Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-028 - Approving General Plan Amendement No. 2014-01ROH - 06/03/14 RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -028 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2014 -01 AND CERTIFYING FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 2010 -01 AND APPROVING THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 555 EAST MEMORY LANE 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. Applicant is requesting General Plan Amendment No. 2014 -01 to amend the General Plan to change the land use designation from Medium Density Residential (MR -15) to District Center (DC) to allow construction of the Park View at Town and Country Manor tower to be built on a 2.5 acre section of the site that is located at the southwest corner of the campus located at 555 East Memory Lane. B. On April 14, 2014, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and voted to recommend that the City Council adopt a resolution approving General Plan Amendment No. 2014 -01 and Certifying Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2010 -01 and approving the Mitigation Monitoring Program. C. On May 6, 2014, the City Council of the City of Santa Ana opened and closed a duly noticed public hearing and thereafter continued consideration of matter for 30 days. On June 3, 2014, the City Council considered the matter and approved the General Plan Amendment No. 2014 -01 and Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2010 -01. D. Currently, the land use designation for this site is Medium Density Residential (MR -15), which allows residential development that does not exceed 15 dwelling units per acre. This project will require amendments to the Land Use Element, including amending the General Plan Land Use designation to District Center (DC) with a General Plan floor area ratio of 1.27. The floor area ratio was derived from the size of the proposed buildings as well as the square footage of the existing structures on the site. E. The proposed project will be consistent with several goals and policies of the recently adopted Housing Element. First, the project is consistent with Resolution No. 2014 -028 Page 1 of 6 Goal 2, which encourages diversity of quality housing, affordability levels, and living experiences that accommodate Santa Ana's residents and workforce of all household types, income levels and age groups to foster an inclusive community. Second, the project supports Goal 4, to provide adequate rental and ownership housing opportunities and supportive services for seniors, people with disabilities and people needing sportive housing. Further, the project is consistent with Policy HE -2.2 to create District Centers with high intensity, mixed -use urban villages and pedestrian oriented experiences; Policy HE -2.4 to facilitate diverse types, prices and sizes of housing; Policy HE -4.1 to support development of affordable senior housing readily accessible to support services; Policy HE -4.4 to support service enriched housing for persons with special need such as seniors and people with medical conditions; and Policy HE-4.7 to exercise appropriate land use, planning and regulatory oversight over the operation, location and impact associated with social needs housing and facilities. F. The City Council has weighed and balanced the general plan's policies, both new and old, and has determined that based upon this balancing that General Plan Amendment No. 2014 -01 is consistent with the purpose of the general plan. G. As part of the City's permitting process, the proposed project is required to undergo an environmental review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In accordance with CEQA, the recommended actions have been reviewed through an environmental impact report, EIR No. 2010 -01. Sections 15080 through 15097 of the State CEQA Guidelines (Article 7) guide the process for the preparation of an environmental impact report. H. The EIR, as required by CEQA, contains 1) an initial study; 2) a project description; 3) a description of the environmental setting, potential environmental impacts, mitigation measures for any significant effects, and consistency with plans and policies; and 4) names of preparers. The mitigation measures included in this EIR are designed to reduce or eliminate the potentially significant environmental impacts described herein. The scope of the EIR evaluates the proposed project's effects on the following resource topics: aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems. The City prepared a draft EIR and published the Notice of Availability (NOA) in the Orange County Register as well as posted the NOA at the Orange County Clerk's office on March 11, 2010. The City circulated the draft EIR for a 45 -day public review between March 1, 2010 and April 15, Resolution No. 2014 -028 Page 2 of 6 2010. The draft EIR was available for public review at the Santa Ana City Hall, the City of Santa Ana Main Library, and on the City's website. J. Comments were received during the public review period. Pursuant to Section 15088 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City, as the lead agency for the project, has reviewed all comments received on the document. K. As a result of the environmental analysis, no significant impacts were found from the construction of the proposed project. Mitigation measures have been provided to address potential environmental impacts, with a list of these mitigation measures found within the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Mitigation measures have been outlined to address potential impacts on air quality, noise, transportation and traffic, utilities and service systems, and climate change. L. The applicant agrees to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend the City of Santa Ana, its officials, officers, agents, and employees, from any and all liability, claims, actions or proceedings that may be brought arising out of its approval of this project, and any approvals associated with the project, including, without limitation, any CEQA review or approval, except to the extent caused by the negligence of the City of Santa Ana. Section 2. The City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2010 -01 prepared with respect to this project. The City Council has, as a result of its consideration of the record as a whole and the evidence presented at the hearings on this matter, determined that, as required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines, Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2010 -01 meets all requirements of CEQA. The City Council hereby certifies and approves Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2010 -01 and the Mitigation Monitoring Program attached herewith and incorporated herein by this reference, and directs that a Notice of Determination be prepared and filed with the County Clerk of the County of Orange in the manner required by law. Section 3. Pursuant to Title XIV, California Code of Regulations ( "CCR ") §735.5(c)(1), the City Council has determined that, after considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have the potential for any adverse effect on wildlife resources or the ecological habitat upon which wildlife resources depend. The proposed project exists in an urban environment characterized by paved concrete, roadways, surrounding buildings and human activity. Therefore, pursuant to Fish and Game Code §711.2 and Title XIV, CCR §735.5(a)(3), the payment of Fish and Game Department filing fees is not required in conjunction with this project. Section 4. The City Council hereby approves General Plan Amendment No. 2014 -01 and certifies Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2010 -01 and approves the Mitigation Monitoring Program. The amendments to the General Plan are attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference as though fully set forth herein. Resolution No. 2014 -028 Page 3 of 6 Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2010 -01 is attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference as though fully set forth herein. The Mitigation Monitoring Program is attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by this reference as though fully set forth herein. These decisions are based upon the evidence submitted at the above said hearing, which includes, but is not limited to: the Request for Council Action dated May 6, 2014, and exhibits attached thereto; the Request for Council Action dated June 3, 2014, and exhibits attached thereto; and the public testimony, written and oral, all of which are incorporated herein by this reference. Section 5. These decisions rendered by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana are final and are subject to judicial review pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6. The Planning and Building Agency shall give direct notice to the applicant of the Council's decisions and these findings. ADOPTED this 3rd day of June, 2014. APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney AYES: Councilmembers: Amezcua, Benavides, Revna. Pulido. Tinajero (5) NOES: Councilmembers: None (0) ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: None (0) NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers: Martinez, Sarmiento (2) Resolution No. 2014 -028 Page 4 of 6 CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, MARIA D. HUIZAR, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2014 -028 to be the original resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on June 3, 2014. Date: (,' //l /'-Lo /'/ ;�4 Cwt c7 f�/ �✓ Clerk of the Council City of Santa Ana Resolution No. 2014 -028 Page 5 of 6 EXHIBITS PLEASE SEE LASERFICHE, CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2014-028 FOR EXHIBITS A -C Resolution No. 2014 -028 Page 6 of 6 V 4 1 :11 -�r_1 City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Element 1998 City of Santa Ana Planning Division Adopted February 2, 1998 (Reformatted January 2010) The following is a chronology of the approved general plan amendments that have been incorporated into this document since the comprehensive update of the General Plan Land Use Element adopted by the Santa Ana City Council February 2, 1998 (GPA 1997 -05): GPA 2014 01 (June 3, 2014) GPA 2011 -03 (March 19, 20121 GPA 2011 -02 (June 6, 2011) GPA 2010 -01 (June 7, 2010) GPA 2008 -02 (Jdy 20, 2009) GPA 2007-03 (May 18, 2009) GPA 200403 (Febmary 2, M GPA 2008 -01 (May 5, 2008) GPA 2007 -02 (June 18, 2007) GPA 2007 -01 (March 19, 2007) GPA 2006 01 (October 2, 2006) GPA 2005 -01 (December 5, 2005) GPA 2005 -02 (October 17, 2005) GPA 2004 -01 (April 5, 2005, as passed by the voters of Santa Ana) GPA 2004 -04 (July 19, 2004) GPA 2004 -06 (Jdy 6, 2004) GPA 2003 -02 (June 16, 2003) GPA 2003 -01 (February 18, 2003) GPA 2002 -01 (September 3, 2002) GPA 2002 -03 (August 19, 2002) GPA 2001 -03 (February 19, 2004 GPA 2001 -02 (January 7, 2002) GPA 2000-09 (May 7, 2001) GPA 200008 (February 5, 2001) GPA 200003 (December 4, 2000) GPA 200002 (November 20, 2000) GPA 1999 02 (October 18, 1999) GPA 1999 01 (August 16, 1999) GPA 199804 (October 5, 1998) GPA 199805 (Septern er21, 1998) GPA 199801 (May 4, 1998) C ❑ 2 6s- ��I�0��0�101 - +• L %11�4 LAND USE ELEMENT The City established development intensity standards in 1988, for nonresidential land use designations. The standards measure intensity through the use of floor area ratios. The floor area ratios proposed for the City's major commercial corridors are expected to remain in place over the life of the Land Use Element. The basic character of these corridors is not expected to change significantly during that time. Those areas of the City proposed for the most intensive levels of development include district centers, professional and administrative office districts, and several other commercial centers with a unique character, or special development concerns. Some of these areas correspond to those for which Specific Plans have been prepared. The proposed floor area ratio(s) for most of the City's commercial corridors allows structures of two to three stories with surface parking. The major development areas -the District Centers and ProfessionaVAdministrative Office Districts along Tustin Avenue and East First Street -allow mid -rise and high -rise buildings with structured parking. These areas are expected to generate the highest level of development activity in the City as centers of commerce. These areas are listed in Table A -2 and are shown in Exhibit A -4. The floor area ratios indicated in Table A -2 are the maximum building intensity allowed for development. Table A -2 Key Area- Floor Area Ratios Area Project /Area MainPlace City Place North Main Street FAR 1 2.1 2 2.54 3 1.5 4 North Broadway 1.0 5 Museum District 1.5 6 Hutton Development 1.0 7 Civic Center Specific Development Plan 1.0 8 Midtown Specific Plan 0.5 -1.0 9 Civic Center 1.0 10 Downtown 3.0 11 Orange County Register 1.15 12 Xerox Center Development 3.29 13 First Street /Tustin Avenue 1.0 14 Bentall Center Development 1.5 15 2720 Hotel Terrace Drive 1.0 16 1951 East Camegie Avenue 0.55 17 4040 West Carriage Avenue 0.47 18 Lake Center Development 0.72 19 South Coast Metro 1.0 20 MacArthur Place North 2.0 21 MacArthur Place South 1.0 22 Pac Tel Office 1.5 23 Metro East 3.0 24 Transit Village 5.0 25 Town 8, Count Manor 1.27 A -12 CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN 0$ SEA ƒ § . 3 ± =�! 2 �f };| 7 � ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■�!%2� }� � %& p ■■ � LAND USE ELEMENT Residential The Land Use Plan provides for three distinct residential land use designations. Residential development is also permitted in two other designations: District Center and Urban Neighborhood. The Santa Ana Land Use Plan includes the following residential land use designations: The Low Density Residential (LR -7) designation applies to those areas of the City which are developed with lower density residential land uses. The allowable maximum development intensity is 7 units per acre. Development in this category is characterized primarily by single - family homes. This designation applies to a large proportion of the City (6,466.0 acres) representing 47 percent of the City's total land area. The Low- Medium Density Residential (LMR -11) designation applies to those sections of the City which are developed with residential uses at permitted densities of up to 11 units per acre. The land area included in this designation is approximately 433.7 acres. The great majority of the land designated as Low - Medium Density Residential is located in the westerly portion of the City, north and south of First Street. Properties with this designation are typically characterized by mobile home parks, a mixture of duplexes and single family residences, or small lot subdivisions. The Medium Density Residential (MR -15) designation applies to those sections of the City which are developed with residential uses at densities of up to 15 units per acre. Development in this designation is characterized by duplexes, apartments, or a combination of both. A total of 377.0 acres is designated as Medium Density Residential. The designation applies to areas located in the vicinity of downtown, areas north and south of MacArthur Boulevard, and in other areas where there are established multiple - family development projects. CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN A -19 LAND USE ELEMENT Mixed Use The Land Use Plan provides for two distinct mixed use land use designations. These designations allow for both vertical and horizontal mixed use developments, with an emphasis on linkages to a range of transportation options: A -22 The District Center (DC) land use designation includes the major activity areas in the City. Seven areas of the City, totaling 521.7 acres, are designated as District Center. The intensity standard for the District Center designation ranges from a floor ratio of 1.0 to 5.0. District Centers are designed to serve as anchors to the City's commercial corridors, and to accommodate major development activity. District Centers are to be developed with an urban character that includes a mixture of high - rise office, commercial, and residential uses which provide shopping, business, cultural, education, recreation, entertainment, and housing opportunities. Residential developments within some District Centers are allowed at a density of up to 90 units per acre when developed as an integral component of a master planned mixed use project. In Metro East, Downtown, and Transit Village District Centers residential development intensity is based on a combination of floor area ratio and zoning overlay and /or development standards. Some District Centers serve as major retail and employment centers locally and regionally, and should include development which promotes the City as a regional activity center while creating an environment conducive to business on a regional scale. District Centers in Santa Ana include the following: The Main Place /City Place District Center includes a regional shopping center and office complex, as well as high intensity housing and mixed -use development. The Museum District located between the Downtown and MainPlace/City Place District Centers is proposed as a major office/cultural center which will be developed over the next 15 to 20 years. The area will focus upon the expanded Bowers Museum, the Discovery Science Center and the construction of additional museums and cultural centers. The Downtown District serves as one of the County's major employment and governmental operations centers complemented with a mix of residential, commercial, and services uses to enhance its urban vibrancy. Emphasis on streets that accommodate all modes of transportation, including mass transit, pedestrian and bicyclist is key in this urban setting. CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT Exhibit A-5 Major Development Areas I • Mai nPlx* /Girt Plop 7 • Lon Aram,@ Corridor 2 • Wu dhko 6 Morro Eml 3 • Dawroown 4 Trunril vl kr 4.ORO Broodway Ylaen 5 - 50ulh $f MWO 6 MwjkAw 154 ro CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN A -25 LAND USE ELEMENT interagency Development Review Committee (DRC) to ensure consistent and comprehensive application of City regulations and policies for all projects. Redevelopment Plans. The City will apply redevelopment tools associated with the implementation ofthe adopted redevelopment plans, as appropriate. The City will encourage the further development of industrial, commercial, and residential projects in suitable locations to strengthen the City's tax and employment base. Special Studies. In certain instances, a special study may be required to address a particular issue. In these cases, a specific effort to identify staff resources needed to conduct the appropriate investigation and analysis will be identified. Zoning Code Review. The zoning code serves as a primary tool used by the City to regulate development. The City will develop a program to revise the Zoning Ordinance to ensure that development regulations and standards are consistent with community needs and high quality development. The City will initiate appropriate changes to the ordinance to ensure, where appropriate, conformity between the Land Use Element and Zoning Map. LAND USE PLAN BUILDOUT As indicated previously, the City of Santa Ana has been almost completely developed for many years. As a result, any new development will necessarily consist of redevelopment and infill development on the remaining vacant and underutilized parcels. Many parcels with nonresidential land use designations will never be developed to the maximum intensity permitted under the General Plan. Table A -4 indicates the development possible under the build -out of the Land Use Plan. The build -out for residential land uses considered two scenarios. Effective build -out for residential development is calculated by adding the 15,168 units possible in the areas designated as District Center to the existing 74,588 units presently found in the City per Census 2000. Theoretical build -out for residential development considered the development possible if all of the areas designated as residential were developed according to the permitted Land Use Plan intensities. Since the Land Use Element does not contemplate the elimination of existing housing in the City, the effective build -out figure represents a more realistic estimate of future residential development. As indicated in Table A-4, three ofthe non - residential land use designations have a range in FAR intensities. For the non - residential land use designations, effective build -out considered the development possible under the lower range of FAR intensities while theoretical build -out considered the upper FAR range. Typically, parking and landscaping requirements will result in significantly less floor area for commercial and industrial developments than that which is permitted under the General Plan. CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN A -33 LAND USE ELEMENT As indicated in Table A -4, between 70,856 to 89,755 housing units are allowed by the Land Use Plan. The additional units which presently exist in the City beyond the maximum number permitted under the theoretical buildout scenario are a reflection of the higher density multiple - family developments constructed in the 1970's and 1980's. However, the purpose of the Land Use Plan as it applies to the residential areas is to preserve and maintain the stability of existing neighborhoods, regardless ofthe character of development. The intent ofthe Plan is not to create any displacement, nor decrease existing development densities. Rather, it is to ensure a safe, healthy, and livable environment for City residents. Existing residential development entitlements are protected through this Land Use Element, applicable Zoning regulations, and sections of the City code pertaining to legal nonconforming uses. The Land Use Element's implementation may result in an increase in the amount of commercial, office, and industrial development in the City. As indicated in Table A -4 up to 37,678,572 square feet of commercial and office development, and 42,892,704 square feet of industrial development are possible under the effective capacity parameters of Land Use Plan. A -34 CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT Table A -4 Land Use Plan Build -out Capacities t Effective capacity for non - residential development assumes development possible under the lower range of FAR intensity standards with the exception of the Metro East District Center, Transit Village District Center, Downtown District Center, and Urban Neighborhood areas. The Metro East District Center, Transit Village District Center, Downtown District Center, and Urban Neighborhood areas allow a range of intensity for mibdure of residential and non - residential development based on the zoning development standards. Residential effective capacity was calculated by adding the 15,168 14,860 units possible in the District Center and Urban Neighborhood with the existing 74,588 (Census 2000) housing units. Y Land use designation permits both residential and non - residential development. Build -out assumes 90% of land area will be developed as commercial and 10% will be developed as residential; with the exception of Town and Country Manor project intended for continuum of care and housing seniors. ' Land use designation permits high intensity office development with ancillary retail use. This table has been revised to correspond with the GIS land Use Map illustrated in &hlut 2. CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN A -35 Intensity/ Effective BuRdouf' Theoretical Land Use Acres Densitir Buiidout Low Density Residential LR -7 6,466.0 7 du /ac 45,262 du Low Medium Density Residential LMR -11 433.7 11 du /ac 4,771 du Medium Density Residential MR -15 377.0 15 du /ac 5,655 du Subtotal 7'276'7 Non Res. 89,755 du' Non-Res. 55,688 du Mixed Use District Center Res. Res. Downtown DC 62.5 FAR 3.0 2,057,824 sf 1,661 du 2,057,824 sf 1,661 du Metro East DC 98.3 FAR 3.0 3,245,185 sf 5,551 du 3,245,185 sf 5,551 du Transit Village DC 51.4 FAR 5.0 402,864 sf 2,761 du 402,864 s 2,761 du Other' DC 309.5 90 du /ac FAR 1.0 -2.0 11,955,583 sf 3,017 du 23,764,534 si 3,017 du Urban Neighborhood UN 148.1 FAR 0.5 -1.5 724,249 sf 2,177 du 724,249s 2,177 du Subtotal 666.7 18,385,705 A 15,168 du 30,194,656 s 15,168 du Professional & Admin. Office PAO 633.0 FAR 0.5 -1.0 13,787,219 sf 27,574,438 sf General Commercial GC 1,071.6 FAR 0.5 -1.0 23,338,795 sf 46,677,589 sf One Broadway Plaza District Ctr' OBPDC 4.3 FAR 2.9 543,193 sf 543,193 sf Subtotal 1,709.9 37,669,207 sl 74,795,221 sl Industrial IND 2,188.2 FAR 0.45 42,892,704 sf 42,892,704 sf r Institutional' INS 796.3 FAR 0.2 -0.5 6,937,758 sf 17,344,394 sf Open Space OS 1,017.8 FAR 0.2 8,867,509 sf 8,867,509 sf Subtotal 1,814.2 15,805,267 A 26,211,903 A FAR—floor area ratio: d.u.= dwellina unit: s.f.= square feet (of floor areal. Acmaae shown in table does not include roads in naht- of -way. t Effective capacity for non - residential development assumes development possible under the lower range of FAR intensity standards with the exception of the Metro East District Center, Transit Village District Center, Downtown District Center, and Urban Neighborhood areas. The Metro East District Center, Transit Village District Center, Downtown District Center, and Urban Neighborhood areas allow a range of intensity for mibdure of residential and non - residential development based on the zoning development standards. Residential effective capacity was calculated by adding the 15,168 14,860 units possible in the District Center and Urban Neighborhood with the existing 74,588 (Census 2000) housing units. Y Land use designation permits both residential and non - residential development. Build -out assumes 90% of land area will be developed as commercial and 10% will be developed as residential; with the exception of Town and Country Manor project intended for continuum of care and housing seniors. ' Land use designation permits high intensity office development with ancillary retail use. This table has been revised to correspond with the GIS land Use Map illustrated in &hlut 2. CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN A -35 EXHIBIT B Environmental Impact Report for the Park View at Town and Country Manor Project State Clearinghouse No. 2008101131 City of Santa Ana ■ March 11, 2010 Michael Brandman Associates 220 Commerce, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92602 DRAFT Environmental Impact Report Park View at Town and Country Manor Project Santa Ana, California State Clearinghouse No. 2008101137 Prepared for: City of Santa Ana Planning and Building Agency 20 Civic Center Plaza /M -20 Santa Ana, CA 92702 71 4.744.7220 Contact: Larry Yenglin, AICP, Associate Planner Prepared by: Michael Brandman Associates 220 Commerce, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92602 714.508.4100 Contact: Thomas F. Holm, AICP, Project Director i, ,% , Nfiftel Bd. Associates March 11. 2010 City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR TABLE OF CONTENTS Table o f Con tents Section 1: Introduction .......................................................................... ............................1 -1 1.1 - Overview, Purpose, and Authority of the EIR 1 -1 1.2 - Scope of the EIR 1 -2 1.3 - Organization of the EIR 1 -8 1.4 - Documents Incorporated by Reference 1 -9 1.5 - Documents Prepared for the Project 1 -9 1.6 - Lead Agency, Sponsor, and Consultant 1 -9 1.7 - Review of the Draft EIR 1 -10 Section 2: Executive Summary ............................................................. ............................2 -1 2.1 - Introduction ..................................... ............................... 2 -1 22 - Purpose and Use of This Draft EIR 2 -1 2.3 - Project Overview 2 -1 2.4 - Environmental Impacts 2 -3 2.5 - Alternatives 2-4 2.6 - Issues to be Resolved /Areas of Controversy 2 -5 Section 3: Project Description .............................................................. ............................3 -1 3.1 - Project Location 3 -1 32 - Project Characteristics 3 -1 3.3 - Project Objectives 3 -12 3.4 - Project Approvals 3 -12 3.5 - Cumulative Projects 3-15 Section 4: Environmental Impact analysis ......................................... ..........................4.1 -1 4.1 - Aesthetics----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------41 -1 42 - Air Quality-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------4 2 -1 4.3 - Hydrology and Water Quality -------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------4 3 -1 4.4 - Land Use and Planning ----------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------4 4 -1 4.5 - Noise --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------4 5 -1 4.6 - Transportation and Traffic ------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------4 6 -1 4.7 - Utilities and Service Systems-------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------4 7 -1 4.8 - Climate Change----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------4 8 -1 Section 5: Alternatives to the Proposed Project ................................. ............................5 -1 5.1 - Introduction 5 -1 52 - Project Objectives 5 -2 5.3 - Alternatives Eliminated from Further Consideration 5 -2 5.4 - Alternatives Analyzed in this Draft EIR 5 -3 5.5 - No Project/No Development Alternative (Alternative 1) 5 -4 5.6 - No Project/Development In Accordance with Existing Zoning and General Plan Designations (Alternative 2) . 5 -6 5.7 - Environmentally Superior Alternative 5 -9 5.8 - Summary Comparison of Project Alternatives 5-10 Section 6: Other CEQA Considerations ............................................... ............................6 -1 6.1 - Significant Unavoidable Impacts 6-1 62 - Significant Irreversible Changes 6-1 6.3 - Growth Inducing Impacts 6 -2 Michael Brandman Associates iii HUi ®t(PN R4)b327b327003MMVB270030 SaW,M TAkofCO t.d. Table of Contents City of Santa Ana - Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Section 7: Persons Consulted .............................................................. ............................7 -1 Section 8: List of Preparers .................................................................. ............................8 -1 8.1 - EIR Preparation Personnel ............................................................. ............................... 8 -1 Section 9: References ........................................................................... ............................9 -1 Appendix A: Initial Study (IS) /Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Comment Letters Appendix B: Air Quality Appendix C: Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (PWQMP) Appendix D: Noise Modeling Appendix E: Traffic Appendix F: Climate Change Appendices are located on the CD affixed to the back cover of this Draft EIR. At Michael Brandman Associates I3 >Cheat (lT - To) -0327 03270030DEa 03270030 Sec00 -01 Table of Contents doe City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Table o f Con tents LIST OF TABLES Table 2 -1: Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2 -6 Table 3 -1: Description of Cumulative Projects 3 -16 Table 42 -1: Local Air Quality ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------4 2 -2 Table 42 -2: Air Pollutants ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------4 2 -5 Table 42 -3: Regional Significance Thresholds----------------------------------------------------------------------------- -42 -13 Table 424: Construction Emissions-------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------42 -14 Table 42 -5: Operational Air Pollutant Emissions ( Summer)--------------------------------------------------------- -42 -15 Table 42 -6: Operational Air Pollutant Emissions ( Winter)------------------------------------------------------------ -42 -15 Table 42 -7: Construction Emissions ( Mitigated)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 -2 -17 Table 42 -8: Localized Significance Analysis -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -42 -18 Table 42 -9: Localized Significance Analysis ( Mitigated) --------------------------------------------------------------- 4 -2 -20 Table 42 -10: Carbon Monoxide Concentrations (Opening Year, 2013)---------------------------------------- 4 -2 -22 Table 42 -11: Carbon Monoxide Concentrations (General Plan Buildout, 2030)-------------------------- -42 -22 Table 4 -4 -1: General Plan Consistency Analysis ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -4 -4 -5 Table 4 -5 -1: Noise Levels and Human Response--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -4 -5 -3 Table 4 -5 -2: Vibration Levels and Human Response---------------------------------------------------------------------- -4 -5-4 Table 4 -5 -3: Existing Sensitive Receptors--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -4 -5 -6 Table 4 -54: Groundborne Vibration Exposure Standards-------------------------------------------------------------- -4 -5 -7 Table 4 -5 -5: Land Use with Noise Standards---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -4 -5 -8 Table 4 -5 -6: Vibration Source Amplitudes for Construction Equipment----------------------------------------- 4 -5 -14 Table 4 -5 -7: Estimated Construction Vibration Levels (Vibratory Roller)--------------------------------------- 4 -5 -15 Table 4 -5 -8: Estimated Construction Vibration Levels (Pile Driver) ----------------------------------------------- 4 -5 -16 Table 4 -5 -9: Existing Roadway Noise Levels--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 -5 -20 Table 4 -5 -10: Year 2013 Baseline Noise Contours------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4 -5 -20 Table 4 -5 -11: Year 2013 With Project Noise Contours ------------------------------------------------------------------ 4 -5 -21 Table 4 -5 -12: Year 2030 Baseline Noise Contours------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4 -5 -22 Table 4 -5 -13: Year 2030 With Project Noise Contours ------------------------------------------------------------------ 4 -5 -23 Table 4 -5 -14: Year 2013 Project Traffic Noise Contributions--------------------------------------------------------- 4 -5 -24 Table 4 -5 -15: Year 2030 Project Traffic Noise Contributions--------------------------------------------------------- 4 -5 -25 Table 4 -5 -16: Noise Associated with Typical Construction Equipment------------------------------------------ 4 -5 -26 Table 4 -5 -17: Estimated Unmitigated Construction Noise Levels at Sensitive Receptors (Scraper) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- 4 -5 -27 Table 4 -5 -18: Estimated Unmitigated Construction Noise Levels at Sensitive Receptors (Pile Driver)---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------4 -5 -28 Table 4 -5 -19: Estimated Mitigated Construction Noise Levels at Sensitive Receptors (Scraper) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- 4 -5 -30 Michael Brandman Associates v HUi ®t(PN R4)b327b327003MMVB270030 SaW,M TAkofCO t.d. City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Table of Contents Draft EIR Table 4.5 -20: Estimated Mitigated Construction Noise Levels at Sensitive Receptors (Pile Driver) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- 4.5 -31 Table 4.6 -1: Level of Service Descriptions for Signalized Intersections - ICU Methodology........... 4.6 -2 Table 4.6 -2: Level of Service Descriptions for Signalized Intersections - HCM Methodology---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- 46-3 Table 4.6 -3: Level of Service Descriptions for Unsignalized Intersections - HCM Methodology---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- 4.64 Table 4.6 -4: Level of Service Descriptions Maximum Average Daily Traffic---- ------------------------- - - - - -- 4.6 -5 Table 4.6 -5: Summary of Daily Roadway Operation - Existing Conditions ---- ------------------------- - - - - -- 4.6 -10 Table 4.6 -6: Summary of Peak Hour Intersection Operation - Existing Conditions .......................4.6 -10 Table 4.6 -7: Summary of Freeway Segment Operation Existing Conditions - ------------------------- - - - - -- 4.6 -11 Table 4.6 -8: Summary of Peak Hour Ramp Queuing Existing Conditions ----- ------------------------- - - - - -- 4.6 -12 Table 4.6 -9: Summary of Freeway Weave Analysis Existing Conditions ............. .........................4.6 -13 Table 4.6 -10: Summary of Daily Roadway Operation - Opening Year (2013) Without Project----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- 4.6 -15 Table 4.6 -11: Summary of Peak Hour Intersection Operation - Opening Year (2013) WithoutProject---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- 4.6 -16 Table 4.6 -12: Project Trip Generation------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- 4.6 -17 Table 4.6 -13: Summary of Daily Roadway Operation - Opening Year (2013) With Project.......... 4.6 -18 Table 4.6 -14: Summary of Peak Hour Intersection Operation - Opening Year (2013) With Project----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- 4.6 -20 Table 4.6 -15: Summary of Daily Roadway Operation - Opening Year (2013) With Project Mitigation------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- 4.6 -21 Table 4.6 -16: Summary of Freeway Segment Operation Opening Year (2013) Without Project----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------- - -- 4.6 -22 Table 4.6 -17: Summary of Freeway Segment Operation Opening Year (2013) With Project----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- 4.6 -22 Table 4.6 -18: Summary of Peak Hour Ramp Queuing Opening Year (2013) Without Project----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- 4.6 -24 Table 4.6 -19: Summary of Peak Hour Ramp Queuing Opening Year (2013) With Project----- - - - - -- 4.6 -24 Table 4.6 -20: Summary of Freeway Weave Analysis Opening Year (2013) Without Project----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- 4.6 -25 Table 4.6 -21: Summary of Freeway Weave Analysis Opening Year (2013) With Project ------ - - - - -- 4.6 -26 Table 4.6 -22: Summary of Daily Roadway Operation General Plan Buildout Without Project----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- 4.6 -27 Table 4.6 -23: Summary of Peak Hour Intersection Operation General Plan Buildout WithoutProject---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- 4.6 -28 Table 4.6 -24: Summary of Daily Roadway Operation General Plan Buildout (2030) With Project----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------- - - - - -- 4.6 -29 Table 4.6 -25: Summary of Peak Hour Intersection Operation General Plan Buildout (2030) With Project --------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------- - - ---- 4.6 -31 Table 4.6 -26: Summary of Peak Hour Intersection Operation General Plan Buildout With Project After Mitigation ---------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- 4.6 -33 Vi Michael Bmndman Associates IlU imt (PN- P4)b327b329W30\DEMVB290030 Sa00 -01 TableofCnV tsdce City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Table of Contents Table 4.6 -27: Summary of Freeway Segment Operation General Plan Buildout Without Project------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------- 4.6 -34 Table 4.6 -28: Summary of Freeway Segment Operation General Plan Buildout (2030) WithProject ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4.6 -35 Table 4.6 -29: Summary of Peak Hour Ramp Queuing General Plan Buildout (2030) WithoutProject ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------4.6 -36 Table 4.6 -30: Summary of Peak Hour Ramp Queuing General Plan Buildout (2030) With Project------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------- 4.6 -37 Table 4.6 -31: Summary of Freeway Weave Analysis General Plan Buildout (2030) WithoutProject ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------4.6 -38 Table 4.6 -32: Summary of Freeway Weave Analysis General Plan Buildout (2030) With Project------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------- 4.6 -39 Table 4.6 -33: Sight Distance Summary ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4.6 -41 Table 4.6 -34: Overall Parking Supply of Town and Country Manor �,MM193 Table 4.6 -35: Parking Requirement For Park View at Town and Country Manor .......................... 4.6 -44 Table 4.6 -36: Overall Parking Adequacy of Town and Country Manor ................. .........................4.6 -44 Table 4.7 -1: Active Landfills ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Table 4.7 -2: Estimated Wastewater Generation ----------------------------------------- Table 4.7 -3: Estimated Water Consumption ------------------------------------------------ Table 4.7 -4: Estimated Solid Waste Generation ------------------------------------------ Table 4.7 -5: Estimated Natural Gas Consumption--------------------------------------- Table 4.7 -6: Estimated Electricity Consumption------------------------------------------- Table 4.8 -1: Greenhouse Gases .................................................................. Table 4.8 -2: Project Construction Greenhouse Gases--------------------------------- Table 4.8 -3: Project Operational Greenhouse Gases ---------------------------------- Table 4.8 -4: Project Consistency with Applicable Scoping Plan Measures. Table 4.8 -5: General Plan Consistency ........................................................ Table 4.8 -6: Project Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Mitigated). Table 4.8 -7: Project Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Mitigated) ........... .........................4.8 -14 Table 5 -1: Impact Summary Comparison of Project Alternatives with Proposed Project 5-10 Table 5 -2: Objective Feasibility Comparison.......... 5-10 Michael Brandman Associates vii HUi ®t(PN R4)b327b327003MMVB270030 SaW,M TAkofCO t.d. Table o f Con tents Chy of Santa Ana - Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit 3 -1: Regional Location Map Exhibit 3 -2: Project Location Map Roadway Base Exhibit 3 -3: Project Location Map Aerial Base...... Exhibit 3 -4: Site Plan Exhibit 3 -5: General Plan Land Use Designations Exhibit 3 -6: Location of Cumulative Projects Exhibit 4.1 -1: P Photograph Location Map -------------------------------------------------- Exhibit 4.1 -1a: S Site Photographs 1 through 4 ------------------------------------------ Exhibit 4.1 -1b: S Site Photographs 5through 8 ------------------------------------------ Exhibit 4.1 -1c: S Site Photographs 9through 12 ---------------------------------------- Exhibit 4.1 -2: V Visual Simulation 1: Northeast Perspective ---------------------- Exhibit 4.1 -3: V Visual Simulation 2: South Perspective ---------------------------- 3 -3 3 -5 3 -7 19501 M3s63 Viii Michael Bmndman Associates IlU imt (PN- P4)b327b329W30\DEMVB290030 Sa00 -01 TableofCnV tsdce City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Introduction SECTIOIb&INTRODUCTION 1.1 - Overview, Purpose, and Authority of the EIR This Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) is prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the Park View at Town and Country Manor project. This document is prepared in conformance with CEQA (California Public Resources Code, § 21000, et seq.); CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, § 15000, et seq.); and the rules, regulations, and procedures for implementing CEQA as adopted by the City of Santa Ana. This Draft EIR is intended to serve as an informational document for the public agency decision makers and the public regarding the Park View at Town and Country Manor project. 1.1.1 - Overview The proposed project consists of an 8 -story, 123 -foot high tower with 174 independent living units, an expanded entry lobby totaling 914 square feet, and 117,708 square feet of subterranean parking on three levels. Modifications to the existing parking lots will also occur. The proposed project will add to the number of independent living units within the existing campus for Town & Country Manor. The current General Plan land use designation for the project site is Medium Density Residential (MR -15). The current zoning designation is Suburban Apartment (R -4). The proposed project differs from the allowable uses of the current zoning code and maximum density allowed by the General Plan. A zone change to a Specific Development zoning designation, and a General Plan Amendment to the District Center land use designation will be required. 1.1.2 - Purpose and Authority This Draft EIR provides a project -level analysis of the environmental effects of the Park View at Town and Country Manor project. The environmental impacts of the proposed project are analyzed in the Draft EIR to the degree of specificity appropriate, in accordance with § 15146 of the CEQA Guidelines. This document addresses the potentially significant adverse environmental impacts that may be associated with the planning, construction, or operation of the project. It also identifies appropriate and feasible mitigation measures and alternatives that may be adopted to significantly reduce or avoid these impacts. CEQA requires that an EIR contain, at a minimum, certain specific elements. These elements are contained in this Draft EIR and are as follows: • Table of Contents • Executive Summary • Introduction • Project Description • Environmental Setting, Significant Environmental Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Michael Brandman Associates 1 -1 H\Cl t(PN- JMb327b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec01-0OIvhadvctim dac Introduction • Cumulative Impacts • Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts • Alternatives to the Proposed Project • Growth- Inducing Impacts • Effects Found Not To Be Significant 1.2 - Scope of the EIR CW of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR This document analyzes the environmental effects of the project to the degree of specificity appropriate to the current proposed actions, as required by § 15146 of the CEQA Guidelines. This analysis considers the series of actions associated with the various discretionary actions required for project implementation to determine the associated short-term and long -term effects. Section 4, Environmental Impact Analysis, of this Draft EIR discusses both the direct and indirect impacts of this project as well as the cumulative impacts associated with planned and foreseeable future development within the project area. The scope of the Draft FIR includes issues identified by the City of Santa Ana during preparation of the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation (IS/NOP) for the proposed project, and issues raised in response to the IS/NOP. Scoping Process In compliance with State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Santa Ana has taken steps to maximize opportunities to participate in the environmental process. During preparation of the Draft FIR, various federal, State, regional and local governmental agencies and other interested parties were contacted to solicit comments and inform the public of the proposed project. This included the distribution of the IS/NOP by certified mail in October 2008. The project was described, potential environmental effects associated with project implementation were identified, and agencies and the public were invited to review and comment on the IS/NOP. The close of the NOP comment period was December 1, 2008. The IS/NOP and comment letters received during the IS/NOP review period are included in Appendix A of this Draft EIR. Agencies, organizations, and interested parties not contacted or who did not respond to the request for comments about the project during the IS/NOP public review period have the opportunity to comment during the 45 -day public review period on the Draft EIR. A public scoping meeting, which was noticed to public agencies and nearby property owners, was held on November 13, 2008 to provide information related to the proposed Park View at Town & Country Manor Project and encourage early consultation with persons or organizations concerned with project environmental effects. 1.2.1 - Environmental Issues Determined To Be Not Significant The environmental issues that were determined not to be significantly affected by the proposed project and, therefore, do not require evaluation in the document, per Section 15063(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines, are as follows: 1 -2 Michael Bmndman Associates H\Cl t(PN- JMb327b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec01-0OIvhadvctim dac City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Introduction • Agricultural Resources. The project site is an open grassy area and parking lot containing off - street parking serving Town and Country Manor. The project site is not listed on the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program for the California Resources Agency. The current zoning designation for the project site by the City of Santa Ana is Suburban Apartment (R -4) zoning district, and the current General Plan Land Use Designation is Medium Density Residential (MR -15). Since the site does not contain any agricultural resources and is not zoned for agricultural use, the project would not convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance to non - agricultural uses and would not conflict with zoning for agricultural use. Additionally, the project would not conflict with a Williamson Act Land Contract. The proposed project would not involve changes to the existing environment that would result in the conversion of farmland to a non - agricultural use. Project impacts on agricultural resources are considered less than significant. • Biological Resources. The project site is isolated from natural wildlife areas by the surrounding urban development. The project site is located near the north bank of the Santiago Creek in the City of Santa Ana, but lies across Memory Lane from the Creek, within a developed area. The developed portion of the project contains an asphalt -paved parking area and hardscape features. The vegetation on the site consists of lawns. With existing conditions on the site, the probability of the presence of any species that are designated as candidate, sensitive, or special status in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, is extremely low. No riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community currently occur on the project site. Additionally, the proposed project does not contain any federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. There are no watercourses or bodies on the project site. Because the project site is isolated from existing native habitat by urban development, the site is not considered to be a wildlife corridor. The project site does not include the potential for a native wildlife nursery because of the isolated nature of the site and the lack of native habitat on the site. The project site does not contain any known biological resources such as native habitat or native trees. The developed portion of the site contains an asphalt -paved parking area and hardscape features, and the vegetation on the site consists of lawns. Adjacent sites are mostly developed. Based on these existing conditions, the site is not governed by a tree preservation policy or ordinance. Because the project site, as well as the surrounding areas, include urban uses and no native habitat, the project site is not located within an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Communities Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. Project impacts on biological resources are considered less than significant. • Cultural Resources. A Cultural and Paleontological Resources Study was prepared as part of the IS/NOP, involving a cultural resource records search. During the records search, archival Michael Brandman Associates 1 -3 H\Cl t(PN- JMb327b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec01-0OIvhadvctim dac Introduction City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR maps from 1896 to 1942 were reviewed for the presence of historic age structures and development at the project area, as well as within the general vicinity. The results of this review showed that no structures or roads were located in the project area until 1942. The property was likely agricultural until the 1960's when commercial and housing development took place in the northern part of the City of Santa Ana and the southern section of the City of Orange. Once the upstream portions of Santiago Creek were modified to provide flood protection, development began in earnest. It is believed that no structures were located onsite until the existing Town and Country Manor was built in 1973. The results of the records search indicate that there are no known cultural resources located within the project site, and that the closest known resource is situated approximately 0.25 miles from the project site boundaries. Based on the results of the records search, existing land use, development within and adjacent to the project area, and the parameters of the proposed project, the potential for impacts to buried and potentially significant cultural resources is considered low. Although the modern ground surface has been highly disturbed, it is possible that paleontological resources could he below the ground surface within the boundaries of the project site. Adherence to a mitigation measure identified in the IS/NOP addressing paleontological resources and imposing a requirement for a paleontological review of the project site would reduce impacts to paleontological resources to less than significant. The project is not expected to impact human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemetenes. • Geology and Soils. A geotechnical engineering investigation was conducted by Geotechnologies, Inc. in February 2006. No known active or potentially active faults are believed to underlie the project site. In addition, the project site is not located within an Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Geotechnologies, Inc. identified the San Joaquin Fault, about 5.7 miles away, as the closest earthquake fault. The primary geologic hazard at the site is considered to be moderate to strong ground motion (acceleration) caused by an earthquake on any of the local regional faults. The potential for surface ground rupture at the project site is considered low. Liquefaction analysis of the soils underlying the site was performed. Due to the depth of the proposed foundations, with the corresponding confining stress, seismically- induced settlement of the proposed structures should not be expected as a result of strong ground - shaking. The probability of seismically- induced landslides occurring on the site is considered to be insignificant due to the general lack of elevation difference across or adjacent to the site. The onsite soils are in the low expansion range. Special reinforcement considerations are not required. The proposed structure will have three levels of subterranean parking that will extend to a depth of as much as 30 feet below the ground surface. As a result, all of the fill soils will be removed from the site, and alluvium will be exposed at the foundation level. Due to the potential for 1 -4 Michael Bmndman Associates H\Cl t(PN- Rnb327b327W3MMVB270030 Sec01-0OIvhadvctim dac City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Introduction liquefaction at the site during the design earthquake, a mat foundation has been recommended for foundation support. Based on the current depth to groundwater, excavation to the proposed subterranean level will require shoring, but no dewatering measures to provide a stable and dry excavation. Foundations for small outlying structures, such as walls, which will not be tied -in to the proposed project, may be supported on conventional foundation bearing in native earth materials. Adherence to project mitigation for geology and soils will assure a less than significant impact with mitigation. • Hazards and Hazardous Materials. An existing 8- to 10 -inch jet fuel line is located on Memory Lane south of the project site. The fuel line is owned by the Department of Defense (DOD) and was previously used to supply fuel to the El Toro Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS). The fuel line is no longer in use and has been abandoned, as the MCAS is no longer in operation. In addition, the fuel line has been cleaned and all fuel has been removed. Contact with the Department of the Navy, Defense Energy Support Center during preparation of the City Place Final FIR (2005) for the property across Lawson Way indicates that the jet fuel line is currently filled with nitrogen gas, which is inert, and poses no hazard to the public or to the environment either through leakage or as an explosive hazard. No impact is anticipated. No other evidence of environmental concerns or hazardous materials /waste has been revealed in connection with the project site. On -going maintenance and operation of the proposed structures would involve use and eventual disposal of empty containers once containing materials defined as hazardous. Use of these materials and container disposal will be in compliance with manufacturer's recommendations and applicable City and County regulations. No schools are located within one - quarter mile of the project site. The closest airport to the project site is John Wayne Airport (JWA) located approximately 6 miles to the south. The project site is not located within an area covered by the John Wayne Airport Environs Land Use Plan (ALEP), lying outside the Noise Impact Zones, Clear Zone, and Height Restriction Zone for JWA. In addition, the project site is not in the vicinity of a private airstrip. Project design for the 8 -story building will be compatible with applicable regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics. If building height is more than 200 feet above ground, the project would need to file with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The 8 -story project structure is 123 feet in height, and will not require filing with the FAA. The proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. Implementation of the proposed project would not interfere with the operation of surrounding public streets. As a result, the project would not interfere or impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The project site is located in an area surrounded by urban development. No wildlands exist within the vicinity of the project site. Implementation of the project would not expose people Michael Brandman Associates 1 -5 H\Cl t(PN- Rnb327b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec01-0OIvhadvctim dac Introduction City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. An increase in wildfires has been noted as an effect of climate change. (Section 4.8 Climate Change addresses the impact of the proposed project on climate change.) The project site, located in a developed urban area, however, is not considered at risk from wildfires. No impact from wildland fires would occur. Severe heat exposure is another indirect effect linked to climate change. The following is a summary of temperature and public - health related impacts: - There is scientific consensus that greenhouse gas emissions are changing our climate. - The western United States is warming faster than the rest of the United States. - California's annual nighttime temperatures have increased 0.33 OF per decade since 1920. - California's annual daytime temperatures have increased 0.1 OF per decade. - In the Central Valley, irrigation has reduced the expected warming from climate change. - Higher temperatures are correlated with increased heat - related mortality. - Increasing nighttime temperatures make it difficult for the body to cool overnight, increasing the risk of heat related illness. - Persons in socioeconomically depressed areas are at a greater risk for heat - related mortality due to lack of access to in -home air conditioning or neighborhood cooling places, social isolation, and lack of social networks and support systems. - There has been an increased frequency in heat stress events over the last fifty years. The project would install EPA Energy Star air conditioning units or similar units with equal or better energy savings, according to mitigation measure CC -1. These units will provide indoor air quality adequate to maintain the health of those that would access the project site. The project would also be implementing various energy efficiency components (mitigation measure CC -1), which would offset the extra energy required to operate the air conditioning units. Project impacts for hazards and hazardous materials are considered less than significant. • Mineral Resources. No mineral resources are known to occur on the project site. In addition, the project site has not historically and does not currently support mineral extraction activities. The project site and surrounding areas are not zoned for mineral extraction. Project impacts on mineral resources are considered less than significant. • Population and Housing. An additional 174 residential units will be created within the existing Town and Country Manor Campus as a result of project implementation. A maximum of 1.5 persons per unit is expected, based on some units being occupied by a single individual. Using a maximum figure of 1.5 persons per unit, a maximum increase in population of 261 persons would occur through project implementation. The project area, encompassing the Cities of Santa Ana and Orange, is planned for and contains many high- intensity uses. Regional shopping facilities (e.g. Main Place) and high- density residential uses (City Place) contained within the neighboring District Center land use designation have established this area as an area of high - intensity development. Therefore, a maximum increase in population of 261 1 -6 Michael Brandman Associates H\Cl t(PN- Rnb327b32]003MME 3270030 Sec01-0OIvhadvctim dac City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Introduction persons in this area of Santa Ana and the City of Orange is not considered significant. Additionally, the proposed project will not displace existing housing or people. Project impacts on population and housing are considered less than significant. • Public Services. Implementation of the proposed project would introduce residential uses to the project site and increase residential units within the overall Town and Country Manor Campus by 174 units. The additional units would generate an incremental increase in service demand for fire and police protection services. The site plan, architectural details, and landscape design for the proposed project are being addressed through City staff review and the design review process prior to project implementation, however, resulting in compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances, and requirements. Although the project would increase demand on the City's fire and police protection services, it is not expected that this demand would require the construction of new facilities or require the expansion of existing facilities, or require additional personnel or equipment in order to maintain acceptable response times. Additionally, the proposed project consists of 174 residential units for senior living contained within a "Continuing Care Residential Community; therefore, there will be no impacts on schools. Even though the project site is located across from Santiago Park, impact on park use is expected to be minimal based on the variety of recreational amenities provided within Town and County Manor for residents, and the limited number of residents expected to occupy the proposed 174 units (261 maximum). The Santa Ana Library is limited in its capacity to serve new patrons. Implementation of the proposed project would incrementally increase the demand for library services. However, senior living facilities generally have a book exchange program onsite as one of the many services offered to residents. Project impacts on public services are considered less than significant. • Recreation. An additional 174 residential units will be created within the existing Town and Country Manor Campus as a result of project implementation, resulting in a maximum increase in population of 261 persons. A substantial increase in the use of existing neighborhood, regional, or other parks is not anticipated as a result of the proposed project. The Project does not involve the construction or expansion of new public parks or public recreational facilities. Additionally, recreational facilities for use by project residents are contained within the Town and Country Manor Campus. Therefore, project impacts on recreation are considered less than significant. 1.2.2 - Potentially Significant Environmental Issues Based on the findings of the IS/NOP, a determination was made that an EIR is required to address the potentially significant environmental effects of the proposed project. The scope of this Draft EIR is based on issues identified by the City of Santa Ana during the preparation of the IS/NOP, and the Michael Brandman Associates 1 -7 H\Cl t(PN- Rnb327b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec01-0OIvhadvctim dac Introduction City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR environmental issues raised in response to the IS/NOP. The following issues were determined to be potentially significant and will be addressed in this EIR: • Aesthetics • Air Quality • Hydrology and Water Quality • Land Use and Planning • Noise • Transportation and Traffic • Utilities and Service Systems • Climate Change 1.3 - Oraanization of the EIR This Draft EIR is organized into the following main sections: • Section 1: Introduction - This section provides an introduction and overview describing the purpose of this Draft EIR, its scope and components, and its review and certification process. • Section 2: Executive Summary - This section includes a summary of the Park View at Town & Country Manor project. Also included is a table that summarizes the project and cumulative impacts, mitigation measures, and level of significance after mitigation. • Section 3: Project Description - This section includes a detailed description of the Park View at Town & Country Manor project, including its location, surrounding land uses, and current land use designation. A discussion of the project objectives and intended uses of the Draft EIR, which includes the approvals that are required for the project, is also provided. • Section 4: Environmental Impact Analysis - This section analyzes the environmental impacts of the proposed project. Impacts are organized into major topic areas. Each topic area includes a description of the environmental setting, methodology, significance criteria, impacts, mitigation measures, and significance after mitigation. The specific environmental topics that are addressed within Section 4 are as follows: - Section 4.1 - Aesthetics - Section 4.2 - Air Quality - Section 4.3 - Hydrology and Water Quality. - Section 4.4 - Land Use and Planning - Section 4.5 - Noise - Section 4.6 - Transportation and Traffic - Section 4.7 - Utilities and Service Systems - Section 4.8 - Climate Change 1 -8 Michael Bmndman Associates H\Cl t(PN- Rnb327b327W3MMVB270030 Sec01-0OIvhadvctim dac City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR • Section 5: Alternatives to the Proposed Project • Section 6: Other CEQA Considerations • Section 7: Persons and Organizations Consulted • Section 8: List of Preparers • Section 9: References Introduction • Appendices - Contains technical studies prepared to support the Draft FIR analysis. Any technical studies or supporting technical appendices relating to the Park View at Town and Country project not included in the Draft FIR Appendices are available for review at the City of Santa Ana Planning and Building Agency, 20 Civic Center Plaza, Planning - 2nd Floor, Santa Ana, California, 92702. 1.4 - Documents Incorporated by Reference As permitted by § 15150 of the CEQA Guidelines, this Draft FIR has referenced several technical studies, analyses, and previously certified environmental documentation. Information from the documents, which have been incorporated by reference, has been briefly summarized in the appropriate section(s). All documents utilized in the preparation of this Draft EIR are listed in Section 9, References. In accordance with § 15150(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, these referenced documents and other sources used in the preparation of the Draft FIR are available for review at the City of Santa Ana Planning and Building Agency, 20 Civic Center Plaza/M -20, Santa Ana, California, 92702. 1.5 - Documents Prepared for the Protect Several technical studies, reports, and supporting documentation were prepared in order to address environmental issues in this FIR. Most are included as technical appendices on a CD as part of this Draft EIR. These appendices and all project documentation are available for review at the City of Santa Ana Planning and Building Agency. 1.6 - Lead Agency, Sponsor, and Consultant The City of Santa Ana is designated as the Lead Agency for the project. CEQA Guidelines § 15367 defines the Lead Agency as "...the public agency, which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project." Other public agencies may use this Draft FIR in the decision - making or permit process and consider the information in this Draft FIR along with other information that may be presented during the CEQA process. This Draft FIR was prepared by Michael Brandman Associates (MBA), a consultant to the City of Santa Ana. Technical studies prepared by other consultants have been reviewed for CEQA adequacy by MBA. Prior to the public review of the Draft EIR, the Draft FIR was extensively reviewed and Michael Brandman Associates 1 -9 H\Cl t(PN- JMb327b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec01-0OIvhadvctim dac Introduction City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR evaluated by the City of Santa Ana. This Draft FIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City of Santa Ana as required by CEQA. Lists of organizations and persons consulted and report preparation personnel are provided in Sections 7 and 8 of this Draft FIR, respectively. Key persons are as follows: Lead Agency: Environmental Consultant: Sponsor /Applicant: 1.7 - Review of the Draft EIR City of Santa Ana Planning and Building Agency Larry D. Yenglin, AICP, Associate Planner 20 Civic Center Plaza/M -20 Santa Ana, CA 92702 714.647.6563 Michael Brandman Associates Thomas F. Holm, AICP, PrincipalNice President 220 Commerce, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92602 714.508.4100 Town & Country Manor c/o City Works, Inc. 2650 E. Foothill Boulevard, Suite 201 Pasadena, California 91107 626.795.9803 This Draft FIR, including technical appendices, was distributed to responsible and trustee agencies, other affected agencies, and interested parties, as well as all parties requesting a copy of the Draft FIR in accordance with Public Resources Code 21092(b)(3). During the 45 -day public review period, the Draft FIR, including technical appendices, is available for review at the City of Santa Ana, Planning and Building Agency, 20 Civic Center Plaza/M -20, Santa Ana, California, 92702. Written comments on the Draft FIR should be addressed to: Larry D. Yenglin, AICP, Associate Planner Santa Ana City Hall, Planning and Building Agency P.O. Box 1988, Santa Ana, CA 92702 Upon completion of the 45 -day public review period, written responses to all substantive environmental issues raised will be prepared and available for review at least 10 days prior to the 1 -10 Michael Brandman Associates H\Cl t(PN- JMb327b327W3MMVB270030 Sec01-0OIvhadvctim dac City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Introduction public hearing before the Santa Ana Planning Commission at which the certification of the Final EIR will be considered. These environmental comments and their responses will be included as part of the environmental record for consideration by decision makers for the project. Michael Brandman Associates 1 -11 H \Cl t o?NJN)b327b32]003MME 3270030 Se l0 0I.h c6. d City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Executive SECTIOI CUTIVE SUMMARY 2.1 - Introduction The City of Santa Ana has received an application for the Park View at Town and Country Manor project, proposing to construct additional structures and facilities within the existing Town and Country Manor campus. The proposed project would add 174 independent living units to the existing campus. Also constructed would be a new expanded entry lobby, a covered pool area and fitness center proposed within an aquatic and wellness center, modifications to the existing parking lots, and creation of a main entrance driveway, connecting the two existing entrances on Memory Lane and Lawson Way and having one lane in each direction. 2.2 - Purpose and Use of This Draft EIR This Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with the Park View at Town and Country Manor project. The Draft EIR is intended to serve as an informational document for public agency decision makers and the public regarding the objectives and components of the proposed project. This document will address potentially significant adverse impacts related to construction and long -term occupancy of the proposed project as well as identify feasible mitigation measures and alternatives that may be adopted to reduce or eliminate these impacts. 2.3 - Project Overview 2.3.1 - Local and Regional Setting The project site is approximately 2.5 acres in size, located within the larger 8.29 acre Town and Country Manor Campus. Town and Country Manor is located adjacent to a major business district in the City of Santa Ana in Orange County, California. The project site, currently occupied by an open grassy area and parking lot, is situated at the northeast corner of Memory Lane and Lawson Way, across the street from Santiago Park and one block east of Main Street. The project site occupies the southwest portion of the existing campus for Town & Country Manor. The 8.29 -acre property occupied by Town and Country Manor is triangular in shape and tapers eastward away from the project site. Local access to the project site is provided from Main Street, Memory Lane, and Lawson Way. Regional access to the project site is provided by Interstate 5 (I -5) to the west and State Route 22 (SR -22) to the north. Main Street is one of the primary commercial corridors in Santa Ana and is largely developed in the project area with low to high intensity commercial and retail uses. Existing buildings in the project area range from one to 16 stories in height, with no uniform architectural style. The project site is bounded on the north by existing Town and Country Manor buildings, low -rise office buildings and Michael Brandman Associates 2 -1 H\Cl t(PN- JN)b327b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec02-0 Executive S...dac City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Executive Summary Draft EIR parking lot (in the City of Orange), and the SR -22 freeway. To the east lies the balance of the Town and Country Manor campus, Memory Lane, Santiago Creek and Park, single - family residential uses, and the Orange Financial Center and parking structure. The Park is 23 acres in size and provides a combination of active and passive recreational uses. To the south is Memory Lane and Santiago Creek and Park, located across Memory Lane. Single - family residential uses border the Park on the south. To the west are Lawson Way and City Place, a 17.7 -acre mixed use development, a portion of which planned to contain a 31 -story high -rise structure is currently being processed by the City. Adjoining City Place on the north end is the 16 -story Orange Executive Tower and supporting 7 -story parking structure, and an apartment complex north of Town and Country Road. Further west across Main Street is the Westfield Main Place mall, which includes movie theaters, retail uses, and restaurants, and the I -5 freeway. 2.3.2 - Proposed Project Objectives The objectives of the proposed Park View at Town & Country Manor Project are to: • Respond to the need for active adult and senior housing opportunities within the City of Santa Ana by providing a senior residential living facility. • Complete development of the Town and Country Manor in a cohesive manner, aesthetically and operationally integrating the individual existing and proposed development components. • Maximize utilization for residential development of the southwest corner of the Town and Country Manor campus adjacent to the existing District Center area along Main Street, joining together with Main Place Mall and City Place development to form a master planned mixed use area. • Add to existing development in the District Center land use area along Main Street with project components that are compatible in scale and consistent with the architectural styles and character of the area, and that provides a positive contribution to neighborhood identity. • Develop the project site according to good urban design principles, acknowledging the importance of the project as part of the City's North Main development corridor and District Center land use area along Main Street, with proper attention to landscape design and planning for pedestrian access. • Maximize the advantages of the site's location close to Main Street in terms of its visibility and proximity to the Garden Grove (SR -22) and Santa Ana (I -5) freeways. • Provide a project that contributes to the continued revitalization of the northeastern part of the City of Santa Ana. 2.3.3 - Proposed Project Characteristics Town & Country Manor, built in 1973, is an existing "Continuing Care Residential Community" (CCRC) licensed by the California Department of Social Services. The proposed project will add 174 independent living units to the existing campus. The units will be marketed solely to seniors. Fees 2 -2 Michael Brandman Associates H\Cl t(PN -Rn) 327b327W3MEM'B3270030 Sec02-0 Executive S.. .d City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Executive for each unit will be charged for services provided such as common dining, cleaning, laundry, and recreational activities. The proposed multi -story building to contain the 174 independent living units consists of an 8 -story, 123 -foot high tower, with three levels of subterranean parking. Also planned are a new expanded entry lobby totaling 914 square feet, a covered pool area and fitness center proposed within an aquatic and wellness center, modifications to the existing parking lots, and creation of a main entrance driveway, connecting the two existing entrances on Memory Lane and Lawson Way and having one lane in each direction. The total lot size of the Town & Country Manor campus is 360,894 square feet (or 8.29 acres). Existing buildings total 219,556 square feet, which include 133 residential care units, 57 assisted living units, and 49 skilled nursing units. Also included within the existing facilities are a dining area, a library, lobbies, meeting rooms, a multi - purpose room, recreational areas, and administrative offices. The residential structures on the campus are three -story structures constructed of stucco over block. The dining facility and multi - purpose rooms are housed in one -story structures. The skilled nursing facility is located in a two -story structure. The site also includes a chapel constructed of wood frame and stucco. With the proposed structures, a total 568,848 square feet of buildings will exist on the campus. There are 172 existing parking spaces on the site consisting of 91 spaces at the main entrance drive, 67 spaces at the north parking lot, and 14 spaces at the east parking lot. The 91 spaces at the main entrance will be removed and replaced with 12 spaces. At the north parking lot, 28 of the existing 67 spaces will be removed and 99 new spaces will be added for a total of 138 spaces. The east parking lot will remain unchanged in parking count. At the south parking lot, 31 guest parking spaces will be added. The proposed subterranean parking structure will consist of three levels; 93 spaces are proposed on the first level, 115 spaces on the second level, and 67 spaces on the third level for a total of 275 spaces. 2.4 - Environmental Impacts 2.4.1 - Impacts Not Considered in This EIR The environmental issues that were determined not to be significantly affected by the proposed project and, therefore, do not require evaluation in the EIR document, per section 15063(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines, are as follows: • Agriculture Resources • Biological Resources • Cultural Resources • Geology /Soils • Hazards /Hazardous Materials • Mineral Resources • Population/Housing • Public Services • Recreation Michael Brandman Associates 2 -3 H\Cl t(PN -Rn) 327b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec02-0 Executive S...dac Executive City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR The above environmental issues that were determined not to be significantly affected by the proposed project were addressed in the IS/NOP. 2.4.2 - Impacts of the Proposed Project Table 2 -1, Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the Town and Country Manor project, summarizes the detailed discussion contained in Section 4 of this Draft FIR, Environmental Impact Analysis, of project impacts and mitigation measures. Additional mitigation measures for impacts found not to be significant by the Initial Study - Environmental Checklist Form are included with the Initial Study in Draft FIR Appendix A, and will be included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 2.5 - Alternatives 2.5.1 - Alternatives Analyzed in this EIR No Project/No Development (Alternative 1) Under the No Project/No Development Alternative (Alternative 1), the project site would remain as parking lot and grassy area, and existing conditions would continue. No additional housing within the Town and Country Manor Campus would be provided and other modifications to the campus as proposed would not occur. No Project /Development In Accordance with Existing Zoning and General Plan Designations (Alternative 2) Under the No Project/ Development In Accordance with Zoning and General Plan Designations Alternative (Alternative 2), improvements to the project site could only occur in compliance with existing zoning and General Plan land use designations: Suburban Apartment (R -4) zoning, and Medium Density Residential (MR -15) General Plan land use designation, allowing 15 dwelling units /acre. Approximately 35 dwelling units would be allowed in accordance with existing zoning and General Plan designations. The master planned mixed use area containing the Main Place Mall and City Place development would not be extended further east, and the lower intensity, low -rise character of the existing Town and Country Manor Campus would be maintained. 2.5.2 - Alternatives Eliminated from Further Consideration Initial areas of concern associated with the proposed project were aesthetics- shade /shadow, air quality - construction, and traffic. The option of a 6 -story reduced intensity /reduced building height alternative (123 units built over two -level subterranean parking garage) was developed by the Applicant and reviewed as part of Draft EIR preparation for environmental benefit as compared to the proposed project. It was initially thought that a reduced intensity alternative could potentially lessen the already less than significant impacts of the proposed project by a substantial means. This reduced intensity alternative demonstrated no significant environmental benefits over the proposed project, realizing no substantial reduction in the already less than significant impacts of the proposed project, and was not able to meet Fire Department requirements, raising emergency access concerns for fire 2 -4 Michael Brandman Associates H\Cl t(PN- JN)b327b32]003MME 3270030 Sec02-0 Executive S.. .d City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Executive protection and emergency response. This reduced intensity alternative was, therefore, eliminated from further consideration. No alternative uses for the project site contained with the larger Town and Country Manor campus have been suggested during preparation of the Draft FIR as integrating well with existing uses, and therefore have not been evaluated. No alternative locations were considered for the proposed project because no suitable alternative locations could be determined. Additionally, no other sites within the City of Santa Ana are under the ownership and control of the Applicant. For these reasons, analyzing alternative uses and locations was considered not feasible. 2.5.3 - Environmentally Superior Alternative CEQA Guidelines § 15126(e)(2) requires an FIR to identify an "environmentally superior alternative." Impacts for all issue areas analyzed in the Draft FIR for the proposed project can be mitigated and are considered less than significant. The initial areas of concern associated with the proposed project, aesthetics- shade /shadow, air quality - construction, and traffic, were determined through the EIR analysis to be either less than significant before mitigation, or able to be mitigated to a less than significant level. No substantial adverse impacts will, therefore, occur with adherence to regulatory requirements and project mitigation measures. The proposed project is considered the environmentally superior alternative. 2.6 - Issues to be Resolved /Areas of Controversy Section 15123(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an FIR contain issues to be resolved, which includes the choice among alternatives and whether or how to mitigate significant impacts. The major issues to be resolved within the proposed project include decisions by the Lead Agency as to whether: • The Draft EIR adequately describes the environmental impacts of the proposed project; • The recommended mitigation measures should be adopted or modified; and /or • Additional mitigation measures need to be applied to the proposed project. Table 2 -1, Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the Park View at Town and Country Manor project, summarizes the detailed discussion contained in Section 4 of this Draft FIR, Environmental Impact Analysis, of project impacts and mitigation measures. Table 2 -1 lists the environmental issues, and indicates that no issues would remain significant after mitigation. Because no issues remain significant after mitigation, no issues to be resolved and /or areas of controversy remain. Michael Brandman Associates 2 -5 H\Cl t(PN- JN)b327b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec02-0 Executive S...dac N w 7 N R w C O Y R cY_ C L C R R Q R C w E C O a C W O L R E E m N N w a R F O m T U! w a w R (J W N 0 N ctl O N N y N N U W N N y N ctl U W N N y N N U W N N y N ctl U W N N y N N v N R w c ti ti ti ti ti F ti ti ti ti ti N N N N N O O O O O CtiM CtiM CtiM CtiM CtiM z z z z z ti 0 Ntz� bo 0 0 .�btiA O v ti > !? °• ti F °• ' R. N ,L F bA'O ,L `" O �'' ca T ``" u v R. bo d U U bA rl 'rdi N rl N° U N rl N y N rl y N N 7 rl U> s a a a U a � b abny o y Q U w Q ti N F U w T .y a a -o o �� II 0 C U O az O O1 U! w a v U C � U w c rn N O U! J � U w C al ti � v a ro °' r m r ti o o r o H o �V]v� vy F ... U O H..O. ^'� o a� U.o ° r U A U o. x N � � O v E C v � N F U W V] N N .tiM N � H O N ti U a F .-1 T P. P� -o � U O � un v� Lam. O MN W 7 U O az � h O O1 U! w a v U C R U w c rn N O U! J � ctl U w C al ti � v a m v m v w v A .a3 y U ti' bA N m 'O d Q.. ao d U N � +� O � U N R o. U x `w O 3� E v � c N O` O i 4. � U F U W N � V N R c U O H U .a F .-1 w° w � U O � R un v� U Ly O MU � W �CC N G U O az C� h G O T U! w a U A (J W N 0 N cd U N N y N N cd U W N N y N N cd U N N y N N cd U W N N y N N cd U W N N y N N 5 M N N A 3 O a T w a N U a a a bF ti 4 ,L' .� O � 'O N v F. c�a 'O �� o 0 o.X �aY�� o O' ctl w° o'r .> x o r Cp Oce. 'O W �i .o 'O N m '� r o a.'E oq v U T O U O O 2 U. w° ti U A a° U Q w ° i--i O N i--i O O X U N a H .a T P. P� -o � II 0 � o az G O Ol U! w a v U w O1 N 0 U! bA 'ti N y v bA ti N y v w bA ti N y v w bA ti N y v N v N A U! C ti ti ti ti F ti ti ti ti N N N N O O O O CtiM it CtiM i CtiM i CtiM i z z z z 0 1 U T O F r �' O m ti y �' >, U tiM h N Ar +, U w , ro o ff N 0 0 on ,�' R a o a- c' R am an.Y.N o U in o' H U °' N U U a. 3 r on aXi y U w �i ti N F G U w T .y a P� N ..U. � II s0. 0 Ca 7 ~ U o az O Ol U! w a v U w C N O � F y � ti N N N N v N A U! C ti ti ti ti F ti ti ti ti N N N N O O O O CtiM it CtiM i CtiM i CtiM i z z z z c v v Y 3 ti Al' y U w �i ti N F G U w T .y O a w N ..U. o � II sue. O N Ow 7 ~ U O az O Ol U! w a U U w Ol N w bA ti w bA ti w bA ti N v N A U! C ti ti ti ti ti ti F ti ti ti ti ti ti N N N N N N O O O O O O CtiM CtiM CtiM CtiM CtiM CtiM z z z z z z o r o oo y o �. on 2 c v v b�A ti o 'o Y A o P. o m r U y ti -o u O N v Q R U R V CO R cAtl Q R cUd U N D Q R cAUtl Q R 'O a G� �;s..�t.. �m W �ca QW U 2 2� d N 2 U 2 Q ou 0 o 9 m C U ;1.vW U 2 ca o U y U w �i ti N F G U w T .y O a w -o o Lam. O N CC N G U o az O Ol U! w a v U C A U w C � N O � U! J � cd ti � bA ti � ti v a � cd U w � bA ti � ti v a W Vi Q.. m o b r bo O .4 t o T G bA O 6' r {' ._ ti N O ti r r t C c � v r. A F U U O pq � cd C U Uin �i v� .a F .-1 a P� N U OM � bq Lam. O N U O az h O Ol U! w a v U C � U w c rn N O U! J � U w C al ti � v a bA ti � O -C� r r Q. o A.� ON T a0i Fy m > o r .� � m o o ti p m on ti � r&,4 4o6b •'�' 'O O a�>i 4. O C D T h C C w> w • Z h Q. 0�6 Z U °' o y Z h -� 3Q. O a, U. w O ti O ° k'A v � � a bA N N U Y O V y W F N 4, bA vUi �Nsd Q U F .-1 T P. a � U � bq O � �� II GUyn v� Fy � Lam. O N � �CC N G U O az O Ol U! w a v A (J W N 0 U! > O N N y N ti U W N N y N ti U W N N y N ti U W N N y N ti 'O N ti N O y L � U A O � O N >Uz z N N U � � N p CNC � CNC CNC it it it N bq aJ > y it it it ou ou o 0 �i U ti N a F a M T a w O � un v� Lam. O N � CC N G U o az � h O Ol U! w a U A (J W N 0 N cd U W N N y N N cd U W N N y N N cd U W N N y N N cd U W N N y N N cd U W N N y N N ti v rfl _ pr ti p w rfl o v F U rfl C � v fyr m U b m w w w m p i F F' 'O V. S � O O O O E-1 -o Lr r r O 4. O O r 3. Y Y ti o r �tz� h ro O S] 0 � � o d o �' 3 p ti v .° a� bbo am p amc.i ym0 yww ti v," bA �i M N F .-1 M a QI � b�q O �� II s0. 0 C � o az C O Ol U! w a v U C A U w C w O U! U! J I UN O 0 ° r x � 0 0 O D U O O �bA'O v w o P° °° • • f� •� �O � N F' (yi N f� � •� V H N • f0.7�' N 0 td F' N (yi m � N N O � Ncd O ± y � T N a °3 ° 3 H E _ U O U U 7. O W ro C ctl bib1J 0 p F E U O T 'r C O F 2 p N O W O k6 T 'O N � ti bu U .a F .-1 v� QI a � U O � � n Fy Lam. O N 7 U O az O O1 U! w a v � O w C O1 N O U! J U w � bA ti � v a U w � bA ti � v a �! > ti m m ti ti m o m ❑❑ '� � -O v h h o v > U v v p > fQPyi N U w O U U r ti N C O C E v m C7 3 0 o -o O o a0 0.0 N F 0+ O O R R r r R O O �C2 e eo N H .-1 M v� P. a -o � bq un v� O N � CC N G N p az C�J.. G O Ol U! w a U W N N N N N W N N O bA N N � O z v on on on on on � �' s � � N O ti ti O O• � N N td N �+ N N N N r r E _ ou .°J ,j� O a� r� v v°Ji v cOi '�' v' '�' v O• `O-' '�' Chi G C 4. �.ti � �, O• � .L'��' .O v v � � .O v � O O U O v � � O p" N p OC O ^ Y _ U 'O ti� ub'� d UhOWd uO"d uO"d Ucd d CY CY ' ou 2 2 2-o �U U U mU y U w �i ti N a F a w w w N ..U. O� � II Lam. O N � CG 7 ~ U O az O Ol U! w a U U w O1 N 0 � U! w bA ti N y ti v bA ti N y ti v w bA ti N y ti v w bA ti N y ti v ti N �Uy N oz oH.o v vC O O O O O F w °° b �i v� .a F a w a � U � b�q O � � u 0 C� 7 ~ U o az h O Ol U! w a v A (J W N 0 N Ui N N y N Ui N N y N U W N N y N U W N N y N U W N N y N U W N N y N U O m m Z o W 3 3 o Q co A W B Y O o � . r. o 24 o . m w C. vbp O. v O vi O Oti " O ti C b�~A v 0 �.�ro ro Fr�.3 N FN ti F� Fti � E o Fro r � ad a ti v w G' GO w2 m v R 'O >, t > X ..>. � v ' a� d aa3 ti d a3 a� E a� r> c a a o U v� .a F .-1 w QI w � U � bq O � '� II O U O az C O Ol U! w a v U C R U w C w O U! U! J O' ° N r.— m m y ctl m m m m 0 W V^ N m V c�J ,p vv� N S S N S S Or N y � � Ar �? � `� �.1 R o. A C U! C O C W O � .i R a E .a W❑ l�U a a y � U � b0 O � Lam. O N � �CC N G U O az � h C O Ol U! w a v U C R U w C w O U! U! J ti �� Cam' U N O N cC ctl �' r 'a a�' ar ttl Q O 'O N U h tC Q O U� U.� ttl Q �.1 R o. A C U! C O C W O � .i R a E N E-� W 0 QI QI y � U � bq O � Lam. O N � �CC N G U O az � h ; § » § ® ) \(\ \) \\ � \ \ \\33 \» \ \ \\CL s 6 / | ƒ \ ƒ ) \ \ \ ƒ j e \ \k \/ j\ /\ City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR SECTION 3: RIPTION 3.1 - Proiect Location The project site is approximately 2.5 acres in size, located within the larger 8.29 -acre Town and Country Manor Campus. Town and Country Manor is located in the North Main Street district area of the City of Santa Ana in Orange County, California (see Exhibit 3 -1). The site is situated at the northheast corner of Memory Lane and Lawson Way, across the street from Santiago Park and one block east of Main Street. The Santa Ana Freeway (1 -5) is to the west of the project site and the Garden Grove Freeway (SR -22) is to the north of the project site (see Exhibit 3 -2 and Exhibit 3 -3). 3.2 - Project Characteristics Town and Country Manor, built in 1973, is an existing "Continuing Care Residential Community" (CCRC) licensed by the California Department of Social Services. The proposed project will add 174 independent living units to the existing campus. The units will be marketed solely to seniors. Fees for each unit will be charged for services provided such as common dining, cleaning, laundry, and recreational activities. The proposed multi -story building to contain the 174 independent living units consists of an 8 -story, 123 -foot high tower, with three levels of subterranean parking (see Exhibit 3 -4). Also planned are a new expanded entry lobby totaling 914 square feet (attached to Building A), a covered pool area and fitness center proposed within an aquatic and wellness center, modifications to the existing parking lots, and creation of a main entrance driveway, connecting the two existing entrances on Memory Lane and Lawson Way and having one lane in each direction (see Exhibit 3 -4). The total lot size of the Town and Country Manor campus is 360,894 square feet (or 8.29 acres). Existing buildings total 219,556 square feet, which include 133 residential care units, 57 assisted living units, and 49 skilled nursing units. Also included within the existing facilities are a dining area, a library, lobbies, meeting rooms, a multi - purpose room, recreational areas, and administrative offices. The residential structures on the campus are three -story structures constructed of stucco over block. The dining facility and multi - purpose rooms are housed in one -story structures. The skilled nursing facility is located in a two -story structure. The site also includes a chapel constructed of wood frame and stucco. With the proposed structures, a total 568,848 square feet of buildings will exist on the campus. There are 172 existing parking spaces on the site consisting of 91 spaces at the main entrance drive, 67 spaces at the north parking lot, and 14 spaces at the east parking lot. The 91 spaces at the main entrance will be removed and replaced with 12 spaces. At the north parking lot, 28 of the existing 67 spaces will be removed and 99 new spaces will be added for a total of 138 spaces. The east parking lot will remain unchanged in parking count. At the south parking lot, 31 guest parking spaces will be Michael Brandman Associates 3-1 H\Cl t(PN- JMb327b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sa03-0 Ryat De nptiou.d City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR added. The proposed subterranean parking structure will consist of three levels; 93 spaces are proposed on the first level, 115 spaces on the second level, and 67 spaces on the third level for a total of 275 spaces. 3.2.1 -Site Access The proposed project is located in the southwest corner of the Town and Country Manor campus at the intersection of Lawson Way and Memory Lane. The site is currently a parking lot and grassy area. Two entrances currently serve the parking lot - one full- movement driveway on Lawson Way and one right- in/right -out only driveway on Memory Lane. Regional access to the site is provided by the Santa Ana Freeway (1 -5) and the Garden Grove Freeway (SR -22). The Santa Ana Freeway (1 -5) is to the west of the project site and the Garden Grove Freeway (22) is to the north of the project site. The Santa Ana and Garden Grove Freeways are both major transportation facilities that extend through Orange, Los Angeles, and Riverside Counties. Access to the site will be via two existing entrances. The south entrance on Memory Lane will remain a single right- in/right -out driveway with left turns prohibited because of a raised median in Memory Lane. On Lawson Way, drivers can continue to make left turns in and out of the project site via the two -way left -turn lane. Drivers exiting the site and wishing to go north can turn right onto Memory Lane or Lawson Way. From there, the driver will have the option of heading north on Lawson Way towards Town & Country Road or making a right turn from Memory Lane onto Main Street. Drivers approaching the site from the west will have to make a left turn onto Lawson Way because of a raised median that prohibits left turns into the project site from Memory Lane. The site plan shows that the driveway entrance on Memory Lane will be 40 feet wide with one lane in and one lane out. A 20- foot -wide fire access lane is marked on the site plan for the Memory Lane entrance. The driveway entrance on Lawson Way will be 20 feet wide with one lane in each direction as well. The site plan shows a 20- foot -wide main entrance driveway that connects both driveways. Delivery and trash trucks will take access to the site from the driveway entrance on Lawson Way. The site plan shows a loading zone, loading dock and a trash enclosure located approximately 50 feet east of the driveway on the north end of the proposed multi -story building. Tenants will enter and exit the underground parking garage from a ramp located at the southeast part of the building near the Memory Lane driveway entrance. 3.2.2 - Parking The existing facilities at Town and Country Manor include residential care, assisted living, and skilled nursing facilities. Based on the City's parking requirements, these facilities combined would require a total of 210 parking spaces. The campus currently provides 172 parking spaces, including 11 handicapped spaces. 3-2 Michael Brandman Associates H t (PNJN)b327b327003�EM'D3270030 Se 3-0O .je tD .fipt a Alhambra N111V IIILI Covina Walnut • •' .' "'. "_t Ontario • Chino Vil1t•. I'� I ' Los Ange es County � •Chino Hills Orange O\ 7F Pradd Flood Control Basin Ooc I Fullerton Yorba Linda • • ` —�:a • m09 \ P ' Project Site @0 0% 1 Garden Grove j • VnuigoReservoir Seal Beach "A- Santa Fountain Valley • Huntington Beach '�na ,,,, • Pacific Ocean El Toro • I` unaHills Laguna Niguel • San Juan Capistrano Source: Census 2000 Data, The CaSIL, MBA GIS (2007). BBB �II�I —�I�II 5 2.5 0 5 Exhibit 3 -1 ❑ ❑N❑ z�� Miles Regional Location Map Michael Bnuidxnuu AssociaLes 03270030 • 0912009 13- 1_regional.mxd CITY OF SANTA ANA • PARK VIEW AT TOWN AND COUNTRY MANOR DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Park Paul m Wa fiingtglJ!: M ri. t m ____ � Im r arTeita 0-I 2 � Z.: Palmyra L— _ u_ Palmyra ��� — F ah� o Columbia � elm St cart m Cul e4i � L Culler _ N Culver --1 ll.. P videe m m III I ail l a Va a Bronson Town Project Site I J e o Fanff ven amp ace 5a�a�a9 �N V�_ `° k�� irgimaa irgini �I m U � m m To rl rovemo"'Er 0 n p Gana g oo t m \� a0i m m • o m Beec�}v�y�od Boo &J. 11 4c � _ spe71� ia�clara V �1 1� na 1 anta 91 ra u a cIL 3 Buffalo \, \,y �aTon -= = =r o n u so u o 'm F—Bu o o = N �� — Ava o m 3 c"i N aama �� o 0 121st vs EP 1.000 500 0 1.000 Feet Michael Bruidnim Associates 03270030 • 09/2009 13 -2_ vicinty_map.mxd Leta _ er l I r —mimli 5 -L Project Location Map Roadway Base CITY OF SANTA ANA • PARK VIEW AT TOWN AND COUNTRY MANOR U1[7 fli111i0Nll Cie] WUli0l /_1mI LTA lYG[Naw♦aYi] iY 660 330 ❑ ❑�❑ z Michael Brmidnim AssociaLes m Feet Lxnibit j -s Project Location Map Aerial Base 03270030 • 09/2009 13- 31ocal_aerial.mxd CITY OF SANTA ANA • PARK VIEW AT TOWN AND COUNTRY MANOR U1[7G1i111gQNll ti]W91i011 /_1 11111I LTA MUM" aw♦aYi] iY \ \ \ \ \ \ \ }} \\ � \\ ƒ\� d \ \?\ � \ \ \\ /k _I X ± \W }\ \§ )§ / * -1 \[ \ � \ \� � \c Jew \2 City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR The proposed project will make modifications to existing campus parking areas to produce 79 less parking spaces near the main entrance, 71 more parking spaces in the north parking lot, and construct a new 31 -stall parking lot for guests. The result is a total of 195 spaces, which represents a net gain of 23 parking surface spaces. The project proposes to construct three levels of subterranean parking underneath the apartment building, totaling 275 spaces. The first level will have 93 spaces, the second level will have 115 spaces, and the third level 67 spaces. The total parking supply proposed is 470 spaces. 3.2.3 - Existing Land Use The project site is currently occupied by an open grassy area and parking lot within the Town and Country Manor campus. Land uses surrounding the project site consist of the following, as identified by aerial photographs and site reconnaissance. North To the north lies existing Town and Country Manor buildings, low -rise office buildings and parking lot in the City of Orange, and the SR -22 freeway. East To the east lies the balance of the Town and Country Manor campus, Memory Lane, Santiago Creek and Park, single - family residential uses, and the Orange Financial Center and parking structure. The Park is 23 acres in size and provides a combination of active and passive recreational uses. South To the south is Memory Lane and Santiago Creek and Park, located across Memory Lane. Single - family residential uses border the Park on the south. West To the west are Lawson Way and City Place, a 17.7 -acre mixed use development, a portion of which planned to contain a 31 -story high -rise structure is currently being processed by the City. Adjoining City Place on the north end is the 16 -story Orange Executive Tower and supporting 7 -story parking structure, and an apartment complex north of Town and Country Road. Further west across Main Street is the Westfield Main Place Mall, which includes movie theaters, retail uses, and restaurants, and the I -5 freeway. 3.2.4 - Land Use Designations The project site is currently zoned as Suburban Apartment (R -4), with a General Plan land use designation of Medium Density Residential (MR -15), allowing 15 dwelling units /acre (see Exhibit 3 -5). The proposed project differs from the allowable uses of the current zoning code and maximum density allowed by the General Plan. A Zone Change to a Specific Development zoning designation and a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to the District Center land use designation will be required to permit project implementation. Michael Brandman Associates 3-11 H\Clievt(PN- JMb327b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sa03-00 Ryat De=criptiou.doc CW of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR 3.3 - Project Objectives The objectives of the proposed Park View at Town and Country Manor Project are to: • Respond to the need for active adult and senior housing opportunities within the City of Santa Ana by providing a senior residential living facility. • Complete development of the Town and Country Manor in a cohesive manner, aesthetically and operationally integrating the individual existing and proposed development components. • Maximize utilization for residential development of the southwest corner of the Town and Country Manor campus adjacent to the existing District Center area along Main Street, joining together with Main Place Mall and City Place development to form a master planned mixed use area. • Add to existing development in the District Center land use area along Main Street with project components that are compatible in scale and consistent with the architectural styles and character of the area, and that provides a positive contribution to neighborhood identity. • Develop the project site according to good urban design principles, acknowledging the importance of the project as part of the City's North Main development corridor and District Center land use area along Main Street, with proper attention to landscape design and planning for pedestrian access. • Maximize the advantages of the site's location close to Main Street in terms of its visibility and proximity to the Garden Grove (SR -22) and Santa Ana (I -5) freeways. • Provide a project that contributes to the continued revitalization of the northeastern part of the City of Santa Ana. 3.4- Pursuant to Section 15367 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Santa Ana is the Lead Agency in the preparation of this Draft FIR. Further actions or procedures requiring approvals by the City of Santa Ana in order to allow implementation of the proposed project are anticipated to include, but may not be limited to, the following: 1. General Plan Amendment to District Center Land Use Designation. 2. Zone Change to Specific Development Zoning Designation. 3. Site Plan Approval. 4. Final FIR Certification. 5. Approval of Grading Permits. 6. Approval of Building Permits. Other agencies whose approval may be required include, but are not limited to: Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region; and the South Coast Air Quality Management District. 3-12 Michael Bmndman Associates H t( PNJN )b327b327W3�EM'D32700306eW3-00 Ryect Deecriptmadac a 2 O 4 CL 0 cL� �e 4d, m i J ° ] � u a3 ddVM1f, a3u37 p aN7a9 D e6 3 x � r I U Li - - - 3A1101 , Q NOW31 a 1S)Wd o a1S N01MSV3 13 _ ras 3Wn a o 1 n � W- z a' lSyaod +. W m � cwia I `rr{ 1 Ls wsna ' .S sne I `' j. NIM rl I i 3n1d1r a I ir- C I d a lie as wj 3 p lIS S 1! - n N A E I All v - � 000000 ®oo ® ®�o ®0000�000000a000000�.0 1 .�:� LO U) M 0 M L 0) W U) 0 CD U) D C J N C N 0 z0 ¢w rU za 0 z� U¢ of z ¢w z z 00 az w wH >w Q z H z }0 F a` m w d (n � O �I O - z v N n M ¢ O ' HDION � o oil z o ��a�o�n i.•.c.. ny.. A31011 ► a i 1 - A37XId a10xWd Y13A VT a V C 0 w ' _ a tl3>tHrrl > 15 UTANV I� n c Z >av g I! a o _ `�J/j _ ras 3Wn a o 1 n � W- z a' lSyaod +. W m � cwia I `rr{ 1 Ls wsna ' .S sne I `' j. NIM rl I i 3n1d1r a I ir- C I d a lie as wj 3 p lIS S 1! - n N A E I All v - � 000000 ®oo ® ®�o ®0000�000000a000000�.0 1 .�:� LO U) M 0 M L 0) W U) 0 CD U) D C J N C N 0 z0 ¢w rU za 0 z� U¢ of z ¢w z z 00 az w wH >w Q z H z }0 F a` m w d (n � O �I O - z v N n M ¢ O ' HDION � o oil z o City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR 3.5 - Cumulative Cumulative impacts refer to the combined effect of project impacts with the impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. As set forth in CEQA Guidelines, the discussion of cumulative impacts must reflect the severity of the impacts, as well as the likelihood of their occurrence attributable to the project alone. As stated in CEQA, Title 14, Section 21083(b)(2), a project may have a significant effect on the environment if "the possible effects of a project are individually limited but cumulatively considerable." According to the State CEQA Guidelines, "Cumulative impacts refer to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable and which compound or increase other environmental impacts. (a) The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate projects. (b) The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment, which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonable foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time." (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, §15355) In addition, as stated in CEQA Guidelines, it should be noted that: The mere existence of significant cumulative impacts caused by other projects alone shall not constitute substantial evidence that the proposed project's incremental effects are cumulatively considerable. (CCR, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Section §15064[h][4]). Cumulative impact discussions for each issue area are provided in the technical analyses contained within Section 4, Environmental Impact Analysis. The project Traffic Impact Study (Kimley -Horn Associates, Inc. 2009) identifies other development projects and land uses within the area surrounding the project site that are expected to contribute to growth in the area. These other projects are listed in Table 3 -1 and shown on Exhibit 3 -6; and along with the proposed project, comprise the study area for cumulative impact analyses in this Draft EIR, unless otherwise noted. Michael Brandman Associates 3-15 H\Cl t(PN- JMb327b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sa03-0 Rgat De nptiou.d CW of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Table 3.1: Description of Cumulative Projects A Project Description One Broadway Plaza 37 -story office tower Quantity 518 KSF B Santa Ana Renaissance Specific Plan Redevelopment and rehabilitation of residential, commercial, and transit 421 AC C Artists Village Live/Work Lofts Live /work lofts 86 DU D Santiago Street Lofts Transit oriented development 108 DU F City Place Commercial mixed use, live /work lofts and town homes on approx. 17 acres 57 KSF 242 DU G Discovery Science Center IMAX -type theatre, new exhibit area, office, warehousing and parking structure 45.52 KSF H Bower's Museum Gallery and auditorium expansion 33 KSF I Cordoba Mixed use development 3 KSF 45 DU J Walgreens Walgreens store and drive dim pharmacy 12.4 KSF K Cobblestone Plaza Commercial center 11 KSF L Civic Center Office 2 -story office building 4.16 KSF M Shea Homes Single family residential 36 DU N Village Green Mixed use development 380 DU O City Place Sky Lofts 27 -story residential tower on top of 4 -story podium building 335 DU Q River View Villas Affordable housing 41 DU R Citadel Medical Office Building Medical office building 217.7 KSF S St. Joseph Hospital Expansion Exterior remodeling and seismic retrofitting 218 KSF T CHOC Hospital Expansion CHOC Master Plan 565 KSF U Town & Country Medical Office Building 4 -story medical office building 65.37 KSF KSF = Thousand Square Feet AC = Acre DU = Dwelling Unit Source: Kimley -Hom Associates, Inc. June 2009. Note: Applications have lapsed on index projects I andN (as of 11/1/09). 3-16 Michael Bmndman Associates H t(PN Rnb327b327W3�EAib3270030 Se 3-0 R.je D.fipfma Katella Ave N j j C R Q N df C ® � C7 F Chapman Ave N ( Project Location 17 th St Q ., :13: OA One Broadway Plaza Santa Ana Renaissance Specific Plan Artists Village LivetWork Lofts :............ o Santiago Street Lofts © F Cily Place .......... _ ": G Discovery Science Center 1 at St B .. C : ,. B H Bower's Museum J Walgreens K Cobblestone Plaza 1Cordoba L Civic Center Office M Shea Homes N Village Green O City Place Sky Lofts G River View Vlllas Edinger Ave R Citadel Medical Office Building 5 St. Joseph Hospital Expansion T CHOC Hospital Expansion 0 Town & Country Medical Office Building y rA C 9 CC u g � Note: See Table 3 -1 for project descriptions. Source: Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. (2009). � Exhibit 3 -6 �❑ %1F Not [o scale vlickiael Brandman Associates Location of Cumulative Projects 03270030 • 1112009 3 -6_ cum_projects.cdr CITY OF SANTA ANA• PARK VIEW AT TOWN AND COUNTRY MANOR DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR SECTION 4: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANAL 4.1 - Aesthetics 4.1.1 - Introduction Aesthetics This section describes the existing aesthetics setting and potential effects from project implementation on the site and its surrounding area. Descriptions and analysis in this section are based on: • Site visits by staff of Michael Brandman Associates (MBA) • A site photographic survey prepared by MBA, showing the visual baseline condition from surrounding vantage points (see Exhibits 4.1 -1, and 4.1 -la through 4.1 -1 c) • Visual simulations prepared by MBA (see Exhibits 4.1 -2 through 4.1 -6) • A shade /shadow analysis prepared by Focus 360, assessing shade and shadow impacts through graphic simulation (see Exhibits 4.1 -7 through 4.1 -10) A comment letter addressing aesthetics on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of the FIR for the Park View at Town and Country Manor project, contained in Appendix A, was received by the City of Santa Ana from the City of Orange. The City of Orange requests that the FIR evaluate the project's aesthetic compatibility with the adjacent properties and the surrounding Orange community, addressing views, shade /shadow effects, privacy issues, height, scale, materials, and landscape interface. 4.1.2 - Existing Conditions Visual Characteristics of the Project Site and Vicinity The project site is approximately 2.5 acres in size, located within the larger 8.29 acre Town and Country Manor Campus. Town and Country Manor is located adjacent to a major business district in the City of Santa Ana in Orange County, California. The project site, currently occupied by an open grassy area and parking lot, is situated at the northeast corner of Memory Lane and Lawson Way, across the street from Santiago Park and one block east of Main Street (see Exhibit 3 -2). The project site occupies the southwest portion of the existing campus for Town & Country Manor. The 8.29 -acre property occupied by Town and Country Manor is triangular in shape and tapers eastward away from the project site. Local access to the project site is provided from Main Street, Memory Lane, and Lawson Way. Regional access to the project site is provided by Interstate 5 (I -5) to the west and State Route 22 (SR -22) to the north. Main Street is one of the primary commercial corridors in Santa Ana and is largely developed in the project area with low to high intensity commercial and retail uses. Existing buildings in the project area range from one to 16 stories in height, with no uniform architectural style. The project site is bounded on the north by existing Town and Country Manor buildings, low -rise office buildings and parking lot (in the City of Orange), and the SR -22 freeway. To the east lies the balance of the Town Michael Brandman Associates 4.1 -1 H \Cl t (PNJN)b327b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec l Ae9h .d¢ City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Aesthetics Draft EIR and Country Manor campus, Memory Lane, Santiago Creek and Park, single - family residential uses, and the Orange Financial Center and parking structure. The Park is 23 acres in size and provides a combination of active and passive recreational uses. To the south is Memory Lane and Santiago Creek and Park, located across Memory Lane. Single - family residential uses border the Park on the south. To the west are Lawson Way and City Place, a 17.7 -acre mixed -use development, a portion of which planned to contain a 31 -story high -rise structure is currently being processed by the City. Adjoining City Place on the north end is the 16 -story Orange Executive Tower and supporting 7 -story parking structure, and an apartment complex north of Town and Country Road. Further west across Main Street is the Westfield Main Place mall, which includes movie theaters, retail uses, and restaurants, and the I -5 freeway. The City of Santa Ana Urban Design General Plan Element reflects the area occupied by the Main Place Mall as a "Node" or area of compatible and intensive activities that have identifiable boundaries which, through unique design characteristics, provide a clear sense of place. Similar to other "Nodes" in the City, the Main Place node is intended to serve as a district center, as indicated in the Land Use Element. Exhibit 3 -5 displays the District Center (DC) General Plan land use designation on either side of Main Street at the intersection with Main Place Drive /East Memory Lane. The District Center land use designation includes the major activity areas in the City and has an intensity standard of 1.0 to 3.0 floor area ratio (FAR, defined as the ratio between total gross floor area of all buildings on a lot and the total area of that lot). District Centers are designed to serve as anchors to the City's commercial corridors, and to accommodate major development activity. The most intense development in the City is targeted for these areas. District Centers are to be developed with an urban character that includes a mixture of high -rise office, commercial, and residential uses which provide shopping, business, cultural, education, recreation, entertainment, and housing opportunities. Residential developments within most District Centers are allowed at a density of up to 90 units per acre when developed as an integral component of a master planned, mixed -use project. The Main Place District Center includes a regional shopping center and office complex, with additional high intensity mixed -use development (e.g. City Place) recently established within this District and more development proposed. The City of Santa Ana Urban Design General Plan Element also identifies two "districts" as elements of the City's urban form in proximity to the project site. Districts refer to those areas of the City that have consistent design features with a strong context and interrelationship of activities. The North Main Design District lies across Main Street to the west, and includes the Main Place Mall. The Park Santiago District is south of Santiago Creek and the project site. The Urban Design Element establishes goals and policies to help guide the design of land uses proposed within a Design District. Specifically, land uses proposed within a Design District should exhibit high quality design and should incorporate design elements that are proportional and aesthetically related to the District setting. Michael Brandman Associates 4.1 -2 H \Cl t (PN JN)b327b327W3MME 3270030 Sec I Ae9h .d¢ 200 100 ❑ ❑�❑ z Michael Brmidnim AssociaLes 200 Feet Exhibit 4.1 -1 Photograph Location Map 03270030 • 09/2009 14.1- 1photo_locmxd CITY OF SANTA ANA • PARK VIEW AT TOWN AND COUNTRY MANOR U1[7fli111iki Nll Cie] Wgli01 F- 1wIPi MUM" a 14 aYi] 49 ca v r � � r x N w � Q _O O L d _N CO m� a° Iw KL) zU za 10� UQ I 0 F Z ¢W Z� HK Q> Z �w wH �Q 'd ¢ IZ I¢ Z U I 2 L 0 L a d ti �I v � o � N - Q) L O ffs � N 1.. m m z (0 � � y c N O N � c O w- p m rr ■ N 0 1 m .yi rr I k 'O ■ t I := y C pp 11 IEEn o 3 I a I L E L L t O_ O. O O 1 ci O E '1 5 F Q p w N 3 C O I O 11 r a I ' w � L � co W W O m O L L 'C Co Z Cn c C I t r3 E2 c N O O 0 0� ca v r � � r x N w � Q _O O L d _N CO m� a° Iw KL) zU za 10� UQ I 0 F Z ¢W Z� HK Q> Z �w wH �Q 'd ¢ IZ I¢ Z U I 2 L 0 L a d ti �I v � o � N - Q) L O -0 co 0 O x N w � Q _O O LL CO om On L C� zU �W �U za O� UQ OF Z QW Z H0 Q z Z W 1 d Q Q Q Z Q O T 2 L N O O L nl d N a V m O (n 0 0 M O O C1 O ,- I f iX 3 vex.,. P q ¥ Y �X IOL 't vw Rk do IL s� v'c LL 1 t �, • r— _Jl,i i 4C, AA ko . u• 4 � t e s �a liv a ui yJ° L " �I t 1 yi -0 co 0 O x N w � Q _O O LL CO om On L C� zU �W �U za O� UQ OF Z QW Z H0 Q z Z W 1 d Q Q Q Z Q O T 2 L N O O L nl d N a V m O (n 0 0 M O O C1 O r. +,c 3 m F o aax__ LO O �fv o a cc Yr N I �m U C R R C N y L r Y L 5U z C� O yyq N C L R N 2 L co N J - 0— C 0 0 0 O O O av a� )i w O LO C O C 0 ryI� 1 CL a I ' � m � F O L O L Ol � U 3 0 Y R co ' 2 R 0) p'.: R 0] O O C ' L L O CL v U N = L O L X � W N Q 0 O d m om On om L Q Q Q Z Q T 0 rn� 0 Laa CI :y °I v m 0 0 0 0 M 0 0 M O City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Aesthetics Santiago Creek, running through Santiago Park south of the project site, has been identified by the City of Santa Ana as a scenic corridor, and is part of a regional system of open space corridors promoted by the Orange County General Plan Open Space Element. The City's Scenic Corridors Element of the General Plan defines scenic corridors as linear features of the City through which people and vehicles move, and designates them for special treatment and improvements. The Scenic Corridors Element highlights several levels of treatment possible within scenic corridors, from paving, lighting, and signage design, to careful treatment of land use relationships and natural and man -made features visible from within the corridors. The foundation of the City's Scenic Corridors Plan is a series of Mixed Use Corridors which underlie the entire General Plan. Main Street is contained within the Main- Broadway primary street corridor. A major City entry is identified along Main Street south of the Garden Grove Freeway. A view location of Santiago Creek and Park from SR -22 is identified in the Scenic Corridors Plan, located to the east of the project site where Grand Avenue /Glassell Street intersect SR -22. No County - designated scenic highways run through Santa Ana and are, therefore, not occurring in the vicinity of the project site. However, the Scenic Corridors Element does identify the proximate I -5 and SR -22 freeways as high speed scenic corridors operating at a regional scale in that residents of the County form their image of Santa Ana from their travels along these and other transportation corridors. Existing Views Viewers have differing sensitivity to visual change based on their familiarity with the view, the duration of those views (permanent vs. intermittent), and their activity, which determines how much attention is paid to the view. Residential viewers are usually very sensitive to any changes in the visual quality because of their familiarity with the view, their investment in the area as homeowners or long -term residents, and their sense of ownership of the view. Commercial viewers usually have a moderate to low sensitivity to their visual environment unless the commercial activity is focused on the view. They are typically more concentrated on the commercial activity. Commuter viewers have a moderate to low sensitivity to the visual environment due to their concentration on their driving and destination. Recreational viewers include people engaged in passive or active recreation. Viewers engaged in most active recreation, such as sports, tend to have only an average sensitivity to visual quality and visual change. Although they are aware of their surroundings, they are usually focused on the activity itself. The faster the pace of the activity, the less they are sensitive to visual quality. People engaged in more passive or slower paced recreation, such as picnicking, photography, nature hikes, horseback riding, or bicycle riding etc., are much more aware of and sensitive to the visual environment. Sensitive viewers in relation to the proposed project are considered the recreational viewers from Santiago Park and the residential viewers from City Place. Exhibit 4.1 -1 is an aerial photograph of the site and surrounding area with numbers 1 -5 representing 5 separate locations from which the site photographs were taken. Exhibits 4.1 -1a through 4.1 -1c Michael Brandman Associates 4.1 -11 H \Cl t (PNJN)b327b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec I Ae9h .d¢ Aesthetics City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR provide 12 photographs of existing conditions at the site and views of the site from surrounding properties, and provides views of the surrounding land uses. Captions for each photograph describe the orientation of each photograph and subject matter. Additional views of the project site are provided in the "Existing Condition" photograph in Exhibits 4.1 -2 through 4.1 -5. 4.1.3 - Thresholds of Significance According to the CESAR Guidelines' Appendix G Environmental Checklist, to determine whether impacts to aesthetics are significant environmental effects, the following questions are analyzed and evaluated. Would the project: a.) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b.) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic building within a state scenic highway? c.) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d.) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 4.1.4 - Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures This section discusses potential aesthetics impacts associated with the development of the project. Mitigation measures are provided where necessary. Scenic Vista Impact 4.1 -1 The project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. [CEQA Aesthetics Threshold 1(a)] Impact Analysis A view location of Santiago Creek and Park from SR -22 is identified in the City's Scenic Corridors Element. The viewpoint is located to the east of the project site where Grand Avenue /Glassell Street intersect SR -22. Implementation of the proposed project and construction of the multi -story residential building will not impact this view as the project is located far enough west of the identified viewpoint that no impact on views will occur. Viewshed of National Register - Listed Resources within the Cultural Resources Search Area for the Proposed Project A records search for the proposed project was conducted as part of the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation (IS/NOP), contained in Appendix A with supporting appendix entitled Cultural Resource Records Search and Paleontological Recommendations. The results of the records search indicate that eight resources listed on the National Register (NR) have been recorded within one mile of the project site. The effect on the viewsheds of the NR- listed resources from the establishment of a multi -story building were evaluated in the referenced Cultural Resources letter report. Each of the Michael Brandman Associates 4.1 -12 H \Cl t (PN JN)b327b327W3MMI 3270030 Sec l Ae9h .d¢ City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Aesthetics National Register structures are located more than '/2 mile north of the project site, and the project site will be screened by structures located north of the property. It was determined that no viewshed impacts from project implementation would, therefore, occur. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. Scenic Resources within a State Scenic Highway Impact 4.1 -2 The project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic building within a state scenic highway. [CEQA Aesthetics Threshold 1(b)] Impact Analysis Santiago Creek, running through Santiago Park south of the project site, has been identified by the City of Santa Ana as a scenic corridor, and is part of a regional system of open space corridors promoted by the Orange County General Plan Open Space Element. No County- designated scenic highways run through Santa Ana and are, therefore, not occurring in the vicinity of the project site. However, the Scenic Corridors Element does identify the proximate I -5 and SR -22 freeways as high -speed scenic corridors. Views from Santiago Park toward the project site, discussed in detail in Impact 4.1 -3 with supporting exhibits, are screened by existing Park vegetation within the Park. Views from nearby freeways would be limited to the upper floors of the multi -story building, blending in with other mid- and high - rise structures in the project area. Impact is considered less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. Michael Brandman Associates 4.1 -13 H \Cl t (PNJN)b327b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec l Ae9h .d¢ Aesthetics Visual Character Cny of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Impact 4.1 -3 The project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. [CEQA Aesthetics Threshold 1(c)] Impact Analysis Aesthetics associated with a project of this type and scale are considered important due to: (1) visibility of the multi -story building and resultant effect on the visual setting; (2) sensitivity of viewpoints; (3) potential for shade or shadow impacts; and (4) potential for light and glare impacts. Items (1) through (3) are analyzed here under Impact 4.1 -3. Light and glare impacts are analyzed under Impact 4.1 -4 that follows. Of particular concern are the effects of establishing an 8 -story structure on the project site for adjacent Santiago Park, and the City Place live /work lofts and townhomes, in terms of views and potential for shade /shadow impacts on the public park facility, and on outdoor recreational areas, patio areas, and/or balconies associated with City Place. Other multi- story structures do exist or are planned in the area, however: • The Orange Executive Tower at the intersection of Lawson Way and Town and Country Road, 16 stories in height with a separate 7 -story parking structure; • Main Street Town Center, located at the intersection of Main Street and Memory Lane, contains a building 10 stories in height; • Orange Financial Center, located at Parker Street/Memory Lane and Town and Country Road, contains a building 8 stories in height with supplementary office and parking structures; • The City Place Sky Lofts project now being processed by the City is planned to include a high- rise building 31 stories in height; and • A four -story medical office building is planned for the property immediately north of the project site. Visual Character or Quality of the Site and its Surroundings The project site is currently utilized as a grassy area and parking lot within the existing Town and Country Manor campus. Implementation of the proposed project would result in the establishment of an 8 -story residential structure, 123 -feet in height; an expanded entry lobby (attached to existing Building A); three levels of subterranean parking; modifications to the existing parking lots; and creation of a main entrance driveway, having one lane in each direction and connecting the two existing entrances on Memory Lane and Lawson Way (see Exhibit 3 -4). From an aesthetic standpoint, only the 8 -story residential structure has the potential to impact existing visual character and quality. The 8 -story residential structure will border Lawson Way and Memory Lane, occupying the northeast corner at this intersection. Building height will be 123 feet. Architectural features, decorative paving, and landscaping will enhance the aesthetic appearance of the proposed project elements. The scale and massing of the project were designed to compliment existing development within the Town Michael Brandman Associates 4.1 -14 H \Cl t (PN JN)b327b327W3MMI 3270030 Sec l Ae9h .d¢ City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Aesthetics and Country Manor campus (with building height ranging from one to three stories) and the general project area, and reinforce the existing urbanized District setting within the North Main Design District. The City will evaluate consistency of the proposed project with the City's Urban Design Element during the City's development review process. Building elevations obtained from the project architect have been superimposed on photographs to demonstrate the impact of the 8 -story building on views and visual character and quality of the site and its surroundings. These visual simulations also allow for an evaluation of mass, scale, and architectural style of the proposed structure. Exhibits 4.1 -2 through 4.1 -6 display visual simulations of the proposed project from the northeast, south, southwest, and west perspectives. • Exhibit 4.1 -2: Visual Simulation 1: Northeast Perspective. The top, Existing Condition photograph shows the current view of the property to be occupied by the proposed 8 -story structure with City Place residential units behind. The lower, Proposed Development image illustrates the northeast perspective of the multi -story residential structure and provides a simulated view of the main entrance. One lane of the main entrance driveway would pass under the building overhang. • Exhibit 4.1 -3: Visual Simulation 2: South Perspective. The top, Existing Condition photograph shows the current view of the property to be occupied by the proposed 8 -story structure from the outer limit of Santiago Park, across Memory Lane at the intersection with Lawson Way, southeast corner. The lower, Proposed Development image illustrates the south perspective of the proposed residential structure and provides a simulated view from this location. • Exhibit 4.1 -4: Visual Simulation 3: Southwest Perspective. The top, Existing Condition photograph shows the current view of the property to be occupied by the proposed 8 -story structure from the outer limit of Santiago Park, across Memory Lane at the intersection with Lawson Way, southwest corner. The lower, Proposed Development image illustrates the southwest perspective of the proposed residential structure and provides a simulated view from this location. • Exhibit 4.1 -5: Visual Simulation 4: Southwest Perspective. The top, Existing Condition photograph shows the current view of the property to be occupied by the proposed 8 -story structure from inside the limits of Santiago Park. The lower, Proposed Development image illustrates the southwest perspective of the proposed residential structure from inside the limits of Santiago Park and provides a simulated view from this location. Views from the park in this location and elsewhere are screened by existing Park vegetation within the Park. • Exhibit 4.1 -6: Visual Simulation 5: West Perspective. The top, Existing Condition photograph shows the current view of the property to be occupied by the proposed 8 -story structure from existing City Place residential units across Lawson Way. The lower, Proposed Development image illustrates the west perspective of the proposed residential structure and provides a simulated view from this location. Michael Brandman Associates 4.1 -15 H \Cl t (PNJN)b327b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec I Ae9h .d¢ Aesthetics City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR As graphically illustrated in Visual Simulations 1 through 5, the proposed project would change the visual character of the site, and views of the project site from within the Town and Country Manor campus and from surrounding areas would be substantially changed. However, because the immediate project vicinity is highly developed with office, commercial, retail and higher density residential uses, many contained within mid- to high -rise buildings, the proposed project is not considered inconsistent with existing land uses, nor would the multi -story residential structure be aesthetically incompatible with existing views. Existing and planned multi -story buildings, at maximum heights of 16 stories (Orange Executive Tower- existing) to 31 stories (City Place Sky Lofts - planned), would not be obstructed significantly because the proposed residential structure is lower in height at 8 stories. Views from the planned 4- story medical office building immediately north of the project site would be affected by the creation of the 8 -story structure on the project site, but the proposed project residential structure is considered to be in character with the immediate existing urban setting and the District Center land use designation, emphasizing a principal activity area in this area of Santa Ana and designed to accommodate major development activity. The proposed residential structure would not be out of scale, size, or character with the surrounding existing urban and developing high- intensity area. Also, the design of the multi -story building would be of high quality and would blend with existing architecture and style within the Town and Country Manor and surrounding areas. While it is acknowledged that implementation of the project would alter the visual character of the site and surroundings, it is not anticipated that a substantial degradation of the visual character or quality would occur. Project impact on visual character and quality of the site and surroundings is considered less than significant. No mitigation measures would be required. Michael Brandman Associates 4.1 -16 H \Cl t (PN JN)b327b327W3MME 3270030 Sec I Ae9h .d¢ Existing Condition Proposed Development Source: Source: Irwin Pancake Architects (2008); City Works, LLC (2008). Michael Brand man Associates, 2009, Exhibit 4.1 -2 �❑5❑ Visual Simulation 1: Northeast Perspective Michael Brandman Associates 03270030 • 09/2009 14.1-2 via siml.ccr CITY OF SANTA ANA • PARK VIEW AT TOWN AND COUNTRY MANOR DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Existing Condition Proposed Development Source: Source: Irwin Pancake Architects (2008); City Works, LLC (2008). Michael Brandman Associates, 2009. % %%% Exhibit 4.1 -3 ❑E11111"i Visual Simulation 2: South Perspective Michael Brandmau Associates 03270030 • 09/20091 4.1- 3_vis_sim2.cdr CITY OF SANTAANA• PARK VIEW ATTOWN AND COUNTRY MANOR DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Existing Condition Proposed Development Source: Source: Irwin Pancake Architects (2008); City Works, LLC (2008). Michael Brandman Associates, 2009. % % %% Exhibit 4.1 -4 111LIM111 Visual Simulation 3: Southwest Perspective Michael Brandram Associates 03270030 • 09 /200914.1- 4_ via _sim3.cdr CITY OF SANTAANA • PARK VIEW AT TOWN AND COUNTRY MANOR DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Existing Condition Proposed Development Source: Source: Irwin Pancake Architects (2008); City Works, LLC (2008). Michael Brandman Associates, 2009. 111 Exhibit 4.1 -5 Visual Simulation 4: Southwest Perspective Michael Draudman Associates 03270030 • 0912009 i 4.1- 5_vis_sim4.cdr CITY OF SANTAANA • PARK VIEW AT TOWN AND COUNTRY MANOR DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Existing Condition Proposed Development Source: Source: Irwin Pancake Architects (2008); City Works, LLC (2008). Michael Brandman Associates, 2009. %%%% Exhibit 4.1 -6 ❑❑ %111 Visual Simulation 5: West Perspective Michael Brand � Associates 03270030 • 09/20091 4.1- 6_vis_sim5.cdr CITY OF SANTAANA• PARK VIEW AT TOWN AND COUNTRY MANOR DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Aesthetics S '019=85VUSE019=8 M1 The issue of shade /shadow pertains to the blockage of direct sunlight by onsite buildings, which can affect adjacent properties. Shading is an important environmental issue because the users or occupants of certain land uses such as residential, recreational, and pedestrian areas have expectation for direct sunlight and warmth from the sun. Factors that influence the extent of range of shading include: season; time of day; weather (i.e., sunny vs. cloudy day); building height, bulk, and scale; spacing between buildings; and tree cover. The longest shadows are cast during the winter months when the sun is lowest on the horizon, and the shortest shadows are cast during the summer months. Shadows are longer in the early morning and late afternoon. Only limited shade and shadows are cast on the project site from existing Town and Country Manor Building B (see Exhibit 3 -4 for building location). City Place residential units directly across Lawson Way are 36 feet in height and would not be expected to cast a sufficient shadow to extend beyond Lawson Way onto the project site. No shade is currently cast from the project site as it is occupied by grass and parking lot. The proposed 8 -story residential structure would modify existing patterns, generating shade over a wider area than existing site shade patterns. Of primary concern are nearby sensitive receptors (residential City Place properties and outdoor areas within City Place and Santiago Park), and the potential for shade and shadows to be cast on Santiago Park and /or on outdoor areas such as patio areas and balconies associated with City Place. Exhibits 4.1 -7 through 4.1 -10 show the shade /shadow footprint that would be generated by the proposed project on surrounding properties. Summer shade patterns (LOAM) would extend west of the project site part way across Lawson Way as shown in Exhibit 4.1 -7, but would not extend onto City Place residential units along Lawson Way. Afternoon summer shade patterns (2 PM) would overlay an area currently occupied by parking lot on the Town & Country Manor campus but planned for a main entrance driveway and modified parking area, as shown in Exhibit 4.1 -8. Winter shade patterns (10 AM) would extend west of the project site across Lawson Way and onto City Place residential units as shown in Exhibit 4.1 -9 (discussed in more detail below). Winter shade patterns (2 PM) would extend onto the existing Town & Country Manor campus as shown in Exhibit 4.1 -10, shading the existing chapel and area planned for a main entrance driveway and modified parking area. The residential units built as part of the City Place project, located directly across the street from the project site along Lawson Way, would be considered sensitive to additional amounts of shade. These residential uses would be shaded in the Winter Solstice 10 AM condition (see Exhibit 4.1 -9). The shadow cast by the proposed project is considered a moving or rotating impact, to be experienced during the winter season and only in the morning hours. A visual inspection of units along Lawson Way to be affected by project shade /shadows indicate the existence of limited outdoor balconies, too small in size to accommodate furniture or be enjoyed as an outdoor area, and a few patio areas. There are no significant existing common recreational areas to be impacted by the shadows. A planned Michael Brandman Associates 4.1 -27 H \Cl t (PNJN)b327b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec I Ae9h .d¢ City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Aesthetics Draft EIR Amenity Deck, to be constructed as part of the City Place Skylofts project to serve residents of the 31 -story building, will contain a whirlpool bath close to Lawson Way that would experience shade /shadows during winter mornings. Winter would not be considered the prime usage time for the whirlpool bath associated with a planned pool, and the affected area would be limited in size. No new substantial shade /shadow impacts are expected to occur. Impact is considered less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. Light or Glare Impact 4.1-4 The project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. [CEQA Aesthetics Threshold 1(d)] Impact Analysis The proposed project will introduce new sources of light into the area and could potentially create light/glare impacts for offsite uses by generating spillover light impacts onto surrounding land uses. Sources of lighting may include structural lighting, streetlights, lights within the parking areas, entryway lights, interior building lighting, and light from windows of the residential structure. Although an increase in light sources is anticipated with project implementation, because the area surrounding the project site is currently developed with primarily urban uses, the increase is not considered significant. Landscaping, lighting, and setback requirements, as specified in the Santa Ana Municipal Code, will be followed to minimize any impacts associated with additional light and glare that could be experienced by City Place residential units across Lawson Way or Santiago Park to the south. It is anticipated that project implementation will have a less than significant impact associated with light and glare. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. Michael Brandman Associates 4.1 -28 H \Cl t (PN JN)b327b327W3MMI 3270030 Sec l Ae9h .d¢ Source: Focus 360 (2008). 19%%%= 71]N111111z Michael Brandman Associates 03270030 • 0912009 14.17 shde shdw suml0am.cdr - -- - -- Exhibit 4.1 -7 Shade /Shadow (Summer Solstice 10 AM) CITY OF SANTAANA • PARK VIEW AT TOWN AND COUNTRY MANOR DRAFT ENVIHONMEN TAL IMPACT REPORT Source: Focus 360 (2008). 19%%%= Fj]%111z Michael Brandman Associates 03270030 • 0912009 14.1 8 shde shdw sum2pm.cdr- -- Exhibit 4.1 -8 Shade /Shadow (Summer Solstice 2 PM) CITY OF SANTA ANA • PARK VIEW AT TOWN AND COUNTRY MANOR DRAFT ENVIHONMEN TAL IMPACT REPORT Source: Focus 360 (2008). 19%%%= 71]N111111z Michael Brandman Associates 03270030 • 0912009 14.1 9 shde shdw winl 0am cdr -_ -- Exhibit 4.1 -9 Shade /Shadow (Winter Solstice 10 AM) CITY OF SANTA ANA • PARK VIEW AT TOWN AND COUNTRY MANOR DRAFT ENVIHONMEN TAL IMPACT REPORT Source: Focus 360 (2008). 19%%%= Fj]%111z Michael Brandman Associates 03270030 • 0912009 14.110 10 shde shdw win2pm.cdr_ -- Exhibit 4.1 -10 Shade /Shadow (Winter Solstice 2 PM) CITY OF SANTA ANA • PARK VIEW AT TOWN AND COUNTRY MANOR DRAFT ENVIHONMEN TAL IMPACT REPORT City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR 4.2 - Air Qual 4.2.1 - Introduction This section describes the existing air quality setting and potential effects from project implementation on the site and its surrounding area. Descriptions and analysis in this section are based on information contained in the Air Quality Analysis Report prepared in August 2009 by Michael Brandman Associates, included in this EIR as Appendix B. A comment letter addressing air quality on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of the FIR for the Park View at Town and Country Manor project, contained in Appendix A, was received by the City of Santa Ana from the South Coast Air Quality Management District ( SCAQMD). The SCAQMD recommends that the Lead Agency consider the following: • Use the SCAQMD Handbook as guidance • Use the California Air Resources Board (ARB) approved URBEMIS 2007 Model • Identify potential adverse air quality impacts from construction and operation • Estimate particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM,.,) emissions • Calculate localized air quality impacts and compare results to localized significance thresholds • For projects generating or attracting heavy -duty diesel fueled vehicles, perform a mobile source health risk assessment • Apply feasible mitigation measures to eliminate significant adverse air quality impacts The following analysis incorporates all recommendations except a health risk assessment, which was determined not to apply to the project. 4.2.2 - Existing Conditions South Coast Air Basin The project is located in the City of Santa Ana and is within the South Coast Air Basin (basin). To the west of the basin is the Pacific Ocean. To the north and east of the basin are the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto mountains, while the southern limit of the basin is the San Diego County line. The basin consists of Orange County, all of Los Angeles County except for the Antelope Valley, the non -desert portion of western San Bernardino County, and the western and Coachella Valley portions of Riverside County. The air quality in the basin is impacted by dominant airflows, topography, atmospheric inversions, location, season, and time of day. Dominant airflows provide the driving mechanism for transport and dispersion of air pollution. The mountains surrounding the region form natural horizontal barriers to the dispersion of air contaminants. Air pollution created in the coastal areas and around the Los Angeles area is transported inland until it reaches the mountains where the combination of mountains and inversion layers generally prevent further dispersion. This poor ventilation results in a gradual degradation of air quality from the coastal areas to inland areas. Air stagnation may occur during the early evening Michael Brandman Associates 4.2 -1 H\Cl t(PN- Rnb327b32]003MMVB2]0030 Se 4GAvQ ity.DOc City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR and early morning periods of transition between day and nighttime flows. The region also experiences periods of hot, dry winds from the desert, known as Santa Ana winds. If the Santa Ana winds are strong, they can surpass the sea breeze, which blows from the ocean to the land, and cant' the suspended dust and pollutants out to the ocean. If the winds are weak, they are opposed by the sea breeze and cause stagnation, resulting in high pollution events. Temperature inversions limit the vertical depth through which pollution can be mixed. Among the most common temperature inversions in the basin, radiation inversions form on clear winter nights when cold air off mountains sink to the valley floor while the air aloft over the valley remains warm. These inversions, in conjunction with calm winds, trap pollutants near the source. Other types of temperature inversions include marine, subsidence, and high - pressure inversions. Summers are often periods of hazy visibility and occasionally unhealthful air, while air quality impacts in the winter tend to be highly localized and can consist of odors from agricultural operations. Local Air Quality The local air quality can be evaluated by reviewing relevant air pollution concentrations near the project area. For evaluation purposes, the SCAQMD has divided the basin into 36 Source Receptor Areas within the South Coast Air Basin, operating monitoring stations in most of the areas. These Source Receptor Areas are designated to provide a general representation of the local meteorological, terrain, and air quality conditions within the particular geographical area. The project site is within Source Receptor Area 17. The SCAQMD operates a measurement site within Source Receptor Area 17 in Anaheim where concentration data are collected. This data along with data collected from a monitoring station in a nearby Source Receptor Area were integrated to form a "background" description of air quality in the project area. This latter monitoring station is located in North Coastal Orange County (Source Receptor Area 18 - Costa Mesa), which monitors sulfur dioxide. Table 4.2 -1 summarizes the monitoring data for the period 2006 to 2008, the most recent three -year period of measurements available. Table 4.2.1: Local Air Quality it Pollutant, Averaging Time (Units) 2006 2008 Ozone Maximum 1 Hour (ppm) 0.113 0.127 0.105 Days > CAAQS (0.09 ppm) 6 2 1 Maximum 8 Hour (ppm) 0.088 0.099 0.086 Days > CAAQS (0.070 ppm) 5 7 10 Days > NAAQS (0.075 ppm) 3 1 5 Carbon Monoxide Maximum 1 Hour (ppm)•• 5 4 ND Days > CAAQS (20 ppm) 0 0 ND Days > NAAQS (35 ppm) 0 0 ND 4.2 -2 Michael Brandman Associates H\Cl t(PN- JMb327b327W3MMVB270030 Sec 2AvQ ity.D City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Table 4.2.1 (Cont.): Local Air Quality Air Pollutant, Averaging Time (Units) 2008 2007 2.90 2.91 2008 2.35 Maximum 8 Hour (ppm) Days > CAAQS (9.0 ppm) 0 0 0 Days > NAAQS (9 ppm) 0 0 0 Nitrogen Dioxide Annual Average (ppm) 0.020 0.020 ND Maximum 1 Hour (ppm) 0.114 0.086 0.074 Days > CAAQS 0 0 0 Sulfur Dioxide' Maximum 24 Hour (ppm) 0.005 0.004 0.003 Days > CAAQS (0.04 ppm) 0 0 0 Days >NAAQS (0.14 ppm) 0 0 0 Particulate Matter (PMta) Annual Average (µg /m3) 33.3 38.6 27.0 24 Hour (µg /m3) 104 489 45 Days > CAAQS (50 µg /m3) 7 6 0 Days > NAAQS (150 pg /m) 0 1 0 Particulate Matter (Pfk.$) Annual Average (µg /m) 14.0 14.4 ID 24 Hour (µg /m3) 56.2 79.4 39.4 Days > NAAQS (35 pg /m3) 7 14 2 Abbreviations: > = exceed ppm = parts per million 4g/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter ID = insufficient data CAAQS = California Ambient Air Quality Standard ND = no data available NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standard s All data except for sulfur dioxide is from the monitoring station located in Anaheim, California (Source Receptor Area 17). Sulfur dioxide data is from the Costa Mesa station on Mesa Verde Drive. Source: Michael Brandman Associates, Air Quality Analysis Report, 2009. Sensitive Receptors Those who are sensitive to air pollution include children, the elderly, and persons with preexisting respiratory or cardiovascular illness. For purposes of CEQA, the SCAQMD considers a sensitive receptor to be a location where a sensitive individual could remain for 24 hours, such as residences, hospitals, or convalescent facilities. The nearest sensitive receptors are the existing onsite buildings of the Town and Country Manor, located less than 10 feet from the proposed modifications. 4.2.3 - Regulatory Setting Air pollutants are regulated at the national, State, and air basin level; each agency has a different level of regulatory responsibility. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates at the national level. The ARB regulates at the State level. The SCAQMD regulates at the air basin level. Michael Brandman Associates 4.2 -3 H\Cl t(PN- JMb327b327003MMVB270030 Se 4GAvQ Iity.DOc CW of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Federal and State Regulatory Agencies The EPA handles global, international, national, and interstate air pollution issues and policies. The EPA sets national vehicle and stationary source emission standards, oversees approval of all State Implementation Plans (SIP), provides research and guidance for air pollution programs, and sets National Ambient Air Quality Standards ( NAAQS), also known as federal standards. There are NAAQS for six common air pollutants, called criteria air pollutants, which were identified from provisions of the Clean Air Act of 1970. The criteria pollutants are: • Ozone • Particulate matter (PM, and PM,.,) • Nitrogen dioxide • Carbon monoxide (CO) • Lead • Sulfur dioxide The NAAQS were set to protect public health, including that of sensitive individuals; thus, the standards continue to change as more medical research is available regarding the health effects of the criteria pollutants. Primary NAAQS are the levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health. A SIP is a document prepared by each state describing existing air quality conditions and measures that will be followed to attain and maintain NAAQS. The SIP for the State of California is administered by the ARB, which has overall responsibility for Statewide air quality maintenance and air pollution prevention. The ARB also administers California Ambient Air Quality Standards ( CAAQS) for the 10 air pollutants designated in the California Clean Air Act. The 10 State air pollutants are the six NAAQS listed above as well as the following: visibility- reducing particulates, hydrogen sulfide, sulfates, and vinyl chloride. The national and State ambient air quality standards, the most relevant effects, the properties, and sources of the pollutants are summarized in Table 4.2 -2. Several pollutants listed in the table are not addressed in this analysis. Analysis of lead is not included in this report because the project is not anticipated to emit lead. Visibility- reducing particles are not explicitly addressed in this analysis because particulate matter is addressed. The project is not expected to generate or be exposed to vinyl chloride because project uses do not utilize the chemical processes that create this pollutant and there are no such uses in the project vicinity. The project is not expected to cause exposure to hydrogen sulfide because it would not generate hydrogen sulfide in any substantial quantity. There is no generation of hydrogen sulfide usage in the project area. 4.2-4 Michael Brandman Associates H\Cl t(PN- Rnb327b327W3MMVB270030 Sec 2AvQ ity.DO Y c R Y 0 a Q N N V w F a ti O a U bo bu o.F,45 r bu tiAOU'm ..�'.,w.b0,.- 4.��0i O O y O O .� C a>� o 3 m 3o U U bo O bq U O a4 O ag ca O T'pO c^�i O 0 'O A N O O w G U-4 ro O. O w 'O SEA N N v w -O, C U' ,�' Ao k U boo m o O T o..h. �.5 �'0 "� C r f O m C, a Z 0 O N ~° NN O N O cd cd U 4 N W O 'O A p ay�i O O chi O b9 ai y N p" vOi > ytiy v." N-y W O Q R. o Q ti � ,L' A � p � O � � 'O, � � a N � O v ti � T U N � T � � � � •`�• Ul �n O M O\ O V UN o 0 O 0 0 0 o cv o; 0 0 rn c �v vF o 0 0 0 o m a -o OO OO N cA�tl L3 m G G N O U Y c Y 7 O a C O N N V w a F c w w m p ti O m p oA v m y p. ^ � N,'�.ti N N N U � � N ;y 3 cd N � � v � O N v 0 W Vl y Cd O. �. U U it � '� N cad v" ,C'..• ti 3 o o m o v m� c_ bYA bYA bYA A r � � m c_ bYA bYA bYA A r � � rn c_ a a0 Y C Y 7 0 a Q C O N N V d F a N 0 U w NM Y � O .O � p 'O a� a� m 0O❑ � N m ^�'"i, � c�a '� a� '"'O U �' � O ti b➢ ❑O❑ � C� t3 " O N � N t3 O � , .� �" � � v V�] U � � � R.. ."-i � � 'O R. O2 U! O A u o m o0 o vi O o �+. 3� H m v� U .�' ti .a v ;1. U a..a a. '• v a' ti ° a U O OM w0 v" N v. A 0 0 .O _ ,L' v�++.. v O O cC r r O O 'O ti .. ti ^� � >.� CO's ti m ' N v N bA T T � r 0 0 o-� .� ti m N > bA O O N � O v 'O � N � `i' 'O N Q+'O � � '� . � ti `�' v � � O ° �-• v bo O T r cNa v chi c�Ua ' v � 'O c �a rn c M ° ° a= w o o a N G Q G N O U Y C Y O a Q C O N N V d F Y 0 m Y U r O N O rO o °4.° ti a w ° r.S ° N° U v _°: v N Ui W N O 'r N °U W U O °U Q `C.J N N cap Or a'�+ O . N Y m Q O W Vi r 'O v 0 O. v r ww v b G o G C O m r o U m C o� o p o Uu f u p r O .0 W O roC •d v".y a r chi N N IO• N a Icd• p w O N o v > �� ti i .G .G-i 'dc ttl 'd r� N O .0.. cvy' ca A v 'O O •� Q'' bA N o T J C .G C .G v P C ,� U r tiM V] A "� . � ,�' 00 'O 4, U O ,�' O O V N U O Z UI a3 � Vi y N A Vi c C i"m cd U N N'u N cd N 0 U r � _ N rn c JE > U 0 o � a x > U a Y C Y 0 a Q C O N N V d F G Q N ti 0 U ,C� vR. � V ro y � 'O F� N CO ttl ro H N U! N O p ro y O p ro O ttl d O o C COA O �tl �d v II w C m "O N C N m m m C N N wN N N N H H 'O ti ti v 0 p cy a3 N bA,Y O v C h N O H '� r� N V C � H a E A ti O Y � 2 d d p 12 �z � a� a Cad ¢ az� City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR California Air Resources Board Regulations ARB Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel - Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling adopts new section 2485 within Chapter 10, Article 1, Division 3, title 13 in the California Code of Regulations. The measure limits the idling of diesel vehicles to reduce emissions of toxics and criteria pollutants. The driver of any vehicle subject to this section: (1) shall not idle the vehicle's primary diesel engine for greater than five (5) minutes at any location; and (2) shall not idle a diesel - fueled auxiliary power system for more than five (5) minutes to power a heater, air conditioner, or any ancillary equipment on the vehicle if it has a sleeper berth and the truck is located within 100 feet of a restricted area (homes and schools). ARB Final Regulation Order, Requirements to Reduce Idling Emissions from New and In -Use Trucks, would require that new 2008 and subsequent model -year heavy -duty diesel engines shall be equipped with an engine shutdown system that automatically shuts down the engine after 300 seconds of continuous idling operation once the vehicle is stopped, the transmission is set to "neutral" or "park ", and the parking brake is engaged. If the parking brake is not engaged, then the engine shutdown system shall shut down the engine after 900 seconds of continuous idling operation once the vehicle is stopped and the transmission is set to "neutral" or "park." South Coast Air Quality Management District The agency for air pollution control for the South Coast Air Basin (basin) is the South Coast Air Quality Management District ( SCAQMD). SCAQMD is responsible for controlling emissions primarily from stationary sources. SCAQMD maintains air quality monitoring stations throughout the basin. SCAQMD, in coordination with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), is also responsible for developing, updating, and implementing the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the basin. An AQMP is a plan prepared and implemented by an air pollution district for a county or region designated as nonattainment of the national and/or California ambient air quality standards. The term nonattainment area is used to refer to an air basin where one or more ambient air quality standards are exceeded. The 2003 AQMP is to lead the basin and portions of the Salton Sea Air Basin under SCAQMD jurisdiction into compliance with the 1 -hour ozone and PM,, national standards. The 2003 AQMP also replaced the 1997 attainment demonstration for the federal CO standard and provided a basis for a maintenance plan for CO for the future, and updated the maintenance plan for the federal nitrogen dioxide standard that the South Coast Air Basin has met since 1992. The current AQMP for the basin is the 2007 AQMP, which was adopted by the SCAQMD on June 1, 2007. The 2007 AQMP is to lead the basin into compliance of the national 8 -hour ozone and PM2s standards. On July 13, 2007, the SCAQMD Board adopted the 2007 Final AQMP Transportation Conformity Budgets and directed the Executive Officer to forward them to ARB for its approval and subsequent submittal to the EPA. On September 27, 2007, ARB adopted the State Strategy for the 2007 SIP and the 2007 AQMP as part of the SIP. On January 15, 2009, EPA's regional administrator 4.2 -10 Michael Bmndman Associates H\Cl t (PN Rnb327b327W3MME 3270030 Sec 2AvQ ity.D City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR signed a final rule to approve in part and disapprove in part the SCAQMD 2003 1 -hour ozone plan and the nitrogen dioxide maintenance plan. The parts of the plan that were approved strengthen the SIP. The Clean Air Act does not require the disapproved portions of the plan, and the disapprovals do not start sanctions clocks. The 2007 AQMP outlines a detailed strategy for meeting the national health -based standards for PM2.S by 2015 and 8 -hour ozone by 2024 while accounting for and accommodating future expected growth. The 2007 AQMP incorporates significant new emissions inventories, ambient measurements, scientific data, control strategies, and air quality modeling. Most of the reductions will be from mobile sources, which are currently responsible for about 75 percent of all smog and particulate forming emissions. The 2007 AQMP includes 37 control measures proposed for adoption by the SCAQMD, including measures to reduce emissions from new commercial and residential developments, more reductions from industrial facilities, and reductions from woodburning fireplaces and restaurant charbroilers. South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules The AQMP for the basin establishes a program of rules and regulations administered by SCAQMD to obtain attainment of the State and national ambient air quality standards. The rules and regulations that apply to this project include, but are not limited to, the following. SCAQMD Rule 402 prohibits a person from discharging from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. SCAQMD Rule 403 governs emissions of fugitive dust during construction and operation activities. Compliance with this rule is achieved through application of standard Best Management Practices (BMPs), such as application of water or chemical stabilizers to disturbed soils, covering haul vehicles, restricting vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour, sweeping loose dirt from paved site access roadways, cessation of construction activity when winds exceed 25 mph, and establishing a permanent ground cover on finished sites. SCAQMD Rule 445 prohibits permanently installed woodburning devices into any new development. A woodburning device means any fireplace, woodburning heater, or pellet - fueled wood heater, or any similarly enclosed, permanently installed, indoor or outdoor device burning any solid fuel for aesthetic or space - heating purposes, which has a heat input of less than one million British thermal units per hour. SCAQMD Rule 481 applies to all spray painting and spray coating operations and equipment. Michael Brandman Associates 4.2 -11 H\Cl t(PN- JMb327b32]003MMVB2]0030 Se 4GAvQ ity.D. City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR SCAQMD Rule 1108 governs the sale, use, and manufacturing of asphalt and limits the volatile organic compound (VOC) content in asphalt used in the South Coast Air Basin. This rule would regulate the VOC content of asphalt used during construction. Therefore, all asphalt used during construction of the project must comply with SCAQMD Rule 1108. SCAQMD Rule 1113 governs the sale, use, and manufacturing of architectural coating and limits the VOC content in paints and paint solvents. This rule regulates the VOC content of paints available during construction. Therefore, all paints and solvents used during construction and operation of the project must comply with SCAQMD Rule 1113. SCAQMD Rule 1186 limits the presence of fugitive dust on paved and unpaved roads and sets certification protocols and requirements for street sweepers that are under contract to provide sweeping services to any federal, State, county, agency or special district such as water, air, sanitation, transit, or school district. Local Government City of Santa Ana General Plan The Conservation Element of the City of Santa Ana General Plan contains Objective 1.1, which states, "Reduce air pollution emissions to achieve national ambient air quality standards." Additionally, because a reduction in water use would reduce the electricity required to transport and treat water, Objective 2.1 would also reduce air emissions: "Conserve water resources in commercial, industrial, residential, and recreational uses." The General Plan policies that would reduce air pollution and water use include the following: • Support local and regional land use and transportation plans that increase mass transit usage and reduce vehicle trips. • Enforce emission standards contained in local ordinances. • Encourage water conservation through design and facilities features of new developments through the use of water quality wetlands, biofiltration swales, watershed -scale retrofits, etc. where such measures are likely to be effective and technically and economically feasible. 4.2.4 - Thresholds of Significance According to the CEQA Guidelines' Appendix G Environmental Checklist, to determine whether impacts to air quality are significant environmental effects, the following questions are analyzed and evaluated. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: 4.2 -12 Michael Brandman Associates H\Cl t(PN- JMb327b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec 2AvQ ity.DO City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR a.) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b.) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c.) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d.) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e.) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 4.2.5 - Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures This section discusses potential air quality impacts associated with the development of the project. Mitigation measures are provided where necessary. Regional Emissions Impact 4.2 -1 The project would exceed the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds during construction or operation. Thresholds of Significance Regional significance thresholds have been established by SCAQMD. Projects within the South Coast Air Basin region with construction or operational emissions in excess of any of the thresholds in Table 4.2 -3 are considered to have a significant impact. Table 4.2 -3: Regional Significance Thresholds Ilutant Nitrogen oxides (NOx) Construction (pounds per day) 100 Operation (pounds per day) 55 Volatile organic compounds (VOC) 75 55 Particulate matter (PMto) 150 150 Particulate matter (PM2.5) 55 55 Sulfur oxides (SO,) 150 150 Carbon monoxide (CO) 550 550 Source: Michael Bradman Associates, Air Quality Analysis Report, 2009. Construction Impact Analysis Short -term impacts refer to emissions generated during construction because they occur on a short- term basis. Construction emissions can vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity, the specific type of operation, and prevailing weather conditions. Construction emissions Michael Brandman Associates 4.2 -13 H\Cl t(PN- Rnb327b32]003MMVB2]0030 Se 4GAvQ ity.DOc City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR result from onsite and offsite activities. Onsite emissions principally consist of exhaust emissions (NOx, SOx, CO, VOC, PMT,, and PM,.,) from heavy -duty construction equipment, motor vehicle operation, and fugitive dust (mainly PMT,) from disturbed soil. Additionally, paving operations and application of architectural coatings will release VOC emissions. Offsite emissions are caused by motor vehicle exhaust from delivery vehicles, worker traffic, and road dust (PMT, and PM,.,). The emission estimates were derived using the ARB LTRBEMIS2007 Version 9.2.4 emission model using the assumptions described in the Air Quality Analysis Report (Appendix B). The emissions are shown in Table 4.2 -4. As shown in the table, VOC and NOx emissions would be exceeded. Therefore, without mitigation, the short-term emissions are considered to have a significant regional impact. Table 4.2.4: Construction Emissions Operational Emissions Operational, or long -term, emissions occur over the life of the project. Operational emissions include mobile and area source emissions. Area source emissions are from consumer products, heaters that consume natural gas, gasoline- powered landscape equipment, and architectural coatings (painting). Mobile emissions from motor vehicles are the largest single long -term source of air pollutants from the project. 4.2 -14 Michael Brandman Associates H\Cl t(PN- Rnb327b327W3MMVB270030 Sec 2AvQ ity.D VOC 2.7 Emissions NO, 27.2 (pounds per day) CO s0, 13.5 <0.1 PM�o 1 22.5 5.7 Demolition Mass grading and excavation of soil 9.8 90.4 42.1 <0.1 27.8 8.9 Trenching 2.0 16.5 9.1 <0.1 0.8 0.8 Building (2011) 27.6 323.0 123.2 <0.1 10.2 9.4 Building (2012) 25.6 300.0 115.2 <0.1 9.4 8.6 Building, Asphalt Paving, and Coating 312.0 328.3 137.7 <0.1 11.9 10.8 Maximum Daily Emissions 312.0 328.3 137.7 <0.1 27.8 10.8 Significance Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Significant Impact? Yes Yes No No No No Note: The maximum daily emissions refer to the maximum emissions that would occur in one day. Emissions of PM, and PM2.5 assume compliance with the requirements of SCAQMD Rule 403. VOC = volatile organic compounds NOx = nitrous oxides CO = carbon monoxide SOx = sulfur oxides PM, and PM2.5 = particulate matter Source: Michael Brundman Associates, Air Quality Impact Analysis Report, 2009. Operational Emissions Operational, or long -term, emissions occur over the life of the project. Operational emissions include mobile and area source emissions. Area source emissions are from consumer products, heaters that consume natural gas, gasoline- powered landscape equipment, and architectural coatings (painting). Mobile emissions from motor vehicles are the largest single long -term source of air pollutants from the project. 4.2 -14 Michael Brandman Associates H\Cl t(PN- Rnb327b327W3MMVB270030 Sec 2AvQ ity.D City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR The mobile emissions were generated by the URBEMIS2007 model using trip generation rates from the Traffic Impact Analysis. The trip generation rates were developed by averaging the trips for Senior Adult Housing - Attached and Apartment land uses. The averaged trips reflect the trip reduction likely to occur due to the age of the tenants and the project's onsite amenities and care facilities, while also reflecting an active senior adult population that may continue to work. A trip generation rate of 5.1 trips per unit was used. The URBEMIS default vehicle mix values were used in this assessment. Area source emissions were also generated using URBEMIS2007. Compliance with SCAQMD Rule 445 was assumed, which prohibits wood burning fireplaces and stoves in new residential units. It was assumed that all units having a fireplace would have a natural gas fireplace. Operational emissions from emission sources generated both onsite and offsite as derived from the URBEMIS2007 model are shown in Table 4.2 -5 for the summer season and Table 4.2 -6 for the winter season. As shown in the tables, the project's emissions do not exceed the SCAQMD's regional thresholds and are considered less than significant. Table 4.2.5: Operational Air Pollutant Emissions (Summer) Emissions (pounds per day) 01201 CO s0, PM10 PM2s Mobile 6.11 6.85 70.32 0.09 15.46 2.99 Natural Gas 0.22 2.83 1.21 0.00 0.01 0.01 Landscape 1.53 0.11 9.31 0.00 0.03 0.03 Consumer Products 8.93 - - - - - Architectural Coatings 0.63 - - - - - Total 17.42 9.79 80.84 0.09 15.50 3.03 Significance Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Significant Impact? No No No No No No VOC = volatile organic compounds NOx = nitrogen oxides CO = carbon monoxide SOx = sulfur oxides PM, and PM,., = particulate matter Source: Michael Bmndman Associates, Air Quality Impact Analysis Report, 2009. Table 4.2 -6: Operational Air Pollutant Emissions (Winter) Michael Brandman Associates 4.2 -15 H\Cl t(PN- Rnb327b327003(MMVB270030 Se 4GAvQ hty.DOc CW of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Table 4.2.6 (cont.): Operational Air Pollutant Emissions (Winter) Source Emissions (pounds per day) NO, CO sox PM10 PM2.5 Consumer Products 8.93 - - - - - Architectural o atings 0.63 - - - - - Total 16.13 12.58 68.35 0.09 15.59 3.12 Significance Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Significant Impact? No No No No No No VOC = volatile organic compounds NOx = nitrogen oxides CO = carbon monoxide SOx = sulfur oxides PM, and PM2.5 = particulate matter Source: Michael Bnmdman Associates, Air Quality Impact Analysis Report, 2009. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially significant. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures are required to reduce construction related regional emissions. AQ -1 To reduce air emissions from onsite equipment, the following measures shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City of Santa Ana. a) During project construction, construction equipment shall be properly maintained at an offsite location; maintenance shall include proper tuning and timing of engines. Equipment maintenance records and data sheets of equipment design specifications shall be kept onsite during construction for inspection by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. b) During project construction, the developer shall require all contractors to turn -off all construction equipment when not in use or restrict construction equipment idling to not more than two minutes. c) Prior to project construction, the project proponent will provide a traffic control plan to the City of Santa Ana that will describe in detail safe detours around the project construction site and provide temporary traffic control (i.e., flag person) during debris transport and other construction related truck hauling activities. d) During project construction, onsite electrical hook ups shall be provided for electric construction tools including saws, drills and compressors, to eliminate the need for diesel or gasoline powered electric generators. No more than one generator shall be used at any given time. 4.2 -16 Michael Bmndman Associates H\Cl t(PN- JMb327b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec 2AvQ ity.D City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR e) The project proponent shall configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference. AO -2 During construction related painting activities, only low volatile organic compound (VOC) paints shall be used. For a list of low VOC paints, see www.aqmd.gov /prdas /brochures /paintguide.html. In addition, painting shall be evenly distributed over a minimum of 87 days to reduce daily emissions of VOC. While painting will be minimized, the inside of the parking garage will be painted white. Signs and pavement markings will also be painted within the parking garage. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. Short-term emissions after implementation of the above mitigation measures are provided in Table 4.2 -7. Mitigation measure AQ -1 reduces onsite generators from 11 to 1 and reduces NOx emissions to less than significant. Mitigation measure AQ -1 also reduces onsite emissions of criteria pollutants from equipment exhaust by at least five percent. Mitigation measure AQ -2 reduces the level of significance of VOC emissions by extending the painting /coating phase, reducing the building area to be painted to 236,000 square feet, and requiring low VOC paints. As shown in Table 4.2 -7, regional short-term construction emissions are less than significant after application of mitigation measures. Table 4.2 -7: Construction Emissions (Mitigated) Michael Brandman Associates 4.2 -17 H\Cl t(PN- JMb32]b32]003MMVB2]0030 Se 4GAvQ ity.DOc pounds per ay) VOC NO, CO s0, PMto PM2s Demolition 2.7 27.2 13.5 <0.1 22.5 5.7 Mass grading and excavation 9.8 90.4 42.1 <0.1 27.0 8.6 of soil Trenching 2.0 16.5 9.1 <0.1 0.8 0.8 Building (2011) 8.2 69.6 50.9 <0.1 3.2 2.8 Building (2012) 7.7 64.5 47.9 <0.1 3.0 2.6 Building and Coating 65.5 63.1 40.7 <0.1 2.9 2.6 Building, Asphalt Paving, 70.2 91.2 60.2 <0.1 5.3 4.8 and Coating Maximum Daily Emissions 70.2 91.2 60.2 <0.1 27.0 8.6 Significance Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Significant Impact? No No No No No No Note: The maximum daily emissions refer to the maximum emissions that would occur in one day. Emissions of PM, and PM2.5 assume compliance with the requirements of SCAQMD Rule 403. VOC = volatile organic compounds NOx = nitrous oxides CO = carbon monoxide SOx = sulfur oxides PM, and PM2.5 = particulate matter Source: Michael Brandman Associates, Air Quality Analysis Report, 2009. Michael Brandman Associates 4.2 -17 H\Cl t(PN- JMb32]b32]003MMVB2]0030 Se 4GAvQ ity.DOc CW of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Localized Construction Emissions Impact 4.2 -2 The project would exceed the SCAQMD localized significance thresholds during construction. Thresholds of Significance The SCAQMD Governing Board adopted a methodology for calculating localized air quality impacts through localized significance thresholds (LSTs), which is consistent with SCAQMD's Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative I -4. LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that would not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable State or national ambient air quality standard. To facilitate the localized assessment process, the SCAQMD LST methodology (SCAQMD 2003) provides a series of look -up tables that contain LSTs for the Source Receptor Areas (SRAs) within the basin. If onsite construction emissions are above the LST, then the project would be considered to have a significant air quality impact. This methodology applies to projects up to 5 acres in size. Mitigation measure AQ -3 restricts grading activities (the phase with the greatest emissions) to five acres or less per day. Therefore, pursuant to personal communication with the SCAQMD, this approach is valid. The LSTs were obtained from the look -up tables in the SCAQMD Final LST Methodology for a 5 -acre project in Source Receptor Area 17. The current look -up tables cover the years 2005 through 2007. The distance to the nearest receptors is 25 meters (80 feet), the closest distance available in the LST Methodology. The LSTs are summarized in Table 4.2 -8. Impact Analysis The onsite emissions during construction are compared with the localized significance thresholds and are summarized in Table 4.2 -8. The onsite emissions were generated by URBEMIS, with the exception that only onsite emissions are accounted for in the localized analysis. Onsite emissions are from fugitive dust during grading and off -road diesel emissions. As shown in Table 4.2 -8, unmitigated emissions during construction exceed the localized significance thresholds for NOx, PM,,, and PM2.s. Table 4.2.8: Localized Significance Analysis Onsite Emissions (pounds per day) Activity NO, co PM10 PM2.5 Demolition 7.6 4.8 21.6 4.9 Mass grading and excavation of material 71.9 31.4 26.9 8.1 Trenching 16.4 8.1 0.8 0.8 Building (2011) 318.3 98.1 10.0 9.2 Building (2012) 295.7 91.9 9.0 8.3 Building, Asphalt Paving, and Coating 323.4 109.0 11.5 10.6 Maximum Daily Emissions 323.4 109.0 26.9 10.6 4.2 -18 Michael Bmndman Associates H\Cl t(PN- JMb327b327W3MMVB270030 Sec 2AvQ ity.D City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Table 4.2.8 (cont.): Localized Significance Analysis ctivity Onsite Emissions (pounds per day) NO, CO PMto PM2.6 LST for receptors adjacent to the project 183 1,323 13 7 Exceed LST? Yes No Yes Yes LST - 50 meters from the project 167 1,830 39 9 Exceed LST? Yes No No Yes LST = localized significance threshold The maximum daily emissions represent the maximum emissions that would occur in one day. Source: Michael Brandman Associates, Air Quality Analysis Report, 2009. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially significant. Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures AQ -1 and AQ -3 are required. AQ -3 To reduce emissions of fugitive dust, the project shall do the following to the satisfaction of the City of Santa Ana. a) Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit the construction site onto paved roads or wash off trucks and any equipment leaving the site each trip. b) Water disturbed surface areas a minimum of three times per day. If the soil has a moisture content greater than 12 percent, as determined by ASTM method D -2216, then follow requirements in South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403. c) Grading and excavation shall be limited to a maximum of five acres disturbed per day. d) A maximum of 200 cubic yards per day of soil can be excavated /moved -OR- while grading /excavation activities are occurring, Town and Country residents would remain outside a boundary of 40 meters (130 feet) or inside the buildings with all windows closed. e) During active demolition and debris removal, water shall be applied every four hours to the area within 100 feet of a structure being demolished, to reduce vehicle trackout. I) During demolition activities, water shall be applied to disturbed soils after demolition is completed or at the end of each day of cleanup. g) Demolition activities shall be prohibited when wind speeds exceed 25 miles per hour. Michael Brandman Associates 4.2 -19 H\Cl t(PN- JMb32]b32]003MMVB2]0030 Se 4GAvQ ity.DOc CW of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. Mitigation measure AQ -1 would reduce emissions from onsite construction equipment by at least 5 percent. Mitigation measure AQ -3 would reduce emissions from fugitive dust during grading and demolition. After mitigation, the onsite emissions during construction are compared with the localized significance thresholds and are summarized in Table 4.2 -9. As shown in Table 4.2 -9, mitigated emissions during construction do not exceed the localized significance thresholds. Impacts are less than significant. Table 4.2 -9: Localized Significance Analysis (Mitigated) 4.2 -20 Michael Bmndman Associates H\Cl t(PN- Rnb327b327003MMVB270030 Se 4EAvQ ity.D Onsite Emissions (pounds per day) NO: CO PMto PMz.e Demolition 7.6 4.8 10.8 2.5 Mass grading and excavation of material 71.9 31.4 12.7 5.1 (mitigation option to reduce soil movement to 200 cubic yards per day or less) Trenching 16.4 8.1 0.8 0.8 Building (2011) 64.8 25.8 2.8 2.6 Building (2012) 60.2 24.6 2.6 2.4 Building and Coating 60.2 24.6 2.6 2.4 Building, Asphalt Paving, and Coating 87.9 41.7 5.0 4.6 Maximum Daily Emissions 87.9 41.7 12.7 5.1 LST - Adjacent to Project 183 1,323 13 7 Exceed LST? No No No No Mass grading and excavation of material 71.9 31.4 26.1 7.9 (mitigation option to prohibit sensitive receptors within 40 meters from Project) LST - 40 meters from the Project 177 1,602 26 8 LST - 50 meters from the Project 167 1,830 39 9 Exceed LST? No No No No Note: LST = localized significance threshold Each of the above activities does not occur at the same time; therefore, the maximum daily emissions represent the maximum emissions that would occur in one day. Demolition activities are reduced by at least 50 percent pursuant to documentation from the SCAQMD in its fugitive dust mitigation, Table xIA, Construction & Demolition, www.acgnd.gov /CEQA/ handbook / mitigation /fugitive /MM_fugitive.html Source: Michael Brnndman Associates, Air Quality Impact Analysis, 2009. 4.2 -20 Michael Bmndman Associates H\Cl t(PN- Rnb327b327003MMVB270030 Se 4EAvQ ity.D City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Carbon Monoxide Hot Spots Impact 4.2 -3 Operation of the project would not cause or contribute to a localized carbon monoxide violation at project- impacted traffic intersections. Thresholds of Significance Within an urban setting, motor vehicle exhaust is the primary source of carbon monoxide (CO) emissions. Consequently, the highest ambient CO concentrations are generally found within close proximity to congested intersection locations. The CO hotspot thresholds are represented by the most restricted State or federal CO ambient air quality standards: • 1 -hour CO standard: 20 ppm • 8 -hour CO standard: 9 ppm If the CO contributed by the project in combination with CO produced by non - project traffic exceeds the above standards, then the project would have a significant impact. Impact Analysis A carbon monoxide (CO) hot spot is a localized concentration of CO that is above the State or national 1 -hour or 8 -hour CO ambient air standards. Localized high levels of CO are associated with traffic congestion and idling or slow- moving vehicles. To provide a worst -case scenario, CO concentrations are estimated at project - impacted intersections, where the concentrations would be the greatest. Intersections with the highest potential for CO hotspots were selected based on their average delay, traffic volumes, and proximity to sensitive receptors. This analysis follows guidelines recommended by the CO Protocol and the SCAQMD. According to the CO Protocol, intersections with Level of Service (LOS) E or F require detailed analysis. In addition, intersections that operate under LOS D conditions in areas that experience meteorological conditions favorable to CO accumulation require a detailed analysis. The SCAQMD recommends that a local CO hotspot analysis be conducted if the intersection meets one of the following criteria: 1) the intersection is at LOS D or worse and where the project increases the volume to capacity ratio by 2 percent, or 2) the project decreases LOS at an intersection from C to D. Using the CALINE4 model, potential CO hotspots were analyzed at intersections that operate at LOS D or worse. As shown in Table 4.2 -10 and Table 4.2 -11, the estimated 1 -hour and 8 -hour average CO concentrations at the opening year and General Plan buildout, respectively, in combination with background concentrations are below the State and national ambient air quality standards. No CO hotspots are anticipated because of traffic- generated emissions by the project in combination with other anticipated development in the area. Therefore, the mobile emissions of CO from the project are not anticipated to contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation of CO. Michael Brandman Associates 4.2 -21 H\Cl t(PN- JMb327b32]003MMVB2]0030 Se 4GAvQ ity.DOc CW of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Table 4.2.10: Carbon Monoxide Concentrations (Opening Year, 2013) 1 Hour Estimated 8 Hour Estimated 8 Hour Estimated CO Concentration CO Concentration Significant Intersection (ppm)* (ppm) ** Impact ?* Main Street at La Veta Avenue 7.2 4.5 No Parker Street at La Veta Avenue 6.1 3.7 No Main Street / Edgewood Road at I -5 NB Off- 6.4 3.9 No Ramp / I -5 HOV Ramps 5.4 3.2 No Main Street / I -5 SB Off -Ramp at Santa Clam 6.6 4.0 No Avenue / I -5 NB On -Ramp • Caline4 output plus the 1 hour background concentration of 5 ppm. 5.5 3.3 • • The 8 -hour project increment was calculated by multiplying the 1 -hour Caline4 output by 0.7 (persistence factor), then adding the 8 hour background concentration of 2.91 ppm. • •• Comparison of the 1 -hour concentration to the state standard of 20 ppm and the 8 -hour concentration to the state /national standard of 9 ppm. • • The 8 -hour project increment was calculated by multiplying the 1 -hour Caline4 output by 0.7 (persistence factor), Source: Michael Brandman Associates, Air Quality Analysis Report, 2009. Table 4.2 -11: Carbon Monoxide Concentrations (General Plan Buildout, 2030) Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. 4.2 -22 Michael Brandman Associates H\Cl t(PN- JMb327b327003MMVB270030 Se 4GAvQ ity.D 1 Hour Estimated 8 Hour Estimated CO Concentration CO Concentration Significant Intersection (ppm)* (ppm) ** Impact ?* La Veta Avenue/Parker Street 5.6 3.3 No Town & Country Road/Parker Street 5.4 3.2 No Town & Country Road/SR -22 EB Ramps 5.4 3.2 No Main Street/1-5 NB Off- Ramp/Edgewood 5.4 3.2 No Road/1-5 HOV Ramps Main Street/1-5 SB Off-Ramp/Santa Clam 5.5 3.3 No Avenue/1-5 NB On -Ramp • Caline4 output plus the 1 hour background concentration of 5 ppm. • • The 8 -hour project increment was calculated by multiplying the 1 -hour Caline4 output by 0.7 (persistence factor), then adding the 8 hour background concentration of 2.91 ppm. • •• Comparison of the 1 -hour concentration to the state standard of 20 ppm and the 8 -hour concentration to the state /national standard of 9 ppm. Source: Michael Brandman Associates, Air Quality Analysis Report, 2009. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. 4.2 -22 Michael Brandman Associates H\Cl t(PN- JMb327b327003MMVB270030 Se 4GAvQ ity.D City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Air Quality Plan Impact 4.2 -4 The project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. [CEQA Air Quality Threshold 3(a)] Impact Analysis To address this impact, two criteria are addressed, as discussed below. Criterion 1: Project's Contribution to Air Quality Violations According to the SCAQMD, the project is consistent with the AQMP if the project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP. The purpose of the 2003 AQMP is to lead the basin and portions of the Salton Sea Air Basin under SCAQMD jurisdiction into compliance with the 1 -hour ozone and PM, national standards. The purpose of the 2007 AQMP is to lead the basin into compliance of the national 8 -hour ozone and PM2.5 standards. As shown in Impact 4.2.5, the project could violate an air quality standard for PM, and PM2.5 or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation at sensitive receptors within 50 meters of the project during grading and demolition activities without mitigation. However, there is no monitoring station located within 50 meters of the project. The closest monitoring station is located at Euclid Street and W. Lincoln Street in Anaheim. The localized particulate matter impacts during grading are confined to a 50 -meter radius to the project. When an air basin exceeds the ambient air quality standards at monitoring stations, it would be in nonattainment for those pollutants for which the standards were violated. To ensure that background concentrations of PM, and PM2s are low enough so that the project could not possibly cumulatively contribute to a violation at a monitoring station, mitigation measure AQ -4 is required. It is anticipated that the majority of particulate matter from grading and demolition would fall out via particle deposition and be dispersed to such a concentration to not contribute to an air quality violation of PM, or PM2.S. Concerning regional emissions, without mitigation, emissions of VOC and NOx would exceed the regional emission thresholds. Therefore, ozone precursors of VOC and NOx could cumulatively result in a violation of the ozone ambient air quality standard at the nearby monitoring station. Therefore, mitigation measures are required. Mitigation measure AQ -4 that follows addresses the Air Quality Index (AQI). The AQI is an index for reporting daily air quality. It indicates how clean or polluted the air is and what associated health effects might be a concern. The AQI focuses on health effects that may be experienced within a few hours or days after breathing polluted air. An AQI of 100 generally corresponds with the national Michael Brandman Associates 4.2 -23 H\Cl t(PN- JMb327b32]003MMVB2]0030 Se 4GAvQ ity.DOc City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR ambient air quality standards for those pollutants. The categories where grading shall not occur are as follows: • Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups: When AQI values are between 101 and 150, members of sensitive groups may experience health effects. This means they are likely to be affected at lower levels than the public. For example, people with lung disease are at greater risk from exposure to ozone, while people with either lung disease or heart disease are at greater risk from exposure to particle pollution. The public is not likely to be affected when the AQI is in this range. • Unhealthy: Everyone may begin to experience health effects when AQI values are between 151 and 200. Members of sensitive groups may experience more serious health effects. • Very Unhealthy: AQI values between 201 and 300 trigger a health alert, meaning everyone may experience more serious health effects. • Hazardous: AQI values over 300 trigger health warnings of emergency conditions. The entire population is more likely to be affected. Criterion 2: Control Measures The next criterion is compliance with the control measures in the 2003 and the 2007 AQMPs. As discussed in detail in the Air Quality Analysis Report, the project would comply with all of the SCAQMD's applicable rules and regulations. Therefore, the project complies with this criterion. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially significant. Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures AQ -1, AQ -2, AQ -3, and AQ -4 are required. AQ -4 Grading and demolition activity shall not occur on days with 1) an Air Quality Index forecast greater than 100 for particulates; 2) a forecasted 24 -hour PM, concentration over 50 jig/m'; or 3) a forecasted 24 -hour PM, concentration over 35 jig/m'. Air Quality Index forecasts can be obtained at www.agmd.gov /telemweb /Forecast.aspx and/or ftp: / /ftp.agmd.gov /pub /globalist/FcstMsg.pdf, for Source Receptor Area 17 (Central Orange County in the South Coast Air Basin). Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. Air Quality Standards / Violations Impact 4.2 -5 The project would violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. [CEQA Air Quality Threshold 3(b)] 4.2 -24 Michael Brandman Associates H\Cl t(PN- Rnb327b327W3MMVB270030 Sec 2AvQ ity.DO City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Impact Analysis The CEQA Guidelines indicate that a significant impact would occur if the project would violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. The South Coast Air Basin, the geographical area in which the project is located, is in nonattainment for PM,,, PM,.,, and ozone. Levels of PM, and PM,., are locally high enough that contributions from new sources may add to the concentrations of those pollutants and contribute to a projected air quality violation. Although background levels of ozone are high in the basin, the project alone (without other cumulative sources) would not contribute substantially to a projected air quality violation of ozone. Two criteria are used to assess the significance of this impact: 1) the localized construction analysis (see Impact 4.2.2); and 2) the CO hotspot analysis (see Impact 4.2.3). The localized construction analysis uses thresholds that represent the maximum emissions for a project that would not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable national or State ambient air quality standard. These LSTs are specific to each source receptor area. If the project results in emissions that do not exceed those thresholds, it follows, that it would not cause or contribute to a local exceedance of the standard. The localized construction analysis demonstrates that without mitigation, the project would not exceed the localized thresholds for CO. However, concentrations of nitrogen dioxide, PM,,, and PM2.5 would exceed the LSTs within a 50 meter radius of the project. Therefore, according to this criterion, the air pollutant emissions during construction would result in a significant impact and could result in a localized air quality standard violation for nitrogen dioxide, PM,,, and/or PM2.S. A CO hotspot analysis is the appropriate tool to determine if project emissions of CO during operation would exceed ambient air quality standards. The main source of air pollutant emissions during operation are from offsite motor vehicles traveling on the roads surrounding the project site. The CO hotspot analysis demonstrated that project emissions of CO during operation along with emissions from other foreseeable projects in the area would not result in an exceedance of the most stringent ambient air quality standards for CO. Therefore, according to this criterion, air pollutant emissions during operation are considered a less than significant impact. In summary, emissions during construction could result in a localized air quality standard violation; therefore, this impact is potentially significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially significant. Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures AQ -1, AQ -2, and AQ -3 are required. Michael Brandman Associates 4.2 -25 H\Cl t(PN- Rnb327b32]003MMVB2]0030 Se 4GAvQ ity.DOc CW of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. Criteria Pollutant Cumulative Impact 4.2 -6 The project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). [CEQA Air Quality Threshold 3(c)] Impact Analysis In accordance with CEQA Guidelines 15130(b), this analysis of cumulative impacts incorporates a summary of projections. The project must meet the following criteria to result in a less than significant cumulative impact: 1. Regional analysis: Emissions of nonattainment pollutants below the regional significance thresholds 2. Plan approach: Project consistency with current air quality plans 3. Cumulative health impacts: Less than significant cumulative health effects of the nonattainment pollutants 4. Impacts to air quality from climate change: Less than significant potential of project greenhouse gas emissions to increase cumulative ozone concentrations Criterion 1: Regional Analysis If an area is in nonattainment for a criteria pollutant, then the background concentration of that pollutant has historically been over the ambient air quality standard. It follows that if a project exceeds the regional threshold for that nonattainment pollutant, then it would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of that pollutant and result in a significant cumulative impact. The South Coast Air Basin is in nonattainment for PM,,, PM2.S, and ozone. Therefore, if the project exceeds the regional thresholds for PM,,, or PM2.1, then it contributes to a cumulatively considerable impact for those pollutants. Additionally, if the project exceeds the regional threshold for NOx or VOC, then it follows that the project would contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact for ozone. The regional significance analysis (Impact 4.2. 1) demonstrated that emissions of VOC and NOx would exceed the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds. Therefore, the project presents a significant impact according to this criterion. Criterion 2: Plan Approach The geographic scope for cumulative criteria pollution from air quality impacts is the South Coast Air Basin, because that is the area in which the air pollutants generated by the sources within the basin circulate and are often trapped. The SCAQMD is required to prepare and maintain an AQMP and a 4.2 -26 Michael Bmndman Associates H\Cl t(PN- JMb327b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec 2AvQ ity.D City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR State Implementation Plan to document the strategies and measures to be undertaken to reach attainment of ambient air quality standards. While the SCAQMD does not have direct authority over land use decisions, it is recognized that changes in land use and circulation planning are necessary to maintain clean air. The SCAQMD evaluated the entire basin when it developed the AQMP. According to the analysis contained in Impact 4.2.4, the project is not consistent with the AQMP without mitigation measures. Therefore, the same mitigation measures for the AQMP impact statement are required for this potential impact. Criterion 3: Cumulative Health Impacts The basin is in nonattainment for ozone, PM,,, and PM2.5, which means that the background levels of those pollutants are at times higher than the ambient air quality standards. The air quality standards were set to protect public health, including the health of sensitive individuals (i.e., elderly, children, and the sick). Therefore, when the concentration of those pollutants exceeds the standard, it is likely that some sensitive individuals in the population will experience health effects as summarized in Table 4.2 -2. However, the health effects are a factor of the dose - response curve. Concentration of the pollutant in the air (dose), the length of time exposed, and the response of the individual are factors involved in the severity and nature of health impacts. If a significant health impact results from project emissions, it does not mean that 100 percent of the population would experience health effects. The regional analysis of construction emissions (Impact 4.2.1) indicates that without mitigation, the project would exceed the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds for VOC and NOx (ozone precursors). Because ozone is a secondary pollutant (it is not emitted directly but formed by chemical reactions in the air), it can be formed miles downwind of the project site. Project emissions of VOC and NOx may contribute to the background concentration of ozone and cumulatively cause health effects. Health impacts may or may not include the following: (a) Pulmonary function decrements and localized lung edema in humans and animals. (b) Risk to public health implied by alterations in pulmonary morphology and host defense in animals. (c) Increased mortality risk. (d) Risk to public health implied by altered connective tissue metabolism and altered pulmonary morphology in animals after long -term exposures and pulmonary function decrements in chronically exposed humans. Short-term exposure can result in breathing pattern changes, reduction of breathing capacity, increased susceptibility to infections, inflammation of the lung tissue, and some immunological changes. Children who live in high ozone communities and who participate in multiple sports have been observed to have a higher asthma risk. This is a significant cumulative health impact associated with ground -level ozone concentrations. Michael Brandman Associates 4.2 -27 H\Cl t(PN- Rnb327b32]003MMVB2]0030 Se 4GAvQ ity.DOc City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Criterion 4. Impacts to Air Quality from Climate Change AB 32 indicates that "the potential effects of global warming include the exacerbation of air quality problems, a reduction in the quality and supply of water to the State from the Sierra snow pack, a rise in sea levels resulting in the displacement of thousands of coastal businesses and residences, damage to marine ecosystems and the natural environment, and an increase in the incidence of infections, disease, asthma, and other health - related problems." Higher temperatures resulting from climate change are expected to increase the frequency, duration, and intensity of conditions conducive to air pollution formation. For example, if temperatures rise to the medium warming range, there will be 75 to 85 percent more days with weather conducive to ozone formation in Los Angeles and the San Joaquin Valley, relative to today's conditions. This is more than twice the increase expected if the rise in temperature is kept in the lower warming range. Air quality could be further compromised by increases in wildfires, which emit fine particulate matter that can travel long distances depending on wind conditions. The most recent analysis suggests that if heat - trapping gas emissions are not significantly reduced, large wildfires could become up to 55 percent more frequent toward the end of the century. The project will not significantly contribute to this impact during operation because the project does not contribute to a cumulative ozone impact during operation. Additionally, according to the analysis contained in Section 4.8 of this FIR, Climate Change, project emissions of greenhouse gases are less than significant after mitigation. During construction, the project may cumulatively contribute to an ozone impact; therefore, mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially significant. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures AQ -1, AQ -2, AQ -3, and AQ -4 are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. Sensitive Receptors Impact 4.2 -7 The project would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. [CEQA Air Quality Threshold 3(d)] Impact Analysis Construction The localized construction analysis uses thresholds that represent the maximum emissions for a project that would not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or 4.2 -28 Michael Brandman Associates H\Cl t(PN- Rnb327b327W3MMVB270030 Sec 2AvQ ity.D City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR State ambient air quality standard. The thresholds are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each source receptor area and on the location of the sensitive receptors. If the project results in emissions under those thresholds, it follows that the project would not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the standard. If the standards are not exceeded at the sensitive receptor locations, it follows that the receptors would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations. The localized construction analysis (Impact 4.2.2) demonstrated that without mitigation, the project would not exceed the localized thresholds for CO. However, the project would exceed the localized thresholds for nitrogen dioxide, PM,,, and PM2, Therefore, during construction, the project could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations of nitrogen dioxide, PM,,, and PM2s without mitigation. The existing Town and Country Manor buildings have a ventilation system with air quality filters that are changed every month. This will help reduce impacts during construction to the existing Town and Country Manor residents. The construction equipment would emit diesel particulate matter, which is a carcinogen. However, the diesel particulate matter emissions are short-term in nature. Determination of risk from diesel particulate matter is considered over a 70 -year exposure time. Therefore, considering the dispersion of the emissions and the short time frame, exposure to diesel particulate matter is anticipated to be less than significant. Operation: Carbon Monoxide A CO hot spot analysis is the appropriate tool to determine if project emissions of CO during operation would exceed ambient air quality standards. The main source of air pollutant emissions during operation are from offsite motor vehicles traveling on the roads surrounding the project. The CO hot spot analysis (Impact 4.2.3) demonstrated that emissions of CO during operation would not result in an exceedance of the most stringent ambient air quality standards for CO. Therefore, according to this criterion, air pollutant emissions during operation would result in a less than significant impact. Operation: Indoor Air Pollution The indoor air pollutants that may be associated with operation of the project include VOCs from new carpets and fresh paints, mold spores, radon, cigarette smoke, and combustion sources. The air pollutants that are controlled by the construction of the project include VOCs from carpets, paints, and radon. VOCs from new carpets and new paint are temporary impacts that can be reduced by proper ventilation after installation. The health impact from these sources is anticipated to be less than significant. Radon is a naturally occurring colorless, odorless, and tasteless radioactive gas originating from the radioactive decay of uranium in rock, soil, and groundwater. Radon gets inside a building primarily Michael Brandman Associates 4.2 -29 H\Cl t(PN- JMb327b32]003MMVB2]0030 Se 4GAvQ ity.DOc City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR from soil under homes. It is a known human lung carcinogen and is the largest source of radiation exposure to the public. Most is rapidly exhaled; however, the inhaled decay products can deposit into the lung where they irradiate sensitive airway cells increasing the risk of lung cancer. Indoor radon tests in the project's zip code, 92706, indicate that 0 percent of the nine samples contained radon concentrations in excess of the EPA threshold of 4 pCi/l. The California Department of Public Health classifies zip codes with indoor radon concentrations greater than 4.0 pCi/1 as follows: 0 -6 percent - low potential; 7 -19 percent - moderate potential; 20 percent or more - high potential. Indoor radon concentrations are of most concern in residential structures with basements because such structures are of lower pressure than surrounding outdoor conditions and, therefore, have the ability to suction radon indoors. In contrast, slab -on -grade commercial structures have a much lower ability to suction radon indoors because they are much larger and are not below grade, which substantially reduces the pressure differential between indoors and outdoors. Moreover, the project would employ an HVAC system that would circulate air through the structure during round - the -clock operational hours. Such a system would be sufficient to disperse indoor radon concentrations, which would minimize the risk to human health. Accordingly, indoor radon exposure would be a less than significant impact. Operation: Toxic Air Pollutants The ARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook contains recommendations that will "help keep California's children and other vulnerable populations out of harm's way with respect to nearby sources of air pollution," including recommendations for distances between sensitive receptors and certain land uses. These land uses are explored below. • ARB recommends avoiding new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles per day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles per day. Epidemiological studies indicate that the distance from the roadway and truck traffic densities were key factors in the correlation of health effects, particularly in children. At General Plan build out, the maximum average daily traffic (ADT) for an off -site roadway is on Main Street and is 51,989. The project is located approximately 1200 feet from Main Street. The project is also located approximately 2,000 feet east of Interstate 5. Finally, the project is located approximately 1,200 feet from the Garden Grove Freeway (State Route 22). Therefore, the project is not located within 500 feet of the land uses suggested by the ARB; therefore, project residences are not likely to be significantly impacted by pollutant sources from the nearby roadway network. • ARB also recommends avoiding siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a distribution center. Review of aerial photography indicates that no distribution center exists within 1,000 feet of the project. • ARB recommends avoiding new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of a large fueling station (a facility with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year or greater). A 50 -foot separation is recommended for typical gas dispensing facilities. The nearest fueling station is approximately 2,600 feet east of the project. 4.2 -30 Michael Brandman Associates H\Cl t(PN- JMb327b327W3MMVB270030 Sec 2AvQ ity.D City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR • ARB recommends avoiding siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of any dry cleaning operation that uses perchloroethylene. For operations with two or more machines, ARB recommends a buffer of 500 feet. For operations with three or more machines, ARB recommends consultation with the local air district. The nearest dry cleaner is located approximately 1,600 feet northwest of the project. In summary, the project is not located within the ARB suggested buffer zones, and therefore would not be exposed to significant criteria pollutant concentrations during operation from the surrounding uses. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially significant. Localized concentrations of nitrogen dioxide, PM,,, and PM,., during grading and demolition activities could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutants. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures AQ -1, AQ -3, AQ -4, and AQ -5 are required. AQ -5 Existing Town and Country Manor buildings shall change the air quality filters a minimum of every two weeks during grading and demolition activities. This measure shall be fulfilled to the satisfaction of the City of Santa Ana. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. Odors Impact 4.2 -8 The project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. [CEQA Air Quality Threshold 3(e)] Impact Analysis Land uses typically considered associated with odors include wastewater treatment facilities, waste - disposal facilities, or agricultural operations. The project does not contain land uses typically associated with emitting objectionable odors. Diesel exhaust and VOCs would be emitted during construction of the project, which are objectionable to some; however, emissions would disperse rapidly from the project site and, therefore, should not reach a level to induce a negative response. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant. Michael Brandman Associates 4.2 -31 H\Cl t(PN- Rnb327b32]003MMVB2]0030 Se 4GAvQ ity.DOc CW of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. 4.2 -32 Michael Brandman Associates H\Cl t(PN- JMb327b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec 2AvQ ity.D City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR HVdrologV and 4.3 - Hydrology and Water Quality 4.3.1 - Introduction This section describes the existing hydrology and water quality setting and potential effects from project implementation on the site and its surrounding area. Descriptions and analysis in this section utilize information contained in the Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) prepared in July 2009 by the project engineer, Hall and Foreman, Inc., and included in this FIR as Appendix C. 4.3.2 - Existing Conditions The project site is currently occupied by a grassy area and parking lot, contained within the southwest corner of the Town and Country Manor campus. Drainage patterns for the campus are from the northeast to the southwest. The westerly portion of the property drains to a storm drain on Owen Street, then to a storm drain on Main Street which drains into Santiago Creek, and then into the Santa Ana River. The Santa Ana River, Reach 4, is listed as impaired by pathogen. Santiago Creek, Reach 4, is impaired by salinity, Total Dissolved Solids (IDS), and chloride. 4.3.3 - Regulatory Setting NPDES Storm Water Regulatory Requirements The proposed project and its facilities must comply with surface water quality regulations promulgated by a multitude of public agencies federal, State, and local to control polluted runoff. They include: 1) the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA); 2) the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB); 3) the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region (SARWQCB); 4) the County of Orange, and 5) the City of Santa Ana. Federal EPA In 1990, the US EPA initiated the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) Storm Water Program, in accordance with Section 402(p) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), to control polluted runoff from sources that had the greatest potential to negatively impact water quality to the waters of the United States. As a result, this permitting program requires operators of municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s), industrial facilities, and construction sites to obtain coverage for the storm water discharges generated from these operations. These NPDES permits thus provide a mechanism for monitoring and regulating the discharge of pollutants from these non -point sources. In essence, the NPDES permits effectively prohibit non -storm water discharges from MS4s, industrial activities, and construction activities, unless otherwise permitted under a separate NPDES permit. The implementation of the NPDES Storm Water Program was carried out in two phases. Phase I, which began in 1990, required NPDES permit coverage from Large and Medium MS4s serving populations of 100,000 or more (i.e. cities and counties). Eleven categories of industrial activities (classified by SIC code) were also required to have NPDES permit coverage. One of those 11 activities included construction activities disturbing five acres or more of soil. Phase II of the NPDES Storm Water Program, implemented in 1999, tightened non -point source regulations by adding the Michael Brandman Associates 4.3 -1 H\Cl t(PN -Rn) 32]b327W3MMVB2]0030 Se 4B Hyd bUadWat Wity.d¢ and Water City of Santa Ana - Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR following to the regulated community - small MS4s (those serving less than 100,000 population), public facilities (i.e. military bases, school districts, hospitals, etc.), as well as construction activities disturbing between one and five acres of land. State Water Resources Control Board In the State of California, the SWRCB and local RWQCBs have assumed the responsibility of implementing the US EPA's NPDES Storm Water Program. Under the State's water quality control law, better known as the Porter- Cologne Water Quality Act (Water Code Sections 13000 et seq.), the SWRCB is granted control over California's water rights and water quality policy. As a result, the SWRCB issues NPDES Storm Water permits in the form of Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) to Phase I and II permittees in California. More specifically, the SWRCB is the regulating authority for industrial and construction activities, while local RWQCBs issue and enforce MS4 storm water permits. General Industrial Storm Water Permit The General Industrial Storm Water Permit (GISP), WDRs Order 97 -03 -DWQ, NPDES Permit No. CAS000001, regulates storm water discharges from 10 categories of industrial activities. Construction activities are regulated under a separate permit issued by the SWRCB. Industrial facilities that qualify must submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to file for permit coverage or otherwise be in violation of the CWA. The SARWQCB, under the guidance of the SWRCB, administers and oversees the GISP program within the Santa Ana River Watershed. The proposed project does not have any regulated industrial activities planned for the project site, and, therefore, coverage under the Industrial Permit is not required. General Construction Permit According to the US EPA, a construction site without proper sediment and erosion controls can discharge 10 to 20 times the sediment load of agricultural lands, and 1,000 to 2,000 times the rate from forestlands. The General Construction Permit (GCP) WDRs Order 99 -08 -DWQ, NPDES Permit No. CAS000002, regulates storm water discharges associated with construction activities disturbing one acre or greater of soil. Construction sites that qualify must submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to file for permit coverage or otherwise be in violation of the CWA. The SWRCB website indicates that the GCP "requires the development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP). The SWPPP should contain a site map(s), which shows the construction site perimeter, existing and proposed buildings, lots, roadways, storm water collection, and discharge points, general topography both before and after construction, and drainage patterns across the project. The SWPPP must list Best Management Practices (BMPs) [that will achieve BCT and BAT performance standards] the discharger will use to protect storm water runoff and the placement of those BMPs. Additionally, the SWPPP must contain a visual monitoring 4.3 -2 Michael Brandman Associates H\Cl t (PN JN)b327b327W3MME 3270030 Sec 3Hyd bUadWat Wity.d City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR HVdrology and program; a chemical monitoring program for "non- visible" pollutants to be implemented if there is a failure of BMPs; and a sediment monitoring plan if the site discharges directly to a water body listed on the 303(d) list for sediment. Section A of the Construction General Permit describes the elements that must be contained in a SWPPP." BCT is an acronym for Best Control Technology. BAT is an acronym for Best Available Technology. Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SAR WQCB) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer (MS4) Permits The SARW QCB issued a MS4 storm water permit, WDR Order No. R8- 2002 -0012, NPDES Permit No. CAS618036, to 16 co- permitees within the Santa Ana region, including the City of Santa Ana. Whereas the GISP and GCP are issued statewide, MS4 permits are issued by local Regional Boards in order to provide permits with the means to address storm water quality issues specific to the local watershed or region. As a result, MS4 permits are at a more prescriptive level of regulation, requiring permittees to develop and implement a storm water management program with the goal of reducing the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable (MEP). The MEP standard is a more stringent performance standard than BCT /BAT established for both the GISP and GCP. The storm water management program or Municipal Storm Water Management Program (MSWMP), as it is referred to in the Santa Ana region, must specify SARWQCB- approved BMPs to address the following program areas: public education and outreach, illicit discharge detection and elimination, construction and post - construction, and good housekeeping for municipal operations. Local Water Quality Regulations Since 1990, the County of Orange has cooperated with Orange County cities (the Permittees) in complying with the NPDES permits issued by the Santa Ana and San Diego RWQCBs. The result of this cooperation has been the development of numerous storm water programs that have been integrated into the area -wide Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP). The County believes this common approach provides the most efficient and effective means of reducing storm water and urban runoff pollution to meet permit requirements. The DAMP contains model program guidance that was developed through a collaborative effort among all Permittees, including the County, as well as interested agencies, organizations, and the public. The DAMP requires that each Permittee prepare a Local Implementation Plan (LIP) as an appendix to the DAMP. The City of Santa Ana's LIP describes the activities that the City has previously undertaken and is currently undertaking to meet the requirements of the Third Term Permits and to make meaningful improvements in urban water quality. The LIP is intended to serve as the basis for City compliance during the five -year period of the Third Term Permit; however, the LIP is subject to modifications and updates as the City determines necessary, or as directed by the RWQCB. Michael Brandman Associates 4.3 -3 H\Cl t(PN -Rn) 32]b327W3MMVB2]0030 Se 4B Hyd bUadWat Wity.d¢ CW of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor and Water Quality Draft ElR Existing Water Quality Standards The ultimate goal of the CWA is to protect the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the waters of the United States. Along with regulatory programs for storm water and non -storm water discharges generated from pollutant sources, the CWA also required States to adopt water quality standards for receiving waterways and water bodies to achieve this goal. Water quality standards are based on a water body's designated beneficial use, along with its water quality criteria based upon these uses. To further elaborate, beneficial uses of water bodies describe the appropriate uses of a particular water body based on current and historical use of it, such as contact recreation or drinking water uses. Its associated water quality criteria are expressed either as numeric concentrations, levels of constituents, or as narrative summaries that represent the quality of water that support the designated beneficial use. 303(d) List of Limited Water Quality Segments Under Section 303(d) of the CWA, States are required to identify water bodies that do not meet their water quality standards. Once a water body has been listed as impaired, a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for the constituent of concern (pollutant) must be developed for that water body. A TMDL is an estimate of the daily load of pollutants that a water body may receive from point sources, non -point sources, and natural background conditions (including an appropriate margin of safety) without exceeding its water quality standard. Those facilities and activities that are discharging into the water body, collectively, must not exceed the TMDL. As opposed to the NPDES programs, which focus on reducing or eliminating non -storm water discharges and reducing the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable, TMDLs provide an analytical basis for planning and implementing pollution controls, land management practices, and restoration projects needed to protect water quality. The Santa Ana River serves as the main tributary to the existing watershed, with Santiago Creek being the river's largest tributary in Orange County. According to the 2006 CWA Section 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments Requiring TMDLs and the project Preliminary WQMP, the Santa Ana River, Reach 4, is listed as impaired by pathogen. Additionally, Santiago Creek, located just south of Memory Lane in Santiago Park, Reach 4, is listed as impaired by salinity, Total Dissolved Solids (IDS), and chlorides. Santiago Creek The 1995 Water Quality Control Plan, which established water quality objectives for surface and ground waters for the Santa Ana River Basin (Region 8), was updated in February 2008. The designated beneficial uses of Santiago Creek, which is the receiving water body for the proposed project, are: • MUN - municipal and domestic supply • GWR - groundwater recharge 4.3-4 Michael Bmndman Associates H\Cl t(PN -Rn) 327b327W3MME 3270030 Sec 3Hyd bUadWat Wity.d City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Hydrology and • REC1 - body contact recreation • REC2 - non - contact water recreation • WARM - warm freshwater habitat • WILD - wildlife habitat Groundwater According to the project Geotechnical Engineering Investigation ( Geotechnologies, Inc. 2009), borings drilled to a depth of approximately 50 feet did not encounter groundwater. Groundwater was encountered at a depth of 88 feet below the ground surface (bgs) in Boring 6, southwest of the proposed main entrance driveway. Geotechnologies states that historic high groundwater elevations have been identified for the project area at 35 feet bgs. 4.3.4 - Thresholds of Significance According to the CEQA Guidelines' Appendix G Environmental Checklist, to determine whether hydrology and water quality impacts are significant environmental effects, the following questions are analyzed and evaluated. Would the project: a.) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b.) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre - existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? c.) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? d.) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? e.) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 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? h.) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? Michael Brandman Associates 4.3 -5 H\Cl t(PN- JN)b32]b327W3MMVB2]0030 Se 4B Hyd bUadWat Wity.d¢ and Water City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR i.) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j.) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 4.3.5 - Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures This section discusses potential hydrology and water quality impacts associated with the development of the project. Mitigation measures are provided where necessary. Water Quality Standards and Requirements Impact 4.3 -1 The project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The project would not otherwise substantially degrade water quality. [CEQA Hydrology and Water Quality Threshold 8(a)] [CEQA Hydrology and Water Quality Threshold 8(f)] Impact Analysis Construction Phase The construction and grading phases of the project would require temporary disturbance of surface soils and removal of existing landscaping. During the construction period, grading and excavation activities would result in exposure of soil to storm runoff, potentially causing erosion and sediment in the runoff. Stockpiles and excavated portions on the project site would be exposed to runoff and, if not managed properly, the runoff could cause erosion and increased sedimentation in local and regional drainage ways. By volume, sediment is the principal component in most storm runoff. Sediments also transport substances such as nutrients, hydrocarbons, and trace metals, which are conveyed to the receiving waters. The potential for chemical releases is present at most construction sites in the form of fuels, solvents, glues, paints, and other building construction materials. Once released, these types of substances could be transported to nearby surface waterways and/or to groundwater in storm water runoff, wash water, and dust control water, potentially reducing the quality of the receiving waters. Construction sites greater than one acre in size are regulated under the state's General Permit for Construction Activities. This permit requires the discharger to eliminate or minimize sediments and other pollutants from discharging into storm water runoff from their construction sites through appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) implemented during and after construction. The project also requires the preparation of a SWPPP for construction discharges for submittal to the City for review and approval prior to construction. The project proposes to address water quality during both the construction phase and the post - construction phase through the use of BMPs. During construction, BMPs would be utilized to reduce sediment generated by erosion and construction waste discharge associated with ground disturbing activities and construction of improvements. Typical BMPs include storm drain inlet protection, gravel bag dikes, and silt fencing. These BMPs 4.3 -6 Michael Brandman Associates H\Cl t (PN JN)b327b327W3MME 3270030 Sec 3Hyd bUadWat Wity.d City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR and would be developed specifically for the project and documented in the SWPPP that would be prepared for the project and kept onsite at all times during construction. The project will comply with NPDES and SWPPP requirements to implement BMPs to reduce impacts associated with water quality during grading and construction. Additionally, conformance with the provisions of the Uniform Building Code and the City's Grading Code, requiring reduction of erosion and sedimentation, is also required. Short-term construction and grading impacts are, therefore, considered to be less than significant. Operational Phase The Town and Country Manor campus occupies approximately 8.29 acres. The existing building area footprint is 219,556 square feet. The building footprint plus parking lot areas is currently 3.54 acres. The proposed project will increase lot coverage to 4.95 acres. As a percentage of site area, the proposed lot coverage will be 59.7 percent. Impermeable area constitutes 42 percent of the existing campus. The proposed project would increase impermeable area to 60 percent of the campus. Existing landscape areas will remain, with the exception of the grassy area within the project site which will be removed, and new landscape areas will be designed and maintained per City of Santa Ana guidelines. The project architect, Irwin Pancake Architects, is currently working with the City to revise the lot coverage requirements for the project. The proposed project would increase lot coverage and result in the conversion of permeable surfaces to impermeable surfaces. The project engineer, Hall and Foreman, Inc., estimates that project runoff will increase by 1.5 cubic feet per second (cfs) with the increased lot coverage. Upon development of proposed uses, storm runoff from the newly constructed structures and paved surfaces could carry, and be tainted by, a variety of pollutants such as sediment, petroleum products, commonly utilized construction materials, landscaping chemicals, and (to a lesser extent) trace metals such as zinc, copper, lead, cadmium, and iron, which may lead to the degradation of storm water in downstream channels. Runoff from landscaped areas could contain elevated levels of phosphorous, nitrogen, and suspended solids. Oil and other hydrocarbons from vehicles are also expected in storm water runoff. Nutrients from this runoff could promote algae growth in Santa Ana River and its tributaries as well as contribute to degradation of surface water quality. Pollutant concentrations in urban runoff are extremely variable and are dependent on storm intensity, land use, elapsed time since previous storms, and the volume of runoff generated in a given area that reaches a receiving water. As such, potential water quality impacts are related to the increase in the peak runoff, new urban uses, and the sensitivity of the receiving water. Development of the project could result in increased peak flow and pollutant loads in the local drainage ways and the Santa Ana River. Michael Brandman Associates 4.3 -7 H\Cl t(PN- JN)b32]b327W3MMVB2]0030 Se 4B Hyd bUadWat Wity.d¢ City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor and Water Qualitv Draft EIR The Preliminary WQMP (contained in Appendix C) identifies Site Design BMPs that are intended to reduce long -term impacts to water quality. These BMPs are: 1) maximizing the permeable area on the project site by providing residential units in a multi -story tower, and having sidewalks and parking lot aisles constructed to the minimum widths allowable so that public safety and a walkable environment for pedestrians are not compromised; and 2) allowing the runoff from impermeable areas to drain into landscape swales for storage and treatment. In addition to Site Design BMPs to reduce water pollution during long -term use of the project site, the project would implement numerous routine Structural and Non - Structural BMPs. The routine Structural BMPs include measures such as: 1) storm drain system stenciling and signage (e.g. No Dumping - Drains to Ocean; 2) design and construction of trash and waste storage areas to reduce pollution introduction; and 3) efficient irrigation systems and landscape design. The routine Non - Structural BMPs include measures such as: 1) education for property owners, tenants, and occupants; 2) activity restrictions; 3) common area landscape management, litter control, and catch basin inspection; 4) employee training; 5) housekeeping of loading docks; and 6) driveway and parking lot sweeping. Treatment Control BMPs have been identified for the proposed project that would treat the runoff to remove pollutants before being released from the project site: 1) vegetated (grass) strips; 2) vegetated (grass) swales; 3) an underground infiltration trench to allow percolation of storm flows into the soil for treatment and removal of potential bacteria from runoff-, and 4) filters to address sediment, trash, debris, oil and grease. Because project design and operation includes BMPs to reduce long -term impacts associated with water quality, long -term operational impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. Groundwater Supplies and Recharge Impact 4.3 -2 The project would not 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. [CEQA Hydrology and Water Quality Threshold 8(b)] 4.3 -8 Michael Brandman Associates H\Cl t(PN -Rn) 327b327W3MME 3270030 Sec 3Hyd bUadWat Wity.d City of Santa Ana - Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft OR Impact Analysis and The project vicinity is developed primarily with urban uses that have impermeable surfaces. To minimize runoff and promote onsite storage and treatment, the proposed project has been designed to minimize impervious areas. Additionally, the landscaped strips and swales and underground infiltration trench to be constructed as part of the proposed project will allow collected flows to permeate underground. Due to the sufficiency of the City's water supplies (addressed in Section 4.7 Utilities and Service Systems), satisfying the water demands of the proposed project will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies. The project will not substantially interfere with groundwater recharge. The impact is less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. Drainage Pattern: Erosion or Siltation and Flooding Impact 4.3 -3 The project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site. The project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site. [CEQA Hydrology and Water Quality Threshold 8(c)] [CEQA Hydrology and Water Quality Threshold 8(d)] Impact Analysis The proposed project will increase the amount of impermeable surfaces within the project site, and will result in an increase in runoff compared to existing conditions, estimated at 1.5 cfs of additional flow (Hall and Foreman 2009). A project Hydrology Study as well as a Drainage Plan, identifying the exact size and location of drainage facilities, will be prepared and submitted to the City of Santa Ana for review and approval. City and regional requirements would ensure proper conveyance and discharge of runoff. All onsite drainage facilities would be privately owned and maintained. In the event that the property is transferred to a new owner, the new owner would assume all responsibility for the maintenance of the onsite drainage facilities specified in the Preliminary WQMP. While project implementation would result in changes to the existing drainage system, the new improvements would not substantially alter the course of a stream or river. Furthermore, no Michael Brandman Associates 4.3 -9 H\Cl t (PN JN)b327b327W3MME 3270030 Sec 3Hyd bUadWat Wity.d¢ and Water City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR substantial erosion, siltation, or flooding on or offsite would occur with project implementation. Impacts to the drainage pattern are considered less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. Runoff Water and Drainage Systems Impact 4.3-4 The project would not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. [CEQA Hydrology and Water Quality Threshold 8(e)] Impact Analysis See analysis for Impact 4.5 -1. Existing drainage facilities serving the Town and Country Manor and surrounding area have been planned and constructed to accommodate runoff from development on the project site. A project Hydrology Study as well as a Drainage Plan, identifying the exact size and location of drainage facilities, will be prepared and submitted to the City of Santa Ana for review and approval. The proposed project can be considered part of the master planned mixed use area containing the Main Place Mall and City Place development. Development intensity in this location is increasing, and storm drain facilities are being upgraded accordingly. Increased runoff volumes and velocities for the project site will be reduced through BMPs discussed in Impact 4.5 -1 and detailed in the project Preliminary WQMP contained in Appendix C. Runoff will be stored and treated prior to discharge from the project site. Impacts of runoff water on drainage systems and water quality are considered less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. 4.3 -10 Michael Brandman Associates H\Cl t (PN JN)b327b327W3MME 3270030 Sec 3Hyd bUadWat Wity.d City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Housing Placement: Flood Hazard Area and Impact 4.3 -5 The project would not 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. [CEQA Hydrology and Water Quality Threshold 8(g)] Impact Analysis The project site is not located within a 100 -year floodplain as mapped by a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). The proposed project will not place any structures within the 100 -year flood hazard area. No impact will occur. Level of Significance Before Mitigation No impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures required. Level of Significance After Mitigation No impact. Structures: Flood Hazard Area Impact 4.3 -6 The project would not place structures within a 100 -year flood hazard area which would impede or redirect flood flows. [CEQA Hydrology and Water Quality Threshold 8(h)] Impact Analysis As indicated, the project site is not located within a 100 -year floodplain as mapped by a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). The proposed project will, therefore, not place any structures within the 100 -year flood hazard area. Accordingly, no impacts would occur related to this issue. Level of Significance Before Mitigation No impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures required. Level of Significance After Mitigation No impact. Michael Brandman Associates 4.3 -11 H\Cl t(PN -Rn) 32]b327W3MMVB2]0030 Se 4B Hyd bUadWat Wity.d¢ and Water Flooding City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Impact 4.3 -7 The project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. [CEQA Hydrology and Water Quality Threshold 8(i)] Impact Analysis Santiago Creek lies immediately south of the project site. The project site is located approximately 10 miles downstream of the dam on Santiago Creek that forms Irvine Lake. This dam was constructed and is operated in accordance with regulations and requirements to ensure dam safety and minimize the threats related to dam failure. No flooding impact from levee or dam failure is anticipated. Level of Significance Before Mitigation No impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures required. Level of Significance After Mitigation No impact. Seiche, Tsunami, or Mudflow Impact 4.3 -8 The project would not be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. [CEQA Hydrology and Water Quality Threshold 8(j)] Impact Analysis The project site does not he within an area that could be inundated by a seiche, tsunami, or by mudflow. The project site is located approximately 11 miles inland from the coast and there are no large bodies of water near the project site. The project site is relatively level, as is the adjacent area, and is surrounded by developed urban uses. Therefore, there would be no threat of mudflow at the project site. No impact from seiche, tsunami, or mudfl ow is anticipated. Level of Significance Before Mitigation No impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures required. Level of Significance After Mitigation No impact. 4.3 -12 Michael Bmndman Associates H\Cl t(PN -Rn) 327b327W3MME 3270030 Sec 3Hyd bUadWat Wity.d City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Hydrology and Climate Change Adaptation - Sea Level Rise and Increased Flooding Impact 4.3 -9 The project would not be significantly impacted by climate change through a rise in sea levels or increased flooding. Impact Analysis Climate change could result in sea level rises and increased flooding, as explained in the following excerpts from a paper published by the California Climate Change Center (2006) and a paper sponsored by the California Energy Commission (Moser et al. 2009). Sea level rise is already affecting much of California's coastal region, including the Southern California coast, the Central California open coast, and the San Francisco Bay and upper estuary. During the past century, sea levels along California's coast have risen about seven inches. The rate of sea level rise observed at the gauges along the California coast is similar to the estimate for global mean sea level. Sea levels are likely to increase by up to 35 inches by the year 2100, depending on the magnitude of climate warming. Elevations of this magnitude would inundate coastal areas with salt water, accelerate coastal erosion, threaten vital levees and inland water systems, and disrupt wetlands and natural habitats. The combination of increasingly severe winter storms, rising mean sea levels, other climactic fluctuations like El Nino, and high tides is expected to cause more frequent and severe flooding, erosion, and damage to coastal structures. Many California coastal areas are at significant risk for flood damage. For example, the city of Santa Cruz is built on the 100 -year floodplain and is only 20 feet above sea level. Although levees have been built to contain the 100 -year flood, a 12 -inch increase in sea levels (projected for the medium warming range of temperatures) would mean storm surge- induced flood events at the 100 -year level would likely occur once every 10 years. Despite extensive engineering efforts, major floods have repeatedly breached levees that protect freshwater supplies and islands in the San Francisco Bay Delta as well as fragile marine estuaries and wetlands throughout the State. Continued sea level rise will further increase vulnerability to levee failures. Some of the most extreme flooding during the past few decades has occurred during El Nino winters, when warmer waters fuel more intense storms. During the winters of 1982 -1983 and 1997 -1998, for example, abnormally high seas and storm surges caused millions of dollars' worth of damage in the San Francisco Bay area. Highways were flooded as six -foot waves crashed over waterfront bulkheads, and coastal real estate was destroyed. Climate change will require major changes in flood management. In many regions such as the Central Valley, where urbanization and limited river channel capacity already exacerbate rising flood risks, flood damage and flood control costs could amount to several billion dollars. Research has shown that rapid greenhouse gas emission reductions cannot prevent substantial sea level rise because ocean waters store heat effectively and will expand for centuries, long after air Michael Brandman Associates 4.3 -13 H\Cl t(PN -Rn) 32]b327W3MMVB2]0030 Se 4B Hyd bUadWat Wity.d¢ and Water City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR temperatures have been stabilized (Moser et al. 2009). Therefore, adaptation is necessary to manage the threat of sea level rise to coastal areas. The project is not located near the coastal area and is of sufficient elevation to not be impacted by rising sea levels. As stated in the analysis for Impact 4.5 -5, the project is not located within a 100 - year flood plain or other flood hazard area. Impact is less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. Cumulative Impacts Impact 4.3 -10: Considered on a regional basis, the project would not result insignificant cumulative impacts associated with hydrology and water quality. Impact Analysis Related projects (see Section 3.5 Cumulative Projects) are used in consideration of cumulative impacts to regional hydrological conditions in terms of an increase in the amount of impermeable surfaces, use of groundwater, and/or alterations to existing drainage patterns. Implementation of mandatory federal, State, and local regulations to conserve and protect both groundwater and surface water resources significantly reduces these potential impacts. The incremental impact of the proposed project, when added to the related past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in cumulative impacts related to hydrology and water quality. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. 4.3 -14 Michael Brandman Associates H\Cl t(PN -Rn) 327b327W3MME 3270030 Sec 3Hyd bUadWat Wity.d City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Land Use and 4.4 - Land Use and Plannina 4.4.1 - Introduction This section describes the existing land use and planning setting and potential effects from project implementation on the site and its surrounding area. Descriptions and analysis in this section are based on information contained in the individual Elements of the Santa Ana General Plan: Land Use, Airport Environs, Circulation, Conservation, Economic Development, Education, Energy, Growth Management, Housing, Noise, Open Space, Parks and Recreation, Public Facilities, Public Safety, Scenic Corridors, Seismic, and Urban Design. A comment letter on the Notice of Preparation of the FIR for the Park View at Town and Country Manor Project that addressed land use and planning, contained in Appendix A, was received by the City of Santa Ana from the City of Orange. The City of Orange requests that the Draft FIR evaluate land use compatibility in the context of existing and proposed developments in Orange, including the proposed Orange General Plan land use scenario that changes the land use designation for the property to the north of the project site to Urban Mixed Use. In particular, they request that use, development intensity, and scale issues be addressed. 4.4.2 - Existing Conditions Land Use Project Site The project site is approximately 2.5 acres in size, located within the larger 8.29 acre (360,894 square feet) Town and Country Manor Campus. Town and Country Manor is an existing "Continuing Care Residential Community" (CCRC) licensed by the California Department of Social Services. The existing Town and Country Manor was built in 1973. The triangular- shaped campus site currently contains 219,556 square feet of facilities, which consists of 133 residential care units, 57 assisted living units, and 49 skilled nursing units. Included within the facilities is a dining area, a library, lobbies, meeting rooms, a multi- purpose room, recreational areas, and administrative offices. The residential structures on the campus are three -story structures constructed of stucco over block. The dining facility and multi - purpose rooms are housed in one -story structures. The skilled nursing facility is approximately 46,347 square feet and is located in a two -story structure. The site also includes a 6,449 square -foot chapel constructed on wood flame and stucco. The residential care buildings vary from 12,557 square feet to 43,113 square feet in size. The proposed project consists of the development of an 8 -story, 123 -foot high tower with 174 independent living units, a new expanded entry lobby totaling 914 square feet, and subterranean parking on three levels. An enclosed aquatic and wellness center is also proposed. Existing buildings total 219,556 square feet. With the proposed structures, a total of 568,848 square feet of buildings will exist on the campus. Lot coverage for the entire Town and Country Manor campus after project implementation would be 59.7 percent. Floor Area Ratio (FAR, defined as the ratio between total Michael Brandman Associates 4.4 -1 HU imto? NJN )b327b32]0030\DEM \032]0030SeU Laud US a dP nmgd Land Use and City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR gross floor area of all buildings on a lot and the total area of that lot) for the entire Town and Country Manor campus after project implementation would be 1.58. Surrounding Area Land uses surrounding the project site consist of the following, as identified by aerial photographs and site reconnaissance. North To the north lies existing Town and Country Manor buildings, low -rise office buildings and parking lot in the City of Orange, and the SR -22 freeway. East To the east lies the balance of the Town and Country Manor campus, Memory Lane, Santiago Creek and Park, single - family residential uses, and the Orange Financial Center and parking structure. The Park is 23 acres in size and provides a combination of active and passive recreational uses. South To the south is Memory Lane and Santiago Creek and Park, located across Memory Lane. Single - family residential uses border the Park on the south. West To the west are Lawson Way and City Place, a 17.7 -acre mixed use development, a portion of which planned to contain a 31 -story high -rise structure is currently being processed by the City. Adjoining City Place on the north end is the 16 -story Orange Executive Tower and supporting 7 -story parking structure, and an apartment complex north of Town and Country Road. Further west across Main Street is the Westfield Main Place mall, which includes movie theaters, retail uses, and restaurants, and the I -5 freeway. 4.4.3 - Regulatory Setting Existing General Plan and Zoning The project site is currently zoned as Suburban Apartment (R -4), with a General Plan Land Use Designation of Medium Density Residential (MR -15), allowing 15 dwelling units /acre (see Exhibit 3- 5). The proposed project differs from the allowable uses of the current zoning code and maximum density allowed by the General Plan. A Zone Change to a Specific Development zoning designation and a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to District Center land use designation will be required to permit project implementation. Local City of Santa Ana General Plan The City of Santa Ana General Plan is a blueprint for land use and development activities in the City. The General Plan is a long -range comprehensive planning document that embraces all aspects of 4.4 -2 Michael Brandman Associates IlUimt(PN JN)b327b327W3MME 3270030Sec 4L dUS a dP e n gd City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Land Use and existing and future physical development of the community, public and private. The City of Santa Ana General Plan contains the following elements: Land Use, Airport Environs, Circulation, Conservation, Economic Development, Education, Energy, Growth Management, Housing, Noise, Open Space, Parks and Recreation, Public Facilities, Public Safety, Scenic Corridors, Seismic, and Urban Design. Each General Plan Element contains goals and policies to guide existing and future land use and development activities. Analysis for Impact 4.4 -2 in this section contains a consistency analysis that lists General Plan goals for land use and planning and all other CEQA issue areas. The City of Santa Ana Urban Design General Plan Element reflects the area occupied by the Main Place Mall as a "Node" or area of compatible and intensive activities that have identifiable boundaries which, through unique design characteristics, provide a clear sense of place. Similar to other "Nodes" in the City, the Main Place node is intended to serve as a district center, as indicated in the Land Use Element. Exhibit 3 -5 displays the District Center (DC) General Plan land use designation on either side of Main Street at the intersection with Main Place Drive /East Memory Lane. The District Center land use designation includes the major activity areas in the City and has an intensity standard of 1.0 to 3.0 FAR. District Centers are designed to serve as anchors to the City's commercial corridors, and to accommodate major development activity. The most intense development in the City is targeted for these areas. District Centers are to be developed with an urban character that includes a mixture of high -rise office, commercial, and residential uses which provide shopping, business, cultural, education, recreation, entertainment, and housing opportunities. Residential developments within most District Centers are allowed at a density of up to 90 units per acre when developed as an integral component of a master planned, mixed use project. The Main Place District Center includes a regional shopping center and office complex, with additional high intensity mixed use development (e.g. City Place) recently established within this District and more development proposed. A series of Mixed Use Corridors underlie the entire General Plan. Main Street is contained within the Main - Broadway primary street corridor. A major City entry is identified along Main Street south of the Garden Grove Freeway. 4.4.4 - Thresholds of Significance According to the CEQA Guidelines' Appendix G Environmental Checklist, to determine whether land use and planning impacts are significant environmental effects, the following questions are analyzed and evaluated. Would the project: a.) Physically divide an established community? b.) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Michael Brandman Associates 4.4 -3 HU imto? NJN )b327b32]0030\DEM \032]0030SeU Laud US a dP nmgd Land Use and City of Santa Ana - Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR c.) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities conservation plan? 4.4.5 - Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures This section discusses potential land use impacts associated with the development of the proposed project. Mitigation measures are provided where necessary. Divide Established Community Impact 4.4 -1 The project would not physically divide an established community. [CEQA Land Use and Planning Threshold 9(a)] Impact Analysis The project site is located adjacent to a major business district in the City of Santa Ana and situated at the northeast corner of Memory Lane and Lawson Way, across from Santiago Park and one block east of Main Street. The project site is surrounded by primarily urban uses. Implementation of the project with proposed multi -story residential tower will allow for aesthetic and operational integration and complete development of the existing Town and Country Manor campus. The project will further contribute to the continued revitalization of the northeastern part of the City of Santa Ana, providing project components that are compatible with existing and planned uses along and adjacent to Main Street. The proposed project is compatible with the high intensity development existing and being established within the Main Place District Center area, and can be considered part of a master planned mixed use area containing the Main Place Mall, City Place development, and the proposed project. No division of an established community will occur, resulting in no impact. Level of Significance Before Mitigation No impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures required. Level of Significance After Mitigation No impact. Conflict with Applicable Plans, Policies, or Regulations Impact 4.4 -2 The project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. [CEQA Land Use and Planning Threshold 9(b)] Impact Analysis The City of Santa Ana's General Plan sets forth general goals that serve to guide land use planning efforts in the City of Santa Ana. Table 4.4 -1 provides an analysis of the project's consistency with each applicable goal from the City's General Plan. 4.44 Michael Bmndman Associates HUimt(PNJN)b327b32]003MM%D32]0030 Sec 4La dUS a dP nmgd MA R C Q v c Y W C O U c R a R w c w t7 v v w F G Q N H O U N y cd F w° > bo v -o m b o 'N H O o U> .O m m F A+ m o u b h Ar W m m ti r o N N 'O . it o> a. F Y on o r c�C 4. ti p 0 70 0 F 46 N G Q w G H O U N R C Q a V C Y C O U c R a R w C d C 0 U v V d F U C U! N N O A R O c� R a m w � m H O bfl v 'O O 'O ti ti y N -o O O � ti bA cd U O p w U O O O bA O O O U U U O ti .Cpr'X 'r w v F+' .nr r O H H y RO 0 T C N O T %.� O O bo fyi � U y w OU N � it pp U � cd S C W -o o C v �. FD' �' Q 1°yJ ou ou m C� F 0 � U N N � N ti bA N O N y H .. -o m N � iCt 0 3 ti C7 r Hal H w R. UA-O p 'O v ti w � a d TA d U ctl U H U � U U Q Y b v ,r r o r r N N O N .� .ti. � ^� A 5 O N r ti N v O 3 O O C� ti A N ti C v O a. T Qj U U N NC. N ti N U � o � U � � Y p m ti 0 o ctl r. O cd O O w H O bfl v 'O O 'O ti ti y N O O � ti bA cd O ti v� 0 0 w v N N H H y RO 0 � v fyi H w R. UA-O p 'O v ti w � a d TA d U ctl U H U � U U Q Y b v ,r r o r r N N O N .� .ti. � ^� A 5 O N r ti N v O 3 O O C� ti A N ti C v O a. T Qj U U N NC. N ti N U � o � U � � Y p m ti 0 o ctl r. O cd O O w H O bfl v O O � ti bA O ti v� 0 0 w v N N OM � � v fyi y w OU N � it pp U � cd S C W o C v �. FD' �' Q 1°yJ ou ou m C� H w R. UA-O p 'O v ti w � a d TA d U ctl U H U � U U Q Y b v ,r r o r r N N O N .� .ti. � ^� A 5 O N r ti N v O 3 O O C� ti A N ti C v O a. T Qj U U N NC. N ti N U � o � U � � Y p m ti 0 o ctl r. O cd O O R C a. MAv c Y W C O U c R a R d C d t7 C 0 U v v w F G Q m ti `o U bo bq C r. O ti o m ti b � A. 'r m C 0 -O v O Ni ° F A 3 -o o u O� -o Q O� ;� v � � h r bo N 3U O CO 24 o O bq O N O p' by N Lr y 0 F' bo r U� n.�Kti ° � x 'o ,� o '� O m -o '�, U r o O ❑ � Y o °� O � N O O O N> v v C R. v N v v 7� v= p A ti c�i cj � AU Ir ,O,,� o� or C7 -o C7 b m C7 v C7 ° C7 C7 o W C7 C7 v w° G e ti `o U R C Q a MAv c Y W C O U c R a R w c w t7 C 0 U v d F � p � m r ro r a o m ctl 3 O r �o bo U ti-6 O ti y TL p = m a > v c> -o m m y T ° > on ti v v Y 'O ag v �, °" O v O cAa �'� m " r� . r 'O r O. O r b p w o h O ti p v UO r > C m v Q A A � o P4 'O V] ° ro w � � ' ^ v .y � � v � v � v •T, w v ,y' apOi bD a� 0 C O. W v h m h � C7 bo C7 C,b co C7 w U U C7 bA C7 '� C7 R C Q a MAV C Y W C O U c R a R d C d t7 c O U v v w F e m ti `o U � 3 h ti N N v C m m t °r ° r Y r Y O ti v v ca 'O 4. 4. N '� �' •r1•.y 0 Oti N 0 Oti � y � � -o -o ❑❑ O � � m v v ° 'o Y � •r1• � ti NN % '"O % p V � CN � > R. 4. W o r m e m ti `o U N R C Q a MAv c Y W C O U C R a R w c d c O U v v d F U ro ti v N q 3 ro v v =� H v +'W' A •°� y F+ N i N Z o ,-� o U U m U ° O. Y t c'a m _ NO 4, U Vi N c 4. R r r O v y � U C7 v C7 w C7 0' O 'V m C7 w C7 w° R C a U c Y c O U C R a R d C w t7 c O U v V d F e Q N H O U C y O B> cd F' ti A > y y N ti N y ,4 r C C' u v ' �-• A 'O v U C m U 'O U A. 'v. '� � U i-. p , v . U U U v . U OU �' N ti A. ti -o U or N o�HA r on m O r bo C r bo bo r O� °� P, bo > r oo�n W .° ,� ° o -r 0 bo C bbo — U .� O ti ro �'W W U r N C. N d N > cd y O.� W •n'. U v� F9 � O'O p m C o x ti. - C r o m �° 3 r -o ur r .:] U N o ..3 67, r Q-. o bo `° ti o �° o a r ti T m � � o � O iU, 0 Oti °• UU hU ;1„1,3� U m hU U U U C�M T 0 0 v O N A O U 0 o O R U U 0 tl bo ±+ rn N C7 A w m > 0 • w a' ^� w ti .0 V� O 9 C7 U C7 o C7 m W CO 7 O O C7 ti G Q ti O U N R C v c Y MA W C O U c R a R d c d U' C O U v V d F ti y v ti p N o r Y ti bA r Y bA a U U -� o t Nw.t U U O Q,O�.cti 0 A'O O'0 A'O O it ii N N N V pN 0 O U O N QJ U O N U wti ti F T 'O v N y ti C = N W y y wU U V] N N O N O City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Land Use and The project site is currently zoned as Suburban Apartment (R -4), with a General Plan Land Use Designation of Medium Density Residential (MR -15), allowing 15 dwelling units /acre (see Exhibit 3- 5). The proposed project differs from the allowable uses of the current zoning code and maximum density allowed by the General Plan. A Zone Change to a Specific Development zoning designation and a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to District Center (DC) land use designation is required to permit project implementation. The DC designation allows up to 90 dwelling units per acre when developed as an integral component of a master planned mixed use project. The Main Place Mall, City Place development and this project can be said to form a master planned mixed use area. By extending the DC designation to include the project site, the additional density proposed with the 8- story residential structure is permitted. The northern boundary of the project site borders an area within the City of Orange currently designated in the Orange General Plan as Commercial 2.5 -3.0 FAR (see Exhibit 3 -5). The City of Orange is currently undertaking an update to their General Plan, and has identified an area bordering the project site on the north as a Focus Area for land use changes, entitled West Chapman Avenue /South Main Street Focus Area. This Focus Area generally encompasses West Chapman and Main Street, and areas between La Veta Avenue and the southern City limit, which forms the northern boundary of the project site. Orange's proposed land use scenario designates this Focus Area as a new Urban Mixed Use land use category that allows mixed use development up to a 3.0 FAR and a residential density of 30 -60 dwelling units /acre. The proposed project, as part of the master planned mixed use area that contains the Main Place Mall and City Place development, adds high- intensity residential use to the existing Town and Country Manor. The proposed project is considered compatible with existing and planned low- and mid -rise office buildings on the north, as well as the re- designation of the property to the north in the City of Orange as Urban Mixed Use. Proposed project uses, together with proposed mass and scale, as graphically illustrated in Section 4.1 Aesthetics, are considered compatible with Orange General Plan land use changes for the property to the north. The proposed residential structure will be compatible with the scale, size, and character of the surrounding existing urban and developing high- intensity area. The design of the multi -story building will be of high quality and will blend with existing architecture and style within the Town and Country Manor campus and surrounding areas. A less than significant impact is anticipated. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. Michael Brandman Associates 4.4 -13 HU imto? NJN )b327b32]0030\DEM \032]0030SeU Laud US a dP nmgd Chy of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Land Use and Planninq Draft EIR Conflict with Conservation Plans Impact 4.4 -3 The project would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities conservation plan. [CEQA Land Use and Planning Threshold 9(c)] Impact Analysis The project site is not part of a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. The project will not conflict with any applicable conservation plans. Consistency with General Plan goals, some addressing conservation, is addressed in Table 4.4 -1, and no incompatibilities are noted. No impact is anticipated. Level of Significance Before Mitigation No impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures required. Level of Significance After Mitigation No impact. Cumulative Impacts Impact 4.4 -4 The proposed project, in conjunction with other projects in the region, would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts on land use. The project site and surroundings are primarily characterized as an urban, built -up area with Main Place and the City Place development combining to form a master planned mixed use area of which the project site becomes a part. Santiago Park and Creek provide a linear scenic, open space feature to contrast with high intensity uses in this District Center area. Land use in the City of Santa Ana is governed by the City of Santa Ana General Plan and the Santa Ana Municipal Code. All project - level impacts related to land use are less than significant and do not require mitigation. The project would not create any land use conflicts and would be consistent with all applicable land use plans and policies being implemented in the area. Other projects in the region would also be required to demonstrate compatibility with surrounding land uses and comply with applicable land use plans and policies. Fulfillment of these requirements would ensure that these projects will not result in significant cumulative impacts on land use. Therefore, the proposed project, in conjunction with other projects in the region, would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts on land use. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. 4.4 -14 Michael Bmndman Associates HUimt(PNJN)b327b32]003MM%D32]0030 Sec 4La dUS a dP nmgd City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Noise 4.5 - Noise 4.5.1 - Introduction This section describes the existing noise setting and potential effects from project implementation on the site and its surrounding area. 4.5.2 - Existing Conditions Acoustical Terminology Sound is mechanical energy transmitted by pressure waves in a compressible medium such as air. Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound. Sound is characterized by various parameters that describe the rate of oscillation of sound waves, the distance between successive troughs or crests, the speed of propagation, and the pressure level or energy content of a given sound wave. In particular, the sound pressure level has become the most common descriptor used to characterize the loudness of an ambient sound level. The unit of sound pressure, a ratio of the faintest sound detectable by a keen human ear, is called a decibel (dB). A dB is a unit of measurement that indicates the relative intensity of a sound. The zero point on the dB scale is based on the lowest sound level that the healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect. Changes of 3 dB or fewer are only perceptible in laboratory environments. Audible increases in noise levels generally refer to a change of more than 3 dB, as this level has been found to be barely perceptible to the human ear in outdoor environments. Sound levels in dB are calculated on a logarithmic basis. An increase of 10 dB represents a 10 -fold increase in acoustic energy, while 20 dB is 100 times more intense, and 30 dB is 1,000 times more intense. Each 10 -dB increase in sound level is perceived as approximately a doubling of loudness. Because sound or noise can vary in intensity by over one million times within the range of human hearing, a logarithmic loudness scale similar to the Richter scale used for earthquake magnitude is used to keep sound intensity numbers at a convenient and manageable level. Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to all sound frequencies within the entire spectrum, noise levels at maximum human sensitivity are factored more heavily into sound descriptions in a process called "A- weighting," written as dBA. This scale gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which the human ear is most sensitive. Any further reference to decibels in this report written as dB should be understood to be A- weighted values. Time variations in noise exposure are typically expressed in terms of a steady -state energy level equal to the energy content of the time- varying period (called Leq), or, alternately, as a statistical description of the sound pressure level that is exceeded over some fraction of a given observation period. Finally, because community receptors are more sensitive to unwanted noise intrusion during the evening and at night, State law requires that, for planning purposes, an artificial dB increment be added to quiet - time noise levels in a 24 -hour noise descriptor called the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). Michael Brandman Associates 4.5 -1 H\Cl t(PN- JN)b327b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec0 Noi�.doc City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Noise Draft OR Many methods have been developed for evaluating community noise to account for, among other things: • Variation in noise levels over time. • Influence of periodic individual loud events. • Community response to changes in the community noise environment. Numerous methods have been developed to measure sound over time, including: • Equivalent Sound Level (Leq). • Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). • Day/Night Average Sound Level (L &). These methods are described and defined below. Equivalent Sound Level - L•q Time variations in noise exposure are typically expressed in terms of a steady -state energy level equal to the energy content of the time- varying period (called Leq), or, alternately, as a statistical description of the sound pressure level that is exceeded over some fraction of a given observation period. For example, the noise levels exceeded on 10 percent of readings is called Leo, the median (50th percentile) reading is called LSO, etc. Community Noise Equivalent Level - CNEL Because community receptors are more sensitive to unwanted noise intrusion during the evening and at night, state law requires that, for planning purposes, an artificial dB increment penalty be added to quiet -time noise levels in a 24 -hour noise descriptor called CNEL. Day /Night Average Sound Level - Ld„ Another commonly used method is the day /night average level or L &. The L& is a measure of the 24- hour average noise level at a given location. It was adopted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for developing criteria for the evaluation of community noise exposure. It is based on a measure of the average noise level over a given time period call the Leq. The L& is calculated by averaging the Leq for each hour of the day at a given location after penalizing the sleeping hours (defined as 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) by 10 dBA to account for the increased sensitivity of people to noises that occur at night. The maximum noise level recorded during a noise event is typically expressed as L... The sound level exceeded over a specified time can be expressed as Lo (e.g., Lvo, L5o, Ljo)_ L5o equals the level exceeded 50 percent of the time; 1,10 equals the level exceeded 10 percent of the time, etc. As previously mentioned, people respond to changes in sound pressure, which are measured on a noise scale in a logarithmic manner. In general, a 3 -dB change in sound pressure level is considered a 4.5 -2 Michael Brandman Associates H\Clievt(PN -Rn) 327b327WMDEMVB270030 Sec0 Noi�. City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Noise just detectable difference in most situations. A 5 -dB change is readily noticeable, and a 10 -dB change is considered a doubling (or halving) of the subjective loudness. A 3 -dB increase or decrease in the average traffic nose level is realized by a doubling or halving of the traffic volume, or by about a 7 -mile- per -hour increase or decrease in speed. For each doubling of distance from a point noise source, the sound level will decrease by 6 dB. In other words, if a person is 100 feet from a machine and moves 200 feet from that sound source, sound levels will drop by approximately 6 dB. Moving 400 feet away, sound levels will drop approximately another 6 dB. For each doubling of distance from a line source, such as a roadway, noise levels are reduced 3 to 5 decibels, depending on the ground cover between the source and the receiver. Noise Exposure An interior CNEL of 45 dB is mandated by the State of California Noise Insulation Standards (CCR, Title 24, Part 6, § T25 28) for multiple - family dwellings and hotel and motel rooms. In 1988, the State Building Standards Commission expanded that standard to include all habitable rooms in residential use, including single - family dwelling units. Since normal noise attenuation within residential structures with closed windows is about 20 dB, an exterior noise exposure of 65 dB CNEL allows the interior standard to be met without any specialized structural attenuation (dual -paned windows, etc.). A noise level of 65 dB is also the level at which ambient noise begins to interfere with one's ability to carry on a normal conversation at reasonable separation without raising one's voice. Table 4.5 -1 summarizes typical noise sources, levels, and responses. Table 4.5 -7: Noise Levels and Human Response Michael Brandman Associates 4.5 -3 H\Cl t(P RnJ 327b327003MMVB270030 Sec01 Noi�.doc Noise Source Noise Level dBA Response 30 Very quiet Library Refrigerator humming 40 Quiet Quiet office 50 Quiet Normal conversation 60 Intrusive Vacuum cleaner 70 Telephone use difficult Freight train at 50 feet 80 Interferes with conversation Heavy -duty truck at 50 feet 90 Annoying Jet takeoff at 2,000 feet 100 Very annoying-, hearing damage at sustained exposure levels Unmuffled motorcycle 110 Maximum vocal effect-, physical discomfort Jet takeoff at 200 feet 120 Regular exposure over one minute risks permanent hearing loss Shotgun firing 130 Pain threshold Carver jet operation 140 Harmfully loud Source: Melville C. Branch and R Dale Beland, Outdoor Noise in the Metropolitan Environment, 1970. Michael Brandman Associates 4.5 -3 H\Cl t(P RnJ 327b327003MMVB270030 Sec01 Noi�.doc CW of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Noise Draft EIR Groundborne Vibration Groundbome vibration consists of rapidly fluctuating motions within the ground that have an average motion of zero. The effects of groundbome vibration typically cause a nuisance only to people, but at extreme vibration levels, damage to buildings may occur. Although groundbome vibration can be felt outdoors, it is typically an annoyance only indoors, where the associated effects of the shaking of a building can be notable. Groundbome noise is an effect of groundbome vibration and typically only exists indoors, since it is produced from noise radiated from the motion of the walls and floors of a room and may consist of the rattling of windows or dishes on shelves. Peak particle velocity (PPV) relates to the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal and is often used in measuring the magnitude of vibration. Scientific studies have shown that human responses to vibration vary by the source of vibration: continuous or transient. Continuous sources of vibration include construction, while transient sources include truck movements. Generally, the thresholds of perception and annoyance are higher for transient sources than continuous sources. Table 4.5 -2 shows PPV levels for continuous and transient sources and the associated human response. Table 4.5 -2: Vibration Levels and Human Response Peak Particle Veloc Continuous econd) Transient 2.00 0.90 Human Response Severe Strongly perceptible 0.40 0.10 0.04 0.25 Distinctly perceptible 0.01 0.04 Barely perceptible Source: California Department of Manual, 2004. Transportation, Transportation -and Construction- Induced Vibration Guidance Existing Noise The noise environment within the project area is dominated primarily by vehicle traffic and community activity. The primary source of noise in the vicinity of the proposed project is vehicular traffic on Memory Lane, which runs along the eastern and southern boundaries of the project site, and on Lawson Way, which runs along the western boundary of the project site. Other sources include the City Place mixed use development across Lawson Way, Amtrak trains, and recreational uses at Santiago Park. Vehicular Traffic Noise Levels Future peak hour traffic noise levels were modeled using the Federal Highway Administration Noise Prediction Model (FHWA -RD -77 -108). The model calculates noise levels forvarying traffic volumes and speeds. Noise model output worksheets for existing conditions, year 2013, and year 2030 with and without the project are included as Appendix E. Modeling was conducted using data 4.5-4 Michael Brandman Associates H\ Clievt (PN- JN)b327b327WMDEMVB2]0030 Sec01 Noi�. City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Noise from the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. in June 2009, included in this Draft FIR as Appendix G. Airport Noise Levels The nearest airport is John Wayne Airport (JWA), located approximately 6 miles south of the project site. The site is not within the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Notification Area, lying outside the Noise Impact Zone. JWA does not affect noise in the project vicinity. Other Noise Levels Santiago Park is located approximately 115 feet to the south of the project site. Amtrak railroad tracks are located east of the project site, with the closest segment being approximately 1,800 feet east of the project site. Based on Amtrak schedules, trains pass through the project area approximately 20 times per day at approximately 20 miles per hour. Farther south along the tracks, there is a train crossing at Fairhaven Avenue, approximately 2,000 feet east of the project site. Based on general practice, it is assumed that trains blow their horn at this crossing for safety purposes. Sensitive Receptors Sensitive receptors are land uses that are sensitive to increases in ambient noise levels. For purposes of CEQA, the City of Santa Ana General Plan Noise Element considers a sensitive receptor to be residences, hospitals, schools, churches, libraries, and parks. Sensitive receptors are commonly determined based on a radius from the project site and then counting the number of sensitive receptors within that radius. Because of the intensity of nearby development, rather than utilizing this method, existing receptors for the project were determined by starting from the project site and radiating out to determine those closest to the project. This latter method is preferred because noise impacts would diminish at each further receptor; therefore, the nearest sensitive receptors would generally represent a worst -case scenario related to noise, and further receptors would experience decreased impacts. The City of Santa Ana sets forth interior and exterior noise standards for residences, hospitals, schools, churches, libraries, and parks. Existing sensitive receptors near the project site are summarized in Table 4.5 -3. The closest sensitive receptors are residential land uses associated with Town and Country Manor located within the project site. Santiago Park is located across Memory Lane, approximately 115 feet south of southern boundary of the project site. Residents at the City Place mixed use development are located across Lawson Way, approximately 95 feet west of the project site. Single - family homes are located across Memory Lane off Santiago Avenue, approximately 500 feet east of the southeast corner of the project site. The nearest church to the project site is the Community Bible Church located within Town and Country Manor approximately 65 feet from the from the project site. CNI College, a vocational school, is the closest school to the project site, located approximately 250 feet from the northern project boundary within the Town and Country Center and offering surgical technology and vocational nursing at this location. Although Michael Brandman Associates 4.5 -5 H\Cl t(PN -Rn) 327b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec01 Noi�.doc Noise City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR there are other sensitive receptors at greater distances from the project site, this noise assessment for the proposed project identifies the nearest sensitive receptors because they would receive the greatest impact from the onsite project noise. Project buildout would introduce new sensitive receptors to the project site since the project consists of independent living units to be contained within Town and Country Manor. Table 4.5 -3: Existing Sensitive Receptors Relationship to Parking Area Receptor Relationship to Proposed Project Paving' Structures 7Buillding A of Tow n and Country Manor Less than 10 feet south of Adjacent to the north proposed modifications to north parking area. g B of Town and Country Manor Less than 10 feet east of 15 feet to the east proposed parking and main entrance drive modifications. Building C of Town and Country Manor Less than 10 feet south of Adjacent to the east proposed modifications to north parking area. Building D of Town and Country Manor Less than 10 feet east of 170 feet to the east proposed south guest parking area. Building E of Town and Country Manor Less than 10 feet south of 170 feet to the east proposed modifications to north parking area. Building F of Town and Country Manor Approximately 115 feet south of 270 feet to the east proposed modifications to north parking area Building G of Town and Country Manor Less than 10 feet south of 260 feet to the east proposed modifications to north parking area. Community Bible Church of Town and Approximately 25 feet south of 65 feet to the north Country Manor proposed modifications to north parking area. Residences at the City Place Mixed Use 95 feet to the west Development across Lawson Way Santiago Park located across Memory Lane 115 feet to the south from the proposed project Single - family homes across Memory Lane 500 feet to the east off Santiago Street CNI College located at 986 Town and 250 feet to the north in the City of Orange Country Road Notes- 'Applies to Existing Town and Country Manor Buildings on the project site. Source: Michael Brandman Associates, 2009. 4.5 -6 Michael Brandman Associates H\Clievt" JN)b327b327WMDERib32]0030 Sec01 Noi�. City of Santa Ana - Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR 4.5.3 - Regulatory Setting State Regulatory Agencies Office of Noise Control Standards Noise The California Office of Noise Control has set the land use compatibility noise standards and encouraged local jurisdictions to adopt them. Pursuant to the land use compatibility noise standards, for commercial and industrial uses, noise levels up to 65 dBA CNEL are normally acceptable; noise levels between 65 and 75 dBA CNEL are "conditionally acceptable," which means that noise levels are acceptable only when a detailed noise analysis is conducted and needed noise insulation features are included in the design. Conventional construction with closed windows and a fresh air supply system or air conditioning will normally suffice as "acceptable noise insulation" features. Noise levels between 70 and 80 dBA CNEL are generally unacceptable, and development of land uses in noise environments that exceed 75 dBA CNEL are discouraged. For residential development and schools, exterior noise levels ranging up to 60 dBA CNEL are classified as "normally acceptable," based upon the assumption that the homes are built with normal conventional construction. Noise levels ranging up to 70 dBA CNEL are conditionally acceptable. Noise levels in the 70- to 75 -dBA CNEL range are classified as "generally unacceptable," and new construction or development is discouraged but may proceed if a detailed noise analysis is conducted and needed noise insulation features are included in the design. Caltrans Vibration Guidance Construction vibration is regulated in accordance with standards established by the California Department of Transportation ( Caltrans) in their Transportation - and Construction- Induced Vibration Guidance Manual (2004). Table 4.5 -4 presents these standards. Transient sources create a single isolated vibration event, such as blasting or drop ball impacts. Continuous /frequent intermittent sources include multiple impacts from pile drivers, the use of vibratory compaction equipment, and other construction equipment that creates vibration other than in single events. Table 4.5.4: Groundborne Vibration Exposure Standards Structure and Condition Maximum Peak Particle Velocity (inches /second) Transient Continuous /Frequent Sources Intermittent Sources Extremely fragile historic building, ruins, ancient monuments 0.12 0.08 Older residential structures with plaster walls /ceilings 0.50 0.30 New residential structures with gypsum board walls/ceilings 1.00 0.50 Modem industrial/commercial buildings 2.00 0.50 Strongly perceptible 0.90 0.10 Source: California Department of Transportation, 2004. Michael Brandman Associates 4.5 -7 H\Cl t (PN JN)b327b327W3MME 3270030 Sec0 Noi�.doc Noise Local Regulatory Agencies City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR City of Santa Ana General Plan and Municipal Code The City of Santa Ana has established noise limits through the Noise Ordinance in the Municipal Code and noise standards in the Noise Element of the General Plan. Noise limits generally restrict noise levels based on the type of noise source (e.g. amplified speakers) or land use. These noise limits are designed to maintain the quality of life for noise sensitive land uses such as residential, hospitals, and schools. To limit population exposure to physically and/or psychologically damaging noise levels, the City of Santa Ana has adopted local guidelines for mobile sources based on and consistent with the community noise compatibility guidelines established by the State Department of Health Services for use in assessing the compatibility of various land use types with a range of noise levels. CNEL standards are typically applied to the receptor location. Maximum sound level limits based on land use types established by the City of Santa Ana guidelines, which are expressed in terms of L& or CNEL, are provided in Table 4.5 -5. Interior areas include bedrooms, bathrooms, living rooms, dining rooms, closets and corridors/hallways. Interior noise level requirements contemplate a closed window condition. A mechanical ventilation system or other means of natural ventilation shall be provided in compliance with Chapter 12, Section 1305 of the Uniform Building Code. Exterior areas include private yards of single - family homes, mobile home parks, picnic areas within parks, and school playgrounds with common areas. Private open space shall be excluded from exterior areas provided sufficient common area is included within the project. Table 4.5.5: Land Use with Noise Standards Land Use Categories CNEL Use Interior Exterior Categories Residential Single family, duplex and multi - family housing 45 65 Mobile Home 65 Industrial Hospital, school classroom/playground 45 65 Church and library 45 Open Space Parks 65 Source: City of Santa Ana Noise Element, 2000. Section 18- 314(1) of the City of Santa Ana Municipal Code exempts noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, or grading of any real property, provided these activities are conducted between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. Construction is prohibited on Sundays and federal holidays. 4.5 -8 Michael Bmndman Associates H\Clievt(PN -Rn) 327b327WMDERib3270030 Sec0 Noi�. City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR 4.5.4 - Thresholds of Significance Noise According to the CEQA Guidelines' Appendix G Environmental Checklist, to determine whether noise impacts are significant environmental effects, the following questions are analyzed and evaluated. Would the project result in: a.) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b.) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c.) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d.) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e.) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f.) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Thresholds for Substantial Noise Increase The CEQA Guidelines and the City of Santa Ana General Plan provide no definition of what constitutes a substantial noise increase; however, Caltrans provides guidance that can be used to define substantial changes in noise levels that may be caused by a project. The thresholds below generally apply to transportation noise that is usually expressed in terms of average noise exposure during a 24 -hour period, such as the Day/Night Average Level (Ldn) or CNEL. Project - generated increases in noise levels that exceed those outlined in the thresholds below and that affect existing noise sensitive land uses (receptors) are considered substantial and, therefore, would constitute a significant noise impact. The project will create a significant noise - related impact if it would: • Increase noise levels by 5 dB or more where the existing noise level is less than 65 dB. • Increase noise levels by 3 dB or more where the existing noise level is 65 to 70 dB. On the basis of the City of Santa Ana's normally compatible residential exterior noise threshold of 65 dBA, a noise level increase of 3 dB or more would be considered significant in areas where ambient conditions are greater than 65 dBA. Michael Brandman Associates 4.5 -9 H\Cl t(PN -Rn) 327b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec01 Noi�.doc CW of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Noise Draft EIR Groundborne Vibration Thresholds Based on the structural damage thresholds established in the Caltrans Transportation- and Construction- Induced Vibration Guidance Manual, the proposed project would create a significant vibration impact if it generated groundborne vibration levels for sensitive receptors in excess of 0.5 PPV during construction and 1.0 PPV during operations. 4.5.5 - Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures This section discusses potential noise impacts associated with the development of the project. Mitigation measures are provided where necessary. Noise Levels in Excess of Standards Impact 4.5 -1 The project would result in 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. [CEQA Noise Threshold 11(a)] Impact Analysis This impact discussion analyzes the potential for project construction noise and operational noise to cause noise levels in excess of established City of Santa Ana noise standards. Substantial increases in noise, as determined using guidance issued by Caltrans for substantial noise increases, are analyzed in Impact 4.5 -3. Noise levels in the project area would be influenced by construction activity in the short term and by traffic and community noise in the long term. 69iTT3��R.7F�' Construction noise represents a short-term increase in ambient noise levels. Noise impacts from construction activities associated with the proposed project would be a function of the noise generated by construction equipment, equipment location, the sensitivity of nearby land uses, and the timing and duration of the construction activities. Section 18- 314(1) of the City of Santa Ana Municipal Code exempts noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, or grading of any real property, provided these activities are conducted between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. Construction may not occur at anytime on Sunday or a federal holiday. Therefore, although there are no construction standards for noise generation, all construction activity is required to be conducted in accordance with the City of Santa Ana Municipal Code. The existing residences at Buildings A and C of Town and Country Manor would be located adjacent to construction associated with proposed main entrance drive and parking modifications, expanded lobby, and aquatic and wellness center. At a distance of 1 foot (the distance used to calculate the noise level at Buildings A and C), the noise level at the residences would be 122 dB. According to Table 4.5 -1, regular exposure to this noise level over one minute risks permanent hearing loss. The existing residences at Building B of Town and Country Manor would be located 15 feet from 4.5 -10 Michael Bmndman Associates H\Clievt(PN -Rn) 327b327WMDEMVB270030 Sec0 Noi�. City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Noise construction associated with the same main entrance drive and parking modifications, and one of the project structures, resulting in a noise level at the residences of 100 dB, which would be considered very annoying and would cause hearing damage at sustained exposure levels. The existing residences at Buildings A, B, C, D, E, and G of Town and Country Manor would be located less than 10 feet from construction associated with the proposed parking lots to the east and south. At a distance of 10 feet, the noise level at the residences would be 104 dB. According to Table 4.5 -1, this noise level would be considered very annoying and would cause hearing damage at sustained exposure levels. Construction associated with the proposed parking lots would be of short duration. Therefore, while the noise levels experienced at Buildings B, D, E, and G associated with the parking lots would be significant at a level of 104 dB, and noise levels experienced at Buildings A and C would be 122 dB, these noise levels would be very short in duration. Existing residences at Buildings A and B would be located 40 feet from construction activities associated with the 8 -story tower and subterranean parking, which would likely require use of a pile driver. At a distance of 40 feet, the noise levels at the residences from pile driver use would be 104 dB. In addition, worshipers at the Community Bible Church would be located 65 feet from construction activities associated with the 8 -story tower and subterranean parking. At a distance of 65 feet, the noise levels at the Community Bible Church from pile driver use would be 100 dB. According to Table 4.5 -1, these noise levels would be considered very annoying and would cause hearing damage at sustained exposure levels. With the implementation of the noise attenuation measures in Mitigation Measures N -land N -2, construction noise would be reduced. With mitigation, the construction noise at the single - family homes east of Memory Lane would be reduced to below the normally compatible standard of 65 dBA CNEL for residential uses as shown in Table 4.5 -5. However, for the remaining identified sensitive receptors, construction noise would remain above the normally compatible standard of 65 dBA CNEL for residential uses. For Buildings A and C, a noise level of 116 would remain very annoying and would cause maximum vocal effect and physical discomfort. The implementation of the noise attenuation measures in Mitigation Measures N -1 and N -2 would reduce noise levels. Also, there are no standards for construction noise. Therefore, impacts are considered to be less than significant. Long -Term Noise The ongoing operation of the proposed project would be affected by long -term ambient noise sources. Potential noise impacts associated with the operations of the proposed project are the result of project - generated vehicular traffic on project - vicinity roadways, along with community noise potentially impacting the project site. Based on the nature of the nearby roadways and the relatively low noise levels at the nearby community facilities, these noise sources would not expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards. Michael Brandman Associates 4.5 -11 H\Cl t(PN -Rn) 327b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec0 Noi�.doc City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Noise Draft OR Based on noise modeling using traffic data contained in the Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc., June 2009 Traffic Impact Analysis (see Impact 4.5 -3), future noise conditions with and without the project were compared to existing ambient conditions at the project site. Future noise levels for both year 2013 and 2030 with the project would not experience a substantial increase in noise levels of 3 dBA or greater (based on Caltrans standards) when compared with conditions without the project. The land use standards establish the acceptable range of ambient noise levels for residential developments within the City of Santa Ana, as well as for residential uses (applicable to the residences near the project site). The highest future noise level increase predicted for the project is along Lawson Way south of Town and Country Road. The noise level along this roadway segment is estimated to increase by 0.3 dBA CNEL in 2013 and 0.1 dBA CNEL in 2030 with the proposed project, which is below the thresholds of significance described above. The offsite traffic noise impacts would create a less than significant impact. At their closest distance, Amtrak trains run approximately 1,800 feet east of the project site. Farther south along the tracks, there is a train crossing approximately 2,000 feet east of the project site, at which, trains would likely blow their horns for safety purposes. A locomotive can generate noise levels of 80 dBA at 50 feet. According to the Federal Railroad Administration, a locomotive horn can generate noise levels up to 115 dBA at 100 feet. Existing noise from the train horns will affect the new residents of the proposed residential tower even at this larger distance. Using a reduction of 3 dB for every doubling of distance as described on page 4.5 -3, exterior noise levels at the proposed tower would be approximately 65 dBA from passing trains and as high as 103 dBA from horns. Exterior noise levels of 65 dBA for passing trains is within acceptable levels; however, 103 dBA exceeds acceptable levels. Indoor noise levels would be approximately 20 dB less and, similar to exterior noise levels, would be within acceptable standards for passing trains but not for train horns. Although these are existing noise levels that are not generated as a result of the project, the project would introduce sensitive receptors (future residents) to exterior and interior noise levels in excess of applicable standards resulting in a potentially significant impact. Disclosure of existing noise levels to potential residents of the proposed tower will be imposed as a mitigation measure of the project. Although this mitigation would not reduce existing noise levels from train horns, it would ensure that potential residents were informed of the existing condition. Because the noise levels in excess of standards are existing, of a short duration, and would not have adverse health effects, mitigation in the form of disclosure would reduce impacts to less than significant. Levei of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially significant. 4.5 -12 Michael Brandman Associates H\Clievt(PN -Rn) 327b327WMDEMVB270030 Sec0 Noi�. City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Noise Mitigation Measures N -1 When the grading permit application is submitted, the project applicant shall also submit a construction noise mitigation plan to the City of Santa Ana for review and approval. The plan shall depict the location of construction equipment and describe how noise would be mitigated through methods such as, but not limited to, locating stationary noise - generating equipment (such as pumps and generators) as far as possible from nearby noise - sensitive receptors. Where practicable, noise - generating equipment will be shielded from nearby noise - sensitive receptors by noise - attenuating buffers such as structures or haul trucks. Onsite noise sources such as heavy equipment located less than 200 feet from noise - sensitive receptors will be equipped with noise - reducing engine housings. Portable acoustic barriers able to attenuate at least 6 dB will be placed around stationary noise - generating equipment located within 200 feet of existing residences. Water tanks and equipment storage, staging, and warm -up areas shall be located as far from noise - sensitive receptors as possible. All noise attenuation measures identified in the plan shall be incorporated into the project. N -2 All construction equipment shall utilize noise reduction features (e.g., mufflers and engine shrouds) that are no less effective than those originally installed by the manufacturer. N -3 Disclosure of project proximity to Amtrak railroad tracks shall occur at the time of residential unit sale or lease, advising: • Owners /tenants of the proximity of the railroad tracks; • The frequency of daily railroad operations; and • When trains cross Fairhaven Avenue and blow their horn for safety purposes, noise levels outside the units, when residents are not in their units with windows and doors shut, would exceed noise standards. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. Excessive Groundborne Vibration Impact 4.5 -2 The project would result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. [CEQA Noise Threshold 11(b)] Impact Analysis This impact discussion analyzes the potential for short-term construction and long -term operational activities to cause excessive levels of groundborne vibration. Michael Brandman Associates 4.5 -13 H\Cl t(PN -Rn) 327b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec01 Noi�.doc City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Noise Draft EIR Construction Vibration Construction activities can produce vibration that may be felt by adjacent uses. The construction of the proposed project would primarily require the use of equipment such as bulldozers, backhoes, crawler tractors, jackhammers, and scrapers, and in some cases, would require the use of pile drivers, which are known to generate substantial construction vibration levels. Table 4.5 -6 provides vibration amplitudes for construction equipment. Table 4.5 -6: Vibration Source Amplitudes for Construction Equipment uipment 7Large rence PPV at 25 ft (in /sec) 0.65 0.210 Bulldozer 0.089 Caisson drilling 0.089 Loaded Trucks 0.076 Jackhammer 0.035 Small bulldozer 0.003 Crack-and-seat operations 2.4 Sources: Caltrans, Transportation- and- Constmction- Induced Vibration Guidance Manual, 2004. For most project construction, a vibratory roller would produce the greatest amount of vibration on the project site, with a 0.210 PPV at 25 feet. Construction of the 8 -story tower and subterranean parking would likely include the use of a pile driver. The pile driver would produce the greatest construction vibration at approximately 0.65 PPV at 25 feet. Because existing buildings vary in distance from anticipated equipment use, worst -case scenarios were analyzed separately for the use of a vibratory roller and for the use of a pile driver. Sensitive receptors in the project area are listed in Table 4.5 -3, along with distance from the project site to each sensitive receptor. Construction activities would include both single vibratory events and periods in which multiple or continuous vibration would occur. Therefore, construction impacts were assessed using the continuous /frequent intermittent structural damage vibration threshold of 0.5 PPV for construction. Table 4.5 -7 and Table 4.5 -8 provide the estimated construction vibration levels at the residences and other sensitive receptors. 4.5 -14 Michael Brandman Associates H\Clievt(PN -Rn) 327b327WMDEMVB270030 Sec0 Noi�. City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Table 4.5 -7: Estimated Construction Vibration Levels (Vibratory Roller) Noise Parking Area Paving' Project structures Predicted Predicted Maximum Maximum Peak Peak Particle Particle Velocity Velocity Structural Distance (inches /sec Distance (inchestsec Damage Nearest Sensitive Receptor (feet) ond) (feet) ond) Threshold Building A of Town and Country 10 0.53 Adjacent2 5.25 0.5 Manor Building B of Town and Country Manor 10 0.53 15 0.35 0.5 Building C of Town and Country 10 0.53 Adjacent2 5.25 0.5 Manor Building D of Town and Country Manor 10 0.53 170 0.03 0.5 Building E of Town and Country Manor 10 0.53 170 0.03 0.5 Building F of Town and Country 115 0.05 270 0.02 0.5 Manor Building G of Town and Country Manor 10 0.53 260 .02 0.5 Community Bible Church of Town and Country Manor 25 0.21 65 0.08 0.5 Residences at the City Place Mixed Use Development across 95 0.06 0.5 Lawson Way Santiago Park located across Memory Lane along the northern 115 0.05 0.5 border of the proposed project Single - family homes across Memory Lane off Santiago Street 500 0.01 0.5 CNI College in the City of Orange 250 0.02 0.5 Notes: 'Residences at Buildings B, D, E, and G of Town and Country Manor would be located less than 10 feet from construction associated with the proposed parking lots. This is calculated separately from the distance to buildings. 2 One foot is used as the distance to calculate vibration levels for the adjacent buildings. Source: Michael Brandman Associates, 2009. Michael Brandman Associates 4.5 -15 H\Cl t" JN)b327b327003MMVB270030 Sec0 Noi�.doc Noise CW of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Table 4.5.8: Estimated Construction Vibration Levels (Pile Driver) Proposed 8 -Story Tower and Subterranean Parking Predicted Maximum Peak JRecep Particle Structural is Velocity Damage Distance (feet) (inches /second) Threshold Building A of Town and Country Manor 40 feet to the east 1.12 0.5 Building B of Town and Country Manor 40 feet to the east 1.12 0.5 Building C of Town and Country Manor 195 feet to the east 0.196 0.5 Building D of Town and Country Manor 180 feet to the east 0.214 0.5 Building E of Town and Country Manor 350 feet to the east 0.103 0.5 Building F of Town and Country Manor 435 feet to the east 0.081 0.5 Building G of Town and Country Manor 450 feet to the east 0.078 0.5 Community Bible Church of Town and Country 65 feet to the north Manor 0.656 0.5 Residences at the City Place Mixed Use 95 feet to the west Development across Lawson Way 0.432 0.5 Santiago Park located across Memory Lane 115 feet to the south from the proposed project 0.350 0.5 Single - family homes across Memory Lane off 500 feet to the east Santiago Street 0.069 0.5 CNI College located at 986 Town and Country 250 feet to the north 0.149 0.5 Road in the City of Orange Notes: PPV calculations for pile drivers require the rated energy of the pile driver, which was not available. Typical pile drivers are in the range of 20,000- 300,000 (ft -lbs). 300,000 (ft4bs) was used to estimate the PPV from pile drivers used for construction of the proposed project. Source: Michael Brandman Associates, 2009. The nearest residential receptors to project structures would be expected to experience a maximum vibration of 5.25 PPV from the vibratory roller, and the nearest residential receptor to the 8 -story tower would be expected to experience a maximum vibration of 1.12 PPV from the pile driver. Both are above the 0.5 PPV significance level for potential structural damage according to Table 4.5 -2, and would cause severe human response. The maximum vibration the nearest residential receptors to parking lot paving areas would be expected to experience is 0.53 PPV, which is also above the 0.5 PPV significance level for potential structural damage. The building construction vibration level of 5.25 PPV represents a potentially significant impact to the residents of Buildings A and C of Town and Country Manor. Further, the parking lot paving vibration level of 0.53 PPV represents a potentially significant impact to the residents of Buildings A, B, C, D, E, and G of Town and Country Manor, and vibration levels in excess of 0.5 PPV resulting 4.5 -16 Michael Bmndman Associates H\ Clievt (PN- JN)b32]b32]003MEMVB2]0030 Sec01 Noi�. City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Noise from pile driver use would result in a potentially significant impact to residents of Buildings A and B, and worshipers at the Community Bible Church. Vibration at the other nearby sensitive receptors would be below the significance level for potential structural damage. Mitigation is provided which would prohibit the applicant from conducting grading and paving activities within a distance of Buildings A, B, C, D, E, and G of Town and Country Manor that would result in vibration levels above the significance level of 0.5 PPV. Mitigation is also identified that would provide alternate indoor living spaces to residents of the buildings during the hours of construction when a vibratory roller is to be used within 10.5 feet of the buildings. In addition, mitigation is identified for when pile drivers are in use that would provide alternate indoor living space during the hours of construction to residents of buildings A and B, and provide alternate spaces for worship. Alternately, vibration from pile drivers can be reduced using Caltrans procedures, as provided in Chapter 8 of the Caltrans Transportation- and - Construction- Induced Vibration Guidance Manual. Implementation of the mitigation would ensure that vibration would be below the standards and therefore less than significant. Operational Vibration Implementation of the proposed project would result in construction of a residential tower to include 174 units. Although frequency of delivery trucks to Town and Country Manor would be expected to increase based on the addition of the new tower, impacts from vibration would not be expected to exceed a level of less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially significant. Mitigation Measures N4 Vibratory rollers shall not be used within 10.5 feet of any sensitive receptors during any phase of construction in order to prevent construction vibration levels from reaching above the 0.5 PPV significance level for potential structural damage. Bulldozers (such as a Caterpillar D8) or other alternate equipment, which have vibration levels below that of vibratory rollers, shall be used for grading within 10.5 feet of sensitive receptors. N -5 Residents of Buildings A, B, C, D, E, and G of Town and Country Manor shall be provided access to alternate indoor living spaces when grading activities proximate to their building are occurring that include the use of a vibratory roller within 10.5 feet of the respective building for the duration of use of the vibratory roller. N -6 Residents of Buildings A and B of Town and Country Manor shall be provided access to alternate indoor living spaces when pile drivers are in use. An alternative location shall also be provided for worship services, bible studies, and devotionals during periods of pile driver use; and/or Michael Brandman Associates 4.5 -17 H\Cl t(PN- JN)b327b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec01 Noi�.doc City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Noise Draft EIR One or more method /s for reducing vibration from pile drivers as provided in Chapter 8 of the Caltrans Transportation- and - Construction- Induced Vibration Guidance Manual shall be implemented such that groundborne vibration shall not exceed 0.5 PPV at any existing sensitive receptor. A detailed approach for reducing groundbome vibration shall be provided to the City of Santa Ana as part of the construction noise mitigation plan required in Mitigation Measure N -1, to be submitted at the time of the grading permit application. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels Impact 4.5 -3 The project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. [CEQA Noise Threshold 11(c)] Impact Analysis This impact discussion analyzes the potential for a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity associated with operation of the proposed project, including impacts related to offsite vehicular noise and exposure of neighboring land uses to stationary noise. The ongoing operation of the proposed project would be affected by long -term ambient noise sources. Potential noise impacts associated with the operations of the proposed project are the result of project - generated vehicular traffic on project - vicinity roadways, along with impacts from community noise on the project site. Community Noise Sources of stationary noise from the project site may include typical community noise such as dogs barking, loud conversation, and car doors slamming which is considered intermittent, and would not represent a substantial contribution to the ambient noise levels. Noise from community activities would not be expected to result in a substantial increase in noise levels or exceed any applicable noise standards. Noise from community activities would not expose the future receptors at the project site to substantial noise levels. Likewise, the proposed residences are not expected to generate noise levels that would affect existing sensitive receptors. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Vehicular Noise Long -term noise impacts would result from vehicle traffic associated with the project. City of Santa Ana noise standards are established in the City of Santa Ana General Plan Noise Element (2000), similar to the State of California Office of Noise Control model element guidelines, upon which most standards are now based. As shown in Table 4.5 -5, which shows the City of Santa Ana's Land Use 4.5 -18 Michael Brandman Associates H\Clievt(PN -Rn) 327b327WMDEMVB270030 Sec01 Noi�. City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Noise Standards, City noise standards provide the acceptable range of ambient noise levels for residential developments within the City. Exterior noise levels are normally compatible at 65 dB CNEL for residential uses. Noise Potential offsite traffic noise impacts created by the ongoing operations of the proposed project have been analyzed through utilization of the FI WA Traffic Noise Prediction Model FI WA- ROAD -77- 108, and the average daily traffic volumes obtained from the Traffic Impact Analysis (Appendix G of this EIR). Potential offsite noise impacts caused by an increase in vehicular traffic from project operations onto study area roadways have been analyzed for the following five traffic scenarios: • Existing: This scenario refers to the existing traffic noise conditions, without construction of the proposed project. • Year 2013 Baseline: This scenario refers to the future traffic noise conditions based on the existing conditions plus an area growth rate and traffic from nearby approved projects, without construction of the proposed project. • Year 2013 With Project: This scenario refers to the future traffic noise conditions based on the Year 2013 Background Baseline conditions plus the traffic generated from the on -going operations of the proposed project. • Year 2030 Baseline: This scenario refers to the future traffic noise conditions based on the General Plan buildout conditions for the Year 2030, without construction of the proposed project. • Year 2030 With Project: This scenario refers to the future traffic noise conditions based on the General Plan buildout conditions for the Year 2030, plus the traffic generated from the on- going operations of the proposed project. In order to quantify traffic noise impacts along the analyzed roadways, the roadway noise contours were calculated. Noise contours represent the distance to noise levels of a constant value and are measured from the center of the roadway. For analysis comparison purposes, the Ldn and CNEL noise levels are calculated at 50 feet from the centerline. In addition, the distance from the centerline to the 55, 60, 65, and 70 dBA noise levels are calculated for both Ldn and CNEL standards. Existing Conditions The noise contours of the nearby existing roadway have been calculated in order to provide a baseline of the existing traffic noise levels. The calculated existing noise contours are shown below in Table 4.5 -9 and Appendix E. Michael Brandman Associates 4.5 -19 H\Cl t(PN -Rn) 327b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec01 Noi�.doc Noise City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Table 4.5.9: Existing Roadway Noise Levels Table 4.5 -9 above shows that at 100 feet, all analyzed segments of Main Street and La Veta Avenue east of Main Street currently exceeds the City's 65 dBA CNEL residential standard. Existing noise levels on all roadway segments range from 54.8 to 67.2 dBA CNEL. Year 2013 Baseline Conditions The calculated year 2013 baseline noise contours are shown below in Table 4.5 -10 and Appendix E. Table 4.5.10: Year 2013 Baseline Noise Contours Distance to Contour (feet) Oftlo.ment CNEL at 70 65 60 55 100 feet dBA dBA dBA dBA Roadway (dBA) EL C North of Town and Main Street Country Road 67.2 65 139 300 646 Main Street North of Memory Lane 66.0 RW 117 252 543 South of Town and Lawson Way Country Road 54.8 RW RW 45 96 Lawson Way Country Road Parker Street North of Town and 58.9 RW 39 85 183 Parker Street Country Road 58.6 RW 37 80 173 La Veta Avenue East of Main Street 65.1 47 101 217 468 La Veta Avenue West of Parker Street 63.0 RW 73 158 340 Town and Country Road East of Main Street 61.4 RW 58 124 268 Town and Country Road West of Parker Street 57.6 RW RW 70 150 Memory Lane East of Main Street 59.5 RW RW 93 199 South of Town and Memory Lane Country Road 55.1 RW RW 47 102 Notes: RW —Noise contour is located within right -of -way of roadway. Source: Michael Brandman Associates, 2009. Table 4.5 -9 above shows that at 100 feet, all analyzed segments of Main Street and La Veta Avenue east of Main Street currently exceeds the City's 65 dBA CNEL residential standard. Existing noise levels on all roadway segments range from 54.8 to 67.2 dBA CNEL. Year 2013 Baseline Conditions The calculated year 2013 baseline noise contours are shown below in Table 4.5 -10 and Appendix E. Table 4.5.10: Year 2013 Baseline Noise Contours 4.5 -20 Michael Brandman Associates H\ Clievt "JN)b32]b32]0030\DERib32]0030 Sec0 Noi�. Distance to Contour (feet) CNEL at 70 65 60 55 100 feet dBA dBA dBA dBA Roadway Segment (dBA) CNEL CNEL CNEL CNEL North of Town and Main Street Country Road 68.3 77 166 357 770 Main Street North of Memory Lane 67.2 65 139 300 647 South of Town and Lawson Way Country Road 56.6 RW RW 60 129 North of Town and Parker Street Country Road 58.9 RW 39 85 183 4.5 -20 Michael Brandman Associates H\ Clievt "JN)b32]b32]0030\DERib32]0030 Sec0 Noi�. City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Table 4.5.10 (cont.): Year 2013 Baseline Noise Contours Noise Table 4.5 -10 shows that for the year 2013 baseline condition at 100 feet, only the analyzed roadway segments of Main Street and La Veta Avenue east of Main Street would exceed the City's 65 dBA CNEL residential standard. The noise levels on all roadway segments would range from 55.6 to 68.3 dBA CNEL. Year 2013 With Project Conditions The calculated year 2013 with project noise contours are shown below in Table 4.5 -11 and Appendix E. Table 4.5 -11: Year 2013 With Project Noise Contours Distance to Contour (feet) Distance to Contour (feet) CNEL at 70 65 60 55 CNELat 70 65 60 55 North of Town and 100 feet dBA dBA dBA dBA Roadway Segment (dBA) CNEL CN CNEL 359 ILa eta Ave nue East of Main Street 65.3 49 105 226 487 eta Avenue West of Parker Street 63.3 RW 77 166 357 n and Country Road East of Main Street 61.8 RW 61 131 282 Town and Country Road West of Parker Street 58.1 RW RW 74 160 Memory Lane East of Main Street 61.0 RW RW 116 251 184 South of Town and East of Main Street 65.3 49 105 227 Memory Lane Country Road 55.6 RW RW 51 110 Notes: RW —Noise contour is located within right -of -way of roadway. Source: Michael Brandman Associates, 2009. Table 4.5 -10 shows that for the year 2013 baseline condition at 100 feet, only the analyzed roadway segments of Main Street and La Veta Avenue east of Main Street would exceed the City's 65 dBA CNEL residential standard. The noise levels on all roadway segments would range from 55.6 to 68.3 dBA CNEL. Year 2013 With Project Conditions The calculated year 2013 with project noise contours are shown below in Table 4.5 -11 and Appendix E. Table 4.5 -11: Year 2013 With Project Noise Contours Michael Brandman Associates 4.5 -21 H\Cl t(PN- JN)b327b32]003MHRb32]0030 Sec0 Noi�.doc Distance to Contour (feet) CNEL at 70 65 60 55 100 feet dBA dBA dBA dBA Segment (dBA) CNEL CNE North of Town and Main Street Country Road 68.3 77 166 359 773 Main Street North of Memory Lane 67.2 65 140 301 648 South of Town and Lawson Way Country Road 56.9 RW RW 63 135 North of Town and Parker Street Country Road 59.0 RW 40 85 184 La Veta Avenue East of Main Street 65.3 49 105 227 488 La Veta Avenue West of Parker Street 63.3 RW 77 166 358 Town and Country Road East of Main Street 61.8 RW 61 131 283 Town and Country Road West of Parker Street 58.1 RW RW 74 160 Michael Brandman Associates 4.5 -21 H\Cl t(PN- JN)b327b32]003MHRb32]0030 Sec0 Noi�.doc Noise Cny of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Table 4.5.11 (cont.): Year 2013 With Project Noise Contours Table 4.5 -11 shows that for the year 2013 with project condition at 100 feet, when compared to the year 2013 baseline condition, no additional roadway segments would exceed the City's 65 dBA CNEL residential standard. The noise levels on all roadway segments would range from 55.6 to 68.3 dBA CNEL. Year 2030 Baseline Conditions The calculated year 2030 baseline noise contours are shown below in Table 4.5 -12 and Appendix E. Table 4.5.12: Year 2030 Baseline Noise Contours Distance to Contour (feet) Distance to Contour (feet) CNEL at 70 65 60 55 CNEL at 70 65 60 55 North of Town and 100 feet dBA dBA dBA dBA Roadway Segment (dBA) CNEL CNEL CNEL CNE Memory Lane East of Main Street 61.1 RW RW 119 255 721 South of Town and South of Town and Memory Lane Country Road 55.8 RW RW 53 113 Notes: RW —Noise contour is located within right -of -way of roadway. North of Town and Source: Michael Brandman Associates, 2009. Parker Street Country Road 62.4 31 Table 4.5 -11 shows that for the year 2013 with project condition at 100 feet, when compared to the year 2013 baseline condition, no additional roadway segments would exceed the City's 65 dBA CNEL residential standard. The noise levels on all roadway segments would range from 55.6 to 68.3 dBA CNEL. Year 2030 Baseline Conditions The calculated year 2030 baseline noise contours are shown below in Table 4.5 -12 and Appendix E. Table 4.5.12: Year 2030 Baseline Noise Contours 4.5 -22 Michael Brandman Associates H\Clievt(P RnJ 327b327WMDEIRb32]0030 Sec0 Noi�. Distance to Contour (feet) CNEL at 70 65 60 55 100 feet dBA dBA dBA dBA oadway Segment (dBA) CNEL CNEL CNEL CNEL North of Town and Main Street Country Road 67.7 70 151 325 700 Main Street North of Memory Lane 67.9 72 155 335 721 South of Town and Lawson Way Country Road 60.5 RW 50 109 234 North of Town and Parker Street Country Road 62.4 31 67 144 310 La Veta Avenue East of Main Street 64.5 43 93 200 430 La Veta Avenue West of Parker Street 64.7 44 95 206 443 Town and Country Road East of Main Street 62.0 RW 63 135 292 Town and Country Road West of Parker Street 61.5 RW 59 126 272 Memory Lane East of Main Street 61.3 RW RW 121 261 South of Town and 59.4 RW 42 91 196 Memory Lane Country Road Notes: RW —Noise contour is located within right -of -way of roadway. Source: Michael Brandman Associates, 2009. 4.5 -22 Michael Brandman Associates H\Clievt(P RnJ 327b327WMDEIRb32]0030 Sec0 Noi�. City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Noise Table 4.5 -12 shows that for the year 2030 baseline condition at 100 feet, only the analyzed roadway segments of Main Street would exceed the City's 65 dBA CNEL residential standard. The noise levels on all roadway segments would range from 59.4 to 67.9 dBA CNEL. Year 2030 With Project Conditions The calculated year 2030 with project noise contours are shown below in Table 4.5 -13 and Appendix E. Table 4.6.13: Year 2030 With Project Noise Contours Table 4.5 -13 shows that for the year 2030 with project condition at 100 feet, when compared to the year 2030 baseline condition, no additional roadway segments would exceed the City's 65 dBA CNEL residential standard. The noise levels on all roadway segments would range from 59.5 to 67.9 dBA CNEL. Project Impacts The proposed project's offsite traffic noise impacts have been analyzed for the year 2013 background and cumulative conditions, which are discussed below. Michael Brandman Associates 4.5 -23 H\Cl t(PN- JN)b327b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec0 Noi�.doc Distance to Contour (feet) CNEL at 70 65 60 100 feet dBA ANdm Roadway Segment (dBA) CNEL North of Town and Main Street Country Road 67.7 70 151 326 701 Main Street North of Memory Lane 67.9 72 156 335 722 South of Town and Lawson Way Country Road 60.6 RW 51 110 238 North of Town and Parker Street Country Road 62.4 31 67 144 310 La Veta Avenue East of Main Street 64.5 43 93 200 431 La Veta Avenue West of Parker Street 64.7 44 96 206 444 Town and Country Road East of Main Street 62.0 RW 63 137 294 Town and Country Road West of Parker Street 61.5 RW 59 126 272 Memory Lane East of Main Street 61.4 RW RW 123 266 South of Town and Memory Lane Country Road 59.5 RW 43 92 199 Notes: RW —Noise contour is located within right -of -way of roadway. Source: Michael Brandman Associates, 2009. Table 4.5 -13 shows that for the year 2030 with project condition at 100 feet, when compared to the year 2030 baseline condition, no additional roadway segments would exceed the City's 65 dBA CNEL residential standard. The noise levels on all roadway segments would range from 59.5 to 67.9 dBA CNEL. Project Impacts The proposed project's offsite traffic noise impacts have been analyzed for the year 2013 background and cumulative conditions, which are discussed below. Michael Brandman Associates 4.5 -23 H\Cl t(PN- JN)b327b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec0 Noi�.doc Noise Year 2013 Conditions City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR The proposed project's potential offsite noise impacts have been calculated through a comparison of the year 2013 baseline scenario to the year 2013 plus project scenario. The results of this comparison are shown below in Table 4.5 -14. Table 4.5.14: Year 2013 Project Traffic Noise Contributions CNEL at 100 feet Potential No With Project Significant Roadway Segment Project Project Contribution Impact? Main Street North of Town and Country Road 68.3 68.3 0.0 No Main Street North of Memory Lane 67.2 67.2 0.0 No Lawson Way South of Town and Country Road 56.6 56.9 0.3 No Parker Street North of Town and Country Road 58.9 59.0 0.1 No La Veta Avenue East of Main Street 65.3 65.3 0.0 No La Veta Avenue West of Parker Street 63.3 63.3 0.0 No Town and Country Road East of Main Street 61.8 61.8 0.0 No Town and Country Road West of Parker Street 58.1 58.1 0.0 No Memory Lane East of Main Street 61.0 61.1 0.1 No Memory Lane South of Town and Country Road 55.6 55.8 0.2 No Source: Michael Brandman Associates, 2009. Table 4.5 -14 above indicates that for the year 2013 conditions, the noise level contributions from the proposed project to the study area roadways would range from 0.0 to 0.3 dBA CNEL. A 0.3 dBA noise increase would occur on Lawson Way south of Town and Country Road where the baseline noise level is 56.6 dBA CNEL. None of the roadway segments would exceed the thresholds of significance discussed above. Therefore, based on thresholds of significance defined above, no significant offsite noise impacts from project - related vehicle noise would occur along the study area roadways segments for the year 2013 conditions. Year 2030 Conditions The proposed project's potential offsite noise impacts have been calculated through a comparison of the year 2030 baseline scenario to the year 2030 plus project scenario. The results of this comparison are shown below in Table 4.5 -15. 4.5 -24 Michael Brandman Associates H\Clievt(PN -Rn) 327b327WMDEMVB270030 Sec0 Noi�. City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Noise Table 4.5.15: Year 2030 Project Traffic Noise Contributions CNEL at 100 feet Table 4.5 -15 above indicates that for the year 2030 conditions, the noise level contributions from the proposed project to the study area roadways would range from 0.0 to 0.1 dBA CNEL. A 0.1 dBA noise increase would occur on Lawson Way south of Town and Country Road, and both analyzed segments of Memory Lane. None of the roadway segments would exceed the thresholds of significance discussed above. Therefore, based on thresholds of significance defined above, no significant offsite noise impacts from project - related vehicle noise would occur along the study area roadways segments for the year 2030 conditions. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. Michael Brandman Associates 4.5 -25 H\Cl t(PN- JN)b327b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec0 Noi�.doc Potential No With Project Significant Roadway Segment Project Project -on Impact? Monrovia Avenue North of 16th Street 55.8 55.9 0.1 No North of Town and Main Street Country Road 67.7 67.7 0.0 No Main Street North of Memory Lane 67.9 67.9 0.0 No South of Town and Lawson Way Country Road 60.5 60.6 0.1 No North of Town and Parker Street Country Road 62.4 62.4 0.0 No La Veta Avenue East of Main Street 64.5 64.5 0.0 No La Veta Avenue West of Parker Street 64.7 64.7 0.0 No Town and Country Road East of Main Street 62.0 62.0 0.0 No Town and Country Road West of Parker Street 61.5 61.5 0.0 No Memory Lane East of Main Street 61.3 61.4 0.1 No South of Town and Memory Lane Country Road 59.4 59.5 0.1 No Source: Michael Brundman Associates, 2009. Table 4.5 -15 above indicates that for the year 2030 conditions, the noise level contributions from the proposed project to the study area roadways would range from 0.0 to 0.1 dBA CNEL. A 0.1 dBA noise increase would occur on Lawson Way south of Town and Country Road, and both analyzed segments of Memory Lane. None of the roadway segments would exceed the thresholds of significance discussed above. Therefore, based on thresholds of significance defined above, no significant offsite noise impacts from project - related vehicle noise would occur along the study area roadways segments for the year 2030 conditions. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. Michael Brandman Associates 4.5 -25 H\Cl t(PN- JN)b327b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec0 Noi�.doc Noise City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Temporary or Periodic Increase in Ambient Noise Levels Impact 4.5-4 The project would result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. [CEQA Noise Threshold 11(d)] Impact Analysis This impact discussion analyzes the potential for project construction noise to cause a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity. Construction noise represents a short-term increase in ambient noise levels. Noise impacts from construction activities associated with the proposed project would be a function of the noise generated by construction equipment, equipment location, the sensitivity of nearby land uses, and the timing and duration of the construction activities. Short-term noise impacts could occur during construction activities either from the noise impacts created from the transport of workers and movement of construction materials to and from the project site, or from the noise generated onsite during demolition, ground clearing, excavation, grading, and other construction activities. Table 4.5 -16 lists typical construction equipment noise levels for equipment that would be used during construction of the proposed project. Construction activities are carried out in discrete steps, each of which has a unique mix of equipment and, consequently, unique noise characteristics. These sequential phases would change the character of the noise levels surrounding the construction site as work progresses. Because existing buildings vary in distance from anticipated equipment use, worst - case scenarios were analyzed separately for use of a scraper and pile driver. Despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow noise ranges to be categorized by work phase. Table 4.5.16: Noise Associated with Typical Construction Equipment NEELConstruction Phases Grader Backhoe Maximum Noise Levels &asured (dBA at 50 feet) 85 80 Pneumatic tools 85 Air compressor 81 Crane 83 Compactor 82 Concrete vibrator 76 Trucks 88 Jack hammer 88 Pile driver 101 Scraper 89 Source: Federal Transit Administration, 2006. 4.5 -26 Michael Brandman Associates H\Clievt(PN -Rn) 327b327WMDEMVB270030 Sec0 Noi�. City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Noise On the basis of their proximity to the project site, existing residential land uses within Town and Country Manor and surrounding the project site are the sensitive receptors of most concern as they relate to project construction noise. Table 4.5 -17 and Table 4.5 -18 provide the estimated maximum noise levels each existing sensitive receptor would be expected to experience during construction. Note that construction noise often varies significantly on a day -to -day basis, and the noise levels shown in the table represent a worst -case scenario. Table 4.5 -17: Estimated Unmitigated Construction Noise Levels at Sensitive Receptors (Scraper) Parking Area Paving' Project Structures I Maximum Maximu hm Noise m Noise Distance LevelS2 Distance Levels (Lm dB) (feet) (L.., dB) Building A of Town and Country Manor 10 104 Adjacent' 122 Building B of Town and Country Manor 10 104 15 100 Building C of Town and Country Manor 10 104 Adjacent' 122 Building D of Town and Country Manor 10 104 170 79 Building E of Town and Country Manor 10 104 170 79 Building F of Town and Country Manor 115 83 270 74 Building G of Town and Country Manor 10 104 260 75 Community Bible Church of Town and Country 25 95 65 87 Manor Residences at the City Place Mixed Use 95 84 Development across Lawson Way Santiago Park located across Memory Lane along the northern border of the proposed 115 83 project Single - family homes across Memory Lane off 500 70 Santiago Street CNI College in the City of Orange 250 76 Notes: 1. Residences at Buildings B, D, E, and G of Town and Country Manor would be located less than 10 feet from construction associated with the proposed parking lots. This is calculated separately from the distance to buildings. 2. Noise levels based on construction noise at 89 dB measured at 50 feet from project site; assumes a 6 -dB reduction for each doubling of distance. Noise levels in this table depict peak levels and do not predict the 24 -hour weighted average (CNEL). 3. 1 foot is used as the distance to calculate noise levels for the adjacent buildings. Source: Michael Brand r n Associates, 2009. Michael Brandman Associates 4.5 -27 H\Cl t" JN)b32]b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec01 Noi�.doc Noise City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Table 4.5.18: Estimated Unmitigated Construction Noise Levels at Sensitive Receptors (Pile Driver) Maximum noise levels resulting from construction of project structures are estimated to be 122 dB at the residences in Building A of Town and Country Manor; 104 dB at residences in Building B of Town and Country Manor; 122 dB at residences in Building C of Town and Country Manor; 91 dB at the residences in Building D of Town and Country Manor; 85 dB at residences at Building E of Town and Country Manor; 82 at the residences at Building F of Town and Country Manor; 82 dB at the residences at Building G of Town and Country Manor; 100 dB at the Community Bible Church; 96 dB at residences at the City Place Mixed Use Development across Lawson Way; 95 dB at Santiago Park located across Memory Lane; 82 dB at the single - family homes across Memory Lane off Santiago Street; and 88 dB at CNI College located at 986 Town and Country Road in the City of Orange. With the exception of Buildings A and C, maximum noise levels resulting from construction activities associated with project structures would be from pile driver use. In the case of Buildings A and C, maximum noise levels would be from other construction equipment such as a scraper. 4.5 -28 Michael Brandman Associates H\ Clievt (PN- JN)b32]b32]0030\DEMVB2]0030 Sec0 Noi�. Proposed 8 -Story Tower and Subterranean Parking Receptor Distance (feet) 40 feet to the east Maximum Noise Levels' (L.., dB) Building A of Town and Country Manor 104 Building B of Town and Country Manor 40 feet to the east 104 Building C of Town and Country Manor 195 feet to the east 89 Building D of Town and Country Manor 180 feet to the east 91 Building E of Town and Country Manor 350 feet to the east 85 Building F of Town and Country Manor 435 feet to the east 82 Building G of Town and Country Manor 450 feet to the east 82 Community Bible Church of Town and 65 feet to the north 100 Country Manor Residences at the City Place Mixed Use 95 feet to the west 96 Development across Lawson Way Santiago Park located across Memory Lane 115 feet to the south along the northern border of the proposed 95 project Single - family homes across Memory Lane 500 feet to the east 82 off Santiago Street CNI College in the City of Orange 250 feet to the north 88 in the City of Orange Notes: 1. Noise levels based on construction noise at 101 dB measured at 50 feet from proposed 8 -foot tower; assumes a 6 -dB reduction for each doubling of distance. Noise levels in this table depict peak levels and do not predict the 24 -hour weighted average (CNEL). Source: Michael Brandman Associates, 2009. Maximum noise levels resulting from construction of project structures are estimated to be 122 dB at the residences in Building A of Town and Country Manor; 104 dB at residences in Building B of Town and Country Manor; 122 dB at residences in Building C of Town and Country Manor; 91 dB at the residences in Building D of Town and Country Manor; 85 dB at residences at Building E of Town and Country Manor; 82 at the residences at Building F of Town and Country Manor; 82 dB at the residences at Building G of Town and Country Manor; 100 dB at the Community Bible Church; 96 dB at residences at the City Place Mixed Use Development across Lawson Way; 95 dB at Santiago Park located across Memory Lane; 82 dB at the single - family homes across Memory Lane off Santiago Street; and 88 dB at CNI College located at 986 Town and Country Road in the City of Orange. With the exception of Buildings A and C, maximum noise levels resulting from construction activities associated with project structures would be from pile driver use. In the case of Buildings A and C, maximum noise levels would be from other construction equipment such as a scraper. 4.5 -28 Michael Brandman Associates H\ Clievt (PN- JN)b32]b32]0030\DEMVB2]0030 Sec0 Noi�. City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Noise The existing residences at Buildings A and C of Town and Country Manor would be located adjacent to construction associated with one of the project structures. At a distance of 1 foot (the distance used to calculate the noise level at Building A), the noise level at the residences would be 122 dB. According to Table 4.5 -1, regular exposure to this noise level over one minute risks permanent hearing loss. The existing residences at Building B of Town and Country Manor would be located 15 feet from construction associated with the same project structure, resulting in a noise level at the residences of 100 dB, which would be considered very annoying and would cause hearing damage at sustained exposure levels. Existing residences of Buildings A and B would be located 40 feet from the proposed 8 -foot tower and subterranean parking and would be exposed to noise levels of 104 dB from pile driver use. Worshipers at the Community Bible Church would be located 65 feet from the proposed 8 -foot tower and subterranean parking and would be exposed to noise levels of 100 dB resulting from pile driver use. According to Table 4.5 -1, these noise levels would be considered very annoying and would cause hearing damage at sustained exposure levels. The existing residences at Buildings A, B, C, D, E, and G of Town and Country Manor would be located less than 10 feet from construction associated with the proposed parking lots to the east or south. At a distance of 10 feet, the noise level at the residences would be 104 dB. According to Table 4.5 -1 this noise level would be considered very annoying and would cause hearing damage at sustained exposure levels. Construction associated with the proposed parking lots would be of short duration. Therefore, while the noise levels experienced at Buildings B, D, E, and G associated with the parking lots would be significant at a level of 104 dB, and noise levels experienced at Buildings A and C would be 122 dB, these noise levels would be very short lived. In order to minimize disruption to existing residents, all construction activity would be performed in accordance with the Santa Ana Municipal Code Noise requirements. Additionally, mitigation is provided that would require noise attenuation measures to be incorporated into the proposed project. Table 4.5 -19 and Table 4.5 -20 show the noise levels from construction after the application of mitigation measures that can be quantified, including distance requirements for construction activity and staging, and the use of portable acoustic barriers. Michael Brandman Associates 4.5 -29 H\Cl t(PN -Rn) 327b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec0 Noi�.doc Noise City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Table 4.5.19: Estimated Mitigated Construction Noise Levels at Sensitive Receptors (Scraper) Parking Area Paving' Project Structures Maximum Noise Maximum Distance Leve,S2 Distance Noise Levels Receptor (feet) (L.., dB) feet) (L.., dB) Building A of Town and Country Manor 10 98 Adjacent' 116 Building B of Town and Country Manor 10 98 15 94 Building C of Town and Country Manor 10 98 Adjacent' 116 Building D of Town and Country Manor 10 98 170 73 Building E of Town and Country Manor 10 98 170 73 Building F of Town and Country Manor 115 77 270 69 Building G of Town and Country Manor 10 98 260 69 Community Bible Church 25 89 65 81 Residences at the City Place Mixed Use 95 78 Development across Lawson Way Santiago Park located across Memory Lane along the northern border of the proposed 115 77 project Single - family homes across Memory Lane 500 64 off Santiago Street CNI College in the City of Orange 250 70 Notes: L Residences at Buildings B, D, E, and G of Town and Country Manor would be located less than 10 feet from construction associated with the proposed parking lots. This is calculated separately from the distance to buildings. 2. Noise levels based on construction noise at 90 dB measured at 50 feet from project site; assumes a 6 -dB reduction for each doubling of distance. Noise levels in this table depict peak levels and do not predict the 24 -hour weighted average (CNEL). 3. 1 foot is used as the distance to calculate noise levels for the adjacent buildings. Source: Michael Brandman Associates, 2009. 4.5 -30 Michael Bmndman Associates H\ Clievt "JN)b327b3270030\DER2b3270030 Sec01 Noi�. City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Noise Table 4.5.20: Estimated Mitigated Construction Noise Levels at Sensitive Receptors (Pile Driver) Proposed 8 -Story Tower and Subterranean Parking Distance (feet) Maximum Noise Levels' (L.., dB) Building A of Town and Country Manor 40 feet to the east 98 Building B of Town and Country Manor 40 feet to the east 98 Building C of Town and Country Manor 195 feet to the east 83 Building D of Town and Country Manor 180 feet to the east 85 Building E of Town and Country Manor 350 feet to the east 79 Building F of Town and Country Manor 435 feet to the east 76 Building G of Town and Country Manor 450 feet to the east 76 Community Bible Church of Town and 65 feet to the north 94 Country Manor Residences at the City Place Mixed Use 95 feet to the west 90 Development across Lawson Way Santiago Park located across Memory Lane along the northern border of the proposed 115 feet to the south 89 project Single - family homes across Memory Lane 500 feet to the east 76 off Santiago Street CNI College in the City of Orange 250 feet to the north 86 in the City of Orange Notes: 1. Noise levels based on construction noise at 101 dB measured at 50 feet from proposed 8 -foot tower; assumes a 6 -dB reduction for each doubling of distance. Noise levels in this table depict peak levels and do not predict the 24 -hour weighted average (CNEL). Source: Michael Brandman Associates, 2009. Hours of construction are required to comply with those established in Section 18- 314(1) of the City of Santa Ana Municipal Code. Those hours are weekdays and Saturdays from 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Construction is prohibited on Sundays and federal holidays. With the implementation of the noise attenuation measures in Mitigation Measures N -1 and N -2, construction noise would be reduced. With mitigation, the construction noise at the single - family homes east of Memory Lane would be reduced below the normally compatible standard of 65 dBA CNEL for residential uses. For the remaining identified sensitive receptors, construction noise would remain above the normally compatible standard of 65 dBA CNEL for residential uses. For Buildings A and C, which are located adjacent to the proposed expanded lobby, and proposed aquatic and wellness center, a noise level of 116 would remain very annoying and would cause maximum vocal effect and physical discomfort. Michael Brandman Associates 4.5 -31 H\Cl t(PN- JN)b32]b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec01 Noi�.doc Noise City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Implementation of noise attenuation measures outlined in project mitigation would reduce noise levels. Also, there are no standards for construction noise. Therefore, impacts are considered to be less than significant after mitigation. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially significant. Mitigation Measures Implement mitigation measures N -1, N -2, and N -6. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. Airport and Private Airstrip Noise Levels Impact 4.5 -5 For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, the project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, the project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. [CEQA Noise Threshold I I(e)] [CEQA Noise Threshold I I(f)] Impact Analysis This impact discussion analyzes the potential for nearby airports and nearby private airstrips to expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. The nearest airport to the project site is John Wayne Airport (JWA). JWA is approximately 6 miles from the project site. The site is not within the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Notification Area, lying outside the Noise Impact Zone. Noise from aircraft activity is, therefore, not considered a primary source of noise in the project area. There are no other airports or private airstrips in the project vicinity. Based on distance to existing nearby airports, and the expected noise level from those facilities, aircraft noise would not result in excessive noise at the project site and therefore impacts would be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures required. 4.5 -32 Michael Brandman Associates H\Clievt(PN -Rn) 327b327WMDEMVB270030 Sec0 Noi�. City of Santa Ana - Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. Cumulative Impacts Impact 4.5 -6 The project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts to noise. Noise The incremental increase in cumulative traffic noise in the project area from implementation of the proposed project is small. Future noise levels for year 2030 with the project would not experience a substantial increase in noise levels of 3 dBA or greater (based on Caltrans standards) when compared with conditions without the project. Table 4.5 -13 shows that for the year 2030 with project condition at 100 feet, when compared to the year 2030 baseline condition, no additional roadway segments would exceed the City's 65 dBA CNEL residential standard. The noise levels on all roadway segments would range from 59.5 to 67.9 dBA CNEL. Table 4.5 -15 indicates that for the year 2030 conditions, the noise level contributions from the proposed project to the study area roadways would range from 0.0 to 0.1 dBA CNEL. A 0.1 dBA noise increase would occur on Lawson Way south of Town and Country Road, and both analyzed segments of Memory Lane. None of the roadway segments would exceed the thresholds of significance, however. No significant offsite noise impacts from project - related vehicle noise would occur along the study area roadways segments for the year 2030 conditions. The project's incremental contribution to cumulative noise impacts in the project area is considered less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. Michael Brandman Associates 4.5 -33 H\Cl t (PN JN)b327b327W3MME 3270030 Sec0 Noi�.doc City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR 4.6 - Tranwortation and Traffic 4.6.1 - Introduction and Traffic This section describes the existing transportation and traffic setting and potential effects from project implementation on the site and its surrounding area. Descriptions and analysis in this section are based on information contained in the Traffic Impact Analysis for Proposed Park View at Town Country Manor, prepared in June 2009 by Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. (KHA 2009), and included in this Draft EIR as Appendix E. The scope of the analysis in the Traffic Impact Analysis was developed under the direction of the City of Santa Ana Transportation & Development Services Division and Planning and Building Agency staffs. The Traffic Impact Analysis also satisfies the traffic impact requirements of the County of Orange Congestion Management Program (CMP). Comment letters addressing transportation and traffic on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of the EIR for the Park View at Town and Country Manor project, contained in Appendix A, were received by the City of Santa Ana from: 1) Caltrans, requesting that: a. The project traffic impact analysis use the method outlined in the latest version of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) when analyzing traffic impacts on State Transportation Facilities; b. Specified software be utilized in the analysis; c. Analysis of the following segment types be analyzed within the influence area of the project: Merge /Diverge at On/Off Ramps; Weaving; Queuing and its effects at Off Ramps; and Mainline; and d. Analysis of the following intersections be included in the analysis: EB SR -22 On/Off Ramps at Town and Country; WB SR -22 On/Off Ramps at La Vera; NB I -5 Off Ramp at Main Street.; and SB I -5 Off Ramp at Main Street. 2) The City of Orange, requesting evaluation of project traffic on intersections and arterial segments in Orange. The project study area includes these intersections and arterial segments within the City of Orange, which were analyzed during the project Traffic Impact Analysis under the analysis scenarios requested by the City of Orange. The City of Orange also identified approved or pending projects that they felt could contribute to cumulative traffic impacts, which have been incorporated into the cumulative analysis in the project Traffic Impact Analysis contained in Appendix E. 3) Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), commenting that they currently have one route operating along Lawson Street and that there is an existing bus stop located along the Michael Brandman Associates 4.6 -1 H\Cl t(PN- JMb327b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec01 Tmspo md¢ City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor and Traffic Draft EIR western edge of the project site. OCTA requests that a standard size turnout be created in conjunction with the project and that OCTA be allowed to review preliminary plans in order to plot the exact location of the turnout. 4) Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County, indicating that, although the project site lies outside the Noise Impact Zones, Clear Zone, and Height Restriction Zone for John Wayne Airport, if building height is more than 200 feet above ground, the project must file with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The 8 -story project structure is 123 feet in height, and will not require filing with the FAA. All comments included in the NOP comment letters are addressed in the discussion and analyses contained within this section of the Draft FIR. 4.6.2 - Existing Conditions Methodology Signalized Intersections - Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Methodology In accordance with the City of Santa Ana and the County of Orange Congestion Management Program (CMP) requirements, peak hour operating conditions at the City - operated signalized intersections were evaluated using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology. The ICU methodology provides a comparison of the theoretical hourly vehicular capacity of an intersection to the number of vehicles actually passing through that intersection during a given hour. Based on the City of Santa Ana analysis criteria, the ICU calculation assumes a per -lane capacity of 1,700 vehicles per hour (vph) for each through travel lane and 1,600 for turning lanes through a non- CMP intersection. At CMP intersections, a capacity of 1,700 vph is used for all lanes. A clearance factor of 0.05 (5 percent) of the total intersection capacity is included in the ICU calculation, to account for the effect of the red and yellow signal phases at a signalized intersection. The ICU calculation generates a volume -to- capacity (V /C) ratio that translates into a corresponding Level of Service (LOS) measure, ranging from LOS A, representing uncongested, free- flowing conditions, to LOS F, representing over - capacity conditions. A summary description of each Level of Service and the corresponding V/C ratio is provided below in Table 4.6 -1. Table 4.6 -1: Level of Service Descriptions for Signalized Intersections - ICU Methodology of I ICU valullL� Description A 0.00-0.60 Excellent operation. All approaches to the intersection appear quite open, turning movements are easily made, and nearly all drivers find freedom of operation. 4.6 -2 Michael Brandman Associates H\Cl t(PN- Rnb327b32]0030DEai 3270030 Sec01 Tmspo md¢ City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR and Traffic Table 4.6.1 (cont.): Level of Service Descriptions for Signalized Intersections - ICU Methodology Level of Service ICU Value 0.61-0.70 Description Very good operation. This represents stable flow. Many drivers begin to feel B < 10.0 B somewhat restricted within platoons of vehicles. An approach to an Short traffic delays C intersection may occasionally be fully utilized and traffic queues start. C 0.71-0.80 Good operation. Occasionally drivers may have to wait more than 60 seconds, Long traffic delays and back -ups may develop behind taming vehicles. Most drivers feel somewhat restricted. D 0.81-0.90 Fair operation. Cars are sometimes required to wait more than 60 second during short peaks. There are no long - standing traffic queues. This level is typically associated with design practice for peak periods. E 0.91-1.00 Poor operation. Some long - standing vehicular queues develop on critical approaches to intersections. Delays may be up to several minutes. F Over 1.00 Forced flow. Represents jammed conditions. Back -up from locations downstream or on the cross street may restrict or prevent movement of vehicles out of the intersection approach lanes. Source: Traffic Impact Study and Parking Analysis for the Park View at Town & Country Manor, Kimley -Horn Associates, Inc., June 2009. Signalized Intersections - Highway Capacity Manuel (HCM) Methodology In accordance with Caltrans Traffic Impact Study Guidelines, all intersection controlled by Caltrans, such as signalized intersections at freeway ramps, were analyzed using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2000 methodology. The HCM methodology estimates the average delay (in average second per vehicle) for each of the movements through the intersection, depending on a number of factors, including number of lanes, volume of traffic, and signal timing. Just as with the ICU methodology, the HCM delay forecast translates to a Level of Service designation, ranging from LOS A to LOS F. The descriptions of operating conditions for each Level of Service are similar to the LOS descriptions for the ICU methodology. A summary description for each Level of Service for the HCM signalized intersection methodology, and the corresponding delay, expressed in seconds per vehicle, is provided below in Table 4.6 -2. Table 4.6.2: Level of Service Descriptions for Signalized Intersections - HCM Methodology Level of Service Delay I (second /vehicle ) Description Little or no delay A < 10.0 B > 10.0 - 20.0 Short traffic delays C > 20.0 - 35.0 Average traffic delays D > 35.0 - 50.0 Long traffic delays Michael Brandman Associates 4.6 -3 H\Cl t(PN- JMb327b32]003MHRb32]0030 Sec0 Tmspo md¢ City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor and Traffic Draft EIR Table 4.6.2 (cont.): Level of Service Descriptions for Signalized Intersections - HCM Methodology Level of Delay Description Service (second /vehicle) E > 50.0 - 80.0 Very long traffic delays F > 80.0 Severe congestion Source: Traffic Impact Study and Parking Analysis for the Park View at Town & Country Manor, Kimley -Horn Associates, Inc., June 2009. Unsignalized Intersections - Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Methodology Unsignalized intersections are analyzed using the HCM methodology for stop - controlled intersections. This methodology estimates the average delay (in average seconds per vehicle) for each of the movements to or from the minor street, and determines the level of service for each movement. Similar to the ICU methodology, the HCM delay forecast translates to a Level of Service designation, ranging from LOS A" to LOS F. A summary description of each Level of Service for unsignalized intersections and the corresponding delay, expressed in seconds per vehicle, is provided below in Table 4.6 -3. Table 4.6.3: Level of Service Descriptions for Unsignalized Intersections - HCM Methodology Column Title I Column Title A < 10.0 Little or no delay B > 10.0 — and < 15.0 Short traffic delays C > 15.0 and < 25.0 Average traffic delays D > 25.0 and < 35.0 Long traffic delays E > 35.0 and < 50.0 Very long traffic delays F > 50.0 Severe congestion Source: Traffic Impact Study and Parking Analysis for the Park View at Town & Country Manor, Kimley -Horn Associates, Inc., June 2009. Roadway Segments Analysis Methodology Roadway segments were analyzed using the methodology in the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) and the standards set in the City of Santa Ana Circulation Element as shown below. The level of service for a roadway segment is determined by its MPAH classification and the maximum average daily traffic criteria shown below in Table 4.6 -4. 4.64 Michael Bmndman Associates H\Cl t (PN- JMb327b32]0030DEERb32]0030 Sec01 Tmspo md¢ City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Table 4.6.4: Level of Service Descriptions Maximum Average Daily Traffic and Traffic IyN� l Arterial Configuration LOS A LOS B ROSC LOS D LOS E Principal 8 -lane divided 45,000 52,500 60,000 67,500 75,000 Major 6 -lane divided 33,900 39,400 45,000 50,600 56,300 Primary 4 -lane divided 22,500 26,300 30,000 33,800 37,500 Secondary 4 -lane undivided 15,000 17,500 20,000 22,500 25,000 Collector 2 -lane undivided 7,500 8,800 10,000 11,300 12,500 Source: Traffic Impact Study and Parking Analysis for the Park View at Town & Country Manor, Kimley -Horn Associates, Inc., June 2009. Study Anaiysis Scenarios For each of the study intersections and roadway segments identified in the Study Area below, five analysis scenarios have been analyzed for the morning and evening peak hours: • Existing Conditions • Project Opening Year (2013) without project • Project Opening Year (2013) with project • Buildout Year (2030) without Project • Buildout Year (2030) with Project Study Area The Traffic Impact Analysis includes documentation of existing traffic conditions, analyses of future traffic conditions, and identification of project - related impacts at the following study intersections and roadway segments. The location of the study intersections and roadway segments are shown in Exhibit 4.6 -1. Study intersections in the City of Santa Ana • Memory Lane at Main Street • Memory Lane at Lawson Way • Town and Country Road at Main Street • 1 -5 HOV Ramps - Edgewood Road at Main Street/I -5 NB Off -Ramp • Santa Clara Avenue /I -5 NB On -Ramp at Main Street/1-5 SB Off -Ramp Study Intersections in the City of Orange • La Veta Avenue at Main Street • La Veta Avenue at SR -22 WB Ramps • La Veta Avenue at Parker Street • Town and Country Road at SR -22 EB Ramps Lawson Way • Town and Country Road at Parker Street Michael Brandman Associates 4.6 -5 H\Cl t(PN- JMb327b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec0 Tmspo md¢ City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor and Traffic Draft EIR Study Roadway Segments • La Veta Avenue: between Main Street and the SR -22 WB Ramps • La Vera Avenue: between the SR -22 WB Ramps and Glassell Street • Town and Country Road: between Main Street and the SR -22 EB Ramps • Town and Country Road: between the SR -22 EB Ramps and Memory Lane • Memory Lane: between Main Street and Lawson Way • Memory Lane: between Lawson Way and Town and Country Road • Main Street: between La Vera Avenue and Town and Country Road • Main Street: between Town and Country Road and Memory Lane • Lawson Way: between Town and Country Road and Memory Lane • Parker Street: between La Vera Avenue and Town and Country Road Analysis of State Highway Facilities Freeway Mainline Analysis Methodology Analysis of freeway mainline segments in the vicinity of the project was conducted in accordance with the Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, which specifies application of the HCM methodology for freeway analysis. Freeway analysis results are expressed in terms of density, which measures the number of passenger cars per lane mile (pc /mi/In) on the freeway mainline. The target Level of Service (LOS) for freeway mainline segments is the transition between LOS C and LOS D, which is a density of 35 pc /mi/ln. If the existing density exceeds the target LOS, the existing Level of Service is to be maintained. Freeway Mainline Analysis Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. (KHA), the project traffic consultant, conducted a freeway mainline analysis on the Garden Grove (SR -22) Freeway between the I- 5/SR -57 interchange and Glassell Street. Peak hour freeway volumes were obtained from the Caltrans website and represent Year 2007 traffic volumes (the most recent data available). A conservative growth factor of 1.0 percent per year was applied to 2007 traffic volumes to derive Opening Year 2013 and Buildout 2030 traffic volumes. Freeway analyses were conducted using the HCS+ software, operational methodology. The results of the analysis are expressed in terms of vehicular density in each peak hour, in each direction, as discussed in the preceding paragraph. Ramp Queuing Analysis Methodology Analysis of queuing at the freeway off -ramps was conducted to determine whether the project would result in an excess queue on the off -ramp such that it would impact freeway operations. Queuing analysis results are expressed in terms of the length of the queue on the off -ramp, measured in feet per lane. The results are reported for the 85th percentile queue. The 85th percentile queue means that 85 percent of the time, the queue would be the length of the 85th percentile queue or less. Explained another way, 15 percent of the time, the queue length could exceed that number. Default vehicle length for queuing analysis is 25 feet per vehicle. 4.6 -6 Michael Bmndman Associates H\Cl t(PN- Rnb327b32]0030DEai 3270030 Sec01 Tmspo md¢ 0� [1[111%11 Z Michael Brmidxnau AssociaLes 03270030 • 09/2009 14.6- 1_int_rdwy_map.mxd LEGEND: - - -- = City Boundary @ = Study Intersection t = Study Roadway Segment r-muit 4.n- i Study Intersections and Roadway Segments Map CITY OF SANTA ANA • PARK VIEW AT TOWN AND COUNTRY MANOR U1[7flidiki Nll Cie] WUli01 F- 1NIPilYG[Na 14 atYi] 49 City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Transportation and Traffic Ramp Queuing Analysis Ramp queuing analysis was conducted by KHA for the following ramp intersections: • SR -22 westbound off -ramp at La Veta Avenue • SR -22 eastbound off -ramp at Town & Country Road • I -5 southbound off -ramp at Main Street • I -5 northbound off -ramp at Main Street Peak hour ramp volumes were obtained through the turning movement count program conducted for the Traffic Impact Study at each of these intersections. Ramp queuing analyses were conducted using the Traffix software, using HCM 2000 operational methodology. The results of the analysis are expressed in terms of length of queue in feet, for each peak hour, as discussed in the preceding paragraph. Freeway Weaving Analysis Methodology Freeway weaving analysis is conducted to evaluate the interaction of vehicles changing lanes to enter and to exit the freeway within a distance of 2,500 feet or less. Weaving analysis results are expressed in terms of density, which measures the number of passenger cars per lane mile (pc /mi /In) through the weave area on the freeway. The target Level of Service (LOS) for freeway mainline segments is the transition between LOS C and LOS D, which is a density of 28 pc /mi/ln. If the existing density exceeds the target LOS, the existing Level of Service is to be maintained. Freeway Weaving Analysis Freeway weaving analysis was conducted on the Garden Grove (SR -22) Freeway between the I- 5/ SR -57 interchange and Glassell Street. On -ramp and off -ramp volumes were obtained either from the turning movement count program conducted for the project Traffic Impact Study, or from the Caltrans website. Freeway weaving analyses were conducted using the HCS+ software, operational methodology. The results of the analysis are expressed in terms of vehicular density in each peak hour, in each direction, as discussed in the preceding paragraph. Existing Traffic Conditions - Roadway and Intersection Operation Existing morning and evening peak hour turning movement counts were obtained from the City Place Sky Lofts Traffic Impact Study (P &D Consultants 2007) by KHA. The counts were taken in April 2007 at the study intersections during the morning (7:00 AM to 9:00 AM) and evening (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM) peak periods. Daily traffic counts at the study roadway segments were also taken in the same period. Use of these counts was approved by the City of Santa Ana and City of Orange staff. Copies of the count data forms are provided in Appendix E. Existing daily traffic operations on the study roadway segment locations are shown in Table 4.6 -5. All locations are operating at an acceptable LOS D or better. Michael Brandman Associates 4.6 -9 H\Cl t(PN- Rnb327b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec01 Tmspo md¢ City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor and Traffic Draft EIR The existing study intersection performance during the morning and evening peak hours is summarized in Table 4.6 -6. The table shows that all intersections in the study area are operating at an acceptable LOS D or better. Table 4.6.5: Summary of Daily Roadway Operation - Existing Conditions Roadway Segment Type of Lane LOS E Existing V /C2 LOS La Veta Avenue/ 0.558 Arterial Config. Capacity ADT La Veta Avenue Major 6 -lane 56,300 30,329 0.539 A -Main Street and the SR -22 WB ramps divided La Veta Avenue Primary 4 -lane 37,500 18,801 0.501 A SR 22 WB ramps and Glassell Street divided Town & Country Road Primary 4 -lane 37,500 18,356 0.489 A - Main Street and the SR -22 EB ramps divided Town & Country Road Primary 4 -lane 37,500 7,653 0.204 A - SR-22 EB ramps and Memory Lane divided Memory Lane Major 6 -lane 56,300 7,996 0.142 A - Main Street and Lawson Way divided Memory Lane Collec- 4 -lane 37,500 4,526 0.121 A - Lawson Way and Town & Country for divided Road Main Street Major 6 -lane 56,300 44,050 0.782 C - La Vera Avenue and Town & Country divided Road Main Street Major 6 -lane 56,300 34,035 0.605 B - Town & Country Road and Memory divided Lane Lawson Way Collec- 2 -lane 12,500 4,647 0.372 A - Town & Country Road and Memory for un- Lane divided Parker Street Collec- 2 -lane 12,500 11,090 0.887 D - La Vera Avenue and Town & Country for un- Road divided 'Source of Existing ADT: City Place Sky Lofts Traffic Impact Study (P &D Consultants, April 2007). 2V /C= Volume -to- capacity ratio Source: Traffic Impact Study and Parking Analysis for the Park View at Town & Country Manor, Kimley -Hom Associates, Inc., June 2009. Table 4.6 -6: Summary of Peak Hour Intersection Operation - Existing Conditions a Hour PM Peak Hour Signalized Intersections' ICU LOS ICU LOS La Veta Avenue/ 0.558 A 0.651 B Main Street La Veta Avenue/ 0.558 A 0.707 C Parker Street 4.6 -10 Michael Bmndman Associates H\Cl t (PN- JMb327b3270030DEIRb3270030 Sec0 Tmspo md¢ City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR and Traffic Table 4.6.6 (cont.): Summary of Peak Hour Intersection Operation - Existing Conditions Unsignalized Intersections' Delay I LOS Delav LO Memory Lane/Lawson Way" 12.7 B 16.6 C Notes: ' Signalized intersections in the Cities of Santa Ana and Orange are evaluated using the Intersection Capacity Utilization methodology. 2 Signalized intersections under Caltrans control are evaluated using the Highway Capacity Manual methodology. 3 Unsignalized intersections are evaluated using the Highway Capacity Manual methodology. ° Intersection within a Major Development Area in the City of Santa Ana have a LOSE criteria. Source: Traffic Impact Study and Parking Analysis for the Park View at Town & Country Manor, Kimley -Horn Associates, Inc., June 2009. Existing Conditions - Freeway Segments Existing peak hour freeway volumes and analysis results, by segment and by direction, are summarized in Table 4.6 -7. Table 4.6 -7 indicates that all study freeway segments are currently operating at LOS C or better in both peak hours. Table 4.6 -7: Summary of Freeway Segment Operation Existing Conditions AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour nsity Density Freeway Segment Lanes mil (pGmi/ . i i V i Inl SR -22 Eastbound 1-5/SR-57 to Main Street AM Peak 3,969 12.2 B 5,390 Hour B PM Peak Hour Caltrans Controlled Signalized Intersections' la LOS Del LOS Town &Country Road Main Street° 0.379 A 0.594 A Town &Country Road Parker Street 0.569 A 0.595 A Main Street/Memory Lane ° 0.419 A 0.510 A La Veta Avenue/ 20.7 C 22.2 C SR -22 WB Ramps Town & Country Road/SR -22 EB Ramps 29.0 C 32.0 C Main Street/1-5 NB Off -Ramp/ 24.9 C 34.0 C Edgewood Road/1-5 HOV Ramps Main Street/1-5 SB Off -Ramp /Santa Clam Avenue/I -5 NB On -Ramp 34.3 C 38.0 D AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Unsignalized Intersections' Delay I LOS Delav LO Memory Lane/Lawson Way" 12.7 B 16.6 C Notes: ' Signalized intersections in the Cities of Santa Ana and Orange are evaluated using the Intersection Capacity Utilization methodology. 2 Signalized intersections under Caltrans control are evaluated using the Highway Capacity Manual methodology. 3 Unsignalized intersections are evaluated using the Highway Capacity Manual methodology. ° Intersection within a Major Development Area in the City of Santa Ana have a LOSE criteria. Source: Traffic Impact Study and Parking Analysis for the Park View at Town & Country Manor, Kimley -Horn Associates, Inc., June 2009. Existing Conditions - Freeway Segments Existing peak hour freeway volumes and analysis results, by segment and by direction, are summarized in Table 4.6 -7. Table 4.6 -7 indicates that all study freeway segments are currently operating at LOS C or better in both peak hours. Table 4.6 -7: Summary of Freeway Segment Operation Existing Conditions AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour nsity Density Freeway Segment Lanes mil (pGmi/ . i i V i Inl SR -22 Eastbound 1-5/SR-57 to Main Street 5 3,969 12.2 B 5,390 16.6 B Main Street to Glassell Street 5 4,253 13.1 B 5,775 17.8 B Glassell Street to Tustin Avenue 5 4,212 13.0 B 5,720 17.6 B Michael Brandman Associates H\Cl t(PN- JMb32]b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec0 Tmspo md¢ 4.6 -11 CW of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor and Traffic Draft EIR Table 4.6.7: Summary of Freeway Segment Operation Existing Conditions Existing Conditions - Ramp Queuing Existing ramp queuing analysis results are summarized in Table 4.6 -8. Table 4.6 -8 indicates that the 85th percentile queue length at each ramp intersection is well within the available queuing distance on each off -ramp. Table 4.6.8: Summary of Peak Hour Ramp Queuing Existing Conditions AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Density Available y Length (P (ft) Fen Distance (ft) Freeway Segment Lanes In) Vol. In) LOS Vol, 1,300 LOS Tustin Avenue to SR -55 4 3,524 13.6 B 4,785 18.4 C SR -22 Westbound 900 328 298 SR-55 to Tustin Avenue 4 4,307 16.6 B 3,915 15.1 B Tustin Avenue to Glassell Street 5 5,148 15.8 B 4,680 14.4 B Glassell Street to Main Street 5 5,198 16.0 B 4,725 14.5 B Main Street to I -5/SR 57 5 4,851 14.9 B 4,410 13.6 B Notes: Density is expressed in terms of passenger cars per lane mile in the weaving section. The freeway segment LOS criteria is based on Exhibits 23 -2 and 23 -3 in the Highway Capacity Manual 2000. Source: Traffic Impact Study and Parking Analysis for the Park View at Town & Country Manor, Kimley -Horn Associates, Inc., June 2009. Existing Conditions - Ramp Queuing Existing ramp queuing analysis results are summarized in Table 4.6 -8. Table 4.6 -8 indicates that the 85th percentile queue length at each ramp intersection is well within the available queuing distance on each off -ramp. Table 4.6.8: Summary of Peak Hour Ramp Queuing Existing Conditions Existing Conditions - Freeway Weaving Existing peak hour freeway weaving analysis results, by segment and by direction, are summarized in Table 4.6 -9. Table 4.6 -9 indicates that all study freeway weaving areas are currently operating at LOS C or better in both peak hours. 4.6 -12 Michael Brandman Associates H\Cl t(PN- JMb327b32]0030DEai 3270030 Sec0 Tmspo md¢ 8501 Percentile Available Queue Length Queue (ft) Off -Ramp Distance (ft) AM P SR-22 WB at La Veta Avenue 1,300 351 343 SR 22 EB at Town &Country Road 1,300 351 203 I -5 NB at Main Street 900 328 298 I -5 SB at Main Street 1,100 258 185 Notes: WB = Westbound EB = Eastbound NB = Northbound SB = Southbound Source: Traffic Impact Study and Parking Analysis for the Park View at Town & Country Manor, Kimley -Horn Associates, Inc., June 2009. Existing Conditions - Freeway Weaving Existing peak hour freeway weaving analysis results, by segment and by direction, are summarized in Table 4.6 -9. Table 4.6 -9 indicates that all study freeway weaving areas are currently operating at LOS C or better in both peak hours. 4.6 -12 Michael Brandman Associates H\Cl t(PN- JMb327b32]0030DEai 3270030 Sec0 Tmspo md¢ City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Table 4.6.9: Summary of Freeway Weave Analysis Existing Conditions and Traffic AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Density Density reeway Segment Lanes (pGmi /In) LOS (pGmi /In) LOS SR -22 Eastbound 1-5/SR-57 to Main Street 5 21.1 B 28.2 C Main Street to Glassell Street 5 16.9 B 27.0 C SR -22 Westbound Glassell Street to Main Street 5 26.2 C 23.2 B Main Street to 1-5/SR-57 5 21.8 B 22.3 B Notes: Density is expressed in terms of passenger cars per lane mile in the weaving section. The freeway weaving segment LOS criteria is based on Exhibit 24 -2 in the Highway Capacity Manual 2000. Source: Traffic Impact Study and Parking Analysis for the Park View at Town & Country Manor, Kimley -Horn Associates, Inc., June 2009. 4.6.3 - Thresholds of Significance According to the CEQA Guidelines' Appendix G Environmental Checklist, to determine whether transportation and traffic impacts are significant environmental effects, the following questions are analyzed and evaluated. Would the project: a.) 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)? b.) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c.) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d.) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e.) Result in inadequate emergency access? f.) Result in inadequate parking capacity? City of Santa Ana Impact Criteria The City of Santa Ana considers the maximum threshold to be LOS E for those intersections located within areas of the City designated as Major Development Areas (MDA). For the Traffic Impact Analysis, all the study intersections in the City of Santa Ana are within the MDA. For locations Michael Brandman Associates 4.6 -13 H\Cl t(PN- JMb32]b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec0 Tmspo md¢ City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor and Traffic Draft EIR outside the MDA, the City's Level of Service standard is LOS D. A project is considered to have a significant impact at an intersection if the intersection level of service deteriorates to an unacceptable LOS F with the addition of project traffic. If a significant impact is identified, the project is required to mitigate the project's traffic - related impacts by incorporating mitigation measures to achieve an acceptable level of service. The City of Santa Ana does not have thresholds of significance for unsignalized intersections. City of Orange Impact Criteria The City of Orange has also adopted a target Level of Service "D" for intersections (ICU value of 0.90 or less). A project - related impact would be considered significant if the final V/C ratio exceeds 0.90, and the project contribution to the final V/C is greater than 0.010. If a significant impact is identified, the project is required to mitigate the project's traffic - related impacts by incorporating mitigation measures to reduce the impact to an acceptable level of service. Caltrans Impact Criteria A significant impact at Caltrans intersections is identified when project - related traffic causes the intersection to operate at an unacceptable level of service and increases the delay by greater than one per cent. Mitigation measures are required to bring the intersection back to pre - project (without project) conditions. Congestion Management Plan The Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP) was established in 1991 to reduce traffic congestion and to provide a mechanism for coordinating land use and development decisions. Compliance with the CMP requirements ensures a city's eligibility to compete for State gas tax funds for local transportation projects. Within the defined CMP highway network, intersections are not allowed to deteriorate to a condition which is worse than LOS E or the base year LOS, if worse than "E," without mitigation being prescribed in an acceptable deficiency plan. Within the City of Santa Ana, the CMP Highway System includes three arterials: Harbor Boulevard, Edinger Avenue, and ls` Street. The project is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Lawson Way and Memory Lane. There are no CMP intersection or roadway facilities within the study area. The Orange County CMP also states that "a TIA will be required for CMP purposes for all proposed developments generating 2,400 or more daily trips," and that "for developments which will directly access a CMP Highway System link, the threshold for requiring a TIA should be reduced to 1,600 or more trips per day." The project is estimated to generate a total of 887 daily trips. Given the forecasted number of daily trips and the lack of CMP intersections and roadway facilities within the study area, a separate CMP Traffic Impact Analysis is not required. 4.6.4 - Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures This section discusses potential transportation and traffic impacts associated with the development of the project. Mitigation measures are provided where necessary. 4.6 -14 Michael Brandman Associates H\Cl t(PN- Rnb327b32]0030DEai 3270030 Sec01 Tmspo md¢ City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Opening Year (2013) - Traffic Increase and Level of Service Standards and Traffic Impact 4.6 -1 The project would 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). The project would exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. [CEQA Transportation and Traffic Thresholds 15(a) and 15(b)] Impact Analysis Opening Year (2013) Traffic Conditions Without the Project Opening Year (2013) Without Project traffic volumes for study area roadway segments and intersections are presented in Table 4.6 -9and Table 4.6 -10, respectively. All future year analyses assume the signalization of the intersection of Lawson Way at Memory Lane. With the addition of ambient growth and cumulative projects traffic, Main Street between La Veta Avenue and Town & Country Road is anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS F, and Parker Street between La Veta Avenue and Town & Country Road is anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS E. (Cumulative projects, defined as projects that have already been approved, or are pending and likely to be approved, are detailed in Section 3, Project Description, and on Exhibit 3 -6.) Roadway improvements to address these deficiencies are discussed in project mitigation later in this analysis. All study intersections will continue to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better in both peak hours, except the intersection of Main Street/1-5 SB Off -Ramp at Santa Clara Avenue /I -5 NB On -Ramp which is anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS E. Table 4.6 -10: Summary of Daily Roadway Operation - Opening Year (2013) Without Project Roadway Segment Type of Lane LOS E Future V /C' LOS Arterial Config. Capacity ADT La Veta Avenue Major 6 -lane 56,300 32,188 0.572 A - Main Street and the SR -22 WB ramps divided La Veta Avenue Primary 4 -lane 37,500 20,181 0.538 A - SR 22 WB ramps and Glassell Street divided Town & Country Road Primary 4 -lane 37,500 19,869 0.530 A - Main Street and the SR -22 EB ramps divided Town & Country Road Primary 4 -lane 37,500 8.476 0.226 A - SR-22 EB ramps and Memory Lane divided Memory Lane Major 6 -lane 56,300 11,321 0.201 A - Main Street and Lawson Way divided Memory Lane Collec- 4 -lane 37,500 5,098 0.136 i - Lawson Way and Town & Country for divided Road Michael Brandman Associates 4.6 -15 H\Cl t(PN- Rnb327b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec0 Trayspo .d¢ City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor and Traffic Draft EIR Table 4.6.10 (cont.): Summary of Daily Roadway Operation -Opening Year (2013) Without Project Roadway Segment Type of Lane LOS E Future /C' LOS 0.680 Arterial Config. Capacity ADT B 0.827 Main Street Major 6 -1ane 56,300 57,436 1.020 F - La Veta Avenue and Town & Country B divided C Main Street/Memory Lane' 0.489 A Road B Memory Lane/Lawson Way' 0.384 A 0.446 A Main Street Major 6 -1ane 56,300 44,209 0.785 C - Town & Country Road and Memory 33.6 divided Main Street/1 -5 NB Off -Ramp/ Edgewood Road/1 -5 HOV Ramps 25.0 C 38.4 Lane Main Street/1 -5 SB Off-Ramp/Santa Clam Avenue/1 -5 NB On -Ramp 49.7 D 68.7 E Lawson Way Collec- 2 -1ane 12,500 7,141 0.571 A - Town & Country Road and Memory for un- Lane divided Parker Street Collec- 2 -1ane 12,500 12,013 0.961 E - La Veta Avenue and Town & Country for un- Road divided Notes: ' V /C= Volume -to- capacity ratio Source: Traffic Impact Study and Parking Analysis for the Park View at Town & Country Manor, Kimley -Horn Associates, Inc., June 2009. Table 4.6 -11: Summary of Peak Hour Intersection Operation - Opening Year (2013) Without Project Signalized Intersections' La Veta Avenue/ Main Street La Veta Avenue/ Parker Street AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour LOS MM66 LOS 0.680 B 0.805 D 0.633 B 0.827 D Town & Country Road/Main Street' 0.481 A 0.750 C Town & Country Road/Parker Street 0.633 B 0.713 C Main Street/Memory Lane' 0.489 A 0.656 B Memory Lane/Lawson Way' 0.384 A 0.446 A La Veta Avenue/ SR -22 WB Ramps 21.6 C 28.0 C Town & Country Road/SR -22 EB Ramps 32.0 C 33.6 C Main Street/1 -5 NB Off -Ramp/ Edgewood Road/1 -5 HOV Ramps 25.0 C 38.4 D Main Street/1 -5 SB Off-Ramp/Santa Clam Avenue/1 -5 NB On -Ramp 49.7 D 68.7 E 4.6 -16 Michael Bmndman Associates H\Cl t(PN- JMb327b3270030DEai 3270030 Sec01 Tmspo md¢ City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR and Traffic Table 4.6.11 (cont.): Summary of Peak Hour Intersection Operation - Opening Year (2013) Without Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Caltrans Controlled Signalized IntersedionsZ = Delay LOS Delay LOS Notes: ' Signalized intersections in the Cities of Santa Ana and Orange are evaluated using the Intersection Capacity Utilization methodology. 2 Signalized intersections under Caltrans control are evaluated using the Highway Capacity Manual methodology. 3 Intersection within a Major Development Area in the City of Santa Ana have a LOSE criteria. Source: Traffic Impact Study and Parking Analysis for the Park View at Town & Country Manor, Kimley -Horn Associates, hie., June 2009. Project Traffic Trip generation estimated for the proposed project were derived from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (TIE) publication Trip Generation, 7b Edition. The trip generation rated for the project are summarized in Table 4.6 -12. At the direction of the City of Santa Ana Transportation & Development Services Divisions staff, the trips analyzed in this analysis were developed by averaging the trips for Senior Adult Housing - Attached and Apartment land uses. The average trips reflect the trip reduction likely to occur due to the age of the tenants and the project's on -site amenities and care facilities, while also reflecting an active senior adult population that may continue to work. Table 4.6 -12 indicates that the proposed project will generate 887 trips per day, with 12 inbound and 39 outbound trips in the morning peak hour, and 41 inbound and 23 outbound trips in the evening peak hour. Table 4.6.12: Project Trip Generation Michael Bmndman Associates 4.6 -17 H\Cl t(PN- JMb327b327003MMVB270030 Sec0 Trayspo .d¢ Trip Rates AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use nits In Out Total In =put Total 252 Senior Adult Housing- DU 3.48 0.036 0.044 0.080 0.067 0.043 0.110 Attached 220 Apartments DU 6.72 0.10 0.41 0.51 0.40 0.22 0.62 DU= Dwelling Unit 252 Senior Adult Housing- 174 606 6 8 14 12 7 19 Attached 220 Apartments 174 1169 18 71 89 70 38 108 DATA AVERAGE 887 12 39 51 41 23 64 Source: Ttaffic Impact Study and Parking Analysis for the Park View at Town &Country Manor, Kimley -Horn Associates, Inc., June 2009. Michael Bmndman Associates 4.6 -17 H\Cl t(PN- JMb327b327003MMVB270030 Sec0 Trayspo .d¢ City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor and Traffic Draft EIR Project Trip Distribution and Assignment Project trip distribution assumptions take into account the project site uses and the locations of area trip producers, such as employment and shopping centers. Assignment of project trips also takes into account the fact the Memory Lane driveway is restricted to right- in/right -out only movements. Opening Year (2013) Traffic Conditions With the Project Project traffic has been added to the Opening Year (2013) Without Project traffic volumes. Study roadway segments have been re- analyzed for Opening Year with Project conditions, and the results are summarized in Table 4.6 -13. With the addition of project - related traffic, Parker Street between La Vera Avenue and Town & Country Road in the City of Orange is forecasted to continue to operate at LOS E. The proposed project will cause a significant impact because the V/C ratio will increase by more than 0.01. This segment of Parker Street would require the addition of one travel lane in each direction to bring the roadway back to an acceptable service level. The addition of lanes on Parker Street is already a planned improvement by 2030 in the City's General Plan. The Parker Street segment would operate at LOS A with the additional capacity. The project's fair share contribution on this roadway segment is calculated by finding the ratio of the traffic generated by the proposed development to the growth in traffic (including project traffic) generated between the existing year and forecast opening year. Traffic volume on Parker Street between La Veta Avenue and Town & Country Road is forecasted to increase by 1,056 trips between the existing condition and Opening Year (2013) With Project condition. The proposed project is forecasted to contribute 133 trips to this roadway segment. This represents a fair share contribution of 12.59 percent. Main Street between La Vera Avenue and Town & Country Road in the City of Santa Ana is forecasted to continue to operate at LOS F. The project impact on this segment will be 0.004 and, therefore, is not considered significant. However, the City of Santa Ana's Traffic Impact Analysis guidelines still require improvements to be identified to address this deficiency. All other roadway segments will continue to operate at LOS C or better. Table 4.6 -13: Summary of Daily Roadway Operation - Opening Year (2013) With Project ype of Roadway Segmen rterial Lane Config. LOSE Capacity AMire Change in V/C LOS La Vera Avenue- Major 6 -lane 56,300 32,299 0.574 0.002 A Main Street and the divided SR -22 WB ramps La Vera Avenue - Primary 4 -lane 37,500 20,270 0.541 0.002 A SR-22 WB ramps divided and Glassell Street 4.6 -18 Michael Brandman Associates H\Cl t(PN- Rnb327b32]0030DEai 3270030 Sec0 Trayspo .d¢ City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR and Traffic Table 4.6.13 (cont.): Summary of Daily Roadway Operation - Opening Year (2013) With Project Type of Lane LOS E Future Change Roadway Segment Arterial Config. Capacity ADT /C in V/C All Town & Country Primary 4 -lane 37,500 20,047 0.535 0.005 A Road - Main Street divided and the SR -22 EB ramps Town & Country Primary 4 -lane 37,500 8,498 0.227 0.001 A Road - SR -22 EB divided ramps and Memory Lane Memory Lane - Major 6 -lane 56,300 11,608 0.206 0.005 A Main Street and divided Lawson Way Memory Lane- Collector 4 -lane 37,500 5,253 0.140 0.004 A Lawson Way and divided Town & Country Road Main Street - La Major 6-land 56,300 57,681 1.025 0.004 F Veta Avenue and divided Town & Country Road Main Street - Town Major 6 -lane 56,300 44,320 0.787 0.002 C & Country Road and divided Memory Lane Lawson Way - Town Collector 2 -lane 12,500 7,585 0.607 0.036 B & Country Road and undivided Memory Lane Parker Street - La Collector 2 -lane 12,500 12,146 0.972 0.011 E Veta Avenue and undivided Town & Country Road Notes: V/C = Volume -to- capacity ratio Source: Traffic Impact Study and Parking Analysis for the Park View at Town & Country Manor, Kimley -Horn Associates, Inc., June 2009. The unacceptable level of service on Main Street between La Veta Avenue and Town & Country Road cannot be improved to an acceptable level without amending the MPAH road classification from a Major Arterial to a Principal Arterial. This road reclassification would provide one additional through lane in each direction, and would require an amendment to the Cities of Orange and Santa Ana's General Plans. General Plan (2030) analyses later in Section 4.6 will show that Main Street between La Veta Avenue and Town & Country Road is forecasted to operate at LOS D without and with the proposed project. Daily traffic volumes on Main Street in 2030 were generally forecasted to be lower than 2013 Michael Brandman Associates 4.6 -19 H\Cl t(PN- JMb32]b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec0 Trayspo .d¢ City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor and Traffic Draft EIR volumes. This is because the buildout of the MPAH would provide additional capacity on parallel north/south arterial roadways such as Bristol Street to the west and Grand Avenue to the east, which would alleviate traffic demands on Main Street. The study intersections have been re- analyzed for Opening Year (2103) With Project conditions, and the results are summarized in Table 4.6 -14. All intersections are forecasted to continue to operate at LOS D or better, except the intersection of Main Street/I -5 SB Off -Ramp at Santa Clara Avenue /I -5 NB On -Ramp which is anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS E. The project impact at this intersection will result in a decrease in peak hour delay in the evening peak hour. This is because the project will contribute traffic to the lighter movements, thereby reducing the overall average vehicle delay at the intersection. There will be no significant project - related impacts forecasted at the study intersections in the Opening Year (2013) Condition. Table 4.6 -14: Summary of Peak Hour Intersection Operation - Opening Year (2013) With Project AM Peak Hour Change PM Peak Hour Change ignaliz ns in ICU in ICU ICU LOS ICU LOS La Veta Avenue/Mam Street 0.681 B 0.001 0.808 D 0.003 La Veta Avenue/Parker Street 0.634 B 0.001 0.831 D 0.004 Town & Country Road/Main 0.483 A 0.002 0.754 C 0.004 Street' Town & Country 0.636 B 0.003 0.720 C 0.007 d Parker Street n Street/Memory Lane' 0.491 A 0.002 0.656 B 0.000 JMemory Lane/Lawson Way' 0.391 A 0.007 0.453 A 0.007 AM Peak Hour ercent PM Peak Hour Percent Caltrans Controlled Change Change gnalized Intersections Delay MILOS in Delay Delay LOS in Delay La Veta Avenue /SR -22 WB 21.5 C -0.5% 27.9 C -0.4% Ramps Town & Country Road/SR -22 32.2 C 0.6% 33.9 C 0.9% EB Ramps Main Street/1-5 NB Off- 25 C 0.0% 39.5 D 2.9% Ramp/Edgewood Road/1-5 HOV Ramps Main Street/1-5 SB Off- 49.8 D 0.2% 67.8 E -1.3% Ramp /Santa Clam Avenue/1-5 NB On -Ramp Notes: t Signalized intersections in the Cities of Santa Ana and Orange are evaluated using the Intersection Capacity Utilization methodology. 2 Signalized intersections under Caltrans control are evaluated using the Highway Capacity Manual methodology. ' Intersections within a Major Development Area in the City of Santa Ana have a LOSE criteria. Source: Traffic Impact Study and Parking Analysis for the Park View at Town & Country Manor, Kimley -Horn Associates, hie -, June 2009. 4.6 -20 Michael Bmndman Associates H\Cl t(PN- JMb327b32]0030DEai 3270030 Sec0 Trayspo .d¢ City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Transportation and Traffic Level of Significance Before Mitigation Significant. Mitigation Measures TRAN -1 The applicant shall be required to pay their fair share contribution for the improvement to Parker Street between La Veta Avenue and Town & Country Road, expected to occur by 2030 in the City's General Plan and planned to include the addition of one travel lane in each direction. Confirmation that the project has met its fair share contribution for traffic improvements shall be required prior to recordation of the final map. Level of Significance After Mitigation Table 4.6 -15 provides a summary of the mitigated Level of Service on Parker Street with the improvement specified in mitigation measure TRAN -1. The Parker Street segment would operate at LOS A with the additional capacity. The improvement reduces this impact on Parker Street to less than significant. Table 4.6.15: Summary of Daily Roadway Operation - Opening Year (2013) With Project Mitigation dway Segment Type of Lane LOS E Future V/C It rterial Conf Capacity ADT Parker Street Without Mitigation: -La Veta Avenue and Collector I undivided 12,500 12,146 0.972 E Town & Country With Mitigation: Secondary I undivided 1 25,000 1 12,146 0.486 A Notes: V/C = Volume -to- capacity ratio Source: Traffic Impact Study and Parking Analysis for the Park View at Town & Country Manor, Mraley -Horn Associates, Inc., June 2009. Opening Year (2013) — Freeway Mainline Impact 4.6 -2 The project would not have a significant impact on the freeway mainline operation during the Opening Year 2013. Impact Analysis Opening Year (2013) Without the Project — Freeway Mainline Analysis Opening Year 2013 peak hour freeway volumes and analysis results, by segment and by direction, are summarized in Table 4.6 -16. Table 4.6 -16 indicates that in the Opening Year 2013 Without Project condition, the study freeway segments would continue to operate at LOS C or better in both peak hours. Michael Brandman Associates 4.6 -21 H\Cl t(PN- JMb32]b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec0 Tmspo md¢ 7 City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor and Traffic Draft EIR Table 4.6.16: Summary of Freeway Segment Operation Opening Year (2013) Without Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Freeway Segment SR -22 Eastbound Lanes Vo Density (PGmi/ ) LOS Vol. Density (pGmi/ In) LOS I -5 /SR 57 to Main Street 5 4,207 12.9 B 5,713 17.6 B Main Street to Glassell Street 5 4,508 13.9 B 6,122 18.8 C Glassell Street to Tustin Avenue 5 4,465 13.7 B 6,063 18.7 C Tustin Avenue to SR-55 4 3,735 14.4 B 5,072 19.5 C SR -22 Westbound 5,077 19.5 C SR-55 to Tustin Avenue 4 4,565 17.6 B 4,150 16.0 B Tustin Avenue to Glassell Street 5 5,457 16.8 B 4,961 15.3 B Glassell Street to Main Street 5 5,510 17.0 B 5,009 15.4 B Main Street to 1-5/SR-57 5 5,142 15.8 B 4,675 14.4 B Notes: Density is expressed in terms of passenger cars per lane mile in the weaving section. The freeway segment LOS criteria is based on Exhibits 23 -2 and 23 -3 in the Highway Capacity Manual 2000. Source: Traffic Impact Study and Parking Analysis for the Park View at Town & Country Manor, Kimley -Horn Associates, Inc., June 2009. Opening Year (2013) With the Project - Freeway Mainline Analysis Opening Year 2013 With Project peak hour freeway volumes and analysis results, by segment and by direction, are summarized on Table 4.6 -17 indicates that with the addition of project traffic, the study freeway segments would continue to operate at LOS C or better in both peak hours. The project impact on the vehicular density on freeway mainline segments is forecasted to be 0.1 vehicle per freeway lane mile or less. The project would not have a significant impact on the freeway mainline operation during the Opening Year 2013. Table 4.6 -17: Summary of Freeway Segment Operation Opening Year (2013) With Project Freeway Segment �npS AM Peak Hour Density (PGmi/ Vol. In) PM Peak Hour Density Gmi/ ) LOS SR -22 Eastbound I -5 /SR 57 to Main Street 5 4,210 13.0 B 5,723 17.6 B Main Street to Glassell Street 5 4,516 13.9 B 6,127 18.8 C Glassell Street to Tustin Avenue 5 4,473 13.8 B 6,068 18.7 C Tustin Avenue to SR-55 4 3,743 14.4 B 5,077 19.5 C 4.6 -22 Michael Brandman Associates H\Cl t(PN- JMb327b32]0030DERi 3270030 Sec0 Tmspo md¢ City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR and Traffic Table 4.6.17 (cont.): Summary of Freeway Segment Operation Opening Year (2013) With Project Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. Opening Year (2013) — Ramp Queuing Impact 4.6 -3 The project would not have a significant impact on the ramp operation during the Opening Year 2013. Impact Analysis Opening Year (2013) Without the Project —Ramp Queuing Analysis Opening Year 2013 peak hour ramp queuing analysis results are summarized in Table 4.6 -18. Table 4.6 -18 indicates that in the Opening Year (2013) Without Project condition, the peak hour queue lengths will continue to be within the available queuing distance on each off -ramp. Michael Brandman Associates 4.6 -23 H\Cl t(PN- JMb32]b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec0 Tmspo md¢ AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Density Density (pc/mi/ (pGmi/ Freeway Segment Lanes e Vol. ) IDS Vol. I LOS SR -22 Westbound SR-55 to Tustin Avenue 4 4,567 17.6 B 4,158 16.0 B Tustin Avenue to Glassell Street 5 5,459 16.8 B 4,969 15.3 B Glassell Street to Main Street 5 5,512 17.0 B 5,017 15.4 B Main Street to 1-5/SR-57 5 5,152 15.8 B 4,681 14.4 B Notes: Density is expressed in terms of passenger cars per lane mile in the weaving section. The freeway segment LOS criteria is based on Exhibits 23 -2 and 23 -3 in the Highway Capacity Manual 2000. Source: Traffic Impact Study and Parking Analysis for the Park View at Town & Country Manor, Kimley -Horn Associates, Inc., June 2009. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. Opening Year (2013) — Ramp Queuing Impact 4.6 -3 The project would not have a significant impact on the ramp operation during the Opening Year 2013. Impact Analysis Opening Year (2013) Without the Project —Ramp Queuing Analysis Opening Year 2013 peak hour ramp queuing analysis results are summarized in Table 4.6 -18. Table 4.6 -18 indicates that in the Opening Year (2013) Without Project condition, the peak hour queue lengths will continue to be within the available queuing distance on each off -ramp. Michael Brandman Associates 4.6 -23 H\Cl t(PN- JMb32]b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec0 Tmspo md¢ City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor and Traffic Draft EIR Table 4.6.18: Summary of Peak Hour Ramp Queuing Opening Year (2013) Without Project 8501 Percentile Available Queue Length Opening Year (2013) With the Project —Ramp Queuing Analysis Opening Year 2013 With Project peak hour ramp queuing analysis results are summarized in Table 4.6 -19. Table 4.6 -19 indicates that with the addition of project traffic, the 85th percentile queue lengths at the ramp intersections would continue to be within the available queuing distance on each off -ramp. The project would not cause the queues on the off -ramps to exceed the available queue distances. The project would not have a significant impact on the ramp operation during the Opening Year 2013. Table 4.6.19: Summary of Peak Hour Ramp Queuing Opening Year (2013) With Project Queue (ft) Distance (ft) Available Queue Length SR-22 WB at La Veta Avenue 1,300 445 466 SR-22 EB at Town & Country Road (ft) 1,300 Distance (ft) 393 358 I -5 NB at Main Street P 900 1,300 469 439 I -5 SB at Main Street 0 1,100 1,300 353 276 Notes: 0 I -5 NB at Main Street 900 WB = Westbound EB = Eastbound NB = Northbound SB = Southbound 0 Source: Traffic Impact Study and Parking Analysis for the Park View at Town & Country Manor, Kimley -Horn 354 Associates, Inc., June 2009. 1 0 Notes: Opening Year (2013) With the Project —Ramp Queuing Analysis Opening Year 2013 With Project peak hour ramp queuing analysis results are summarized in Table 4.6 -19. Table 4.6 -19 indicates that with the addition of project traffic, the 85th percentile queue lengths at the ramp intersections would continue to be within the available queuing distance on each off -ramp. The project would not cause the queues on the off -ramps to exceed the available queue distances. The project would not have a significant impact on the ramp operation during the Opening Year 2013. Table 4.6.19: Summary of Peak Hour Ramp Queuing Opening Year (2013) With Project Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures required. 4.6 -24 Michael Brandman Associates H\Cl t" JMb327b32700301DEai 3270030 Sec0 Tmspo md¢ 8e Percentile Available Queue Length Project Impact Queue (ft) (ft) Off -Ramp Distance (ft) AM PM AM P SR-22 WB at La Veta Avenue 1,300 445 466 0 0 SR 22 EB at Town & Country Road 1,300 399 358 6 0 I -5 NB at Main Street 900 469 439 0 0 I -5 SB at Main Street 1,100 354 276 1 0 Notes: WB = Westbound EB = Eastbound NB = Northbound SB = Southbound Source: Traffic Impact Study and Parking Analysis for the Park View at Town & Country Manor, Kimley -Horn Associates, Inc., June 2009. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures required. 4.6 -24 Michael Brandman Associates H\Cl t" JMb327b32700301DEai 3270030 Sec0 Tmspo md¢ City of Santa Ana - Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. Opening Year (2013) - Freeway Weaving and Traffic Impact 4.6-4 The project would not have a significant impact on the freeway weaving areas operation during the Opening Year 2013. Impact Analysis Opening Year (2013) Without the Project — Freeway Weaving Analysis Opening Year 2013 peak hour freeway weaving analysis results, by segment and by direction, are summarized in Table 4.6 -20. Table 4.6 -20 indicates that in the 2013 Without Project condition, the study freeway weaving areas would continue to operate at LOS C or better in both peak hours. Table 4.6.20: Summary of Freeway Weave Analysis Opening Year (2013) Without Project T AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Density Density Freeway Segment Lanes (pGmi /ln) LOS (pGmi /ln) LOS tSR-22Eastbot:d in Street 5 22.8 B 30.5 C an treet to Glassell Street 5 19.3 B 31.9 C SR -22 Westbound Glassell Street to Main Street 5 29.8 C 26.0 C Main Street to 1-5/SR-57 5 23.6 B 24.3 C Notes: Density is expressed in terms of passenger cars per lane mile in the weaving section. The freeway weaving segment LOS criteria is based on Exhibit 24 -2 in the Highway Capacity Manual 2000. Source: Traffic Impact Study and Parking Analysis for the Park View at Town & Country Manor, Kimley -Horn Associates, Inc., June 2009. Opening Year (2013) With the Project — Freeway Weaving Analysis Opening Year 20 13 With Project peak hour freeway weaving analysis results, by segment and by direction, are summarized in Table 4.6 -21. Table 4.6 -21 indicates that with the addition of project traffic, the study freeway weaving areas would continue to operate at LOS C or better in both peak hours. The project impact on the vehicular density on freeway mainline segments is forecasted to be 0.1 vehicle per freeway lane mile or less. The project would not have a significant impact on the freeway weaving areas operation during the Opening Year 2013. Michael Brandman Associates 4.6 -25 H\Cl t (PN JN)b327b327W3MME 3270030 Sec0 Tmspo md¢ City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor and Traffic Draft EIR Table 4.6.21: Summary of Freeway Weave Analysis Opening Year (2013) With Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Density Density Freeway Segment Lanes (pGmi /In) LOS (pGmi /In) LOS SR -22 Eastbound I -5 /SR 57 to Main Street 5 22.8 B 30.5 C Main Street to Glassell Street 5 19.4 B 31.9 C SR -22 Westbound Glassell Street to Main Street 5 29.8 C 26.0 C Main Street to 1-5/SR-57 5 23.6 B 24.3 C Notes: Density is expressed in terms of passenger cars per lane mile in the weaving section. The freeway weaving segment LOS criteria is based on Exhibit 24 -2 in the Highway Capacity Manual 2000. Source: Traffic Impact Study and Parking Analysis for the Park View at Town & Country Manor, Kimley -Horn Associates, Inc., June 2009. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. General Plan Buildout (2030) - Traffic Increase and Level of Service Standards Impact 4.6 -5 The project would 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). The project would exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. [CEQA Transportation and Traffic Thresholds 15(a) and 15(b)] Impact Analysis General Plan (2030) Buildout Conditions Forecast peak hour volumes for the Buildout condition were developed using the Orange County Traffic Analysis Model (OCTAM), which is developed and maintained by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). General Plan Buildout conditions assume buildout of all land uses as well as the transportation infrastructure assumed in the City's General Plan. 4.6 -26 Michael Brandman Associates H\Cl t(PN- JMb327b32]0030TKRi 3270030 Sec0 Tmspo md¢ City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR and Traffic The analysis incorporates improvements to the circulation network that will be implemented by 2030. The improvements reflect the MPAH at Buildout and improvements listed in the General Plans for the Cities of Santa Ana and Orange. Within the study area, the addition of one lane in each direction on the following roadway segments was incorporated into the General Plan Buildout analysis: La Veta Avenue between the Westbound (WB) SR -22 Ramps and Glassell Street • Lawson Way between Town & Country Road and Memory Lane • Parker Street between La Veta Avenue and Town & Country Road General Plan (2030) Buildout Traffic Conditions Without the Project The 2030 traffic volumes used in this analysis were obtained from the post - processed peak hour turning movement volumes from the City Place Sky Lofts Traffic Impact Study contained in Appendix E of this Draft EIR. Roadway segment operations for General Plan Buildout conditions without the project were evaluated and the results are summarized in Table 4.6 -22. The segment of Parker Street between La Veta Avenue and Town & Country Road is forecasted to operate at LOS F. The City of Santa Ana traffic impact study guidelines require that improvements be identified for locations that are forecasted to operate at unacceptable levels of service, even without the project. All other roadway segments are forecasted to operate at acceptable levels of service under General Plan Buildout conditions. Table 4.6 -22: Summary of Daily Roadway Operation General Plan Buildout Without Project Roadway Segment La Vera Avenue Major 6 -lane 56,300 26,689 0.474 A - Main Street and the SR -22 WB ramps divided La Vera Avenue Major 6 -lane 56,300 27,911 0.496 A SR -22 WB ramps and Glassell Street divided Town & Country Road Primary 4 -lane 37,500 20,922 0.558 A - Main Street and the SR-22 EB ramps divided Town & Country Road Primary 4 -lane 37,500 18,778 0.501 A - SR -22 EB ramps and Memory Lane divided Memory Lane Major 6 -lane 56,300 12,013 0.213 A - Main Street and Lawson Way divided Memory Lane Secondary 4 -lane 37,500 12,145 0.324 A - Lawson Way and Town & Country divided Road Main Street Major 6 -lane 56,300 49,655 0.882 D - La Veta Avenue and Town & Country divided Road Main Street Major 6 -lane 56,300 51,989 0.923 E - Town & Country Road and Memory divided Lane Michael Brandman Associates 4.6 -27 H\Cl t(PN- JMb327b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec01 Trayspo .d¢ City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor and Traffic Draft EIR Table 4.6.22 (cont): Summary of Daily Roadway Operation General Plan Buildout Without Project Intersection operations for General Plan Buildout conditions without the project were evaluated and the results are summarized in Table 4.6 -23. The results indicate that the intersections of La Veta Avenue at Parker Street, Town & Country Road at Parker Street, and Town & Country Road at eastbound SR -22 Ramps are forecasted to operate at LOS E or LOS F during both peak hours under General Plan Buildout conditions without the proposed project. The intersection of Main Street/I -5 NB Off -Ramp at I -5 HOV Ramps/Edgewood Road is forecasted to operate at LOS E during the evening peak hour. Table 4.6 -23: Summary of Peak Hour Intersection Operation General Plan Buildout Without Project Int. # Type of Lane LOS E Future 1 La Veta Avenue/Main Street Roadway Segment Arterial Config. Capacity ADT V/C LOS Lawson Way Secondary 4 -lane 25,000 17,356 0.694 B - Town & Country Road and Memory A undivided C 6 Town & Country Road/Parker Street Lane E 1.043 F 7 Main Street/Memory Lane' Parker Street Secondary 4 -lane 25,000 26,467 1.059 F - La Veta Avenue and Town & Country A undivided A Im AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Road LOS Delay LOS 19.0 B Notes: ADT = Average Daily Traffic V/C = Volume -to- capacity ratio Source: Traffic Impact Study and Parking Analysis for the Park View at Town & Country Manor, Kimley -Horn Associates, Inc., June 2009. Intersection operations for General Plan Buildout conditions without the project were evaluated and the results are summarized in Table 4.6 -23. The results indicate that the intersections of La Veta Avenue at Parker Street, Town & Country Road at Parker Street, and Town & Country Road at eastbound SR -22 Ramps are forecasted to operate at LOS E or LOS F during both peak hours under General Plan Buildout conditions without the proposed project. The intersection of Main Street/I -5 NB Off -Ramp at I -5 HOV Ramps/Edgewood Road is forecasted to operate at LOS E during the evening peak hour. Table 4.6 -23: Summary of Peak Hour Intersection Operation General Plan Buildout Without Project Int. # EWPeak "Signalized rsections' AM Hour ICU LOS PM Peak Hour ICU LOS 1 La Veta Avenue/Main Street 0.604 A 0.732 C 3 La Veta Avenue/Parker Street 0.935 E 1.282 F 4 Town & Country Road/Main Street' 0.544 A 0.711 C 6 Town & Country Road/Parker Street 0.942 E 1.043 F 7 Main Street/Memory Lane' 0.534 A 0.651 B 8 t. # 2 Memory Lane/Lawson Way' Caltrans Controlled Signalized IntersectionS2 La Veta Avenue /SR -22 WB Ramps 0.479 A 0.534 A Im AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS 19.0 B 31.8 C 5 Town & Country Road/SR -22 EB Ramps 208.8 F 89.7 F 9 Main Street/1-5 NB Off- Ramp/Edgewood Road/ I -5 HOV Ramps 35.0 C 63.9 E 4.6 -28 Michael Bmndman Associates H\Cl t(PN- JMb327b3270030DEai 3270030 Sec0 Trayspo .d¢ City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Table 4.6.23 (cont.): Summary of Peak Hour Intersection Operation General Plan Buildout Without Project Int. # I ft Caltrans Controlled Signalized IntersectionS2 10 Main StreeU1-5 SB Off -Ramp /Santa Clam Avenue/1 -5 NB On- Ramp AM Peak Hour and Traffic PM Peak Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS 34.0 C 53.1 D Notes: ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization WB = Westbound EB = Eastbound NB = Northbound SB = Southbound HOV = High Occupancy Vehicle ' Signalized intersections in the Cites of Santa Ana and Orange are evaluated using the Intersection Capacity Utilization methodology. Signalized intersections under Caltrans control are evaluated using the Highway Capacity Manual methodology. 3 hitersections within a Major Development Area in the City of Santa Ana have a LOS E criteria. Source: Traffic Impact Study and Parking Analysis for the Park View at Town & Country Manor, Kimley -Horn Associates, hie., June 2009. General Plan (2030) Buildout Traffic Conditions With the Project Project traffic was added to the General Plan (2030) Buildout traffic volumes, and the study intersections and roadway segments were re- analyzed. Roadway segment operation under General Plan Buildout conditions with project traffic was evaluated and the results are summarized in Table 4.6 -24. Parker Street between La Veta Avenue and Town & Country Road is forecasted to continue to operate at LOS F. (This roadway segment is forecasted to operate at LOS F without and with the proposed project in 2030.) The proposed project will not have a significant impact on this roadway segment because the V/C ratio increase caused by the project will be less than 0.01. However, the City of Santa Ana requires intersection and roadway improvements to be identified for locations which are forecasted to operate below acceptable standards even without the project, regardless of whether the project creates a significant impact. Per the City's traffic impact analysis guidelines, improvements are specified in project mitigation. Table 4.6 -24: Summary of Daily Roadway Operation General Plan Buildout (2030) With Project Michael Brandman Associates 4.6 -29 H\Cl t(PN- JMb32]b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec0 Trayspo .d¢ Type of Lane Change IN Roadway Segm Arterial ConN. V/C in VIC ILa Veta Avenue Major 6 -lane 56,300 26,800 0.476 0.002 A Main S treet and the SR -22 divided WB ramps Veta Avenue Major 6 -lane 56,300 28,000 0.497 0.002 A - SR-22 WB ramps and divided Glassell Street Town & Country Road Primary 4 -lane 37,500 21,100 0.563 0.005 A - Main Street and the SR -22 divided EB ramps Michael Brandman Associates 4.6 -29 H\Cl t(PN- JMb32]b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec0 Trayspo .d¢ City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor and Traffic Draft EIR Table 4.6.24 (cont.): Summary of Daily Roadway Operation General Plan Buildout (2030) With Project Type of Lane LOS E Future Change �4 Roadway Segment AAanal Config. Cap. ADT VIC in VIC Town &Country Road Primary 4 -lane 37,500 18,800 0.501 0.001 A - SIR-22 EB ramps and divided Memory Lane Memory Lane Major 6 -lane 56,300 12,300 0.218 0.005 A - Main Street and Lawson Way divided Memory Lane Secondary 4 -lane 37,500 12,300 0.328 0.004 A Lawson Way and Town & divided Country Road Main Street Major 6 -lane 56,300 49,900 0.886 0.004 D - La Veta Avenue and Town & divided Country Road Main Street Major 6 -lane 56,300 52,100 0.925 0.002 E Town & Country Road and divided Memory Lane Lawson Way Secondary 4 -lane 25,000 17,800 0.712 0.018 C Town & Country Road and undivided Memory Lane Parker Street Secondary 4 -lane 25,000 26,600 1.064 0.005 F - La Veta Avenue and Town & undivided Country Road EAues, olume -to- capacity ratio WB = Westbound EB = Eastbound Traffic Impact Study and Parking Analysis for the Park View at Town & Country Manor, Kimley -Horn Inc., June 2009. The intersection analysis results are summarized in Table 4.6 -25. With the addition of project - related traffic, the intersections of La Veta Avenue at Parker Street, and Town & Country Road at Parker Street in the City of Orange will continue to operate at LOS E or LOS F in the morning and evening peak hours. (Both intersections are forecasted to operate at LOS E in the morning peak hour and LOS F in the evening peak hour without and with the project in the General Plan buildout scenario.) The project impact is not considered significant because the ICU increases by less than 0.01 with project - related traffic. However, per the City's traffic impact analysis guidelines, improvements are specified in project mitigation. 4.6 -30 Michael Bmndman Associates H\Cl t(PN- JMb327b32]0030DEai 3270030 Sec0 Trayspo .d¢ City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR and Traffic Table 4.6.25: Summary of Peak Hour Intersection Operation General Plan Buildout (2030) With Project AM Peak PM Peak Int. Hour Change Hour Change # Signalized Intersections' in ICU - ICU LOS OS 1 La Veta Avenue/Main Street 0.606 B 0.002 0.733 C 0.001 3 La Veta Avenue/Parker Street 0.937 E 0.002 1.284 F 0.002 4 Town & Country Road/Main Street' 0.545 A 0.001 0.714 C 0.003 6 Town & Country Road/Parker Street 0.944 E 0.002 1.044 F 0.001 7 Main Street/Memory Lane' 0.536 A 0.002 0.656 B 0.005 8 Memory Lane/Lawson Way' 0.487 A 0.008 0.547 A 0.013 AM Peak Percent PM Peak Percent Caltrans Controlled Signalized Hour Change Hour Change in intersections2 in Delay Delay lay LOS Delay LOS 2 La Veta Avenue /SR -22 WB Ramps 19.0 B 0.0% 31.7 C 0.3% 5 Town & Country Road/SR-22 EB 214.2 F 2.6% 91.2 F 1.7% Ramps 9 Main Street/I -5 NB Off- 35.0 C 0.0% 64.0 E 0.2% Ramp/Edgewood Road/ I -5 HOV Ramps 10 Main StreeU1-5 SB Off -Ramp /Santa 34.0 C 0.0% 53.1 D 0.0% Clam Avenue/I -5 NB On -Ramp Notes: ' Signalized intersections in the Cities of Santa Ana and Orange are evaluated using the Intersection Capacity Utilization methodology. 2 Signalized intersections under Caltrans control are evaluated using the Highway Capacity Manual methodology. 3 Intersections within a Major Development Area in the City of Santa Ana have a LOS E criteria. ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization WB = Westbound EB = Eastbound NB = Northbound SB = Southbound HOV = High Occupancy Vehicle Source: Traffic Impact Study and Parking Analysis for the Park View at Town & Country Manor, Kimley -Horn Associates, Inc., June 2009. The intersection of Main Street/1-5 NB Off - Ramp /Edgewood Road/1-5 HOV Ramps will continue to operate at LOS E in the evening peak hour. Percent change in delay is 0.2 percent. The intersection of Town & Country Road and the SR -22 Eastbound (EB) Ramps will also continue to operate at LOS E or LOS F in the morning and evening peak hours. This project - related impact is significant at the Caltrans- controlled intersection of Town & Country Road/SR -22 EB Ramps because the increase in delay is more than one percent. (A significant impact at Caltrans intersections is identified when project - related traffic causes the intersection to operate at an unacceptable level of service and increases the delay by greater than one per cent.) The delay at this intersection would be impacted by the project by 2.6 percent in the morning peak hour and by 1.7 percent in evening peak hour. Michael Brandman Associates 4.6 -31 H\Cl t(PN- JMb327b327003MMVB270030 Sec0 Tmspo md¢ City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor and Traffic Draft EIR Mitigation measures are required at this intersection to bring intersection performance back to pre - project levels. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Significant. Mitigation Measures TRAN -2 The Applicant shall be responsible for implementation of the following improvements at the intersection of Town & Country Road/SR -22 EB Ramps. City and Caltrans acceptance of public improvements shall occur prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy and Use. • Restripe the northbound approach to include one northbound left -turn lane, one northbound through lane, and one exclusive northbound right -turn lane. Adequate pavement width exists to restripe an additional lane without reconstructing the curb line. • Restripe the eastbound approach to add a new exclusive eastbound right -turn lane. Currently, the eastbound approach includes two eastbound left -turn lanes and one 20 -foot eastbound through lane. Adequate width for a new right -turn lane may be achieved by narrowing one existing 12 -foot left -turn lane to 10 feet. Ultimately, the eastbound approach may be restriped to provide two 10- foot left -turn lanes, one 11 -foot eastbound through lane, and one 11 -foot eastbound right -turn lane. TRAN -3 On- street parking on the east side of Lawson Way shall be prohibited for approximately 180 feet south of Town & Country Road (to the fast driveway into the adjacent parking lot) to provide adequate storage capacity for the new northbound right -turn lane at the intersection of Town & Country Road/SR -22 EB Ramps. TRAN -4 The Applicant shall be responsible for implementation of the following improvements at the intersection of La Veta Avenue and Parker Street. City acceptance of public improvements shall occur prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy and Use. • Restripe the northbound approach to include one northbound left -turn lane, and two northbound right -turn lanes. Adequate pavement width exists to restripe the additional right -turn lane without any capital improvements. TRAN -5 The Applicant shall be responsible for implementation of the following improvements at the intersection of Town & Country Road and Parker Street. City acceptance of public improvements shall occur prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy and Use. 4.6 -32 Michael Brandman Associates H\Cl t(PN- Rnb327b32]0030DEai 3270030 Sec01 Tmspo md¢ City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR and Traffic • Restripe the eastbound approach to provide one eastbound left -turn lane, one shared lane for left/through/right turns, and one eastbound right -turn lane. Restripe the northbound and southbound departures on Parker Street to provide two lanes to receive the two incoming lanes. Adequate widths exist on the northbound and southbound legs of the intersection to restripe additional departure lanes. TRAN -6 The Applicant shall be responsible for implementation of the following improvements to the roadway segment of Parker Street between La Veta Avenue and Town & Country Road. City acceptance of public improvements shall occur prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy and Use. • Construct a raised median to convert the roadway from an undivided 4 -lane roadway to a 4 -lane divided roadway. Existing pavement width of approximately 64 feet will allow on- street parking on one side, two southbound lanes, an 8 -foot median, and two northbound lanes. TRAN -7 On- street parking shall be prohibited on at least one side of Parker Street to allow improvements described in mitigation measure TRAN -6 to be constructed, and conversion of this roadway between La Veta Avenue and Town & Country Road from an undivided 4 -lane roadway to a 4 -lane divided roadway. Level of Significance After Mitigation Table 4.6 -26 provides a summary of peak hour intersection operation at General Plan Buildout With Project after mitigation. Improvements and parking restrictions specified in project mitigation for the roadway segment of Parker Street between La Veta Avenue and Town & Country Road, and conversion of the roadway from an undivided 4 -lane roadway to a 4 -lane divided roadway will increase the LOS E Capacity of the arterial to 37,500 maximum average daily traffic and improve the level of service along this segment to LOS C. Described impacts are mitigated, and level of significance after mitigation is less than significant. Table 4.6 -26: Summary of Peak Hour Intersection Operation General Plan Buildout With Project After Mitigation Signalized Intersections AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour �Delay!ICU LOS DelayllCU LOS Veta Avenue / Parker Street 73LWa ithoutProjectWithoutMitigation 0.935 E 1.282 F With Project Without Mitigation 0.937 E 1.284 F With Project With Mitigation 0.818 D 0.937 E Michael Brandman Associates 4.6 -33 H\Cl t(PN- Rnb327b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec0 Tmspo md¢ CW of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor and Traffic Draft EIR Table 4.6.26 (cont.): Summary of Peak Hour Intersection Operation General Plan Buildout With Project After Mitigation General Plan Buildout (2030) - Freeway Mainline Impact 4.6 -6 The project would not cause deficient conditions on the freeway mainline, and would not have a significant impact on any freeway segment under General Plan (2030) Buildout conditions. Impact Analysis General Plan (2030) Buildout Without the Project - Freeway Mainline Analysis General Plan Buildout peak hour freeway volumes and analysis results, by segment and by direction, are summarized in Table 4.6 -27. Table 4.6 -27 indicates that by Year 2030, when the area is assumed to be built out, and assuming the freeway remains configured as it is today, the freeway segments would continue to operate at LOS C or better in both peak hours, in both directions. Table 4.6.27: Summary of Freeway Segment Operation General Plan Buildout Without Project Freeway Segment Signalized Intersections Town & Country Road / SR -22 EB Ramps AM Peak Hour Delay/ICU LOS PM Peak Hour DelayllCU LOS 5 WithoutProjectWithoutMitigation 208.8 F 89.7 F 5 With Project Without Mitigation 214.2 F 91.2 F C With Project With Mitigation 128.5 F 65.7 E 6 Town & Country Road /Parker Street C Glassell Street to Tustin Avenue 5 5,181 15.9 Without Project Without Mitigation 0.942 E 1.043 F 4 With Project Without Mitigation 0.944 E 1.044 F C With Project With Mitigation 0.847 D 0.836 D Notes: ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization Source: Traffic Impact Study and Parking Analysis for the Park View at Town & Country Manor, Kimley -Horn Associates, Inc., June 2009. General Plan Buildout (2030) - Freeway Mainline Impact 4.6 -6 The project would not cause deficient conditions on the freeway mainline, and would not have a significant impact on any freeway segment under General Plan (2030) Buildout conditions. Impact Analysis General Plan (2030) Buildout Without the Project - Freeway Mainline Analysis General Plan Buildout peak hour freeway volumes and analysis results, by segment and by direction, are summarized in Table 4.6 -27. Table 4.6 -27 indicates that by Year 2030, when the area is assumed to be built out, and assuming the freeway remains configured as it is today, the freeway segments would continue to operate at LOS C or better in both peak hours, in both directions. Table 4.6.27: Summary of Freeway Segment Operation General Plan Buildout Without Project Freeway Segment Lanes AM Peak Hour Density (P In) Vol. In) PM Peak Hour Density (p In) Vol. In) LOS SR -22 Eastbound I -5 /SR 57 to Main Street 5 4,882 15.0 B 6,630 20.4 C Main Street to Glassell Street 5 5,231 16.1 B 7,103 21.9 C Glassell Street to Tustin Avenue 5 5,181 15.9 B 7,036 21.6 C Tustin Avenue to SR-55 4 4,335 16.7 B 5,886 22.6 C 4.6 -34 Michael Bmndman Associates H\Cl t(PN- JMb327b32]0030DEai 3270030 Sec0 Tmspo md¢ City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR and Traffic Table 4.6.27 (cont.): Summary of Freeway Segment Operation General Plan Buildout Without Project General Plan (2030) Buildout With the Project - Freeway Mainline Analysis General Plan Buildout With Project peak hour freeway volumes and analysis results, by segment and by direction, are summarized in Table 4.6 -28. Table 4.6 -28 indicates that the project impact on the vehicular density on freeway mainline segments is forecasted to be 0.1 vehicle per freeway lane mile or less. The project would not cause deficient conditions on the freeway mainline, and would not have a significant impact on any freeway segment under General Plan Buildout conditions. Table 4.6.28: Summary of Freeway Segment Operation General Plan Buildout (2030) With Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Density Density Freeway Segment Lanes (pGmi/ (p In) Vol. LOS In) LOS SR -22 Eastbound I -5 /SR 57 to Main Street 5 4,885 15.0 B 6,640 20.4 C AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 5,239 Density B Density 21.9 C (pGmi/ 5 (pGmi/ 16.0 Freeway Segment Lanes Vol. ) IDS Vol. I LOS SR -22 Westbound 4,343 16.7 B 5,891 SR 55 to Tustin Avenue 4 5,298 20.4 C 4,815 18.5 C Tustin Avenue to Glassell Street 5 6,332 19.5 C 5,756 17.7 B Glassell Street to Main Street 5 6,394 19.7 C 5,812 17.9 B Main Street to 1-5/SR-57 5 5,967 18.4 B 5,424 16.7 B Notes: 18.4 C 5,430 16.7 Density is expressed in terms of passenger cars per lane mile in the weaving section. The freeway segment LOS criteria is based on Exhibits 23 -2 and 23 -3 in the Highway Capacity Manual 2000. Source: Traffic Impact Study and Parking Analysis for the Park View at Town & Country Manor, Kimley -Horn Associates, Inc., June 2009. General Plan (2030) Buildout With the Project - Freeway Mainline Analysis General Plan Buildout With Project peak hour freeway volumes and analysis results, by segment and by direction, are summarized in Table 4.6 -28. Table 4.6 -28 indicates that the project impact on the vehicular density on freeway mainline segments is forecasted to be 0.1 vehicle per freeway lane mile or less. The project would not cause deficient conditions on the freeway mainline, and would not have a significant impact on any freeway segment under General Plan Buildout conditions. Table 4.6.28: Summary of Freeway Segment Operation General Plan Buildout (2030) With Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Density Density Freeway Segment Lanes (pGmi/ (p In) Vol. LOS In) LOS SR -22 Eastbound I -5 /SR 57 to Main Street 5 4,885 15.0 B 6,640 20.4 C Main Street to Glassell Street 5 5,239 16.1 B 7,108 21.9 C Glassell Street to Tustin Avenue 5 5,189 16.0 B 7,041 21.7 C Tustin Avenue to SR-55 4 4,343 16.7 B 5,891 22.7 C SR -22 Westbound SR-55 to Tustin Avenue 4 5,300 20.4 C 4,823 18.6 C Tustin Avenue to Glassell Street 5 6,334 19.5 C 5,764 17.7 B Glassell Street to Main Street 5 6,396 19.7 C 5,820 17.9 B Main Street to 1-5/SR-57 5 5,977 18.4 C 5,430 16.7 B Michael Brandman Associates 4.6 -35 H\Cl t(PN- JMb32]b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec0 Tmspo md¢ CW of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor and Traffic Draft EIR Table 4.6.28 (cont.): Summary of Freeway Segment Operation General Plan Buildout (2030) With Project AM Peak Hour I PM Peak Hour Density Density Freeway Segment Lanes (pc/mil (PC/mil Vol. In) LOS Vol. In) LOS Notes: Density is expressed in terms of passenger cars per lane mile in the weaving section. The freeway segment LOS criteria is based on Exhibits 23 -2 and 23 -3 in the Highway Capacity Manual 2000. Source: Traffic Impact Study and Parking Analysis for the Park View at Town & Country Manor, Kimley -Horn Associates, Inc., June 2009. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. General Plan Buildout (2030) - Ramp Queuing Impact 4.6 -7 The project would not have a significant impact on ramp operation during General Plan (2030) Buildout conditions. Impact Analysis General Plan (2030) Buildout Without the Project - Ramp Queuing Analysis General Plan Buildout peak hour ramp queuing analysis results are summarized in Table 4.6 -29. Table 4.6 -29 indicates that in the Without Project condition, the peak hour queue length at the SR -22 eastbound off -ramp at Town & Country Road will exceed the available queue distance. The queue lengths at all other off -ramps analyzed would continue to be within the available queue distances on each off -ramp. Table 4.6.29: Summary of Peak Hour Ramp Queuing General Plan Buildout (2030) Without Project 8501 Percentile Available Queue Length Queue (ft) Distance (ft) pM PM 1,300 292 315 1,300 1,953 657 4.6 -36 Michael Brandman Associates H\Cl t(PN- Rnb327b32]0030DERi 3270030 Sec0 Tmspo md¢ City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Table 4.6.29 (cont.): Summary of Peak Hour Ramp Queuing General Plan Buildout (2030) Without Project Off -Ramp EMU I -5 NB at Main Street I -5 SB at Main Street and Traffic 8591 Percentile Available Queue Length Queue (ft) Distance (ft) AM I PM 900 277 742 1,100 280 648 Notes: WB = Westbound EB = Eastbound NB = Northbound SB = Southbound Bold indicates queue length that exceeds capacity. Source: Traffic Impact Study and Parking Analysis for the Park View at Town & Country Manor, Kimley -Horn Associates, Inc., June 2009. General Plan (2030) Buildout With the Project - Ramp Queuing Analysis General Plan Buildout With Project peak hour ramp queuing analysis results are summarized in Table 4.6 -30. Table 4.6 -30 indicates that with the addition of project traffic, the 85th percentile peak hour queue lengths at all ramp intersections would continue to be within the available queue distance with the exception of one off -ramp. The SR -22 eastbound off -ramp at Town & Country Road will continue to exceed the available queue distance. However, the project is forecasted to lengthen the queue by only seven feet, which represents less than one vehicle. KHA indicates in the Traffic Impact Study that they believe the project would not have a significant impact on the ramp operation during General Plan Buildout conditions. Table 4.6 -30: Summary of Peak Hour Ramp Queuing General Plan Buildout (2030) With Project Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant. Michael Brandman Associates 4.6 -37 H\Cl t(PN- JMb32]b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec01 Tmspo md¢ Be Percentile LEffff-Ramp Available Queue Length Project Impact Queue (ff) (ft) Distance (ft) AM PM AM PM SR-22 WB at La Veta Avenue 1,300 291 315 -1 0 SR-22 EB at Town & Country Road 1,300 1,960 657 7 0 I -5 NB at Main Street 900 277 742 0 0 I -5 SB at Main Street 1,100 281 648 1 0 Notes: WB = Westbound EB = Eastbound NB = Northbound SB = Southbound Bold indicates queue length that exceeds capacity. Source: Traffic Impact Study and Parking Analysis for the Park View at Town & Country Manor, Kimley -Horn Associates, Inc., June 2009. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant. Michael Brandman Associates 4.6 -37 H\Cl t(PN- JMb32]b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec01 Tmspo md¢ CW of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor and Traffic Draft EIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. General Plan Buildout (2030) - Freeway Weaving Impact 4.6 -8 The project would not cause deficient conditions on the freeway weaving areas, and would not have a significant impact on any freeway operation under General Plan (2030) Buildout conditions. Impact Analysis General Plan (2030) Buildout Without the Project - Freeway Weaving Analysis General Plan Buildout peak hour freeway weaving analysis results, by segment and by direction, are summarized in Table 4.6 -31. Table 4.6 -31 indicates that by Year 2030, when the area is assumed to be built out, and assuming the freeway remains configured as it is today, the weaving area on westbound SR -22 from Glassell Street to Main Street would operate at LOS D in the morning peak hour, and the eastbound weaving area on the SR -22 Freeway would operate at LOS E or LOS F in the evening peak hour. Table 4.6 -31: Summary of Freeway Weave Analysis General Plan Buildout (2030) Without Project General Plan (2030) Buildout With the Project - Freeway Weaving Analysis General Plan Buildout With Project peak hour freeway weaving analysis results, by segment and by direction, are summarized in Table 4.6 -32. Table 4.6 -32 indicates that the project impact on the vehicular density on freeway weaving areas is forecasted to be 0.1 vehicle per freeway lane mile or 4.6 -38 Michael Brandman Associates H\Cl t(PN- JMb327b32]0030DERi 3270030 Sec0 Tmspo md¢ AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Density Density Freeway S 'Segment Lanes G mi /ln) LOS LOS SR -22 Eastbound I -5 /SR 57 to Main Street 5 27.9 C 37.2 E Main Street to Glassell Street 5 22.9 B 41.3 F SR -22 Westbound Glassell Street to Main Street 5 33.6 D 29.2 C Main Street to 1-5/SR-57 5 28.4 C 28.8 C Notes: Density is expressed in tennis of passenger cars per lane mile in the weaving section. The freeway weaving segment LOS criteria is based on Exhibit 24 -2 in the Highway Capacity Manual 2000. Source: Traffic Impact Study and Parking Analysis for the Park View at Town & Country Manor, Kimley -Horn Associates, Inc., June 2009. General Plan (2030) Buildout With the Project - Freeway Weaving Analysis General Plan Buildout With Project peak hour freeway weaving analysis results, by segment and by direction, are summarized in Table 4.6 -32. Table 4.6 -32 indicates that the project impact on the vehicular density on freeway weaving areas is forecasted to be 0.1 vehicle per freeway lane mile or 4.6 -38 Michael Brandman Associates H\Cl t(PN- JMb327b32]0030DERi 3270030 Sec0 Tmspo md¢ City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR and Traffic less. The project would not cause deficient conditions on the freeway weaving areas, and would not have a significant impact on any freeway operation under General Plan Buildout conditions. Table 4.6 -32: Summary of Freeway Weave Analysis General Plan Buildout (2030) With Project Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. Air Traffic Patterns Impact 4.6 -9 The project would not 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. [CEQA Transportation and Traffic Threshold 15(c)] Impact Analysis The closest airport to the project site is John Wayne Airport (JWA) located approximately 6 miles to the south. The project site is not located within an area covered by the John Wayne Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP), lying outside the Noise Impact Zones, Clear Zone, and Height Restriction Zone for JWA. In addition, the project site is not in the vicinity of a private airstrip. Project design for the 8 -story building will be compatible with applicable regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the California Department of Transportation, Division of Michael Brandman Associates 4.6 -39 H\Cl t(PN- JMb32]b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec01 Tmspo md¢ AM Peak Ho PM Peak Hour Density Density Freeway Segment Laney- (pGmi /In) LOS (pGmi /In) LOS SR -22 Eastbound 1-5/SR-57 to Main Street 5 27.9 C 37.3 E Main Street to Glassell Street 5 23.0 B 41.4 F SR -22 Westbound Glassell Street to Main Street 5 33.6 D 29.3 C Main Street to 1-5/SR-57 5 28.5 C 28.9 C Notes: Density is expressed in terms of passenger cars per lane mile in the weaving section. The freeway weaving segment LOS criteria is based on Exhibit 24 -2 in the Highway Capacity Manual 2000. Source: Traffic Impact Study and Parking Analysis for the Park View at Town & Country Manor, Kimley -Horn Associates, Inc., June 2009. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. Air Traffic Patterns Impact 4.6 -9 The project would not 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. [CEQA Transportation and Traffic Threshold 15(c)] Impact Analysis The closest airport to the project site is John Wayne Airport (JWA) located approximately 6 miles to the south. The project site is not located within an area covered by the John Wayne Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP), lying outside the Noise Impact Zones, Clear Zone, and Height Restriction Zone for JWA. In addition, the project site is not in the vicinity of a private airstrip. Project design for the 8 -story building will be compatible with applicable regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the California Department of Transportation, Division of Michael Brandman Associates 4.6 -39 H\Cl t(PN- JMb32]b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec01 Tmspo md¢ City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor and Traffic Draft EIR Aeronautics. If building height is more than 200 feet above ground, the project would need to file with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The 8 -story project structure is 123 feet in height, and will not require filing with the FAA. The proposed project will not result in a change in air traffic patterns. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. Hazards Impact 4.6 -10 The project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). [CEQA Transportation and Traff ic Threshold 15(d)] Impact Analysis The proposed project is located on the southwest corner of the Town and Country Manor campus at the intersection of Lawson Way and Memory Lane. The site is currently a surface parking lot and a lawn area. Two entrances currently serve the parking lot: one full- movement driveway on Lawson Way and one right -in /right -out only driveway Memory Lane. Access to the site will be via two existing entrances. The south entrance on Memory Lane will remain a single right- in/right -out driveway with left turns prohibited because of a raised median in Memory Lane. On Lawson Way, drivers can continue to make left turns in and out of the project site via the two -way left -turn lane. Drivers exiting the site and wishing to go north can turn right onto Memory Lane or Lawson Way. From there, the driver will have the option of heading north on Lawson Way towards Town & Country Road or making a right turn from Memory Lane onto Main Street. Drivers approaching the site from the west will have to make a left turn onto Lawson Way because of a raised median that prohibits left turns into the project site from Memory Lane. The site plan shows that the driveway entrance on Memory Lane will be 40 feet wide with one lane in and one lane out. A 20- foot -wide fire access lane is marked on the site plan for the Memory Lane entrance. The driveway entrance on Lawson Way will be 20 feet wide with one lane in each direction as well. The site plan shows a 20- foot -wide driveway that connects both driveways. Delivery and trash trucks will take access to the site from the driveway entrance on Lawson Way. The site plan shows a loading zone, loading dock and a trash enclosure located approximately 50 feet east of the driveway on the north end of the proposed building. Tenants will enter and exit the 4.640 Michael Brandman Associates H\Cl t(PN- Rnb327b32]0030DEai 3270030 Sec01 Tmspo md¢ City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR and Traffic underground parking garage from a ramp located at the southeast part of the building near the Memory Lane driveway entrance. Site Distance Analysis A sight distance analysis was conducted for both the south entrance on Memory Lane and the west entrance on Lawson Way using County of Orange standards. Based on County standards, the required sight distance for an unsignalized intersection on a collector street is 390 feet. Sight distance is defined as the distance along the main roadway required to allow 7.5 seconds for the driver on the side of the street or driveway to safely enter the traffic stream on the main roadway while the approaching vehicle travels at the assumed design speed of the road. Sight distance is measured along the centerline of the road from the driver's eye (assumed to be 3.5 feet in height) while seated in a vehicle 10 feet back from the projection of the curb line, to the oncoming vehicle (4.25 foot object height) in the center of the right through travel lane. The line of sight — a straight line between the driver's eye and the oncoming vehicle in the right through travel lane — defines the Limited Use Area. The Limited Use Area must be kept clear of obstructions in order to maintain adequate sight distance. The sight distance analysis for the project was conducted by KHA through field observations and ground measurements. The results of the analysis are summarized in Table 4.6 -33. There are no trees or other obstructions in the Limited Use Area that block the driver's view looking in either direction from both driveway entrances along Lawson Way and Memory Lane. However, the sight distance to the east (looking to the left) along Memory Lane is limited by a curve in the roadway. Field measurements indicate that the sight distance to the east of the Memory Lane driveway entrance is 470 feet. This measured sight distance is greater than the required 390 feet. Drivers exiting the project site onto Lawson Way may turn both left and right. The sight distances available from this location are only restricted by the signalized intersections north and south of the driveway, and are also greater than the required distance. Table 4.6 -33: Sight Distance Summary Locatio Sig m: nce eqw Sight Distance Provid Project Driveway at Memory Lane Looking to the right N /A' Looking to the left 390 ft 470 ft Project Driveway at Lawson Way Looking to the right 390 ft 560 fe Looking to the left 390 ft 440 ft' Notes- ' Not applicable. Left turns are prohibited by a raised median. 2 Distance to intersection of Lawson Way and Town & Country Road. 3 Distance to intersection of Lawson Way and Memory Lane. Source: Traffic Impact Study and Parking Analysis for the Park View at Town & Country Manor, Kimley -Horn Associates, Inc., June 2009. Michael Brandman Associates 4.641 H\Cl t(PN- JMb32]b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec01 Tmspo md¢ CW of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor and Traffic Draft EIR Level of Significance Before Mitigation No impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures required. Level of Significance After Mitigation No impact. Emergency Access Impact 4.6 -11 The project would not result in inadequate emergency access. [CEQA Transportation and Traffic Threshold 15(e)] Impact Analysis The proposed project will not conflict with existing or future emergency access to the site. A detailed review of the proposed project plans will be conducted by the City of Santa Ana as part of the application review process to ensure that adequate emergency access is provided onsite. Project design will meet current City regulations for emergency access and provision of emergency services. No impact will occur. Level of Significance Before Mitigation No impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures required. Level of Significance After Mitigation No impact. Parking Capacity Impact 4.6 -12 The project would not result in inadequate parking capacity. [CEQA Transportation and Traffic Threshold 15(f)] Impact Analysis The existing facilities at Town and Country Manor include residential care, assisted living, and skilled nursing facilities. Based on the City's parking requirements, these facilities combined would require a total of 210 parking spaces. The campus currently provides 172 parking spaces, including 11 handicapped spaces. The proposed project will make modifications to existing campus parking areas to produce 79 less parking spaces near the main entrance, 71 more parking spaces in the north parking lot, and construct a new 31 -stall parking lot for guests. The end result is a total of 195 spaces, which represents a net gain of 23 parking spaces. 4.642 Michael Bmndman Associates H\Cl t(PN- JMb327b32]0030DEai 3270030 Sec0 Trayspo .d¢ City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR and Traffic The project proposes to construct three levels of subterranean parking underneath the apartment building, totaling 275 spaces. The first level will have 93 spaces, the second level will have 115 spaces, and the third level 67 spaces. The total parking supply proposed is 470 spaces. Overall parking supply for the Town and Country Manor campus is shown in Table 4.6 -34. The project's parking requirements, based on the City of Santa Ana parking requirements for a Senior Citizens Establishment land use, are summarized on Table 4.6 -35. According to the City's Municipal Code, the proposed project is required to provide one space for each one - bedroom unit, 1 -1/2 spaces for each two- bedroom unit, plus guest parking at no less than 15 percent of the total required parking. The project is also required to provide seven handicapped spaces. The total parking requirement for the project will be 260 parking spaces, as shown in Table 4.6 -35. Table 4.6 -36 calculates the proposed projects overall parking adequacy and shows that the total parking supply on the entire Town and Country Manor campus is 470 parking spaces. The parking requirement is 470 spaces. The parking requirement is exactly met. Table 4.6 -34: Overall Parking Supply of Town and Country Manor Parking Area WExistiniro Main Entrance 91 Be Rem ov -91 New 12 12 North Parking Lot 67 -29 99 138 East Parking Lot 14 0 0 14 South Parking Lot 0 0 31 31 Existing Subtotal 172 119 142 195 New Subterranean Parking Garage Level 67 67 Leve12 115 115 Levell 93 93 Parking Garage Subtotal 275 275 TOTAL PARKING SUPPLY 470 Source: Traffic Impact Study and Parking Analysis for the Park View at Town & Country Manor, Kimley -Horn Associates, Inc., June 2009. Michael Brandman Associates 4.643 H\Cl t(PN- Rnb327b327003MMVB270030 Sec0 Tmspo md¢ CW of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor and Traffic Draft EIR Table 4.6.35: Parking Requirement For Park View at Town and Country Manor Table 4.6 -36: Overall Parking Adequacy of Town and Country Manor Parking Spaces City of Santa Ana Parking Required per Land Use Quantity Code City Code Senior Citizens Establishments 210 New Building Parking Requirement 260 1 Bedroom Dwelling 73 1 space/ DU 73 Units Associates, Inc., June 2009. 2 Bedroom Dwelling 99 1.5 space / DU 149 Units Penthouse 2 2 space/DU 4 Subtotal 226 Guest Parking 15 % of required parking 34 Total Required Parking 260 Notes: DU = Dwelling Units Source: Traffic Impact Study and Parking Analysis for the Park View at Town & Country Manor, Kimley -Horn Associates, Inc., June 2009. Table 4.6 -36: Overall Parking Adequacy of Town and Country Manor Parking Spaces Surface Parking (Existing + New) 195 New Subterranean Parking 275 Total Parking Supply 470 Existing Parking Requirement 210 New Building Parking Requirement 260 Total Parking Requirement 470 Forecasted Parking Surplus (Deficit) 0 Source: Traffic Impact Study and Parking Analysis for the Park View at Town & Country Manor, Kimley Horn Associates, Inc., June 2009. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. 4.6-44 Michael Bmndman Associates H\Cl t(PN- JMb327b3270030DEai 3270030 Sec01 Tmspo md¢ City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Conflict with Alternative Transportation and Traffic Impact 4.6 -13 The project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks). [CEQA Transportation and Traff ic Threshold 15(g)] Impact Analysis The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) provides bus service in the project area. Route 453, Orange Transportation Center to St. Joseph's Hospital, runs on Town and Country Road, Lawson Way, and E. Memory Lane 15 times per day. Route 53, Brea to Irvine, stops at the Main Place Mall 42 times per day, which is approximately 0.4 mile west of the project site. Climate change mitigation measure CC -7 calls for the incorporation of a range of measures in an effort to reduce vehicle miles traveled, such as: • Providing information to the residents on how to use the transit system, including details on where the bus stops are located, route information, how to plan a bus trip, and potential destinations; • Providing a locked shed in the parking garage available to residents for long -term storage of bicycles; and • Installing short-term bicycle parking within 100 feet of the main entrance of the building. A detailed review of the proposed project plans and respective pedestrian circulation plans will be conducted by the City of Santa Ana as part of the application review process to ensure that adequate pedestrian walkways and bicycle parking facilities are provided for the project. No hazards to pedestrians or bicyclists would occur with implementation of he proposed project. The proposed project will not conflict with any local policies supporting alternative transportation. No impact is anticipated. Level of Significance Before Mitigation No impact. Mitigation Measures Implement mitigation measure CC -7. No further mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation No impact. Michael Brandman Associates 4.645 H\Cl t(PN- Rnb327b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec01 Tmspo md¢ City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Utilities and Service 4.7 - Utilities and Service Svstems 4.7.1 - Introduction This section describes the existing utilities and service systems setting and potential effects from project implementation on the site and its surrounding area. A comment letter addressing utilities on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of the FIR for the Park View at Town and Country Manor project, contained in Appendix A, was received by the City of Santa Ana from the Southern California Gas Company. The Gas Company letter indicates that gas service to the project can be provided from existing gas mains located in the project area. 4.7.2 - Existing Conditions Water Supply and Sources The City of Santa Ana Water Department provides water service to the existing Town & Country Manor campus and general project area. The City depends on two sources for the water it supplies: 66 percent is groundwater from local sources, and 34 percent is imported water purchased from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). The groundwater is pumped to the surface by 20 City -owned wells. MWD brings Colorado River water from Lake Havasu and runoff from the snow pack in the Sierra Nevada Range in Northern California. The water is then treated at either the Diemer Filtration Plant in Yorba Linda or the Weymouth Filtration Plant in LaVeme before it is delivered to Santa Ana (City of Santa Ana Water Quality Report 2007). Wastewater The Orange County Sanitation District (CODS) collects, treats, and disposes of and /or reclaims wastewater generated by the more than 2 million people living and working in central and northwestern Orange County. OCSD treats approximately 250 million gallons of wastewater each day. OCSD facilities include 580 miles of sewer pipes and two treatment plants —one in Fountain Valley and the other in Huntington Beach where wastewater is treated in accordance with strict state and federal standards (OCSD 2008). The City of Santa Ana maintains local sewer lines. The project site adjoins a major business and mixed use area with existing sewer and connector lines. A 12 -inch line is located in Main Street and a 6 -inch line is located in Memory Lane. Existing development in the project area is served by sewers connected to OCSD's 30 -inch trunk line in Memory Lane, the Memory Lane Interceptor. The Memory Lane Interceptor was built to accommodate flows from existing and planned development in the project area. Michael Brandman Associates 4.7 -1 H\Cl t(PN- JMb327b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec 7UNifiesa dService SyAa sdoc Utilities and Service Electricity City of Santa Ana - Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Southern California Edison (SCE) provides electrical service to the existing Town & Country Manor campus and general project area, and would extend service to the proposed project in accordance with rules and policies for extension of service on file with the California Public Utilities Commission. There are existing electrical power lines in the project vicinity located on Main Street and Memory Lane. Natural Gas The Southern California Gas Company provides natural gas service to the existing Town and Country Manor campus and general project area, and can provide gas service to the proposed project from existing gas mains located near the project site (Simonoff, personal communication). The service would be in accordance with Gas Company policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission when contractual arrangements are made. Solid Waste The City of Santa Ana is currently under contract to the Orange County Integrated Waste Management Department (IWMD) to commit all of its waste to the Orange County Landfill System. The County of Orange owns and operates three active landfills. Table 4.7 -1 provides landfill name, daily capacity, and anticipated closure date. Table 4.7 -1: Active Landfills The City of Santa Ana contracts for solid waste collection services. Waste Management of Orange County provides collection of residential and commercial refuse, recyclables (newspaper, glass, aluminum and plastic containers), and yard waste in the City. Waste collected in Santa Ana is transferred to one of the three landfills listed above. The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) established the current organization, structure, and mission of California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) in 1989. The enactment of AB 939 resulted from a national crisis in landfill capacity and broad acceptance of the hierarchy (reduce, reuse, recycle, environmentally -sound landfilling and 4.7 -2 Michael Brandman Associates H\Cl t (PN JN)b327b327W3MME 3270030 Sec 7UNifie a d Service Sy9a¢s.d Permitted Capacity Closure Landfill Tons per Day (TPD) Date Prima Deshecha 32250 La Pata Avenue 4,000 2067 San Juan Capistrano 1mda Alpha 1942 North Valencia 8,000 2013 Brea Frank R Bowerman 11002 Bee Canyon Access Road 8,500 2022 Irvine Source: California Integrated Waste Management Board, Website http: / /www.ciwmb.ca.gov /. September 2009. The City of Santa Ana contracts for solid waste collection services. Waste Management of Orange County provides collection of residential and commercial refuse, recyclables (newspaper, glass, aluminum and plastic containers), and yard waste in the City. Waste collected in Santa Ana is transferred to one of the three landfills listed above. The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) established the current organization, structure, and mission of California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) in 1989. The enactment of AB 939 resulted from a national crisis in landfill capacity and broad acceptance of the hierarchy (reduce, reuse, recycle, environmentally -sound landfilling and 4.7 -2 Michael Brandman Associates H\Cl t (PN JN)b327b327W3MME 3270030 Sec 7UNifie a d Service Sy9a¢s.d City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Utilities and Service transformation) as the desired approach to solid waste management. Since that time, landfill capacity has increased. AB 939 has achieved significant progress in waste diversion, program implementation, solid waste planning, and protection of public health and safety and the environment from the operation of landfills and solid waste facilities. AB 939 not only mandated local jurisdictions to meet numerical diversion goals of 25 percent by 1995 and 50 percent by 2000, but also established an integrated framework for program implementation, solid waste planning, and solid waste facility and landfill compliance (California Integrated Waste Management Board 2008). 4.7.3 - Thresholds of Significance According to the CEQA Guidelines' Appendix G Environmental Checklist, to determine whether impacts to utilities and service systems are significant environmental effects, the following questions are analyzed and evaluated. Would the project: a.) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b.) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c.) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d.) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e.) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f.) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g.) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 4.7.4 - Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures This section discusses potential utility and service system impacts associated with the development of the project. Mitigation measures are provided where necessary. Water or Wastewater Treatment Facilities and Capacity Impact 4.7 -1 The project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board. The project would result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments. Michael Brandman Associates 4.7 -3 H\Cl t(PN- Rnb327b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec 7UNifie avd Service S,A.v doc Utilities and Service Impact Analysis City of Santa Ana - Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR The project would not require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. [CEQA Utilities and Service Systems Threshold 16(a)] [CEQA Utilities and Service Systems Threshold 16(b)] [CEQA Utilities and Service Systems Threshold 16(e)] The proposed project is projected to generate 0.03 million gallons per day (mgd) of wastewater (see Table 4.7 -2; 30,077 gallons per day or 0.03 mgd). This wastewater would be conveyed to OCSD Reclamation Plant No. 1 in Fountain Valley, and Plant No. 2 in Huntington Beach. Plant No. 1 has a capacity of 180 mgd. If Plant No. 1 is operating at capacity, sewage is diverted to Reclamation Plant No. 2. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a need to construct a new waste treatment plant or local facilities. OCSD operates the treatment plants in accordance with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) wastewater treatment requirements. Table 4.7 -2: Estimated Wastewater Generation Wastewater originating from the project site would discharge to a local sewer line and then be conveyed to OCSD's 30 -inch trunk line in Main Street. There is currently a 12 -inch City sewer main located at the intersection of Lawson Way and Memory Lane that is connected to the project site via a 10 -inch sewer lateral, located on the northeast corner of Lawson Way and Memory Lane. The 30- inch trunk line was built to accommodate flows originating from existing and planned development in the immediate area, having a design capacity of approximately 15 million gallons per day (mgd). 4.7-4 Michael Brandman Associates H\Cl t (PN JN)b327b327W3(MME 3270030 SeN 7Utilitiese d Service Sy9ems.d Estimated Project Wastewater Land Use Development Generation Ra Generation (gpd) Residential 174 du 110 gallons /day /person 28,7102 Park View Kitchen and 2,300 sf (approx.) 50 gallons/day/200 sf 575 Dining Area Aquatic and Wellness Center 7,920 sf (approx.) 100 gal/day /1,000 sf' 792 TOTAL 30,077 Notes- ' Obtained from the City Place Final EIR, City of Santa Ana, 2005. 2 Assumes 1.5 persons per unit based on some units being occupied by a single individual. 3 Represents one -half the generation rate used for restaurants in the City Place Final EIR, City of Santa Ana, 2005. Only one meal, continental breakfast, will be served in the Park View dining area. Park View residents will have the option of buying dinners in the main dining room of the Town and Country Manor campus, but it is anticipated by the Applicant that this occurrence will be very intermittent. Applying a 50 percent restaurant generation rate for wastewater to the proposed project is likely an over - estimation and therefore represents a generous, worst -case estimate. ° Obtained from the Ponte Vista Draft FIR for pool and recreation area to serve a large condominium complex, accessed from Website http:// citypianning .lacity.org/eir/PonteVista/DEIR/ Draft% 20EIR %20Sectims /IV.K.2 %20Wwtewater. Accessed September2009. du = dwelling unit sf = square feet gpd = gallons per day Wastewater originating from the project site would discharge to a local sewer line and then be conveyed to OCSD's 30 -inch trunk line in Main Street. There is currently a 12 -inch City sewer main located at the intersection of Lawson Way and Memory Lane that is connected to the project site via a 10 -inch sewer lateral, located on the northeast corner of Lawson Way and Memory Lane. The 30- inch trunk line was built to accommodate flows originating from existing and planned development in the immediate area, having a design capacity of approximately 15 million gallons per day (mgd). 4.7-4 Michael Brandman Associates H\Cl t (PN JN)b327b327W3(MME 3270030 SeN 7Utilitiese d Service Sy9ems.d City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Utilities and Service Both sewer facilities have adequate capacity to meet the project's sewer discharge needs (Vakili 2008). A sewer capacity analysis from the Applicant will be required by the City to fully evaluate impacts to wastewater facilities from the proposed project. The Applicant/Developer will be required to provide all onsite sewer infrastructure and pay appropriate sewer system connection fees. City requirements will ensure that sewer facilities are sized appropriately, and that wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB are not be exceeded. The project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board. The project would result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments. Lastly, the project would not require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Impacts are, therefore, less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. Stormwater Drainage Facilities Impact 4.7 -2 The project would not require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. [CEQA Utilities and Service Systems Threshold 16(c)] Impact Analysis Existing drainage facilities serving the Town and Country Manor and surrounding area have been planned and constructed to accommodate runoff from development on the project site. A project Hydrology Study as well as a Drainage Plan, identifying the exact size and location of drainage facilities, will be prepared and submitted to the City of Santa Ana for review and approval. The proposed project can be considered part of the master planned mixed use area containing the Main Place Mall and City Place development. Development intensity in this location is increasing, and storm drain facilities are being upgraded accordingly. Increased runoff volumes and velocities for the project site will be reduced through BMPs discussed in Hydrology and Water Quality Impact 4.5 -1 and detailed in the project Preliminary WQMP contained in Appendix C. Runoff will be stored and Michael Brandman Associates 4.7 -5 H\Cl t(PN- JMb327b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec 7UNifiesa dService SyAa sdoc Utilities and Service City of Santa Ana - Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR treated prior to discharge from the project site. Impacts of runoff water on drainage systems are considered less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. Water Supplies Impact 4.7 -3 The project would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources. [CEQA Utilities and Service Systems Threshold 16(d)] Impact Analysis Approximately 30,077 gallons per day (gpd) is expected to be consumed by the proposed project (see Table 4.7 -3. According to the City's Water Department, water service to the project site would be provided by a 10 -inch City water main located 24 feet east of the centerline of Lawson Way, and a 16 -inch City water main located 25 feet north of the centerline of Memory Lane, along the project's frontage. Table 4.7.3: Estimated Water Consumption Estimated Project Water Development Consumption Rate Consumption i (gpd) Residential 174 du 110 gallons /day /person 28,7102 Park View Kitchen and Dining Area 2,300 sf (approx.) 50 gallons /day /200 sf' 575 Aquatic and Wellness Center 7,920 sf (approx.) 100 gal/day /1,000 sf' 792 TOTAL 30,077 t Obtained from the City Place Final EIR, City of Santa Ana, 2005. 2 Assumes 1.5 persons per unit based on some units being occupied by a single individual. 3 Represents one -half the consumption rate used for restaurants in the City Place Final EIR, City of Santa Ana, 2005. Only one meal, continental breakfast, will be served in the Park View dining area. Park View residents will have the option of buying dinners in the main dining room of the Town and Country Manor campus, but it is anticipated by the Applicant that this occurrence will be very intermittent. Applying a 50 percent restaurant water consumption rate to the proposed project is likely an over - estimation and therefore represents a generous, worst -case estimate. ° Obtained from the Pratte Vista Draft FIR for pool and recreation area to serve a large condominium complex, accessed from Website http:// citypianning. lacity.org/eir/PonteVista/DEIR/ Draft% 20EIR %20Sectims /IV.K.2 %20Wmtewater. Accessed September2009. du = dwelling unit sf = square feet gpd = gallons per day 4.7 -6 Michael Bmndman Associates H\Cl t (PN JN)b327b327W3MME 3270030 SeN 7Utilitiese d Service Sy9ems.d City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Utilities and Service As indicated in Section 4.7 -2, Water Supply and Sources Subsection, the City relies on groundwater for a majority of its water supply. Project development, however, would not deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge (see analysis for Impact 4.3 -2). Existing entitlements, both from the City's groundwater and from Metropolitan Water District are considered adequate to meet anticipated future demand in the City of Santa Ana. Onsite improvements and connections to the City's water system facilities would be provided by the Applicant. In addition, State - mandated water conservation measures, and other required conservation measures would be utilized to reduce the amount of water used. Implementation of mitigation measure CC -5 to reduce water consumption is also required. As a result, expansion of existing or construction of new water facilities, or new entitlements to serve the proposed project would not be necessary. A less than significant impact would be experienced. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant. Mitigation Measures Implementation of mitigation measure CC -5 to reduce water consumption is required. No additional mitigation measures required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. Climate Change Adaptation - Reduction in Water Supply Impact 4.7 -4 The project could be affected by climate change through a reduction in the quality and supply of water available within the State. Impact Analysis A vast network of manmade reservoirs and aqueducts captures and transports water throughout the State from Northern California rivers and the Colorado River. The current distribution system relies on Sierra Nevada snowpack to supply water during the dry spring and summer months. Rising temperatures, potentially compounded by decreases in precipitation, could severely reduce spring snowpack, increasing the risk of summer water shortages. If greenhouse gas emissions continue unabated, more precipitation could fall as rain instead of snow, and the snow that does fall could melt earlier, reducing the Sierra Nevada spring snowpack by as much as 70 to 90 percent. The amount of snowpack that could be lost depends in part on future precipitation patterns, the projections for which remain uncertain. However, even under the wetter climate projections, the loss of snowpack could pose challenges to water managers and hamper hydropower generation. It could also adversely affect winter tourism. The State's water supplies are also at risk from rising sea levels. An influx of saltwater could degrade California's estuaries, wetlands, and groundwater aquifers. Saltwater intrusion caused by rising sea levels is a major threat to the quality and reliability of water within the southern edge of the Sacramento /San Joaquin River Michael Brandman Associates 4.7 -7 H\Cl t(PN- Rnb327b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec 7UNifiesa dService SyAa sdoc Utilities and Service City of Santa Ana - Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Delta - a major state fresh water supply. Although these water supply considerations are long range and speculative, without mitigation they are potentially significant. Level of Significance before Mitigation Potentially significant. Mitigation Measures Implementation of mitigation measure CC -5 to reduce water consumption is required. The City of Santa Ana has policies that encourage water conservation. No additional mitigation measures required. Level of Significance after Mitigation Less than significant. Landfill Capacity Impact 4.7 -5 The project would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs. [CEQA Utilities and Service Systems Threshold 16(f)] Impact Analysis Implementation of the proposed project would result in an increase in the generation of solid waste within Town and Country Manor. As show in Table 4.7 -4, it is estimated that approximately 1325 pounds of solid waste per day (or .6625 tons per day) would be generated by proposed project uses. Table 4.7 -4: Estimated Solid Waste Generation Land Us Aftitimated Project Generation Rate Waste Generated evelopment IL (pounds per day) (pounds per day) Residential 174 du 71bs /unitrday' 1,218.00 Park View Kitchen and Dining 2,300 sf (approx.) 0.02951bs /sf day2 67.85 Area Aquatic and Wellness Center 7,920 sf (approx.) 5 lbs /1000 sf/day3 39.60 TOTAL 1325.45 Notes- ' Obtained from the City Place Final EIR, City of Santa Ana, 2005. 2 Represents one -half the generation rate used for restaurants in the City Place Final EIR, City of Santa Ana, 2005. Only one meal, continental breakfast, will be served in the Park View dining area. Park View residents will have the option of buying dinners in the main dining room of the Town and Country Manor campus, but it is anticipated by the Applicant that this occurrence will be very intermittent. Applying a 50 percent restaurant solid waste generation rate to the proposed project is likely an over - estimation and therefore represents a generous, worst -case estimate. 3 Obtained from the Ponte Vista Draft FIR for pool and recreation area to serve a large condominium complex, accessed from Website http: / /citypiani ing. lacity. org/ eir/ PonteVista /DEIIUDmft %2OEIR %2OSectims/ IV.K.3 %20 Solid 0/o20Waste. The retait/commercial generation rate (the closest available rate) was utilized in the Ponte Vista FIR and also here for Park View because solid waste generation rates are not available for recreation - related uses. Website accessed September 2009. du = dwelling unit sf = square feet 4.7-8 Michael Brandman Associates H\Cl t(PN" 327b327W3(MME 3270030 SeN 7Utilitiese d Service Sy9ems.d City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Utilities and Service Solid waste collected by Waste Management of Orange County is currently transferred to three facilities (the Prima Deshecha, Olinda Alpha, and Frank R. Bowerman Landfills, see Table 4.7 -1). These landfills currently accept up to 20,500 pounds of solid waste per day. The proposed project's waste generation represents a limited percentage of the total solid waste deposited daily at the three Orange County landfills. To reduce waste, mitigation measure CC -4 is required. Also, the City would continue to implement existing waste reduction programs and require new development in the City to comply with those programs. The impact of the proposed project related to solid waste is considered less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant. Mitigation Measures Implementation of mitigation measure CC -4 to reduce waste is required. No additional mitigation measures required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. Compliance with Solid Waste Regulations and Statutes Impact 4.7 -6 The project would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. [CEQA Utilities and Service Systems Threshold 16(g)] Impact Analysis Waste Management of Orange County (WMOC) would provide collection of non - hazardous waste to the project site. Waste collected in Santa Ana is transferred to one of three landfills: Prima Deshecha, Olinda Alpha, and Frank R. Bowerman. WMOC transports refuse in compliance with applicable federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Typically, residential activities, dining facilities, and pool /recreation areas do not generate, store, or dispose of significant quantities of hazardous materials. The proposed project would utilize products for onsite maintenance of landscaping, pest control, and chlorination of the swimming pool. General site maintenance and repair such as painting and janitorial services that utilize cleaners, lubricants, and paints would also occur. All hazardous materials would be required to be stored, handled and disposed of in accordance with all applicable federal, State and local laws and regulations. Storage and generation of solid waste on the project site would comply with all applicable federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste; therefore, no significant impacts would be expected to occur. Michael Brandman Associates 4.7 -9 H\Cl t(PN- JMb327b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec 7UNifiesa dService SyAa sdoc Utilities and Service Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant. Mitigation Measures Chy of Santa Ana - Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Implementation of mitigation measure CC -4 to reduce waste is required. No additional mitigation measures required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. Natural Gas Impact 4.7 -7 The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies or substantial alterations related to natural gas. Impact Analysis Implementation of the proposed project would result in an increased demand for natural gas service associated with the proposed land uses. The primary use for natural gas in the project would be for combustion to produce space heating, water heating, swimming pool heating, and air conditioning. Table 4.7 -5 estimates the annual natural gas consumption expected by the proposed project. Table 4.7.5: Estimated Natural Gas Consumption As shown, the project would generate demand for approximately 0.74 million cubic feet of natural gas annually. Gas service will be provided by the Southern California Gas Company to meet the requirements of the proposed project. Southern California Gas Company has indicated that it will be 4.7 -10 Michael Brandman Associates H\Cl t (PN JN)b327b327W3MME 3270030 SeN 7Utilitiese d Service Sy9ems.d Estimated Project C umtion Rate Natural Gas Consumption p IEL Development (million cf /mo) Residential 174 du 4,105 cf /du/mot 0.714 Park View 2,300 sf (approx.) 1.45 cf/sf/mo' 0.003 Kitchen and Dining Area Aquatic and 7,920 sf (approx.) 2.9 cf/sf/mo3 0.023 Wellness Center TOTAL 0.74 Notes: t Obtained from City Place Final EIR, City of Santa Ana, 2005. 2 Represents one -half the consumption rate used for restaurants in the City Place Final EIR, City of Santa Ana, 2005. Only one meal, continental breakfast, will be served in the Park View dining area. Park View residents will have the option of buying dinners in the main dining room of the Town and Country Manor campus, but it is anticipated by the Applicant that this occurrence will be very intermittent. Applying a 50 percent restaurant natural gas consumption rate to the proposed project is likely an over - estimation and therefore represents a generous, worst -case estimate. 3 Retail/commercial consumption rate (the closest available rate) obtained from City Place Final EIR, City of Santa Ana, 2005 was utilized here for Park View because natural gas consumption rates are not available for recreation - related uses. du = dwelling unit sf = square feet cf = cubic feet mo = month As shown, the project would generate demand for approximately 0.74 million cubic feet of natural gas annually. Gas service will be provided by the Southern California Gas Company to meet the requirements of the proposed project. Southern California Gas Company has indicated that it will be 4.7 -10 Michael Brandman Associates H\Cl t (PN JN)b327b327W3MME 3270030 SeN 7Utilitiese d Service Sy9ems.d City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Utilities and Service able to supply the proposed project with natural gas from existing gas mains located near the project site (Simonoff, personal communication). Implementation of the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact to natural gas service. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. Electricity Impact 4.7 -8 The project would not result in a need for new systems or supplies or substantial alterations related to electricity. Impact Analysis Implementation of the proposed project would result in an increased demand for electrical service associated with the proposed land uses. Table 4.7 -6 estimates the annual electricity consumption expected by the proposed project. Table 4.7.6: Estimated Electricity Consumption Obtained from City Place Final EIR, City of Santa Ana, 2005. 2 Represents one -half the consumption rate used for restaurants in the City Place Final EIR, City of Santa Ana, 2005. Only one meal, continental breakfast, will be served in the Park View dining area. Park View residents will have the option of buying dinners in the main dining room of the Town and Country Manor campus, but it is anticipated by the Applicant that this occurrence will be very intermittent. Applying a 50 percent restaurant electricity consumption rate to the proposed project is likely an over - estimation and therefore represents a generous, worst -case estimate. 3 Retail/commercial consumption rate (the closest available rate) obtained from City Place Final EIR, City of Santa Ana, 2005 was utilized here for Park View because electricity consumption rates are not available for recreation - related uses. du = dwelling unit sf = square feet kWh = kilowatt hour yr = year Electrical service will be provided by Southern California Edison (SCE) to meet the requirements of the proposed project. As shown, the project would generate demand for approximately 1.20 million kilowatt hours of electricity annually. Implementation of mitigation measures CC -1, CC -2, and CC -8 Michael Brandman Associates 4.7 -11 H\Cl t(PN- JMb32]b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec 7UNitiesa dService SyAa sdoc Estimated Project Consumption Electricity Development Rate Consumption (million kWh /yr) Residential 174 du 6,081 kWh/du/yr' 1.06 Park View Kitchen and Dining Area 2,300 sf (approx.) 23.65 kWh/sf/yrz 0.05 Aquatic and Wellness Center 7,920 sf (approx.) 11.8 kWh/sf /yr3 0.09 TOTAL 1.20 Obtained from City Place Final EIR, City of Santa Ana, 2005. 2 Represents one -half the consumption rate used for restaurants in the City Place Final EIR, City of Santa Ana, 2005. Only one meal, continental breakfast, will be served in the Park View dining area. Park View residents will have the option of buying dinners in the main dining room of the Town and Country Manor campus, but it is anticipated by the Applicant that this occurrence will be very intermittent. Applying a 50 percent restaurant electricity consumption rate to the proposed project is likely an over - estimation and therefore represents a generous, worst -case estimate. 3 Retail/commercial consumption rate (the closest available rate) obtained from City Place Final EIR, City of Santa Ana, 2005 was utilized here for Park View because electricity consumption rates are not available for recreation - related uses. du = dwelling unit sf = square feet kWh = kilowatt hour yr = year Electrical service will be provided by Southern California Edison (SCE) to meet the requirements of the proposed project. As shown, the project would generate demand for approximately 1.20 million kilowatt hours of electricity annually. Implementation of mitigation measures CC -1, CC -2, and CC -8 Michael Brandman Associates 4.7 -11 H\Cl t(PN- JMb32]b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec 7UNitiesa dService SyAa sdoc City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Utilities and Service Systems Draft EIR will increase energy efficiency and reduce energy consumption. In compliance with mitigation measures, the project will meet and exceed Title 24 energy efficiency requirements. The Third District Court of Appeal (Court), in a recent CEQA decision in Tracy First v. City of Tracy, ruled that it is appropriate to rely on energy efficiency standards contained in the State building code as means of demonstrating reductions in energy impacts to less than significant levels. The Court treated the energy efficiency portions of the building code as the threshold of significance and determined that projects which comply with the code or exceed it have reduced their energy consumption to insignificance. Implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to electrical service. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant. Mitigation Measures Implement mitigation measures CC -1, CC -2, and CC -8. No additional mitigation measures required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. Cumulative Impacts Impact 4.7 -9: When considered on a regional or cumulative basis, the project would not have a significant impact on the ability of utility purveyors to provide service. Impact Analysis Implementation of the proposed project together with development of related projects could cumulatively affect utility purveyor's ability to provide service. It is reasonable to assume, however, that upon approval of the required discretionary actions for the cumulative projects, individual project service requirements would be addressed through the planning processes and by the respective utility providers and service districts. In addition, each project would be individually subject to technical review by the City and would be required to comply with the City's requirements related to the provision of utilities and services. Cumulative impacts associated with utilities and service systems would be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. 4.7 -12 Michael Brandman Associates H\Cl t (PN JN)b327b327W3MME 3270030 Sec 7UNifie a d Service Sy9a¢s.d City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR 4.8 - Climate Chan 4.8.1 - Introduction Climate This section describes the existing climate setting and potential effects from project implementation on the site and its surrounding area. Descriptions and analysis in this section are based on information contained in the Climate Change Analysis Report prepared in August 2009 by Michael Brandman Associates, included in this EIR as Appendix F, Climate Change. 4.8.2 - Existing Conditions Climate change is a change in the average weather of the earth that may be measured by alterations in wind patterns, storms, precipitation, and temperature. These changes are assessed using historical records of temperature changes occurring in the past, such as during previous ice ages. Many of the concerns regarding climate change use this data to extrapolate a level of statistical significance specifically focusing on temperature records from the last 150 years (the Industrial Age) that differ from previous climate changes in rate and magnitude. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) constructed several emission trajectories of greenhouse gases needed to stabilize global temperatures and climate change impacts. The IPCC predicted that global mean temperature change from 1990 to 2100, given six scenarios, could range from 1.1 degrees Celsius ( °C) to 6.4 °C. Regardless of analytical methodology, global average temperatures and sea levels are expected to rise under all scenarios. In California, climate change may result in consequences such as the following. • A reduction in the quality and supply of water to the State from the Sierra snowpack. If heat - trapping emissions continue unabated, more precipitation will fall as rain instead of snow, and the snow that does fall will melt earlier, reducing the Sierra Nevada spring snowpack by as much as 70 to 90 percent. This can lead to challenges in securing adequate water supplies. It can also lead to a potential reduction in hydropower. • Increased risk of large wildfires. If precipitation increases as temperatures rise, wildfires in the grasslands and chaparral ecosystems of southern California are expected to increase by approximately 30 percent toward the end of the 21st century because more winter rain will stimulate the growth of more plant "fuel" available to burn in the fall. In contrast, a hotter, drier climate could promote up to 90 percent more northern California fires by the end of the century by drying out and increasing the flammability of forest vegetation. • Reductions in the quality and quantity of certain agricultural products. The crops and products likely to be adversely affected include wine grapes, fruit, nuts, and milk. • Exacerbation of air quality problems. If temperatures rise to the medium warming range, there could be 75 to 85 percent more days with weather conducive to ozone formation in Los Angeles and the San Joaquin Valley, relative to today's conditions. This is more than twice the increase expected if rising temperatures remain in the lower warming range. Michael Brandman Associates 4.8 -1 H\Cl t(PN -Rn) 327b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec0 Clore Ch ge dac Climate City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR • A rise in sea levels resulting in the displacement of coastal businesses and residences. During the past century, sea levels along California's coast have risen about seven inches. If heat - trapping emissions continue unabated and temperatures rise into the higher warming range, sea level is expected to rise an additional 22 to 35 inches by the end of the century. Elevations of this magnitude would inundate coastal areas with salt water, accelerate coastal erosion, threaten vital levees and inland water systems, and disrupt wetlands and natural habitats. • Damage to marine ecosystems and the natural environment. • An increase in infections, disease, asthma, and other health - related problems. • A decrease in the health and productivity of California's forests. Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are referred to as greenhouse gases. The effect is analogous to the way a greenhouse retains heat. Common greenhouse gases include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxides, chlorofluorocarbons, hydrotluorocarbons, pertluorocarbons, sulfur hexatluoride, ozone, and aerosols. Natural processes and human activities emit greenhouse gases. The presence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere affects the earth's temperature. Without the natural heat trapping effect of greenhouse gas, the earth's surface would be about 340C cooler. However, it is believed that emissions from human activities, such as electricity production and vehicle use, have elevated the concentration of these gases in the atmosphere beyond the level of naturally occurring concentrations. The global warming potential (GWP) is the potential of a gas or aerosol to trap heat in the atmosphere. Individual greenhouse gas compounds have varying GWP and atmospheric lifetimes. Carbon dioxide, the reference gas for GWP, has a GWP of 1. The calculation of the carbon dioxide equivalent is a consistent methodology for comparing greenhouse gas emissions since it normalizes various greenhouse gas emissions to a consistent metric. Methane's warming potential of 21 indicates that methane has a 21 times greater warming affect than carbon dioxide on a molecule per molecule basis. A carbon dioxide equivalent is the mass emissions of an individual greenhouse gas multiplied by its GWP. Greenhouse gases that may be emitted by the project are summarized in Table 4.8 -1. Table 4.8.1: Greenhouse Gases reenh a Description and Physical Properties Sources Carbon Carbon dioxide is an odorless, colorless, natural Natural sources include decomposition dioxide (CO2) greenhouse gas. Carbon dioxide's GWP is 1. of dead organic matter; respiration of The concentration in 2005 was 379 parts per bacteria, plants, animals, and fungus; million (ppm), which is an increase of about 1.4 evaporation from oceans; and volcanic ppm per year since 1960. Carbon dioxide from outgassing. Anthropogenic sources are fossil fuels contributed 81% of greenhouse gas from burning coal, oil, natural gas, and emissions in 2004 in California (CEC 2006). wood. 4.8 -2 Michael Brandman Associates H t(PN Rnb327b32700M%DEnib32700306ee01 Clvre Ch ged City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Table 4.8.1 (cont.): Greenhouse Gases Climate Greenhouse Gas .WM Description and Physical Properti Nitrous oxide is also known as laughing gas and Microbial processes in soil and water, Nitrous oxide (N20) is a colorless greenhouse gas. It has a lifetime of fuel combustion, and industrial 114 years. Its GWP is 310. processes. Methane Methane is a flammable gas and is the main Methane is extracted from geological (CH4) component of natural gas. It has a lifetime of 12 deposits (natural gas fields). Other years. Its GWP is 21. sources are landfills, fermentation of manure, decay of organic matter, and cattle. Hydro- The HFCs with the largest measured HFCs are synthetic manmade fluorocarbons atmospheric concentrations are HFC -23 and chemicals that are used as a substitute (HFCs) HFC -134a (10 parts per trillion [ppt]) and HFC- for CFCs in applications such as 152a (1 ppt). GWP associated with HFCs are automobile air conditioners and HFC -23 = 11,700, HFC -134a= 1,300, HFC- refrigerants. 152a= 140. Source: Michael Brandman Associates, Climate Change Analysis Report, 2009. In 2006, greenhouse gas emissions were as follows: • Worldwide greenhouse gas emissions were 22,170 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCOze), excluding emissions /removals from land use, land use change, and forestry. (Sinks, or removal processes of greenhouse gas, play an important role in the greenhouse gas inventory as forest and other land uses absorb carbon.) • Emissions in the U.S. were 7,054.2 MMTCO2e • California emitted 483.9 MMTCO2e, with transportation as the largest sector contributing 39 percent of the emissions. 4.8.3 - Regulatory Setting International and National International and national agreements have been enacted to cope with climate change issues. In 1988, the United Nations and the World Meteorological Organization established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In 1994, the United States joined a number of countries around the world in signing the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. A particularly notable result of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change efforts is a treaty known as the Kyoto Protocol, which went into effect on February 16, 2005. When countries sign the Protocol, they demonstrate their commitment to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases or engage in emissions trading. More than 170 countries are currently participating in the Protocol. Industrialized countries are required to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by an average of 5 percent below their 1990 levels by 2012. In 1998, United States Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the Protocol; however, in order for the Protocol to be formally ratified, the United States Congress must Michael Brandman Associates 4.8 -3 H\Cl t(PN- RN)b327b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec0 Clore Ch ge dac Climate City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR approve it. Congress did not do this during the Clinton Administration. President George W. Bush did not submit the Protocol to Senate to be ratified based on the exemption granted to China. Current President Barack Obama has not taken action regarding the Protocol because it is about to end. The EPA currently does not regulate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles. Massachusetts v. EPA was argued before the United States Supreme Court on November 29, 2006, in which it was petitioned that EPA regulate four greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, under Section 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act. A decision was made on April 2, 2007, in which the Supreme Court held that petitioners have a standing to challenge the EPA and that the EPA has statutory authority to regulate greenhouse gases emissions from new motor vehicles. On April 17, 2009, the EPA issued a proposed finding that greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health and welfare. Scientists around the world base EPA's proposed endangerment finding on rigorous, peer- reviewed scientific analysis of six gases that have been the subject of intensive analysis: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofiuorocarbons, perfiuorocarbons and sulfur hexafiuoride. The science clearly shows that concentrations of these gases are at unprecedented levels because of human emissions, and these elevated levels are very likely the cause of the increase in average temperatures and other changes in our climate. California There has been significant legislative and regulatory activity that affects climate change and greenhouse gases in California, several of which are discussed below. Title 24. Although not originally intended to reduce greenhouse gases, California Code of Regulations Title 24 Part 6: California's Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, was first adopted in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California's energy consumption. The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficient technologies and methods. The latest amendments were made in October 2005 and currently require new homes to use half the energy they used only a decade ago. The 2005 standards are in effect through July 31, 2009. The 2008 standards are effective August 1, 2009. The requirement for when the 2008 standards must be followed is dependent on when the application for the building permit is submitted. Energy efficient buildings require less electricity; therefore, increased energy efficiency reduces fossil fuel consumption and decreases greenhouse gas emissions. Executive Order S -3 -05. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced on June 1, 2005, through Executive Order S 3 -05, the following reduction targets for greenhouse gas emissions: • By 2010, reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 2000 levels. • By 2020, reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels. • By 2050, reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. 4.8-4 Michael Brandman Associates H t( PNJN )b327b32700M%DEM%D32700306ee01 Clvre Ch ged City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Climate The 2050 reduction goal represents what scientists believe is necessary to reach levels that will stabilize the climate. The 2020 goal was established to be an aggressive, but achievable, mid -term target. To meet these targets, the Governor directed the Secretary of the California EPA to lead a Climate Action Team made up of representatives from the Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency; the Department of Food and Agriculture; the Resources Agency; the Air Resources Board; the Energy Commission; and the Public Utilities Commission. The Climate Action Team's Report to the Governor in 2006 contains recommendations and strategies to help ensure the targets in Executive Order 5 -3 -05 are met. AB 32. In 2006, the California State Legislature enacted AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 focuses on reducing greenhouse gas emissions in California. Greenhouse gases, as defined under AB 32; it includes carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. AB 32 requires that greenhouse gases emitted in California be reduced to 1990 levels by the year 2020. ARB is the State agency charged with monitoring and regulating sources of emissions of greenhouse gases that cause global warming in order to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The ARB Board approved the 1990 greenhouse gas emissions level of 427 MMTCOze on December 6, 2007. Therefore, emissions generated in California in 2020 are required to be equal to or less than 427 MMTCOze. Under the current "business as usual" scenario, statewide emissions are increasing at a rate of approximately 1 percent per year as noted below. Also shown are the average reductions needed from all statewide sources (including all existing sources) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions back to 1990 levels. • 1990: 427 MMTCOze • 2004: 480 MMTCOze (an average 11 percent reduction needed to achieve 1990 base) • 2008: 495 MMTCOze (an average 14 percent reduction needed to achieve 1990 base) • 2020: 596 MMTCOze `Business As Usual" (an average 28 percent reduction needed to achieve 1990 base) The ARB Board approved the Climate Change Seeping Plan in December 2008. The Plan "proposes a comprehensive set of actions designed to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions in California, improve our environment, reduce our dependence on oil, diversify our energy sources, save energy, create new jobs, and enhance public health." The measures in the Seeping Plan will be in place by 2012. The Seeping Plan identifies recommended measures for multiple greenhouse gas emission sectors and the associated emission reductions needed to achieve the year 2020 emissions target--each sector has Michael Brandman Associates 4.8 -5 H\Cl t(PN -Rn) 327b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec01 Clore Ch ge dac Climate City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR a different emission reduction target. Most of the measures target the transportation and electricity sectors. South Coast Air Quality Management District The project is within the South Coast Air Basin. The South Coast Air Quality Management District ( SCAQMD) has jurisdiction over the four counties within the South Coast Air Basin. The SCAQMD Board adopted Regulation XXVII, which has the following rules: • The purpose of Rule 2700 is to define terms and post global warming potentials. • The purpose of Rule 2701, SoCal Climate Solutions Exchange, is to establish a voluntary program to encourage, quantify, and certify voluntary, high quality certified greenhouse gas emission reductions in the SCAQMD. • Rule 2702, Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program, is to create a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program for greenhouse gas emission reductions in the SCAQMD. The SCAQMD will fund projects through contracts in response to requests for proposals or purchase reductions from other parties. All reductions will follow approved protocols in the rule. The reductions can be purchased for a variety of uses. Projects funded through this program may also reduce criteria or toxic pollutants that can help local and regional air quality. 4.8.4 - Thresholds of Significance Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15064(h)(3), a Lead Agency may determine that a project's incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable if the project would comply with the requirements in a previously approved plan or mitigation program that provides specific requirements that will avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem within the geographic area in which the project is located. Pursuant to the requirements in AB 32, a Seeping Plan was adopted, which outlines actions recommended to obtain the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. The Seeping Plan states, "The 2020 goal was established to be an aggressive, but achievable, mid -term target, and the 2050 greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal represents the level scientists believe is necessary to reach levels that will stabilize climate." The year 2020 goal of AB 32 corresponds with the mid -term target established by S -3 -05, which aims to reduce California's fair - share contribution of greenhouse gases in 2050 to levels that will stabilize the climate. The goal of reducing emissions by 80 percent by the year 2050 is not used in this analysis. To obtain those emission reductions, substantial emission reductions would need to occur in California, such as a conversion of alternative energy generation, conversion to electric and/or zero emission motor vehicles, and substantial changes to land use patterns and transportation. It is not the objective of this project to implement those things. In addition, there is currently no framework or methodology to analyze project -level contributions to climate change in relation to the 2050 emission reduction goal. 4.8 -6 Michael Brandman Associates H t( PNJN )b327b327WM%DEM%D32700306ee0 Clvre Ch ged City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Climate The year 2020 greenhouse gas emission reduction goal of AB 32 corresponds with the mid -term target established by 5 -3 -05, which aims to reduce California's fair -share contribution of greenhouse gases in 2050 to levels that will stabilize the climate. Therefore, the threshold to be used for the Park View at Town and Country Manor Project is as follows: a.) Does the project comply with the provisions of an adopted greenhouse gas reduction plan or strategy? If no such plan or strategy is applicable, would the project significantly hinder or delay California's ability to meet the reduction targets contained in AB 32? Because there is no adopted greenhouse gas reduction plan or strategy that was prepared by the City of Santa Ana or the SCAQMD, this analysis will determine if the project would significantly hinder or delay California's ability to meet the reduction targets in AB 32. 4.8.5 - Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures This section discusses potential climate change impacts associated with the development of the project. Mitigation measures are provided where necessary. Project and Cumulative Analyses Impact 4.8 -1 The project could significantly hinder or delay California's ability to meet the reduction targets contained in AB 32. The project would not result in a cumulative impact to climate change. Project Inventory The threshold of significance used in this report is based on AB 32; therefore, this analysis is restricted to greenhouse gases identified by AB 32, which include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofiuorocarbons, pertluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafiuoride. The project would generate a variety of greenhouse gases during construction and operation, including several defined by AB 32 such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. The project may also emit greenhouse gases that are not defined by AB 32. For example, the project may generate aerosols. Aerosols are short-lived particles, as they remain in the atmosphere for about one week. Black carbon is a component of aerosol. A couple of studies have indicated that black carbon has a high global warming potential; however, the IPCC states that it has a low level of scientific certainty. Water vapor could be emitted from evaporated water used for landscaping, but this is not a significant impact because water vapor concentrations in the upper atmosphere are primarily due to climate feedbacks rather than emissions from project - related activities. The project would emit nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds, which are ozone precursors. Ozone is a greenhouse gas; however, unlike the other greenhouse gases, ozone in the troposphere is relatively short-lived and can be reduced in the troposphere on a daily basis. Certain greenhouse gases defined by AB 32 would not be emitted by the project. Pertluorocarbons and sulfur hexafiuoride are typically used in industrial applications, none of which would be used by Michael Brandman Associates 4.8 -7 H\Cl t(PN -Rn) 327b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec01 Clore Ch ge dac Climate City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR the project. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the project would emit perfluorocarbons or sulfur hexafluoride. Construction The project would emit greenhouse gases from upstream emission sources and direct sources (combustion of fuels from worker vehicles and construction equipment). An upstream emission source (also known as life cycle emissions) refers to emissions that were generated during the manufacture of products to be used for construction of the project. Upstream emission sources for the project include but are not limited to the following: emissions from the manufacture of cement; emissions from the manufacture of steel; and/or emissions from the transportation of building materials. The upstream emissions were not estimated because they are not within the control of the project and to do so would be speculative at this time. Additionally, the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) White Paper on CEQA & Climate Change supports this conclusion by stating, "The full life -cycle of GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions from construction activities is not accounted for ... and the information needed to characterize [life - cycle emissions] would be speculative at the CEQA analysis level." Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15144 and 15145, upstream /life cycle emissions are speculative and no further discussion is necessary. Direct carbon dioxide emissions from construction were estimated using URBEMIS2007. Emissions of nitrous oxide and methane are negligible. The emissions are from all phases of construction. As shown in Table 4.8 -2, total emissions during construction would be approximately 7,962 MTCO2e. Table 4.8.2: Project Construction Greenhouse Gases hase Carbon Dioxide Emissions Emissions (tons) (MTCOse) 7Grading 17 15 cavation 387 351 7 6 Building (2011) 1,982 1,798 Building (2012) 6,341 5,753 Asphalt Paving 37 34 Coating 6 5 Total 8,777 7,962 MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, cotwerted from tons by multiplying by 0.9072 and the global warming potential of 1. Source: Michael Brandman Associates, Climate Change Analysis Report, 2009. 4.8 -8 Michael Brandman Associates H t(PN Rnb327b327WM%DEM%D3270030 See0 Clvre Ch ged City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Climate Operation Operational or long -term emissions occur over the life of the project. Mobile, area source, and indirect sources generate operational emissions. Mobile sources are exhaust emissions from the vehicles of the residents and visitors. Area source emissions are from natural gas exhaust. Indirect sources refer to the electricity required for the project and the electricity required to transport and treat the water that would be used for the project. The operational emissions for the project are shown in Table 4.8 -3. The estimation contains the major sources of emissions and does not include minor sources such as emissions from landscaping equipment. The main source is from motor vehicles, contributing 37 percent of the total emissions. Table 4.8 -3: Project Operational Greenhouse Gases ource Motor vehicles Refrigerants Emissions (MTCOze per year) 1,543 1,259 Indirect electricity 678 Natural gas 600 Water transport and treatment 41 Total 4,121 MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (includes carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons /refrigerants). Source: Michael Brandman Associates, Climate Change Analysis Report, 2009. Project Design Features that Reduce Emissions The following project design features would reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the project: • The project is considered smart land use and intill development, which tends to reduce vehicle miles traveled. • There are currently two Orange County Transportation Authority routes (Route 53 and Route 453) that run within'' /2 mile from the project site. Route 453 runs on E. Memory Lane, S. Lawson Way, and W. Town and Country Road. Near and accessible transit can reduce vehicle miles traveled. • The existing Town & Country Manor buildings have a variety of onsite activities and outings that would reduce vehicle miles traveled and emissions associated with single occupancy trips. Additionally, the Main Place Mall is located approximately 0.4 mile west of the project site, which provides shopping opportunities for the residents. Sooping Plan Project consistency with applicable measures in the Scoping Plan is assessed in Table 4.8 -4. As shown, the project is consistent with the measures with the incorporation of mitigation measures. Michael Brandman Associates 4.8 -9 H\Cl t(PN- RN)b327b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec0 Clore Ch ge dac Cny of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Climate Chanqe Draft EIR Table 4.8.4: Project Consistency with Applicable Scoping Plan Measures ARB Scoping Plan Reduction Measure Project Consistency 3. Energy Efficiency Consistent with project mitigation measures CC -1, CC- Maximize energy efficiency building and 2, and CC -3. appliance standards; pursue additional efficiency including new technologies, policy, and implementation mechanisms. Pursue comparable investment in energy efficiency from all retail providers of electricity in California. 9. Million Solar Roofs Program Consistent with mitigation measures CGl and CC -2, Install 3,000 MW of solar - electric capacity under which provides options for the applicant to install California's existing solar programs. solar. 13. Green Building Strategy Consistent with mitigation measure CC-1, which Expand the use of green building practices to increases energy efficiency. reduce the carbon footprint of Califomia's new deteriorating levels of traffic service, increased and existing inventory of buildings. motor vehicle emissions, and possibly significant 15. Recycling and Waste Consistent with mitigation measure CC-4, which Reduce methane emissions at landfills. Increase reduces waste. waste diversion, composting and commercial projects shall be required to prepare and submit a recycling. Move toward zero- waste. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) 17. Water Consistent with mitigation measure CC -5. Continue efficiency programs and use cleaner energy sources to move and treat water. Source: Michael Brandman Associates, Climate Change Analysis Report, 2009. General Plan The Conservation Element of the City of Santa Ana General Plan contains Objective 1.1, which states, "Reduce air pollution emissions to achieve national ambient air quality standards." As shown in Table 4.8 -5, the project is consistent with the applicable policies. Table 4.8.5: General Plan Consistency eneral Plan Policy Project Consistency Support local and regional land use and Consistent. The project consists of high - density transportation plans that increase mass transit usage residential, which is known to correlate with a and reduce vehicle trips. reduction in vehicle trips and increased transit. Enforce emission standards contained in local Not applicable. Municipal code, Article XIII, ordinances. Transportation Management, indicates that any development project that creates a site having 250 or more employees may adversely impact existing transportation and parking facilities, resulting in deteriorating levels of traffic service, increased motor vehicle emissions, and possibly significant additional capital expenditures to augment and improve the existing transportation system. All such projects shall be required to prepare and submit a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategy plan to the City. 4.8 -10 Michael Bmndman Associates H t( PNJN )b327b32700M%DEM%D32700306ee01 Clvre Ch ged City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Table 4.8.5 (cont.): General Plan Consistency Climate General Plan Policy M Project Consistency TDM means programs, plans, policies or projects Enforce emission standards contained in local ordinances. (continued designed to reduce demand on the transportation system or maximize its efficient use. TDM can include, but is not limited to, an emphasis on alternative travel modes to the single occupant vehicle such as carpools, vanpools and transit-, reduction or elimination of the number of vehicle trips; shifts in the time of vehicle commutes to other than the peak period-, or programs and projects to increase capacity on the transportation system. It is unlikely that the project would have more than 250 employees. Additionally, the employees would likely have rotating shifts and would not commute to the project site at the same time. Therefore, this ordinance is not applicable to the project. Encourage water conservation through design and Consistent with mitigation measure CC-5. facilities features of new developments through the use of water quality wetlands, biofiltration swales, watershed -scale retrofits, etc. where such measures are likely to be effective and technically and economically feasible. Implement the Mixed Use Corridor and District Consistent. The project site is located adjacent to a Center components of the Land Use element and major business district abutting Main Street in Santa their transit features. Ana. Project implementation requires a Zone Change from Suburban Apartment (R -4) to Specific Development Zoning Designation, and a General Plan Amendment from Medium Density Residential (MR -15) to District Center. The District Center designation permits residential development up to 90 units per acre when it is a component of a mixed use, master planned project. The change in zoning and General Plan land use designation will allow for the extension of District Center mixed -uses further east. The proximity of transit will provide alternate forms of transportation to the residents and employees. Assign development approval priorities to proposals Not applicable. However, the project is designed to which minimize vehicular trips and other pollution minimize vehicular trips. sources. Incorporate water conservation standards into the Not applicable- however, mitigation measure CC -5 zoning ordinance and building permit process. encourages water conservation. Use drought resistant and durable landscaping Consistent with mitigation measure CC-5. materials. Source: Michael Brandman Associates, Climate Change Analysis Report, 2009. Michael Brandman Associates 4.8 -11 H\Cl t" JN)b327b327003MMVB270030 Sec0 Clore Ch ge dac Climate Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially significant. CW of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Construction of the project will result in the emissions of greenhouse gases from onsite construction equipment, worker vehicles, and vendor trips. The project is not consistent with the AB 32 Scoping Plan or the General Plan without the application of mitigation measures; therefore, the project could result in a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures Feasible mitigation measures as identified by the California Office of Planning and Research, the California Office of the Attorney General, and CAPCOA are contained below. Mitigation measure AQ -1 as contained in the Air Quality FIR section is also required. CC -1 To increase energy efficiency, the project shall do the following to the satisfaction of the City of Santa Ana: a) Install Energy Star or equivalent energy efficient appliances (washing machines, dryers, dishwashers, refrigerators, etc.); b) Install energy efficient lighting; c) Exceed Title 24 energy efficiency requirements by a minimum of 10 percent; d) Plant trees near the structures to shade the buildings and reduce heating /cooling requirements; e) Install energy efficient heating and cooling systems; i) Install energy- reducing programmable thermostats that automatically adjust temperature settings; g) Install ceiling /whole -house fans; and h) Install photovoltaic panels or a solar water heater to heat the pool. CC -2 Exposed roof surfaces shall implement one or a combination of the following to the satisfaction of the City of Santa Ana: solar panels; vegetation; and/or roofing materials with a solar reflective index equal to or greater than 78 for a low- sloped roof or 29 for a steep- sloped roof. CC -3 The Applicant shall consider incorporation of a rooftop organic vegetable garden or conversion of a portion of the existing landscape in Town & Country area(s) to an organic vegetable garden for use by and for the residents of Town and Country Manor. This measure, if incorporated, would be confirmed prior to the first year after full buildout by the City of Santa Ana. CC-4 To reduce waste, the project shall do the following to the satisfaction of the City of Santa Ana: 4.8 -12 Michael Brandman Associates H t(PN Rnb327b32700M%DEM%D32700306ee01 Clvre Ch ged City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Climate a) Bins for resident recyclables shall be located in an easily accessible location and information regarding recycling practices shall be distributed to the residents on a bi- annual basis; b) Storage for recyclables shall be included in the site plans; c) Onsite composting, if implemented, shall be conducted properly with an appropriate composting unit and appropriate maintenance to reduce potential odors; d) During construction, the project shall reduce and/or salvage at least 50% of non - hazardous construction debris; and e) During construction, recycled building materials and/or rapidly renewable materials shall be used where feasible. CC -5 To reduce water, the project shall do the following to the satisfaction of the City of Santa Ana: a) Install interior water saving features and appliances; b) Utilize drought tolerant native plants, shrubs, and trees; and c) Install water - efficient irrigation systems and devices, such as soil moisture- based irrigation controls. CC -6 Signs shall be posted at loading and unloading areas to indicate that idling is prohibited. CC -7 To reduce vehicle miles traveled, the project shall strive to incorporate all or some of the following items: a) Create a car - sharing program with fuel efficient cars (greater than 40 miles per gallon) and/or provide a minimum of one Zipcar, a rental car for group use (or equivalent) in the parking garage (www.zipcar.com); b) Provide information to the residents on how to use the transit system, including details on where the bus stops are located, route information, how to plan a bus trip, and potential destinations; c) Provide a locked shed in the parking garage available to residents for long- term storage of bicycles; and d) Install short-term bicycle parking within 100 feet of the main entrance of the building. CC -8 The project shall maintain the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning units at least once per year to ensure minimal refrigerant leakage. Records shall be maintained on the project site for inspection by the City of Santa Ana. Michael Brandman Associates 4.8 -13 H\Cl t(PN -Rn) 327b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec01 Clore Ch ge dac CW of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Climate Change Draft EIR Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. Reductions pursuant to air quality mitigation measure AQ -1 are shown in Table 4.8 -6. The mitigation measures only pertain to the onsite off -road equipment. Mitigation lowers emissions from 7,962 MTCO2e to 2,142 MTCOZe, or 73 percent. Table 4.8.6: Project Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Mitigated) Emissions (tons of carbon dioxide) Total Emissions rnase Off -Road - ' On-ROad - Worker Trips (MTCO2e) Demolition 3.22 13.26 0.70 16 Grading 262.18 95.36 16.09 339 Trenching 6.52 0.00 0.50 6 Building (2011) 347.27 23.21 90.17 418 Building (2012) 1,103.30 73.74 286.41 1,328 Coating 0.00 0.00 3.67 3 Paving 30.82 0.76 4.20 32 Total 1,753.31 206.33 401.74 2,142 Notes- 1 URBEMIS mitigated output minus a 5 percent reduction pursuant to mitigation measure AQ -1. MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, converted from tons by multiplying by 0.9072 and the global warming potential of 1. Source of carbon dioxide emissions: URBENHS2007 output in Appendix A. Project operational greenhouse gases with mitigation reductions incorporated are shown in Table 4.8 -7. As shown in the table, the average reduction is 7 percent, resulting in mitigated emissions of 3,838 MTCO2e per year. Table 4.8 -7: Project Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Mitigated) 4.8 -14 Michael Bmndman Associates H t(PN Rnb327b327WM%DEM%D3270030 See0 Clvre Ch ged unmitigated Emissions (MTCO2e per year) Reduction ( %) itigated Emissions (MTCO2e per year) Motor vehicles 1,543 5 1,466 Refrigerants 1,259 5 1,196 Indirect electricity 678 12 597 Natural gas 600 10 540 Water transport and treatment 41 5 39 Total 4,121 7 3,838 4.8 -14 Michael Bmndman Associates H t(PN Rnb327b327WM%DEM%D3270030 See0 Clvre Ch ged City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Climate Table 4.8.7 (cont.): Project Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Mitigated) Source Unmitigated Emissions Reduction ( %) Mitigated Emissions (MTCOse per year) (MTCOse per year) Notes: MTCOze = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (includes carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and/or hydrofluorocarbons) Reductions pursuant to the following mitigation measures and project design features: - Motor vehicles - mitigation measures CC -6 and CC -7 and project design features. - Refrigerants - mitigation measure CC -8 - Indirect electricity - mitigation measures CC -1, CC -2, and CC-3 - Natural gas - mitigation measure CC-1 - Water transport and treatment - mitigation measure CC -5 Source: Michael Brandman Associates, Climate Change Analysis, 2009. There is no adopted greenhouse gas reduction plan or strategy within the project area. After mitigation, the project would not significantly hinder or delay California's ability to meet the reduction targets contained in AB 32. The Scoping Plan outlines steps that the State can take to reduce emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020 and indirectly takes into account cumulative State sources. The project is consistent with the Scoping Plan and California's strategies to meet the reduction targets contained in AB 32. Additionally, the project has features to reduce vehicle miles traveled: 1) the project is smart land use; 2) the project is high- density residential located within a half -mile of retail uses; and 3) the project is located near transit. The greenhouse gas emissions from construction and operation of the project would result in a less than significant impact to climate change on a project and cumulative basis. Michael Brandman Associates 4.8 -15 H \Cl t (PN- JN)b327b327003MMVB270030 Sec0 Cl ret Ch ge dac City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Alternatives to the SECTION 5: ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.1 - Introduction This section focuses on alternatives to the Park View at Town and Country Manor project. Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines, as amended, mandates that an EIR include a comparative evaluation of the proposed project with the alternatives to the project, including a No Project Alternative. The alternatives may result in new impacts that would not result from the proposed project. CEQA requires that this analysis explain why the alternatives and related mitigation measures would not be preferable to the proposed project. Key provisions of the CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6) pertaining to the alternatives analysis are summarized below: • The discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the proposed project or its location that are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the proposed project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly. • The No Project Alternative shall be evaluated, along with its impacts. The no project analysis shall discuss the existing conditions at the time the notice of preparation was published, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the proposed project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services. • The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a "rule of reason"; therefore, the FIR must evaluate only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. Alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the proposed project. • For alternative locations, only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the proposed project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR. An FIR need not consider an alternative whose effects cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative. The range of feasible alternatives are to be selected and discussed in a manner to foster meaningful public participation and informed decision making. Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives (as described in CEQA Section 15126.6[f][1]) are environmental impacts, site suitability, economic viability, social and political acceptability, technological capacity, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the proponent could reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to the alternative site. An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effects could not Michael Brandman Associates 5-1 H \Cl t (PN- RN)b327b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec05 Altematry .s Alternatives to the City of Santa Ana - Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR be reasonably identified, whose implementation is remote or speculative, and that would not achieve the basic project objectives. An EIR must identify the Environmentally Superior Alternative to the proposed project. The Environmentally Superior Alternative is the one that would result in the fewest or least significant environmental impacts. If the Environmentally Superior Alternative that is identified is the No Project Alternative, then an Environmentally Superior Alternative must be selected from the remaining alternatives. Section 5.7 identifies and discusses the Environmentally Superior Alternative. Section 5.8 includes two tables, Table 5 -1 comparing the impacts of the alternatives, and Table 5 -2 identifying the feasibility of each project objective by alternative. 5.2 - Project Objectives As stated in Section 3.3 Project Objectives, the objectives of the proposed project are to: • Respond to the need for active adult and senior housing opportunities within the City of Santa Ana by providing a senior residential living facility. • Complete development of the Town and Country Manor in a cohesive manner, aesthetically and operationally integrating the individual existing and proposed development components. • Maximize utilization for residential development of the southwest corner of the Town and Country Manor campus adjacent to the existing District Center area along Main Street, joining together with Main Place Mall and City Place development to form a master planned mixed use area. • Add to existing development in the District Center land use area along Main Street with project components that are compatible in scale and consistent with the architectural styles and character of the area, and that provides a positive contribution to neighborhood identity. • Develop the project site according to good urban design principles, acknowledging the importance of the project as part of the City's North Main development corridor and District Center land use area along Main Street, with proper attention to landscape design and planning for pedestrian access. • Maximize the advantages of the site's location close to Main Street in terms of its visibility and proximity to the Garden Grove (SR -22) and Santa Ana (I -5) freeways. • Provide a project that contributes to the continued revitalization of the northeastern part of the City of Santa Ana. 5.3 -Alternatives Eliminated from Further Consideration Initial areas of concern associated with the proposed project were aesthetics- shade /shadow, air quality - construction, and traffic. The option of a 6 -story reduced intensity /reduced building height 5-2 Michael Brandman Associates H \Cl t (PN- RN)b327b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec05 Altematry .s City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Alternatives to the alternative (123 units built over two -level subterranean parking garage) was developed by the Applicant and reviewed as part of Draft EIR preparation for environmental benefit as compared to the proposed project. It was initially thought that a reduced intensity alternative could potentially lessen the already less than significant impacts of the proposed project by a substantial means. This reduced intensity alternative demonstrated no significant environmental benefits over the proposed project, realizing no substantial reduction in the already less than significant impacts of the proposed project, and was not able to meet Fire Department requirements, raising emergency access concerns for fire protection and emergency response. This reduced intensity alternative was, therefore, eliminated from further consideration. No alternative uses for the project site contained with the larger Town and Country Manor campus have been suggested during preparation of the Draft FIR as integrating well with existing uses, and therefore have not been evaluated. No alternative locations were considered for the proposed project because no suitable alternative locations could be determined. Additionally, no other sites within the City of Santa Ana are under the ownership and control of the Applicant. For these reasons, analyzing alternative uses and locations was considered not feasible. 5.4 - Alternatives Analvzed in this Draft EIR Impacts for all issue areas analyzed in the Draft EIR for Park View at Town and Country Manor, both at the project and cumulative levels, can be mitigated and are considered less than significant. The initial areas of concern associated with the proposed project, aesthetics - shade /shadow, air quality - construction, and traffic, were determined through the EIR analysis to be either less than significant before mitigation, or able to be mitigated to a less than significant level. With adherence to regulatory requirements and project mitigation measures, no substantial adverse impacts would remain. The proposed project also serves, therefore, as the environmentally superior alternative. An alternative that is environmentally superior would result in the fewest or least environmental impacts and would achieve the project objectives of the project planning effort. The City has included the following two alternatives in the following Alternatives analysis: 1. No Project/No Development 2. No Project/Development In Accordance with Existing Zoning and General Plan Designations The following discussion presents a description of each alternative and an analysis of the respective alternative in the context of CEQA. The discussion focuses on the comparative environmental attributes of the respective alternative and the degree to which the identified alternative might accomplish the project objectives. CEQA does not require the alternatives to be analyzed in the same level of detail as the proposed project. The following discussion, therefore, presents a qualitative analysis, intended to provide a relative comparison between the proposed project and the two No Project alternatives. When compared to the CEQA Thresholds of Significance, the description of the Michael Brandman Associates 5-3 H\Cl t(PN -Rn) 327b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec0 Altematrv.s Alternatives to the City of Santa Ana - Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR impact may be the same under each scenario (i.e., both scenarios would result in a "less than significant' impact); however, the actual degree of impact may be slightly different under each scenario. This relative difference is the basis for a conclusion of greater or lesser impacts. 5.5 - No Project/No Development Alternative (Alternative 1) Under the No Project/No Development Alternative (Alternative 1), the existing Town & Country Manor campus would remain unchanged, and existing conditions would continue. The project site would continue to be occupied by a parking lot and grassy area, and would not be converted to a higher- intensity land use. No additional housing within the Town and Country Manor Campus would be provided, and other modifications to the campus as proposed would not occur. 5.5.1 - Impact Analysis Aesthetics No changes to the existing visual character or quality of the site would occur with Alternative 1. No grading or development would occur, and the project site would remain unchanged. Views from surrounding land uses, including Santiago Park, would be unaffected. Current shade /shadow conditions would remain unchanged, and adjacent City Place units along Lawson Way would not experience any shade /shadow impacts. No new sources of light and glare would be introduced. Impacts to aesthetics under the No Project/No Development Alternative would be considered less than the proposed project. Aesthetic impacts of the proposed project are already considered less than significant, however, and no mitigation measures are required. Air Quality No construction- or operation- related emissions would occur with Alternative 1. Without construction and operation of the proposed project, there would be no potential to: 1) exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds during the construction or operational phases; 2) conflict or obstruct the air quality plan; 3) contribute to an air quality violation; 4) expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; and 5) contribute to a considerable degree to cumulative air quality impacts. Impacts to air quality under the No Project/No Development Alternative are considered to be less than under the proposed project. Air quality impacts of the proposed project are already considered less than significant after mitigation, however. Hydrology and Water Quality With Alternative 1, no modifications to drainage for the Town and Country Manor campus, draining northeast to southwest, or runoff generation would occur. The water quality improvements associated with project treatment and filtration features planned for the project site in the southwest portion of the campus, however, also would not occur. Drainage from the existing campus would continue to enter the storm drain system without the state -of -the -art treatment and filtration features planned as part of the proposed project. Regulatory compliance ensures that hydrology and water quality impacts of the proposed project are less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required. 5-4 Michael Bmndman Associates H \Cl t (PN- RN)b327b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec0 Altematry .s City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Alternatives to the Less runoff would be generated under Alternative 1, but existing runoff would not experience an improvement in water quality. Allowing for the benefits to water quality under the proposed project, impacts to hydrology and water quality under the No Project/No Development Alternative are considered to be equivalent to the proposed project. Land Use and Planning Alternative 1 would not require a Zone Change or General Plan Amendment. Existing use of the project site as a parking lot and grassy area would continue. Impacts to land use and planning under the No Project/No Development Alternative are considered to be less than under the proposed project. Land use and planning impacts of the proposed project are already considered less than significant without mitigation, however. In addition, the positive benefits of intensifying uses in this location would not be experienced under Alternative 1 — connecting to the City's North Main development corridor and District Center land use area along Main Street by extending the master planned mixed use area that contains Main Place and City Place further east; and contributing to the revitalization of the northeastern part of the City. (See Section 5.5.1 Impact Analysis, Climate Change sub - section for a comparison of climate change impacts associated with land use under Alternative 1 and the proposed project.) Provision of 174 housing units for the senior population would also not occur under Alternative 1. Noise No increase in noise levels under Alternative 1 would be experienced. Generation of short-term construction noise and vibration would be avoided. Long -term traffic noise associated with traffic from the proposed high - intensity residential development on the project site would not be experienced. There would be no increase in ambient noise levels in the project area. Impacts to noise under the No Project/No Development Alternative are considered to be less than under the proposed project. Noise impacts of the proposed project are already considered less than significant Under the No Project/No Development Alternative, no increase in demand for utilities such as domestic water, wastewater, storm drainage, solid waste, electricity, and natural gas services would be experienced. The water quality improvements associated with project treatment and filtration features would not occur, however. Impacts to utilities and service systems under the No Project/No Development Alternative are considered to be less than under the proposed project. Utilities and service systems impacts of the proposed project are already considered less than significant after mitigation, however. Climate Change Greenhouse gas emissions under Alternative 1 (No Project/No Development) would not increase from the existing condition. Climate change impacts are, therefore, considered less under Alternative 1 than for the proposed project. Climate change impacts of the proposed project are already considered less than significant after mitigation, however. Michael Brandman Associates 5-5 H\Cl t(PN -Rn) 327b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec0 Altematrv.s City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Alternatives to the Proposed Pmiect Draft EIR There are additional factors that should be considered when addressing climate change under Alternative 1, however. It could be argued that selection of Alternative 1 (No Project/No Development) would represent a missed opportunity in terms of climate change. Consider the existence of the District Center land use area along Main Street containing Main Place and City Place, that is being strengthened and fortified as a major activity area with the addition of higher intensity uses (e.g. City Place Sky Lofts), that would be extended east as a master planned mixed use area with the inclusion of higher- intensity uses on the project site. The proposed project, high- density residential located within a half -mile of retail uses and located near transit, can be considered smart growth. Smart growth is also known as "walkable communities," "new urbanist neighborhoods," "compact development," and "transit- oriented developments." Smart growth advocates for better access and less traffic by mixing land uses, clustering development, and providing transit options. Development on the project site with a high -level of development intensity would provide a better connection to the District Center land use area along Main Street. Should a light rail system be established in the future in this section of Orange County and along Main Street, development of the project site with a high -level of development intensity would contribute more riders for public transit, and further strengthen the activity center aspect of the District Center land use area along Main Street that, among other purposes, public transit strives to connect by linking people and their social and economic organizations together. 5.5.2 - Conclusions and Relationship to Project Objectives In general, Alternative 1 would reduce the already less than significant impacts of the proposed project. The No Project/No Development Alternative would not meet any of the project objectives (see Table 5 -1 and Table 5 -2), however, and selection of this alternative could also be considered a missed opportunity in terms of climate change. 5.6 - No Project/Development In Accordance with Existing Zoning and General Plan Designations (Alternative 2) The project site, approximately 2.5 acres in size, is currently zoned Suburban Apartment (R -4), with a General Plan land use designation of Medium Density Residential (MR -15), allowing 15 dwelling units /acre. Under Alternative 2 (No Project/ Development in Accordance with Existing Zoning and General Plan Designations), improvements to the project site would occur in compliance with existing zoning and General Plan land use designations allowing approximately 35 -40 dwelling units. It is assumed that these dwellings would be housed in a three -story structure similar to existing residential structures within the Town and Country Manor campus. The master planned mixed use area containing the Main Place Mall and City Place development would not be extended further east, and the lower intensity, low -rise character of the existing campus would be maintained. 5-6 Michael Bmndman Associates H\Cl t(PN -Rn) 327b327003MMI 3270030 Sec05 Altematrv.s City of Santa Ana - Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft OR Alternatives to the 5.6.1 - Impact Analysis Aesthetics More limited changes to the existing visual character or quality of the site would occur with Alternative 2. Grading and development of the project site would occur, but subterranean parking would not be provided, and the building containing the approximately 35 -40 residential units would likely not exceed three stories. Views from surrounding land uses, including Santiago Park, would be less affected. Adjacent City Place units along Lawson Way would experience lesser shade /shadow impacts. A new source of light and glare would be introduced, but to a more limited degree. Impacts to aesthetics under Alternative 2 (No Project/ Development in Accordance with Existing Zoning and General Plan Designations) would be considered less than the proposed project. Aesthetic impacts of the proposed project are already considered less than significant, however, and no mitigation measures are required. Air Quality Construction emissions would still occur under Alternative 2; however, these emissions would be reduced based on the reduced level of development intensity compared to the proposed project. Similarly, operational emissions would be reduced under Alternative 2 because the reduction in development intensity on the site would result in a corresponding reduction in traffic generated. Because construction and operational emissions would be reduced under Alternative 2, the cumulative contribution to air quality impacts would also be reduced. Air quality impacts under Alternative 2 are considered to be less than under the proposed project. Air quality impacts of the proposed project are already considered less than significant after mitigation, however. Hydrology and Water Quality Under Alternative 2, similar to the proposed project, an increase in runoff generation would occur from the existing condition, although to a lesser degree. Drainage for the Town and Country Manor campus would continue to drain northeast to southwest. Water quality improvements providing for treatment and filtration under Alternative 2 would be required and would provide water quality benefits similar to the proposed project. The amount of impervious area under this reduced development intensity Alternative 2 would be less than the proposed project. Impacts to hydrology and water quality under Alternative 2 are considered to be less than the proposed project. Regulatory compliance ensures that hydrology and water quality impacts of the proposed project are less than significant, however, and no mitigation measures are required. Land Use and Planning Alternative 2 would not require a Zone Change or General Plan Amendment. Impacts to land use and planning under the No Project/Development in Accordance with Existing Zoning and General Plan Designations Alternative are considered to be less than under the proposed project. Land use and planning impacts of the proposed project are already considered to be less than significant without mitigation, however. In addition, the positive benefits of intensifying uses in this location would not Michael Brandman Associates 5-7 H \Cl t (PN- RN)b327b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec0 Altematry .s Alternatives to the City of Santa Ana - Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft OR be experienced under this alternative: 1) connecting to the City's North Main development corridor and District Center land use area along Main Street by extending the master planned mixed use area further east that contains Main Place and City Place; and 2) contributing to the revitalization of the northeastern part of the City. (See Section 5.6.1 Climate Change sub - section for a comparison of climate change impacts associated with land use under Alternative 2 and the proposed project.) Noise An increase in noise levels under Alternative 2 would be experienced, although to a lesser degree than the proposed project. Generation of short-term construction noise and vibration would still occur, but at a lower level. Alternative 2 would still generate long -term traffic noise associated with traffic from the 35 -40 residential units, but at a level reduced from the proposed high- intensity residential development on the project site. There would be a smaller increase in ambient noise levels in the project area under Alternative 2. Impacts to noise under Alternative 2 (No Project/Development in Accordance with Existing Zoning and General Plan Designations) are considered to be less than under the proposed project. Noise impacts of the proposed project are already considered less than significant after mitigation, however. Transportation and Traffic Developing the project site under Alternative 2 would result in an increase in traffic generation, although reduced from the proposed project in correlation to the reduction in development intensity. More limited traffic improvements would be required to handle traffic generated by development under Alternative 2. Impacts to transportation and traffic under Alternative 2 are considered to be less than under the proposed project. Transportation and traffic impacts of the proposed project are already considered less than significant after mitigation, however. Utilities and Service Systems Under Alternative 2, a more limited increase in demand for utilities such as domestic water, wastewater, storm drainage, solid waste, electricity, and natural gas services would occur than under the proposed project. Population is estimated to be 261 persons maximum under the proposed project (174 units x 1.5 persons). Population under Alternative 2 would be reduced to 60 persons maximum (40 units x 1.5 persons), with a resultant reduction in demand for utilities and service systems. Impacts to utilities and service systems under Alternative 2 are considered to be less than under the proposed project. Utilities and service systems impacts of the proposed project are already considered less than significant after mitigation, however. Climate Change Medium- density residential development would occur under Alternative 2. An increase in greenhouse gas emissions would still be experienced under Alternative 2, but at a lower level than associated with the proposed project. 5-8 Michael Brandman Associates H\Cl t(PN -Rn) 327b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec0 Altematrv.s City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Alternatives to the Features associated with the proposed project cited to minimize greenhouse gas emissions by reducing vehicle miles traveled are: 1) the project is smart land use; 2) the project is high- density residential located within a half -mile of retail uses; and 3) the project is located near transit. A higher- density project correlates somewhat better to the principles of smart growth and minimizing greenhouse gas emissions than a medium - density project, but a medium density project is still preferred to low density from the standpoint of smart growth. Should a light rail system be established at some point in this section of Orange County and along Main Street, a higher density development on the project site would contribute more riders for public transit, and further strengthen the activity center aspect of the District Center land use area along Main Street that, among other purposes, public transit strives to connect. Impacts to climate change under Alternative 2 (No Project/Development in Accordance with Existing Zoning and General Plan Designations) are considered to be less than under the proposed project because of the smaller increase in greenhouse gas emissions. Climate change impacts of the proposed project are already considered less than significant after mitigation, however. 5.6.2 - Conclusions and Relationship to Project Objectives Alternative 2 (No Project/Development in Accordance with Existing Zoning and General Plan Designations) would reduce the already less than significant impacts of the proposed project, and would meet four of the seven project objectives (see Table 5 -1 and Table 5 -2). The three objectives that would not be met relate to maximizing the utilization of the project site, and establishing development that combines with Main Place and City Place to form a master planned mixed use area within and adjacent to the City's North Main development corridor and District Center land use area along Main Street. 5.7 - Environmentally Superior Alternative The environmental impacts for each alternative in relation to the proposed project are summarized in Table 5 -1. Table 5 -2 compares project alternatives to project objectives. CEQA Guidelines § 15126(e)(2) requires an FIR to identify an "environmentally superior alternative." An alternative that is environmentally superior would result in the fewest or least environmental impacts and would achieve the project objectives of the project planning effort. If the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, the FIR must also identify an environmentally superior alternative from among the other alternatives. Impacts for all issue areas analyzed in the Draft FIR for Park View at Town and Country Manor, both at the project and cumulative levels, can be mitigated and are considered less than significant. The initial areas of concern associated with the proposed project, aesthetics - shade /shadow, air quality - construction, and traffic, were determined through the EIR analysis to be either less than significant before mitigation, or able to be mitigated to a less than significant level. With adherence to regulatory requirements and project mitigation measures, no substantial adverse impacts would Michael Brandman Associates 5-9 H\Cl t(PN -Rn) 327b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec05 Altematrv.s Alternatives to the City of Santa Ana - Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR remain. All project objectives of the planning effort would be achieved. The proposed project is selected as the environmentally superior alternative. 5.8 - Summary Comparison of Project Alternatives Table 5.1: Impact Summary Comparison of Project Alternatives with Proposed Project Table 5 -2: Objective Feasibility Comparison Project Alternative 1: No Project/No Development OBJ- 1.Respond to the need for Yes No active adult and senior housing opportunities within the City of Santa Ana by providing a senior residential living facility. OBJ -2. Complete development of Yes No the Town and Country Manor in a cohesive manner, aesthetically and operationally integrating the individual existing and proposed development components. Alternative 2: No Project/Development In Accordance with Existing Zoning and General Plan Designations Yes Yes OBJ3. Maximize utilization for Yes No No residential development of the southwest comer of the Town and Country Manor campus adjacent to the existing District Center area along Main Street, joining together with Main Place Mall and City Place development to form a master planned mixed use area. 5-10 Michael Bmndman Associates H\Cl t" JN)b32]b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec0 Altematrv.s Alternative 2: No Alternative 1: No Project /No ProjectiDevelopmentln Environmental Issue Proposed Project Development Accordance with Existing Zoning and General Plan Designations Aesthetics LTS L L Air Quality LTS L L Hydrology and Water Quality LTS E L Land Use and Planning LTS L L Noise LTS L L Transportation/Traffic LTS L L Utilities and Service Systems LTS L L Climate Change LTS L L = L esser impact than the proposed project. = Equivalent impact to the proposed project. r E TS = Less than Significant. Table 5 -2: Objective Feasibility Comparison Project Alternative 1: No Project/No Development OBJ- 1.Respond to the need for Yes No active adult and senior housing opportunities within the City of Santa Ana by providing a senior residential living facility. OBJ -2. Complete development of Yes No the Town and Country Manor in a cohesive manner, aesthetically and operationally integrating the individual existing and proposed development components. Alternative 2: No Project/Development In Accordance with Existing Zoning and General Plan Designations Yes Yes OBJ3. Maximize utilization for Yes No No residential development of the southwest comer of the Town and Country Manor campus adjacent to the existing District Center area along Main Street, joining together with Main Place Mall and City Place development to form a master planned mixed use area. 5-10 Michael Bmndman Associates H\Cl t" JN)b32]b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec0 Altematrv.s City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Alternatives to the Table 5.2 (cont.): Objective Feasibility Comparison Michael Brandman Associates 5-11 H \Cl t (PN- JN)b327b327003MMVB270030 Sec05 Altematry .s Alternative 2: No - Alternative 1: No Project/Developmentln Proposed Project Project/No Development Accordance with Existing Zoning and General Plan Designations Yes OBJA. Add to existing Yes No development in the District Center land use area along Main Street with project components that are compatible in scale and consistent with the architectural styles and character of the area, and that provides a positive contribution to neighborhood identity. OBJ -5. Develop the project site Yes No No according to good urban design principles, acknowledging the importance of the project as part of the City's North Main development corridor and District Center land use area along Main Street, with proper attention to landscape design and planning for pedestrian access. OBJ -6. Maximize the advantages Yes No No of the site's location close to Main Street in terms of its visibility and proximity to the Garden Grove (SR- 22) and Santa Ana (1 -5) freeways. OBJ -7. Provide a project that Yes No Yes contributes to the continued revitalization of the northeastern part of the City of Santa Ana. Michael Brandman Associates 5-11 H \Cl t (PN- JN)b327b327003MMVB270030 Sec05 Altematry .s City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Other CEQA Considerations SECTION 6: OTHER�ONSIDERATIONS 6.1 - Sianificant Unavoidable Imoacts Potential environmental effects of the proposed project and proposed mitigation measures are discussed in detail in Section 4 of this Draft EIR. All eight environmental issues analyzed in the Draft EIR, listed below, were determined to be less than significant, or could be reduced to less than significant levels with mitigation measures: • Aesthetics • Air Quality • Hydrology and Water Quality • Land Use and Planning • Noise • Transportation and Traffic • Utilities and Service Systems • Climate Change No significant and unavoidable impacts would occur after mitigation from proposed project implementation. All potential impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level. 6.2 - Sianificant Irreversible Chanaes As mandated by the CEQA Guidelines, the EIR must address any significant irreversible environmental change that would result from implementation of the proposed project. Per the CEQA Guidelines (§ 15126.2(c)), such a change would occur if one of the following scenarios is involved: • The project would involve a large commitment of nonrenewable resources; • Irreversible damage can result from environmental accidents associated with the project; and • The proposed consumption of resources is not justified (e.g., the project results in the wasteful use of energy.) The environmental effects of the proposed project are discussed in Section 4 of this Draft EIR and summarized in Section 2, Executive Summary. Implementation of the project would require the long- term commitment of natural resources and land, as discussed in the following paragraphs. Approval and implementation of actions related to the proposed project would result in an irretrievable commitment of non - renewable resources such as energy supplies and other construction related materials. The energy resource demands would be used for construction, heating and cooling of buildings, transportation of people and goods, heating and refrigeration, lighting, and other associated energy needs. Environmental changes with implementation of the proposed project would occur as the physical environment is altered through continued commitments of land and construction materials to urban development. There would be an irretrievable commitment of labor, capital, and materials used in Michael Brandman Associates 6-1 H\Cl t(PN- JMb327b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec0 oNa CEQA dac City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Other CEQA Considerations Draft ElR construction and a loss of limited open space. Nonrenewable resources would be committed primarily in the form of fossil fuels and would include fuel, oil, natural gas, and gasoline used by vehicles and equipment associated with implementation of the proposed project. The consumption of other non - renewable or slowly renewable resources would result from the development of the proposed project. These resources would include, but not be limited to, lumber and other forest products, sand and gravel, asphalt, steel, copper, lead, and water. Alternative energy sources such as solar, geothermal, or wind energy are developing but not currently in widespread local use, so it is unlikely that real savings in non - renewable energy supplies (e.g., oil and gas) could be realized in the immediate future. Development of the proposed project would result in the construction of structures, facilities, or infrastructure on land that is currently used as a parking lot and landscaped area. This land would be permanently committed to urban use. 6.3 - Growth Ind Growth inducing impacts are addressed in Section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines. The CEQA Guidelines define growth inducing impacts as "...the 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." Growth inducing impacts can occur when the development of a project imposes new burdens on a community by directly inducing population growth, or by leading to the construction of additional developments in the same area of the project. Also included in this category are projects that would remove physical obstacles to population growth, such as a new road into an undeveloped area or a wastewater treatment plant with excess capacity that could allow additional new development. Construction of these types of infrastructure projects cannot be considered isolated from the development they facilitate and serve. Projects that physically remove obstacles to growth, or projects that indirectly induce growth, are those which may provide a catalyst for future unrelated development in the area (such as a new residential community that requires additional commercial uses to support residents). The growth inducing potential of a project would also be considered significant if it fosters growth in excess of what is assumed in the local master plans and land use plans, or in projections made by regional planning agencies. The project site is surrounded by primarily urban uses. The proposed project is considered part of a master planned mixed use area containing the Main Place Mall, City Place development, and the proposed project. The project site, currently zoned as Suburban Apartment (R -4), with a General Plan Land Use Designation of Medium Density Residential (MR -15) allowing 15 dwelling units /acre, will require a Zone Change to a Specific Development zoning designation and a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to District Center land use designation to permit project implementation. 6-2 Michael Bmndman Associates H\Cl t (PN Rnb327b327W3MME 3270030 Sec0 ONa CEQAd City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Other CEQA Considerations Residential development is currently allowed, but not at the development intensity proposed. As most of the properties surrounding the project site have been developed or are undergoing development, however, implementation of the proposed project is not expected to contribute to the conversion of properties to urban uses. Additionally, the proposed project does not include the construction of major infrastructure improvements, such as a wastewater treatment plant, that would encourage subsequent development. Therefore, the proposed project is not considered growth inducing. Michael Brandman Associates 6-3 H\Cl t(PN- JMb327b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec06 0N1 CEQA dac City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR SECTIOI� S CONSUL City of Santa Ana Water Engineering Department.. Persons Consulted .... Phillip Vakili Personal communication: Email. December 2008. Orange County Sanitation District ......................... ............................... ............................Bob Chenowith Personal communication: Telephone. June 2008. Orange Unified School District ........................................................ ............................... Kevin Emenaker Santa Ana Fire Department ..... Personal communication: Telephone. June 2008. ........Karl Ellman Personal Communication: Email. June 2008. Santa Ana Police Department ..................................... ............................... ...........................Mike McCoy Personal Communication: Telephone. June 2008. Santa Ana Public Library ............................................. ............................... ............................Rob Richard Southern California Edison....... The Gas Company..... Waste Management.. Michael Brandman Associates H\Cl t(PN- JMb327b32]003MMVB2]0030 Se 7O Pa C .ltad¢ Personal Communication: Telephone. June 2008. .......Matt DeMartino Personal Communication: Telephone. June 2008. ....Michael R. Harrier Personal Communication: Telephone. June 2008. ........David Ross Personal Communication: Telephone. June 2008. 7 -1 City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR SECTION 8: LIST OF PREPARERS 8.1 - EIR Preparation Personnel 8.1.1 - Lead Agency Santa Ana Planning and Building Agency Santa Ana Public Works Agency .... 8.1.2 - Consultant Team List of .... Vince Fregoso, Principal Planner Larry Yenglin, Associate Planner ...... Shahir Gobran, Transportation and Traffic Engineer Michael Brandman Associates .... ............................... .........................Thomas F. Holm, Project Director Emilie Johnson, Sr. Project Manager Cori Wilson, Air Quality and Climate Change Michael Dice, Cultural Resources Greg Tonkovich, Noise Margaret Lin, Environmental Planner Sandra L. Tomlin, Senior Editor Karlee McCracken, GIS Specialist Jayne Ingram, Sr. Administrative Assistant Jose Morelos, Reprographic Supervisor Cole Forbes, Reprographic Assistant 8.1.3 - Subconsultant Team Hall and Foreman ......................................................... ............................... ............................Matt Kunkle Irwin Pancake Architect.. Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc... Michael Brandman Associates H\Client(PN- Rnb327b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec08 Li9 ofRepazasdac Chuck Good -Man Veronica Ng . Serine Ciandella Stephen S. Chang Susana Azpitarte &1 City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR SECTIOI &REFERENC Amtrak. 2009. Schedules. Accessed January 15, 2009. Available online: http: / /www. amtrak. c om /s ervlet/C ontentServer ?p agename= Amtrak/HomePage References California Department of Transportation. 2004. Transportation - and Construction- Induced Vibration Guidance Manual, June. California Energy Commission, California Climate Change Center. 2006. Our Changing Climate, Accessing the Risks to California. CEC -500- 2006 -077. www. energy. ca.gov /2006pubhcations /CEC -500- 2006 - 077 /CEC -500- 2006- 077.pdf. July. Accessed May 2009. California Energy Commission. 2009. The Impacts of Sea Level Rise on the California Coast, March 2009, Draft Report. www. energy.ca.gov /2009pubhcations /CEC - 500 -2009- 024 /CEC -500- 2009 - 024 - D.pdf. Accessed May 2009. California Environmental Protection Agency, State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2009. http: // www. swrcb. ca. gov /stormwtr /construction.html. Accessed February 2009. http: / /waterboards .ca.gov /santaana/water issues /programs /basin _ ilan /docs. Accessed September 2009. California Integrated Waste Management Board. 2008 and 2009. Website http: / /www.ciwmb.ca.gov. Accessed November 2008 and September 2009. City of Santa Ana, Planning Division. 1982. General Plan, Noise Element. September. City of Santa Ana, Planning Division. 1982. General Plan, Scenic Corridors Element. City of Santa Ana, Planning Division. 1987. General Plan, Airport Environs Element. City of Santa Ana, Planning Division. 1998 (Last updated 2007). General Plan, Land Use Element. City of Santa Ana, Planning Division. 1998 (Updated 2005 and 2007). General Plan, Urban Design Element. City of Santa Ana, Planning Division. 2009. General Plan, Housing Element. City of Santa Ana. 1978. Municipal Code, Section No. 18. August. City of Santa Ana. 2005. City Place Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 20040418. April. City of Santa Ana. 2007. Water Quality Report. Federal Railroad Administration. 2008. Horn Noise Questions and Answers. Accessed: January 20, 2009. Available online: http: // www.fra.dot.gov /us /content/l174 Michael Brandman Associates 9-1 H\Cl t(PN- Rnb327b32]003MMVB2]0030 SttU Ref cesd¢ References City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Federal Transit Administration. 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. Geotechnologies, Inc. 2006. Geotechnical Engineering Investigation. February. Hall & Foreman, Inc. 2009. Preliminary Water Quality Control Plan for Park View at Town and Country Manor. July. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, Website: www. ipcc.ch /ipccreports /ar4- wgl.htin. Accessed May 2009. Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 2009. Traffic Impact Study and Parking Analysis for the Park View at Town & Country Manor. June. Melville C. Branch and R. Dale Beland 1970. Outdoor Noise in the Metropolitan Environment. Michael Brandman Associates. 2009. Air Quality Analysis Report. Michael Brandman Associates. 2009. Climate Change Analysis Report. Moser, S, G. Franco, S. Pittiglio, W. Chou, D. Cayan. 2009. The Future Is Now: An Update on Climate Change Science Impacts and Response Options for California. California Energy Commission, PIER Energy - Related Environmental Research Program. CEC- 500 -2008- 071. www. energy.ca.gov /2008pubhcations /CEC -500- 2008 - 071 /CEC -500- 2008- 071.PDF Accessed May 2009. Orange County Sanitation District. 2008. Website http: / /www.ocsd.com. July 2008. 9-2 Michael Bmndman Associates H\Cl t (PN JN)b327b327W3MME 3270030 SttU Ref cesd¢ EXHIBIT C Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Environmental Impact Report Park View at Town and Country Manor Project Santa Ana, California Prepared for: tY�T 4 Y C � YY f� ,FUG City of Santa Ana Planning and Building Agency 20 Civic Center Plaza /M -20 Santa Ana, CA 92702 714.744.7220 Contact: Vince C. Fregoso, AICP, Principal Planner Prepared by: Michael Brandman Associates 220 Commerce, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92602 714.508.4100 Contact. Tom Holm, AICP, Director April 8, 2014 i a R¢ 4'i IL 0.0C1 6 Pa Ca u ¢.CO W VJ to Q° •C C u r7 G .0 G .E F O 'O G N O 'E C °bn o0 N b0 O O +�' b4 O O .O �% bA O O ro W UWQ' U C3 a. ¢' UU' C) u pC w cJWd VU Al j 0 i 1 I. IV E:E U y V U V ( a f"..0. E G •y 6n I'A G 6 7 !q g ao q oo oYa v iV y � Y a;s °.! � , eon •vo o a ! o .W°°'� � 4� E 4? V O to K A G •y '�U vtl 0 o a o Ebnv ,,n N � •E o 5 v ,� .c _,yy m 0. m, '" uv �i oro� acid .ESN N ; o. C C A p C m o o G p..° "o o Cl q ... ;D > C° ti O roC C +' C Y .^�„ 0 d.� c°a. c c u 0.E L '65 E 4J Of ,��.. Y'. O'= d1 itl T 4.. tl�+ v O •E G O '� �. tla bU D •� y b U �' O C v b w vi v 4 6 to C E F O G Cl OC tiI O W E vo N A N 9 W P CL b A N G bn C3 i C C C CYO' G �rn o• °cTi �m �: o,c tTiu wo +FV ��II o. ° -v �� o•F'v ��. G rn n N C C C v F A O O� Ua� u vwQ u Uad u m m C O I � v 0 �'C. N R v U U O 1 0 p N N N W N.> .G O.N m m y 1 O w bn c O 1 J •^ d Ed U U iy V ai. o R�� •C v iv k O ba 4. N R R N b, G 'C W •� b R � O C bn C W� '�' '.N v c ' q A C ro Aa F b p Q m m C O I � v S u F ^U g 0 �'C. N R v U U O 1 0 p N N N W N.> .G O.N m m y 1 O w bn c O 1 J •^ d 0 •F 4 b N X i,. iy � ai. o R�� •C v ." k O ba 4. N R R N b, G 'C W •� b R � O C bn C W� '�' '.N v c ' o ro Aa F b N w Y 4 v j C w R F N O W y N R c o a o V o.o 'y .b '. u s y q � •N° v Gy O+ M A G FC '. • J w � ro F C v� x croa;E= a, I" I I S u F ^U g o i� o, id's I j by G G C 64 d W W V N N O W G T O ii VW1 CC0 •T D p W •004 T. 2 Y'.N W O ( Uad UU Uo.d u UP,d UU : Vad UU : va,d u uwd U� O o C C � c . C e o p ❑ •� ❑ •y- C o Q .Q Qv °� Qro Aa IA N .G N YC N C O V N U b N tin i2 73 c�� da33 Q.Gy Qb A� �ay�� a J v Q' on d CY H rt d o ,F 10 Ul C-) u U, U b. 00 '53 O'z bp C -du 2.5 g g tj O: E Ej 0 O- R 5 bo ? A bb-= 5f > ob bo >1 l C GM C F D �CL va d a ad uc.d vca a uwd u a O i Ol G °C y� C •�, - c at- N. c a b ro ro ,E•�a tL d p Fpm p� N o o.-: m '� N 's✓' '9'p m a o y C. w ` ° C GruGen W00 W N'� ��;'�N� °jA ° N ° v > nr. v ?� `$ !G� 4 �..y. ` 'E N m N y •o E :n d. !N t5 tl `�. I ro ro a F °. '[� c W 4 p '.NR GSi .PC . o � a ro o .G . D UFN bn 0 : W O F O m U O O a bn c ° '' ° o �N n o 'n "�' o s o ❑ F E •m �, ro "�% o: 2.I.E '�o nce � v5 '�p `� U-D V.n "o a�. �. MC•CR to U.c. .ro ti s p > td en R N. •ro rob n C a O bn ro N bn ^'�^ -..'d t0 yJ y 'u N •FOaQb°.0' ° 'N N3 'F U� I� N 9 t. p � O� .v O O N O 4R. i H •E .0 N n. A N G '� C� •-• xr ro N �y N y U �U .. ttl � D N C yC N y O O �n .» N ti F rnro I p � b4v N.?' N ,.•� � �.�� E ctlA Y 0.N .. p � . . • � "�' bn � � .a w fE o E G A"' .; .° by oc � � 'm � a 'c o V k bG a� ¢9W � yr<r, � dd o •�d � CL bC mT � �, da Nad CCCD °�• c y o o,;; o v 0 0 0 0 Vic o° o wU0 aU0 ac U0 tiD w,c0cw 3�0 ° Emma v a o❑ v v u c U o to •> c'° v..cp� E V F• s �i, E m o 'C ,z •[ N o �8�a7O�Nm�cv°�w m v v U U to °_' g �i � � m •vo Y `fie i .uc '� �." � N 'C I °o � c � ° o eC ' v v o o v. ro c o mu c o w c°3• E mp-� > n, G4 °c-o ^.coy C? O O° ��` y °� '� N N to n a aU eFcoEEw o.E�� >� W C U.V t',O"m� 03 •}o o� ai =i avOOU °��ns °w° ON�no ac_�+ '°'r o ❑v 1 O� w v'�. �0 H m•o �^ � �' "m � —���7 a� ^� v as �. 'w,i row °e,m Gwy N'o �i eVl�`�i to N'U b'. m .c .c 0.a vCG t^, a -- ':C' c' ° aci o .>°• .-N• E o o $ E i c S"i ° >.. � -`? 3 � c � .�°o ro ; y =° o CJ N v v v •� o. c 'o ro o.ro G aw ro a. m e: 0 v v a� a o° w m y o u c .o � � Q ,sm„ w 'ea+ 0 > t 8 e ,.i E A ° v � •€ E � ° mm :S .p�p ° ',%' � G v ri � � m •�� c e q3 L) O y O U O N 0 N> ti :9 C u G V o Z O ro 4" a`n. p 'O ° c q t. c 3 U ... N. c 0.d .d w. i '° p• e o Cp G N o -."-, O dd a It C C C i w w I w w w OIC.. p pW q qW N NCW W O CW E � � v ❑ � N ❑ � � u u y y N � � �° E E ❑�❑ � ❑�❑ � w � fi w C 'C c I c I 0 Wi Nu tG IL C" N N. w u OR v da ti � da W U w Py P. U P. P4 U 0. F U Pn Pa b w w w w w w w w w w OIC.. p pW q qW N NCW W W C CW E � � v ❑ � N ❑ � � u u y y N � � �° E E ❑�❑ � ❑�❑ � w fi w C 'C c c W « v o, m «. ❑ Ei ° v a— o o •n. o o a� °� � •- ', O� Sd U N d c "� N u � U 7 . j °d b avi v :fro' a e0. v v m ( ..fl W' v •�. m YJ m .G t N b N O a' F a N F in : s "'• a O N° C N bU O G 2 in ' o aEi o'o o o �°. �� o •c am y 12 a A w m N o N 15 m N o' a e ro �'' E v v �° � C T C N n R! FL -O i AO •C � N N 0.a w N�� b E E ri Nab � 't ' W3 9 z U I m� am O T N y tL Q t 0 O m C N 1- CL E 3' N m 0 01 N E T N m U e b m r. C O G C Cro ;n G I ati my N C I rob ' rob 4' •� V �l 4"'G � U Rt 6A. p I .U' N bNll •O vad a Uwd w , I v�oA d `�iiaq d cnoq d man d WO :C Y. C �l '. O C i G G �i WO .G U GG eu� tl •K u G v GG � N M O "'. ;�' N b0 O C L�' N FN•A U •Q G �'' N W N •O Ua.d a, Ua¢ c vad w Clad a aq ❑ bn G Cro ;n m b ' N C N C N d 4' •� V �l 4"'G � U Rt 6A. p I .U' N bNll •O vad a Uwd w , mr ' N C N C N d N C � '� j m •� C I I y y v� N pq I N `C •i. � C rs I C C 33 U L4. N G 0.r U rr�� O M O p O N U I pr U O W G+ O W pa O ro I I O I N L O fGj G w N C N G❑N: c s y- Y .gin ro ro N y r •U ro '. � � r G u rn � N ✓a N U A _ O mr O N U Wd P. b� O G . C N O m y CL C d E E � N v G E CL L G d OY O U v I v U Wd P. I m N m I c O I v O G . N O m y t P. C d E E � N G E 6 o a Ga o I m N m I c O I U ro C G N �N N � ra .� o v o P aL o A N N 0 t P. T C N 0 0 � I v tV U y G fi q v m a 7 y d C 9 N VI bA '� Vl bL '�. Vi b6d_5 � G bn to bq d V1 b9 d i ba �o w O y O aU L � N va¢PP. O awd aL Ua L ro O 1 iL O I U b b6 U ro C G N �N N � ra .� o v o P aL o A N N 0 t P. T C N 0 0 � I v tV U y G fi q v m a 7 y d C 9 N � N N y � G bn m o ba C Q w O y O aU L � N C� O U F L ro O 1 iL O I U i G CFCG N C N y ro ' w O I l U C O N iy c b b6 m b E 6 a U I N a ro O 0 Id bo N V ro L •w ,J W U Vl RI tV L O O 9 N W F4 ( 9 N i 1 m a m d o_ G bL F N T N m H M., U b4 i •6 I � ❑ to G ❑ Nro T U U ❑ itl ma. Y. rov y I U L rov qq y C rov q� m� p 7 rov G y C rov q C roro fy' G W Ck ryC 6 P7 iG Pa {Cy 6 CA y 4 Pa O p �G Pa U Qi p U N N O froY : o u N � N Cy 1 li ti TL C : rob a � �"O N Nro �°fl .fib G ro,O ❑ i17 O a 2 '� pp d b0 o Qi N b0 ti bu U y �.. G T t G T w C 5v ❑ T C F WT1 on ry.. O O V [U� W O O W O U Q C C K N N G T❑ 'N N C G N T F N G N GUS G C ❑ N N O G G � C N N O G G �' F N' U �' ro bq � ro b4 O ro b7 0 Ly' ro bA O Lam' N b-0 04 ro bq O P, N b0 O UP, 4, 0. i 0 O G O °� 22 p,_ O�. O 'C 'C ❑ 'C a 'C ro C C ❑ C a a P. w .❑ a. ,a a..n n. a a, .❑ 1 m a m d o_ G bL F N T N m H M., U b4 i •6 I � ❑ O G ❑ Nro T U U ❑ itl O I U L 7 � m •d y ti a b9 t N N C •� u N � N Cy U li ti O N C11 N G GO ❑ � O a 2 to tl] U ❑ G C F WT1 04 y b N b G F O 5 G� U ro ti CD O b N N O N v 3 O rJ O N ro a U O O OC a A G S H ''o 3 G rJ NY a m N•.. Q. o bq N y Oa W C T d O C N: Uad cG ' o U d �i a OCD Nqb C <G Pa v W C� O c�a,d a li o bb C .._^ Nro ro ¢� GG �. W d W C T uad a Gad a I C qqb "C (l W to T by uwd a �N o v Y ❑ry to bn rl 4 a a p F a w o r Gto � N m ov `qqtl 00 I'G atyc I. 'D N rd p G bp. N 7 d c rn ti > ai tll W v ci rn .G w G'^ :KOI n G ro µ t. m r"Gir �. +� N 4 C N N " N G O v4 iNiyy" u -T N •� ..d i ;.. •, L w U U U G N U vao n t y O A C ) O O a> O GCCS O X O w t O O.' N O bq y p 07p N F O C C ti F O( A U '�"NO U'�iC � rowoN d' UL1Sp� a U°£ R V m o` OS U to U T� yr I c u° nn eGn i I G c c c '. N IL. G i G �❑ CL t`T/ F V] 0. C N 0. G N R. ro R 0. G 0. 1 N y rl by d N by d [% aD d i Vi bD Ua.d a. Uad c: Uad a Ua',d w i vad w : Uad a e o a ( o o o o O N CCN UCN U U O C d 'E y 0 y 0 N O? O O y 0 E .o F 0 o E tg v ❑ N O O. v Cc: N u I °� v .G N U ! �'Y v 'G N U O LG u 'C N U o o a a. N o f a. u o =1 O b CG •� b O� O ', u d6' I 40 � . • . w m y, ro E I "ra ro � ro d o I a •� Cj a. $ ° m E ..G N roL a c N � � � p v. O G �• .0 N N U I i c u° _o Ur A � I it I C_ � b IL m OC U W a P. P. ' o O R u :....ol c N 46 c m o 0 ct o m U F N w O L C C .N N E v 0 o � w N c c o ^+ rn 3 d v U v U � � v L .E 7 I N Al io O O y 41f I G � N IV � r