., creating the mixture of NO and NO2commonly called NOx. NO2 acts as an acute irritant and, in equal concentrations, is more injurious than NO. At atmospheric concentrations, however, NO2 is only potentially irritating. There is some indication of a relationship between NO2and chronic pulmonary fibrosis. Some increase in bronchitis in children (two and three years old) has also been observed at concentrations below 0 .3 part per million ppm). NO absorbs blue light; the result is a brownish -red cast to the atmosphere and reduced visibility. NO2 also contributes to the formation of PM,,, PM .,, and ozone (SCAOMD 2005). Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) is a colorless, pungent, irritating gas formed by the combustion of sulfurous fossil fuels. Fuel combustion is the primary source of S 02. At sufficiently high concentrations, S O may irritate the upper respiratory tract. At lower concentrations and when combined with particulates, SO may do greater harm by injuring lung tissue. A primary source 0f S02emissions is high - sulfur- content coal. Gasoline and natural alas have very lover sulfur content and hence do not release significant quantities of SO2 (SCALD 2005). air hav n L into n and Santa ClaralLincoln Intersection Modifications City of Santa Ana @ ag e 5,1-3 S emen o the Santa Ana Second Main Track Proj'ect EIR Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 53 of 130 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Particulate Matter PM consists of finely divided solids or Iiquids such as soot, dust, aerosols, furriest and mists. Two forms of fine particulates are now recognized. lnhalable course particles, or PM,,, include the particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 miicrons i.e., 10 one - millionths of a meter or 0.0994 inch) or less. Inhalable fine particles} or P _ „, have an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns i.e., 2.5 one - millionths of a meter or 9.0901 inch) or less. Particulate discharge into the atmosphere results primarily from industrial, agricultural, construction, and transportation activities. However, wind action on aria landscapes also contributes substantially to local particulate loading. Both PM,,, and PM2.1 may adversely affect the human respiratory system, especially in those people who are naturally sensitive or susceptible to breathing problems B A MD 2005). Fugitive dust primarily poses two public health and safety concerns. The first concern is that of respiratory problems attributable to the particulates suspended in the air. Diesel particulates are classified by the California Air Resources Board CARE as a carcinogen. The second concern is that of motor vehicle accidents caused by reduced visibility during severe wind conditions. Fugitive dust may also cause significant property damage during strong windstorms by acting as an abrasive material agent (much like sandblasting activities). Finally, fugitive dust can result in a nuisance factor due to the soiling of proximate structures and vehicles B A I ID 2095). Ozone o , or smog, is one of a number of substances called photochernioal oxidants that are formed when V C and N (both by- products of the internal combustion engine) react with sunlight. 03 is present in relatively high concentrations in the B C B, and the damaging effects of photochemical smog are generally related to the concentrations of . 0, poses a health threat to those who already suffer from respiratory diseases as well as to healthy people, Ad d iti on al ly, 0,, has been tied to crop damage, typically in the form of stunted growth and premature death. o3 can also act as a corrosive, resulting in property damage such as the degradation of rubber products BMD 2095). Toxic Air Contaminants The public's exposure to toxic air contaminants TACs is a significant environmental health issue in California. In 1 953, the California legislature enacted a program to identify the health effects of TACs and to reduce a cposure to these contaminants to protect the public health. The Health and Safety Code defines a TAC as "an air pollutant which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health.” A substance that is listed as a hazardous air pollutant (HAP) pursuant to subsection b of Section 112 of the federal Clean Air Act 42 Unit d Bates code Section 12[b] is a toxic air contaminant. under state law, the California EPA, acting through CARE, is authorized to identify a substance as a TAC if it determines the substance is an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or to an increase in serious illness, or may pose a present or potential Lazard to human health. California regulates TACs primarily through Assembly Bill AB 1 807 (Tanner Air Toxic Act) and AB 2588 (Air Tonics "Hof Spot" Information and Assessment Act of 1987). The Tanner Air Tonics Act sets forth a formal procedure for GARB to designate substances as TACs. once a TAC is identified, CAR adopts an "airborne tonics control measure" for sources that emit designated TACs. If there is a safe threshold for a substance (a point below which there is no tonic effect), the control measure must reduce exposure to below that threshold. If there is no safe threshold, the measure must incorporate tonics best available control technology to min 1mize emissions, CAR has, to date, established formal control measures for 11 TACs, all of which are identified as having no safe threshold. Air tonics from stationary sources are also regulated in California under the Air Tonics 61 Hot Spot" Information and Assessment Act of 1957. under AB 2588, toxic air contaminant emissions from individual facilities are Page 5.1-4 + The Planning Center Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 54 of 130 March 2009 S, Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY quantified and {prioritized by the air quality maEnagement district or air pollution control district. High priority facilities are required to perform a health risk assessment and, if specific thresholds are exceeded, are required to communicate the results to the public in the form of notices and public meetings. Since the last update to the TAC list in December 1999, GARB has designated 244 compounds as TAs (GARB 1999). Additionally, GARB has implemented control measures for a number of compounds that pose high risks and show potential for effective control. The majority of the estimated health risks from TA Cs can be attributed to relatively few compounds, the most important being particulate matter from diesel - fueled engines. In 1998, CAR B identified particulate emissions from die el4ueIed engines (diesel P I ) as a TA . Previously, the individual chemical compounds in the diesel exhaust were considered as TAs. Almost all diesel exhaust particle mass is 10 microns or less in diameter. Because of their extremely small size, these particles can be inhaled and eventually trapped in the bronchial and alveolar regions of the lung. In 2009r the B CAQ MD conducted a study on ambient concentrations of TA Cs and estimated the potential health risks from air toxics. The results showed that the overall risk for excess cancer from a lifetime exposure to ambient levels of air tonics was about 1 ,490 in a mil Iion. The largest contributor to this risk was diesel exhaust, accounting for 71 percent of the air tonics risk. In 2093, the SAIID conducted its third update to their study on ambient concentrations of TACs and estimated the potential health risks from air tonics. The results shoved that the overall risk for excess cancer from a lifetime exposure to ambient levels of air tonics was about 1,206 in a million. The largest contributor to this risk was diesel exhaust, accounting for approximately 34 percent of the air tonics risk (SCAQMD 2008). Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change Climate charge can be due to natural variability or human activities. The climate system is interactive, consisting of five major components: the atmosphere, the hydrosphere (ocean, rivers, and lakes, the cryos phere (sea ice, ice sheets, and glaciers), the land surface, and the biosphere (flora and fauna) . The atmosphere is the most unstable and rapidly changing part of the system. It is composed of 78,1 percent nitrogen N2), 29.9 percent oxygen (02), and 0.93 percent argon (Ar). These gases have only limited interaction with the Incoming solar radiation and do not interact with infrared (long -wave) radiation emitted by the Earth. However, there are a number of trace gases, such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (H', nitrous oxide (N20), and ozone (03), that absorb and emit infrared radiation and therefore have an affect on the Earth's climate. These are greenhouse gases HG , and while they comprise less than 0.1 percent of the total volume mixing ratio in dry air, they play an essential role in influencing the Earth's climate I PCC 2901). In California and western forth Am erica, 1 observations in the climate have showed a trend toward warmer winter and spring temperatures, a smaller fraction of precipitation is falling as snow instead of rain, 0 there is a decrease in the amount of spring snow accumulation in the lower and middle elevation mountain zones, 4 there is an advance snowmelt of 5 to 30 days earlier in the springs, and 5 there is a similar shift (5 to 39 days earlier) in the timing of spring flower blooms (COAT 2096, According to the California CI imate Action Team (CAT), even if actions could be taken to im medi ate Iy curtail climate change emissions, the potency of emissions that have already built up, their long atmospheric lifetimes (see Table 5.2-1), and the inertia of the Earth's climate system could produce as much as 0.6°C 1.1 °F of additional warming. Consequently, some impacts from climate change are now unavoidable. CAT and the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal /EPA) use the results from the recent analysis of g lob l climate change impacts for California underthree I PCC scenarios; louver emissions (131) , medium - 9 hi h ern is ions (A , and high emissions Al F1 ; each is associated with an increasing rise in akve rag e global a1r a enl incoln and Santa 'lar ancoln Intersection Mo a; ice onj City of Santa Aria a Page .1-5 Supplement to the Santa Ana Second Main Track Project EIS Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 55 of 130 5. Environmental Analysis Am Qunr.['I'Y surface temperatures. According to the California Energy Commission (EC ) in their 2906 report, Our Charging Climate, Assessing the Frisks to Califomia, global climate change risks to California include public health impacts (poor air quality made worse and more severe hear), water resources impacts (decreasing Sierra Nevada snow pack, challenges in securing adequate water supply, potential reduction in hydropower, and Ioss of wi nter recreation), agricultural irnpacts (increasing temperatures, increasing threats from pests and pathogens, expanded ranges of agricultural weeds, and declining productivity), coast sea level impacts (rising coastal sea levels, increasing coastal floods, and shrinking beaches) , forest and biological resource impacts (increasing wildfires, increasing threats from pest and pathogens, declining forest productivity, and shifting vegetation and species distribution), and electricity (increased energy demand). Regulatory Setting Development of the project has the potential to release gaseous emissions of criteria pollutants and dust into the air; therefore, it falls under the local, state, and federal ambient air quality standards. The project site is in the SoCAB and is subject to the ales and regulations imposed by the S CA1D. However: the S1D reports to GARB, and all criteria emissions are also governed by the California Ambient Air Quality Standards AA as well as the National Ambient Air Qual ity Standards NAA B . Federal, state, regional, and local lavers, regulations, plans, or guidelines that are potentially applicable to the project are surnmari ed below. Ambient Air Quality Standards The Federal Clean Air Act (F AA ) was passed in 1963 by the US Congress and has been amended several times. The 1979 Clean Air Act Amendments strengthened p revi ous legislation and laid the foundation for the regulatory scheme of the 19796 and 1980S. In 1977, Congress again added several provisions, including nonattainment requirements for areas not ,meeting NAA S and the Prevention of Significant Deterioration program. The 1990 Amendments represent the latest in a series of federal efforts to regulate the protection of air quality in the United States. The F AA allows states to adopt more stringent standards or to include other Pollution species. The California Clean Air Act CA, signed into law in 1988, requires all areas of the state to achieve and maintain the CAAQS by the earliest Practical date. The CAAQS. tend to be more restrictive than the NAAQS and are based on even greater health and welfare concerns. These NAB and CAAQS standards are the levels of air quality considered to provide a margin of safety in the protection of the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect those "sensitive receptors" most susceptible to further respiratory distress such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people al ready weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. Healthy adults can tolerate occasional exposure to air pollutant concentrations considerably above these minimum standards before adverse effects are observed. Both the State of California and the federal government have established health -based AAQS for seven air pollutants. As shown in Table 5.1 -1, these pollutants include 0, N021 CO, Sot, P 10, P I2, ,., and lead (Pb). In addition, the state has set standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility- reducing particles. These standards are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace with a reasonable margin of safety. March 2009 Page 5.1-6 a The Planning Center Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 56 of 130 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Table 5.1-1 Ambient Air Quality.Standards for Criteria Pollutants Source: BARB 2008 ppm: parts per million;/m: micrograms per cubic meter * Standard has not been established for this pollutanVduration by this entity. MEPMMMMMM Air Quality Management Planning 93 The GAMS and the Southern Cal ifornia Association of Governments (SLAG) are the agencies responsible for preparing the Air Quality Management ent Plan A MP) for the SoGAB. Since 1979, a number of AWN have been prepared. The most reee nt adop #ed eern prhen sure p lan is the 2007 AMP, which was adopted on June 1, 2007, and inoerporates significant new sole ntifie data , p rtimariiy in the foram of updated emissions inventories, ambient rn ea►urernent, new rneteo rolo 9 episodes, isodes, and new air }ualit modeling tools. The 2007 A MP proposes � federal Pll standards through a more focused control of SOx, directly attainment demonstration of the Cede -� i k�# -hour ozone control strategy builds emitted P.5, and focused control f N and Vol b 2015. The 9 i stand b 2, to au rented with additional NG and oG reductions to meet the upon the PM�.� tr gar, 0 assuming an extended tta:inment date is obtained. Roairvenincon and Santa araineon I erjec ion Modifications City of Santa Ana * Pie 5,1 - Sit lenient to the Santa Ana Second Main Track Project EIS Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 57 of 130 Averaging California #adar federal Primary tarrdar �IaLor oli�rlar�� rr Pollutant Time 1 hour 0,09 ppm Motor vehicles, paints, coatings, and Ozone (03 8 hours 0.07 P 0.07 PPM solvents. 1 hour 20 ppm 35 ppm internal combustion engines, primarily Carbon Monoxide (DD) gasoline- powered motor vehicles. hours .0 ppm fpm Annual Average 0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm Motor vehicles, petroleum - refining operations, industrial sources, aircraft, Nitrogen Dioxide 02 9 � 1 hour 018 ppm ` snips, and railroads. Annual Average 0.03 ppm Duel combustion, chemical plants, sulfur ultur Dioxide (0) 1 hour 0.25 ppm recovery plants, and metal processing. 4 hours 0.04 ppm 0.14 ppm Dust and fume - producing construction, Suspended Particulate p Annual Arithmetic Mean 0 9/m industrial, and agricultural operations, combustion, atmospheric photochemical Matter Ada 50 0 150 pglrn' reactions, and natural activities (e.g., wind- 24 hours 24 hours (Pl10 {P10} raised dust and ocean sprays. Dust and fume- producing construction, Annual 1 3 1 gim industrial, and agricultural operations, Particulate Suspended P Arithmetic can oombustton} atmospheric photochemical Fatter reactions, and natural activities (e•g.} wind - {P. } flours ,� m raised dust and ocean sprays) . Monthly 1.5 pg* Present source: lead smelters, battery manufacturing & recycling facilities. Past Lead (Pb) Quarterly 1.5 ygirn' source: combustion of leaded gasoline. Sulfates (SO4) 4 hour's 5Mg/m3 industrial processes. Source: BARB 2008 ppm: parts per million;/m: micrograms per cubic meter * Standard has not been established for this pollutanVduration by this entity. MEPMMMMMM Air Quality Management Planning 93 The GAMS and the Southern Cal ifornia Association of Governments (SLAG) are the agencies responsible for preparing the Air Quality Management ent Plan A MP) for the SoGAB. Since 1979, a number of AWN have been prepared. The most reee nt adop #ed eern prhen sure p lan is the 2007 AMP, which was adopted on June 1, 2007, and inoerporates significant new sole ntifie data , p rtimariiy in the foram of updated emissions inventories, ambient rn ea►urernent, new rneteo rolo 9 episodes, isodes, and new air }ualit modeling tools. The 2007 A MP proposes � federal Pll standards through a more focused control of SOx, directly attainment demonstration of the Cede -� i k�# -hour ozone control strategy builds emitted P.5, and focused control f N and Vol b 2015. The 9 i stand b 2, to au rented with additional NG and oG reductions to meet the upon the PM�.� tr gar, 0 assuming an extended tta:inment date is obtained. Roairvenincon and Santa araineon I erjec ion Modifications City of Santa Ana * Pie 5,1 - Sit lenient to the Santa Ana Second Main Track Project EIS Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 57 of 130 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY The A MP provides local guidance for the State Irnplern entation Plan, which provides the framework for air quality basins to achieve attainment of the state and federal ambient air quality standards. Areas that meet ambient air quality standards are classified as attainment areas, while areas that do net meet these standards are classified as nonattainrnent areas. Severity classifications for ozone nonattainrn nt range in magnitude; marginal, moderate, serious, severe, and extreme. The attainment status for the SoAB is included in Table 5.1 -2. The SoCAB is also designated as attainment of the CAA QS for SO,. lead, and sulfates, According to the 2007 AQ MPs the So AB will have to meet the new federal P 2.5 standards by 201 and the -hour ozone standard by 2024, and will most likely have to achieve the recently reprised 24 -hour PI2.5 standard by 2020. Table 5.1-2 Attainment Staters of Criteria Pol 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY In additicn to the requirements under AB 32, to address G HG emission and global climate change in general plans and CE OA documents, Senate Bill 9 (Chapter 135, 2097) requires the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OP R) to develop CEOA guidelines on how to address global warm ing emissions and mitigate project - generated GHG. OP R is required to prepare, develop, and transmit these guidelines on or before July 1, 2099, and to adopt the CE QA guidelines by January 1, 2010. In June 2998, OP R released the Technical Advisory for addressing climate change through CEQA review, Based on this guidance document, OPR recommends that projects identify and quantify GHG emissions, assess the significance of the impact on climate change, and if determined to be significant, identify alternatives and/or mitigation measures that could reduce the impact (PR 2908). Existing Ambient Air Quality Existing I eve Is of ambient air quality and historical trends and projec #ions in the vicinity of the project site and the City of Santa Ana are best documented by measurements ,Wade by the SCAQMD. The project site is in Source Receptor Area R) 1 - central Orange County. The air quality monitorirng station in S RA 17 is the Anaheim -Loara School Monitoring Station. Data from this station is summarized in Table 5.1 -3. The data shover recurring violations of both the state and federal ozone standards and no clear trend is apparent. The data also indicate that the area regularly exceeds the state PM10 ambient air quality standards and occasionally exceeds the federal PM,, and state PM, standards. Neitherthe CO nor N 2 standard has been violated in the last five gears at this station. Table 5,1-3 Ambient Air Quality A oral erincx Summa Fine Particulates P1 Federal 24 -Hour > 851 m, 0 0 0 1 Max. 4 -Hour Con g/m) 115.5 .0 54.7 50.2 70.4 Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data. ppm: parts per million; erg /ml: or micrograms per cubic meter; NS: No Standard. ' The US EPA recently reprised the 8 -hour 03 standard from 0.08 ppm to 8.075 ppm, effective May 2008 2 The NQ, standard was amended on February 22, 2007, to lower the 1 -hr standard to 0.1 ppm. 3 Percent of samples exceeding standard. 4 The [EPA recently revised the 4 -hour PIVI2_5tandard from 65 pg/m3 to 35 glrTl. This standard did not take effect until December 2006. E§3 Falrhave.tilLincoln and Santa ClaralLlncoln Intersection Modifications a y of n I Page .1 -9 Siipplem-ent to the Sonia A na Second stain track Project EIR Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 59 of 130 Number of Days Threshold Were Exceeded and Maximum Levels Burin Such Violation oIlua #landard 2003 2005 2005 2007 Ozone 0 State 1 -Hour 0.00 ppm 1 1 1 6 State 8 -hour 0.07 ppm 16 50 8 5 7 Federal 8 -Hour > 0.075' PPM 1 8 0 1 1 Max. 1 -Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.136 0.136 0.005 0.113 0.127 Max. -Hour Cone. ppm 0.088 0.098 0.070 0.00 0.100 Carbon Monoxide D State 8 -Hour > 9.0 ppm 0 0 0 0 0 Federal 8 -Hour 9.0 ppm 0 0 0 0 0 Max. 8 -Hour Cone. (ppm) 3.89 4.00 3.27 2.00 2.01 Nitrogen Dioxide 0 State 1 -Hour 0.2 PPM 0 0 0 0 0 Max. 1 -Hour Corn. pm 0.127 0.122 0.089 0.114 0.080 Coarse Particulates PEA State 24 -Hour > 50 9/ml 8 7 3 7 6 Federal 24 -Hour > 1 0 g/M3 0 0 0 0 1 Max. 24 -Hour Cone. m) 00.0 74.0 65.0 104.0 480.0 Fine Particulates P1 Federal 24 -Hour > 851 m, 0 0 0 1 Max. 4 -Hour Con g/m) 115.5 .0 54.7 50.2 70.4 Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data. ppm: parts per million; erg /ml: or micrograms per cubic meter; NS: No Standard. ' The US EPA recently reprised the 8 -hour 03 standard from 0.08 ppm to 8.075 ppm, effective May 2008 2 The NQ, standard was amended on February 22, 2007, to lower the 1 -hr standard to 0.1 ppm. 3 Percent of samples exceeding standard. 4 The [EPA recently revised the 4 -hour PIVI2_5tandard from 65 pg/m3 to 35 glrTl. This standard did not take effect until December 2006. E§3 Falrhave.tilLincoln and Santa ClaralLlncoln Intersection Modifications a y of n I Page .1 -9 Siipplem-ent to the Sonia A na Second stain track Project EIR Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 59 of 130 5. Environmental Analysis AI R QUALITY Sensitive receptors Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others due to the types of population groups or activities involved, S ensitive population groups include children' the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill, especially those with card ioresp i ratory diseases. Residential areas are also considered to be sensitive receptors to air pollution because residents (including children and the elderly) tend to be at home for extended periods of time, resulting in sustained exposure to any pollutants present. other sensitive receptors include retirement facilities, hospital's, and schools. Recreational land uses are considered moderately sensitive to air pollution. Although exposure periods are generally short, exercise places a high demand on respiratory functions, which can be impaired by air pollution. In addition, noticeable air pollution can detract from the enjoyment of recreation. Industrial, commercial, retail, and office areas are considered the least sensitive to air pollution. Exposure periods are relatively short and intermittent, as the majority of the workers tend to stay indoors most of the time. in addition, the working population is generally the healthiest segment of the public. Figure 4 -1, Aerial Photograph, in Chapter 4, Environ entalSettin , depicts the land uses surrounding the project site. Sensitive receptors in proximity to the project site include the surrounding residences. 5, 1,3 Thresholds f Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA G u del ines, a project would normal Iy have a significant effect on the nvlronrnent if the project would: ACS -1 Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. AG-2 AG-2 Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air duality violation. ACS -3 Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). Ao -4 Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. AQ-5 Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. In addition, oPR is currently in the process of updating the GEOA guidelines to address global warming. Until such time, a significant impact relative to global climate change and GH O is considered to occur if the project would: AQ-6 Cumulatively contribute to global climate change impacts in California or be substantially affected by global climate change impacts. The Initial Study, included as Appendix A, substantiates that impacts associated with the following thresholds would be less than significant: 0 Threshold ACS -1 0 Threshold ACS - Page 5, 1 -10 T Planning Center March 2009 Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 60 of 130 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY These impacts will not be addressed in the following analysis. South coast Air Quality Management District Thresholds Regional Significance Thresholds CEQA allows for the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district to be used to assess impacts of a project on air quality. The SCAQMD has established thresholds of significance for air quality for construction activities and project operation as shown to Table 5.1-4: Table 5,14 SCA A D ReuLonal Mnificance Thresholds Air Pollutant Construcfion Phase OperefionalPhase Volable Oganic Cary aunds (VOC) 75 lbs/day 55 Ibs d y Nitrogen Oxides 100 lbs/day 55 lbslda Carbon Monoxide 550 lbs/day 550 lbs /da Sulfur Oxides 150 lbs/day 10 lbsda Particulates (PMJ 150 lbs/day 150 lb da Fine particulates P 55 a Ib � 55 lbs day Source: SCAM 2007 CO Hots of Thresholds Localized CO impacts are determined based on the presence of congested intersections. The significance of localized project impacts depends on whether the project would cause substantial concentrations of CO. A project is considered to have a significant impact if project - related mobile- source emissions result in an exceedance the California one -hour and eight -hour CO standards, which ch are: 1 hour = 20 parts per million hour = 9 parts per million Localized Significance Thresholds The S CAQM D developed localized significance thresholds (LSTs) for emissions of No , CO, PM,(), and PM, generated at the project site (off -site mobile- source emissions are not included the LT analysis. LSTs represent the maximum emissions at a project site that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent federal or state AAQS, LSTs are based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant within the project S A and the distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. L T analysis for construction is applicable for all projects of fire acres and less; however, it can be used as screening criteria for larger projects to determine whether or not dispersion modeling may be required. The construction LSTs for a one -acre project site with 1n S RA 17 for son itive receptors located within 25 meters (appro cimately 81 feet) are shown in Table 5.1-5. FafrbavenlLincoln and Santa C iron Interjection Modifications City of Santa Ana a Page 5. 1 -1 Supplement to the Santa Ana Second Main Track Project EIR Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 61 of 130 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Table 5,1-5 SCAQMD Localized Significance Thresholds il�rslrold 1sd Air Pollutant o frcrclio Opera #io ' Carbon Monoxide (CO) 440 440 Nitrogen Oxides (NOJ 139 139 Coarse Particulates PM 4 1 Fine Particulates (PM, J 3 1 Source: SCAQM D 2003; SCAND 2006, for a 1 -acre site with receptors 82 feet 5 meters from the source Greenhouse Gas Emission Thresholds The SCAQMD, OPR, and CARB have not formally adopted regional emission thresholds for CHC emissions. However, the SCAQMD is currently in the process of drafting thresholds for Coe emissions for construction and operation of a project. According to the SCALD Working Croup the third proposed interim GHC significance proposal (October 2006) is a decision tree approach. Residential /Commercial projects that generate more than 3,600 ,metric tons per year and industrial projects that generate more than 7,066 metric tons per year must undergo a more detailed analysis than those that generate less. 5.1.4 Environmental Impacts The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study identified potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement. IMPACT 5. 1-1: PR JEGT -REI TED SHORT-TERM CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS WOULD NOT EXCEED C i THRESHOLD CRITERIA OR CONTRIBUTE TO THE Om PM m OR PM,,., .5 So NONATT I MENT DESIGATIONS. [THRESHOLDS A -2 AND A - ] Impact Analysis: Construction activities produce combustion emissions from various sources, such as on- sate heavy -duty construction vehicles, vehicles hauling materials to and from the site, motor vehicle transporting the construction crew, and fugitive dust emissions. Air pollutant emissions from construction activities on -site vwrouId vary daily as construction activity levels change. The primary sou roe of construction- re lated CC, SC , Vo C, and N Ox emissions is gasoline- and diesel - powered, heavy -duty mobile construction equipment, Primary sources of PM I. and PM 2,, emissions are clearing and demolition activities, excavation and grading operations, construction vehicle traffic on unpaved ground, and wind blowing over exposed earth surfaces. Construction activities associated with the project would occur over 12 weeks, with construction activities at the Fairhaven /Lincoln intersection taking 6 weeks and activities at Santa Clara /Lincoln intersection taking 6 weeks. Construction emissions associated with demolition, construction, and paving activities were estimated based on default construction equipment projections for a one -acre project site using the URBEMIS200 ' model. Air pollutant emissions associated with the project are shown in Table 6.1 -6. As shown construction emissions would not exceed the S CAQM D thresholds and no significant impacts would occur. Page 3-1 a The Planning Center Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 62 of 130 March 2009 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Table 5.1-6 Constructi Phase Regional Emissions - (ire pounds Per ) Construction Phase' voc NOx co SC P 10 P�V1 Demolition 1 8 6 0 12 1 Construction 2 12 8 <1 1 1 Paving 2 13 9 0 1 No SCAOMD Standard 75 100 550 150 150 M 55 Significant? No No No No No No Source. URBEMIS2007, Version 9.2.4 ' Construction equipment mix based on the URBEMIS2007 model defaults for a one -acre project site assuming six weeks of demolition, construction and paging activit$es at each intersection, No grading activities are assumed as all work would occur in the existing right -of -war. IMPACT 5.1-2.- PROJECT- RELATED SHORT-TERM CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS WOULD NOT EXPOSE SENSITIVE RECEPTORS TO SUBSTANTIAL POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS. [THRESHOLD A -4] Impact Ana"i : Unlike the mass (weight) of construction emissions shown in Table 5.1 -6 (described as pounds per day), localized concentrations refer to an amount of a polIutarnt in a volume of air ppm orpg r and can be correlated to potential health effects, Air quality analysis is based on the OA C S, which are the most stringent AA QS established to provide a margin of safety in the protection of the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect those sensitive receptors most susceptible to further respiratory distress, such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exerci e. LSTs are applicable only to NO2, CO, Phi, ,,, and PI 2,,. Because pollutants emitted during construction greatly depend on the proximity of the source to the receptor, LSTs are based on the location of the emission source relative to the sensitive receptors as well as on the quantity of emission. Table 5.1-7 shows construction emission rates and LSTs for SRA 17 based on sensitive receptors a# a distance of meters feet), in accordance with the SOAQMD methodology. As shown in this table, air pollutant emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD's LSTs for a one-acre site. Consequently, construction emissions generated by the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations and impacts would be less than significant. Table 5.1-7 Maximum Daily Construction Emissions ra re with the LST Construcfion Phasel Poll #cot ib d N x co P 10 P .s Demolition 8 6 1 1 Construction 12 3 1 1 Paving 13 9 1 1 AM Standard 139 440 4 3 Significant? No No No No Source: URBEMIS2007, Version 9.2.4 Construction equipment crux based on the URBEMIS2007 model defaults for a one -acre project site assuming six weeks of demolition, construction and paving activities at each intersection. No grading activities are assumed as all work would occur in the existing right -of- U. FalrbavenlLincoln and Santa ClaralLincoln intersection Modificationj City of Santa Ana a Page 5-1- 7 Supplement to the Santa Ana Second Main Track Project EIR Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 63 of 130 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY IMPACT . T- : INTERSECTION ECTIO MODIFICATIONS WOULD NOT EXPOSE SENSITIVE RECEPTORS TO SUBSTANTIAL POLLUTANT T ONCENTRATI l S. [THRESHOLD AGE-4] Impact Analysis: Because CO is produced in greatest quantities from cars and trucks and does not readily disperse into the atmosphere, adherence to AA QS is typically demonstrated through are analysis of localized CO concentrations. Areas of vehicle congestion have the potential to create pockets of CO called hot spas. These pockets could exceed the state one -hour standard of 20 ppm or the eight -hour standard of 9 ppm. Federal levels for one- and eight -hour standards of 35 and 9 ppm, respectively. Thus, an a ceedance condition would occur based on the state standards before the federal standards. Hot spas are typically produced at intersections, where traffic congestion is highest because vehicles are backed up waiting to pass through the intersection and are subject to reduced speeds. Typically, for an intersection to have a significant CO concentration, it would operate at level of service (LOS) E or worse. The intersection modification project would not change existing traffic patterns so it would not result in hot spots with concentrated air pollutants. According to the traffic study all intersections are currently operating at Lo D or better DMJM Harris 2008). The project would not change existing traffic conditions; therefore, the proposed project wouId not exceed any of the state one -hour or eight -hour CO AA S. Sensitive receptors in the area would not be adversely affected by CO emissions from project- related traffic redistribution. Localized air quality impacts related to mobile - source emissions would be less than significant. IMPACT 5.1 : PRCUE T- RELATED GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS WOULD NOTSIGNIFICANTLY CONTRIBUTE TO GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN CALIFORNIA. [THRESHOLD A Q-61 Impact Analysis: The 2002 EIR did not evaluate global climate change impacts because the framework for analyzing this impact was not available when the 2002 EIR was published. Global climate change is not confined to a particular project area and is generally accepted as the consequence of global industrialization over the last 200 years. A typical project, earn a very large one, does not generate enough greenhouse gas emissions on its own to influence global climate change significantly; hence, the issue of global climate change is, by definition, a cumulative environmental impact. The project would generate G HG emissions frorn short -terra construction activities but wou ld not generate long -term emissions. Coe emissions from project - related construction activities were calculated by URBEMIS2007 and are shown in Table .1 -3, Approximately 35 tons of Coe would be produced by project construction. The total amount of CO, emissions generated by equipment over the course of the construction phase would not be substantial or exceed the SCAQMD draft interim~ screening thresholds. Impacts associated with GHG emissions generated by the project would be less than significant. Table 5.1-8 Project-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions Source CO, emissions Construction Aotivites - 2099 35 tons AND Daft interim Screening Threshold 3,990 tons Significant? No Source: Ufi0E IS 007, Version 9.2.4 Page .1 -14 + The Planning Center Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 64 of 130 March 2009 5. Environmental Analysis NENEEEEEE� AIR QUALITY 1. 5 Cumula ive Impacts In accordance with the SCAMD methodology, any project that produces a significant regional air uality impact in a nonattainment air basin will have a cumulative impact. Cumulative projects within the local area include new development and population growth. The greatest source of emissions within the SoCAB is mobile sources. The S CAQM D considers a project cumulatively significant when project - related emissions exceed the SCAOMD regional emissions thresholds shown in Table 5.1-6, Construction The SoCAB is in nonattai nment for o., PM, 0, and PM2.5F SCAOM D's air quality thresholds were developed to identify projects that would substantially contribute to the SoCAB's nonattainrnent status. Project - related construction activities would not exceed the SCAOM D's air quality thresholds. Therefore, the project would not significantly contribute to the regional non attainment designations of the SoCAB and impacts mould not be cumulatively considerable. Operation For operational phase air quality emissions, any project that does not exceed or can be mitigated to less than the SCAQUID's daily regional threshold values is not considered by the SCAOMID to be a substantial source of air pollution and does not add significantly to a cumulative impact. The project would not generate long -term emissions because it would not generate new trips or change eciting traffic patterns on the local roadways. As described in Impact 5.1 -3 , the project would not substantially elevate CO concentrations at local intersection;. In consideration of the preceding factors, the project's contribution to cumulative long- term air quality impacts would not be cumulatively considerable and impacts would be less than significant, Global Farming Project - related GHG emissions are not confined to a particular air basin but are dispersed worldwide. Consequently, it is speculative to determine how project - related GHG emissions would contribute to global climate change and how an individual project's GHG ernissions would impact California. Therefore, impacts identified under impact 5.1 -4 are not project- specific impacts to global warming but the project's contribution to this cu m ulative impact. G H G emissions from construction of the project world not be substantial and its contribution to global climate change impacts would not be cumulatively considerable, 5.1.6 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions • SAQIID Rule 201: Permit to Construct a BCAMD Rule 402: Nuisance Odors * BCAMD Rule 403: Fugitive Dust * ARB Rule 2480: Airborne Tonics Control Measure • Motor Vehicle Standards AB 1493) 5. 1.7 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Upon irnplernentation of regulatory requlrernents and standard conditions of approval, the following impacts would be less than significant: .1 -1, 5.1-2, 5.1-3, and 5.1 -4, FairhavenlLincoln and Santa ' a a inco n Interjection 11 odific ion r City of an Ana a Page .1 -1 Supplement to the Santa Ana Second Main Track Project EIR Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 65 of 130 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY 5-1-8 Mitigation ation Measures No mitigation measures are required. 5.1.9 Legal of Significance After Mitigation Air Quality r impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Page 5,1-16 • The Planning Center Marcb 2009 Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 66 of 130 S. Environmental Analysis 5.2 NOISE This section of the Draft SEIR discusses the fundamentals of sound; examines federal, state, and local noise guidelines, policies, and standards; reviews noise levels at existing receptor locations; evaluates potential noise impacts associated with the project; and compares impacts to those analysed in the Santa Arta Second Main Track EIR (2092). This evaluation uses procedures and ,methodologies as specified by California Department of Transportation caltran , the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) , and the Federal Highway Administration FHWA . The analysis in this section is partially based on the fol low! ng documents: • Traffic lm act Studer, Santa Aria Second Naar Track, Updated Draft Report, DMJM Harris, 2098, March. in Santa Aria Second Main Track Project Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse Igo. 2900091 065. Prepared for Southern California Regional Rail Authorr`ty SCRRA . Prepared by Myra L. Frank and Associates, Inc., 2992, February. Norse modeling data sheets for this analysis are included as Appendix D. 5.2.1 Impacts Identified in the Santa Ana Second Main Track EIR (2002) The 2992 EIR analyzed all environmental checklist items in the CE QA Guidelines related to construction and operational noise impacts. The project analyzed in the 2992 EIR has been completely constructed. Revisions to the project do not result in impacts related to train activity on the main line tracts, therefore, train noise and vibration impacts identified in the 2802 EIR are not included in this Draft SEIR. The 2092 EIR found that construction activities would result in occasional and sporadic increases in noise levels, Co nstruction noise was described as being temporary and limited to the daytime hours of 7 :08 AM to 8:08 PK with the exception of track realignment activities, and no significant impacts were identified. Because the original project did not result in an increase in vehicular traffic, an increase In noise solely from project- related vehicular traffic was not evaluated in the 2902 EIR. 5. 2.2 Environmental Setting Noise Terminology The following are definitions of terminology used in this section: • Noise. Sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or otherwise undesirable, • Decibel (dB). A unitless ,measure of sound on a logarithmic scale. • A- Weighted Decibel BA . An overall frequency - weighted sound level in decibels that approximates the frequency that humans can hear. • Sound Level Equivalent (L�q ). The mean of the noise level averaged over the measurement period, regarded as an average level, • Day-Night Level (LJ. The energy average of the A- weighted sound levels occurring during a 24-hour period, with 19 dB added to the sound levels occurring during the period from 18 PM to 7 AM. FairhavenlLincoln and Santa ClaralLincoln Ir ters c io n 10 i� cations City of ra a Ana a Page 5.2 -1 eo Supplement to the Santa Aria Second Main Track Project EIR Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 67 of 130 S. Environmental A nalysis NOISE • om u ity Noise Equivalent Level 111EL). The energy average of the A- weighted hte occurring during a 24 -Jour period with d6 9 9 � sound bevels p added to the sound levels occurring during the period from 7 Phi to 10 P M and 10 dB added to the sound levels occurring durir the period from 7 A1. 9 R 1 PM to L.d, and CNEL values rarely differ by more than 1 dB. As a matter of practice, and NEL considered to bee equivalent and are treated �, values are q eated as such �r� this assessment, Eloise Descriptors Noise i s most often defined as unwan ed sound, Although soun d can be easily measured, the erne ticn noise and the physical response to sound complicate the anal P p of p +s of its impact an popre, People fudge the relative magnitude of sound sensation in subjective terms such as "noisiness" or "loudness." Characteristics of Sound When are object vibrates, it radiates part of its energy as acoustical pressure in the form of a sound wave. Sound can be described in terms of amplitude (loudness), frequency (pitch), or duration (time). The human hearing system is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies. Therefore, to appro orate this human frequency - dependent response, the - weighted filter system is used to adjust measured sound levels. The normal range of human hearing extends from approximately 0 dBA to 140 dB A. Unlike linear units such as inches or pounds, decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale, representing points on a sharply rising curve. Because of the physical characteristics of noise transmission and noise perception, the relative loudness of sound does not closely match the actual amounts of sound energy. Table ,2 -1, Change in Sound Pressure Level, Presents the subjective effect of chap levels. � gas �n sound pressure Table 5.2-1 Chan a in Sound Pressure ILevel lra a in Apparent Loudness ± 3 dB Threshold of human perceptibility ± 5 dB Cleanly nofteable change in noise level 10 dB Half or trice as laud ± 0 dB Much quieter or ruder Source. Bies and Hansen 2003 Bound is generated from a source and dissipates exponentially with distance from that source. When sound is measured for distinct time intervals, the statistical distri bution of the overall sound level durin that eriod can be obtained. The sound level equivalent L is the most cone 9 p g �� commonly the parameter associated with such measurements. L,,, is the average sound level over a given period of time. For example, the L.50 noise level is the level that is exceeded 50 percent of the time; half the time the noise exceeds this level and half the time it is less than this level. This level is also exceeded 30 minutes in an hour. Similarly, the L-02, L ,,and L values are the noise levels that are exceeded 2, 8, and 25 percent of the time or 1, 3, and 15 minutes per Dour. Other values typically noted during a noise survey are the and P �,�� L. These are the minimum and maximum noise levels obtained over the measurement period. Page 5.2-2 he Planning Venter Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 68 of 130 March 2009 5. Environmental A nalysir NOISE Because community receptors are more sensitive to unwanted noise intrusion at night, state law requires uire that, for planning purposes, n artificial dB increment be added to quiet - time noise levels in a 4 -hour noise descriptor called the Community Noise Equivalent Level NEL) or Day -Might Noise Level (Loo). Psychological and Physiological Effects of Noise Physical damage to human hearing begins at prolonged exposure to noise levels higher than 85 dBA. Exposure to high noise levels affects the entire biological system, with prolonged noise exposure in excess of 75 dBA increasing body tensions, thereby affecting Mood pressure and functions of the heart and nervous system. Extended periods of noise exposure above 90 dBA can result in permanent cell damage. when the noise level reaches 120 dBA, a tickling sensation occurs in the human ear even with short - terra exposure. This level of noise is called the threshold of feeling. As the sound reaches 140 dBA, the tickling sensation is replaced by the feeling of pain in the ear, called the threshold of pain. A sound level of 160 to 165 dBA will result in dizziness or loss of equilibrium. The ambient or background noise problem is widespread and generally more concentrated in urban areas than in outlying, less developed areas. Table 5.2-2 shoves Typical Noise Levels from Noise Sources. Table 5.2-2 Typkal Noise Levels from Noise Sources Nose Level Comm on Outdoor Activities ffBA) Common Indoor Activities Source: California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Su p�ement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, Table 9- 2138.2, October 1 998. FalrhavenlLincoln and Santa ClaralLincoln Intersection Mo i icat o rj City of Santa Aria • Page 5.2 -3 Stipplement to the Santa Ana Second Main Track Project EIR Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 69 of 130 110 Rack Sand ROB .het Flyover at 1,000 feet 100 Gas Lawn Mower at three feet 0 Diesel Truck at 50 feet, at 50 mph Food Blender at three feet 80 Garbage Disposal at three feet Nois Urban Area, Da 'nee 70 Vacuum Cleaner at ten feet Commercial Area Normal Speech at three feet Heavy Traffic at 300 feet 60 Large Business Office Quiet Utarn Daytime 50 Dishwasher Next Room Quiet Urban Nighttime 40 Theater, Large Conference Room background Quiet suburban lvli httme 0 Library Quiet Rural Nighttime Bedroom at Night Concert Fall (background) 0 BroadeasVRecording Studio 10 Lowest Threshold of Human Heading 0 Lowest Threshold of Human Hearina Source: California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Su p�ement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, Table 9- 2138.2, October 1 998. FalrhavenlLincoln and Santa ClaralLincoln Intersection Mo i icat o rj City of Santa Aria • Page 5.2 -3 Stipplement to the Santa Ana Second Main Track Project EIR Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 69 of 130 S. Environmental Analysis NoIsE Noise- and Vibration-Sensitive Receptors Certain land uses are particularly sensitive to noise and vibration, including residential space/recreation areas where quiet environments r , school, and open rr�e are necessary for enjoyment, public health, and safety. Sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project site include residential uses sin le -famil residences n Lincoln Avenue between y and multifamily 17th Street and Fairhaven Avenue, Santa Clara Avenue, and Fairhaven Avenue. The residences on the east side of Lincoln Avenue are adjacent to the railroad separated by five- to eight -foot tall mason walls. � tract s, Existing Noise Environment The ambient noise environment at the project site and local vicinity is dominated by transportation sour including vehicular traffic on local roadways Lincoln Avenue p sources, � , Santa Clara Avenue, Fairhaven Avenue, 17th Street, and Forth Grand Avenue) and trains on the orange County Line of Burlington Northern Santa F B� F railroad that runs adjacent to Lincoln Avenue. In ener e 9 al, while #rain nose �s less constant than nose generated by vehicular traffic, (horns, engines, etc.) is louder. Noise Monitoring As part of the 2002 Ells noise analysis, monitoring was conducted to determine the existing noise levels in the project vicinity. A field survey of the existing ambient noise environment was performed by Harms Miller Miller & Hanson, inc., between August 22 through 24, 1999, on October 24 and 25, 2000, and on June 20 Table 5.2-3 shows the results of the noise monitoring conducted in 1 999 and 2000. The locations of noise monitoring sites are described below. Table &2-3 200 Monitored Noise revels Site Measurement Start Virginia Aveflue 12:00 AM, u t 4, 1 909 Park Lame 11:00 Alai October 4, DOO Day-Nij 1h.t Average Level , dBA Measured Trains Without Trains 71.5 70.2' 64.01 70.2 60.1' 03.02 Source: 2002 EIR. ' Trains only: Lo, estimated assuming that the L,q for hours with ambient noise dominated by train noise. 2 Without trains. Ld, estimated using L33 for hours that appeared to have train pass -bys and L,, for hours that appeared not to have train ass -b s. Virginia Avenue. The noise meter was placed at the residence at 1013 Virginia Avenue, along the west side of Lincoln Avenue, south of the Garden Grove Freeway. The microphone was placed behind a hedge that was not dense enough to provide noise attenua #ion. Except for the h 0 p edge, there was clear from the microphone to the train tracks. The closest part of the horse is approximately 85 feet frorn the center line of the tracks. The microphone was the same distance from the tracks. Park Lama. The noise meter was placed at the west corner of the residence at 1022 Park Lane, 70 feet from the center lime of the original main -line tracks. Because of the horse's orientation on the lot, it was approximately 15 feet closer to the tracks than the other houses along Lincoln Avenue. The microphone was extended slightly above the top of the rnasonry wall at the lot line, Page 5,2-4 • The Planning Venter March 2009 Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 70 of 130 5. Environmental Analysis No[sE Vehicular Mobile Sources Norse from motor vehicles is generated by engine vibrations, the interaction between tires and the road and the exhaust system. Reducing the vehicle speed reduces the noise exposure of receptors adjacent to the road. Each reduction of five mile per hour reduces noise 1 � b about 1.8 c�BA, Traffic noise levels were calculated for historical operating conditions when the Fairhaven /Lincoln intersection was open in 2005 and 2006 and for existing conditions when the intersection was closed in p 07. Noise modeling was performed using the FHWA's Traffic Noise Model. Average dailY traffic volumes were provided by the traffic stud (D 1J M Harris, March 2008). Mode Iing is based on noise levels at 10 feet from the edge of the nearest traffic lane (excludes noise from train traffic). Table .2 ;4 lists the average daily traffic ADT noise levels on roadways in the vicinity of the project with the intersection open and Table 5.2-5 lists the ADT noise levels with the intersection closed. with the intersection open noise levels adjacent to the roadway range from 68 to 78 dBA CN EL. Noise attenuation provided by intervening 9 mason r walls at the adjacent residences ranges from 5 to 8 dBA depending on whether or not the walls have gaps, which would reduce their noise reduction effectiveness FHIIA 2006). Table 5.24 Traffic Noise odellr Fairhaven lUncoln Open) Location ADS' CNEL AAJ Lincoln Avenue Fairhaven Avenue to East Santa Clara Avenue 5,000 58.9 East Santa Clara Avenue to 17th Street 0,350 09.3 East Santa Clara Avenue East of Lincoln Avenue 0,350 65.4 Fairhaven Avenue East of Lincoln Avenue 6,800 00,E 7th Street :.. Between Lincoln Avenue and Grand Avenue 57P700 77.7 Grand Avenue Fairhaven Avenue to East Santa Clara Avenue 24,800 76.2 East Santa Clara Avenue to 17th Street 24,150 76.1-- Source: FH A, Traffic Noise Model, Version 2.5. Based on traffic volumes and speed limits obtained from the traffic analysis prepared by DMJM Harms (March 2008 ). Modeling is based on noise levels at 10 feet from the edge of the nearest traffic lane (excludes noise from train traff ie ). ADT = average dail y trips PE FairhavenlLincoln and Santa ClaralLincoln In rs c on Io i� horns City of 'ray Ana *Page 5.2-5 L. upplewnt to the Beata Ana Second Haan Track Project EIR Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 71 of 130 5. Environmental Analysis NotsE Table 5.2-5 Traffi Noise I of lin irhavenlUncoln Closed) Location ADT CNEL (EA2 Lincoln Arrenue Fairhaven Avenue to East Santa Clara Avenue 1 t800 64.E East Santa Clara Avenue to 1 7th Street 4,670 7.9 East Santa Clara Avenue East of Lincoln Avenue 7,280 69.0 Fairhaven Avenue East of Lincoln Avenue 3,010 05+2 171h Street Between Lincoln Avenue and Grand Avenue 80,880 77, Grand Avenue Fairhaven Avenue to East Santa Clara Avenue 8, 0 76.9 East Santa Clara Avenue to 17th Street 51,610 77.5 Source: Fl` WA, Traffic Noise Model, Ver ion 2.5. Based on traffic volumes and speed limits obtained from the traffic analysis prepared by DMJ I Harris March 2008. Modeling is based on noise levels at 10 feet from the edge of the nearest traffic lane excludes noise from train traffic). Railroad Sources The railroad right -of -way is adjacent to Lincoln Avenue. As a result of the 2002 project implementation, the right-of-way now consists of two main -line tracks instead of one. Noise generated by the train ,ruin line contributes to the ambient noise environment. Noise from trains is generated by warning horns and crossing bells when approaching at -grade crossings, and engines, exhaust noise air 9 t turbulence generated bar cooling fans, and other gear operations. The interaction of steel wheels and rails generates three types of noise: 1 rolling noise due to continuous rolling contact, ) impact Noise when a wheel encounters a discontinuity in the running surfaces, such as a rail joint, turnout, or crossover, and 3 squeals generated by friction on tight curves. When an at-grade crossing is present, a train is required by the federal Railroad Administration (RRA) to sound a warning horn at a distance of one-quarter mile from all intersections at ar maximum 110 dB , as measured at 100 feet. Horns are not used at crossings that have an established "quiet zone." These quite zone crossings ,mist have enhanced safety measures. Currently, there are no quiet zones established in the immediate vicinity of the project site. There are currently 39 passenger trains that travel on the orange County Line through the project site (Metrolinl 2008 and Amtrak 2008). f these" four occur between 10: 0 � 0 PIS and 7:0� 1. There are also approximately four freight trains that travel on the orange county Line at night.' According to the 2002 EIR" peak day travel activity on the Orange County Line is estirnated at 105 freight, intercity, and comm uter trains by year 2020. Approximately 87 of these trains would occur in the daytime (83 percent) and 18 occur in the nighttime 17 percent) between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. ' Based on BN F freight projections from the 2002 EIR. Page 5.2-6 • The Planning Venter 1 r h 2009 Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 72 of 130 S. Environmental A nalysi.� NaisF Regulatory Setting City of Santa Ana Land Use Compatibility Criteria The City of Santa Aria, through its General Plarn, has adopted standards for noise compatibility for land uses. The guidelines, shown in Table .- roide urban fanners with p � t a tool to gauge the cornpatib,lity of new land uses relative to existing and future noise levels. According to the city of Santa Ana General Flan Noise Element, all residential uses should be protected with sound insulation over and above that rovided by normal building construction when new noise- sensitive arses are constructed in areas exposed to nose levels exceeding 60 dBA cNEL. Table &2-6 Cit of Santa Aria poise Compatibility Guidelines Noise Level (dBA CNELILOd Land Use Desired Maximum Maximum �r Acceptable Residential — Low Density 66 6 Residential — Medium Density 60 6 Resident al -- High Densi 66 70 Schools 60 70 Commercial, Office 66 75 Industrial 70 7 Source: Santa Ana, City ot, General Plan, Noise. 1982. City of Santa Ana Stationary Noise Standard — Noise Nuisance The Santa Ana regulates noise through its Article VI, Noise Control, of the City of Santa Ana Municipal Code. Pursuant to the Municipal Code, the city restricts noise levels generated of a property from exceeding certain noise levels for extended periods of time, The city applies the noise control ordinance standards (summarized in Table 5.2-7) to nontransportation fans, blowers, pumps, turbines, saws, engines, and other life machinery. Table 5.2-7 Ci of Santa Ana Exterior Noise Standards A�air►rr err�i6le Noise Levels del 1,2 i�eelo�Lr�d #1e ��re of Darr L�� L25 L8 L Lmax 10 PM to 7 60 66 60 Residential Properties 65 70 7 AM to 10 PM LL. 6 66 65 70 7 Source: Santa Ana, City of, municipal Coda, Article v1, Noise Control, Section 18 -312. ' In the event the alleged offensive noise consists entirely of impact noise, simple tone noise, speech, music, or any combination thereof, noise levels shall be reduced by dBA. In the event the ambient noise level exceeds the maximum permissible noise levels, the ambient noise level shall be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise level. FairhavenlLincoln and n a ClaralLincoln In s c on 10 if cationj City of Santa n Page 5, 2 -7 Supplement to the `unto Aria Second Main Track Project EIR Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 73 of 130 5. Environmental Analysis NoisE City of Santa Ana Construction Hours The City of Santa Ana exempts noise associated with construction, repair, remodeling, or grading of any real es from the noise limitations of the Municipal code , provi ded that construction activities do not take place between the hours of 8:00 PM and 7;60 on weekdays, including aturd s, or an time Sundays or federal holidays. on 5,2.5 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on he environment if the project would result in: N -i Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. N-2 Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or 9 roundborne noise levels. N -3 A substantial Permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above level existing without the project. N -4 A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. N -6 For a project located within an airport land use plan or where such a plan has not been adapted, within two miles of a public airport or pubic use airport, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. N-6 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, expose people residing or working the project area to excessive noise levels. The Initial Study, included as Appendix A, substantiates that impacts associated with the following thresholds would be less than significant: * Threshold N; 0 Threshold N -6 0 Threshold - These impacts will not be addressed in the following analysis. 5.2.4 Environmental Impacts The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study identified Potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement. IMPACT 5. -1 INTERSECTION MODIFICATIONS WOULD NOT RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT PERMANENT NOISE IMPACTS. [THRESHOLDS N.1 AND N.3] ] Impact Analysis: Potential noise impacts from project- related traffic were evaluated to assess increases in the ambient noise environment in the vicinity of noise - sensitive receptors, Project-related traffic noise was Page 5.2-8 P The Planning Center Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 74 of 130 March 2009 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE estimated using the FHWA's TN I. The modeling of traffic noise levels is based err traffic speed, and the volumes, traffic types of vehicles traveling on area roads. when the CNEL is 65 dB or reater, a 3 dB increase is used as a significance threshold. A 3 dB chap a in noise levels i } g considered to b the minimurn change discernible to the human ear. Table 5.2-8 provides traffic conditions for the Fairhaven /Lincoln intersection open (two-way affic and closed. �o scenarios: ]� Table S. -8 Traffic Morse Mode tff errs loeaf Noise Change Location ADT dBA CNEL ADT dB l EL d A cNEL Linoin Avenue Fairhaven to Santa Clara 6,800 68.9 1,300 64.2 -4.7 Santa Clara to 1 7th 6,350 60.3 4,570 67.0 -1.4 anta Vara Avenue East of Lincoln 6,350 66.E 1 7,280 60.0 airhaven Avenue . East of Lincoln 61 800 66.7 3,010 .65.2. 171h: treet Between Lincoln and Grand Avenue L.700-J-77.7 36,360 77.6 -0.1 :...... North .Grand Avenue -Fairhaven to Santa Clara 24,800 76.2 26,050 76.0 0.7 Santa Clara to 17th 24,160 76.1 31 x610 7 7.3 1. Source: FHWA, Traffic Noise Model JNM), Version 2.5. Based on traffic volumes and speed limits from obtained the traffic analysis prepared by DMJM Harris (March 2008). Modeling is based on noise levels at 10 feet from the edge of the nearest traffic lane (excludes noise from train traffic). ' used on traffic volumes with the Fairhaven Avenue intersedon open. 2 Based on traffic volumes with the Fairhaven Avenue intersection closed. An increase or decrease in noise levels that is less than 3 dB is not discernible, Therefore, the only discernible difference in noise between the previous open and existing s i a reduction �n closed condition noise. The proposed project would continue the existing closed condition by modifying the Fairhaven /Lincoln intersection from two lanes to a permanently closed intersection with a cul -de -sac. This modification would remove the temporary barriers and permanently prohibit all traffic traveling northbound on Lincoln Avenue from Park Avenue to Fairhaven Avenue. This project would not change the existing closed condition of the Fairhaven/Lincoln intersection and therefore world not increase traffic noise. Vehicle traffic noise would be less than significant. IMPACT 5.2-2: CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES WOULD NOT RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT TEMPORARY NOISE IMPACTS, [THRESHOLD 111 -1 AND X-41 ImPact Analysis: Con struction- related noise would result from the use of eguiprnent and tools, The d ree to which noise - sensitive receptors are affected b construction activities depends on their 9 � proximity. The transport of workers and equipment to the construction site would incrementally increase noise levels along site access roadways. Even though there would be a relatively high single-event noise exposure potential with passing trucks a maximum noise level of dBA at 5 feet) the e p r expected nurr�ber �f workers and trucks is small for each site relative to the background traffic. The truck trips would be spread throughout FairbavenlLincoln and Santa ClaralLincoln Intersection Modificationj City of ant • Page 5,2 - leme o the Santa Ana SecondNfain Track Project EIR Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 75 of 130 5. Environmental Analysis NoiSE the workday and would primarily occur during non peak traffic periods. Therefore, these ire acts are less than significant at noise receptors. � Noise is also generated by on -site construction operations. During construction nearby esidents would be subject to elevated noise levels. Construction activities are carried out in di y crate stags, each of which has its oven mix of equipment and, consequently, its own noise characteristics. These various sequential phases world change the character of the noise levels surrounding the construction site as cork progresses. Typically, the estimated construction noise levels are governed primarily by equipment that produces the highest noise levels. Construction nose levels for each generalized construction phase round clearing /demolition, excavation, roadway construction. finishing, and site clean 9 ups are based on a typical construction equipment mix and do not include use of atypical, very loud, and vibration - intensive equipment such as pile drivers. Pile drivers and other very loud construction equipment would not be required for construction of the minor roadway improvements. Estimated construction noise levels are shown in Table 5.2-9 and would range between 79 and 88 d A. However, noise attenuation provided by intervening masonry walls wouId range from 5 to 8 dBA depending on whether or not the barriers have gaps in it that reduce their effectiveness FHVA 2006). Table .: Construction Noise Levels at Noise-Sensitive Uses � of Construction Phase Noise Levels of 50 Feel Ground cleadn Demolition 84 Excavation 79 Foundation construction (concrete trucks) Building Construction Finishing and Site Cleanup 84 Source: Bolt, Beranek and Newman 1 976. Note; Noise levels frorn construction activities do not take into account attenuation provided by masonry walls and assumes minimum equipment in use due to the limited nature of construction activities. Construction activities would occur between 7;00 AM and 8:00 PM, Monday through Friday, with some nighttime and weekend work up to two weekends) to avoid disruption of train schedules. Construction activities are forecast to take approximately 12 weeks weeks at each intersection). Construction activities that occur during the daytime would comply with the City noise ordinance and would not resuit in significant noise impacts. During the evening ambient noise is less, people are sleeping and more sensitive to noise disturbances. Construction activities that occur between 8.00 PI VI and 7:00 AM would not comply with the noise ordinance. Because disruption of train schedules is not permitted, and most trains run during the day, project- related construction work would be conducted up to four nights between 11:00 PI VI and 5:00 AM for signal construction at the Santa Clara/Lincoln intersection. This phase of construction would use excavators, concrete trucks, and pick -ups. use of construction equipment would typically disrupt a quiet nighttime noise environment and potentially result in sleep disturbance. However, the nighttime ambient noise environment along Lincoln Avenue is comprised of both traffic noise and train noise, The nighttime ambient noise Page 5,2- 1 * The Planning Venter Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 76 of 130 March 2009 S. Environmental Analysis iE environment is currently disrupted by approximately eight trains that travel on the Oran a oun These noise levels already exceed City noise ordinance standards. While the frequency and duration of train noise is low, approximately one train every hour, the magnitude of noise from the trains is high (approximate l 115 dBA at 50 feet) . Noise from construction activities would be higher than an er�viror�rx�ent a�ppro�cirnatery dB at 0 feet without trains. ambient nose Given the current schedule of nigh time trains however, construction noise would not result in a substantial noise increase over existing conditions. Construction equipment noise world be substantially lower than the m nitud 9 ons, trains and therefore nighttime construction significant of noise generated by the ors noise world not be a significant nose impact. 5.2.5 Cumulative Impacts Cumulative noise impacts occur when multiple sources of noise, though individually not substantial combine and lead to excessive cumulative noise exposure at noise - sensitive uses. Short- Terra Construction Phase Activities Cumulative construction noise impacts have the potential to occur when multiple construction ' roects in the same general area generate noise within the same time frame and contribute p � to the increases �n the ambient noise environment. No other construction activities are proposed in the project vicinity. Furthermore, the City of Santa Ana allows for the generation of construction noise during the daytime hours. Bas d n noise levels generated by construction activities associated with the proposed project site, the duration of construction activities, and the presence of high magnitude of train horn noise, construction noise from the proposed project would not significantly contribute to the cumulative noise environment. p Long -Term Operational Phase Activities The project - related traffic circulation and associated traffic noise levels represents the project's cumulative contribution to increases in the ambient noise environment along roadway segments analyzed. Traffic noise produced by project - related vehicles would not grange and mould not contribute to any possible future noise increases in the area. In consideration of the preceding factors, the project's contribution to cumulative noise would be less than significant, and therefore, project impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. 5,2.6 Existing Regulations and Standard on it ons • City of Santa Ana Municipal Code, Article 111, Morse Control. 5.2.7 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, impact 5.2-1 and Impact 5.2-2 world be less than significant. 5.2:8 Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. 5.2.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation Noise impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Based on Metrol ink and Amtrak passenger trains and BN F freight projections from the 2002 EIR. FairhavenlLincoln and Santa ClaralLincoln Intersection Modifications City of Santa 4 e 5.2 -11 Supplement ,3upplement to tbeSanta Ana Second Main Track Project I L Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 77 of 130 5. Environmental Analysis NoIsE This page intentionally left blank. Page 5.2-12 • The Planning Center Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 78 of 130 Marcb S . Environmental Analysis 5.3 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION This section of the Draft SEIR evaluates the potential for the Fairhaven /Lincoln and Santa Clara Lincoln Intersection Modifications Proj eat to 1 r pact existing and future traffic and circulation. Although the Draft SEl'R compares the reprised project's impacts to those of the Santa Ana Second Main Tracy E R (2002) , the existing traffic conditions were also studied and documented to provide an accurate and c om plete rep resntation of the impacts. The analysis in this section is based on the following documents: Traffic Impact Study, Santa Aria Second Main Track, Updated Drat Report, DI IJ i Harris, 2008, Larch. • Santa Aria Second Main Track Project Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse No. 2000091 065, Prepared for Southern California Regional Rail Authority SCRRA. Prepared by Myra L. Frank and Associates, inc. 2002, February. A complete copies of the traffic study are included in Appendix E to this Draft SEIR. 5.3.1 Impacts Identified in the Santa Ana Second Main Track E1 (2002) The 2002 El analyzed all thresholds of significance in the cEQA Guidelines related to traffic and circulation. The proposed project, as analyzed in the 2002 EIR has been constructed in its entirety, Revisions to the project do not result in impacts related to train activity on the main line tracks; and therefore, train impacts of the 2002 EiR are not included. During construction activities, temporary street closures were necessary at at -grade crossings at La Meta Avenue in orange and Fairhaven Avenue, Santa Clara Avenue, and 17th Street in Santa Ana. Because at- grade closures would have affected emergency access, the 2002 EIR identified construction circulation impacts as potentially significant. However, realignment of portions of Lincoln Avenue to accommodate the second track construction was considered a less than significant impact because realignment of Lincoln Avenue would be phased to maintain roadway traffic at all times. Mitigation Meas ures. Traffic -1 and Traffic -2 required a traffic management plan to reduce impacts during construction and temporary street closures at at -grade crossings. with adherence to these mitigation measures, construction- related traffic irn pacts were reduced to less than significant levels. Traffic forecasts for year 2020 were conducted with and without the project in the 2002 EIR. Two of the sic Santa Ana study area intersections were forecast to operate a Level of Service (LOS) of E or F: Lincoln Avenue at Santa Clara Avenue /Aspen Street and Lincoln Avenue at Seventeenth Street. However, these intersections were forecast to operate at LOS E/F even without the project, so no significant project - related impacts were identified. Forecast year 2020 analysis was also conducted for Grand Avenue, and all study area intersections along Grand Avenue were forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better. In addition, the project would not alter a fisting traffic circulation patterns or preclude construction of planned bike facilities in Santiago Park or along La Veta Street and 17th Street, As a result, no significant impacts were identified from operation of the original project. 5.3.2 Environmental Setting Existing Roadway Network The project's study area is defined as the following roadway segments and intersections that could be affected by the proposed project- E-airhavenlLincoln and Santa ClaralLincoln Intersection 1rf o i nation r City _Santa Ana #°age 53-1 SuPlement to the Santa Ana Second Main Track Project EIR Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 79 of 130 5. Environmental Analysis TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION Roadway Segments • North Grand Avenue between Fairhaven Avenue and Santa Clara Avenue; • North Grand Avenue between Santa Clara Avenue and 17th Street; • Lincoln Avenue between Fairhaven Avenue and Santa Clara Avenue; • Lincoln Avenue between Santa Clara Avenue and 1 7th Street; • Fairhaven Avenue between North Grand Avenue and Lincoln Avenue; • Santa Clara Avenue between North Grand Avenue and Lincoln Avenue; • 17th Street between North Grand Avenue and Lincoln Avenue Intersections • Lincoln Avenue and Fairhaven Avenue no control) • Lincoln Avenue and Santa Clara Avenue/ Aspen Street (all -way stop); • Lincoln Avenue and 17th Street (signalized); • North Grand Avenue and Fairhaven Avenue (signalized); • North Grand Avenue and Santa Clara Avenue (signalized); • North Grand Avenue and 17th Street (signalized) These intersections and roadway segments were identified because of their proximity to the site and their role in circulation within and around the project area. Because the intersection of Lincoln Avenue and Fairhaven Avenue operates as an "L" configuration and requires no vehicle traffic control, intersection delay analysis is not warranted. Intersection geometries for existing study area roadways (the Fairhaven /Lincoln intersection is currently closed) are shown in Figure 5.3-1, Intersection Geometries — Intersection Open. Traffic Terminology and Methodology Roadway Segments Roadway segment standards provide the basis to screen roadway segments with high traffic volumes that may result in the need for more detailed analysis. The City of Santa Ana Circulation Element lists the roadway classifications and capacity standards from which volume to capacity (V /C) relationships can be derived. Table . -1 list the City of Santa Ana's roadway segment capacity standards. For this study, a capacity of 10,000 vehicles per day was used for Lincoln Avenue, Fairhaven Avenue, and Santa Clara Avenue, and a capacity of 50,600 vehicles per day was used for 17th Street, which is a major arterial. Table 5.5 -1 �fity of Santa Aria Roadway Segment Daily CapacHy Standard Roadway Classification Right - f Ea Capad irehiclesIday) Pnnoipal Artedal (3- 1anes) 144 feet 67,500 Major Arterial (6- lanes) 120 feet 5OP600 Primary Arterial (4- lanes) 100 feet 33,000 Secondary Arterial 4- lanes) 80 feet 22,500 Tertiary Arterial Commuter Street 00 feet 10,000 (2-lanes) Collector (- lanes) 56 feet 10,000 Source. D 1J 1 Harris 2008 Page 5.3-2 s The Planning "enter lase 2009 Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 80 of 130 S. Environmental Analysis Intersection Geometries— Intersection Open g;o.a) cor7j NOT TO SCALE Source: DMJM Harris E O 2008 EaffhavenlLincoln and Santa ClaralLincoln Intersection Modificationj The Planning n "eSo164WM , 09 -034 Supplement to the Santa Ana Second Main Wrack P)Yjject EIR Page 81 of 130 5. Environmental Analysis TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION This page intentionally left blank Page .3 -4 a The Planning Center Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 82 of 130 March 2009 S. Environmental Analysis TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION Intersections Two analysis methodologies were applied to assess traffic impacts: Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology for signalized intersection performance and Highway Capacity Manual HMC Manual 2000 methodology for un ignali ed intersection performance. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Method - Signalized Intersections Level of service (LOS) qualitatively measures the operating conditions within a traffic system and hoer drivers and passengers perceive these conditions. The ICU Method determines an intersection LOS based on the percent of the allocated "green time" used by the approach volume. The intersection analysis was based on lost time as a percentage of total cycle length (green -Iight to red -Iight and back). Modeling ass rues a five percent clearance loss as a percentage of cycle length,1 ,700 vehicles per hour per lane for through Ianes, and 1,600 vehicles per hour per Ian for left-turn lanes. Table 5.3-2 provid es a summary of LOS definitions under the ICU methodology. LOS ranges from free flowing at A to overloaded conditions at F. LOS D is typically recognized as the minimum satisfactory service level in urban areas and is the level of service standard adopted by the City of Santa Ana. According to Congestion Management Program IVIP traffic impact analysis guidelines, LOS E is the minimum acceptable service level at CMP intersections. Highway Capacity Manual 11 2000 Method - Unsignalized Intersections Unsignalize I intersections were evaluated using the H M 2000 analysis methodology. LOS definitions for unignalized intersections using the HM 2000 method are described in Table . -. FairbavenlLincoln and Santa Clara Lincoln Intersection Modifications City of ` n a Page 5.3 SuPlement t to the Santa Ana Second Lain �ra `k Project EIR Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 83 of 130 Table 5.3-2 Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections 1C Level of Service Intersection Capacity L 0 Utilization Value C Level of Service Description lion 88 0.00-0.60 Free Flow /insignificant Delay: No approach phase is fuller utilized by traffic and no vehicle waits longer than one red indication Stable Operation/Minimal Delays: An occasional approach phase is fuIly B > 0.01— 0.70 utilized. Mang drivers begin to feel somewhat restricted within platoons of vehicles. 0 > 0.71— 0.80 Stable Operation /Acceptable Delays; Major approach phase fully utilized. Most drivers feel somewhat restricted. Approaching Unstable Tolerable Delays: Drivers may have to wait through D > 0.01 — 0.90 rnore than one red signal indication. Queues may develop, but dissipate r idl without excessive delays. Unstable Operations/Significant Delays: Volumes at or near capacity. E > 0.01 —1.00 Vehicles may wait through several signal cycles. Long queues from upstream from intersection. Forced Flow /Excessive Delays: Represents jammed conditions, Intersection F > 1.00 operates below capacity with low volumes. Queues may block upstream intersections and will "build" rather than stay constant. Source: DMJM Harris 2008 Highway Capacity Manual 11 2000 Method - Unsignalized Intersections Unsignalize I intersections were evaluated using the H M 2000 analysis methodology. LOS definitions for unignalized intersections using the HM 2000 method are described in Table . -. FairbavenlLincoln and Santa Clara Lincoln Intersection Modifications City of ` n a Page 5.3 SuPlement t to the Santa Ana Second Lain �ra `k Project EIR Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 83 of 130 5. Environmental Analysis TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION Table . Level of Service Criteria for U sign alined Intersection HC M 2000) Level of Service (LOS) Average Total Delay (Seconds .0 B 5.0 to 10.0 10.1 to 20.0 D 20.1 to 30.0 E 30.1 to 45.0 F > 45.0 Source: D JM Harris 2008 Fail Crossings 1lehicle delay at the at -grade rail crossings were based on data frorn S CRRA and the P C. The calculation of vehicle delay at the at -grade crossings tales into account existing and future traffic volumes, train trips, roadway classification /lanes, type of traffic control at the erossin and distance # g the railroad tracks from the 'intersection (raid -block or adjacent to the intersection). Exiting Traffic Conditions Intersection Lever of Service Average daily traffic ADT) volumes for the study area roadway segments along with morning and evening {PISA} peak-hour traffic volumes were calculated culated wren the Fairhaven Avenue and Lincoln Avenue intersection was open in 2005 and 2000 and when the intersection was closed in 2007. Figure 5.3-2, Traffic Volumes - Intersection Open, and Figure 53-3, Traffic I clUme - Intersection Closed, shows the roadway a segment and intersection volumes. Table 5.3 -4 shows the existing hour intersection g ea - p t Lod with the Fairhaven Avenue and Lincoln Avenue intersection open and Table 5.3-5 shows the pear -hour intersection LOS with this intersection closed. Tale 5.3-4 Peak-Hour Intersection Level of Service (FairhavenlUncoln Open) Page 3-6 a" The Planning Center Marcb 2009 Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 84 of 130 AM Peek Flour P� Peak Hour irrfrectioa LOS v/C LOS /C Lincoln at Santa Clara' C 17.6 B 12.5 Lincoln at 17th Street A M92 A 0.599 Borth Grand at Fairhaven G 0.790 0 0.710 North Grand at Santa Clara 0 0.728 B 0.649 North Grand at 17th Street D 0.810 G 0.4 Source. DMJ 1 Harris 2008 Note: Analysis uses IOU methodology except when noted. H M 2000 methodology was used to determine the average vehicle delay for unsignalized intersections, which is displa ed in seconds instead of V/ C. Page 3-6 a" The Planning Center Marcb 2009 Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 84 of 130 S. Environmental Analysis TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION Table 5.3-5 Peak-Hour Intersection Level of Service { airhaven Uncoln Closed) Train Delay and Hazard Index Existing grade crossing blockage time and delay were analyzed for three grade crossings within the study area. E cisting delay calculations assume four trains per hour during each of the morning and evening peak - h periods: traveling at 45 miles per hour based on current Amtrak and Metrol ink Schedules. Freight trains do not operate during the vehicle traffic peak -hour periods. Tables 5.3-6 and 5.3-7 show the delay conditions and blockage time at the study area intersections during the peals -hour periods, with the Fairhaven /Lincoln intersection open (two -war traffic) and closed' respectively. The highest delay occurs at the 17th Street crossing. With the Fairhaven /Lincoln intersection open, vehicles at the 17th Street grade crossing are 88 delayed approximately 1 seconds in the morning and 23 seconds In the evening peak -Dour periods. With the intersection closed, vehicles at the 17th Street grade crossing are delayed 20 seconds in the morning and 26 seconds in the evening peals -hour periods. The grade crossing delays increase as the volume of traffic increases because more time is required for the q ueue of traffic waiting at the crossing to start -up and clear the crossing. Table 5.3-6 P a -Hoar Grade Crossing Delays Fa it a nlUn In Open) Total Blockage Time Per AM Peak Flour PM Peak Flour Intersection Peek Flour minutes LOS sendeile LOS 7.04 Lincoln at Santa Clara' 15 B 12.4 8 10.7 Lincoln at 17th street 7.06 A 0.405 B 0.614 North Grand at Fairhaven D 0.790 A 0.501 North Grand at Santa Clara D 0.606 B 0.608 North Grand at 17Th Street D 0.622 D 0.875 Source: D1J1 Harris 2008 Note: Analysis uses ICU methodology except where noted. ' HCM 2000 methodology was used to determine the average vehicle delay for unsignalired intersections, Moil is displa ed in seconds instead of V /C. Train Delay and Hazard Index Existing grade crossing blockage time and delay were analyzed for three grade crossings within the study area. E cisting delay calculations assume four trains per hour during each of the morning and evening peak - h periods: traveling at 45 miles per hour based on current Amtrak and Metrol ink Schedules. Freight trains do not operate during the vehicle traffic peak -hour periods. Tables 5.3-6 and 5.3-7 show the delay conditions and blockage time at the study area intersections during the peals -hour periods, with the Fairhaven /Lincoln intersection open (two -war traffic) and closed' respectively. The highest delay occurs at the 17th Street crossing. With the Fairhaven /Lincoln intersection open, vehicles at the 17th Street grade crossing are 88 delayed approximately 1 seconds in the morning and 23 seconds In the evening peak -Dour periods. With the intersection closed, vehicles at the 17th Street grade crossing are delayed 20 seconds in the morning and 26 seconds in the evening peals -hour periods. The grade crossing delays increase as the volume of traffic increases because more time is required for the q ueue of traffic waiting at the crossing to start -up and clear the crossing. Table 5.3-6 P a -Hoar Grade Crossing Delays Fa it a nlUn In Open) FairhavenlLincoln andSanta ClaralLincoln Intersection Modificationx City of Santa A na a ''age 53 - 7 Supplement to the Santa Ana ,Second Main Tack Project EIR Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 85 of 130 Total Blockage Time Per AN Peek -Flour Delay PAS Peak -Hour Delay Crossing Peek Flour minutes ecorrvfrr "le sendeile Fairhaven Avenue 7.04 16 15 Santa Clara Avenue 7.04 12 10 1 7th Street 7.06 21 23 Source: DMJM Harris 2008 FairhavenlLincoln andSanta ClaralLincoln Intersection Modificationx City of Santa A na a ''age 53 - 7 Supplement to the Santa Ana ,Second Main Tack Project EIR Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 85 of 130 5. Environmental A nalysis TRAFFIC AND CIRCCILATIOIV Table 5.3-7 Peak-Hour Grave Crosstng Delays s alrbaven Uncolrr Closed) Total Blockage Time Per AN Peak-Hour Defy PM Peak-Hour Del Crosslnr Peak dour mute seoorrdsarhlole eorrds�rfric�e Santa Clara Avenue 7.04 fib 15 1 7th Street 7.08 20 Source: D 1JM Harris 2008 Crossing hazards were evaluated to measure the relative grade crossing safe at be three rade Oros i within the stuff area. Table 6.3- an � 9 s rigs d Table 6.8- show the hazard inde c, using PUC methodology, based on an average of 64 trains per day with the Fairhaven/Lincoln intersection open and closed, respectively. The index i not an indicator of unsafe condition but a measure of potential p a vehicle/train conflict based on peak -hour traffic volumes; the higher the number, the higher the potential for vehicle /train conflict. The highest hazard index is at the 17th Street crossing hue to the high volume of traffic. Fairhaven Avenue and Santa Clara Avenue have a lover Lazard index, Table .3 -8 Grade Crossing Hazard Index airhavenlUn oln Open) Crossing Hazard index Fairhaven Avenue 4 Santa Clara Avenue 4 17th Street 265 Source: DMJM darns 2008 Table 5.3.9 Grade ro Ln x Hazard Index (FairhavenlUncoln Closed) Crossly Hazard Index Fairhaven Avenue 0 Sang Clara Avenue 51 1 7th street 256 Source: DI JM Harris 2008 Page 5.3-8 & The Planning Center Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 86 of 130 Marcb 2009 5. Environmental Analysis Traffm Volumes — intersection OPen 88 NOT 70 SCALE Source: DMJM Harris AECOM 200 FairhavenlLincoln and Santa 'lama incoln Interfection Modifications The Planning e 47,=c*n A9W 1 ,5. 09 -034 SuPkment to the Santa Ana Second Main Track, Pivject EIR Page 87 of 130 S. Environmental Analysis TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATIOIV This page intentionally left blank. Page .3-1 • The ,Planning Center Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 88 of 130 March 009 5. Environmental Analysis Trafc Volumes — Intersection Closed NOT TO SCALE Source; DMJM Harris AECOM 2008 FairhavenlLincoln and Santa ClaralLincoln Intersection Mor i icationj The Planning n e9olfff 'b1(5:24)9 -034 SuMement to the {Santa Aran Second aiTrack Project EIR Page 89 of 130 S. Environmental Analysis TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION This page intentionally left blank. ''age 5,3-12 * The Planning Center Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 90 of 130 Mach 2009 5. Environmental Anal y 'mmm= is TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION 5.3.3 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendi c G of the C E A Guidelines, a project would normally have a significarnt effect on the environment if the project could: T 1 Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial In relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections). T 2 Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. T-3 Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks. T-4 Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e,g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses e.g., farm equipment). T-5 Result in inadequate emergency access. T-6 Resu It in inadequate parking capacity. T 7 conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation e.g,, bus turnouts, bicycle racks). The Initial Study, included as Appendix At substantiates that impacts associated with the following thresholds would be less than significant: ffl • Threshold T-2 • Threshold T-3 • Threshold T-5 • Threshold T-6 • Threshold T= These impacts are not addressed in the following analysis. City of Santa Ana Significance Thresholds The City of Santa Ana has criteria for traffic and circulation impacts within the City. As defined by the city, a project is considered to have a significant impact on the operation of are intersection when one of the following occurs: • The addition of project traffic results in LOS dropping from acceptable levels (LOS D or better) to unacceptable Levels (LOS E or F; If an intersection is LOS E, a project results in a significant impact if the addition of project traffic results in LOS F; or • If an intersection is already at LOS F, then the project has a significant impact if the addition of project traffic causes an increase of o.2 in the volume to capacitor VC ratio pursuant to the Iola methodology or two seconds of additional delay pursuant to the HCM methodology FaiybavenlLincoln and Santa ClaralLincoln Intersection Modifications City ofSanta Ana • Page 5.3-13 Supplement to the Santa Ana Second Mal'n Track Pyoject EIR Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 91 of 130 S. Environmental Analysis TRAFFIC AND CIRCULAT[OiV 5.3.4 Environmental Impacts The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study identified potentially significant impacts, The applicable thresholds are identifiied in brackets after the impact statement. IMPACT 5.3-1: INTERSECTION MODIFICATIONS WOULD NOT CAUSE AN INCREASE IN TRAFFIC WHICH 1S SUBSTANTIAL IN RELATION TO TIME F (STING TRAFFIC LOAD AND CAPACITY OF THE STREET THRESHOLD T -1} Impact Analysis; UnIil e a new residential development, the proposed project would net generate any traffic. Modifications to the Fairhaven /Lincoln intersection would permanently precede eastbound and northbound traffic at the intersection. Because this intersection has been closed since 2007, permanent closure would not change traffic or circulation conditions; project conditions are the same as existing conditions. Changes to this intersection would not redistribute traffic on the local roadway system; therefore, traffic load at surrounding intersections would not increase. Constructing a cul -de -sac on Fairhaven Avenue at the railroad tracks would improve the existing dead -end condition by giving vehicles ample space to turn around. As shown in previous Table . -, all intersections operate at LOS D or better with the Fairhaven/Lincoln intersection closed. As part of the proposed project a traffic signal would be installed at the Lincoln Avenue and Santa Clara Avenue intersection. Signaliation of an intersection would improve the traffic flow and corresponding LOS. Although significant traffic impacts do not currently occur at this intersection, installing a traffic signal would improve the service level (LOS B with the closed Fairhaven /Lincoln intersection) and alleviate the existing operational confusion of the four -way stop and track crossing. Intersection modifications would not cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street. Traffic impacts would be less than significant. I IPA C T 5.3-2: INTERSECTION MODIFI ATIONS WOULD NOT SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT VEHICLE DELAY AT GRADE CROSSINGS. [THRESHOLD T-11 Impact Analysts: Blockage time and vehicle delay were determined for three grade crossings within the study area. Table 5.3-10 compares the time vehicles are stopped as a result of train traffic at the three local at -grade crossings for two scenarios: Fairhaven/Lincoln intersection open two -way traffic) and Fairhaven /Lincoln intersection closed. As shown in Table 5.3-10. the closed intersection currently creates a slight increase in morning and evening peak -hour vehicle delay compared to when the Fairhaven /Lincoln intersection was open in 2007. Ho ever, the total delay time at all intersections following project construction would be the same as existing conditions with the Fairhaven /Lincoln intersection closed. Consequently, the project would not significantly increase vehicle delay at the at -grade crossings and impacts would be less than significant. Page .3-14 • The Planning "ire Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 92 of 130 March 2009 5. Environmental A nalysis 0 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION Table 5,3-10 Peak -Hour Grade Crossing Delav (wit h zwoiarnn Total Blockage Time proles) Crossing pen' Closeif Fairhaven Avenue 7.04 N/A Santa Clara Avenue 7.04 7.04 1 7th Street 7.08 7.08 AM Peak-Hour Delay fse onds vehicle) OpEny C /oseule 16 WA 12 18 21 20 PM Peak -mour Delay ( ecoard veh cle) Closed' 15 N) 10 1 0 Source: DMJ 1 Harris 2008 ' Based on traffic volumes with the Fairhaven/Lincoln intersection open. 2 Based on traffic volumes with the Fairhaven/Lincoln intersection closed. IMPA CT .3 -3: INTERSECTION MODIFICATIONS WOULD NOT I CREASE HAZARDS AT GRADE CR ING& [THRESHOLD T-4j Impact Analysis: In May 2007 the City of Santa Aria closed Lincoln Avenue to all traffic from Fairhaven Avenue to Park Lane. This closure was due to safety hazards caused by improvements associated with the original Santa Ana Second Main Line Track project. Large trucks making left turns from Fairhaven Avenue onto Lincoln Avenue had insufficient turning radii and could not cornplete the turn, leaving there stopped across the railroad tracks. Ater the city placed temporary barriers this hazard p p r was resolved. This project would not change the existing closed condition of this intersection and therefore would not increase traffic hazards. The proposed project would continue the existing closed condition by modifying Fairhaven/Lincoln intersection from the n rrM two lanes to a permanently closed intersection with a cul -de -sac. This modification would prohibit al traffic traveling northbound on Lincoln Avenue from Park Avenue to Fairhaven Avenue. As a result, the proposed project would result in a net benefit to safety conditions at this intersection compared to the 2007 conditions. Table 5.3-11 compares the hazard index at the rail crossings under two scenarios: Fairhaven/Lincoln intersection open (two-way traffic - 2007 condition) and Fairhaven /Lincoln Intersection closed eistin and project condition) . shown in Table . -11, the project would decrease the g p � hazard index at Fairhaven and 1 7th Street and slightly increase the hazard index at Santa Clara Avenue compared to when the intersection was open to two -way traffic. The Santa Clara Avenue index does not account for the increased safety provided by the proposed traffic signal, Because the project would not substantially increase the hazard index the project would not substantially increase the nurnber of vehicle /train conflicts at the rail cross in s. Hazard impacts would be less than significant. 9 Table 5.3-11 Grade Crossing Hazard index wr"tb ro "e t Hazard Index Crossing Openi Closed, Fairhaven Avenue 48 0 Santa Clara Avenue 45 51, 17th Street 205 250 Source: DMJM Harris 2008 ' Based on traff is volumes with the Fairhaven Avenue intersection open to two -war traffic. Based on traffic volumes with the Fairhaven Avenue intersection closed. 3 Does not account for increased safety provided by new traffic signal. CC13 ai,rha er L,inco ln eind {Santa ClaralLincoln Intersection Modifications City of Santa Ana 0 Page 5.3-15 SuPlement to the Savta Ana Second Main Track Project I Resolution N. 2 - 0 009 03 4 Page 93 of 130 5. Environmental Analysis TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION Additionally, traffic hazards caused by the roadway design at the Fairhaven /Lincoln intersection and the Santa Clara/Li ncoln intersection wouId be significantly improved by the proposed project corn pared to 2007 open conditions. &3-5 Cumulative Impacts Cumulative projects in the local vicinity would result in an increase in traffic volumes on the local roadway network. To analyze future cumulative project impacts, data was taken from the 2002 EIR which analyzed future year 2020 intersection LOS (see Table . -12. Table &3 -12 2020 Cumulative Project Scenario 2 Based on traffic volumes with the Fairhaven Avenue intersection closed. As shown in Table 5.3-12, depending on if the Fairhaven intersection is opened or closed, three intersections are projected to operate below acceptable levels (LOS E or F at Santa Clara/Li ncol n, 17th /Lincoln, and North Grand /Fairhaven ) under the cumulative project scenario; all other intersection would operate at acceptable levels during both AM and PM peak hours. Permanently closing the now temporari ly closed Fai rhaven/Li ncol n intersection to traffic and installing a traffic light at Santa Clara /Lincoln intersection would not cause future 2020 traffic volumes at any study area intersections to fall to are unacceptable level of service. The proposed project would not contribute to cumulative traffic impacts at any intersections, because traffic would not be redistributed to surrounding streets. Traffic circulation patterns would remain the same as existing conditions with the Fairhaven /Lincoln intersection closed. Although not required for project- related traffic irnpacts, the proposed project would install a traffic light at the Santa Clara/Lincoln intersection. This improvement would significantly improve traffic congestion and confusion at this Intersection. Therefore the proposed project would result in a net benefit to this intersection. The project would not significantly contribute to future cumulative impacts. In consideration of the preceding factors, the project's contribution to cumulative traffic would be less than significant and project impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. 5.3.6 Existing Regulations and Standard d and tfon No existing regulations are applicable to traffic and circulation of the proposed project. 5. 3.7 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Impacts . -1 r .3 -2, and . -3 would be less than significant, Page 5.3 -16 a, The Planning Center Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 94 of 130 Alarcb 2009 fie' ciosecr Intersection AM PM AM PM Lincoln at Banta Clara D E F F Lincoln at 11th Street D F D F North Grand at Fairhaven C D C E North Grand at Santa Clara B B D c North Grand at 17th Street B D B D ' based on traffic volumes wfth the Fairhaven Avenue intersection 0Dea to two - w av traffic_ 2 Based on traffic volumes with the Fairhaven Avenue intersection closed. As shown in Table 5.3-12, depending on if the Fairhaven intersection is opened or closed, three intersections are projected to operate below acceptable levels (LOS E or F at Santa Clara/Li ncol n, 17th /Lincoln, and North Grand /Fairhaven ) under the cumulative project scenario; all other intersection would operate at acceptable levels during both AM and PM peak hours. Permanently closing the now temporari ly closed Fai rhaven/Li ncol n intersection to traffic and installing a traffic light at Santa Clara /Lincoln intersection would not cause future 2020 traffic volumes at any study area intersections to fall to are unacceptable level of service. The proposed project would not contribute to cumulative traffic impacts at any intersections, because traffic would not be redistributed to surrounding streets. Traffic circulation patterns would remain the same as existing conditions with the Fairhaven /Lincoln intersection closed. Although not required for project- related traffic irnpacts, the proposed project would install a traffic light at the Santa Clara/Lincoln intersection. This improvement would significantly improve traffic congestion and confusion at this Intersection. Therefore the proposed project would result in a net benefit to this intersection. The project would not significantly contribute to future cumulative impacts. In consideration of the preceding factors, the project's contribution to cumulative traffic would be less than significant and project impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. 5.3.6 Existing Regulations and Standard d and tfon No existing regulations are applicable to traffic and circulation of the proposed project. 5. 3.7 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Impacts . -1 r .3 -2, and . -3 would be less than significant, Page 5.3 -16 a, The Planning Center Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 94 of 130 Alarcb 2009 S. Environmental A nalysis TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION 5.3.8 Mitigation Mea r s No mitigation measures are required. 5.3.9 Level Significance e A ter Mitigation Traffic and Circulation Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. q ed, 1§3 FalrhavenlLincoln and Santa ClaralLincoln Intersection Modifications City of Santa Ana 0 Page 5.3-17 Supplement to the Santa Ana Second Main Track Project EIS Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 95 of 130 5. Environmental Analysis TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION This ,cage intentionally left bleak. Page .3-1 'h Planning Center Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 96 of 130 lack 2009 6. Significant Irreversible Changes due to the Proposed Project Section 15126(c) of the CEGA Guidelines requires that an EiR describe any significant irreversible environmental changes that would be caused by the proposed project should it be implemented. Section 15126.2(c) reads: Uses of nonrenewable le resources during the initial and continued phases of the project may be irreversible since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse there- after unlikely. Primary impacts and, particularly, secondary impacts (such as highway improvement which provides access to a previously inaccessible area) generally commit future generations to similar uses. Also, irreversible damage can result from environmental accidents associated with the project. Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified. In the case of the proposed project, implementation would not change the existing land use; the roadway and intersections would remain as such. Implementation of the project would provide improvements for vehicle and pedestrian safety and to enhance the flow of traffic. Construction activities would entail the commitment of nonrenewable and/or slowly renewable energy resources, human resources, and natural resources s uch as lumber and other forest products, sand and gravel, asphalt, steel, copper, lead, or other metals, and water. However, the proposed project would not use an uncommon amount of raw materials cornpared to the amount used by other projects of similar scope and rnagnitude. An increased commitment of social services and public maintenance services (e, g., police, fire, schools, libraries, and sewer and water services would not be required. FairhavenlLincoln an Santa ClaralLincoln Intersection 141 od cat o j City of Santa Ana Page -1 ffl SuPlement to the Santa Ana Second stain Track Project EIR Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 97 of 130 6, Significant Irreversible Changes Due to the Proposed Project This pare intentionally /eft blank. . Page 6- * The Planning Center Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 98 of 130 March 2009 7. Impacts Found Not to Be SigIt nificant California Public Resources Code Section 21003 f states: "it is the policy of the state that... a If persons and public agencies involved in the environmental review process be responsible for carrying out the process in the most efficient, expeditious manner In order to conserve the avaiiable fin ancial, governmntal, physical: and social resources with the objective that those resources may be better applied toward the mitigation of actual significant effects on the environment." This olio is reflected in th policy a state California Environmental ,duality Act (E Guidelines (Guidelines) Section 15126.2 (a) : which states that "[a] n Eil Environmental Impact Report] shall identi fy and focus on the significant environmental impacts of the proposed project" and Section 15143, which states that "[t]he Ells shall focus ors the significant effects on the environments° The Guidelines allover use of an initial Study to document project effects that are less than significant Guidelines Section 15063 [a]). Guidelines Section 15128 r q uir s that an El contain a statement briefly indicating the reasons that various possible sign ificant effects of a project were determined not to be significant, and were therefore not discussed in detail in the Draft EIR. The Initial Study prepared for the proposed project in October 2008 determined that all impacts with the exception of those related to air quality, noise, and traffic and circulation would have no impact or a less than significant impact on tine environment. Consequently, they have not been further analyzed in this Draft SEIR. Please refer to Appendix A for explanation of the basis of these conclusions. Impact categories and questions below are summarized di 7. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant- Table 7-1 Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical !macts Found Not to Be Significant Environmental issues initial Study Determination . Al R QUALITY Where available, -the..'s-10. nifie nce.cr teri estaafi hed by-the�applieabl.e air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to rake the folio in determinations. WOW. the, pro oet: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact e Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less than Significant Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES, Would the project: c a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly of through habitat No Impact modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special No Impact status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the d California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No impact b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive cemeteries? natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations No Impact or by the California Department of Fish and Dame or U.S. Fish and wildlife landslide, lateralspreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, No Impact vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory No Impact wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nurse sites'? e Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological No Impact resources, such as a tree preservation olio or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or No impact state habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. 'Would the vroiaot. a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical No Impact p resource as defined in §16664.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of are afchaeological Less than significant Impact Less than Significant impact resource pursuant to § 15064,5? c Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or No Impact Less than significant irnpaot unique geologic feature? Less than Significant Impact d Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal No impact Less than Significant Impact cemeteries? II I - U EU LU U Y AN U 5 [A I L * Would the 'Drolect: a) Expose people or structures to potentarl substantial adverse effects, Less than i nificant Impact g p including the risk of loss, inju t ar death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Jquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the Mate Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a Less than Significant impact known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 4. ii) Stroag seismic ground shaking? Less than significant irnpaot iii) Seismic- related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less than Significant Impact iv Landslides? No Impact b Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than Significant Impact c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site Less than Significant Impact landslide, lateralspreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Page 7-2 . The Planning Center Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 100 of 130 Alarcb 2009 7. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant Table -1 Impacts Found NOt to a Significant Environmental Issues d} He located on expansive soil, as defined in `Fable 18 -1 -19 of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or rope e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? a) b) 'II. HAZARDS �AN D HAZARDO U S' MATE R JALS,- would tho pr00 : Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine trans oft, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? C) trait nazaroous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous -- materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) e� g) h b) c) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 arid, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. _ Fore, project located within} an airport land use plan or, where such a plain has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area"? For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area's Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? .. '- Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wiIdland fires, including where wildiands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? LOG'S AND WATER UAL ITY.-W' 6u1.d.the'p'r0" 10iD#:' . Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre - existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in a substantial erasion or saltation on- or off -site d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? ej Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existirg or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? Initial study Determination Loss than Significant Impact No Impact Less than Significant Impact No Impact Less than Significant Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact Less than significant Impact No Impact No im act No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact ..,�..� No Impact 93 r it aven Lincoln and Santa CaralLi rcoln Intersection Modifications K'a'ty of Santa Ana * Page -3 Supplement to the Santa Ana Second Main Track Project EIR Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 101 of 130 7. ImPacts Found Not to Be Significant Table -T Impacts Found Not to Be ftnificant Environmental Iss es initial Study Determination h) Place within a loo -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or No Impact dam? j Inundaton by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No Impact Potent.iaqyJm pact stormwater runoff from construction activities? No Impact I Potentially impact stormwater runoff from post-construction activities? No Impact m) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials No Impact handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas? n) Result in the potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial No Impact uses of the receiving waters? o) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of No Impact stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? p) Create significant increases in erosion of the protect site or surrounding No Impact areas? IX. LAID USE AND PLAT HI . duld the project; a _EhIsically divide an established community? Less than Sig nificant Impact b Conflict with any applicable lard use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general No Impact plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or MLb ating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community No Impact p conservation Ian? X. MINERAL RESOURCES. wo- uld'the'preje t. ::: :..... a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a No Impact value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a kcal general plan, specific plan or other land No Impact use plan? , Would the proles# result in: b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or Less # than Significant Impact groundborne noise levels'? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use No Impact airport, would the project expose people rending or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose No Impact people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? X1I. PO PULATI ON AND H OUS II .'' r'uId the project; a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, No Impact through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the No Impact constructon of replacement housing elsewhere" Page 7-4 • The Planning Venter Marcb Mar 2009 Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 102 of 130 7. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant Table 7 -1 LTILacts Four Not to Sign r"fi a n Environmental Issu lrrifial Study Determination c Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of � Impact replacement housin m elsewhere? p II. P U BLI C - S ERVI C ES. Would t e-:pr ject result in uh tantial adverse phy 1, al impacts associated. with the provision of new or phVs1 cal l 'a I I e re d. - gave r n rn e nta I facilities, need for ne r"e 'ph sicaIl . altered VaverrimentaI- fa011it!e , the construction of which could cause significant onvi rorrmenta1Impacts}: in Older to: m ai'h t6i h ak Cie': ptAb 16 se rvic ratios, response times or other performance objectives for ah' of -the public services. a Eire protection? Less than Significant Impact b Police protection? Less than Significant Impact c Schools? N o Im act Parks? ZL - ULr101 PUU11 U IdUIRIM XIV. RECREATION. a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical — deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b Does the protect include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? -- - -- - - - -- -- - - - - - -- X . TRANS PO RTATI TR FF1 C . Would the ara' 100L :.:...:. No Impact No Imaact No Impact No impact bj Exceed, either individually or cumulabvely, a level of service standard No Impact p established by the counter congestion management agency for designated No Impact b) roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in No Impact traff ic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks.? e Result in inadequate emergent access? less than Significant Impact f Result in inadequate parking, capacity? No Impact g) Conflict with adapted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative No Impact d) transportation e,g., bus turnouts, bit cle racks ? No Impact ..Would the oroie: a)... Exceed waste water treatment requirements of the applicable Regional No Impact p Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new wafter or waste water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could No Impact cause significant environmental effects"? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause No Impact significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing No Impact entitlements and resources or are new or expanded enttlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the waste water treatment provider, which serves or may serge the project that R has adequate capacity to serve the No Impact project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate Less than Significant Impact the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid No Impact waste"? 93 RairhavenlLl'ncoln and {Santa C'l ralL into n Intersection Modifications City of Santa Ana a Page 7-5 Suppleme o the Santa Ana Second Hawn Track Project EIR Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 103 of 130 7. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant_ Table -1 Im acts Found Not to Be Significant Environmental Issues I Initial Study Determination XVIL MANDATORY: FINDINGS, Of SIGNIFICANCE, a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, No Impact threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or � restrict the range of ar rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Along with the impacts fount net to be significant in the Initial Study, the analysis in this Draft SEIR has found environmental impacts related to air quality, noise, and traffic and circulation to be less than significant. Page -6 * The Planning 'enter Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 104 of 130 March 2009 8. Growth - Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Project Pursuant to Sections 15126 d and 15126.2 (d) of the CEQA Guidelines, this section is provided to examine ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Also required is an assessment of other projects that would foster other activities which could affect the environment, individually or cumulatively. To address this issue, potential growth - inducing effects are examined through analysis of the following questions: • Would this project remove obstacles to growth, erg., through the construction or extension of major infrastructure facilities that do not presently exist in the project area, or through changes in existing regulations pertaining to land development? • Would this project result in the need to expand one or more public services to maintain desired levels of service? • Would this project encourage or facilitate economic effects that could result in other activities that could significantly affect the environment? • Would approval of this project involve some precedent - setting action that could encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment? Rt Please note that growth - inducing effects are not to be construed as necessarily beneficial, detrirnental, or of little significance to the environment. This issue is presented to provide additional information on wars in which this project could contribute to significant changes in the environment, beyond the direct consequences of modifying the roadways examined in the preceding sections of this Draft SEIR. The intersection and roadway changes would not extend, expand, or construct new infrastructure facilities. The project would modify existing facilities in an urbanized builtout area of the city. This project would not encourage other acti►rities that would affect the environment. FalrbavenlLincoln and Santa ClaralLincoln Intersection Modifications City of Santa A na • Page -1 Supplement to the Santa Ana Second Main Track Project EIR Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 105 of 130 8. Growth - Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Project This page intentionally left blank Page 8-2 0 The Planm'ng Center Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 106 of 130 March 9. Organizations and Persons Consulted CITY OF SANTA ANA David BiondeliIIo, Senior Transportation Analyst CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION PU Varoujan Jinba hian, PE, Senior Utilities Engineer, Rail crossings Engineering Section ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY T Mary Tutounebi, Project Manager SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RAILROAD AUTHORITY S RRA Eli abeth Mahone , Govern rnent and Regulatory Affairs Manager FairhavenlLincoln and Santa ClaralLincoln Intersection Modifications Supplement to the Santa Ana Second Main Track Prqj'ect EIR ffl City of San a a Page 9-1 Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 107 of 130 9. Organizations and Persons Consulted This page intentionally left blank. Page 9-2 • The lann ng Center Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 108 of 130 March 2009 10. Qualifications of Persons Preparing EIR Dwayne Dears, AICP Principal, Environmental Services .J Ann Hadfield Director, Environmental Services Alice Ho sew rth, AICP Project Manager Senior Planner Tin Cheun Senior Environmental Scientist 0 ES, City and Regional Planning, California State Polytechnic University, San Luis Obispo, 1978 • RP, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, City and Regional Planning, 1980 a RS, Urban Planning, University of Utah, 1976 RS: Urban and Regional Planning, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, 1995 • EA, Environmental Studies and Geography, University of California at Santa Barbara, 1993 Nicole Vermilion 0 BA. Environmental Studies and BS Ecology and Associate Planner Evolutionary Biology, University of Californi 10. Qualifications of Persons Preparing EIR This page intentionally left blank Page 10-2 s The Planning Center Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 110 of 130 March 2009 1 I. Bibliography 11. 1 EFERE1 E Bies and Hansen. 2993. Engineering Noise control: Theory and Practice. New York: Spon Press. Belt, Beranek and Newman. 1971. Noise from Construction Equipment and operations, Building Equipment and Dome Appliances. Prepared for the United States Environmental Protection Agency, California Air Resources Board (CARE). 2008a, October. Climate Change Proposes' Scoping flan, a Framework for Change. ---�. 2003b, October. Preliminary Draft Staff Proposal, Recommended Approaches for Setting Interim Significance Thresholds for Greenhouse Gases under the California Environmental Quality Act. California Department of Transportation Galtrans . 1998a, October. Traffic Noise Analysts Protocol. 1993b, Technical Noise Supplement. Division of Environmental Analysis. 2002. Transportation Related Earthborne Vibration: Caltrans Experiences. Technical Advisory, Vibration. TA1l- 92 -01 -R9 01. Prepared by Ruder Hendricks. California Energy Commission. (GEC). 2006a, December. Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990 to 2004. Report GEC - 000 - 2096 - 013- F . 2006b. our changing climate, Assessing the Frisks to California, 2006 Biennial Report. California Climate Change Center, California Energy Commission Staff Paper, Sacramento. California} Report C EG- 599 -2006 -977. D MJ M Harris. 2093, M arch, Traffic Impact Study, Santa Ana Second lain Track, Upda ted Draft Report. . Federal Highway Administration (FH VA ). 1973, December. Federal Highway Traffic Norse Prediction Model, U.S. Dept. of Transportation. Report No. FHWA -RD77 -108. 2006, Roadway Construction Noise Model User's Guide. I.J.S. Department of Transportation. Report No. FHINA -HEP -0 -954. Federal Transit Administration (FT A). 2096, May. Transit Norse and Vibration Impact Assessment. United States Department of Transportation. Governor's Office of Planning and Research (0 PR). 2008, June. Technical Advisory, CEQA and climate Change: Addressing Climate Change Through CEQA Review Intergo ernrnental Panel on Climate Change's IPCC). 2007.2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Ipalr avenlLinco n and Santa ClaralLincoln Intersection Modifications Supplement to the Sera Ana Second Main Track Project EIR City af Santa A na a Page I I- I Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 111 of 130 11. Bibliography Rimpo and Associates. URBEMIS2007 Computer Model. Version 9.2.4. Santa Ana, City of. 1982. General Plan. South Coast Air Quality Management District CA QM D). 1980. A Climatolo ioallAir Quality Profile, California South Coast Air Basin. Prepared b y Ralph W. Leith. - —�. 1 993, April. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. —�-. 2903, June. Final Localized Significance Threshold i fethodolo g . �-. 2995, Maur. Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Playas and Local Planning. —�— . 2006, October, Final Methodology to Calculate PM2-5 and PM2.5 Significance Thresholds. 2007, June. Final 2907 Air Quality Management Plan. �. 2008, October. Draft Guidance Document - Interlm CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold. Southern California Regional Rail Authority CRRA. 2902, February. Santa Ana Second Main Track Project Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse No. 2009091 005. Prepared by Myra L. Frank and Associates, Inc. 11.2 WE SIT S Amtrak. 2008. Schedules, Pacific Surfliner. http://www.amtrak.com/timetable/octO8/W31.pdf CARS. 2903. Air Pollution Data Monitoring Cards (2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007). http://www.arb.ca,gov/adam/cgi-bin/db2www/adamtop4b.d2w/start . 2003. Ambient Air Quality Standards. http : / /www.arb.ca,gov /research /aag /aags2.pdf —�. 2998. Area Designations: Activities and Maps. http.//www.arb-ca-gov/desig/desig.htm Santa Ana, City of. Municipal Code. http-//www.municode,com/Resources/gateway.asp?pid=14452&sid=5 Metrolink, 2008, Schedules hftp,//www,metrolinktrains.com/schedules/ SCA MD. South Coast A MD List of Current Rules. California Air Resources Board. htt : / /vvww.arb.ca.gov /drdb /sc cur.ht —�—. 2998. SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/signthres.pdf United States Environmental Protection Agency D EPA . 2996. Global Warming Potentials and Atmospheric Lifetimes. Non COQ Gases Economic Analysis and Inventory. http://www.epa-gov/nonco2/econ-inv/table.html Page 11-2 • The Planning Venter ivl r zuuy Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 112 of 130 11. Bibliography -�--. 2008, April, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. http://www.epa.gov/clirnatechange/emissions/index.html Western Regional Climate Center (WP . Western U.S. Climate Historical Summaries. Santa Ana Fire Station ID No. 047888}). IN FairhavenlLincoln and {Santa ClaralLincoln Intersection Mo a� 'i a ao j City of f Ana a Page 11 -. Supplement to the Santa Aria Second N&in Track Project EIR Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 113 of 130 11. Bibliography This page intentionally /eft blank. Page 11-4 • The Plan ni ng Center Marcb 2009 Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 114 of 130 FINAL. FAIRHAVENILINCOLN AND SANTA CLARAI UN OLI INTERSECTION MODIFICATIONS SUPPLEMENT TO THE SANTA ANA SECOND MAIN TRAGIC ENVIRONMENTAL 1ENTAL IMPACT REPORT (2000091065) SCH NO. 2008101006 9;0,�a troo e red fora CITY OF SANTA ANA Contact: David Biond Iillo Senior Transportation Analyst prepared y: THE PLANNING CENTER Contact: Jo nn Hadfield Director, En vironmen ta I Services EXHIBIT B APRIL 2009 Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 115 of 130 FINAL FA IRH ENLINC LN AND SANTA CLARAI LINCOLN INTERSECTION MODIFICATIONS SUPPLEMENT TO THE SANTA ANA SECOND MAIN TRACK ENIR NNTA L IMPACT REPORT (2 000091065) SCH NQ. 2008101006 prepared for: CITY OF SANTA ANA 20 Civic Center Plaza Contact: Ross Annex M-20 David Biondolillo Santa Ana, CA 92702 Sr. Transportation Analyst Tel; 714.607.2725 • Fax: 714.973.1462 prepared by: THE PLANNING CENTER 1660 Metro Drive Contact: Costa Mesa, CA 92626 JoAnn Hadfield Tel. 1.966, 9220 • Fax: 714-966-9221 Director, E -mail. costamesa@planningcenter.com Environmental Services We ite: www.planningcenter.com SNT -0.1E APRIL 2009 Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 116 of 130 Table of Contents Section Page 1. INTRODUCTION K6*l FMME■*■■ ONE NONE a■■■■ NONE monsoons ■■ WERE r##. m. m*. o Name ■■■ DOME ■■ aM■■■ ONE ■■ MEN ■■ MEN L\w.ao\..n 1 `1 1 ■ 1 INTRODUCTION ■ .. . . . ............... r . r ...................................... i ... r 4 .. .. r . . r . .................. 1 1.2 FORMAT OF THE FINAL EIR r......r, r.. 1 -� 1.3 CEQA REQUIREMENTS EMENT REGARDING COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ■ ......................1- 2. RESPONSE TO 1 3. R VI S 10 N S TO THE DRAFT S El on dome go .. a■■■ NONE No ■■ f■■■■■■■ NONE MEN Noun ■ some r. arow a..■ Do ■■■,■■■■s■■■■ ■ ■ ■s ■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■■ ■ ■■ 3, 1 3.1 INTRODUCTION .............. r .. ................r.............. M.. ........................... .r............................. -1 3.2 DRAFT SEIR REVISIONS IN RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ............................3 -1 ea Final Supplement to the Same Ana Second Main Track Project EIR City of Santa Ana + Page FalrbavenlLincoln and Santa ClaralLincoln Interseclion Modifications " e a in Center ! April 2009 Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 117 of 130 1. Introduction 1.1 INTRODUCTION This Final Environmental impact Report has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CE QA) as amended (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. and CEQA Guidelines (California Administrative Code Section 15000 et seq.. According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, the Final EiR shall consist of: (a ) The Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) or a revision of the Draft; (b) C orn me nts and recommendartions received on the Draft El either verbatim or in summary; c) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies comments on the Draft EIR; d The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process; and e Any other information added by the Lead Agency. 9;01)k This document contains responses to comments received on the Fairhaven/Lincoln and Santa Clara/Lincoln intersection Modifications, Draft Supplement to the Santa Ana Second Main Track Project EIR (Draft EIR ). These comments were received during the public review period, which commenced on March E3, 2009, and closed on April 6, 2009. This document has been prepared in accordance with CE QA and the CEQA Guidelines and represents the independent judgment of the Lead Agency. This document and the circulated Draft Supplement to the EiR comprise the Final Supplement to the EiR (Final SEIR, in accordance with the CE0A Guidelines, Section 15132. 1.2 FORMAT of THE FINAL EIR This document is organized as follows: Section I., Introduction. This section describes CE0A requirements and the content of this Final SEIR. Section 2, Response to Comments. This section provides a fist of agencies and interested persons commenting on the Draft SEIR, copies of the comment letters received during the public review period, and individual responses to written comments. To facilitate revi ew of the responses, each comment letter has been reproduced and assigned a number A -1 through A -. Individual comments have been numbered for each letter and the letter is followed by responses with references to the corresponding comment number. Section 3. Revisions to the Draft SEIR. This section contains revisions to the Draft S EIR tent and figures as a result of: 1 comments received by agencies and interested persons as described in Section ; and changes, errors and /or omissions discovered after to release of the Draft SEIR for public review. Final Supplement to the Santa Ana Second Main Track Project EIR City of Santa A rya a Page I - I &irlavenl�eo a a i co Intersection Modifications The Planning Center #April 2009 souiono. l Page 118 of 130 1. Introduction The responses to comments may contain material and revisions that gill be added to the text of the Final EiR. City staff has reviewed this material and determined that none of this material constitutes the type of significant new information that requires recirculation of the Draft SEIR for further public comment under EA Guidelines Section 15088.5. None of this material indicates that the project would result in a significant new environmental impact not previously disclosed in the Draft SEIR. Additionally, none of this material indicates that there would be a substantial increase ire the severity of a previously identified environmental impact that will not be mitigated, or that there would be any of the other circumstances requiring recirculation described in Section 15088.5. 1.3 CEQ 1 REQUIREMENTS REGARDING COMMENTS AND RESPONSES CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 (a) outlines parameters for submitting comments, and reminds persons and public agencies that the focus of review and comment of Draft EIRs should be "on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing possible impacts on the environment and ways in which significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated. Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate the significant environmental effects. At the same time, reviewers should be aware that the adequacy of an EIR is determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible.... E A does not require a lead agency to conduct even test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or suggested by commenters. when responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the ElR.11 CE 0A Guidelines Section 15204 (c ) further advises, "Reviewers should explain the basis for their comments, and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence." Section 15204 d) also states, "Each responsible agency and trustee agency shall focus its comments on environmental information germane to that agency's statutory responsibility." Section 15204 (e ) states, "This section shall not be used to restrict the ability of reviewers to comment on the general adequacy of a document or of the lead agency to reject comments not focused as recommended by this section.,, In accordance with the CEQA, Public Resources Cade Section 21092.5, copies of the written responses to public agencies will be forwarded to commenting agencies at least 10 days prior to certifying the environmental impact report. The responses will be forwarded with copies of this Final EIR, as permitted by CEQA, and will conform to the legal standards established for response to comments on Draft EiRs. I am?h. 1� 3dF Final Supplement o the San ta Ana Second ain Track Project EIR City of Santa 0 Page 1 -2 FairhavenlLincoln and Santa ClaralLincoln Intersection Modifications T e Planning Cenur a, r l 89-034 Resolutio No.�8 Page 119 of 130 2. Response to Comments Section 15088 of the CE QA Guidelines requires the Lead Agency (in this case the City of Santa Ana) to evaluate comments on environmental issues received from public agencies and interested parties who reviewed the Draft SEIR and prepare written responses. This section provides all comments received on the Draft SEIR and the City's responses to each comment, Comment letters and specific comments are given letters and numbers for reference purposes. where sections of the Draft SEIR are excerpted in this document, the sections are shown indented. Changes to the Draft SEIR text are shown in bold italics for additions and strikeou for deletions. The following is a list of agencies and persons that submitted comments on the Draft SEIR during the public review period. Number Reference Commenting PersonlAgency Date of Comment Page No. Al state Department of Transportation caltrans, District 1 March 12, 2000 - State of California Public Utilities Commission April 6, 2009 -4 3 Orange counter Public works Agency April 6, 2009 - Final SuPlement to the Santa Ana Second Mai n Track Pro)'ect EIR City of Santa era * Page 2 -1 A.airbfv qc, ' S C' a incoln Intersection loth cations " e Planning C'e to * pril 2009 eso u ion o. Page 120 of 130 a-M, I ?43 2. Response to Comments LETTER Al — State Department of Transportation I page) DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION + _ District 12 .1337 hlididson 1�tivc_ Suite 380 lrviuc. CA 926121-8894 I'm: (9.19) 724 -2592 V_ft Cr r# -arch 12,21109 David orY011110 City of Santa Am 0 Civic Cent r .111 a Santa Ana, CA 92702 1GFJQEQA SCH4- 2008101006 Lag . 2140B SR-22 bject: Pai rbaven /Lin oln and Santa Clara/Lincoln .intersection Wood` fi tiions .4r lr, R_k%ndolfllio, Tb nk you for the opportunity tQ mwlew and a m mun[ on the Fairhaven/Lincoln and Santa. Clara /Uneoln Intersection Modification Pro.. et. The project. consists of intensection and. roadway improvements aicrng Lincoln Avenue to mmedy design and safety t ads. The nearest State roift to the project site is R- . The California Department ofTranspoitation (Department), District 12 is ommie ct.ing agpency on tli?s project and Nvc havc no comment at this time. flowever, in. tile event of Im activity v ithirn the D epartmen t's righ t -(w way, an en c vo aehment permit w i I [ be required. Please t ontinue to keep us -informed of this project and any future developments, which could p 0 te nt ia I ly i'm pact State tra .�po rt.aUon faciiitics. if yogi havii any questions oi"nccd to. co mac t its, please do not hesitate to cal l Dann on Davis at (94 9) 440- 348 7. 1-71 C its Herre,Branch Chicf Local 1 ev l T iineiii/Interitov tninent l Review C=: `Ferry R u I Y., r1 , Offlev cif P[annijig and es�eAwIi " C 11tr em.s J Vfpf.rrw 3 mabddy acir ,r ('al tr vma " A7 -1 Q,doplk ef7j Final Supplement to the Santa Ana Second Main Wrack Rroj'ect EIR City of Santa Ana • Page 2 - ai ha venl incol a and Santa ClaralLincoln Intersection Modifications The Planning 'en e 1'u Iii r WV 9 -034 so o N Page 121 of 130 2. ResPonse-to Comments Al. Response to Comments front Chris Herre, Branch Chief, Lo of Development/ Intergovernmental Review, Department of Transportation, dated March 12, 2009. Al -1 The letter states that the State Department of Transportation has no comments. No response is required. ajakQ CC7) Final Supplement to the Santa ulna Second Main Track Project EIR City o Santa Ana . Page 2 - e o ution No n2 = 34 Cl ra incoln Intersection Modifications The Planning g C n er a April 2009 Page 122 of 130 2. Response to Comments LETTER A — State of California Public Utilities Commission (3 pages) ARNOLD PUBLIC UTILITIES IMISSION #:5 L sfty. $jiffs 3I19 sY.- ramfirlo. CA 96614 April 6, 2009 SC H# -2008 141 006 Fairha e,niLitaooIn and S anta C1 am/L-inco in in tersect i0l, Modification Cit y of Santa Ana, Orange county David 3iondoldio Dior Traf i Trar sportatictn Analyst Civic Center Plaza Public Works Ageacy M-93 anta Ana, CA 92702 .lie: 008JO- , — Notice of Availability for the Supplement to the Santa Ana Second Main Tr ack E nviron men tal I mpg ct. deport boar Mr. Bi on oldIo. The C'a itbmia Public Utilities Commission Cormni lion) is in receipt of the City of Santa .no.'s fit 'Notice of Availability for the S-upplernent to the Sant. Ana fond Main Track Enviromnental Impact Report Supplea e tal , The Commission 's Rail Crossings £rigin=ing ectic n C FS staffof e rs the fol. lo ,ing cornet ntsa Commission Reguirernepts vaid policy The Commission has ex-chisive jurisdiction over the safety of bi r wa -raft Crossings (crossings) in CJalifomia�. Nader the FubIic tilitics Co e 1201 -1 205, t al, -the C om ission has ,authorit , ov. the locatioY4 terms, design, operation, maintenance., alteration and closure of crossings, As part of its mission to reduce hazards a sc iaiod- with at-grade -crossings acid in support of the national go al.of the Federal Railroad A dm ini strat ion , C ommi siork CyenerW Ord er'7 5 -D states a policy to rc uoe thy: u'bcr of at-grade crop .sings of mainline track in Califomia. Such. Commission staff generally recommends the closure or grade - separation. of existing at -gmc crossings, Wil.ere Possible. 1. Fairhaven/Lincoln int r e tiou As discussed in our February 24, 2009 response to the City's Notice of Preparation of a Supplomental.Environmental Impact Report, there are many signifi=t safe%y i -iii associated nth the at -grade Fai rhav n Avoiju e crossing P UC No, 1010 - 173:60, DOT No. 0 . 'Ilio most effective s. um, of el.iininadng saf- ty concurs at crossings is to remove either the roadway or track at a particular crossing. A s such, the Coin missio Is R CES. staff sup ports the City's prop osaI to perm anently close the F a.i rh aven Av enue crossing b y recon figun n g the 'roadway to term inate as a cul -de -sac east of the ,railroad tracks. 'Ibis roadway re on igura►tioa will include a cul-de-sac A2-1 Final SuPlement to the Sawa Ana Second Naha Track Project EIR City of Santa Ana • Page -4 FalrbavenlLincoln and Santa ClaralLincoln Inter.; c io odafic t o j The Planning entq eSOlUtlo o. &9 -034 Page 123 of 130 2. Response to Comments David Biondoliao April 6, 2009 page 2 of') diivewaY that is only accessible to rail rnaintenan Ge vehicles and not to vohicWar traffic including emergency vehicles. We support the closure of Lincoln Avenue be4 en Fairhaven Avenue and .dark Lane and all proposed sfg ag at'd pavement markings on Park Lang: at U coin .Avenuc that prevent vehicular traffic, from entering Lincoln A. -venue between Fairhavcai Avenue and Park Lane, We support the installation of a swing gate just north of 'ark Lane fix the purpose of allowing rail maintenanm vebioles access to utilities and equipment located near. tho -railx d tracks and to Provide emergency vehicles a pathway to properties. lbeatod on the west side of Lincoln Avenue, just norlb of Pam � Lane. Enclosed for uT consideration, 4re proposed text revisions to the .draft Environmental Impact Report. 2. Lanta.Clara/Uncoln l Also discussed in previous correspondences with -the City, obstruction to clearing sight distance of r adwav users and pedestrians as well as vehicle que zing problems are some significant issues associated with the at -grade Santa Clara Avenue crossftig P C Igo. 1 - 174.20, DOT No. 0H. We support the City's proposal to sigpalizc the Santa Clara/Lincoln Avenue lrtter cction, inctuding railroad, emssing pre -seal for eastbound traffic, A signalized Intersection and its interconnectiGn witb the railroad crossing warning devices yields the most opbmal configuration for this spcc;ific location, absent crossing,. closure or grade separation, We further support the City's other proposed intersection modifications including the relocation of the southwest comer r driveway on Lincoln Avenue to Santa Clara Avenue, the regrade of the roadway surface and the insulation of waming signals and signage to prevent traffic fr in queuing onto or near the track s and from, getting trapped between the railroad crossing. gates. If you have any questions, please contact me at 1 324 -8325 or via emaiI at lar@cpu .ca.gov, in=ely, I area Gilbert, Supavisor Rail Crossings ngi Bring Section Consumer Proton and Safcty Division nc loser -Mathieu, SCIRAfl o rolin �eH House worth, The Plaxzg Center A2-1 ont'd_ in l Supplement to the Santa Ana Second sin Track Project EIR City of Santa A na * Page - �firhl yvf igL�co ' ?g rr coln Interjection Modifications The Planning ' t- e April 2009 Page 124 of 130 'LL 2. Response to Comments Recionfigure Fairhaven Avenue to terminatc Bs a . uWO -Sac east of the railroad track's. "llxe cul-de-sac would inchi access &ive1vay.s for m ft rail maintenance . 5 x47�1?4 �a Close Lincoln .Avenue between Fairhaven Avenue and Pafk Lane. In w]. a siring gate just north of 'ark Lane to prohibit vektY l s on tht nort tmmo t portion of Lincoln. Avenue. The gate would only allow rail. maintenance vehicles, * Install `right tum only" sigm and pavment marking on-Far Lane-at Lincoln Avenue- 9 Maintained two - Nay tra x c on Linw]n Avenue from P ark Lane to Santa CIara. Av en uc. A2-1 cont' d. C awo;? f7j Final Suplemew to the Santa Ana Second Main Track Project EIR City of Santa Ana • Page 2 -6 pair av nl incoln and SantdClaralLlncoln Interjection Modz •c io .s h nni 'ente or1 o .9889-034 Page 125 of 130 2. Response to Comments A. Response to Comments from Daren Gilbert, Supervisor, Dail Crossing Engineering Section, Consumer Protection and Safety Division, State of California Public Utilities Commission, dated April 6, 2009. A2-1 The letter states that, overall, the State of California Public Utilities Commission is in support of the proposed project. To clarify the project description tent in the Draft EIR, the PUC suggested additional language be added. The text on page 3 -3 of the EIR has been revised per this comment and phone conversations (see Chapter 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR). This tent revision will not alter the conclusion of the impact analysis. Q;Ow) co Final Supplement to the Santa Ana Soar Main Flack Project EIR City of Santa Ana *Page - 'r u �c ications The Planning Center &April 2009 Reso on qo. 1 f Page 126 of 130 2. Response to Comments Letter A3 — Orange Counter Public Works 1 page) :0) N. Flaws : - St Santa Ana, CA Publ-icWorks 0, Box 404 Santa Ami, CA 92'102-4044 Fix; (714) 6 3 ! 1 NC L 08.010 April 6, 2009 Mr. David Brandolillo City of Santa Ana Public Works Agency M-93 Tra sportation `raff Engineering Civic Center Plaza Beata Aria, CA 92702 SUBJECT: Fairhaven/Lincoln and Santa Clara/Lincoln Intersection Modifications Dear Mr. Biondolillo, The above mentioned item is a Supplement to the Santa Ana Sated Main Track Environmental Impoot Report Report (Draft SEil ) for the Fairhaven/Lincoln and Santa lara/Lincoln Intersection Modification lofted in the City of Santa Ana. The County of Orange has reviewed the Draft SEIR and has no comments at this time. However, we would like to be advised of any further developments. If you have any questions, please oontact Marc Ann Jones. at (714) 834 -5387, Sincerely, ; x Laren Brommer, Manager Lid Use Planning A -1 ajm;'? ef7j Final Supplement to the Santa Ana Second Main Track Project EIR City of Santa Ana *Page -8 FairbavenlLincoln and S *K' /Lta Clar'a L incoln Intersection Modifications The Planning ru r 89-034 eso t o o X Page 127 of 130 2. ResPonse to Comments A3. Response to Comments from Laree Brommer, Manager, Land Use Planning, Tran p rtation Traff ic Engineering, Public Works Age ns dated Apri 1 A3-1 The letter states that the County Public Works Agency has no comments. No response is required. C a4N2 f7j Final SuPlemew o the Santa Ana Second Alain Track Project EIR City of Santa Ana • Page 2 - 9 FairhavenlLincoln a nd Santa ClaralLincoln Intersection Modificationf The Planning e a e�- *April2009 Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 128 of 130 3. Revisions to the Draft SEIR 3.1 INTRODUCTION This section contains revisions to the Draft SEIR based on 1 additional or revised information required to prepare a response to a specific comment; ) applicable updated information that was not available at the time of Daft SEIR publication; and /or typographical errors. These revisions do not alter any impact significance conclusions as disclosed in the Draft SEIR. Changes made to the Draft SEIR are shorn in bold italics for additions and stfike for deletions. 3,2 DRAFT SEIR REVISIONS IN RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS Chapter 3, Project Description, Page 3-3 of the Draft EIR has been revised in response to Comment Letter A2, along with telephone and email communications with the CPUC, to clarify the project description. Fairhaven /Lincoln Intersection • Reconfigure Fairhaven Avenue to terminate as a cul -de -sac east of the railroad tracks. The cul- de-sac would include emeirgeney ae driveways to permit access for rail maintenance 9;04)k vehicles. city vehicles would have access to the rail right -of -way on the east side but would not be erm ffecl to cross the tracks. • Close Lincoln Avenue between Fairhaven Avenue and Park Lane. Install a swing gate just north of Parr Lane to prohibit vehicles on the northernmost portion of Lincoln Avenue. The gate would allover rail maintenance vehicles to access the tracks. erneFgeney vehiele aeeess. City vehicles would have access to Lincoln Avenue north of the gate, and the rail right-of-way on the west sale, but would not be permitted to cross the tracks. • Install "right turn only" signs and pavement markings on Park Lane at Lincoln Avenue. • Maintained two-way traffic on Lincoln Avenue from Park Lane to Santa Clara Avenue. Santa Clara /Lincoln Intersection 0 install a traffic signal at the Santa Clara Avenue and Lincoln Avenue intersection. • Relocate utilities as necessary (minor) to facilitate signal operations. • Install new railroad crossing pre- signal and signage for westbound trafic on Santa Clara Avenue east of the track to prevent traffic queuing onto or near the tracks and to prevent vehicles from getting trapped between the railroad crossing gates. Westbound traffic on Santa Clara Avenue would stop before crossing the tracks. • Partial take of land is required from the residential property located at the southwest corner of the intersection to regrade and raise the surface of the roadway. • Relocate the driveway at the southwest corner property from Lincoln Avenue to Santa Clara Avenue. 0 Install new landscape at the corner property. Final Supplement to the Santa Ana Second Haig 'Track Project EIR City of Santa Aria a Page 3 -I FairhavenlLincoln and Santa ClaralLincoln Intersection Modificationj The P acing e e ! eso utioNo. 9 -034 Page 129 of 130 Resolution No. 2009 -034 Page 130 of 130