The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2014-069 - Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2014-01ROH - 10/21/14 RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -069 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA CERTIFYING FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 2014 -01, AND APPROVING MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT, AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS PREPARED FOR THE PROPOSED HARBOR MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR SPECIFIC PLAN (SP -2) 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. In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq.) and Title XIV, California Code of Regulations, Section 15000 et. seq. (CEQA Guidelines), the City of Santa Ana has prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to analyze the environmental impacts of the Harbor Mixed Use Transit Corridor Specific Plan (SP -2). B. An extensive public outreach campaign was conducted throughout the project to provide opportunities for all stakeholders to play a meaningful role in the development of the plan. Beginning in December of 2010 with an informational open house held at the Plumbers & Steamfitters Union Building there have been a total of 25 community meetings and public hearings. C. CEQA also requires that when a Draft EIR is submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by state agencies, the public be given an opportunity to review and comment on the Draft EIR for a period of not less than 45 days. In accordance with this requirement the Draft EIR began its 45 -day public review and comment period on April 18, 2014, with the review period ending on June 2, 2014. D. In response to written comments received, the City provided formal Response to Comments and EIR clarification or revision. In addition to fulfilling CEQA's requirement for public review, the City conducted a public meeting on May 12, 2014 in order to allow the public to provide oral testimony on the Draft EIR. E. The City received a total of 11 written comment letters and evaluated all comments received from the persons or agencies that reviewed the Draft EIR. The City provided written responses to all agencies and members of Resolution No. 2014 -069 Page 1 of 8 the public commenting on the Draft EIR at least ten days prior to certification of the EIR. F. The Draft EIR, comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR, Responses to Comments, and revisions made to the Draft EIR in response to those comments constitute the Final EIR. G. On August 25, 2014, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and voted to recommend that the City Council: 1. Adopt a resolution certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2014 -01, to approve the mitigation monitoring program, findings of fact, and statement of overriding considerations for the Harbor Mixed Use Transit Corridor Specific Plan. 2. Adopt a resolution approving General Plan Amendment No. 2014 -02. 3. Adopt an ordinance approving Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2014 -01. 4. Adopt an ordinance approving Amendment Application No. 2014 -01. H. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana held a duly noticed public hearing on the above said actions for the Harbor Mixed Use Transit Corridor Specific Plan (SP -2) on September 16, 2014. At that meeting, the City Council continued the matter to October 7, 2014, so that the plan could be revised to reflect the City Council's new policy decisions. The October 7, 2014 City Council meeting was postponed, and all matters were continued to the next meeting. On October 21, 2014, the City Council resumed the public hearing, and at that time considered all testimony, written and oral. I. The City Council also adopts as findings all facts presented in the Request for Council Action dated September 16, 2014, and the Request for Council Action dated October 7, 2014, accompanying this matter. J. The City has prepared Findings of Fact in compliance with Public Resources Code Sections 21081 and 21081.5 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 for every significant impact of the Harbor Mixed Use Transit Corridor Specific Plan (SP -2), including an explanation of the rationale for each finding. K. While the Draft EIR determined that most potential impacts could be mitigated to a less than significant level, it did find that, under a long -term, full build -out scenario, implementation of the Harbor Corridor Plan would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to air quality. L. The City has prepared a Statement of Overriding Considerations in compliance with Public Resources Code Sections 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, which finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of the Harbor Mixed Use Transit Corridor Specific Plan (SP -2) outweigh the significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the EIR. Resolution No. 2014 -069 Page 2 of 8 M. The City has prepared a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in compliance with Public Resources Code Sections 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures identified in the EIR during project implementation and operation. Section 2. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana further finds, determines and declares as follows: A. The City Council certifies that: 1) The Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA. 2) The Final EIR was presented to the City Council of the City of Santa Ana, which reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to approving the project, and is incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full herein. 3) The Final EIR, attached as Exhibit A, reflects the City of Santa Ana's independent judgment and analysis. B. The City Council adopts the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, attached to this Resolution as "Exhibit B" and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full herein. C. The City Council adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, attached to this Resolution as "Exhibit C" and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full herein. D. All attached documents, including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the CEQA Findings of Fact and the Statement of Overriding Considerations, are hereby incorporated by reference as though set forth in full. Section 3. Pursuant to Title XIV, California Code of Regulations (CCR), Section 753.5(c)(1), the City Council has determined that, after considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence that the Harbor Mixed Use Transit Corridor Specific Plan (SP -2) will have the potential for any adverse effect on wildlife resources or the ecological habitat upon which wildlife resources depend. The Harbor Mixed Use Transit Corridor Specific Plan (SP -2) exists in an urban environment characterized by paved concrete, roadways, surrounding buildings and human activity. Therefore, pursuant to Fish and Game Code § 711.4(c)(2) and Title XIV, CCR § 753.5, the payment of Fish and Game Department filing fees is not required in conjunction with this project. Section 4. This Resolution shall not be effective unless and until Resolution No. 2014 -070, Ordinance No. 2014 -2871, and Ordinance No. 2014 -2872 become effective. If said Resolutions and Ordinance are for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, or otherwise do not go into effect for any reason, this is Ordinance shall be null and void and have no further force and effect. Section 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any Resolution No. 2014 -069 Page 3 of 8 court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional. Section 6. This Resolution shall take effect immediately after its adoption by the City Council, and the Clerk of the Council shall attest to and certify the vote adopting this Resolution. ADOPTED this 21st day of October 2 ' APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sonia F prvaAo, City Attorney By" Ryan Mayor AYES: Councilmembers: Amezcua Benavides, Martinez, Pulido, Reyna, Sarmiento Tinajero (7) NOES: Councilmembers: None (0) ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: None U NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers: None (0) Resolution No. 2014 -069 Page 4 of 8 CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, MARIA D. HUIZAR, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify that the attached Resolution No. 2014 -069 to be the original resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on October 21, 2014. Date: Clerk of the Council City of Santa Ana Resolution No. 2014 -069 Page 5 of 8 Exhibit "A" SEE LASERFICHE RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -069 FOR EXHIBIT Resolution No. 2014 -069 Page 6 of 8 October 2014 1 Final Environmental Impact Report HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN for City of Santa Ana Prepared for: City of Santa Ana Contact: Melanie G. McCann, AICP Associate Planner 20 Civic Center Plaza, M -20 Santa Ana, California 92701 714.667.2746 Prepared by: PlaceWorks Contact: Nicole Morse, Esq. Associate Principal 3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100 Santa Ana, California 92707 714.966.9220 info @placeworks.com www.placeworks.com 0 PLACEWORKS FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR: HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO: 2013061027 Proared for. CITY OF SANTA ANA Contact: Melanie G. McCann, AICP Associate Planner 20 Civic Center Plaza, M -20 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Tel: 714.667.2746 • Fax: 714.973.1461 Proared by: PLACEWORKS Contact: Nicole Morse, Esq. Associate Principal 3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100 Santa Ana, CA 92707 Tel: 714.966.9220 • Fax: 714.966.9221 Website: www.placeworks.com SNT -11.0 OCTOBER 2014 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA Table of Contents Contents 1. Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ ............................1 -1 1.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... ............................1 -1 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES ............................................................ ............................1 -1 1.2.1 EIR Format ............................................................................................. ............................1 -2 1.2.2 Type and Purpose of This EIR ............................................................ ............................1 -4 1.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES .................................................................................... ............................1 -5 1.4 PROJECT LOCATION ....................................................................................... ............................1 -5 1.5 PROJECT SUMMARY ........................................................................................ ............................1 -5 1.6 SUMMARY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ............................................... ............................1 -6 1.6.1 No Project /NHSP Alternative ............................................................. ............................1 -6 1.6.2 Reduced Residential Intensity Alternative ........................................... ............................1 -7 1.7 ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED ............................................................................. ............................1 -7 1.8 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY ........................................................................... ............................1 -7 1.9 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT'S, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND LEVELS OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION ............................. ............................1 -8 2. Introduct ion ..................................................................................................................... ............................2 -1 2.1 PURPOSE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ............... ............................2 -1 2.2 NOTICE OF PREPARATION AND INITIAL STUDY ............................ ............................2 -2 2.3 SCOPE OF THIS EIR ......................................................................................... ............................2 -2 2.3.1 Impacts Considered Less Than Significant ........................................ ............................2 -2 2.3.2 Potentially Significant Adverse Impacts .............................................. ............................2 -3 2.3.3 Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts .......................................... ............................2 -3 2.4 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE .......................................................... ............................2 -3 2.5 FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION ........................................................................ ............................2 -4 2.6 MITIGATION MONITORING ....................................................................... ............................2 -4 3. Project Descript ion ......................................................................................................... ............................3 -1 3.1 PROJECT LOCATION ....................................................................................... ............................3 -1 3.2 STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES ..................................................................... ............................3 -1 3.3 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS ...................................................................... ............................3 -1 3.3.1 Project Background and Overview ...................................................... ............................3 -9 3.3.2 Description of the Project ................................................................... ...........................3 -11 3.4 INTENDED USES OF THE EIR ................................................................... ...........................3 -17 4. Environmental Setting .................................................................................................... ............................4 -1 4.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ ............................... 41 4.2 REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SETT ING ............................................ .............................41 4.2.1 Regional Location .................................................................................. .............................41 4.2.2 Regional Planning Considerations ....................................................... .............................41 4.3 LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ..................................................... .............................43 4.3.1 Location and Land Use ......................................................................... .............................43 4.3.2 Environmental Resources and Infrastructure ................................... .............................43 4.3.3 Local Planning Considerations ............................................................ .............................47 4.4 ASSUMPTIONS REGARDING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS .................... .............................47 4.5 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................... .............................49 5. Environmental Analysis ................................................................................................ ..........................5.1 -1 October 2014 Page i HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA Table of Contents Contents 5.1 AESTHETICS ...................................................................................................... ..........................5.1 -1 5.1.1 Environmental Setting .......................................................................... ..........................5.1 -1 5.1.2 Thresholds of Significance ................................................................... ..........................5.1 -2 5.1.3 Environmental Impacts ........................................................................ ..........................5.1 -5 5.1.4 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................... ..........................5.1 -9 5.1.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions ......................... ............................... 5.1 -10 5.1.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation ..................................... ............................... 5.1 -10 5.1.7 Mitigation Measures ...................................................................... ............................... 5.1 -10 5.1.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ....................................... ............................... 5.1 -10 5.2 AIR QUALITY ..................................................................................................... ..........................5.2 -1 5.2.1 Environmental Setting .......................................................................... ..........................5.2 -1 5.2.2 Thresholds of Significance ........................................................... ............................... 5.2 -12 5.2.3 Environmental Impacts ................................................................ ............................... 5.2 -15 5.2.4 Cumulative Impacts ....................................................................... ............................... 5.2 -21 5.2.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions ......................... ............................... 5.2 -22 5.2.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation ..................................... ............................... 5.2 -22 5.2.7 Mitigation Measures ...................................................................... ............................... 5.2 -23 5.2.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ....................................... ............................... 5.2 -27 5.2.9 References ....................................................................................... ............................... 5.2 -28 5.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................... ..........................5.3 -1 5.3.1 Environmental Setting .......................................................................... ..........................5.3 -1 5.3.2 Thresholds of Significance ................................................................... ..........................S.3 -6 5.3.3 Environmental Impacts ........................................................................ ..........................S.3 -7 5.3.4 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................... ..........................5.3 -9 5.3.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions ......................... ............................... 5.3 -10 5.3.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation ..................................... ............................... 5.3 -10 5.3.7 Mitigation Measures ...................................................................... ............................... 5.3 -10 5.3.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ....................................... ............................... 5.3 -10 5.3.9 References ............................................................................................. .........................5.3 -11 5.4 GEOLOGY AND SOILS .................................................. ............................... ...........................5.41 5.4.1 Environmental Setting .......................................... ............................... ...........................5.41 5.4.2 Thresholds of Significance ................................... ............................... ...........................5.49 5.4.3 Environmental Impacts ................................................................ ............................... 5.410 5.4.4 Cumulative Impacts ....................................................................... ............................... 5.412 5.4.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions ......................... ............................... 5.413 5.4.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation ..................................... ............................... 5.413 5.4.7 Mitigation Measures ...................................................................... ............................... 5.413 5.4.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ....................................... ............................... 5.413 5.4.9 References ....................................................................................... ............................... 5.413 5.5 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ............................................................... ..........................5.5 -1 5.5.1 Environmental Setting .......................................................................... ..........................5.5 -1 5.5.2 Thresholds of Significance ........................................................... ............................... 5.5 -11 5.5.3 Environmental Impacts ................................................................ ............................... 5.5 -13 5.5.4 Cumulative Impacts ....................................................................... ............................... 5.5 -16 5.5.5 Existing Plans, Policies, and Programs ....................................... ............................... 5.5 -16 5.5.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation ..................................... ............................... 5.5 -16 5.5.7 Mitigation Measures ...................................................................... ............................... 5.5 -16 Page ii PlaceWorkr Contents HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA Table of Contents October 2014 Page in 5.5.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ....................................... ............................... 5.5 -17 5.5.9 References ....................................................................................... ............................... 5.5 -17 5.6 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ......................................... ..........................5.6 -1 5.6.1 Environmental Setting .......................................................................... ..........................5.6 -1 5.6.2 Thresholds of Significance ........................................................... ............................... 5.6 -17 5.6.3 Environmental Impacts ................................................................ ............................... 5.6 -18 5.6.4 Cumulative Impacts ....................................................................... ............................... 5.6 -22 5.6.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions ......................... ............................... 5.6 -23 5.6.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation ..................................... ............................... 5.6 -23 5.6.7 Mitigation Measures ...................................................................... ............................... 5.6 -23 5.6.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ....................................... ............................... 5.6 -24 5.6.9 References ....................................................................................... ............................... 5.6 -24 5.7 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY .................................................... ..........................5.7 -1 5.7.1 Environmental Setting .......................................................................... ..........................5.7 -1 5.7.2 Thresholds of Significance ........................................................... ............................... 5.7 -16 5.7.3 Environmental Impacts ................................................................ ............................... 5.7 -19 5.7.4 Cumulative Impacts ....................................................................... ............................... 5.7 -27 5.7.5 Existing Regulations ............................................................................ .........................5.7 -28 5.7.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation ..................................... ............................... 5.7 -28 5.7.7 Mitigation Measures ...................................................................... ............................... 5.7 -29 5.7.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ....................................... ............................... 5.7 -30 5.7.9 References ....................................................................................... ............................... 5.7 -31 5.8 LAND USE AND PLANNING ....................................................................... ..........................5.8 -1 5.8.1 Environmental Setting .......................................................................... ..........................5.8 -1 5.8.2 Thresholds of Significance ................................................................... ..........................5.8 -3 5.8.3 Environmental Impacts ........................................................................ ..........................5.8 -4 5.8.4 Cumulative Impacts ....................................................................... ............................... 5.8 -16 5.8.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions ......................... ............................... 5.8 -17 5.8.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation ..................................... ............................... 5.8 -17 5.8.7 Mitigation Measures ...................................................................... ............................... 5.8 -17 5.8.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ....................................... ............................... 5.8 -17 5.8.9 Reference ............................................................................................... .........................5.8 -17 5.9 NOISE .................................................................................................................... ..........................5.9 -1 5.9.1 Terminology and Noise and Vibration Descriptors ......................... ..........................5.9 -1 5.9.2 Regulatory Framework .......................................................................... ..........................5.9 -5 5.9.3 Exis Ling Noise Environment ............................................................... ..........................5.9 -7 5.9.4 Thresholds of Significance ................................................................... ..........................5.9 -7 5.9.5 Environmental Impacts ........................................................................ ..........................5.9 -8 5.9.6 Cumulative Impacts ....................................................................... ............................... 5.9 -19 5.9.7 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions ......................... ............................... 5.9 -20 5.9.8 Level of Significance Before Mitigation ..................................... ............................... 5.9 -20 5.9.9 Mitigation Measures ...................................................................... ............................... 5.9 -21 5.9.10 Level of Significance After Mitigation ....................................... ............................... 5.9 -23 5.9.11 References ....................................................................................... ............................... 5.9 -23 5.10 POPULATION AND HOUSING ........................................................... ............................... 5.10 -1 5.10.1 Environmental Setting .................................................................. ............................... 5.10 -1 5.10.2 Thresholds of SiPnificance ........................................................... ............................... 5.10 -6 October 2014 Page in HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA Table of Contents Contents 5.10.3 Environmental Impacts ................................................................ ............................... 5.10 -7 5.10.4 Cumulative Impacts ....................................................................... ............................... 5.10 -9 5.10.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions ....................... ............................... 5.10 -10 5.10.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation ................................... ............................... 5.10 -10 5.10.7 Mitigation Measures .................................................................... ............................... 5.10 -10 5.10.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ..................................... ............................... 5.10 -10 5.10.9 References ..................................................................................... ............................... 5.10 -10 5.11 PUBLIC SERVICES .................................................................................... ............................... 5.11 -1 5.11.1 Fire Protection and Emergency Services ................................... ............................... 5.11 -1 5.11.2 Police Protection ............................................................................ ............................... 5.11 -4 5.11.3 School Services ............................................................................... ............................... 5.11 -6 5.11.4 Library Services .................................................... ............................... ........................5.11 -10 5.12 RECREATION ............................................................................................ ............................... 5.12 -1 5.12.1 Environmental Setting .................................................................. ............................... 5.12 -1 5.12.2 Thresholds of Significance ........................................................... ............................... 5.12 -2 5.12.3 Environmental Impacts ....................................... ............................... .........................5.12 -2 5.12.4 Cumulative Imnacts ....................................................................... ............................... 5.12 -4 5.12.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions ......................... ............................... 5.12 -4 S. 12.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation ..................................... ............................... 5.12 -4 5.12.7 Mitigation Measures ...................................................................... ............................... 5.12 -4 5.12.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ....................................... ............................... 5.12 -4 5.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC .................................................. ............................... 5.13 -1 5.13.1 Methodology .......................................................... ............................... .........................5.13 -1 5.13.2 Environmental Setting .................................................................. ............................... 5.13 -5 5.13.3 Thresholds of SiPnificance ......................................................... ............................... 5.13 -10 5.13.4 Environmental Impacts .............................................................. ............................... 5.13 -13 5.13.5 Cumulative Impacts ..................................................................... ............................... 5.13 -24 5.13.6 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions ....................... ............................... 5.13 -24 5.13.7 Level of Significance Before Mitigation. ................................................................. 5.13 -24 5.13.8 Mitigation Measures .................................................................... ............................... 5.13 -25 5.13.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation ..................................... ............................... 5.13 -26 5.14 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ................................................. ............................... 5.141 5.14.1 Environmental Setting ........................................ ............................... ..........................5.141 5.14.2 Thresholds of Significance ......................................................... ............................... 5.14 -12 5.14.3 Environmental Impacts .............................................................. ............................... 5.14 -13 5.14.4 Cumulative Impacts ..................................................................... ............................... 5.14 -21 5.14.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions ....................... ............................... 5.14 -22 5.14.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation ................................... ............................... 5.14 -22 5.14.7 Mitigation Measures .................................................................... ............................... 5.14 -23 5.14.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ..................................... ............................... 5.14 -24 6. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impact s .................................................................... ............................6 -1 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project ............................................................................ ............................7 -1 .1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ ............................... 7 -1 7.1.1 Purpose and Scope ................................................................................. ............................7 -1 7.1.2 Project Objectives ................................................................................... ............................7 -2 Page iv PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA Table of Contents Contents 7.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED DURING THE SCOPING /PROJECT PLANNING PROCESS ........................................... ............................7 -2 7.2.1 Alternative Development Areas ........................................................... ............................7 -3 7.2.2 Reduced Nonresidential Intensity Alternative . ............................................................... 7-3 7.3 ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS .................. ............................7 -4 7.4 NO PROJECT /NHSP ALTERNATIVE ......................................................... ............................7 -4 7.4.1 Aesthetics ................................................................................................. ............................7 -4 7.4.2 Air Quality ................................................................................................ ............................7 -5 7.4.3 Cultural Resources .............°-................................................................. ............................7 -5 7.4.4 Geology and Soils ................................................................................... ............................7 -5 7.4.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................................. ............................7 -5 7.4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ........................................................ ............................7 -6 7.4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................... ............................7 -6 7.4.8 Land Use and Planning .......................................................................... ............................7 -6 7.4.9 Noise ......................................................................................................... ............................7 -6 7.4.10 Population and Housing ........................................................................ ............................7 -6 7.4.11 Public Services ......................................................................................... ............................7 -7 7.4.12 Recreation ................................................................................................. ............................7 -7 7.4.13 Transportation and Traffic .................................................................... ............................7 -7 7.4.14 Utilities and Service Systems ................................................................. ............................7 -8 7.4.15 Conclusion ............................................................................................... ............................7 -8 7.5 REDUCED RESIDENTIAL INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE .................... ............................7 -8 7.5.1 Aesthetics ................................................................................................. ............................7 -8 7.5.2 Air Quality ................................................................................................ ............................7 -9 7.5.3 Cultural Resources .................................................................................. ............................7 -9 7.5.4 Geology and Soils ................................................................................... ............................7 -9 7.5.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................................. ............................7 -9 7.5.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ........................................................ ............................7 -9 7.5.7 Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................... ............................7 -9 7.5.8 Land Use and Planning ......................................................................... ...........................7 -10 7.5.9 Noise ........................................................................................................ ...........................7 -10 7.5.10 Population and Housing ....................................................................... ...........................7 -10 7.5.11 Public Services ........................................................................................ ...........................7 -10 7.5.12 Recreation ................................................................................................ ...........................7 -10 7.5.13 Transportation and Traffic ................................................................... ...........................7 -11 7.5.14 Utilities and Service Systems ................................................................ ...........................7 -11 7.5.15 Conclusion ...............................................................°............................. ...........................7 -11 7.6 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE ............................. ...........................7 -11 8. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant ............................................................................ ............................8 -1 8.1 ASSESSMENT IN THE INITIAL STUDY .................................................... ............................8 -1 9. Significant Irreversible Changes Due to the Proposed Project ................................. ............................9 -1 10. Growth- Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Project .................................................... ...........................10 -1 11. Organizations and Persons Consulted ........................................................................ ...........................11 -1 12. Qualifications of Persons Preparing EIR ..................................................................... ...........................12 -1 CITY OF SANTA ANA .................................................................................................... ...........................12 -1 October 2014 Page v HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA Table of Contents Contents PLACEWORKS.................................................................................................................. ...........................12 -1 IBIGROUP .......................................................................................................................... ...........................12 -2 13. Bibliography ................................................................................................................... ...........................13 -1 APPENDICES Appendix A NOP and Initial Study Appendix B NOP Responses Appendix C Ain Quality and GHG Emissions Modeling Data Appendix D Cultural Resources Records Searches Appendix E Hazardous Materials Data (EDR Report) Appendix F Drainage Study Appendix G Noise Modeling Data Appendix H Traffic Impact Study Appendix I Service Letters Appendix J Water and Sewer Studies Page m PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA Table of Contents Figure 3 -1 Regional Location. 3 -3 Figure 3 -2 Local Vicinity. 3 -5 Figure 3 -3 Aerial Photograph. 3 -7 Figure 3 -4 Proposed Land Use Districts and Zoning Designations. 3 -15 Figure 4 -1 Current Zoning Designations. 4-11 Figure 5.1 -1 Existing Visual Resources -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- 5-1 -3 Figure 5.1 -2 Conceptual Renderings------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- 5-1 -7 Figure5.4 -1 Geologic Map----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- 54-5 Figure5.4 -2 Fault Map----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------5-4 -7 Figure 5.7 -1 Santa Ana River Watershed ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- 5-7 -5 Figure5.7 -2 Regional Drainage --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- 5-7 -7 Figure 5.7 -3 Main Orange County Groundwater Basin ........................................................ ......................... . . . . .. 5.7 -13 Figure5.7 -4 Flood Hazard Zones ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5.7-17 Figure 5.13 -1 Study Area Intersections and Turn Lane Geometries ........... ......................... . . . . .. ........................5.13 -11 Figure 5.14 -1 Existing Water System Pipe Sizes----------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- 5.14 -5 October 2014 Page vii HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA Table of Contents Table Table 1 -1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation . 1 -9 Table 3 -1 Land Use Districts and Buddout Projections for the Harbor Corridor Plan . 3 -13 Table 3 -2 Buddout Projections for Parcels Proposed to Be Converted to Conventional Zoning. 3 -14 Table 4 -1 North Harbor Specific Plan Land Use Summary . 4 -7 Table 4 -2 General Plan Projections. 4 -9 Table 52 -1 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants ..................................... ......................... . . . . .. 52 -7 Table 52 -2 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin-------- ------------------------- - - - - -- 52 -10 Table 52 -3 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Summary------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------- 52 -11 Table 52 -4 Existing Land Uses------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------- 52 -12 Table 52 -5 SCAQMD Significance Thresholds-------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- 52 -13 Table 52 -6 SCAQMD Localized Significance Thresholds ................................................. ......................... . . . . .. 52 -14 Table 52 -7 SCAQMD Toxic Air Contaminants Incremental Risk Thresholds-------------- ------------------------- - - - - -- 52 -14 Table 52 -8 Construction Regional Emissions ....................................................................... ......................... . . . . .. 52 -16 Table 52 -9 Maximum Daily Operational Phase Regional Emissions ............................... ......................... . . . . .. 52 -17 Table 52 -10 CARB Recommendations for Siting New Sensitive Land Uses-------------------- ------------------------- - - - - -- 52 -19 Table 5.4 -1 Estimated Relationship between Peak Ground Acceleration and Intensity-- ------------------------- - - - - -- 5.4 -3 Table 5.5 -1 GHG and Their Relative Global Warming Potential Compared to CO2------------------------------- - - - - -- 5.5 -2 Table 5.5 -2 Summary of Global Climate Change Risks to California ................................. ......................... . . . . .. 5.5 -5 Table 5.5 -3 Scoping Plan GHG Reduction Measures and Reductions toward 2020 Target-------------------- - - - - -- 5.5 -8 Table 5.5 -4 Annual Operational Phase GHG Emissions .................................................... ......................... . . . . .. 5.5 -14 Table 5.6 -1 Environmental Database Listings within the Project Area------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 5.6 -7 Table 5.6 -2 Offsite Environmental Database Listings within 0.25 Mile of the Project Site ......................... 5.6 -12 Table 5.7 -1 Existing Project Area Drainage System and Capacities ............................................................. . . . . .. 5.7 -9 Table 5.7 -2 Beneficial Uses of Receiving Waters ........................................................................................... . . . . .. 5.7 -11 Table 5.7 -3 Water Quality Impairments --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- 5.7 -12 Table5.7 -4 Future Pipe Capacity--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- 5.7 -22 Table5.7 -5 Construction BMPs----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- 5.7 -23 Table 5.7 -6 Anticipated and Potential Pollutants Generated by Land Use Type------------------------------------- - - - - -- 5.7 -24 Table 5.7 -7 Categories of BMPs in WQMPs------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- 5.7 -25 Table 5.8 -1 General Plan Consistency Analysis----------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- 5.8 -5 Table 5.8 -2 Consistency with SCAG's 2012 -2035 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Goals---------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- 5.8 -12 Table 5.8 -3 SCAG Compass Growth Vision Consistency Analysis .................................. ......................... . . . . .. 5.8 -14 Table 5.9 -1 Change in Sound Pressure Level, dB ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- 5-9 -2 Table 5.9 -2 Typical Noise Levels from Noise Sources .......................................................... ......................... . . . . .. 5.9 -3 Table 5.9 -3 City of Santa Ana Noise Element Standards ............................................................................... . . . . .. 5.9 -5 Table 5.9 -4 City of Santa Ana Exterior Noise Standards ............................................................................... . . . . .. 5.9 -5 Table 5.9 -5 Ground home Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria: Human Annoyance--- ------------------------- - - - - -- 5.9 -6 Table 5.9 -6 Ground Borne Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria: Structural Damage ---- ------------------------- - - - - -- 5.9 -6 Table 5.9 -7 Project- Related Traffic Noise, Existing Conditions ................................................................... . . . . .. 5.9 -9 Table 5.9 -8 Long Term Traffic Noise Increases ................................................................... ......................... . . . . .. 5.9 -11 Table 5.9 -9 Construction Equipment Vibration Levels ....................................................... ......................... . . . . .. 5.9 -15 Table 5.9 -10 Construction Equipment Noise Levels ............................................................. ......................... . . . . .. 5.9 -18 Table 5.10 -1 Population Projections, 2010 - 2035 .................................................................... ......................... . . . . .. 5.10 -1 Table 5.10-2 Housing Units and Households, Santa Ana and Orange County, 2013, CDF Estimate--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- 5.10 -2 Table 5.10 -3 Housing Units Projections, 2010 - 2035 ............................................................. ......................... . . . . .. 5.10 -2 Page viii PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA Table of Contents Table Table 5.10 -4 Employment by Industrial Sector, Santa Ana, 2011 ........................................ ......................... . . . . .. 5.10 -3 Table 5.10 -5 Employment Projections, 2010 - 2035 ....................................... ................................. ....................... 5.10 -4 Table 5.10 -6 Jobs - Housing Balance------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------- -------------- 5.10 -5 Table 5.10 -7 Jobs- Housing Balance in Santa Ana, 2035, with Harbor Corridor Plan Buildout--------------- - - - - -- 5.10 -8 Table5.11 -1 Fire Stations ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5.11-1 Table 5.11 -2 Schools 5.11 -7 Table 5.11 -3 Student Generation by Grade Level ................................................................... ......................... . . . . .. 5.11 -9 Table 5.13 -1 Level of Service Descriptions ....................................................................................................... . . . . .. 5.13 -2 Table 5.13 -2 Maximum Average Daily Traffic and LOS for Arterial Roads---------------------- ------------------------- - - - - -- 5.13 -3 Table 5.13 -3 HEM 2000 Level of Service Descriptions ......................................................... ......................... . . . . .. 5.13 -4 Table 5.13 -4 Existing Roadway Segment LOS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5.13-8 Table 5.13 -5 Existing Intersection LOS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5.13-9 Table 5.13 -6 Existing Year 2013 With Project Roadway Segment LOS --------------------------------------------------------- 5.13-14 Table 5.13 -7 Harbor Corridor Plan Land Uses ..................................................................... ......................... . . . . .. 5.13 -15 Table 5.13 -8 Existing With Project Intersection LOS: AM Peak Hour ----------------------------------------------------------- 5.13-16 Table 5.13 -9 Existing With Project Intersection LOS, PM Peak Hour ------------------------------------------------------------ 5.13 -17 Table 5.13 -10 Future Year 2035 With Project Roadway Segment LOS ------------------------------------------------------------- 5.13-19 Table 5.13 -11 Future Year 2035 Intersection LOS Without and With Project: AM Peak Hour ------------------- 5.13 -20 Table 5.13 -12 Future Year 2035 Intersection LOS Without and With Project: PM Peak Hour ------------------ 5.13-21 Table 5.1 -13 CMP Arterial LOS----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- 5.13 -22 Table 5.13 -14 CMP Intersection Year 2035 LOS- AM Peak Hour ...................................... ......................... . . . . .. 5.13 -23 Table 5.13 -15 CMP Intersection Year 2035 LOS- PM Peak Hour ............... ................................. ...................... 5.13 -23 Table 5.14-1 Existing and Forecast Water Supplies ...................................... ............................ . . . . .. .......................5.14-2 Table 5.14-2 Projected Normal Year Water Supply and Demand for the City of Santa Ana (ACY) ----- - - - - -- 5.14-3 Table 5.14-3 Projected Single Dry Year Water Supply and Demand for the City of Santa Ana (ACY) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- 5.14-3 Table 5.14-4 Existing Storm Drain Pipe Deficiency--------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- 5.14-9 Table 5.14-5 Landfill Capacity --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5.14-11 Table 5.14-6 Estimated Existing Electricity Demands ................................ ............................ . . . . .. ......................5.14-12 Table 5.14-7 Forecast Project Wastewater Generation ............................... ............................. . . . . .. .....................5.14-13 Table 5.14-8 Existing and Future Water Demands Based on Population ------------------------ - - - - -- -------------------------5.14-15 Table 5.14-9 Existing and Future Water Demands Based on Existing Water Usage Rates . .........................5.14-15 Table 5.1410 Normal, Single Dry, and Multiple Dry Year Demands ( ACY) -------------------- ------------------------- - - - - -- 5.14-16 Table 5.14-11 Future Pipe Capacities --------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------- ------ --------------- ----------5.14-18 Table 5.14-12 Estimated Net Increase in Solid Waste Generation by Harbor Corridor Plan Buildout------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- 5.14-19 Table 5.14-13 Estimated Electricity Demands by Specific Plan Buildout ---------------------------------------------------------- 5.14-20 Table 5.14-14 Estimated Natural Gas Demands by Harbor Corridor Plan Buildout ............ . . . . .. ....................5.14-21 Table 8 -1 Impacts Found Not to Be Significant . 8 -1 October 2014 Page ix HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA Table of Contents Table Tbisliage intentionally left blank. Page x PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA Abbreviations and Acronyms AAQS ambient air quality standards AB Assembly Bill ACM asbestos - containing materials ADT average daily traffic amsl above mean sea level AQMP air quality management plan BAU business as usual BMW best management practices BRT bus rapid transit CaIARP California Accidental Release Prevention Program Cal /EPA California Environmental Protection Agency CALGieen California Green Building Code Cal /OSHA California Occupational Safety and Health Administration CalRecycle California Department of Resources, Recycling, and Recovery Caltrans California Department of Transportation CARB California Air Resources Board CBC California Building Code CCR California Code of Regulations CDF California Department of Finance CDR Center for Demographic Research (CSU Fullerton( CEC California Energy Commission CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and liability Act cfs cubic feet per second CGS California Geologic Survey CGV Compass Growth Vision CMP congestion management program CO2C carbon dioxide equivalent Corps United States Army Corps of Engineers CRS community rating system CUPA certified Unified Program agency CWA Clean Water Act dB decibel October 2014 Page i HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA Abbreviations and Acronyms dBA A- weighted decibel DEIR draft environmental impact report DOF Department of Finance EHD Environmental Health Department EIR environmental impact report EPA Environmental Protection Agency (US) EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right -to -Know Act FDPA Flood Disaster Protection Act FEIR final environmental impact report FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FHWA Federal Highway Administration FIRM flood insurance rate map FIS flood insurance study FTA Federal Transit Administration g acceleration of gravity GCP general construction permit GGUSD Garden Grove Unified School District GHG greenhouse gases GWP global warming potential HAP hazardous au pollutant HCD Housing and Community Development Department (CA) HCP habitat conservation plan HQTA high quality transit area HRA health risk assessment HVAC heating, ventilating, and au conditioning system ICU intersection capacity utilization IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IRWD Irvine Ranch Water District Lan day night noise level Leq equivalent continuous noise level Lm. maximum noise level I. minimum noise level LBP lead based paint Page ii PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA Abbreviations and Acronyms LCFS low carbon fuel standard LEPC local emergency planning committee LOS level of service LST localized significance thresholds Mw moment magnitude MMI modified Mercalli intensity MMT million metric tons MT metric ton MTCOze /year /SP metric tons of CO2-equivalent emissions per year per service population NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NFIP National Flood Insurance Program NHSP North Harbor Specific Plan NOP Notice of Preparation (of an EIR) NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPL National Priorities List OCFA Orange County Fire Authority OCTA Orange County Transportation Authority OCTAM Orange County Traffic Analysis Model OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration (US) POTW publicly owned treatment works ppm parts per million PPV peak particle velocity RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RHNA regional housing needs assessment RMS root mean square RPS renewable portfolio standard RTP regional transportation plan RWQCB regional water quality control board SAFD Santa Ana Fire Department SAPD Santa Ana Police Department SARMP Santa Ana River Mainstem Project SCAG Southern California Association of Governments October 2014 Page in HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA Abbreviations and Acronyms SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SCS sustainable communities strategy SFHA special flood hazard area SHMA Seismic Hazard Mapping Act SIP state implementation plan SoCAB South Coast Air Basin SRA source receptor area TAC toxic air contaminants TAZ traffic analysis zones TDM travel demand model TDS total dissolved solids TTCP traditional tribal cultural places UST underground storage tank UWMP urban water management plan V/C volume -to- capacity ratio VdB velocity decibels VMf vehicle miles traveled VOC volatile organic compounds VPHPL vehicles per hour per lane WCI Western Climate Initiative WQMP water quality management plan ybp years before present Page iv PlaceWorkr 1. Executive Summa 1.1 INTRODUCTION This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) addresses the environmental effects associated with the implementation of the proposed Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that local government agencies, prior to taking action on projects over which they have discretionary approval authority, consider the environmental consequences of such projects. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is a public document designed to provide the public and local and State governmental agency decision makers with an analysis of potential environmental consequences to support informed decision making. This document focuses on those impacts determined to be potentially significant as discussed in the Initial Study completed for this project (see Apendix A. This EIR has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, and the City of Santa Ana's CEQA procedures. The City of Santa Ana, as the lead agency, has reviewed and revised as necessary all submitted drafts, technical studies, and reports to reflect its own independent judgment, including reliance on applicable City technical personnel from other departments and review of all technical subconsultant reports. Data for this EIR was obtained from on -site field observations, discussions with affected agencies, analysis of adopted plans and policies, review of available studies, reports, data and similar literature, and specialized environmental assessments (air quality, hydrology and water quality, noise, transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems). 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES This EIR has been prepared pursuant to CEQA to assess the environmental effects associated with implementation of the proposed project, as well as anticipated future discretionary actions and approvals. The six main objectives of this document as established by CEQA are listed below. 1) To disclose to decision makers and the public the significant environmental effects of proposed activities. 2) To identify ways to avoid or reduce environmental damage. 3) To prevent environmental damage by requiring implementation of feasible alternatives or mitigation measures. 4) To disclose to the public reasons for agency approval of projects with significant environmental effects. October 2014 Page 1 -1 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 1. Executive Summary 5) To foster interagency coordination in the review of projects 6) To enhance public participation in the planning process. An EIR is the most comprehensive form of environmental documentation identified in CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines and provides the information needed to assess the environmental consequences of a proposed project, to the extent feasible. EIRs are intended to provide an objective, factually supported, full disclosure analysis of the environmental consequences associated with a proposed project that has the potential to result in significant, adverse environmental impacts. An EIR is also one of various decision making tools used by a lead agency to consider the merits and disadvantages of a project that is subject to its discretionary authority. Prior to approving a proposed project, the lead agency must consider the information contained in the EIR, determine whether the EIR was properly prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, determine that it reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency, adopt findings concerning the projects significant environmental impacts and alternatives, and must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations if the proposed project would result in significant impacts that cannot be avoided. 1.2.1 EIR Format This EIR has been formatted as described below. Section 1, Executive Summary. Summarizes the background and description of the proposed project, the format of this EIR, project alternatives, any critical issues remaining to be resolved, and the potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures identified for the project. Section 2, Introduction. Describes the purpose of this EIR, background on the project, the Notice of Preparation, the use of incorporation by reference, and Final EIR certification. Section 3, Project Description. A detailed description of the project, the objectives of the proposed project, the project area and location, approvals anticipated to be included as part of the project, the necessary environmental clearances for the project, and the intended uses of this EIR. Section 4, Environmental Setting. A description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project as they existed at the time the Notice of Preparation was published, from both a local and regional perspective. The environmental setting provides baseline physical conditions from which the lead agency determines the significance of environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project. Section 5, Environmental Analysis. Provides, for each environmental parameter analyzed, a description of the thresholds used to determine if a significant impact would occur; the methodology to identify and evaluate the potential impacts of the project; the existing environmental setting; the potential adverse and beneficial effects of the project; the level of impact significance before mitigation; the mitigation measures for the proposed project; the level of significance of the adverse impacts of the project after mitigation is incorporated and the potential cumulative impacts associated with the proposed project and other existing, approved, and proposed development in the area. Page 12 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 1. Executive Summary Section 6, Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts. Describes the significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the proposed project. Section 7, Alternatives to the Proposed Project. Describes the impacts of the alternatives to the proposed project, including the No Project Alternative, and a Reduced Intensity Alternative. Section S, Impacts Found Not to Be Significant. Briefly describes the potential impacts of the project that were determined not to be significant by the Initial Study and were therefore not discussed in detail in this EIR. Section 9, Significant Irreversible Changes Due to the Proposed Project. Describes the significant irreversible environmental changes associated with the project. Section 10, Growth - Inducing Impacts of the Project. Describes the ways in which the proposed project would cause increases in employment or population that could result in new physical or environmental impacts. Section 11, Organizations and Persons Consulted. Lists the people and organizations that were contacted during the preparation of this EIR for the proposed project. Section 12, Qualifications of Persons Preparing EIR. Lists the people who prepared this EIR for the proposed project. Section 13, Bibliography. A bibliography of the technical reports and other documentation used in the preparation of this EIR for the proposed project. Appendices. The appendices for this document (presented in PDF format on a CD attached to the front cover) contain the following supporting documents: ■ Apendix A: NOP and Initial Study ■ Apendix B: NOP Responses ■ Apendix C: Au Quality and GHG Emissions Modeling Data ■ Apendix D: Cultural Resources Records Searches ■ Apendix E: Hazardous Materials Data (EDR Report) ■ Apendig F: Drainage Study • Apendix G: Noise Modeling Data • Apendix H: Traffic Impact Study ■ Apendix I: Service Letters ■ Apendix J: Water and Sewer Studies October 2014 Page 13 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 1. Executive Summary 1.2.2 Type and Purpose of This EIR This EIR has been prepared as a Program EIR in accordance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's Rules for the Implementation of CEQA. In accordance with Section 15121(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3): An EIR is an informational document which mill inform public agency decision - makers and the pubhcgenerallA of the significant envimnmental effects of a project, identify possible mays to mzmmz�e the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project As provided in Section 15168 of the State CEQA Guidelines, a Program EIR may be prepared on a series of actions that may be characterized as one large project that are related either 1) geographically; 2) as logical parts of a chain of contemplated events; 3) in connection with issuance of rules, regulations, plans, or other general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program; or 4) as individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory authority and have generally similar environmental effects that can be mitigated in similar ways. The CEQA Guidelines (Section 15168[b]) encourages the use of Program EIRs, citing five advantages: 1. Provide an occasion for a more exhaustive consideration of effects and alternatives than would be practical in an EIR or an individual action. 2. Ensure consideration of cumulative impacts that might be slighted in a case -by -case analysis. 3. Avoid duplicative reconsideration of basic policy considerations 4. Allow the Lead Agency to consider broad policy alternatives and programwide mitigation measures at an early time when the agency has greater flexibility to deal with basic problems or cumulative impacts 5. Allow reduction in paperwork Although the legally required contents of a Program EIR are the same as those of a Project EIR, Program EIRs are typically more conceptual and may contain a more general discussion of impacts, alternatives, and mitigation measures than a Project EIR. Once a Program EIR has been prepared, subsequent activities within the program must be evaluated to determine whether an additional CEQA document needs to be prepared. However, if the Program EIR addresses the program's effects as specifically and comprehensively as possible, many subsequent activities could be found to be within the Program EIR scope and additional environmental documents may not be required (Guidelines Section 15168[c]). When a Program EIR is relied on for a subsequent activity, the lead agency must incorporate feasible mitigation measures and alternatives developed in the Program EIR into the subsequent activities (Guidelines Section 15168[c][1]). If a later activity would have effects that were not examined in the Program EIR, a new Initial Study would need to be prepared leading to either an EIR or a Negative Declaration. In this case, the Program EIR still serves a valuable purpose as the first tier environmental analysis. Page 14 PlaceWorks HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 1. Executive Summary 1.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES The following objectives have been established for the Harbor Corridor Plan project and will aid decision makers in their review of the project and associated environmental impacts: • Provide for the development of the site consistent with City's General Plan. • Provide for new housing and mixed use development opportunities. • Expand development opportunities that respond to transit investments. • Create economic vitality by providing new opportunities for businesses and residents. • Provide a variety of safe and efficient travel choices and access to multi modal transportation. • Create a sense of place. ■ Enhance community health and wellness by creating safer street design for multiple modes of travel, increase walkability and encourage live /work along the corridor. 1.4 PROJECT LOCATION The project area comprises approximately 425 acres oriented to Harbor Boulevard in Santa Ana, located in central Orange County. The project area generally includes parcels adjacent to Harbor Boulevard between Westminster Avenue and Gloxinia Avenuel�6e AX ay and parcels along Westminster Avenue, 1st Street, and 5th Street one -half mile east of Harbor Boulevard. The corridor's northern and southern ends are adjacent to the city boundaries of Garden Grove and Fountain Valley, respectively. The project areas consists of two areas 1) an approximately 305 -acre portion that directly fronts Harbor Boulevard or perpendicular arterial streets and 2) 120 acres consisting of the Willowick Golf Course and Campesmo Park, residential properties along Jackson Street, and commercial properties along 5th Street. The 120 -acre site is east of the Harbor Boulevard corridor and abuts the Santa Ana River to the east. 1.5 PROJECT SUMMARY The City of Santa Ana, as lead agency and project applicant, is processing the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan, a specific plan, zoning amendment, zone change, and general plan amendment. The specific plan is available for review at the City of Santa Ana, Planning Division, 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701. The Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan would replace the existing 425 -acre North Harbor Specific Plan ( "NHSP "). The plan would change the boundaries of the NHSP so that the project would consist of two separate areas: 1) 305 acres within the boundaries of the existing 425 -acre NHSP generally along Harbor Boulevard ("Harbor Corridor Plan" or "Specific Plan"), and 2) 120 acres within the existing NHSP in the Willowick Golf Course area (or "Conventional Zoning Area'). Both of these areas constitute the "project" for purposes of CEQA. The Harbor Corridor Plan would allow up to 4,623 dwelling units and 1,954,261 square feet of commercial units within four zones: Transit Node (TN), Corridor (CDR), Neighborhood Transitional (NT), and Open October 2014 Page 15 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 1. Executive Summary Space (OS). Buildout would allow for a net increase of 3,884 dwelling units and 13,721 square feet of commercial uses. The Conventional Zoning area would be removed from the NHSP and redesignated to match the existing land uses. The intensity of development is not expected to change and buildout would match the existing uses with 92 dwelling units and 3,700 square feet of commercial. A detailed project description is provided in Section 3.3.2, Desaip ion of the Project, of this MR. 1.6 SUMMARY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES The CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6[a]) state that an EIR must address "a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project, but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives." The alternatives were based, in part, on their potential ability to reduce or eliminate the impacts determined to be significant and unavoidable for the proposed project. The following two alternatives have been determined to represent a reasonable range of alternatives which have the potential to feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but which may avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. These alternatives are analyzed in detail in Section 7, Alternatives to the Proposed Project. ■ No Project /NHSP Alternative ■ Reduced Residential Intensity Alternative Each alternative's environmental impacts are compared to the proposed project and determined to be environmentally superior, neutral, or inferior. However, only those impacts found significant and unavoidable are used in making the final determination of whether an alternative is environmentally superior or inferior to the proposed project. Impacts involving air quality were found to be significant and unavoidable. Section 7.6 identifies the Environmentally Superior Alternative. 1.6.1 No Project/NHSP Alternative The No Project /NHSP Alternative assumes that the Harbor Corridor Plan would not be adopted, the NHSP would remain in effect, the Conventional Zoning Area would remain within the NHSP, and the existing onsite buildings would remain. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3)(A), where a project is the revision of an existing regulatory plan the "no project" alternative assumes continuation of the existing plan, policy or operation into the future. Therefore, this alternative assumes that new development and redevelopment would continue to occur in the project area consistent with the adopted NHSP land use designations, development standards and design guidelines. Buildout of the NHSP would allow for 320 residential units and 4,867,789 square feet of nonresidential land uses. Note that the NHSP results in a reduction of residential units compared to existing uses since some residential uses were existing in the area prior to adoption of the NHSP. As compared to the proposed project, buildout of the NHSP would result in Page 16 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 1. Executive Summary a reduction of 4,395 residential units and an increase of 2,896,107 of commercial and other nonresidential square footage. 1.6.2 Reduced Residential Intensity Alternative The Reduced Residential Intensity Alternative would reduce permitted residential units by 25 percent in the Transit Node district and by 50 percent in the Corridor district; the permitted number of residential units in the Neighborhood Transition district would be the same as in the proposed project. Total permitted nonresidential development intensity in this alternative would remain the same as in the proposed project. The total number of residential units permitted by this alternative would be 2,908, or 37 percent less than that of the proposed project. 1.7 ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED Section 15123(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an FIR contain issues to be resolved including the choice among alternatives and whether or how to mitigate significant impacts. With regard to the proposed project, the major issues to be resolved include decisions by the lead agency as to the following: 1. Whether this FIR adequately describes the environmental impacts of the project. 2. Whether the benefits of the project override those environmental impacts which cannot be feasibly avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance. 3. Whether the proposed land use changes are compatible with the character of the existing area. 4. Whether the identified goals, policies, or mitigation measures should be adopted or modified. 5. Whether there are other mitigation measures that should be applied to the project besides the Mitigation Measures identified in the FIR. 6. Whether there are any alternatives to the project that would substantially lessen any of the significant impacts of the proposed project and achieve most of the basic project objectives. 1.8 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY An FIR scoping meeting was held on June 25, 2013 to determine the environmental concerns of interested parties regarding the Harbor Corridor Plan. The meeting was held at Santa Ana Union Hall, 3904 West First Street, Santa Ana. Several issues were raised during the scoping meeting including: the increase in traffic and effect on Harbor, eminent domain, creating jobs for the local labor force, impacts on adjacent land uses of high density and affordable units, noise, public services (police, schools, parks, and libraries), pedestrian and traffic circulation. Responses to the Initial Study and Notice of Preparation are included in Apendix B of this FIR. These and other environmental issues are frilly addressed in Chapter 5 of this FIR. No other areas of controversy are known to the Lead Agency. October 2014 Page 1 -7 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 1. Executive Summary 1.9 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND LEVELS OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Table 1 -1 summarizes the conclusions of the environmental analysis contained in this EIR. Impacts are identified as significant or less than significant and for all significant impacts mitigation measures are identified. The level of significance after imposition of the mitigation measures is also presented. Page 18 PlaceWorkr �z w� ¢a zz LL¢ ¢LL Jo a} O U K O O (6 E E 7 U) N U x W r Q d U C U w O N 7 J C N N N m Cd C C W N a H o `a as J o d m J E c S w m m� o " t m 0> '0 m Q m ° _ 'o Q O o ° E m m 2 m m a �° ° m .' .m .. m O m 0. m E E 2 0` c°+ U m o s¢ m ° o E o > a m o N o o .Lm. `o m m m 1E t `0 2 o.0 o -moo U o 2 °- m m o o E c m v m E ° oa .m m m m F E .U+. �i '-m-o m -mo `m v Q m aEi v 3 w o m o 2 E o a�i ,n m o_Q ._ m V E '� � E .� .� Q d W ■ ■ d oI aEi o d O C m m E E C C U m m _ C C LJ1 m m H � � T L L � � F C m N J J a O m C � N d O N L O N -O 0I (i C m m 'O O i -O 2E m o m~ m m o m o m w O N r H O C L6 0- 0I O' 2> m O m v m m ao a o 0 N>' `o N Y. N G m a m 'o m � m � m � w w � m m � o 2 E m m o L L U °>' -o m m _° E E E Q_ J J N m� o " t m 0> '0 m Q m ° _ 'o Q O o ° E m m 2 m m a �° ° m .' .m .. m O m 0. m E E 2 0` c°+ U m o s¢ m ° o E o > a m o N o o .Lm. `o m m m 1E t `0 2 o.0 o -moo U o 2 °- m m o o E c m v m E ° oa .m m m m F E .U+. �i '-m-o m -mo `m v Q m aEi v 3 w o m o 2 E o a�i ,n m o_Q ._ m V E '� � E .� .� Q d W ■ ■ d oI aEi o d O C m m E E C C U m m _ C C LJ1 m m H � � T L L � � F C m N J J a O m C � N d O N L O N -O 0I (i C m m 'O O i -O 2E m o m~ m m o m o m w O N r H O C L6 0- 0I O' 2> m O m v m m ao a o 0 N>' `o N Y. N G m Z O E. ai "L d 0 C m U - 2 >. 0 L - `m nI V+ m 4 40 y Mo U o m ` i ° o o o >. om-O o m> a m m m o o 2 E m m o o m °>' -o m m _° E E E C m L N m 0 C m C N� Q C C U m m _ C C LJ1 m m H � � T L L � � F C m N J J a O m C � N d O N L O N -O 0I (i C m m 'O O i -O 2E m o m~ m m o m o m w O N r H O C L6 0- 0I O' 2> m O m v m m ao a o 0 N>' `o N Y. N G m O m C � N d O N L O N -O 0I (i C m m 'O O i -O 2E m o m~ m m o m o m w O N r H O C L6 0- 0I O' 2> m O m v m m ao a o 0 N>' `o N Y. N G m oQ xz o� �z mr¢n K 00 0 <r xo W. (6 E E 7 U) N U N X W Q d U C A U w O N J a N N U m C U C O C W w O U a H J !O N O-5 O W N Vl O >j +t-. CO JC O U y O m `o,o m Z- 3 Vl o m o >.E o a m o `o d E m >° m m> .� m m m m o o' `m > -oo —° > 0 3 m m y m o- w d' m o r> m s m m 0 `m O E d> m o �O a w`o - o E `�' 3 o t co+ m° o f o -- o Q m m o m �. O— " ° E c m `o m E s °m o a go y m� N E m o o fC a o w° o E L° E a o O i o o c -° Z o o aEi m e 0 0 0. o w m o c E o o- o— m `m r. E m o c°+ �. �. x �_ °- m mss`, c s 2 0 o c m m m -so- o o, I o o 'm' U a 'o' 0 2 >' 0 2 m o o-Z = o o c o m o t m ° m o f $i m c o E a m o o t U o m m t 2 0 m� �° m° 'm o E �° E ° m o 5 m° E o .� m o m~ c t .a o m o a-Oi 'c E Eo .� .E o c L° a m o-Z o ox z o m o o E `o , o E o s E c o m m a ��w' mmam�om m oOo mo o.E "*nm �o ° m 'o '- I > o E c o m o_ o o° "_ E E o m m m m s E rn c T :- c� c m o c Ea o D_t E m° O d' -s O `m" o4. Ti o o "v2i Co ° -O `o c c a ° c m o o m '� m o f o f o o I y m o 3 a m m o 2E o o _ m o c a 3 coi o -p o o_:� N D_ ` o m >. m m o 6 — mt.. " a o o a o r. o= m m. c m-o c m U .m m o m e o o o E E c 'o-' F a o w m O o o O E `o D o t O> o f m m 1° o m a m -=o = E r c o Q m o o o m m c T Q = m `o co+ w > o ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Q = ..s.. . nc 0 m m h v m n E c E c 0 c w 0 �z w� ¢a Z Z LL Q Z � Q LL � O LL } O U K K 0 v (6 CE C V! U x W r N a H Y. N G m n m d n ° ° 2 O m N � C Q d J � U �C LJ1 V! a t~ > o m a s O a °-5 m t o aFCi �d E -_6 o a ° _ c �o o m m o a o a m m> m m o_ m m o� o� m m a o¢ `m m° °o a F 0 o El oI d E N N o, `o O °- o m m :o `-' d r U°> �' _ U is ° Uo m o a m Ow -Z a 0 �_ o c o l [_ m m m w o `� t m m ow o mo=o a o_m oa 8 -F2 o. mN� ' >_ .� °- c co .m O m - a °� v �° m o m m a E 2 a. °� -o> > N O °� a m m L > O N C C w J m° -o m U C OI C w °- E y E> m O O a !O O U `° N L w -O C -O O . O ° -O m 'O N C !O !O a m m N - m ai -° o c o a `m N OI O ._ m >. m m. ._ m Q 3. m m o m a c J O C= > U °. m O -oo m o P? m O C� oI N N O > O O a °, ° m° d m Q a L N m m s !° N N a m m m t m a0 o - d o a m s s ° a o `o_ " `a' o o .� m �° `o E m m m -moo m °- - m> m> >. m � m m `o m E o_ `o_ 4eu ..2 E m o m a c>+ m O m t E m `m O c°o+ `m m o m m o ° a U o -oo '°' `°' m `°' `°' oa E[ o�� a�s> =a ��o -o E. N Q FaO °�� Q m Q a.f 'oao Q-o m >O QF E a� n n n n n c ° � A U C � C O1 = Ll1 p o T > m J y O a t o a a m a o � m m> U D c m c N c m0_ N C O W N ��- E _ m c E° Lri Q a 2 m o O Y. N G m co W. E Q .2 \ \ / Z , : \ ri - :, ° \ \ \ \ \ °e,6m ,.� § \/\ / _ � \ \ \ \ \\/ / §) +f M, i- -_- « \m~ -f \ \ \\ \ \\ \� / \ \ \ \/ \ \ � j OR r,E w —� — G) \ ~22 {z){ {C w #3 +a§ \ / Z �z wa Zz Z � Q LL � O LL } O U K K O O cc E E U) U x W r Q d U C A U w O N J a N N U m U E 0 W w O U a H C _O) w °� r C N� OI O w N J � O d N p c O O d E� m a a x 0 ° c - t 2 t U o 0 m o O -e6 W m L° -o E o_ � m m �? E -o m t o_ 0 0€ m m E O ° m o m o U m o y m m g m a¢ tvI �02'EU°msa.- N O O U C N .E c 2 o O E x o 3 U O U 0 O -O !p E C w x° o m m E 2 E - `O E a m ° `m C aEi may o y � W ` .o 2 _>. O Q m m o m o o °- S-° O 0 C E �5 ca E O � ` 0 0 . m 0 - d mt w m N am O 4E °-moo m m Q ? E 2 °m - m o dm J C E 0 w C N U .0 Ll1 V! m .0 N O a >- `o E U 'x O E2 F m m m a � x d U `> °m m C 0 o m '� N O O O £ 0 � m 0'm m 2 `o n m � m a E E F > = C 0 N W 0 o m= o c x O `o � Q 0 n ¢ m -o o� o x 2 [2 -° cm+ m m o x a m _ o C O O O O E E d o m ¢ _0 >0 m m U m c m m X' C N o m a d m m m W U -o O d C O C- = ... E .m m N d U N.0 L 2E `o W °_ m m m � o' cc a o m o w c C a c W -Z o O m m `o m 0 m > o a m o > Q m o E Ln m °5 > O o 2E > o 0 m m m m E -0 ° E a o E °'c o s m E o»- m s> _m s !p C !O OI Vl o m : - 0 o o 2 a > > a > 2 C N a 0- C F C a m o m c o m ° > e+ m m w m o E W m ° > Ewa - ° m w a E U s ¢ m m m E ° > o F d Elt - `° C O m a m o ` m N O m a m m � > o � a m m d ° O m m � m`o a ° m� m P3 m -O P3 o mo >— M. O o � O d m m '0 0 C E X m E m C E `o m o x o � c EE n+ a - d y � m w C m m E O ° o_ E E E m m 2 m ° E �o O 3 ol d N E C o o o m ° m m F 5 P? ,,+ E o P3 m c o m o 0 W 2EF`o � U `o 2 o ° o U m E °m mo Q m s E c E `o 3 E °m E '- E m o o 2 m o m o = o� 0 0 E m E � o o � 'o Q m�� m O o 2 EL o a oco o U Y. N G 0 xa �a o� �z m r¢n K m 0 <r Q ~ S (J W. co E E 7 U) N U N X W N a H C w C O_I N N F N J O N i 'f/) C� N O O •F i V QQQQ -O O N C o m m o e a° at. m o 0 U '"°1 c m Tv o m z_ Qm O> U = o'a -Ooc O�._Ucm 2'oo a o � ° t O d t -U ° m- _s... m ° m a 6Q- ,2m -w. z�c.o�w o�c i o _-o `- cc°+ a m° o m o c m m o m U m t o t m -=-"2 m> 0002cu E d U -� m E m -ca o m o m 4 cao oa'o s m o ow > o -o ° a m m o E~ m E o o m v m °m m 6, o o? m o m m m -° `o m m m m O O V m -ca m m o m o a o m 2E m C7 m m `m '-,-o t v '--o `m . c o- cc+ m m 5 m U .0 V! T m O a m a �a X _ o � x v > > o `m o 3 m m m a o E m O m w s ° c=°+ o U o K 0 x m m 0 osLL ma N w E o a o o a -o > m U m m m M J L6 O C m U E [2 OO U E F m L6 E U m U LL m N Y a n � � O O O q N � C > Q J U .0 V! N E2 N t N N C O 2 E E � s � E c a s � 3 c m - m m 3 W F m N 2E a C o O > m a r c o o rn m C E K N E m E 0.-0 s m o 0 2m -o _ m a z m n w m n m m E `o o wm c 0 m c O � A U C m C m = 01 p o T > m J y O a o m m o U o s m .. `o U E - � >t o E2 m E c m o � x m o 0 o o� w 0.0 M'> > m C° m m o s a N O F LL U O mt C w C O_I N N F N J O N i 'f/) C� N O O •F i V QQQQ -O O N C o m m o e a° at. m o 0 U '"°1 c m Tv o m z_ Qm O> U = o'a -Ooc O�._Ucm 2'oo a o � ° t O d t -U ° m- _s... m ° m a 6Q- ,2m -w. z�c.o�w o�c i o _-o `- cc°+ a m° o m o c m m o m U m t o t m -=-"2 m> 0002cu E d U -� m E m -ca o m o m 4 cao oa'o s m o ow > o -o ° a m m o E~ m E o o m v m °m m 6, o o? m o m m m -° `o m m m m O O V m -ca m m o m o a o m 2E m C7 m m `m '-,-o t v '--o `m . c o- cc+ m m 5 m U .0 V! T m O a m a �a X _ o � x v > > o `m o 3 m m m a o E m O m w s ° c=°+ o U o K 0 x m m 0 osLL ma N w E o a o o a -o > m U m m m M J L6 O C m U E [2 OO U E F m L6 E U m U LL m N Y a E E Q .2 \ \ _ ( J�kf) \� \\ LU ca 2 ( \ 5 �\ \ \ \k ox c §{ \Mi` \(\! §( _ #! /) \3( #Az{ Z r. \ \� \ \§ \ \� � ow \� \i2 \� \i)} \2)) w # / /)]! #ƒ «] ( \ 5 �\ \ \ \k ox c §{ \Mi` \(\! §( _ #! /) \3( #Az{ Z r. \ oQ xz >Q o� �z K 0 m xo W. Co C E 7 U) N U N X W Q d U C U w O N J a N N N m N E C LU N a H o `a N a J o 42 dm J E E c E 0 c w w m L N J -c E `m U.;� F o i m$ o -m d t c+ c+ m a s � U U' 2 -o o m c o� m o N y `O m ` co 2 E m o m �? o m m o c m m m c 'E m ¢ m- o- w g c u m r. m m m. m- m m m Q m o m =ma E -o m oQ 3 0 o m m a� o mL �m °¢ o-oc°+Q w °"m... m°�- ^oomoacmvi N d m o- o- m m t r m fO E °¢ - o m _ _ m > �o - m�'E °-m cSm "��w, °mwc`o �WE�O -�m�y c° � m m - 2 `o o I v m H m E-1 0 w `o > o -o -o m a s m m m a-c m `oa o d F o d m m m o U m o f c m m t o m m >> N m s m >.� ¢ o E�� c �E2 o m-o --w'Em wom °`m ° mmm "`o moved m0 o> m i° m m IE o m N - m co E o° Q o° R n m °o m- m w o-2 o N E a c o w c m e c m �w o_ c m m m m J a m m - o °- c E -o c z d o E o m m m m o o m m m m m E o mE m -o m -° `o c m m F c m m E o o o N o.m 0 " a Q El m m E cc m¢ o u o._ o o 0 c c m c o--' -- m o'Ulcm+m v o��w�rn m"ma - o>>om��NW�m�mm- -o P3 aa' m m -w -6 E. o am m m oa'> aL�n �O- E mo c m m= m v ��'c r c iE m e �- o m m m c m ma P3 `o c m m x w o w N E o a an d of o...a `o am mUa m m -O U w e o° m U m o m E m t¢iI m a c w �' m E `o Eo m. E m .- m m-mo mt .Lm. o-m m'a vIN `o- 'a m s oD_o o '°-' -oyw m `�' o o m t o Q. m o m m E E ° 0 0 o d 3 3 U m o m ■ ■ d 2 m m F m¢ Q a a m o o C N U .E N A C W O a N ° -2 `o J -2 a m Q > d m 0 U N N mo C `m Op Q � o m 00 y t o c m 6 E `m o N o m > N I m -c E o = ° E m o i m o U x C N 4n c m m E IL m 2 '- L b �z wa zz z� Jo a} o� O (J cc E E U) U N X W r M 6 Cr Cr K 6 D Z 6 0 O O K D T 2 w w w m m m m J m J m J L t a ca c m o a � o a E w m o � m m m - m E d E 0 0 2 1.0 0 m ° a 0 o o 0_ a `o y m ° o42 'o E m m o - m m m E `o a o m. 0 '� m 0 '� m d2t axi `o_E E E E o O C N C N U w � C C C LJ1 m N m N V! C C T L � L F - C N O J J a o E E C C o'x O 0,2 N o Z E a m E U m 'm U m m m`m mmo E ='0 o o m o .Lm.. E m° . »' m d> m m c m o O � 2" O m m M. m 0 0 m d L w a o E o E o d a vi E 0 Z L5° Lri o_0 E o m ° vi E o 3 is o 3 oa a -O t is o m 3 o m ii o °� E m n m E m �- o o m n m m mM n t E EL E EL r. N G m oQ xz �Q o� �z m r¢n K m 0 �r xo W. co E E 7 U) N U N X W N a H Y ro � C U O C N� OI O a N > a L J � N J d O m !O o m O O � C C O O O LL m o m ... E 2 m ° m at. oac�wt m € m U c ° m o c Oo - o a do m E 0 a 3 . -r .0 o e E C o E : x m C '°cO m C c c O N d C m d [2 V l O O !O E - O C d m o m i o m m E o d .42 a o m m m E o E= m o" o a m o LL a y LL m m' c 2 'oo o m t N m 0 2 o E m° m o n o w m E U N m m m m m `m a o °-� m m m E �° a �° `m c -o U a c m a o o `o_'o c E a m 1E o o E o t" o m m t ° Z m o m a o >> I o a m W °m m c-a c= d m °c C D o t m o m -- c m Q L y o c Lm oat m LL c o 'O C LL !O !O N LL� U� `O `m m i !O O N O� Lam' m C O i C N f/°) m LL - E 2 m I o m �O m o > m `O m = _ m `o °� daNao� o -o E� m m ° o o - c s m E `oa c 3 m m ._ �� o m o .f m m m c m E c€ v � E o v m c o m m m S E E '��am��m �o�mm m� cN I ' m r' v r' C C ° C A U p m O1 = D7 p O , _ A > m y O a m E Z a m > m m a o Q o o c m o °'- ° E m o 2 `m o `o m c o m o -o _ s E o c r. m 2°a� E t E o m 3 L6 o E d .-_• C c> v s E Y ro �z wa Z ~ LL Q Z � Q LL 10 LL } K F O U K O U cc CE C V! U x W r N a H Y. N G m C O C C C 'E N N N C N � C OI C OI C OI o d N N N ry a L L L N J N J N J E o 0 0 o f 16 " H E o[2 o a m m E a o C o IL O- `o m m o g >. o U E p m a E O o a °° y`o E v°i Oc moa o." .S 3 to mo og m E t '- t� °c-o -Q `oo_g ° a .2 'm t o_a 2E o a 12 E -o E °m m c E `o E o a t m m O - m a d ow c°+ - � o m E~ E o E y o E o_ E _ E m t- = E m o o ., .__ o'E m E o. m E ° m E m - gy m m E- _ o ° c E E > a m o E 2 o r E E t E E ti a o d o m o f a U oo F 0 2 >> c o- E m�-o� m mM oo [ �` E � o 0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ° 0 E s a o_.f E m m E n o 0 C C C C pf 'E C w m = LJ1 LJ1 C - m 3 E a U m _ _ F J y y O O E a a J o `m =E o c 0 ova �O o 3: m t E - o o f `o m o o m E E E c m '-' E -O p -M o o °� y, U o E> oo E m �°, E C O o E °- E C O o E m -'o E m am m E ° > C 5 m E E- o o E m o - W U° OI 46 m O >i F Q C !O r E E E o r E a o E r E° vi o vi °o vi E ._ E ii � a ii � -°p ii i a n a�i E m C. >'c m Ca> -o E EoU Ea 0 3 V 2E -o:E Y. N G m IV Z Z 0 O 0 O F Z 0 X ¢ o� �z m r¢n 0 0 m �r xo W. co C E U) U N X W d Q d U C U w O N 7 J C N N N m C Cd C W O N a H o `a J d m J n E c E 0 w C7 Z Z Z J a D Z 6 N D 6 m w m L d m m E m w N L H N J J $ m U m U O X . O m 0 c o E o � c C N m O m D_ m m `O m co o m o o E m o m Mm m c m m -- �.= o E E F m N O z L6 m w m w m w m m m m L N J m L N J m L N J m m m- N N N' 'O OI O U OI N N OI o.o °� m°-cm �m o0'�c�oam m > >° m e m m E ami a c s m 'o -O y m O O O -mo oa o. c $i - L c m L' o m o `m m o. o m S' S' 3 m 'oa �' 0o d m E° °- m m c �' o_ E m m '-CU, m -mo o' 15 E m o _° m m 0 o y o o m t m m o oa o `m 'c E a m m z, o d m 3 o m °-' m m m m E c U m .c c m m `o oa o m -Eo o o m c .o L° %. n �° m o r m a m o a > m m o L c T=i -o a s L° `oa °oa -ca 12 m o .o m o m. a F m -O c m€ o s o 0 0 o `o m> d L m m L a F m m o E£ c .m a Ct L !O m FE -O y m 0 E N 7'00 IaCO Vl N -o y m oo Q c - -_a a aCi Y ami m 42 c m o U- c m O m aEi S, O --° - 2-Z -° E m 2 '� o m m 12 m o a a Z c m c m a a �cm+ ° m m m m'E_ o °c L5° D om mpQj P3 m'9Lm c om o E 2 to v o o Q5 o- c£ c �-o Z m m t m ° m -o m n m m m a -o m - 2 Z m m m o r `°_ m e m ° 42 °o aXi a0 E w U` 2 m °_ ° _ _ s co a o °- E t m m c o .n m o w oo E N o Z m m m w _ C _ C C LJ1 LJ1 m y V! V! C m T T L F m C m C N N O O J a a o Oo N jp o O O N° L w � C'O 2i N 2i C U m o FL m O U O O N N E E ° o o E Q o m W U _ a `m o U E U ° o c a c IK o d° m 2 0 12 m m m o_ o o.._ m o o 0 o c ° c _ m m o d> 0 m Vl o o -� w m m W m aEi v a t_ m E E o E E � o .o � a" E o o o m Z z U N �z wQ Z ~ LL Q Z � Q LL � O LL } O U K O (J (6 CE C V! U x W r N a 9 N r. N -g' G m C O C C O ry UJ UJ ry a L L J � N J � N J OI ` O N O C d O d L N L = !O �= N N O ON L !O O C O L O O L N N C N N o .f E2 v s vi o `m E c `o m�2 m o_ a m E' -E c v Q E m 3:�omy: m m'oE m m m `oa o mm m o .o t co `o U >�a"mmmxo _ o '_' -o m `o -o d LLJ m o °� d -t m o m_a m E o -a0o d m ' :o .a m° m 5 c m w - O . m2 Qm=-o o >. In oo a... m.°�m Lr � o a2 o _ ch ai ° ° ° m ° _ m E °- -2 m m c°+ L o m o- o o" �_ m m ~ �, E m m °' ° E E m m o m° °-°'oa c w o� -o o t-o E o mm 2 m 6 O oa m m E 3 m s 2 2 E ° m L° o m `�" o_ Q m m o m `m m .Lo. m m `m O1 E> a o .� - aEi o m m o m 5 m > � o E m -O m Q o a L o .> o m L m 0 0 m. o_ °. m °O = o o L m m m m> E o E m m .o -LE S -6.- 47 C - ? L -o o f a L-2 a-oo U> o °>' a o c :- c a m m 2, m o — m - a °oa m r. m e '�a 3 O o_ 2 2 m °- m `O m a o �' t oa Q o a co a '`' o. '� o .� o o o m c o c Q' c- _ " o ri c� m 2, a >" m-o �' m m m E c o? c U o m -°o m m m c-° m -c ri ° m oa Z.w d 3 c.E c a o m o o c o z m m42 s c c m `-' o c E 50 L° ° m 'o o L° °` m e° m °- m °� c v E E a ° i oa o o .E E v° o m o E 2 o d o LL m E as =o_=o o m .°_ o> a -m E'o m. -co `m me .�y Doom €QQmm° oo�a -a -Eo mc�om��> m am m o m0 m' d2 m'> m' >Q-oo o'>1 d ° `o ■ ■ ■ m m v � C m C C m= N rn N rn p O T T - A A > m � d d O O a a z� d `o o. `oa m s aEi m � m _ L m Ei `o E m o o m o m 4(u m w v m m m 'O E o a o o m Ld m c c c 2 U `o c o o 2 U o `oa N r. N -g' G m IV W. co E Q 2 \ \ / Z \\ \ \� \ \\ \ Ld (ZJ /Zk§ 5 ® CL \ \� \�\ \\ \ / \) \\ \\ �\ Em {0 \ \} \ \\ \\ FL M to o EF » -_ �){\ \\ \�j\ } \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \}/ \ / Z \\ \ \� \ \\ \ Ld (ZJ /Zk§ 5 ® CL \ / Z �z wQ zz LL¢ ¢LL Jo a} O U K K O O F Z Q K F O X O tt O tt Q x (6 E E 7 U) N U x W r o `a N a J d Q d U C � U w � O fN E w O � N U 7 U J C N 7 N U � E � C CU 0 A c ° `o �m J m w m y m F m J C � m w m y m F m J O L E W °_- II w III � m ° C � p E O E d E C Q (n E m C 0 j o C w � C o E E m N p C ° a OI H a L oa m w m N L H m w m y L F m w m y L F m w m y L F E I I E I I E I I E m w m y m F m J m w m y m F m J m w m y m F m J m w m y m F m J III II III m m � E I I E I I E I I E m w m y m F m J m w m y m F m J m w m y m F m J m w m y m F m J m m � N p C -Ei O OI OI U w O O Z m 3 m c E m CU:o w `o a °° U2 v cn m a a— t w -° m m Q — 0 o F — mo d L6 O Q 1 i _ O vi o U vi _ a� oa c m m o m m m m m o m E2 F °oa E F" `O F m° E F m m- w m¢ tq m to vi U 4 Z Q 6 K a N QZ K M m w m ti L H m Ld Ld U E N Y. N G m oQ xz Q O F � Z 0 (n K m 0 <r xo W. (6 E E 7 U) U N X W Q d U C A U w O N J a N N U m C U C O C W O U a H J A� 0 m m h v m E 0 C W 'm E CC - m m �- o_ ° E � -0 3 m � � o � m o m m `m O m O1 X p_ N N N m O m m m E 0 L `O N m N -U -o - m W -o o m a�i t .? vi e a 'E d d d> >. 2 0 �_ U E o a m E �+ t QE, m O E a o E L a o m� m o = a o `o a m m s > °m Lm o E E E z o Em a o o `v 0 m m :E c E -2 0- m m E m o o a m m m . C O O d > w " > E s E 2 E m t E o m m m E c 2 2 � m~ ti_ E O Z c U `m °aO oom .o.°m E m m o 2 m ° ° m m c m m �Om o s �m m ' a o 0 E:E o E c 4 o E `E 0 o U o °o � _ _ E 0� E E o ° O oU m 'm° o o t ° E a m a o o N E c E E ° O ' a o m m " m m m `U ° E~ o E E m E o O= m c o . ` a E — R o m.- = o E o o � E — o m U5 E m .s -0 o E m o > o m m . a m _ t E E pw t t y U o m m E _ m >. o Q ° ow �o R ° ° ° ' m m w d E E U fC w o m o m m E ma ao' ° � ° Ea E° � . C6 'F w . a z o U L ° m E c a U i E °o. Q c E Q E_aE o m m U .°_- A� 0 m m h v m E 0 C W 'm E CC - m m �- o_ ° E � -0 3 m � � o � m o m m `m O m O1 X p_ N N N m O m m m E 0 L `O N m N �z wQ Z ~ LL Q Z � Q LL � O LL } O U K O v (6 CE C V! U x W r N a H h N Y. N G m A O 2 C C {` N r2 O_I O_I O a N N ry a L L J � N J � N J w o E° m H E `> o v " -o E E 0 o 0 2 o o a ° o m m m E o m E E > m o Ln O > m m m m. 0 0 _ _ - m c m `o 0 o m m 0 -° ° Oo ... > m a s 2- E o m E E O V d C d O `' E Vl - C N d E C (O O C C !O o S m m ° a �. 0 S c UE H m a m a . a m E b E o O rn r 0.Em°mE m tc° °- c -Eo E `o E - o `o E `o. 'm .m m m m ° o t `o ° o m °� m E LL m m LL m m m m -a a s m 1 22i o-`- � E m E r E ° E m" E o m �' > > ai -o 'o c o. m m o O . o m m E cam' °_ m m m ` `o `-' = o ° 1 ° °- m m _ E E m > > m m y `oa S a o m Y a oa o o o c m o ■ ■ a a �■ ■ m m m m M E E m o Z 0 Z nc � � o - m m m w w y y s s um J F m J F m J L C'O C O C O m o o 0 0 o m > o o _ o U m m o > - m IE m ° o >. O1 wo ... c coo+ ° o c m m p C 0 o E h N Y. N G m 0 xa z � Q O F � Z 0 (n 0 0 m �r xo W. co E E 7 V! U N X W J Q d �+ C 3 A q U w � O N 7 J C N N U n° O d � v m � J C U E C O C W O U a H E C O C W d E a� 0 0 �. o m -o O C o_ m N � C O o _r m L o � o_E N w N a N U N Q N f r Ld w w m m L N J L N J E - m E `o v° m c a m E o- o o° o m o =- o m a E E 0- E O m o. a o -o a m LL� °- ° m m m E m t w �i m U a 0 m m o m ° o o `o m m ° > 0 E E= '� o E E E .0 m X °? mma 0 mo a m a 02E,O c >' E> o- m m o. o ... m m m o ° E o U m E 'm o m -o E m m a E o s o o E U m m° r. �' m o_.N o m� 3 ... o- °- .� E m >. m a m E? o m m° m m E m m -mo 2 --2 m E °- d (7 -O i fm/) O N N 'O f=/) N O C O E m m m° 1 m `m o °oa axi o mE2 an d E ° € m m E °m m m t w m o o E a>'i m m m °_ > m d m � a>'i = ~ ° cv° omm m o E ° m ` d m ` m o m m °' m E m° -mo -mo m m o m m y 0 � o 3 m m m o o m F 2m E ° d m , a E � m -0 S° ri o L° E2 m o m `m ¢ m - o �.m o" Q m ` o m o o L o m o m o� m dN U `oa axi `oaF v -O d `oa oam `m m w Em m w' `oa 0 d d d c � U U .0 .0 rn rn in N T m T m .0 N .0 N O O a a >, m m o Iwo 2 m m a > m m o � m 0 m v' 2 ° m `m m m o m t m > O > o O N N N� a t 0 o m o 2 E ME `o_-o o E E N �z wQ Z ~ LL Q Z � Q LL � O LL } O U K O O (6 CE C V! U x W r N a H N Y. N G m C O C C C {` °fir N � C OI C OI C OI o d N N N ry a L L L N J N J N J 3 O O) r' m m g � 0 a m > m a m m O - � o C 0 m m C 0 m m `m `m E E O O n� O � C C - V N N C O1 'C w w O1 r LJ1 C C v T N N C f f J y O � � a J J N N N N N N - 3 E E o � m s -o`o °m m > m � E EU m m m E m m E '> > E E 4 C d O m — ° N d N d o O Q O O d p_!O O O- d O O d 2 O O O D o E o m m m m vi �O °J L6 �O E o- .ri m 0. ui m o E m E o m w o N Y. N G m 0 x= o� J= m� K 00 0 mr a� s� W. co E E U) U N X W a� 0 H N 2. Introduction 2.1 PURPOSE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that all state and local governmental agencies consider the environmental consequences of projects over which they have discretionary authority prior to taking action on those projects. This environmental impact report (EIR) has been prepared to satisfy CEQA, as set forth in the Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq., and the State CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations, Section 15000, et seq. The environmental impact report (EIR) is the public document designed to provide decision makers and the public with an analysis of the environmental effects of the proposed project, to indicate possible ways to reduce or avoid environmental damage, and to identify alternatives to the project. The FIR must also disclose significant environmental impacts that cannot be avoided; growth inducing impacts; effects not found to be significant; and significant cumulative impacts of all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. Pursuant to CEQA Section 21067, the lead agency means "the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may have a significant effect upon the environment" The City of Santa Ana has the principal responsibility for approval of the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan. For this reason, the City of Santa Ana is the CEQA lead agency for this project. The intent of the EIR is to provide sufficient information on the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan to allow the City of Santa Ana to make an informed decision regarding approval of the project. Specific discretionary actions to be reviewed by the City are described later in Section 3.4, Intended Uses of the EIR. This FIR has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the ■ California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq) ■ State Guidelines for the Implementation of the CEQA of 1970 (herein referenced as CEQA Guidelines), as amended (California Code of Regulations Sections 15000 et seq.) The overall purpose of this FIR is to inform the lead agency, responsible agencies, decision makers, and the general public of the environmental effects of the development and operation of the proposed Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan. This FIR addresses the potential environmental effects of the project, including effects that may be significant and adverse; evaluates a number of alternatives to the project; and identifies mitigation measures to reduce or avoid adverse effects. October 2014 Page 2 -1 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 2. Introduction 2.2 NOTICE OF PREPARATION AND INITIAL STUDY The City of Santa determined that an EIR would be required for this project and issued a notice of preparation (NOP) and initial study on June 13, 2013 (see Appendix A. Comments received during the public review period, which extended from June 13 to July 15, 2013, are in Appendix B. The NOP process is used to help determine the scope of the environmental issues to be addressed in the EIR. Based on this process and the initial study for the project, certain environmental categories were identified as having the potential to result in significant impacts. Issues considered potentially significant are addressed in this EIR. Issues identified as less than significant or of no impact are not addressed beyond the initial study. Refer to the initial study in Appendix A for discussion of how these initial determinations were made. 2.3 SCOPE OF THIS EIR Based upon the initial study and environmental checklist form, the City of Santa Ana staff determined that a EIR should be prepared for the proposed project. The scope of the EIR was determined based upon the City's initial study, comments received in response to the NOP, and comments received at the scoping meeting conducted by the City. Pursuant to Sections 15126.2 and 15126.4 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the EIR should identify any potentially significant adverse impacts and recommend mitigation that would reduce or eliminate these impacts to levels of insignificance. The information in the project description establishes the basis for analyzing future project related environmental impacts. However, further environmental review by the City may be required as more detailed information and plans are submitted on a project- by-project basis. 2.3.1 Impacts Considered Less Than Significant Three environmental impact categories were identified as not being significantly affected by or affecting the proposed Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan and are not discussed in detail in this EIR. This determination was made by the City of Santa Ana in its preparation of the initial study. The following topical issues are not addressed in the EIR: • Agriculture and Forestry Resources • Biological Resources • Mineral Resources Page 2 -2 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 2. Introduction 2.3.2 Potentially Significant Adverse Impacts Fifteen environmental factors were identified as potentially significant impacts if the proposed project is implemented. These factors are: ■ Aesthetics ■ An Quality • 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 /Traffic • Utilities and Service Systems 2.3.3 Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts This EIR identifies one significant and unavoidable adverse impact, as defined by CEQA, that would result from implementation of the proposed project. Unavoidable adverse impacts may be considered significant on a project specific basis, cumulatively significant, and /or potentially significant. If the City, as the lead agency, determines that unavoidable significant adverse impacts will result from the project, the City must prepare a "statement of overriding considerations" before it can approve the project. A statement of overriding considerations states that the decision making body has balanced the benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable significant environmental effects and has determined that the benefits of the project outweigh the adverse effects; therefore, the adverse effects are considered to be acceptable. The impact that was found in the FIR to be significant and unavoidable is: ■ An Quality 2.4 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE The following documents are incorporated by reference in this EIR, consistent with Section 15150 of the State CEQA Guidelines, and are available for review at the City of Santa Ana, Planning Division, 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701. October 2014 Page 2 -3 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 2. Introduction ■ City of Santa Ana General Plan, adopted February 2, 1998, reformatted January 2010 2.5 FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION The Draft EIR (DEIR) was circulated for public review for a period of 45 days. Interested agencies and members of the public provided written comments on the EIR to the City address shown on the title page of this document. Upon completion of the 45 -day review period, the City of Santa Ana reviewed all written comments received and prepared written responses for each comment. This final EIR (FEIR) incorporates all of the comments received, responses to the comments, and any changes to the DEIR that result from the comments received. This FEIR will be presented to the City of Santa Ana for potential certification as the environmental document for the project. All persons who commented on the DEIR were notified of the availability of the FEIR and the date of the public hearing before the City. The FEIR is available to the general public for review at the following locations: ■ City of Santa Ana, Planning Division 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701 • Santa Ana Public Library 26 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701 • City of Santa Ana Website: http: //w ..ci.smta- ana.ca.us/ 2.6 MITIGATION MONITORING Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 requires that agencies adopt a monitoring or reporting program for any project for which it has made findings pursuant to Public Resources Code 21081. Such a program is intended to ensure the implementation of all mitigation measures adopted through the preparation of an EIR. The mitigation monitoring program for the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan will be completed as part of the FEIR and prior to consideration of the project by the Santa Ana City Council. Page 24 PlaceWorkr 3. Proiect Description 3.1 PROJECT LOCATION The project area comprises approximately 42S acres oriented to Harbor Boulevard in Santa Ana in central Orange County (see Figure 3 -1, Regional Location, and Figure 3 -2, Local Vicinity). The project area generally includes parcels adjacent to Harbor Boulevard between Westminster Avenue and Gloxinia Avenuelkilfte Ix and parcels along Westminster Avenue, 1st Street, and Sth Street one -half mile east of Harbor Boulevard. The corridor's northern and southern ends are adjacent to the city boundaries of Garden Grove and Fountain Valley, respectively. The project areas consists of two areas 1) an approximately 30S -acre portion that directly fronts Harbor Boulevard or perpendicular arterial streets and 2) 120 acres consisting of the Willowick Golf Course and Campesino Park, residential properties along Jackson Street, and commercial properties along Sth Street. The 120 -acres is east of the Harbor Boulevard corridor and abuts the Santa Ana River to the east. Minor adjustments were made to the conventional zoning area to add parcels at Hazard Avenue /Elm Park Drive and residences west of South Figueroa Street. The project site and surrounding uses are illustrated on Figure 3 -3, Aerial Photograph. 3.2 STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES The following objectives have been established for the Harbor Corridor Plan project and will aid decision makers in their review of the project and associated environmental impacts: ■ Provide for the development of the site consistent with City's General Plan. • Provide for new housing and mixed -use development opportunities. • Expand development opportunities that respond to transit investments. • Create economic vitality by providing new opportunities for businesses and residents. • Provide a variety of safe and efficient travel choices and access to multi -modal transportation. • Create a sense of place. • Enhance community health and wellness by creating safer street design for multiple modes of travel, increase walkability and encourage live /work along the corridor. 3.3 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS "Project," as defined by the CEQA Guidelines, means "the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and that is any of the following: (1) ... enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances, and the adoption and amendment of local General Plans or elements thereof pursuant to Government Code Sections 65100- 65700" (14 Cal. Code of Reg. 1S378[a]). October 2014 Page 3 -1 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 3. Project Description This page intentional# left blank. Page 3 -2 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA Figure 3 -1 Regional Location 3. Project Description Ana Villa Park Tustin Irvine Project Area Boundary D 3 Scale (Miles) PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 3. Project Description This page intentional# left blank. Page 34 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA Figure 3 -2 Local Vicinity 3. Project Description Q Project Boundary City I........i Y Bounda rY o Scale (Mile) PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 3. Project Description This page intentional# left blank. Page 3 6 PlaceWorkr Westminster Ave Resi:�. °ntial Hazard Ave W 5th St W 1st St McFadden Ave HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA Gloxinia Ave 'y .J, Harbor Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan ® Conventional Zoning Basemap Source: Google Earth Pro 2012 Figure 3 -3 Aerial Photograph 3. Project Description Lr 14 T �ss Cn i C/I Rwldeldlal 3 ` +in M a o 1,500 Scale (Feet) PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 3. Project Description This page intentional# left blank. Page 3 -% PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA Project Description 3.3.1 Project Background and Overview Harbor Boulevard is one of the primary corridors in the City of Santa Ana. The corridor offers a variety of services and businesses for residents and visitors and provides regional connectivity for cars and alternative modes of transportation. A combination of vacant and underutilized land, bus rapid transit (BRT) investments, future fixed guideway facilities, and desirable ficeway and regional access make Harbor Boulevard an ideal candidate for reinvestment and new development opportunities. The City reevaluated zoning designations along transit corridors throughout Santa Ana to expand land use options and establish an urban fabric that takes advantage of these transportation improvements, and Harbor Boulevard provides the ideal location for these improvements. The City of Santa Ana conducted an extensive outreach program over the course of roughly three years: 2010 to 2013. The City's motto, "Creating Community Together," carried through as an overarching theme for each event. Events included an open house, an idea fair with bus tour, attendance at neighborhood meetings, a focus group of property and business owners, a coordinated workshop with the Circulation Element Update, study sessions with the City Council and Planning Commission, and a scoping meeting for the FIR. Significant input was obtained from residents, property owners, local business owners, community organizations, the local police and fire departments, the county transportation authority, and local developers. Feedback was collected through several methods, including individual conversations, group discussion, question and answer sessions, comment cards, and visual preference surveys. Overall, thousands of people in western Santa Ana were contacted and informed about the project to reflect the current makeup of residents around Harbor Boulevard, many materials were distributed in English, Spanish, and Vietnamese, and translators were present at multiple meetings. Hundreds of people participated directly in all three languages at the various meetings and workshops. The proposed Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan (described throughout as "Harbor Corridor Plan') is built upon the direct input from this public outreach. North Harbor Specific Plan In 1994, the City adopted the North Harbor Specific Plan (NHSP) to create a strong and viable commercial district along Harbor Boulevard supported by well maintained neighborhoods. This plan addressed the Harbor Corridor Plan area, as well as the Willowick Golf Course and adjacent residential neighborhoods (as described in Section 3.1). The NHSP established six goals: • To retain and upgrade the area's commercial character while improving and expanding its role as a significant regional commercial district. • To enhance and support the residential neighborhoods surrounding Harbor Boulevard. • To improve vehicular and pedestrian circulation in and around the Harbor Boulevard area. • To achieve an aesthetic visual consistency throughout the Harbor Boulevard area while improving and upgrading the visual image of the adjacent areas. October 2014 Page 3 -9 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 3. Project Description • To enhance the economic viability of the Harbor Boulevard area. • To create a secure atmosphere within which business and residential communities can thrive. The NHSP identified the opportunity to capitalize on its proximity to Disneyland and other major commercial recreation and tourist attractions. As the NHSP was being prepared in the early 1990s, the Walt Disney Company announced plans to develop a new theme park named WestCOT adjacent to Disneyland. WestCOT was officially announced in 1991, and the NHSP identifies focus areas in the specific plan area that could capitalize on what the plan considered to be the largest private development project in the United States. Unfortunately, financial constraints led the Walt Disney Company to cancel the development of WestCOT. In 2001, the site was developed as Disney's California Adventure Park, but the cancellation and delay of the Disney theme park negatively impacted the NHSP's ability to attract and incentivize development. Very few uses along the corridor are currently tied into the region's major commercial recreation and tourist activities. The NHSP also recognized the existing Vietnamese community and proximity to Little Saigon in Garden Grove. When the NHSP was adopted in 1994, the Vietnamese Catholic Church at Harbor Boulevard and 17th Street was already (and remains) a regional destination for Catholics in the Asian Community. The NHSP supported the development of a new ethnic commercial center adjacent to the Catholic church, but it never came to fruition. Although the NHSP envisioned a revitalized corridor with quality commercial uses compatible with neighborhoods, progress has been limited, and land uses did not transition as planned. The dominant use along Harbor Boulevard became auto sales and service. City of Santa Ana Housing Element In its housing element, the City of Santa Ana identifies three key transportation corridors, including Harbor Boulevard, that could support higher density housing. The selected corridors are consistent with the City's "Go Local" vision to promote sustainable multimodal transportation options. The Harbor Corridor Plan supports the City's housing element by creating the zoning framework to allow for new, compact, transit supportive housing combined with nonresidential uses along Harbor Boulevard. Former Redevelopment Project Area The Harbor Corridor Plan area was included in a former City of Santa Ana Redevelopment Project area (adopted in 1982). The North Harbor Boulevard Redevelopment Plan comprised approximately 428 acres, generally located along Harbor Boulevard from Westminster Avenue to Kent Avenue, and along 5th Street, 1st Street, and McFadden Avenue from Harbor Boulevard to the Santa Ana River. The North Harbor Boulevard Redevelopment Project area was substantially developed and included a mix of older residential and strip commercial uses fronting Harbor Boulevard, with newer commercial uses developed near 1st Street and 5th Street. Page 3 -10 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA Project Description As part of California's 2011 Budget Act, the State Legislature approved the dissolution of the state's 400 plus redevelopment agencies. After a period of litigation, redevelopment agencies were officially dissolved as of February 1, 2012. 3.3.2 Description of the Project The Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan would replace the existing 425 -acre NHSP. The plan would change the boundaries of the NHSP so that the project would consist of two separate areas: 1) 305 acres within the boundaries of the existing 425 -acre NHSP generally along Harbor Boulevard ("Harbor Corridor Plan" or "Specific Plan'), and 2) 120 acres within the existing NHSP in the Willowick Golf Course area (or "Conventional Zoning Area'). Both of these areas constitute the "project" for purposes of CEQA, but are described separately below. Harbor Corridor Plan Specific Plan Land Uses The Harbor Corridor Plan introduces land use and circulation changes to approximately 305 acres of land within the boundaries of the existing 425 -acre NHSP, including approximately 50 acres of right- of-way outside of parcels. The Harbor Corridor Plan lays the foundation for a more livable and sustainable corridor by creating zoning to allow for new housing and mixed use development opportunities, providing development flexibility to meet market demands, using a multimodal approach to circulation, and creating a stronger identity for the area. The Harbor Corridor Plan creates a land use and development framework to support from 1,700 to 4,600 residential units and 2 million square feet of commercial and employment space. The project area may attract a variety of new retail stores, restaurants, office buildings, hotels, museums, and housing options in a more walkable, safe, and attractive environment. Land use changes under the Harbor Corridor Plan would involve replacing the NHSP's zoning districts with four Harbor Corridor Plan land use districts: Transit Node, Corridor, Neighborhood Transitional, and Open Space (described below). Each district has its own development standards, preferred building and frontage types, and strategies promoting integration between new development and the existing neighborhood. Circulation improvements introduced by the Harbor Corridor Plan emphasize a multimodal approach to circulation and a dynamic relationship between the transportation corridor and adjacent land uses. Development of the Harbor Corridor Plan was guided by the following five principles: 1) Expanded development opportunities that respond to transit investments 2) A variety of safe and efficient travel choices 3) Economic vitality and new opportunities for businesses and residents 4) A sense of place 5) Community health and wellness October 2014 Page 3 -11 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 3. Project Description The four Harbor Corridor Plan land use districts are described below. Transit Node (TN). The Transit Node district is intended to provide standards for compact, transit - supportive mixed use and residential development with a focus on creating pedestrian activity at the street. This district offers the most significant opportunities to respond to the regional and local transit investments, with direct access to three existing BRT stations and proximity to one or more future fixed guideway stations. The district allows for a wide range of building types, including mixed use flex blocks, liners, stacked flats, courtyard housing, and live work units. The district accommodates shops, restaurants, and active commercial uses at street level, with office and residential uses permitted on upper floors. Corridor (CDR). The Corridor district is applied to properties along Harbor Boulevard between BRT stations and is intended to provide housing options and neighborhood serving uses within walking distance of a transit node. The district also identifies areas set aside exclusively for moderate- and high density residential projects to facilitate a range of affordable housing options. Building types include lined block, stacked flats, courtyard housing, live work, rowhouses, and tuck under units. Mixed -use and nonresidential projects are centered on key intersections, while residential and public /quasi -public uses infill at midblock locations. Neighborhood Transitional (N1). The Neighborhood Transitional district provides standards for development that acts as a transition between the single -family neighborhoods to the north and south of 1st and 5th streets and the Corridor and Transit Node districts. Designated for the lowest scale and the lowest intensity of uses in the Harbor Corridor Plan, development in this district is limited to residential, live work, or neighborhood - serving commercial uses. These uses may combine commercial on the ground floor with residential above or in freestanding single use buildings on the same site at between two and three stories in height. Open Space (OS). The Open Space and Recreation district identifies areas reserved for community parks and other open spaces. Allowable structures in this district are limited to those necessary to support the specific open space and recreation purposes, such as sport court enclosures, multipurpose buildings, and trails. Additional open space will be required as new development occurs or close to the Specific Plan area. Harbor Corridor Plan Buildout Buildout of the Harbor Corridor Plan could generate an additional 3,884 additional dwelling units, 15,327 residents, 13,721 square feet of commercial space, and approximately 173 employees in the plan area. Table 3- 1, outlines the proposed zoning designations and summarizes maximum buidout projections. Proposed zoning is also shown in Figure 3 -4, Proposed Land Use Dirtricts and Zoning Designations. Page 3 -12 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA Project Description Table 3 -1 Land Use Districts and Buildout Proiections for the Harbor Corridor Plan Harbor Corridor Plan Land Use Districts Acres Dwelling Units Population Commercial Building, Square Feet Employees Transit Node N 125 2,029 8,114 1,836,155 1,463 Corridor CDR 108 2,416 9,751 131,827 96 Neighborhood Transitional Ni 15 178 714 - - Open Space & Recreation OS 4 - - - - ROW 53 - - - - Subtotal 1 305 1 4,623 18,579 1,967,982 11559 Existing Land Uses - 739 3,252 1,954,261 1,386 Difference Compared to Existing Land Uses I - 1 3,884 1 15,327 1 13,721 1 173 Development Standards /Design Guidelines New development within the project aces will need to comply with the development standards within the specific plan. The development standards detail the allowable building type and form for each district, including lot size, maximum building height, maximum stories, frontage type, building placement (setback requirements), and parking standards. In addition, there are open space, public right- of-way, and landscaping standards. The Harbor Corridor Plan also includes design guidelines. The design guidelines are intended to promote quality design, consistent with the overall vision, while providing a level of flexibility to encourage creative design. The guidelines direct the physical design of building sites, architecture, and landscape elements within the specific plan boundary. This comprehensive approach represents a more understandable and predictable way to shape the physical future by emphasizing building form and landscape design that reinforce urban and transit oriented development patterns. Mobility Implementation of the Harbor Corridor Plan would also include improvements to Harbor Boulevard and its cross - streets: 5th Street, 1st Street, McFadden Avenue, and Westminster Avenue. These improvements are designed to create a robust multimodal corridor that accommodates the movement of vehicular traffic through the City and region as well as other modes of travel. Proposed improvements include the enlargement of sidewalk and parkway areas to facilitate safe bicycle and pedestrian travel along Harbor Boulevard and efficient connections to the regional bicycle network. The improvements would maintain the same rights- of-way and number of travel lanes on the affected roadways. Phasing The project will be developed in multiple phases over the next 20+ years. Development of the project area and time frames would be controlled by both City decisions on public improvements to streets and infrastructure as well as landowner decisions on the development of privately owned properties. Implementation of the specific plan will require collaborative efforts among local businesses, institutions, residents, the City, and developers. October 2014 Page 3 -13 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 3. Project Description A variety of funding sources beyond City General Fund resources can be used to implement the Harbor Corridor Plan. District based and contractual assessment tools are options that would allow areas in this plan to benefit from the funding they collect. Developer contributions, impact fees, and standard agreements can all be used by the City to initiate public right- of-way improvements. Regional, state, and federal grants as well as City funds such as the capital improvement program are also potential funding sources. Flexibility in project implementation is also required to respond to changing economic conditions and trends, which may require that the City revisit and reprioritize the specific plan's implementation steps. For purposes of evaluating environmental impacts, buildout of the specific plan is anticipated to occur by 2035. Conventional Zoning Area The remaining 120 acres of land within the existing NHSP is proposed to be extracted from the NHSP and converted to conventional zoning. This area would not be included in the proposed Harbor Corridor Plan. Land uses in the area consist of the Willowick Golf Course and Cesar Chavez /Campestno Park, residential properties along Jackson Street, and commercial properties along 5th Street. Zoning designations for the parcels in question were determined based on existing conditions and would be adopted upon repeal of the NHSP. Willowick Golf Course, Cesar Chavez /Campestno Park, and the properties in between would be zoned Open Space Area (0), and residential properties along Jackson Street would be zoned Two Family Residential (R2). Conventional Zoning Area Buildout Conventional zoning designations were chosen to be consistent with the existing land uses. No new development is intended for this area. The R2 designation was chosen for existing residential uses because it is consistent with the established character of the neighborhood. There is one exception of two parcels along 5th Street (2.5 acres total). Based on the City's OS zone, these parcels could be developed for commercial recreation /entertainment and public /quasi -public facilities. However, the existing intensity of development is not expected to change. Therefore, buildout projections for NHSP areas proposed for conversion to conventional zoning assume no change in numbers of dwelling units or population. Buildout projections for the parcels proposed for conversion to conventional zoning are shown in Table 3 -2. Table 3 -2 Buildout Projections for Parcels Proposed to Be Converted to Conventional Zoning Page 3 -14 PlaceWorkr Existing Land Uses Buildout of Proposed Project I Difference Nulling Units 92 92� - Po ulaton 405 405 - Commercial Building, Square Feet 3,700 3,7001 Employees 3 3 - Page 3 -14 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA Figure 3 -4 Proposed Land Use Districts and Zoning Designations 3. Project Description 0 1,500 Scale (Feet) PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 3. Project Description Tbispage is intentionally left blank. Page 3 -16 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA Project Description Zoning Amendment A Zoning Ordinance Amendment is required to replace the NHSP zoning designations with the new Harbor Corridor Plan zoning districts. An amendment to the Zoning Map will also be required to reflect the new specific plan zone. Zone Change A Zone Change is required to replace the NHSP zoning designations within the Conventional Zoning Area to conventional zoning consisting of Open Space Area (0) and Two Family Residential (R2). General Plan Amendment A General Plan Amendment would provide consistency between the City of Santa Ana General Plan and the proposed Harbor Corridor Plan. Although the Harbor Corridor Plan is consistent with the objectives and policies in the General Plan, new land uses are proposed. Therefore, the project will require an amendment to the land use element to update the land use map to include the boundaries of the Harbor Corridor Plan with a land use designation allowing both residential and commercial uses. 3.4 INTENDED USES OF THE EIR This is a Program EIR that examines the potential environmental impacts of the proposed General Plan Update. This EIR is also being prepared to address various actions by the City and others to adopt and implement the General Plan. It is the intent of the EIR to enable the City of Santa Ana, other responsible agencies, and interested parties to evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed project, thereby enabling them to make informed decisions with respect to the requested entitlements. The anticipated approvals required for this project are as follows: Lead Agency Action • Certify Final EIR • Adopt Harbor Corridor Plan • General Plan Amendment to the Land Use Element • Zoning Ordinance Amendment to replace development standards from NHSP Santa Ana City Council to HCP • Zoning Map Amendment to replace zoning district designations with the new HCP zoning districts. • Zone Change to replace the NHSP land use designations with conventional zoning designations to match existing land uses. Responsible Agencies Action Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana • Issue National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permits, as necessary. Region • Issue any air quality permits required to implement the project. - SCAQMD Rule 201 (Permit to Construct) and SCAQMD Rule 203 (Permit South Coast Air Quality Management District to Operate): A permit is required to construct and operate any stationary equipment that generates new emissions (e.g., boiler or emergency generator). October 2014 Page 3 -17 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 3. Project Description - SCAQMD Rule 403 (Large Operation Notification Form): The applicant /applicant's construction contractor is required to file a Large Operation Notification Form to SCAQMD for grading activities and prepare and implement a dust control plan. - SCAQMD Rule 1403 (Asbestos Emissions from Demolition /Renovation Activities): Requires that SCAQMD be notified that demolition of building(s) containing asbestos would occur within 10 working days prior to activities. Page 3 -78 PlaceWorkr 4. Environmental Setti 4.1 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this section is to provide, pursuant to provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines, a "description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published, from both a local and a regional perspective." The environmental setting will provide a set of baseline physical conditions from which the lead agenc-r- will determine the significance of environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project. 4.2 REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 4.2.1 Regional Location The project area lies in the western portion of the City of Santa Ana (City), as shown in Figure 3 -1, Regional Location. The City is in central Orange County and surrounded by the cities of Garden Grove, Orange, Tustin, Costa Mesa, Irvine, Westminster, and Fountain Valley. Santa Ana is a fully developed city, approximately 10 miles northeast of the Pacific Ocean, and regional access is provided primarily by Interstate 5 (1 -5), State Route 22 (SR 22), and SR 55; secondary access to the City is provided by I -405. 4.2.2 Regional Planning Considerations Air Quality and Global Climate Change The City is in the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB), which is managed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. The air pollutants emitted into the ambient air by stationary and mobile sources are regulated by federal and state law. These regulated air pollutants are known as criteria air pollutants and are: carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds (VOC), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide, coarse inhalable particulate matter (PM3o), fine inhalable particulate matter (PMzs), and lead. VOC and NOx are criteria pollutant precursors and go on to form secondary criteria pollutants, such as ozone (03), through chemical and photochemical reactions in the atmosphere. Air basins are classified as attainment / nonattainment areas for particular pollutants depending on whether they meet ambient air quality standards (AAQS) for that pollutant. The SoCAB is designated nonattainment for 03, PM? s, PM30, and lead (Los Angeles County only) under the California and National AAQS and nonattainment for nitrogen (NO2) under the California AAQS. The proposed projects consistency with the applicable AAQS is discussed in Section 5.2, Air Quality. October 2014 Page 4 -1 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 4. Environmental Setting Assembly Bill 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act (2006) Current State of California guidance and goals for reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are generally embodied in Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the Global Warming Solutions Act. AB 32 was passed by the California state legislature on August 31, 2006, to place the state on a course toward reducing its contribution of GHG emissions. AB 32 follows the 2020 tier of emissions reduction targets established in Executive Order S -3 -05. AB 32 directed the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to adopt discrete early action measures to reduce GHG emissions and outline additional reduction measures to meet the 2020 target. Based on the GHG emissions inventory conducted for the Scoping Plan by CARB, GHG emissions in California by 2020 are anticipated to be approximately 596 million metric tons CO2 equivalent (MNffCO2e). In December 2007, CARB approved a 2020 emissions limit of 427 MNfI'CO2e (471 million tons) for the state. The 2020 target requires a total emissions reduction of 169 MMTCO2e, 28.5 percent from the projected emissions of the business -as -usual (BAU) scenario for the year 2020 (i.e., 28.5 percent of 596 MMTCO2e) (CARB 2008).1 The proposed project's consistency with CARB's Scoping Plan is discussed in Section 5.5, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Southern California Association of Governments The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is a council of governments representing Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura counties. SCAG is the federally recognized metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for this region, which encompasses over 38,000 square miles. SCAG is a regional planning agency and a forum for addressing regional issues concerning transportation, the economy, community development, and the environment. SCAG is also the regional clearinghouse for projects requiring environmental documentation under federal and state law. In this role, SCAG reviews proposed development and infrastructure projects to analyze then impacts on regional planning programs. SCAG cooperates with the Southern California Air Quality Management District, the California Department of Transportation, and other agencies in preparing regional planning documents. SCAG has developed regional plans to achieve specific regional objectives. The plans most applicable to the proposed project include the 2012-2035 Regional Tranrpariation Plan /Sustainable Communities Strategy: Towardr a Sustainable Future and the Compass Growth Vision, which are described in detail in Section 5.9, Land Use and Planning. The proposed project is considered a project of regionwide significance according to the criteria in SCAG's Intergovernmental Review Procedures Handbook (November 1995) and Section 15206 of the CEQA Guidelines, because it proposes more than 500 residential units. Therefore, Section 5.8 addresses the project's consistency with the applicable regional plans noted above I CARB defines BAU in its Scoping Plan as emissions levels that would occur if California continued to grow and add new GHG emissions but did not adopt any measures to reduce emissions. Projections for each emission generating sector were compiled and used to estimate emissions for 2020 based on 2002 -2004 emissions intensities. Under CARB's definition of BAU, new growth is assumed to have the same carbon intensities as was typical from 2002 through 2004. Page 4 -2 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 4. Environmental Setting 4.3 LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 4.3.1 Location and Land Use Location As shown in Figures 3 -2, Local Vicinity, and 3 -3, Aerial Photograph, the project area comprises approximately 425 acres oriented to Harbor Boulevard in the City of Santa Ana, which is in central Orange County. The project area generally includes parcels adjacent to Harbor Boulevard between Westminster Avenue and Gloxinia Avenuel�6elX and parcels along Westminster Avenue, 1st Street, and 5th Street one -half mile east of Harbor Boulevard. The corridor's northern and southern ends are adjacent to the city boundaries of Garden Grove and Fountain Valley, respectively. The proposed Harbor Corridor Plan would apply to an approximately 305 -acre portion of the project area that directly fronts Harbor Boulevard or perpendicular arterial streets. The remaining 120 acres of the project area (Conventional Zoning Area), which are proposed to be converted to conventional zoning, consist of the Willowick Golf Course and Campesino Park, residential properties along Jackson Street, and commercial properties along 5th Street. This portion of the project area is east of the Harbor Boulevard corridor and abuts the Santa Ana River to the east. Existing Land Uses The project area currently contains roughly two million square feet of commercial uses distributed fairly evenly along the corridor. Existing commercial uses occur at both midblock and intersections and are dominated by auto service and sales, but also include grocery stores, service businesses, and restaurants. The project area contains 739 residential units, including multifamily residential and mobile -home communities accessed from Harbor Boulevard and single - family residential areas along Jackson Street. The project area also contains the Willowick Golf Course (an operating 18 -hole public golf course), Cesar Chavez /Campestno Park, and Santa Anita Park. Existing uses are shown in Figure 3 -3, Aerial Photograph. Surrounding Land Uses The project area is in a highly urbanized, built out portion of the City. It is generally surrounded by residential uses, which vary widely in cbaracter and density and include single - family neighborhoods, apartment complexes, and mobile home communities. Most of the surrounding residential uses are accessed from streets perpendicular to Harbor Boulevard and not from Harbor Boulevard itself. 4.3.2 Environmental Resources and Infrastructure Climate and Air Quality The project area is approximately seven miles inland from the Orange County coast, within the western portion of the SoCAB. The climate in the SoCAB is mild, tempered by cool ocean breezes. Temperatures are normally mild (62° to 72 °F), with rare extremes above 100 °F or below freezing (32 °F). Precipitation is typically 9 to 15 inches annually in the SoCAB. The climate of Orange County is typified by warm temperatures and light winds. The average monthly high temperatures range from about 52 °F in the coastal October 2014 Page 4 -3 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 4. Environmental Setting areas in January to 72 °F in the inland areas of the coastal plain in August. In contrast to a very steady pattern of temperature, rainfall is seasonally and annually highly variable. Almost all annual rains fall between November and April. Summer rainfall is normally restricted to widely scattered thundershowers near the coast, with slightly heavier shower activity in the east and over the mountains. Annual average humidity is 70 percent along the coast and 57 percent in the eastern portions of the SoCAB. The SoCAB is designated nonattamment for Oa, PMz 5, PM10, and lead (Los Angeles County only) under the California and National AAQS and nonattamment NO2 under the California AAQS. An air quality analysis was performed for the proposed project, and the results are discussed in Section 5.2, Air Quality. Project related impacts from GHG emissions are discussed in Section 5.5, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Geology, Landform, and Seismicity The project area is in the Los Angeles Basin, a coastal plain consisting of thick layers of sediment deposited by local rivers and with a slight south -to- southwest slope. The Los Angeles Basin, in turn, is in the northwestern end of the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province, a region of northwest trending mountains and valleys in southwestern California and extending south into Mexico. The project area is underlain by young alluvial fan deposits. These materials are unconsolidated to moderately consolidated silt, sand, pebbly cobbly sand, and bouldery alluvial -fan deposits having slightly to moderately dissected surfaces, and are of Holocene and late Pleistocene age. Elevations in the project area range from approximately 90 feet above mean sea level (amsl) along the northeastern boundary to approximately 60 feet amsl along the southwestern boundary; the project area has a southwest slope of approximately 0.3 percent grade. The City is part of a large, seismically active region. Southern California is crossed by numerous active, potentially active, and inactive faults. The nearest mapped active fault to the project area is the Newport Inglewood Fault in Huntington Beach approximately 6.2 miles southwest; other active faults in the region include the Whittier Fault approximately 12.9 miles to the north; the Chino Fault approximately 19.5 miles to the northeast; and the Palos Verdes Fault Zone approximately 17 miles southwest offshore in the Pacific Ocean. An uncertain location of an unnamed fault, not classified as active, crosses Harbor Boulevard northwest southeast approximately 0.2 mile south of the southern project boundary. A second uncertain location of an unnamed fault, also not classified as active, extends north south approximately 0.9 mile west of the segment of Harbor Boulevard in the project area. Refer to Section 5.4, Geology and Soils, for additional information concerning geological and soil conditions and an analysis of project impacts on geology and soils. Page 44 PlaceWorks HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 4. Environmental Setting Hydrology and Water Quality The project area is in the Santa Ana River Watershed, which includes much of Orange County, much of western Riverside County, part of southwestern San Bernardino County, and a small portion of Los Angeles County. The watershed covers approximately 2,800 square miles, with about 700 miles of rivers and major tributaries. The Santa Ana River extends 96 miles from the San Bernardino Mountains in San Bernardino County to the Pacific Ocean at the boundary between the cities of Huntington Beach and Newport Beach. Individual lots in the project area generally surface -drain to Harbor Boulevard and other side streets, and the runoff is captured and conveyed in the storm drain systems. Runoff is managed by a combination of closed and open drainage channels. A 90 -inch culvert crosses Harbor Boulevard at Washington Street. A second large closed drainage system is midway between 1st and 5th Streets. All drainage ultimately discharges into the Orange County Flood Control Channel. The project area lies over the Main Orange County Groundwater Basin that underlies most of north and central Orange County. Most water pumped from the basin for municipal use is of potable quality. Much of the northern half of the project area is in Zone A, a 100 -year flood zone designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Areas along the west side of Harbor Boulevard from 1st Street north to 5th Street are in Zone A, as are areas along both sides of Harbor Boulevard from 5th Street north to Westminster Avenue. The remainder of the project area, south of the above specified areas, is in Shaded Zone X, meaning that it is protected from 100 -year floods by levees. Additionally, the entire project area is in the dam inundation area for Prado Dam, which is on the Santa Ana River 18 miles northeast of the project area. Refer to Section 5.7, Hydrology and Abater Quality, for additional information regarding hydrological conditions and an analysis of project impacts on hydrology and water quality. Noise Noise levels in the project area are influenced primarily by motor vehicle traffic on project area roadways (Harbor Boulevard, Hazard Avenue, 1st Street, 5th Street, McFadden Avenue, Jackson Street, and Gloxinia Avenue), which are a steady source of ambient noise. In addition to transportation - related noise, nontransportation sources generate noise in the project area. Noise from the existing mechanical equipment (ground level and rooftop) of the various commercial uses throughout the project area add to the noise levels in the project area. Other commercial related noise sources include noise from car wash equipment, auto sales and repair, and drive -thru speakerphones of fast -food establishments. Refer to Section 5.9, Noise, for additional information concerning the noise environment and an analysis of project related noise impacts. Public Services and Utilities and Service Systems The project area is in a highly urbanized area of the City, with existing public services and utilities available to the area. Local utilities and service systems that serve the existing uses in the project area are available to serve individual development projects that would be accommodated by the Harbor Corridor Plan. October 2014 Page 4 -5 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 4. Environmental Setting Fire protection and emergency medical services in the City are provided by the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA). The three nearest OCFA stations to the project area are Station No. 78 at 501 North Newhope Street, approximately 0.25 miles to the west; Station No. 73 at 419 South Franklin Street, approximately 1 mile to the east; and Station No. 77 at 2317 South Greenville Street, approximately 1 mile to the southeast. The Santa Ana Police Department (SAPD) provides police services to the City. The SAPD headquarters is at City Hall (60 Civic Center Plaza), and the Westend Substation is at 3750 West McFadden Avenue. The project area is within the attendance area of the Garden Grove Unified School District ( GGUSD). Schools within GGUSD that serve the project area include 10 elementary schools (Carrillo, Clinton Mendenhall, Hazard, Marshall, Newhope, Northcutt, Paine, Peters, Russell, and Simmons); 3 intermediate schools (Doig, Irvine, and Fitz); and 2 high schools qos Amigos and Santiago). Library resources and services in Santa Ana are provided by the City. The nearest library to the project area is the Newhope Library Learning Center at 122 North Newhope Street. The City is served by its own municipal water system. Wastewater service to the project area is provided by the City's Public Works Agency and treated by the Orange County Sanitation District. The City of Santa Ana is under contract with Waste Management of Orange County for solid waste hauling and disposal. Electricity and natural gas services are provided by Southern California Edison and Southern California Gas Company, respectively. Refer to Sections 5. 11, Public Services, and 5.14, Utilities and Service Systems, for additional information regarding public services and utilities and service systems, respectively, and an analysis of project impacts on services and utilities. Transportation and Traffic The existing local roadway network in the project area includes a number of roadways, including Harbor Boulevard, Hazard Avenue, 1st Street, 5th Street, McFadden Avenue, Jackson Street, and Gloxinia Avenue. Primary access to the project area is via Harbor Boulevard. A detailed list and description of the roadway network in the project area is provided in Section 5.13, Transportation and Traffic. The regional transportation system in the vicinity of the project site includes SR 22 to the north and I -405 to the south. The project area is adjacent and in close proximity to existing Orange County Transit Authority (OCTA) bus routes along Harbor Boulevard and other adjoining roadways. For example, OCTA provides bus service along Harbor Boulevard via Routes 43 and 534. Refer to Section 5.13 for additional information concerning existing transportation facilities and traffic conditions and an analysis of project related impacts. Page 4 6 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 4. Environmental Setting 4.3.3 Local Planning Considerations General Plan and Zoning Zoning Designations Adopted in 1992, the North Harbor Specific Plan (NHSP) planned for approximately 345 residential units and five million square feet of commercial uses on 425 acres. Under the NHSP, land within the project area falls under seven specific plan zoning districts: General Commercial, Recreational Vehicle /Automotive, Entertainment, Industrial, Open Space, Single Family Residential, and Townhomes. Table 4 -1 summarizes the land use acreage under the NHSP. The existing zoning designations for the project area are shown in Figure 41, Current Zoning Designations. Table 4 -1 North Harbor Specific Plan Land Use Summary Land Use Acreage General Commercial 156.0 Recreational Vehicle /Automotive 34.4 Entertainment 17.0 Industrial 25.9 Open Space 104.6 Single Family Residence 29.5 Town House 9.2 Right -of -Way 48.0 TOTAL 424.6 General Plan Land Use Designations General Plan designations for the project area include: Low Density Residential (I.R -7), Low Medium Density Residential (I.MR -11), Medium Density Residential (MR 15), General Commercial (GC), Industrial (IND), and Open Space (0). A vast majority of the project area, including most parcels adjacent to Harbor Boulevard, McFadden Avenue, 1st Street, and 5th Street, are designated for General Commercial uses. The largest exceptions are the Willowick Golf Course, which is designated for Open Space uses, and the northeastern portion of the area along Westminster Avenue, which is designated for Office uses. The Santa Ana General Plan also discusses the NHSP and its application to the project area. It states that the NHSP was intended to promote commercial development along Harbor Boulevard while minimizing land use incompatibilities. 4.4 ASSUMPTIONS REGARDING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines states that cumulative impacts shall be discussed where they are significant. It further states that this discussion shall reflect the level and severity of the impact and the October 2014 Page 4 -7 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 4. Environmental Setting likelihood of occurrence, but not in as great a level of detail as that necessary for the project alone. Section 15355 of the Guidelines defines cumulative impacts to be "...two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts." Cumulative impacts represent the change caused by the incremental impact of a project when added to other proposed or committed projects in the vicinity. The CEQA Guidelines (Section 15130 [b] [1]) state that the information utilized in an analysis of cumulative impacts should come from one of two sources, either: 1) A list of past, present and probable future projects producing related cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency; or 2) A summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document designed to evaluate regional or area wide conditions. The cumulative impact analyses m Chapter 5, Environmental Analysis, of this EIR uses Method 2, which consists of the buildout projections contained in the City of Santa Ana's General Plan. The approach is discussed in each respective topical section. The buildout potential for the City, in accordance with the adopted General Plan, is shown in Table 42. Page 4 -% PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 4. Environmental Setting Table 4 -2 General Plan Intensity) 1 Effective Buildou' Theoretical Buildout Land Use Acres Densitv Nonresidential Residential Nonresidential I Residential Residential Low Density Residential 6,465.6 7 du /ac 13,787,219 sf — 27,574,438 sf 45,259 du Low Medium Density Residential 433.7 11 du /ac 2,057,824 sf 1,661 du 2,057,824 sf 4,771 du Medium Density Residential 385.3 15 du /ac 3,245,185 sf 5,551 du 3,245,185 sf 5,779 du Subtotal 7,479.7 FAR 5.0 402,864 sf 89,448 du 402,864 sf 55,809 du Mixed Use District Center 633.0 FAR 0.5 -1.0 13,787,219 sf — 27,574,438 sf — Downtown 62.5 FAR 3.0 2,057,824 sf 1,661 du 2,057,824 sf 1,661 du Metro East 98.3 FAR 3.0 3,245,185 sf 5,551 du 3,245,185 sf 5,551 du TmnsitVillae 51.4 FAR 5.0 402,864 sf 2,761 du 402,864 sf 2,761 du Other2 301.2 90 du /ac FAR 1.0 -2.0 11,808,950sf 2,710 du 23,617,901 sf 2,710 du Urban Neighborhood 148.1 FAR 0.5 -1.5 724,249 sf 2,177 du 724,249 sf 2,177 du Subtotal 685.4 18. 239 072 sf 14 860 du 30 048 023 sf 14 860 du Commercial Professional and Administrative Office 633.0 FAR 0.5 -1.0 13,787,219 sf — 27,574,438 sf — General Commercial 1,072.0 FAR 0.5 -1.0 23,348,160sf — 46,696,320sf — One Broadway Plaza District Center3 4.3 FAR 2.9 543,193 sf — 543,193 sf — Subtotal 1,709. 37,678,572 sf 74 813 951 sf Industrial Industrial 1 2,188.21 FAR 0.45 1 42,892,704 sf — 42,892,704 sf — Other Institutional 1 796.31 FAR 0.2 -0.5 6,937,758 sf 1 17,344,394 sf — Open Space 1 1,017.81 FAR 0.2 1 5,567,509 sf — 8,867,509 sf — Subtotal 1 1.814.2 15.805.267 sf 26.211.903 sf Soumz: City of Santa Ana General Plan. Note. FAR =floor area ratio; du= dwelling unit; sf-square feet (of floor area). Acreage shown in table does not include roads in right-of-my. ' Effective capacity for nonresidential 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 a mixture of residential and nonresidential development based on the zoning development standards. Residential effective capacity was calculated by adding Ihel4,860 units possible in the District Center and Urban Neighborhood with the existing 74,588 (Census 2000) housing units. 3 Land use designation permits both residential and nonresidential development. Buildout assumes 90 percent of land area will be developed as commercial and 10 percent will be developed as residential. 3 Land use designation permits high intensity office development with ancillary retail use. 4.5 REFERENCES California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2008, October. Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan: A Framework for Change. October 2014 Page 4 -9 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 4. Environmental Setting This page intentional# left blank. Page 4 -10 PlaceWorkr IIx 11 w %aWe 1111 NIIII �1 1l HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF SANTA ANA Figure 4 -1 Current Zoning Designations 4. Environmental Setting nn x =1 nnm n Legend QNORTH HARBOR SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY NORTH HARBOR SPECIFIC PLAN DISTRICTS Single Family Tmnhomes General Commercial Entertainment _ RV /ANo _ Industnal _ Open Space p W0 Scale (Feet) PlaceWarkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 4. Environmental Setting This page intentional# left blank. Page 4 -12 PlaceWorkr 5. Environmental Analvsis 5.1 AESTHETICS This section discusses the visual character, visual and scenic resources, landform, and scenic corridors on the project site and its vicinity. The analysis identifies the proposed project's aesthetic impacts related to these characteristics. 5.1.1 Environmental Setting Visual Character The Santa Ana General Plan describes Harbor Boulevard as a "major image maker for the City" (Santa Ana 2010). It identifies Harbor Boulevard as a traditional intercity corridor that links the ocean to inland areas. Therefore, the appearance of Harbor Boulevard plays an important role in establishing the image of Santa Ana to drivers traveling through the City. The North Harbor Specific Plan (NHSP) boundaries cover the portion of Harbor Boulevard between Westminster Avenue on the north and Gloxinia Avenue on the south. Generally, the NHSP extends about one to two blocks to the east and west of Harbor Boulevard between the northern and southern ends. The NHSP also extends east and west along some of the cross - streets along Harbor Boulevard, including McFadden Avenue, 1st Street, 5th Street, and Westminster Avenue. Harbor Boulevard is characterized as having auto - oriented light industrial businesses, high density apartment complexes, one- to two -story medical and general office space, one- to two -story commercial strip malls, restaurants, motels, larger shopping centers, and parking lots. Portions of Harbor Boulevard have planted medians, and sidewalks extend along both sides throughout the entire length of the NHSP. Some areas have mature street trees lining the median in the middle of blocks. Most of the NHSP area does not include any single - family housing, however, two mobile home parks are included in the NHSP boundaries at Bali Hi Iane and Camille Street, just south of 1st Street. Visual Resources The areas along Harbor Boulevard that have the greatest visual appeal are the areas with mature trees, residential (apartment) landscaping, and commercial landscaping. Figure 5.1 -1, Existing Visual Resources, gives examples of these types of visual resources. The architecture along North Harbor Boulevard generally consists of boxy, single -story building structures with clean facades and signage. There is no consistent architectural or landscape theme applied throughout the NHSP area. In the original 1992 NHSP, design guidelines encouraged the use of historical mimetic architecture; however, there are no examples of this currently on the ground within the NHSP. Mimetic architecture is the design of buildings to look like the product they are selling (e.g., a donut shop that is shaped like a donut). Other themes of architecture were not October 2014 Page 5.1 -1 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis AESTHETICS specified in the 1992 NHSP, but it generally called for clean, simple building forms that that produced unity, scale, and interest. Landform The terrain within the NHSP and the surrounding areas is flat. Overall, there is little change in elevation throughout the City. The Santa Ana Mountains are approximately 10 miles to the west, and the San Bernardino Mountains are 29 miles to the north. Light and Glare Excessive light and glare can negatively affect sensitive land uses when those uses are placed close to land uses that have outdoor lighting or are made from materials that reflect light. Since the NHSP area is developed with urban land uses, light and glare are present on the project site. During the day, glare may reflect off glass or metal surfaces; at night, light is generated by street lights, parking lot lights, security lighting, signage and building lighting, and traffic. Areas within and near the NHSP that have less light and glare are residential land uses, the W&owick Golf Course, and Santa Anita and Campesino Parks. The City's municipal code has development restrictions for the placement of parking lot lighting near sensitive land uses, such as child care facilities, parks, schools, churches, convalescent homes, and hospitals. Per these restrictions, all outdoor lighting in parking lots should be reflected away from these sensitive land uses (Santa Ana Municipal Code, Chapter 41, Article XV, Division I, Section 41- 1304). 5.1.2 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: AE -1 Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista AE -2 Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. AE -3 Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. AE -4 Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. The Initial Study, included as Appendix A, substantiates that impacts associated with the following thresholds would be less than significant: ■ Threshold AE -1 ■ Threshold AE -2 These impacts will not be addressed in the following analysis. Page 5.7 -2 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF SANTA ANA Figure 5.1 -1 Existing Visual Resources 5. Environmental Analysis Mature trees line Harbor Boulevard along the median and near Harbor Pointe Apart- ments south of Westminster Avenue. View is to the south. Mature trees line the median of Harbor Boulevard near the intersection with 11th Street. View is to the south. Residential landscaping at Harbor Pointe Apartments soften the edges of the build- ings. View is to the west. PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis AESTHETICS Tbisliage intentional# left blank. Page 5.14 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis AESTHETICS 5.1.3 Environmental Impacts The aesthetic resource impacts discussed in this section include a qualitative discussion of the effects of new development on the existing visual character of the project site and the potential for new development to increase light and glare in areas with sensitive land uses, such as residences. The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study disclosed potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement. Impact 5.1 -1: The proposed project would alter the visual appearance of the project area. [Threshold 5mpactAnal7sis: Buildout of the Harbor Corridor Plan would allow for the development of an additional 3,884 additional dwelling units and 13,721 square feet of nonresidential building space over existing conditions. Underutilized parcels and vacant properties could gradually transition to neighborhood serving retail and office uses with new housing options. The specific plan would create a vibrant, multimodal neighborhood for residents, with improved access to services, community uses, and alternative transportation. The corridor improvements would enhance the pedestrian experience for walkers, shoppers, workers, bicyclists, and users of transit. The types of multifamily housing allowed under the Harbor Corridor Plan would include stacked flats, courtyard housing, live work units, rowhouses, and tuck under units. Per the development standards, new housing within the transit node surrounding proposed BRT stops would be two to tensig stories in height, the corridor zone (between transit nodes) would allow two- to four -story structures, and neighborhood transitional would allow a maximum of three stories. Conceptual renderings have been prepared for the proposed project that show how the new development may appear in terms of architecture, building height, and landscaping, and the changes to sidewalks, setbacks, and medians. Figure 5.1 -2, Conceptual Renderings, gives examples of existing landmarks and how they may appear after development. As illustrated in Figure 5.1 -2, views from Harbor Boulevard at Westminster Avenue looking south and from Harbor Boulevard at Fifth Street looking north, development would transition to mixed uses with greater intensity and building heights. The existing character of one- to two -story buildings and vacant space, including retail, auto - oriented service, motels, office, surface parking, vacant lots, and residential (single- family and mobile home), would transition into more commercial, employment, and mixed use space. Greater allowable building heights, building intensity, and allowance of mixed uses in these areas would change the visual character of the area but it would not result in a degradation of visual character or quality of the area. In addition, the plan requires a setback of 30 feet to the property line above the second floor for buildings with seven or more stories adjacent to single family residential uses. Areas surrounding the proposed BRT stops would experience the greatest amount of transition to take advantage of the transit opportunities and become compatible with the evolving built environment. Concentrating new land use zones near BRT stops to revitalize the commercial corridor also results in an improvement to the existing visual quality of the Harbor Corridor Plan area by reinvigorating business October 2014 Page 5.15 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis AESTHETICS investment in the community and developing new and renovated buildings with a high level of architectural design and quality. In addition, new development and improvements would enhance safety and attract pedestrians. Future development in the project area is required to follow the specific plan design guidelines, which establish parameters for building design to create a distinct character for Harbor Boulevard and ensure that new development is designed with a pedestrian emphasis and architectural aesthetic. It specifies massing, scale, comer treatment, roof treatment, building colors, and materials. In addition, frontage types and floor heights are specified to ensure that the proposed development is consistent with the City's goals for building form, character, and quality. New buildings in the Transit Node and Corridor districts are required to construct taller ground floors to maintain an attractive and consistent space, while also maximizing flexibility for current and future uses. Minimum and maximum setbacks have been established to create a consistent street scene, provide attractive landscaping, and provide a buffer for pedestrians from street activity. The Harbor Corridor Plan also requires new development to provide onsite private open space. Overall, the proposed specific plan would include landscaping and architectural treatments that would bring consistency and stylistic improvements to the area. Although development under the Harbor Corridor Plan area would visually alter the area, it would not deteriorate the existing visual character or conflict with any existing architectural characteristics specific to the area. Impacts would be less than significant. The Willowick Golf Course and Campesino Park would be removed from the NHSP upon approval of the specific plan. No changes would be made to the existing land uses, and the conventional City zoning would be applied to these areas. Overall, impacts would be less than significant. Impact 5.1 -2: The proposed project would generate additional light and glare. [Threshold AE -4] Impact Analysis: Light and glare from new development may affect existing and proposed sensitive land uses on or near the project site. Most of the existing land uses within the NHSP are not considered sensitive land uses, with the exceptions of the townhomes in the northern portion of the NHSP, a mobile home park between McFadden and First Streets, Rosita Park, the Vietnamese Catholic Center, and the Our Lady of La Vang church. The land uses adjacent to the Harbor Corridor Plan consist mostly of single family and multifamily housing with some commercial and industrial land uses at the northern boundary. Russell Elementary School and the Harbor Learning Center also border the NHSP area on the east and south, respectively. The housing and educational facilities would be sensitive to new sources of light on the project site. New sensitive land uses would include the residential development that would be allowed under the proposed specific plan (up to 3,884 new residential units). If these housing units are place near commercial, industrial, or other light generating land uses, they may be affected by these sources of light and glare. In addition, these new land uses may also have outdoor lighting or signage that creates new sources of light. Mixed use and /or commercial development built pursuant to the Harbor Corridor Plan may also have metal or glass building materials that produce new sources of glare. Page 5.16 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF SANTA ANA Figure 5.1 -2 Conceptual Renderings 5. Environmental Analysis Harbor Boulevard at Westminster Avenue looking south. Harbor Boulevard at 5th Street looking north. Source: Plat Works, IBI Group 2013 PlaceWffkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis AESTHETICS Tbisliage intentional# left blank. Page 5.7-8 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis AESTHETICS The Harbor Corridor Plan includes design guidelines that reduce the impacts of light and glace on sensitive land uses. Specifically, the following design guidelines (Chapter 6 of the Harbor Corridor Plan) would reduce light and glare impacts of new development: ■ Direct lamp glare from unshielded floodlights is not permitted. ■ Lighting that aims light directly into the night sky is prohibited. ■ Secondary building entrances and parking /loading /service access points should have lighting compatible with the project's lighting to maintain a safe environment around the entire project, especially where pedestrians and other building tenants circulate. ■ Warm white light is encouraged. Blinking, flashing, and oscillating lights are prohibited. Colored lights are not encouraged unless they contribute to the theming of commercial areas or establishments. Overly bright or glaring lights should be avoided. ■ Automatic timers should be programmed to maximize personal safety at night while conserving energy. They should be reset seasonally to match the thug of dusk /dawn. ■ Exterior lighting should be designed and located to not project off site or onto adjacent uses. This is especially critical with neighboring residential uses. ■ Signs illuminated by downward- directed, wall mounted lights with fully shielded lamps are encouraged. New construction would use building materials that reduce or eliminate glare. Lighting on buildings would be oriented to avoid intrusion into sensitive land uses. The Willowick Golf Course and Campesino Park would be removed from the NHSP upon approval of the specific plan. No changes would be made to the existing land uses, and the conventional City zoning would be applied to these areas. Since there would be no change to land uses in this area, there would be no lighting impacts. 5.1.4 Cumulative Impacts Cumulative light and glare impacts would occur when the proposed project's impacts are compounded with light and glare impacts from other past, present, and future development projects in the surrounding area. The majority of the land uses surrounding the project site are single- and multifamily residential land uses that do not generate large amounts of light or glare. The exception is the area north of the NHSP, where land uses are industrial in nature. New development projects in this area may cause an increase in light and glare that could affect adjacent sensitive land uses. As with the proposed project, environmental review of potential light and glare impacts would be conducted prior to project approval. In addition, these areas must comply with the City's municipal code lighting restrictions. Overall, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. October 2014 Page 5.7 -9 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis AESTHETICS 5.1.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions ■ Santa Ana Municipal Code, Chapter 41, Article XV Division I, Section 41 -1304 5.1.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, the following impacts would be less than significant: 5.1 -1 and 5.1 -2. 5.1.7 Mitigation Measures No potentially significant impacts have been identified and no mitigation measures are required. 5.1.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation No mitigation measures have been identified and impacts are less than significant. Page 5.1 -10 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis 5.2 AIR QUALITY This section of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) evaluates the potential for the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan (proposed project) to impact air quality in a local and regional context. The analysis in this section is based on buildout of the proposed land use plan, as modeled using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), and trip generation provided by IBI Group, as modeled using the Orange County Transportation Analysis Model (OCTAM) (see Appendix G to this EIR). The air quality model output sheets are included in Appendix C of this EIR. 5.2.1 Environmental Setting South Coast Air Basin The project site lies within the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB), which includes all of Orange County and the nondesert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. The SoCAB is in a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills and is bounded by the Pacific Ocean in the southwest quadrant, with high mountains forming the remainder of the perimeter. The general region lies in the semipermanent high- pressure zone of the eastern Pacific. As a result, the climate is mild, tempered by cool sea breezes. This usually mild weather pattern is interrupted infrequently by periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, and Santa Ana winds (SCAQMD 2005). Temperature and Precipitation The annual average temperature varies little throughout the SoCAB, ranging from the low to middle 60s, measured in degrees Fahrenheit ( °F). With a more pronounced oceanic influence, coastal areas show less variability in annual minimum and maximum temperatures than inland areas. The climatological station nearest to the project site is the Santa Ana Fire Station Monitoring Station (ID No. 047888). The average low is reported at 43.1 °F in January, and the average high is 84.7 °F in August (WRCC 2013). In contrast to a very steady pattern of temperature, rainfall is seasonally and annually highly variable. Almost all rain falls from November through April. Summer rainfall is normally restricted to widely scattered thundershowers near the coast, with slightly heavier shower activity in the east and over the mountains. Rainfall averages 13.69 inches per year in the project area (WRCC 2013). Humidity Although the SoCAB has a semiarid climate, the air near the earth's surface is typically moist because of the presence of a shallow marine layer. Except for infrequent periods when dry, continental air is brought into the SoCAB by offshore winds, the "ocean effect" is dominant. Periods of heavy fog, especially along the coast, are frequent. Low clouds, often referred to as high fog, are a characteristic climatic feature. Annual average humidity is 70 percent at the coast and 57 percent in the eastern portions of the SoCAB (SCAQMD 2005). October 2014 Page 5.2 -1 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Wind Wind patterns across the south coastal region are characterized by westerly or southwesterly onshore winds during the day and by easterly or northeasterly breezes at night. Wind speed is somewhat greater during the dry summer months than during the rainy winter season. Between periods of wind, periods of air stagnation may occur, both in the morning and evening hours. Air stagnation is one of the critical determinants of air quality conditions on any given day. During the winter and fall months, surface high- pressure systems over the SoCAB, combined with other meteorological conditions, can result in very strong, downslope Santa Ana winds. These winds normally continue a few days before predominant meteorological conditions are reestablished. The mountain ranges to the east affect the transport and diffusion of pollutants by inhibiting their eastward transport. Air quality in the SoCAB generally ranges from fair to poor and is similar to air quality in most of coastal southern California. The entire region experiences heavy concentrations of air pollutants during prolonged periods of stable atmospheric conditions (SCAQMD 2005). Inversions In conjunction with the two characteristic wind patterns that affect the rate and orientation of horizontal pollutant transport, there are two similarly distinct types of temperature inversions that control the vertical depth through which pollutants are mixed. These are the marine /subsidence inversion and the radiation inversion. The combination of winds and inversions are critical determinants in leading to the highly degraded air quality in summer and the generally good air quality in the winter in the project area (SCAQMD 2005). Air Pollutants of Concern Criteria Air Pollutants Pollutants emitted into the ambient air by stationary and mobile sources are regulated by federal and state law Air pollutants are categorized as primary or secondary. Primary air pollutants are emitted directly from sources. Carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic compounds (VOC), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), coarse inhalable particulate matter (PMio), fine inhalable particulate matter (PMzs), and lead (Pb) are primary air pollutants. Of these, CO, SO2, NO2, PM10, and PM25 are "criteria air pollutants," which means that ambient air quality standards (AAQS) have been established for them. VOC and oxides of nitrogen (NO�) are air pollutant precursors that form secondary criteria pollutants through chemical and photochemical reactions in the atmosphere. Ozone (Oz) and NOz are the principal secondary pollutants. A description of each of the primary and secondary criteria air pollutants and their known health effects is presented below. Carbon Monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless, toxic gas produced by incomplete combustion of carbon substances, such as gasoline or diesel fuel. CO is a primary criteria au pollutant. CO concentrations tend to be the highest during winter mornings with little to no wind, when surface based inversions trap the pollutant at ground levels. Because CO is emitted directly from internal combustion, engines and motor vehicles Page 5.2 -2 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY operating at slow speeds are the primary source of CO in the SoCAB. The highest ambient CO concentrations are generally found near traffic- congested corridors and intersections. The primary adverse health effect associated with CO is interference with normal oxygen transfer to the blood, which may result in tissue oxygen deprivation (SCAQMD 2005). The SoCAB is designated under the California and National AAQS as being in attainment of CO criteria levels (CARB 2013a). Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) are compounds composed primarily of atoms of hydrogen and carbon. Internal combustion associated with motor vehicle usage is the major source of hydrocarbons. Other sources of VOCs include evaporative emissions associated with the use of paints and solvents, the application of asphalt paving, and the use of household consumer products such as aerosols. There are no ambient air quality standards established for VOCs. However, because they contribute to the formation of 03, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has established a significance threshold for this pollutant (SCAQMD 2005). Nitrogen Oxides (NO :) are a by- product of fuel combustion and contribute to the formation of ground level 03, PM30, and PMzs. The two major forms of NOx are nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). NO is a colorless, odorless gas formed from atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen when combustion takes place under high temperature and /or high pressure. The principal form of NO2 produced by combustion is NO. However, NO reacts with oxygen quickly to form NO2, creating the mixture of NO and NO2 commonly called NO.. NO2 acts as an acute irritant and is more injurious than NO in equal concentrations. At atmospheric concentrations, however, NO2 is only potentially irritating. NO2 absorbs blue light; the result is a brownish red cast to the atmosphere and reduced visibility. NO2 exposure concentrations near roadways are of particular concern for susceptible individuals, including people with asthma asthmatics, children, and the elderly. Current scientific evidence links short -term NO2 exposures, ranging from 30 minutes to 24 hours, with adverse respiratory effects, including airway inflammation in healthy people and increased respiratory symptoms in people with asthma. Also, studies show a connection between breathing elevated short -term NO2 concentrations and increased visits to emergency departments and hospital admissions for respiratory issues, especially asthma (SCAQMD 2005, EPA 2012). The SoCAB is designated an attainment area for NO2 under the National AAQS and nonattamment under the California AAQS (CA" 2013a).3 .Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) is a colorless, pungent, irritating gas formed by the combustion of sulfurous fossil fuels. It enters the atmosphere as a result of burning high - sulfur- content fuel oils and coal and from chemical processes at chemical plants and ref ncries. Gasoline and natural gas have very low sulfur content and do not release significant quantities of S02. When sulfur dioxide forms sulfates (SO4) in the atmosphere, together these pollutants are referred to as sulfur oxides (SOX). Thus, S02 is both a primary and secondary criteria air pollutant. At sufficiently high concentrations, S02 may irritate the upper respiratory tract. Current scientific evidence links short -term exposures to S02, ranging from 5 minutes to 24 hours, with an array of adverse respiratory effects, including bronchoconstriction and increased asthma symptoms. These effects are particularly important for asthmatics at elevated ventilation rates (e.g., while exercising or playing.) At lower concentrations and when combined with particulates, S02 may do greater harm by injuring lung tissue. The SoCAB is designated attainment under the California and National AAQS (CARB 2013a). I CARB has proposed to redesignate the SoCAB as attainment for NOz under the California AAQS (CARB 2013d). October 2014 Page 5.2 -3 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Suspended Particulate Matter (PMmand PMa5) consists of finely divided solids or liquids such as soot, dust, aerosols, fumes, and mists. Two forms of fine particulates are now recognized and regulated. Inhalable coarse particles, or PMto, include particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns (i.e., 10 millionths of a meter or 0.0004 inch) or less. Inhalable fine particles, or PM? 5, have an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns (i.e., 2.5 millionths of a meter or 0.0001 inch) or less. Particulate discharge into the atmosphere results primarily from industrial, agricultural, construction, and transportation activities. Both PMto and PMz.5 may adversely affect the human respiratory system, especially in people who are naturally sensitive or susceptible to breathing problems. EPA scientific review concluded that PM? 5, which penetrates deeply into the lungs, is more likely than PMto to contribute to health effects and at concentrations that extend well below those allowed by the current PMto standards. These health effects include premature death in people with heart of lung disease, nonfatal heart attacks, irregular heartbeat, aggravated asthma, decreased lung function, and increased respiratory symptoms (e.g., irritation of the airways, coughing, or difficulty breathing). Diesel particulate matter is classified by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) as a carcinogen. Particulate matter can also cause environmental effects such as visibility impairment,2 environmental damage ,3 and aesthetic damage4 (SCAQMD 2005; EPA 2012). The SoCAB is a nonattamment area for PM? 5 and PMto under California and National AAQS (CA" 2013a).5 Ozone (Os) is commonly referred to as "smog" and is a gas that is formed when VOCs and NO, both by- products of internal combustion engine exhaust, undergo photochemical reactions in the presence of sunlight. 03 is a secondary criteria air pollutant. 03 concentrations are generally highest during the summer months when direct sunlight, light winds, and warm temperatures create favorable conditions for the formation of this pollutant. 03 poses a health threat to those who already suffer from respiratory diseases as well as to healthy people. Additionally, 03 has been tied to crop damage, typically in the form of stunted growth and premature death. 03 can also act as a corrosive, resulting in property damage such as the degradation of rubber products (SCAQMD 2005). The SoCAB is designated as extreme nonattainment under the California AAQS (1 hour and 8 -hour) and National AAQS (8 -hour) (CARB 2013a). Lead (Pb) is a metal found naturally in the environment as well as in manufactured products. The major sources of lead emissions have historically been mobile and industrial sources. As a result of the EPA's regulatory efforts to remove lead from on road motor vehicle gasoline, emissions of lead from the transportation sector dramatically declined by 95 percent between 1980 and 1999, and levels of lead in the air decreased by 94 percent between 1980 and 1999. Today, the highest levels of lead in air are usually found near lead smelters. The major sources of lead emissions to the air today are ore and metals processing and piston - engine aircraft operating on leaded aviation gasoline. Once taken into the body, lead distributes throughout the body in the blood and is accumulated in the bones. Depending on the level of exposure, lead can 2 PMz 5 is the main cause of reduced visibility (haze) in parts of the United States. 3 Particulate matter can be carried over long distances by wind and then settle on ground or water. The effects of this settling include: making lakes and streams acidic; changing the nutrient balance in coastal waters and large river basins; depleting the nutrients in soil; damaging sensitive forests and farm crops; and affecting the diversity of ecosystems. ° Particulate matter can stain and damage stone and other materials, including culturally important objects such as statues and monuments. 5 CARB approved the SCAQMD's request to redesignate the SoCAB from serious nonattainment for PMto to attainment for PM10 under the National AAQS on Much 25, 2010, because the SoCAB has not violated federal 24 hour PM10 standards during the period from 2004 to 2007. However, the EPA has not yet approved this request Page 5.24 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY adversely affect the nervous system, kidney function, immune system, reproductive and developmental systems, and the cardiovascular system. Lead exposure also affects the oxygen carrying capacity of the blood. The lead effects most commonly encountered in current populations are neurological effects in children and cardiovascular effects in adults (e.g., high blood pressure and heart disease). Infants and young children are especially sensitive to even low levels of lead, which may contribute to behavioral problems, learning deficits, and lowered IQ (SCAMQD 2005; EPA 2012). However, in 2008 the EPA and CARB adopted more strict lead standards and special monitoring sites immediately downwind of lead sources recorded6 very localized violations of the new state and federal standards. As a result of these localized violations, the Los Angeles County portion of the SoCAB was designated in 2010 as nomttainment under the California and National AAQS for lead (SCAQMD 2012a). Because emissions of lead are found only in projects that are permitted by SCAQMD, lead is not an air quality of concern for the proposed project. Toxic Air Contaminants The public's exposure to air pollutants classified as toxic air contaminants (TACs) is a significant environmental health issue in California. In 1983, the California Legislature enacted a program to identify the health effects of TACs and to reduce exposure to these contaminants to protect the public health. The California Health and Safety Code defines a TAC as "an air pollutant which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health." A substance that is listed as a hazardous air pollutant (HAP) pursuant to Section 112(b) of the federal Clean Air Act (42 United States Code �7412[b]) is a toxic au contaminant. Under state law, the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal /EPA), acting through CARB, is authorized to identify a substance as a TAC if it determines that the substance is an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or to an increase in serious illness, or may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. California regulates TACs primarily through Assembly Bill (AB) 1807 (Tanner Air Toxics Act) and AB 2588 (Air Toxics "Hot Spot' Information and Assessment Act of 1987). The Tanner Air Toxics Act sets forth a formal procedure for CARB to designate substances as TACs. Once a TAC is identified, CARB adopts an "airborne toxics control measure" for sources that emit designated TACs. If there is a safe threshold for a substance (i.e., a point below which there is no toxic effect), the control measure must reduce exposure to below that threshold. If there is no safe threshold, the measure must incorporate toxics best available control technology to minimize emissions. To date, CARB has established formal control measures for 11 TACs, all of which are identified as having no safe threshold. Air toxics from stationary sources are also regulated in California under the Air Toxics "Hot Spot' Information and Assessment Act of 1987. Under AB 2588, toxic air contaminant emissions from individual facilities are quantified and prioritized by the air quality management district or air pollution control district. High priority facilities are required to perform a health risk assessment and, if specific thresholds are exceeded, are required to communicate the results to the public in the form of notices and public meetings. 6 Source- oriented monitors record concentrations of lead at lead related industrial facilities in the SoCAB, which include Exide Technologies in the City of Commerce; Quemetco, Inc., in the City of Industry; Trojan Battery Company in Santa Fe Springs; and Exide Technologies in Vernon. Monitoring conducted between 2004 through 2007 identified that the Trojan Battery Company and Exide Technologies exceed the federal standards (SCAQ)M 2010). October 2014 Page 5.2 5 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY By the last update to the TAC list in December 1999, CARB has designated 244 compounds as TACs (CARB 1999). Additionally, CARB has implemented control measures for a number of compounds that pose high risks and show potential for effective control. The majority of the estimated health risks from TACs can be attributed to relatively few compounds, the most important being DPM. In 1998, CARB identified diesel particulate matter as a TAC. Previously, the individual chemical compounds in diesel exhaust were considered TACs. Almost all diesel exhaust particle mass is 10 microns or less in diameter. Because of their extremely small size, these particles can be inhaled and eventually trapped in the bronchial and alveolar regions of the lung. Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study (MATES) III In 2000, SCAQMD conducted a study on ambient concentrations of TACs and estimated the potential health risks from au toxics. The results showed that the overall risk for excess cancer from a lifetime exposure to ambient levels of au toxics was about 1,400 in a million. The largest contributor to this risk was diesel exhaust, accounting for 71 percent of the au toxics risk. In 2008, SCAQMD conducted its third update to its study on ambient concentrations of TACs and estimated the potential health risks from au toxics. The results showed that the overall risk for excess cancer from a lifetime exposure to ambient levels of au toxics was about 1,200 in one million. The largest contributor to this risk was diesel exhaust, accounting for approximately 84 percent of the au toxics risk (SCAQMD 2008a). Excess cancer risk is 742 to 1,035 in a million in the vicinity of the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan area (SCAQMD 2008a). Regulatory Setting AAQS have been promulgated at the local, state, and federal levels for criteria pollutants. The project site is in the SoCAB and is subject to the rules and regulations imposed by SCAQMD as well as the California AAQS adopted by CARB and federal AAQS. Ambient Air Quality Standards The Clean An Act (CAA) was passed in 1963 by the US Congress and has been amended several times. The 1970 Clean Air Act amendments strengthened previous legislation and laid the foundation for the regulatory scheme of the 1970s and 1980s. In 1977, Congress again added several provisions, including nonattainment requirements for areas not meeting National AAQS and the Prevention of Significant Deterioration program. The 1990 amendments represent the latest in a series of federal efforts to regulate the protection of au quality in the United States. The CAA allows states to adopt more stringent standards or to include other pollution species. The California Clean Air Act (CCAA), signed into law in 1988, requires all areas of the state to achieve and maintain the California AAQS by the earliest practical date. The California AAQS tend to be more restrictive than the National AAQS, based on even greater health and welfare concerns. These National AAQS and California AAQS are the levels of air quality considered to provide a margin of safety in the protection of the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect "sensitive receptors" most susceptible to further respiratory distress, such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. Healthy Page 5.26 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY adults can tolerate occasional exposure to air pollutant concentrations considerably above these minimum standards before adverse effects are observed. Both California and the federal government have established health based AAQS for seven air pollutants. As shown in Table 5.2 -1, these pollutants include 03, NO2, CO, S02, PMto, PMz s, and lead (Pb). In addition, the state has set standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility- reducing particles. These standards are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace with a reasonable margin of safety. Table 5.2 -1 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants October 2014 Page 5.2 -7 California Federal Primary Pollutant Averaging Time Standard Standard Major Pollutant Sources Ozone 1 hour 0.09 ppm ` (03) Motor vehicles, paints, coatings, and solvents. 8 hours 0.070 ppm 0.075 ppm Carbon Monoxide 1 hour 20 ppm 35 ppm Internal combustion engines, primarily gasoline - (CO) powered motor vehicles. 8 hours 9.0 ppm 9 ppm Nitrogen Dioxide Annual Average 0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm Motor vehicles, petroleum-refining operations, (NO2) industrial sources, aircraft, ships, and railroads. 1 hour 0.18 ppm 0.100 ppm Sulfur Dioxide Annual Arithmetic 0.030 ppm2 (SO2) Mean Fuel combustion, chemical plants, sulfur recovery 1 hour 0.25 ppm 0.075 ppm' plants, and metal processing. 24 hours 0.04 ppm 0.014 ppm2 Respirable Coarse Annual Arithmetic 20 Ng /m3 Dust and fume - producing construction, industrial, Particulate Matter Mean and agricultural operations, combustion, (PM10) atmospheric photochemical reactions, and natural 24 hours 50 Ng /m3 150 Ng /m3 activities (e.g., wind- raised dust and ocean sprays). Respirable Fine Annual Arithmetic 12 /m3 Ng 12 /ma.a Ng Dust and fume - producing construction, industrial, Particulate Matter Mean and agricultural operations, combustion, (PM25) atmospheric photochemical reactions, and natural 24 hours 35 Ng /m3 activities (e.g., wind- raised dust and ocean sprays). Lead Monthly 1.5 Ng /m3 (Pb) Present source : lead smelters, battery Quarterly 1.5 Ng /m3 manufacturing & recycling facilities. Past source: combustion of leaded gasoline. 3 -Month Average 0.15 Ng /m3 Sulfates 24 hours 25 Ng /m3 Industrial processes. (SO4) October 2014 Page 5.2 -7 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Table 5.2 -1 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants Source: CARIB 2013b. Notes: ppm: parts per million; fig/ml: micrograms per cubic meter * Standard has not been established for this pollutant/duration by this entity. ' When relative humidity is less than 70 percent. 2 On June 2, 2010, a new 1 -hour SOz standard was established and the existing 24 -hour and annual primary standards were revoked. The 1971 SO, national standards (24 -hour and annual) remain in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2010 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1971 standards, the 1971 standards remain in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2010 standards are approved. 3 On December 14, 2012, EPA lowered the federal primary PMzs annual standard from 15.0 pg/ms to 12.0 pg/m'. EPA made no changes to the primary 24 -hour PMzs standard or to the secondary PMzs standards. Air Quality Management Planning SCAQMD is responsible for prepazing the air quality management plan (AQMP) for the SoCAB in coordination with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Since 1979, a number of AQMPs have been prepared. 2012 AQMP On December 7, 2012, SCAQMD adopted the 2012 AQMP, which employs the most up -to -date science and analytical tools and incorporates a comprehensive strategy aimed at controlling pollution from all sources, including stationary sources, on road and off road mobile sources, and area sources. It also addresses several state and federal planning requirements, incorporating new scientific information, primarily in the form of updated emissions inventories, ambient measurements, and new meteorological an quality models. The 2012 AQMP builds upon the approach identified in the 2007 AQMP for attainment of federal PM and ozone Page 5.2-% PlaceWorkr California Federal Primary Pollutant Averaging Time Standard Standard Major Pollutant Sources Visibility- Reducing Visibility- reducing particles consist of suspended Particles particulate matter, which is a complex mixture of ExCo = 0.23/km tiny particles that consists of dry solid fragments, 8 hours visibility of 10? No Federal solid cores with liquid coatings, and small droplets miles' Standard of liquid. These particles vary greatly in shape, size and chemical composition, and can be made up of many different materials such as metals, soot, soil, dust, and salt. Hydrogen Sulfide Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) is a colorless gas with the odor of rotten eggs. It is formed during bacterial 1 hour 0.03 ppm No Federal decomposition of sulfur-containing organic Standard substances. Also, it can be present in sewer gas and some natural gas, and can be emitted as the result of geothermal energy exploitaton. Vinyl Chloride Vinyl chloride (chloroethene), a chlornated hydrocarbon, is a colorless gas with a mild, sweet No Federal odor. Most vinyl chloride is used to make polyvinyl 24 hour 0.01 ppm Standard chloude (PVC) plastic and vinyl products. Vinyl chloude has been detected near landfills, sewage plants, and hazardous waste sites, due to microbial breakdown of chlorinated solvents. Source: CARIB 2013b. Notes: ppm: parts per million; fig/ml: micrograms per cubic meter * Standard has not been established for this pollutant/duration by this entity. ' When relative humidity is less than 70 percent. 2 On June 2, 2010, a new 1 -hour SOz standard was established and the existing 24 -hour and annual primary standards were revoked. The 1971 SO, national standards (24 -hour and annual) remain in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2010 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1971 standards, the 1971 standards remain in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2010 standards are approved. 3 On December 14, 2012, EPA lowered the federal primary PMzs annual standard from 15.0 pg/ms to 12.0 pg/m'. EPA made no changes to the primary 24 -hour PMzs standard or to the secondary PMzs standards. Air Quality Management Planning SCAQMD is responsible for prepazing the air quality management plan (AQMP) for the SoCAB in coordination with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Since 1979, a number of AQMPs have been prepared. 2012 AQMP On December 7, 2012, SCAQMD adopted the 2012 AQMP, which employs the most up -to -date science and analytical tools and incorporates a comprehensive strategy aimed at controlling pollution from all sources, including stationary sources, on road and off road mobile sources, and area sources. It also addresses several state and federal planning requirements, incorporating new scientific information, primarily in the form of updated emissions inventories, ambient measurements, and new meteorological an quality models. The 2012 AQMP builds upon the approach identified in the 2007 AQMP for attainment of federal PM and ozone Page 5.2-% PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY standards and highlights the significant amount of reductions needed and the urgent need to engage in interagency coordinated planning to identify additional strategies, especially in the area of mobile sources, to meet all federal criteria air pollutant standards within the timeframes allowed under the CAA. The 2012 AQMP demonstrates attainment of federal 24hour PM25 standard by 2014 and the federal 8 -hour ozone standard by 2023. It includes an update to the revised EPA 8 -hour ozone control plan with new commitments for short -term NO, and VOC reductions. The plan also identifies emerging issues of ultrafne (PM3 o) particulate matter and near- roadway exposure, and an analysis of energy supply and demand. Lead State Implementation Plan The SoCAB, except for the Los Angeles County nonattainment area, remains in attainment of the new standard. On May 24, 2012, CARB approved the state implementation plan (SIP) revision for the federal lead standard, which the EPA revised in 2008. Lead concentrations in this nonattainment area have been below the level of the federal standard since December 2011. The SIP revision was submitted to EPA for approval. NonattalnmentAreas The AQMP provides the framework for air quality basins to achieve attainment of the state and federal ambient air quality standards through the SIP. Areas are classified attainment or nonattamment for particular pollutants, depending on whether they meet ambient air quality standards. Severity classifications for ozone nonattainment range from marginal, moderate, and serious to severe and extreme. Transportation conformity for nonattainment and maintenance areas is required under the federal CAA to ensure federally supported highway and transit projects conform to the SIP. The EPA approved California's SIP revisions for attainment of the 1997 8 -hour 03 National AAQS for the SoCAB in March 2012. Findings for the new 8 -hour 03 emissions budgets for the SoCAB and consistency with the recently adopted 2012 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP /SCS) were submitted to the EPA for approval. The attainment status for the SoCAB is shown in Table 5.2 -2. The SoCAB is also designated in attainment of the California AAQS for sulfates. The SoCAB will have to meet the new federal 8 -hour 03 standard by 2023, and the federal 24 hour PM25 standards by 2014 (with the possibility of up to a five -year extension to 2019, if needed). SCAQMD has recently designated the SoCAB nonattainment for NO2 (entire basin) and lead (T.os Angeles County only) under the California AAQS. October 2014 Page 5.2 -9 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Table 5.2 -2 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin Pollutant State Federal Ozone —1 -hour Extreme Nonattainment No Federal Standard Ozone — &hour Extreme Nonattainment Severe-17 Nonattainment' PMto Serious Nonattainment Nonattainment2 PM25 Nonattainment Nonattainment CO Attainment Attainment NO2 Nonattainment Attainment/Maintenance S02 Attainment Attainment Lead Nonattainment (Los Angeles County only)3 Nonattainment (Los Angeles County only )3 All others Attainment/Unclassified Attainment/Unclassified Source: CARB 2013a. ' SCAQMD may petition for Extreme Nonattainment designation. 2Annual standard revoked September 2006. CARB approved SCAQMD's request to redesignate the SoCAB from serious nonattainment for PM10 to attainment for PM10 under the National AAQS on March 25, 2010, because the SoCAB has not violated federal 24 -hour PM10 standards from 2004 to 2007. However, the EPA has not yet approved this request. 'The Los Angeles portion of the SoCAB was designated nonattainment for lead under the new federal and existing state AAQS as a result of large industrial emitters. Remaining areas within the SoCAB are unclassified. Existing Ambient Air Quality Existing levels of ambient air quality and historical trends and projections in the vicinity of the project site and project area are best documented by measurements made by SCAQMD. The project site is in Source Receptor Area (SRA) 17 — Inland Orange County (Central Orange County). The air quality monitoring station closest to the project is the Anaheim Pampa Lane Monitoring Station. This station does not have information for 5O2, so the information for this criteria air pollutant was obtained from the Costa Mesa Mesa Verde Drive monitoring station. Data from these stations are summarized in Table 5.2 -3. The data show that the concentration levels of 03, PMto, and PM25 of the area regularly exceed the state and federal one -hour and eight -hour 03 standards as well as the state PMto and federal PM25 standards. The CO, 5O2, and NO2 standards have not been exceeded in the last five years in the project vicinity. Page 5.2 -10 PlaceWorkr Table 5.2 -3 Ambient Air Qualitv Monitori HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Number of Days Threshold Were Exceeded and Pollutant/Standard 1 2007 1 2008 1 2009 1 2010 1 2011 Ozone (OaP State 1 -Hour > 0.09 ppm 2 2 0 1 0 State 8 -hour > 0.07 ppm 7 10 2 1 1 Federal 8-Hour > 0.075 ppm 1 5 1 1 0 Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.127 0.105 0.093 0.104 0.088 Max. 8-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.099 0.086 0.077 0.088 0.072 Carbon Monoxide (CO)i State 8 -Hour > 9.0 ppm 0 0 0 0 0 Federal 8-Hour_ 9.0 ppm 0 0 0 0 0 Max. 8-Hour Conc. (ppm) 2.91 3.44 2.73 1.98 2.08 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO41 State 1-Hour 0.18 ppm Max. 1 -Hour Conc. (ppm) 0 0.086 0 0.093 0 0.068 0 0.073 0 0.074 Sulfur Dioxide (SO42 State 1-Hour 0.04 ppm Max. 1- Hour Conc. (ppm) 0 0.004 0 0.003 0 0.004 0 0.002 0 0.002 Coarse Particulates (PMtolt State 24 -Hour > 50 Ng /m3 6 3 1 0 2 Federal 24 -Hour > 150 Ng /m3 1 0 0 0 0 Max. 24 -Hour Conc. (Ng /m3) 489.0 111.5 97.4 43.0 53.0 Fine Particulates (PM25)1 Fedeml 244iour> 35 Ng /m3 14 5 5 0 2 Max. 24 -Hour Conc. (Ng /m3) 79.4 67.8 64.5 31.7 39.2 Soumz: CARB 201X ppm: parts per million; pgIM3: or micrograms per cubic meter. Data obtained from the Anaheim — Pampa Lane Monitoring Station at 1630 Pampas Lane in the City of Anaheim. 3 Data obtained from the Costa Mesa — Mesa Verde Drive Monitoring Station at 2850 Mesa Verde Drive East in the City of Costa Mesa- Existing Setting As shown in Table 5.2 -4, there are current existing land uses within the boundaries of the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Corridor Plan consisting of residential, retail, commercial, and light industrial land uses. These uses currently generate criteria air pollutants from natural gas use for heating and cooking, vehicle trips associated with each land use, and area sources such as landscaping equipment and consumer cleaning products. October 2014 Page 5.2 -77 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Table 5.2 -4 Existing Land Uses Land Uses Dwelling Units/Building Square Feet Residential 739 DU Retail 633,878 BSF Service 815,346 BSF Other 505,037 BSF Notes: DU = dwelling unit; BSF = building square feet Sensitive Receptors Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others due to the types of population groups or activities involved. Sensitive population groups include children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill, especially those with cardiorespiratory diseases. Residential areas are also considered sensitive to air pollution because residents (including children and the elderly) tend to be at home for extended periods of time, resulting in sustained exposure to any pollutants present. Other sensitive receptors include retirement facilities, hospitals, and schools. Recreational land uses are considered moderately sensitive to air pollution. Although exposure periods are generally short, exercise places a high demand on respiratory functions, which can be impaired by air pollution. In addition, noticeable air pollution can detract from the enjoyment of recreation. Industrial, commercial, retail, and office areas are considered the least sensitive to air pollution. Exposure periods are relatively short and intermittent, because the majority of the workers tend to stay indoors most of the time. In addition, the workforce is generally the healthiest segment of the population. The closest sensitive receptors to the project site are the residential, schools and parks in and along the project area. 5.2.2 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: AQ -1 Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. AQ -2 Violate any au quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected au quality violation. AQ -3 Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). AQ -4 Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. AQ -5 Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Page 5.2 -12 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY The Initial Study, included as Appendix A, substantiates that impacts associated with the following threshold would be less than significant: ■ Threshold AQ -5 This impact will not be addressed in the following analysis. 5.2.2.1 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT THRESHOLDS The analysis of the proposed project's air quality impacts follows the guidance and methodologies recommended in SCAQNID's CEQA Air Quaho Handbook and the significance thresholds on SCAQNID's website.7 CEQA allows the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district to be used to assess impacts of a project on air quality. SCAQMD has established thresholds of significance for regional air quality emissions for construction activities and project operation. In addition to the daily thresholds listed above, projects are also subject to the AAQS. These are addressed though an analysis of localized CO impacts and localized significance thresholds (LSTs). Regional Significance Thresholds SCAQIVID has adopted regional construction and operational emissions thresholds to determine a project's cumulative impact on air quality in the SoCAB. Table 5.2 -5 lists SCAQNID's regional significance thresholds. Table 5.2 -5 SCAQMD Siqnificance Thresholds Air Pollutant Construction Phase Operational Phase Reactive Organic Gases (ROGsy Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) 75lbs /day 55lbs /day Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550lbs/day 550lbs/day Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 100lbs/day 55lbs /day Sulfur Oxides (SOx) 150lbs/day 150lbs/day Particulates (PMto) 150lbs/day 150lbs/day Particulates (PM25) 55lbs /day 55lbs /day Source: SCAQMD 2011. CO Hot Spots Areas of vehicle congestion have the potential to create pockets of CO called hot spots, which have the potential to exceed the state one hour standard of 20 prim or the eight hour standard of 9 prim. Because CO is produced in greatest quantities from vehicle combustion and does not readily disperse into the atmosphere, adherence to ambient air quality standards is typically demonstrated through an analysis of localized CO concentrations. Hot spots are typically produced at intersections, where traffic congestion is highest because vehicles queue for longer periods and are subject to reduced speeds. Typically, for an intersection to exhibit a significant CO concentration, it would operate at level of service (LOS) E or worse without improvements (Caltrans 1997). 7 SCAQMD's Au Quality Significance Thresholds are current as of March 2011 and can be found at htq): //w .agmcigov /ceqa /hdbkhtml. October 2014 Page 5.2 -13 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Localized Significance Thresholds SCAQMD developed LSTs for emissions of NO2, CO, PM10, and PM25 generated at the project site (offsite mobile- source emissions are not included in the LST analysis). LSTs represent the maximum emissions at a project site that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent federal or state AAQS. IST analysis is applicable for all projects of five acres and less. LSTs are based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant within the project SRA and the distance to the nearest sensitive receptor compared to the most stringent AAQS. Thresholds are based on the California AAQS, which are the most stringent AAQS established to provide a margin of safety in the protection of the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect sensitive receptors most susceptible to further respiratory distress, such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. AAQS from which the LSTs are based are shown in Table 5.2 -6. Table 5.2 -6 SCAQMD Localized Significance Thresholds Air Pollutant Relevant AAQS Concentration 1 -Hour CO Standard (CAAQS) 20 ppm 8-Hour CO Standard (CAAQS) 9.0 ppm 1 -Hour NO2 Standard (CAAQS) 0.18 ppm 24-Hour PM10 Standard — Construction (SCAQMD)l 10.4 Ng /m3 24-Hour PM2.5 Standard — Construction (SCAQMD)l 10.4 Ng /m3 24-Hour PM10 Standard — Operation (SCAQMD)l 2.5 Ng/m3 24-Hour PM2.5 Standard — Operation (SCAQMD)l 2.5 Ng/m3 ppm — parts per million; Ng/m3 — micrograms per cubic meter ' Threshold is based on SCAQMD Rule 403. Since the SoCAB is in nonattainment for PM10 and PMzs, the threshold is established as an allowable change in concentration. Therefore, background concentration is irrelevant. Health Risk Analysis Whenever a project would require use of chemical compounds that have been identified in SCAQMD Rule 1401, placed on CARB's air toxins list pursuant to Assembly Bill 1807 (AB 1807), Air Contaminant Identification and Control Act (1983), or placed on the EPAs National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, a health risk assessment (TIRO) is required by the SCAQMD. Table 5.2 -7 lists the SCAQMD's TAC incremental risk thresholds for operation of a project Residential, commercial., and office uses do not use substantial quantities of TACs, and these thresholds are typically applied for new industrial projects. Although not officially adopted by SCAQMD, these thresholds are also commonly used to determine air quality land use compatibility of a project with major sources of TACs within 1,000 feet of a proposed project. Table 5.2 -7 SCAQMD Toxic Air Contaminants Incremental Risk Thresholds Maximum Individual Cancer Risk I ? 10 in 1 million Hazard Index (proiect increment) I ? 1.0 Source: SCAQMD 2011. Page 5.2 -14 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY 5.2.3 Environmental Impacts Methodology This air quality evaluation was prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA to determine if significant air quality impacts are likely to occur in conjunction with the type and scale of development within the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan. SCAQMD has published the CEQA Air Quality Handbook (Handbook) and updates on its website to provide local governments with guidance for analyzing and mitigating project specific air quality impacts. The Handbook provides standards, methodologies, and procedures for conducting air quality analyses in environmental impact reports and was used extensively in the preparation of this analysis. The SCAQMD has published two additional guidance documents Localised Significance Threshold Methodology for CEQA Evaluations (2003) and Particulate Matter (PM) 2.5 Significance Thresholds and Calculation Methodology (2006) that are intended to provide guidance in evaluating localized effects from emissions generated by a project. These documents were also used in the preparation of this analysis. The analysis also makes use of the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2011.1.1, for determination of daily construction and operational emissions. The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study disclosed potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement. Impact 5.2 -1: Construction activities associated with the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan would generate short-term emissions that exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District's VOC and NO. regional thresholds and would significantly contribute to the particulate matter (PM,o and PM2.5), ozone (03), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) nonattainment designations of the SoCAB. [Thresholds AQ -2 and AQ -3] ImpactAnalysis: A project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if it violates any air quality standard or contributes substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Construction activities produce combustion emissions from various sources, such as onsite heavy -duty construction vehicles, vehicles hauling materials to and from the site, and motor vehicles transporting the construction crew. Site preparation activities produce fugitive dust emissions (PM,o and PM25) from grading and excavation and from demolition. Exhaust emissions from construction onsite would vary daily. Construction activities would temporarily increase PM,o, PM? 5, VOC, NOx, Sox, and CO regional emissions within the SoCAB. Construction activities associated with buildout of the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan are anticipated to occur sporadically over an approximately 20 -year period or longer. Buildout would comprise multiple smaller projects, each having its own construction timeline and activities. Development of multiple properties could occur at the same time. However, there is no defined development schedule for these future projects at this time. For this analysis, the maximum emissions are based a very conservative worst case scenario, where overlap of all construction phases occur at the same time. An estimate of maximum daily construction emissions is provided in Table 5.2 -8. October 2014 Page 5.2 -15 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Table 5.2 -8 Construction Regional Emissions Construction Phase' Construction - Related R ional Emissions ( undsida ) VOC NO, CO S02 PMin PM,., Demolition 7 57 37 <1 6 3 Site Preparation 6 49 30 <1 10 7 Grading 8 62 36 <1 7 4 Building Construction 33 145 283 1 59 9 Paving 4 27 17 <1 2 2 Architectural Coatings 177 7 41 <1 10 1 Worst -Case Day 234 348 444 1 94 25 SCAQMD Standard 75 100 550 150 150 55 Significant? Yes Yes No No No No Source: Cal EEMod Version 2011.1.1. Shown in pounds per day ' Construction equipment mix is based on CaIEEMod default construction mx. See Appendix C for a list of assumptions on emissions generated on a worst -case day. 2 Grading includes compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 fugitive dust control measures. Measures include requiring an application of water at least twice per day to at least 80 percent of the unstabilized disturbed onsite surface areas, replacing disturbed ground cover quickly, and restricting speeds on unpaved roads to less than 15 miles per hour. Modeling also assumes a VOC of 100 gtL for interior paints pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 1113. Construction activities associated with the project could potentially exceed the SCAQMD regional thresholds for VOC and NOx. The primary source of NOx emissions is construction equipment exhaust. NOx is a precursor to the formation of both 03 and particulate matter (PM,o and PM25). VOC is produced by equipment exhaust and off gas of architectural coatings and paving. VOC is a precursor to the formation of 03. Project related emissions of VOC and NOx would contribute to the 03, NO2, PM,o, and PM2 5 nonattamment designations of the SoCAB. Therefore, project related construction activities would result in significant regional air quality impacts. Impact 5.2 -2: Long -term criteria air pollutant emissions associated with the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan would exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District's VOC, CO, MR, and PM2.5 regional significance thresholds and significantly contribute to the particulate matter (PM,o and PM2.5), ozone (03), and nitrogen dioxide (NOO nonattainment designations of the SoCAB. [Thresholds AQ -2 and AQ -3] ImpactAnalysis: Buildout of the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan would result in direct and indirect criteria air pollutant emissions from transportation, energy (natural gas use), and area sources (e.g., natural gas fireplaces, aerosols, landscaping equipment). Transportation sources of criteria air pollutant emission are based on the traffic impact analysis conducted by IBI Group (Appendix H of this EIR). The project would generate a net increase of 31,910 weekday average daily trips (ADT) (see Appendix H). The results of the CaIEEMod modeling are included in Table 5.2 -9. Page 5.2 -16 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA Table 5.2 -9 Maximum Daily Operational Phase Regional Emissions Phase Existino 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Area 71 1 62 0 1 1 Energy 1 9 6 <1 1 1 Transportation 47 32 359 2 211 8 Total 118 41 427 2 213 10 Project' New Land Uses Area 743 4 323 <7 7 7 Energy 1 12 6 <7 1 7 Transportation 93 63 778 3 424 77 Remaininq Exisfinq Land Uses Area 30 1 62 0 1 1 Energy <1 2 7 <7 <1 <1 Transportation 25 17 790 7 111 4 Combined Area 173 4 385 <1 8 8 Energy 2 14 7 <1 1 1 Transportation 118 80 875 4 535 21 Total 293 99 1,267 4 545 31 Less Existing Emissions 118 41 427 2 213 10 Netlncrease 175 58 874 3 332 20 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Sgndicant? yes yes yes No yes yes Source: CaIEEMod Version 2011.1.1. Based on highest winter or summer emissions. Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. ' It is anticipated that approximately 1,555,000 building square feet of the existing nonresidential structures would be demolished. As shown in this table, operation of the project would generate air pollutant emissions that exceed SCAQMD's regional significance thresholds for VOC, NOx, CO, PM,o, and PM25 at buildout. Emissions of VOC and NOx that exceed the SCAQMD regional threshold would cumulatively contribute to the 03 nonattamment designation of the SoCAB. Emissions of NOx that exceed SCAQMD's regional significance thresholds would cumulatively contribute to the 03, particulate matter (PM�o and Pn5), and NO2 nonattamment designations of the SoCAB. Emissions of PM,o would contribute to the PM10 nonattamment designation. Consequently, the project would result in a significant impact because it would significantly contribute to the nonattamment designations of the SoCAB. Impact 5.2 -3: Construction activities related to buildout of the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Impact Analysis: The proposed project could expose sensitive receptors to elevated pollutant concentrations during construction activities if it would cause or contribute significantly to elevating those October 2014 Page 5.2 -17 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY levels. Unlike the mass of construction emissions shown in Table 5.2 -8, described in pounds per day, localized concentrations refer to an amount of pollutant in a volume of air (ppm or µg /m3) and can be correlated to potential health effects. ISTs are the amount of project related emissions at which localized concentrations (ppm or pg /m3) would exceed the ambient au quality standards for criteria au pollutants for which the SoCAB is designated a nonattamment area. Table 5.2 -8 provides an estimate of the magnitude of criteria air pollutant emissions generated by the project for each construction subphase. Buildout of the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan would occur over a period of approximately 20 years or longer and would comprise several smaller projects with their own construction timeframe and construction equipment Concentrations of criteria air pollutants generated by a project depend on the emissions generated onsite and the distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. Therefore, an IST analysis can only be conducted at a project - level, and quantification of ISTs is not applicable for this program level environmental analysis. Because potential redevelopment could occur close to existing sensitive receptors, the project has the potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Construction equipment exhaust combined with fugitive particulate matter emissions has the potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of criteria air pollutant emissions and result in a significant impact Impact 5.2 -4: Onsite operational - related emissions associated with the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. [Threshold AQ -4] Impact Analysis: The Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan would not develop individual land uses that generate substantial quantities of onsite, stationary emissions. Land uses that have the potential to generate substantial emissions would require a permit from SCAQMD and include industrial land uses, such as chemical processing, and warehousing operations where substantial truck idling could occur onsite. These types of industrial land uses are not proposed under the project, and any existing land uses of these types within the plan area are intended to be phased out for less intensive neighborhood commercial, retail, and housing. Operation of residential and nonresidential structures would include occasional use of landscaping equipment, natural gas consumption for heating, and nominal truck idling for vendor deliveries. Emissions generated from these activities are nominal and no significant impact would occur. CO Hot Spot Analysis Areas of vehicle congestion have the potential to create pockets of CO called hot spots. These pockets have the potential to exceed the state one hour standard of 20 ppm or the eight hour standard of 9 ppm. At the time of the 1993 Handbook, the SoCAB was designated nonattainment under the California AAQS and National AAQS for CO. With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of control technology on industrial facilities, CO concentrations in the SoCAB and in the state have steadily declined. In 2007, the SCAQMD was designated in attainment for CO under both the California AAQS and National AAQS. As identified in SCAQMD's 2003 AQMP and the 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide (1992 CO Plan), peak carbon monoxide concentrations in the SoCAB were a result of unusual meteorological and topographical conditions and not a result of congestion at a particular intersection. Under existing and future vehicle emission rates, a project would have to increase traffic volumes at a single intersection by more than 44,000 Page 5.2 -18 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY vehicles per hour�or 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and /or horizontal air does not mes in order to generate a significant CO impact (BAAQMD 2011). The proposed project would not produce the volume of traffic at any one intersection required to generate a CO hot spot Therefore, CO hot spots are not an environmental impact of concern for the proposed project Localized air quality impacts related to mobile source emissions would therefore be less than significant Impact 5.2 -5: The Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan could site sensitive land uses in proximity to major air pollution sources. [Threshold AQ -4] Impact Analysis: A project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if it would expose onsite sensitive receptors (new residents) to substantial pollutant concentrations emitted from offsite sources. Recent air pollution studies have shown an association between proximity to major air pollution sources and a variety of health effects. Because sensitive land uses are outside CARB jurisdiction, CARB established the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspecbm in May 2005 to address the siting of sensitive land uses in the vicinity of freeways, distribution centers, rail yards, ports, refineries, chrome plating facilities, dry cleaners, and gasoline- dispensing facilities. This guidance document was developed as a tool for assessing compatibility and associated health risks when placing sensitive receptors near existing pollution sources. CARB recommendations are based on data that show that localized air pollution exposures can be reduced by as much as 80 percent by following CARB minimum distance separations, as shown in Table 5.2 -10. Table 5.2 -10 CARB Recommendations for Sitinq New Sensitive Land Uses Source Category Advisory Recommendations Freeways and High - Traffic Roads • Avoid siting 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. • Avad siting new senstve land uses within 1,000 feet of a distributon center (that accommodates more than 100 trucks per day, more than 40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration units [fRUsl Distribution Centers per day, or where TRU unit operations exceed 300 hours per week). • Take into account the configuration of existing distribution centers and avoid locating residences and other sensitive land uses near entry and exit points. • Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a major service and maintenance rail Rail Yards yard. • Within one mile of a rail yard, consider possible siting limitations and mitt ation approaches. • Avoid siting of new sensitive land uses immediately downwind of ports in the most heavily Ports impacted zones. Consult local air districts or CARB on the status of pending analyses of health risks. Refineries • Avoid siting new sensitive land uses immediately downwind of petroleum refineries. Consult with local air districts and other local agencies to determine an appropriate se aration. Chrome Platers . Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a chrome plater. • Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of any dry cleaning operation. For Dry Cleaners Using operations with two or more machines, provide 500 feet. For operations with three or more Perchloroethylene machines, consult with the local air district. • Do not site new sensitive land uses in the same building with perchloroethylene dry cleaning operations. • Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of a large gas station (defined as a facility Gasoline Dispensing Facilities with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year or greater). A 50 -foot separation is recommended for typical gas dispensing facilities. Source: CARS 2005. October 2014 Page 5.2 -19 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY CARB's recommendations on the siting of new sensitive land uses were developed from a compilation of recent studies that evaluated data on the adverse health effects from proximity to air pollution sources. The key observation in these studies is that close proximity to au pollution sources substantially increases exposure and the potential for adverse health effects relative to the existing background concentrations in the au basin. However, the impact of au pollution from these sources is on a gradient that at some point becomes indistinguishable from the regional au pollution problem. The Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan area is not near any rail yards, ports, or refineries. State Route 22 (SR 22) is approximately 2,400 feet from the plan's northernmost boundary and therefore beyond the 500 -foot buffer distance. Additionally, there are no roadways with daily roadway volumes of 100,000 or more either within or near the plan's boundaries. However, there are several SCAQMD permitted land uses within (e.g., Stremick's Heritage Foods) and near the project site that may generate stationary or mobile sources of TACs. While some or all of the existing light industrial uses within the project boundaries would transition to commercial, office, and residential land uses, future sensitive land uses could still be exposed to existing facilities. Therefore, air quality compatibility impacts for new sensitive land uses are potentially significant. Impact 5.2 -6: The Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan is a regionally significant project that would contribute to an increase in frequency or severity of air quality violations in the South Coast Air Basin and would conflict with the assumptions of the applicable air quality management plan. [Threshold AQ -1] Impact Analysis: CEQA requires that general plans be evaluated for consistency with the AQMP. A consistency determination plays an important role in local agency project review by linking local planning and individual projects to the AQMP. It fulfills the CEQA goal of informing decision makers of the environmental efforts of the project under consideration at a stage early enough to ensure that air quality concerns are fully addressed. It also provides the local agency with ongoing information as to whether they are contributing to clean air goals contained in the AQMP. Only new or amended general plan elements, specific plans, and major projects need to undergo a consistency review. This is because the AQMP strategy is based on projections from local general plans. Projects that are consistent with the local general plan are considered consistent with the air- quality - related regional plan. The regional emissions inventory for the SoCAB is compiled by SCAQMD and SCAG. Regional population, housing, and employment projections developed by SCAG are based, in part, on the county's general plan land use designations. These projections form the foundation for the emissions inventory of the AQMP. These demographic trends are incorporated into the 2012 RTP /SCS, compiled by SCAG to determine priority transportation projects and vehicle miles traveled (VM'I) within the SCAG region. Per CEQA Guideline Section 15206, the proposed project is considered regionally significant by SCAG because it would result in the development of over 500 residential dwelling units and 250,000 square feet of commercial office space. Changes in the population, housing, or employment growth projections associated with this project have the potential to substantially affect SCAG's demographic projections and therefore the assumptions in SCAQMD's AQMP. The proposed project would increase the land use intensity within the Page 5.2 -20 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan area, resulting in a large increase in population growth and a slight increase in employment in the plan area. Additionally, the proposed project would require a general plan amendment to accommodate the change in land uses and increase in development intensity. Because regional transportation modeling is based on the underlying general plan land use designation, the project could potentially change the assumptions of the AQMP. The AQMP ensures that the region is on track to attain the California and federal AAQS. When a project has the potential to exceed the assumptions of the AQMP because it is more intensive than the underlying land use designation, criteria air pollutants generated during operation of the proposed project are compared to SCAQMD's regional significance thresholds (see Impact 5.2 -2), which were established to determine whether a project has the potential to cumulatively contribute to the SOCAB's nonattamment designations. The proposed project would be consistent with the regional goals of integrating land uses near a major transportation corridor by increasing the amount of mixed use developments along the Harbor Boulevard corridor. The Orange County Transportation Authority plans to establish bus rapid transit stops and routes along Harbor Boulevard within the next decade. Additionally, development of residential and nonresidential land uses in proximity to each other in addition to public transportation options would likely reduce VMT and associated criteria air pollutant emissions from mobile sources. However, despite furthering the regional transportation and planning objectives to reduce per capita VMT and associated emissions, the project would represent a substantial increase in emissions compared to existing conditions and would exceed SCAQMD's regional operational significance thresholds. As a result, the proposed project could potentially exceed the assumptions in the AQMP and would not be considered consistent with the AQMP. Consequently, impacts would be significant. 5.2.4 Cumulative Impacts In accordance with the SCAQMD methodology, any project that produces a significant project level regional air quality impact in an area that is in nonattainment contributes to the cumulative impact. Cumulative projects within the local area include new development and general growth within the project area. The greatest source of emissions within the SoCAB is mobile sources. Due to the extent of the area potentially impacted from cumulative project emissions, the SCAQMD considers a project cumulatively significant when project related emissions exceed the SCAQMD regional emissions thresholds shown in Table 5.2 -5. Construction The SoCAB is designated nonattamment for 03, PM? s, PMtu, and lead (Los Angeles County only) under the California and National AAQS and nonattamment for NO2 under the California AAQS.B Construction of cumulative projects would further degrade the regional and local air quality. Air quality would be temporarily impacted during construction activities. Implementation of mitigation measures for related projects would reduce cumulative impacts. Project related construction emissions would potentially exceed the SCAQMD 8 CARB approved the SCAQMD's request to redesignate the SoCAB from serious nonattainerent for PM10 to attainment for PM10 under the national AAQS on Much 25, 2010, because the SoCAB has not violated federal 24 -hour PM10 standards during the period from 2004 to 2007. However, the EPA has not yet approved this request October 2014 Page 5.2 -21 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY significance thresholds on a project and cumulative basis. Consequently, the projects contribution to cumulative air quality impacts would be cumulatively considerable and would therefore be significant. Operation For operational air quality emissions, any project that does not exceed or can be mitigated to less than the daily regional threshold values is not considered by the SCAQMD to be a substantial source of air pollution and does not add significantly to a cumulative impact. Operation of the project would result in emissions in excess of the SCAQMD regional emissions thresholds for VOC, CO, PMlo, and PM25 for long -term operation. Therefore, the projects air pollutant emissions would be cumulatively considerable and therefore significant. 5.2.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions State ■ CARB Rule 2480 (13 CCR 2480): Airborne Toxics Control Measure to Limit School Bus Idling and Idling at Schools: limits nonessential idling for commercial trucks and school buses within 100 feet of a school. • CARB Rule 2485(13 CCR 2485): Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel Fuel Commercial Vehicle Idling. limits nonessential idling to five minutes or less for commercial trucks. • CARB Rule 2449(13 CCR 2449): In Use Off Road Diesel Idling Restricts: limits nonessential idling to five minutes or less for diesel powered off road equipment. • Motor Vehicle Standards (AB 1493). Regional • SCAQMD Rule 201: Permit to Construct • SCAQMD Rule 402: Nuisance Odors • SCAQMD Rule 403: Fugitive Dust • SCAQMD Rule 1113: Architectural Coatings • SCAQMD Rule 1403: Asbestos Emissions from Demolition /Renovation Activities • SCAQMD Rule 1186: Street Sweeping 5.2.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, the following impact would be less than significant: 5.2 -4. Without mitigation, the following impacts would be potentially significant Page 5.2 -22 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY ■ Impact 5.2 -1 Construction activities associated with the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan would generate short -term emissions that exceed the SCAQMD'S VOC and NOx regional thresholds and would significantly contribute to the particulate matter (PMlo and PMzs), ozone (Oz), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) nonattainment designation of the SoCAB. ■ Impact 5.2 -2 Long -term criteria air pollutant emissions associated with the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan would exceed the SCAQMD's VOC, CO, PM1o, and PM? s regional significance thresholds and significantly contribute to the particulate matter (PMlo and PMzs), ozone (Oz), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) nonattamment designations of the SoCAB. ■ Impact 5.2 -3 Construction activities related to buildout of the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. ■ Impact 5.2 -5 The Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan could site sensitive land uses in proximity to major air pollution sources. ■ Impact 5.2 -6 The Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan is a regionally significant project that would contribute to an increase in frequency or severity of air quality violations in the South Coast Air Basin and would conflict with the assumptions of the applicable Air Quality Management Plan. 5.2.7 Mitigation Measures Impact 5.2 -1 2 -1 Applicants for new development projects within the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan shall require the construction contractor to use equipment that meets the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)- Certified emissions standards according to the following schedule. ■ From the end of 2011 to December 31, 2014, all project related off road diesel powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower shall meet Tier 3 off road emissions standards. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine, as defined by CARB regulations. ■ After January 1, 2015, all off road diesel powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower shall meet the Tier 4 Final emission standards. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 4 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine, as defined by CARB regulations. October 2014 Page 5.2 -23 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Prior to construction, the project engineer shall ensure that all demolition and grading plans clearly show the requirement for EPA Tier 3 or higher emissions standards for construction equipment over 50 horsepower. During construction, the construction contractor shall maintain a list of all operating equipment in use on the project site for verification by the Building Safety Division. The construction equipment list shall state the makes, models, and numbers of construction equipment onsite. Equipment shall properly service and maintain construction equipment in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. Construction contractors shall also ensure that all nonessential idling of construction equipment is restricted to five minutes or less in compliance with California Air Resources Board's Rule 2449. 2 -2 Applicants for new development projects within the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan shall require the construction contractor to prepare a dust control plan and implement the following measures during ground - disturbing activities in addition to the existing requirements for fugitive dust control under South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403 to further reduce PMlo and Pn 5 emissions. The Building Safety Division shall verify compliance that these measures have been implemented during normal construction site inspections. ■ Following all grading activities, the construction contractor shall reestablish ground cover on the construction site through seeding and watering. ■ During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall sweep streets with Rule 1186�compliant, PMio- efficient vacuum units on a daily basis if silt is carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares or occurs as a result of hauling. ■ During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall maintain a minimum 24 inch freeboard on trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials and tarp materials with a fabric cover or other cover that achieves the same amount of protection. ■ During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall water exposed ground surfaces and disturbed areas a minimum of every three hours on the construction site and a minimum of three times per day. ■ During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall limit onsite vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to no more than 15 miles per hour. 2 -3 Applicants for new development projects within the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan shall require the construction contractor to use coatings and solvents with a volatile organic compound (VOC) content lower than required under Rule 1113 (i.e., super compliant paints). All architectural coatings shall be applied either by (1) using a high - volume, low-pressure spray method operated at an air pressure between 0.1 and 10 pounds per square inch gauge to achieve a 65 percent application efficiency; or (2) manual Page 5.2 -24 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY application using a paintbrush, hand roller, trowel, spatula, dauber, rag, or sponge, to achieve a 100 percent applicant efficiency. The construction contractor shall also use precoated /natural colored building materials, where feasible. Use of low -VOC paints and spray method shall be included as a note on architectural building plans and verified by the Building Safety Division during construction. Impact 5.2 -2 Stationary Source 2 -4 Applicants of residential developments which are designed to include shared community barbeques shall only install electric powered barbeque units. These units shall be specified on site and building plans and shall be verified by the Building Safety Division prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 2 -5 Applicant provided appliances shall be Energy Star appliances (dishwashers, refrigerators, clothes washers, and dryers). Installation of Energy Star appliances shall be verified by the Building Safety Division during plan check. Transportation and Motor Vehicles 2 -6 Applicants of residential developments which include garage and /or car port parking shall ensure that garage and /or car port parking are electrically wired to accommodate a Level 2 (240 volt) electric vehicle charging outlet per dwelling unit The location of the electrical outlets shall be specified on building plans and proper installation shall be verified by the Building Safety Division prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 2 -7 Applicants of retail, commercial, office, and other non - residential development shall provide Level 2 vehicle charging stations for public use and where feasible, coordinate with the City of Santa Ana to install Level 3 (480 volt or higher charging stations. The location of the charging station(s) shall be specified on site and building plans and proper installation shall be verified by the Building Safety Division prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 2 -8 Applicants for non - residential projects within the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan, that employ 20 or more people which is equivalent to 16,000 square feet of retail space or 10,000 square feet of office space —shall implement an employee commute trip reduction (CTR) program. The CTR program shall identify alternative modes of transportation to the project, including transit schedules, bike and pedestrian routes, and carpool /vanpool availability. Information regarding these programs shall be readily available to employees and clients. The project applicant or designee shall consider the following incentives for commuters as part of the CTR program: ■ Rideshare - matching assistance through OCTA ■ Subsidized public transit passes October 2014 Page 5.2 25 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY ■ Vanpool assistant ■ Caz or bike sharing program- 0 Bicycle end trip su ®rtrt facilities, iftel"ditT such as bike storage o v�16itg lockers. 2 -9 Applicants of commercial, office, retail, and other non - residential development within the specific plan area shall provide the following features to reduce project related mobile source air pollutant emissions: ■ Preferential parking for carpools and vanpools. ■ Preferential parking for alternative fuel vehicles (e.g., compressed natural gas or hydrogen). ■ Secure bicycle parking and storage facilities for visitors. ■ Commuter information boards identifying bicycle paths and public transit routes and schedules. Impact 5.2 -3 Mitigation measures applied for Impact 5.2 -1 would also reduce the projects localized construction related criteria air pollutant emissions to the extent feasible. Impact 5.2 -5 2 -10 Applicants for residential or residential mixed -use projects within: 1) 1,000 feet from the truck bays of an existing distribution centers that accommodate more than 100 trucks per day, more than 40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration units, or where transport refrigeration unit operations exceed 300 hours per week, or 2) 1,000 feet of an SCAQMD permitted facility, or an industrial facility which emits toxic air contaminants shall submit a health risk assessment (HRA) prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The HRA shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator prior to approval of any future discretionary residential or residential mixed use project. If the HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk exceeds one in one hundred thousand (1.0E -05), PM concentrations would exceed 2.5 µg /m3, or the appropriate noncancer hazard index exceeds 1.0, the HRA shall identify the level of high - efficiency Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (NIERV) filter required to reduce indoor air concentrations of pollutants to achieve the cancer and /or noncancer threshold. Page 5.2 -26 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY The Applicant shall be required to install high efficiency MFRV filters in the intake of residential ventilation systems, consistent with the recommendations of the HRA. Heating, air conditioning and ventilation (HVAC) systems shall be installed with a fan unit power designed to force air through the MERV filter. To ensure long -term maintenance and replacement of the MERV filters in the individual units, the following shall occur: • Developer, sale, and /or rental representative shall provide notification to all affected tenants /residents of the potential health risk for affected units. • For rental units, the owner /property manager shall maintain and replace MFRV filters in accordance with the manufacture's recommendations. The property owner shall inform renters of increased risk of exposure to diesel particulates when windows are open. ■ For residential owned units, the Homeowner's Association (HOA shall incorporate requirements for long -term maintenance in the Covenant Conditions and Restrictions and inform homeowners of then responsibility to maintain the MERV filter in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. The HOA shall inform homeowners of increased risk of exposure to diesel particulates when windows are open. Impact 5.2 -6 Mitigation measures applied for Impact 5.2 -1 and Impact 5.2 -2 would reduce the project's regional construction related and operational phase criteria an pollutant emissions to the extent feasible. 5.2.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation Impact 5.2 -1 Mitigation Measures 2 -1 through 2 -3 would reduce criteria an pollutants generated from project- related construction activities. Buildout of the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan would occur over a period of approximately 20 years or longer. Construction time frames and equipment for individual site specific projects are not available. There is a potential for multiple developments to be constructed at any one time, resulting in significant construction related emissions. Therefore, despite adherence to Mitigation Measures 2 -1 through 2 -3, Impact 5.2 -1 would remain significant and unavoidable. Impact 5.2 -2 Incorporation of Mitigation Measures 2 -4 through 2 -9 would reduce operation related criteria an pollutants generated from stationary and mobile sources. Mitigation Measures 2 -5 through 2 -9 would encourage and accommodate use of alternative fueled vehicles and non motorized transportation. However, despite adherence to Mitigation Measures 2 -4 through 2 -9, Impact 5.2 -2 would remain significant and unavoidable. October 2014 Page 5.2 -27 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Impact 5.2 -3 Mitigation Measures 2 -1 and 2 -2 applied for Impact 5.2 -1 would reduce the project's regional construction emissions and therefore also reduce the project's localized construction related criteria air pollutant emissions to the extent feasible. However, because existing sensitive receptors may be close to project related construction activities, construction emissions generated by individual project have the potential to exceed SCAMQD's LSTs. Impact 5.2 -3 would remain significant and unavoidable. Impact 5.2 -5 The proposed project would result in construction of up to 3,884 new residential units within the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan boundaries at build out. The exact locations of new sensitive land uses are not known at this time, although residential uses would be allowed near existing onsite light industrial land uses in the interim period until these industrial sites transition into new land uses. In addition, residential uses would also be allowed near existing offsite light industrial land uses. Light industrial land uses with sources of toxic air contaminants have the potential to affect new sensitive land uses within the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 2 -10 would ensure that new residential land uses proximate to major sources of toxic air contaminants reduce risk by installing high - efficiency MERV filters to reduce indoor concentrations particulates (including diesel particulate matter, which comprises the majority of risk) below SCAQMD's threshold. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 2 -10, Impact 5.2 -5 would be less than significant. Impact 5.2 -6 Mitigation measures applied for Impact 5.2 -1 and Impact 5.2 -2 would reduce the project's regional construction related and operational phase criteria air pollutant emissions to the extent feasible. However, given the potential increase in growth and associated increase in criteria air pollutant emissions, the project would continue to be potentially inconsistent with the assumptions in the AQMP. Impact 5.2 -6 would remain significant and unavoidable. 5.2.9 References California Au Resources Board (CARB). 2013a, April 1. Area Designations Maps /State and National. http: //w ..a b.ca.gov /desig /adm /adm.hLrn. 2013b, June 4. Ambient Air Quality Standards. http: / /www b.ca.gov /research /a qs /a gs2.pdf. . 2013c. Air Pollution Data Monitoring Cards (2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012). http: //w .. arb. ca .gov /adam /topfour /topfourl.php. . 2013d, October 23. Proposed 2013 Amendments to Area Designations for State Ambient Air Quality Standards. http: //w ..arb.ca.gov /regact /2013 /areal3 /ar 13isor.pdf 2005, April. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. Page 5.2 -28 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY 1999, December. Final Staff Report: Update to the Toxic Air Contaminant list. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 1997, December. Transportation Project Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol. UCD- ITS- RR- 97 -21. Prepared by Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2012a, May 4. Final 2012 Lead State Implementation Plan: Los Angeles County. http: //w ..agmd.gov /hb /attachments /2011- 2015 / 2012May/ 2012 -May4 -030. pdf. .2012b. Air Quality Analysis Handbook. Updates to CEQA Air Quality Handbook. http: //w ..agmd.gov /ceqa /hdbk.html. . 2012c. Fina12012 Air Quality Management Plan. http: //w ..agmd.gov /agmp /2012agmp /Final /index.htrnl. . 2011, March (Revised). SCAQMDAir Quality Significance Thresholds. http: //w ..agmd.gov /ceqa /handbook /sigathres.pdf. . 2008a, September. Multilile Air ToxicsExposure Study in the Soutb CoastAir Basin (MATES III). 2008b, June. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. 2005, May. Guidance Document forAddressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning. 1993. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Handbook. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2012, April 20. What are the Six Common Air Pollutants? http: //w ..epa.gov /airquality /urbmair. Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC). 2013. Western U.S. Historical Summaries — Santa Ana Fire Station Monitoring Station (Station ID No. 047888). http: //w ..wrcc.clri.edu /cgi- bin /cliMAIN.pPca7888 (Accessed November 2013). Modeling South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2012. California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2011.1.1. October 2014 Page 5.2 -29 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Tbisliage intentional# left blank. Page 5.2 -30 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis 5.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES Cultural resources include places, objects, and settlements that reflect group or individual religious, archaeological, architectural, or paleontological activities. Such resources provide information on scientific progress, environmental adaptations, group ideology, or other human advancements. This section of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) evaluates the potential for implementation of the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan to impact cultural resources in the City of Santa Ana. The analysis in this section is based, in part, upon the following information: • Cultural Recordr Search and Historical Resources Inrentog, South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton, May 1, 2013. • Vertebrate Paleontology Records Search, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, May 23, 2013. 5.3.1 Environmental Setting Regulatory Background Federal and state laws, regulations, plans, or guidelines that are potentially applicable to the proposed project are summarized below. Federal Archaeological Resources Protection Act The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 regulates the protection of archaeological resources and sites that are on federal and Indian lands. Native Amencan Graves Protection and Repawation Act The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) is a federal law passed in 1990 that provides a process for museums and federal agencies to return certain Native American cultural items, such as human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony, to lineal descendants and culturally affiliated Indian tribes. State California Public Resources Code Archaeological, paleontological, and historical sites are protected pursuant to a wide variety of state policies and regulations enumerated under the California Public Resources Code. In addition, cultural and paleontological resources are recognized as a nomenewable resource, and therefore receive protection under the California Public Resources Code and CEQA. ■ California Public Resources Code Sections 5097.9 - 5097.998 provide protection to Native American historical and cultural resources and sacred sites and identify the powers and duties of the Native October 2014 Page 5.3 -1 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis CULTURAL RESOURCES American Heritage Commission (NAHC). These sections also require notification of discoveries of Native American human remains to descendants and provide for treatment and disposition of human remains and associated grave goods. • California Public Resources Code 5097.98 states that in the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, "there shall be no further excavation... until the coroner... has determined... that the remains are not subject to ... provisions of law concerning investigation of the circumstances, manner and cause of any death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible.... The coroner shall make his or her determination within two working days from the time the person responsible for the excavation, or his or her authorized representative, notifies the coroner of the discovery or recognition of the human remains. If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and ... has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, NAHC." California Senate Bi1118 Senate Bill (SB) 18, the Traditional Tribal Cultural Places (TTCPs) law, requires local jurisdictions to provide opportunities for involvement of NAHC and any appropriate California Native Americans tribes in the land planning process for the purpose of preserving TTCPs. A city or county, when proposing to adopt, amend, revise, or update a general plan or specific plan, must send a written request to NAHC asking for a list of tribes to consult. NAHC is required to provide this list within 30 days of receiving the request. The city or county must send a Tribal Consultation Request letter to each tribal representative on the list; tribes then have 90 days in which to respond to the Consultation Request if they want to consult with the local government to determine whether the project would have an adverse impact on the TTCP. SB 18 provides a new definition of TTCP requiring a traditional association of the site with Native American traditional beliefs, cultural practices, or ceremonies or the site must be shown to actually have been used for activities related to traditional beliefs, cultural practices, or ceremonies. Previously, the site was defined to require only an association with traditional beliefs, practices, lifeways, and ceremonial activities. In addition, SB 18 also amended California Civil Code Section 815.3 and adds California Native American tribes to the list of entities that can acquire and hold conservation easements for the purpose of protecting their cultural places. Natural Setting The project area is underlain by young alluvial fm sediments consisting of unconsolidated to moderately consolidated silt, sand, pebbly cobbly sand, and bouldery alluvial fm deposits and are of Holocene and late Pleistocene age (USGS 2006). The Holocene Epoch extends from the present to approximately 11,500 years before present (ybp); the Pleistocene Epoch extends from about 11,500 ybp to approximately 1.8 million ybp. Elevations in the project area range from approximately 92 feet above mean sea level (amsl) along the northeastern portion of the area to approximately 62 feet amsl along the southwest portion of the area; the project area has a southwest slope of approximately 0.3 percent grade. Page 5.3 -2 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis CULTURAL RESOURCES The project area is in a highly urbanized, built out portion of the City and is developed with a mix of commercial and residential uses. The project area also contains the Willowick Golf Course (an operating 18- hole public golf course), Cesar Chavez /Campesmo Park, and Santa Anita Park. Existing uses are shown in Figure 3 -3, Aerial Photograph. Land uses surrounding the project area include a mix of residential uses, which vary widely in character and density and include single - family neighborhoods, apartment complexes, and mobile home communities. Native American Cultural Setting The following information on the timeline and cultures of Native American habitation of the project region is from the Archaeological Assessment prepared by Cogstone, Inc., in February 2013 for the Warner Avenue Widening Project. Timeline Three prehistoric periods are defined in studies of Native American habitation of the region. Milling Stone Period dates back well over 6,000 years ago (8,000 -3,000 radiocarbon years ago) and is characterized by plant collecting, hunting, and fishing. Sites from this period appear to be part of an expansion of settlement to take advantage of new habitats and resources that became available as sea levels stabilized between about six to five thousand years ago. Mortars and pestles were used to process plant materials. Most sites were in coastal areas. Around 3,500 years ago, there is thought to have been a shift to more reliance on hunting. Sites attributed to this period appear to have been occupied by small groups of people. Intermediate Period dates from roughly 3,000 to 1,000 years ago. Sites attributed to this period indicate an increased reliance on coastal resources and continued reliance on hunting and collecting. The bow and arrow was developed in this period. Mortars and pestles and bone tools appeared in greater quantities. Late Prehistoric Period dates from approximately 1,400 years ago to 1769. Villages tend to be larger, and there appears to be an increase in smaller satellite sites, established to support the main village and reflecting seasonal use of a particular area. There seems to be greater use of localized resources and increased trade and social interaction. There is an increase in the number of sites in the area, which some researchers believe is due to population increase. Settlement was expanded into the hills and canyons inland. Cultures The project region was inhabited by the Juaneno, and possibly the Gabrielmo, at the time of European contact. After European contact, many Juaneno at Mission San Juan Capistrano and many GabrieLno were induced to live at Mission San Gabriel in the present -day City of San Gabriel in Los Angeles County. Both groups became known by the names of missions built in their territories. The Juaneno and Gabrielino suffered population decline due to introduced diseases and restrictions on their native reproductive practices by the padres. Most mission Indians were trained as vaqueros (cattle herders), sheepshearers, farm laborers, and domestic laborers and continued in those professions after the missions were secularized. October 2014 Page 5.3 -3 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis CULTURAL RESOURCES Tongva (Gabnehno) Culture The Tongva (Gabrielino) have overlapping ethnographic boundaries with the Juaneno to the south and Chumash to the north, but they inhabited the entire Los Angeles basin including most of Orange County. The name "Gabrichno" is Spanish in origin and was used in reference to the Native Americans associated with the Mission San Gabriel. It is unknown what these people called themselves before the Spanish arrived, but today they call themselves "Tongva," meaning "people of the earth." Villages consisted of 50 to 100 people. Each community included one or more extended families or lineal kinship groups (clans). Each village was united under the leadership of a chief who inherited the position from his father. The chief was the leader of the religious and secular life of the community. Shamans were also important as doctors, therapists, philosophers, and intellectuals. Like the Juaneno, the Gabrielino tribe used local plants and animals and coastal resources. Rabbit and deer were hunted, and acorns, buckwheat, chia, berries, fruits, and many other plants were collected. Artifacts associated with their villages include a wide array of chipped stone tools, including knives and projectile points, wooden tools like digging sticks and bows, and ground stone tools like bedrock and portable mortars and pestles. Local plants were used to build shelters as well as for medicines. Acjachemen (Juaneno) Culture The Juaneno territory was bounded by Aliso Creek, the Santa Ana Mountains, San Onofre Creek and the coastline. Archaeologists and linguists believe the Juaneno were a subdivision of the Luiseno because the Juaneno spoke a dialect of Luiseno at European contact. The Juaneno were organized into villages of 50 to 150 people headed by a hereditary chief and generally located near permanent water sources. Each village used a specific territory and included satellite locations used for seasonal food gathering. Families and groups lived seasonally in temporary camps set up to use specific resources such as groves of oak trees, abundant game, or source rocks for stone tools. A formal tribal government was established in the 1980s. The Juaneno Band members are part of the Acjachemen Nation. Historic Land Uses The historic topographic maps described below were obtained from the US Geological Survey's website (USGS 2013). The southern and northern portions of the project area are shown on the Newport Beach and Anaheim quadrangles, respectively; the border between the two quadrangles is between 5th Street and Hazard Avenue. • 1896 Santa Ana quadrangle and 1898 Anaheim quadrangle, scale (each) 1:62,500 (0.98 mile per inch): Approximately 15 structures are scattered in and near the project area. One north south roadway and several cast t west roadways are shown. I The southern put of the site is shown on the Santa Ana quadrangle in 1896; the northern pact of the site is sho vn on the Garden Grove quadrangle in 1935). Page 5.34 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis CULTURAL RESOURCES • 1932 Newport Beach and 1935 Garden Grove quadrangles, scale (each) 1:31,680 (two inches per mile): Development onsite is still sparse and scattered. The main north south roadway onsite is Buaro Street where Harbor Boulevard is now. There is a two- square -block subdivision between 1st and 5th Streets in the eastern part of the project area. A Pacific Electric railroad track2 passes through the northeast part of the project area. • 1949 Newport Beach and Anaheim quadrangles, scale (each) 1:24,000 (2.65 inches per mile): much of the project area is in agricultural use. Harbor Boulevard now extends through the middle of the project area, and Willowick Golf Club is shown in the northeast portion. Development is still scattered and relatively sparse through much of the project area, including along Harbor Boulevard. Ten square blocks that appear to be residential development are west and south of Willowick Golf Club. The Pacific Electric railroad track remains in the northeast portion. • 1965 Newport Beach and Anaheim quadrangles, scale (each) 1:24,000 (2.65 inches per mile): Much of the project area is now shown as urbanized, especially the part east of Harbor Boulevard. No agricultural use is shown onsite, although there are small areas of agricultural use offsite near the east and north project area boundaries. Much of the project area west of Harbor Boulevard is shown as vacant. The Garden Grove Municipal Golf Course and several radio towers are shown where the Willowick Golf Club was shown in 1949. Cultural Resources A cultural records search was completed at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at California State University, Fullerton, on May 1, 2013. The project area and a 0.5 mile radius surrounding the project area was searched. Archaeological Resources No archaeological sites or isolates,3 either historic or prehistoric, have been identified onsite or within 0.5 mile of the project area (SCCIC 2013). Most of the project area has not been previously surveyed for cultural resources. The SCCIC contains records submitted by archaeologists and historians from previous cultural, historic, and historic architectural investigations. Therefore, the lack of records for the project area does not mean there are no cultural resources onsite and the archaeological sensitivity of the site is unknown. One recorded prehistoric archaeological site in the City is mentioned in the City's General Plan Land Use Element. The site is near Santiago Creek in the northwestern part of the City, the confluence of Santiago Creek and the Santa Ana River is approximately two miles east - northeast of the north end of the project area. The Acjachemen Quanefio) people, whose traditional tribal territory is in southern Orange County, were 2 The Pacific Electric Railway was an electric interurban trolley system in southern California. 3 An archaeological site is the location of a significant event, a prehistoric or historic occupation or activity, or a building or structure, whether standing, ruined, or vanished, where the location itself possesses historic, cultural, or archaeological value regardless of the value of any existing structure (OHP 1995). An isolate is fewer than three isolated artifacts; and does not contain enough associated artifacts to form an archaeological site. Isolates are not considered cultural resources, but are used in detemtirring sensitivity for archaeological resources. October 2014 Page 5.3 5 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis CULTURAL RESOURCES known to place their villages generally near permanent water sources (Cogstone 2013). The southeast edge of the project area is along the Santa Ana River. Paleontological Resources No vertebrate fossil localities within the project area boundaries are contained in the vertebrate paleontology records of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (NHM 2013). Surface sediments in and near the entire project area are made up of younger terrestrial Quaternary Alluvium, mainly flood deposits from the Santa Ana River that flows next to the east project site boundary, with older terrestrial Quaternary sediments occurring at various depths. These surface deposits typically do not contain significant vertebrate fossils, at least in the uppermost layers; however, one vertebrate fossil locality, LACM 1652, from these deposits on the western side of the Santa Ana River, north - northeast of the project area along Rio Vista Avenue south of Lincoln Avenue,4 produced a fossil specimen of sheep, Otis, at shallow but unstated depth. The closest vertebrate fossil locality in older Quaternary sediments is LACM 4943, north - northeast of the proposed project area and situated almost due east of locality LACM 1652 along Fletcher Avenue east of Glassell Streets LACM 4943 is somewhat higher in elevation than the project area, but produced fossil horse, Equus, at a depth of 8-10 feet below the surface. 5.3.2 Thresholds of Significance CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 provides direction on determining significance of impacts to archaeological and historical resources. Generally, a resource shall be considered "historically significant" if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code Section 5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852), including the following: • Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage; • Is associated the with lives of persons important in our past; • Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or • Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or is not included in a local register of historical resources, does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be a historical resource. According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: ° The intersection of Lincoln Avenue and Rio Vista Avenue is approximately 5.8 miles north - northeast of the project site. s The intersection of Fletcher Avenue and Glassell Street is approximately 5.8 miles northeast of the project site. Page 5.36 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis CULTURAL RESOURCES C -1 Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5. C -2 Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5. C -3 Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. CA Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. The Initial Study, included as Appendix A, substantiates that impacts associated with the following thresholds would be less than significant: C -1 and C -4. These impacts will not be addressed in the following analysis. 5.3.3 Environmental Impacts The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study disclosed potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement. Impact 5.3 -1: Future development that would be accommodated by the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan could impact unknown archeological and/or paleontological resources. [Threshold C -2 and C -31 Impact Analysis: The project area is in a highly urbanized, built -out portion of the City and is developed with a mix of commercial and residential uses. The project area also contains the Willowick Golf Course (an operating 18 -hole public golf course), Cesar Chavez /Campesmo Park, and Santa Anita Park. Existing uses are shown in Figure 3 -3, Aerial Photograph. Land uses surrounding the project area include a mix of residential uses, which vary widely in character and density and include single - family neighborhoods, apartment complexes, and mobile home communities. Long -term implementation of the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan would allow development (e.g., infill development, redevelopment, revitalization /restoration, and roadway improvements) within the project area, including grading, of unknown sensitive areas. Following is a discussion of potential impacts on archeological and paleontological resources as a result of project implementation. Archeological Resources Archeological resources are the physical remains and traces of past human activity such as artifacts, residues, and built features. No archaeological sites or isolates, either historic or prehistoric, have been identified onsite or within 0.5 mile of the project area (SCCIC). Additionally, the project area has no inherent cultural significance. Furthermore, the majority of the project area is in a highly urbanized, built out portion of the City and has been heavily disturbed over the years. Since the majority of the project area has been previously disturbed by grading and construction, it is unlikely that any subsurface archaeological resources currently exist that could be impacted by ground disturbing activities of future development projects accommodated by the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan. October 2014 Page 5.3 -7 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis CULTURAL RESOURCES However, while unlikely, the presence of subsurface archaeological resources in the project area remains possible. The project area is in a region sensitive for prehistoric archaeological resources. One recorded prehistoric archaeological site in the City is mentioned in the City's General Plan Land Use Element. The site is near Santiago Creek in the northwestern part of the City, the confluence of Santiago Creek and the Santa Ana River is approximately two miles east - northeast of the north end of the project area. The southeast edge of the project area is along the Santa Ana River. Additionally, most of the project area has not been previously surveyed for cultural resources. Therefore, the lack of records for the project area does not mean that there are no cultural resources onsite and the archaeological sensitivity of the site is unknown. Furthermore, grading and construction activities of undeveloped areas or redevelopment that requires greater depth of soil excavation than in the past could potentially disturb unknown archeological resources. Therefore, future development accommodated by the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan could potentially unearth previously unrecorded archeological resources. Archaeological sites are protected by a wide variety of state policies and regulations under the California Public Resources Code. Cultural and paleontological resources are also recognized as nonrenewable and therefore receive protection under the California Public Resources Code and CEQA. Review and protection of archaeological resources is also afforded by CEQA for individual development projects subject to discretionary actions that are implemented m accordance with the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan. In the event of an unanticipated discovery of archaeological resources during grading and excavation of a development site under the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan, a qualified archaeologist would assess the find and develop a course of action to preserve the find. Since grading may result in the unanticipated discovery of archaeological resources, impacts are significant. Sacred Lands File Search Furthermore, the NAHC performed a Sacred Lands File search of the project area on June 3, 2013. Native American cultural resources were not identified within the City limits (sce NAHC comment letter in Appendix D). Paleontological Resources No vertebrate fossil localities within the project area boundaries are in the vertebrate paleontology records of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (NHM 2013). Additionally, the majority of the project area is in a highly urbanized, built out portion of the City and has been heavily disturbed over the years. Since the majority of the project area has been previously disturbed by grading and construction, it is unlikely that any subsurface paleontological resources currently exist that could be impacted by ground disturbing activities of future development projects accommodated by the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan. However, while unlikely, the presence of subsurface paleontological resources in the project area remains possible. Two vertebrate fossil localities, LACM 1652 and LACM 4943, were identified in the project vicinity. Additionally, grading and construction activities of undeveloped areas or redevelopment that requires greater depth of soil excavation than in the past could potentially cause the disturbance of unknown paleontological resources. Excavations deeper than approximately six feet below ground surface may encounter significant Page 5.3-% PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis CULTURAL RESOURCES vertebrate fossils in older Quaternary sediments. Grading or shallow excavations at lesser depths in the younger Quaternary alluvial sediments onsite are unlikely to uncover significant fossil vertebrate remains. Therefore, future development accommodated by the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan that requires grading six feet below ground surface could potentially unearth previously unrecorded paleontological resources and result in a significant impact. Tribal Consultation In accordance with SB 18, the City of Santa Ana sent a written request to NAHC on June 13, 2013, requesting a list of tribes to consult that could be affected by implementation of the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan. NAHC responded on June 19 with a Native American Tribal Consultation list of eight representatives from six tribes with traditional lands or cultural places associated with the project area that should be consulted during the project review process. The City sent invitation letters to representatives of these six tribes on June 27 formally inviting them to consult with the City during the project review process. The intent of the consultation was to provide an opportunity for interested tribes to work together with the City during the project planning process to identify and protect tribal cultural resources. To date, none of the tribes have submitted formal requests for consultation. 5.3.4 Cumulative Impacts Implementation of the proposed project in conjunction with other planned projects in the City of Santa Ana, in accordance with the City's General Plan (see Section 4.4, Assump ions Regarding Cumulative lVacts), could result in cumulative impacts to cultural resources. Development or redevelopment activities in other areas of the City in accordance with the City's General Plan could unearth unknown significant cultural resources. The potential for impacts to cultural resources from other cumulative projects is unknown, but likely similar to those of the proposed project. Destruction of significant cultural resources from one or more of the cumulative projects could constitute a significant cumulative impact. However, similar to the proposed project, other development projects would be required to undergo additional discretionary review and would be subject to the same resource protection requirements and CEQA review as the proposed project. For example, other development projects would require some degree of ground disturbing monitoring, which would minimize the potential to disturb significant cultural resources. If cultural resources were found, they would be addressed through the necessary testing, archiving, and recovery prior to development of the site. Neither the proposed project nor other cumulative development are expected to result in significant impacts to cultural resources provided that site - specific surveys and test and evaluation excavations are conducted, as necessary, to determine whether the resources are unique cultural resources, and appropriate mitigation is implemented, including, but not limited to, compliance with existing requirements. Additionally, the proposed project has incorporated mitigation that would reduce the potential for the project to contribute to cumulative impacts to cultural resources. Therefore, the proposed project's contribution to cumulative impacts to cultural resources would be less than significant and less than cumulatively considerable. October 2014 Page 5.3 -9 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis CULTURAL RESOURCES 5.3.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions ■ California Public Resources Code Sections 5020 - 5029.5; 5079 - 5079.65; 5097.9 - 5097.998; 5097.98 • Tribal Consultation under Senate Bill 18 5.3.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Without mitigation, the following impact would be potentially significant: ■ Impact 5.3 -1 Project implementation could impact unknown archeological and /or paleontological resources in the project area. 5.3.7 Mitigation Measures 3 -1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, and for any subsequent permit involving excavation to increased depth, the project applicant for each development or redevelopment project considered for approval pursuant to the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan shall provide letters to the City of Santa Ana from a qualified archaeologist and paleontologist (for excavations six feet below ground surface and deeper) who meet the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards. The letters shall state that the project applicant has retained these individuals, and that the consultant(s) will be on call during all grading and other significant ground - disturbing activities. In the event archeological or paleontological resources are discovered during ground disturbing activities, the professional archeological or paleontological monitor shall have the authority to halt any activities adversely impacting potentially significant cultural resources until they can be formally evaluated. Suspension of ground disturbances in the vicinity of the discoveries shall not be lifted until the archaeological or paleontological monitor, in coordination with the construction contractor, has evaluated discoveries to assess whether they are significant cultural resources, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA. If significance criteria are met, then the project shall be required to perform data recovery, professional identification, radiocarbon dates as applicable, and other special studies; they shall be offered for curation or preservation to a repository with a retrievable collection system and an educational and research interest in the materials, such as the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History or California State University, Fullerton, or other local museum or repository. If no museum or repository is willing to accept the resource, the resource shall be considered the property of the City, and may be stored, disposed of, transferred, exchanged, or otherwise handled by the City at its discretion. 5.3.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation Adherence to regulatory requirements and implementation of the mitigation measure outlined above would reduce the potential impacts to cultural resources to less than significant levels. Therefore, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts relating to cultural resources would result from project implementation. Page 5.3 -10 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis CULTURAL RESOURCES 5.3.9 References Cogstone, Inc. 2013, May. Archaeological Assessment for the Warner Avenue from Main Street to Grand Avenue Widening Project. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (NHN1). 2013, May 23. Vertebrate Paleontology Records Search. South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton (SCCIC). 2013, May 1. Cultural Records Search and Historical Resources Inventory. United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2013. Topovicwc http: / /ngmdb.usgs.gov /maps /TopoView /. US Geological Survey (USGS). 2006. Geologic Map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30'X 60' Quadrangles, California. http://pubs.usgs.gov /of/ 2006 /1217/of2006- 1217_map /of2006- 1217 —geo1_map.pdf. October 2014 Page 5.3 -11 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis CULTURAL RESOURCES Tbispage is intentionally le, ft blank. Page 5.3 -12 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis 5.4 GEOLOGY AND SOILS This section of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) evaluates the potential for implementation of the Harbor Corridor Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan to impact geological and soil resources in the City of Santa Ana and to be impacted by geological and soils conditions in the project area. 5.4.1 Environmental Setting Regulatory Setting State, regional, and local laws, regulations, plans, or guidelines related to geology and soils that are potentially applicable to the proposed project are summarized below. State California Alqurst -Paolo Earthquake FaultZonrngAct The Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was signed into state law in 1972, and amended, with its primary purpose being to mitigate the hazard of fault rupture by prohibiting the location of structures for human occupancy across the trace of an active fault. The act requires the State Geologist to delineate "earthquake fault zones" along faults that are "sufficiently active" and "well defined." The act also requires that cities and counties withhold development permits for sites within an earthquake fault zone until geologic investigations demonstrate that the sites are not threatened by surface displacement from future faulting. Pursuant to this act, structures for human occupancy are not allowed within 50 feet of the trace of an active fault. Seismic Hazard Mapping Act The Seismic Hazard Mapping Act (SHMA) was adopted by the state in 1990 for the purpose of protecting the public from the effects of nonsurface fault rupture earthquake hazards, including strong ground shaking, liquefaction, seismically induced landslides, or other ground failure caused by earthquakes. The goal of the SHMA is to minimize loss of life and property by identifying and mitigating seismic hazards. The California Geological Survey (CGS) prepares and provides local governments with seismic hazard zones maps that identify areas susceptible to amplified shaking, liquefaction, earthquake - induced landslides, and other ground failures. California Building Code Current law states that every local agency enforcing building regulations, such as cities and counties, must adopt the provisions of the California Building Code (CBC) within 180 days of its publication. The publication date of the CBC is established by the California Building Standards Commission and the code is also known as Title 24, Part 2, of the California Code of Regulations. The most recent building standard adopted by the legislature and used throughout the state is the 2010 version of the CBC, often with local, more restrictive amendments that are based on local geographic, topographic, or climatic conditions. These codes provide minimum standards to protect property and public safety by regulating the design and October 2014 Page 5.4 -1 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis GEOLOGY AND SOILS construction of excavations, foundations, building frames, retaining walls, and other building elements to mitigate the effects of seismic shaking and adverse soil conditions. The procedures and limitations for the design of structures are based on site characteristics, occupancy type, configuration, structural system height, and the strength of ground motion with specified probability of occurring at the site. Requirements for GeotecbnicalInnestigations Requirements for geotechnical investigations are included in CBC Appendix J, Section J104 (Engineered Grading Requirements). As outlined in Section J104, applications for a grading permit are required to be accompanied by plans, specifications, and supporting data consisting of a soils engineering report and engineering geology report. Additional requirements for subdivisions requiring tentative and final maps and for other specified types of structures are contained in California Health and Safety Code Sections 17953 to 17955 and in Section 1802 of the 2010 CBC. Testing of samples from subsurface investigations is required, such as from borings or test pits. Studies must be done as needed to evaluate slope stability, soil strength, position and adequacy of load hearing soils, the effect of moisture variation on load hearing capacity, compressibility, liquefaction, differential settlement, and expansiveness. City of Santa Ana The City of Santa Ana adopted the most recent CBC by reference, with certain amendments, into Chapter 8 (Buildings and Structures), Article 2 (Building Code), of the City's Municipal Code. Geologic Setting Regional Setting The project area is in the Los Angeles Basin, a coastal plain consisting of thick layers of sediment deposited by local rivers and with a slight south -to- southwest slope. The Los Angeles Basin, in turn, is in the northwestern end of the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province, a region of northwest trending mountains and valleys in southwestern California and extending south into Mexico. Project Area The project area is underlain by young alluvial fm deposits, designated Qyfa and Qyfsa on Figure 5.4 -1, Geologic Map. These materials are unconsolidated to moderately consolidated silt, sand, pebbly cobbly sand, and bouldery alluvial -fan deposits having slightly to moderately dissected surfaces, and are of Holocene and late Pleistocene age (USGS 2006). The Holocene Epoch extends from the present to approximately 11,500 years before present (ybp); the Pleistocene Epoch extends from about 11,500 ybp to approximately 1.8 million ybp. Elevations in the project area range from approximately 90 feet above mean sea level (amsl) along the northeastern boundary to approximately 60 feet amsl along the southwestern boundary. The project area has a southwest slope of approximately 0.3 percent. Groundwater The project area is above the Main Orange County Groundwater Basin. Groundwater contours under the project area in June 2011 were approximately at mean sea level near the northern end and approximately 10 Page 5.4 -2 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis GEOLOGY AND SOILS feet below sea level near the southern end (OCWD 2011). Therefore, depth to groundwater under the project area is estimated at approximately 90 feet near the northern end and approximately 70 feet near the southern end. Geologic Hazards Seismic Hazards: Faults and Ground Shaking A fault is a break or fracture between moving blocks of rock. Faults showing evidence of surface displacement within about the last 11,000 years are considered active. MeasuEng Earthquakes Energy Released. The energy released by an earthquake is measured as moment magnitude (Mw). The moment magnitude scale is logarithmic; therefore, each one -point increase in magnitude represents a tenfold increase in amplitude of the waves and a 32 -fold increase in energy. That is, a magnitude 7 earthquake produces 100 times (10 x 10) the ground motion amplitude of a magnitude 5 earthquake. Ground Motion. Motion at the ground surface during an earthquake is measured as horizontal ground acceleration in g, where g is the acceleration of gravity. Effects on Buildings and Peoples' Sensations. The Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) Scale is a qualitative scale of how earthquakes are felt by people and how they affect buildings. The MMI is a 12 -point scale ranging from Intensity I, which is rarely felt by people, to Intensity XII, in which damage to structures is total and objects are thrown into the air (USGS 2012). In California, the estimated relationship between peak ground acceleration and MMI intensity is shown in Table 5.41. Table 5.4 -1 Estimated Relationship between Peak Ground Acceleration and Intensitv Peak Ground Acceleration, g MMI Effects 0.039 -0.092 V Felt by nearly everyone; many awakened. Some dishes, windows broken. Unstable objects overturned. Pendulum clacks may stop. 0.092 -0.18 VI Felt by all, many frightened. Some heavy furniture moved, a few instances of fallen plaster. Damage slight. Damage negligible in buildings of good design and construction, slight to moderate in well - 0.18-0.34 VII built ordinary structures; considerable damage in poorly built or badly designed structures, some chimneys broken. Damage slight in specially designed structures; considerable damage in ordinary 0.34 -0.65 VIII substantial buildings with partial collapse. Damage great in poorly built structures. Fall of chimneys, factory stacks, columns, monuments, walls. Heavy furniture overturned. Damage considerable in specially designed structures; well -designed frame structures 0.65 -1.24 IX thrown out of plumb. Damage great in substantial buildings, with partial collapse. Buildings shifted off foundations. MMI X: Some well -built wooden structures destroyed, most masonry and frame structures >1.24 X+ destroyed with foundations. Rails bent. MMI XII: Damage total. Lines of sight and level are distorted. Objects thrown into the air. Source: Wald 1999. Notes: a = acceleration of aravity. October 2014 Page 5.4 -3 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis GEOLOGY AND SOILS Faults The nearest mapped active fault to the project area is the Newport Inglewood Fault in Huntington Beach, approximately 6.2 miles southwest of the project area. Other active faults in the region include the Whittier Fault, approximately 12.9 miles to the north; the Chino Fault, approximately 19.5 miles to the northeast; and the Palos Verdes Fault Zone, approximately 17 miles southwest offshore in the Pacific Ocean (CGS 2013; see Figure 5.42, Fault Mali). An uncertain location of an unnamed fault, not classified as active, crosses Harbor Boulevard northwest southeast approximately 0.2 mile south of the southern project boundary. A second uncertain location of an unnamed fault, also not classified as active, extends north south approximately 0.9 mile west of the segment of Harbor Boulevard in the project area (see Figure 5.41, Geolog*Map). Historical Earthquakes in the Region Historical earthquakes that caused substantial ground shaking in the region include: • Wrightwood Earthquake of 1812 (magnitude 7.5 [estimated]; San Andreas [probable]); • Elsinore Earthquake of 1910 (magnitude 6, Elsinore Fault) • San Jacinto Earthquake of 1918 (magnitude 6.8, San Jacinto Fault) • North San Jacinto Fault Earthquake of 1923 (magnitude 6.3, San Jacinto Fault) • Long Beach Earthquake of 1933 (magnitude 6.4; Newport Inglewood Fault); • San Fernando Earthquake of 1971 (magnitude 6.6, San Fernando Fault) • Landers Earthquake of 1992 (magnitude 7.3; several faults); • Northridge Earthquake of 1994 (magnitude 6.7; Northridge Thrust) (SCEDC 2013). Ground Shaking Ground shaking in the project area with a 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years, that is, an average return period of 475 years, is estimated between 0.3 g and 0.4 g where g is the acceleration of gravity. That intensity corresponds to intensity VII to VIII on the MMI scale. Liquefaction Liquefaction is a loss of strength and stiffness in soil due to ground shaking; it typically occurs within 50 feet of the surface, in saturated, loose, fine- to medium grained sandy to silty soils. Liquefaction can substantially damage structures and can cause structures to sink or tilt. Three conditions are needed for liquefaction: ground shaking with acceleration of about 0.2 g or greater; loose, unconsolidated sediments; and saturated soil within approximately 50 feet of the surface. The entire project area is in a zone of required investigation for liquefaction designated by the California Geological Survey (CGS 1998x, 1998b). Most of the project area is also mapped as an area of potential liquefaction in Exhibit 5, Potential Liquefaction Areas, of the City's General Plan. Page 5.44 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA Figure 5.4 -1 Geologic Map 5. Environmental Analysis fs a - ,II n Qyfsa. {r ■ R Westmins er Ave Z 1 I a Hazard Ave ,L I I ■ j " �— • y fs FT- stst _ r I � ■ --M FaddervAve . je ■ Glo{,iriia Av i o ;r' '4ve 1 ■ 9 Harbor Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan ® Conventional Zoning Basemap Source: USGS 2006 I ad (1 3 —T r- o as Scale (Miles) PlaceWorkr 3i. i �1 i h LLLL U) I QY a _ I ad (1 3 —T r- o as Scale (Miles) PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis GEOLOGY AND SOILS Tbisliage intentionally left blank. Page 5.46 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF SANTA ANA Figure 5.4 -2 Fault Map 5. Environmental Analysis 'A - ��" Heghts �� nap Satellite MyTapo Terrain RNera' 1 N <P'7) _ wnMIE. '�� RovAand v x i ,. + HPlyhls I,.' I - • �� ' On l nfelns , I TTFR —ti. rf ' 1 ate to Few • \` .431 Downey _ Ph,, Sou FA d �� Whitle'•�'3 La Habra \ /. m v Le Mirada Hre,t Nov S, '443 P MAl loel 'V�yy °��•.eT YoNal nda 91 Fullerton Placentia �/ \G`� 4O Lake otl 44 OQ y� ewaian 442 Anaheimt !;c sees : 9s. i:_ Orange \\\X t I h „-a Grove n� wetn`-' it Westinipster k ` Sez aes , Santa Ana.Tustin t Sill ) 5 , \Fq& V Ill \ \� tame PIDiect Site r f Orsnge,` 'Gmintg Airpotl , Irvine is Lake Fora51 a � I \\ Beach \ II emir `.,Z \ \ O��h 3'12l% i I �- I:�JEO rr • • r,' i \ I `Niguel Fault along which historic (last 200 years) displacement has occurred Holocene fault displacement (during past 11,700 years) without historic record Late Quaternary fault displacement Quaternary fault (age undifferentiated; Quaternary Period extends from the present to 1.6 million years before present) --------- - -=A-- Pre - Quaternary Harbor Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan Basemap Source: CGS 2011 6Ee Mlsslo Vleto \ T '1 q`a ahc Sanh l Margarita i i r r� �fl 1 S,e,J ,- �aois'aw ,O p NOTE. Fault traces on land are indicated by solid lines where well lo- cated, by dashed lines where approximately located or inferred, and by dotted lines where concealed by younger rocks or by lakes orbays. 0 6 Scale (Miles) PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis GEOLOGY AND SOILS Tbisliage intenbonaly kft blank. Page 5.4-% PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis GEOLOGY AND SOILS Other Geologic Hazards Ground Subsidence Land subsidence due to groundwater withdrawal is common in groundwater basins. Subsidence of approximately 0.5 inches per year near Santa Ana was observed between 1993 and 1999, coinciding with a period of net water withdrawal in the region. However, there has been no indication that the land surface changes caused, or are likely to cause, any structural damage in the area. The potential for problematic land subsidence is reduced by maintaining groundwater levels and basin storage within its historical operating range. In the event that land subsidence becomes a problem in a localized area, the Orange County Water District would work with local officials to investigate and remediate the problem (OCWD 2009). Expansive Sails Expansive soils contain certain types of clay minerals that shrink or swell as the moisture content changes; the shrinking or swelling can shift, crack, or break structures built on such soils. Arid or semiarid areas with seasonal changes of soil moisture experience a much higher frequency of problems from expansive soils than areas with higher rainfall and more constant soil moisture (COGS 2011). The City of Santa Ana is in a semiarid region with marked seasonal changes in precipitation: most rain falls in winter, and there is a long dry season in summer and autumn. Therefore, Santa Ana's climate is such that a relatively high incidence of soil expansion is expected where soils contain the requisite clay minerals. Collapsible Sails Collapsible soils shrink upon being wetted, being subject to a load, or under both conditions. 5.4.2 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: G -1 Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault. (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42) u) Strong seismic ground shaking. iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction. iv) Landslides. G -2 Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. October 2014 Page 5.4 -9 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis GEOLOGY AND SOILS G -3 Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- or off site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. G -4 Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1B of the Uniform building Code (1994, creating substantial risks to life or property. G -5 Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water. The Initial Study, included as Appendix A, substantiates that impacts associated with the following thresholds would be less than significant: G -l.i, G -l.iv, G -2, and G -5. These impacts will not be addressed in the following analysis. 5.4.3 Environmental Impacts The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study disclosed potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement. Impact 5.4 -1: Future development in accordance with the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan would not subject people and structures to substantial adverse hazards from ground shaking. [Threshold G -1.ii] ImpactAnalrus: Buildout of the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan would add residents, employees, and development intensity within the project area. The project area is in a seismically active region; faults and historic earthquakes in the region are described above in the Geologic Hazards discussion of Section 5.41, Envimnmental Setting. Therefore, project implementation could subject people and structures to hazards from ground shaking. However, seismic shaking is a risk throughout southern California, and the project area is not at greater risk of seismic activity or impacts than other areas. Additionally, the state regulates development in California through a variety of tools that reduce hazards from earthquakes and other geologic hazards. The 2010 California Building Code has provisions to safeguard against major structural failures or loss of life caused by earthquakes or other geologic hazards. The City of Santa Ana has adopted by reference the most recent version of the CBC into its municipal code. Projects considered for approval under the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan would be required to adhere to the provisions of the CBC, which are imposed on project developments by the City during the building plan check and development review process. For example, Chapter 16 of the CBC contains requirements for design and construction of structures to resist loads, including earthquake loads. Compliance with the requirements of the CBC for structural safety during a seismic event would reduce hazards from strong seismic ground shaking. Individual development projects that would be accommodated under the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan would also be required to have a geotechnical investigation conducted of the site. Requirements for geotechmcal investigations are included in CBC Appendix J, Section J104. Applications for Page 5.4 -10 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis GEOLOGY AND SOILS a grading permit must be accompanied by plans, specifications, a soils engineering report, and engineering geology report. The geotechnical investigation would be required to calculate seismic design parameters for the project specific to the site and land use type, which would be implemented in the design of the proposed structures. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Impact 5.4 -2: Future development in accordance with the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan would not expose people and structures to substantial adverse hazards from liquefaction or other seismic - related ground failure. [Threshold G- 1.iii] lmpactAnalysis: The entire project area is in a zone of required investigation for liquefaction designated by the California Geological Survey (CGS 1998a; CGS 1998b). Most of the project area is also mapped as an area of potential liquefaction in Exhibit 5, Potential Liquefaction Areas, of the City's General Plan. Therefore, future development in accordance with the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan could subject people and structures to hazards from liquefaction. However, while the project area is within a liquefaction zone, individual development projects considered for approval under the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan would be required to adhere to existing building and grading codes, including Chapter 8 (Buildings and Structures), Article 2 (Building Code) of the City's Municipal Code. These codes contain provisions for soil preparation to minimize hazards from liquefaction and other seismic related ground failures. Projects considered for approval under the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan would be required to adhere to the provisions of all applicable building and grading codes, which are imposed on project developments by the City during the building plan check and development review process. Compliance with the requirements of the applicable building and grading codes would reduce hazards arising from liquefaction. Additionally, as standard procedure by the City of Santa Ana, grading and soil compaction requires the preparation of site - specific grading plans, soils and geotechnical reports (which must address liquefaction and other potential soil stability hazards), and hydrology studies, must be submitted to and reviewed and approved by the City before any grading activities. Each geotechnical investigation report would have recommendations for site grading and engineering of fill soils to minimize hazards from liquefaction and other geologic hazards identified in that investigation. Submittal of these technical plans and studies would ensure that hazards from liquefaction and other seismic ground failure would not arise, since they would be prepared in accordance with grading and engineering standards outlined in the most current CBC. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Impact 5.4 -3: Project buildout would not expose people or structures to substantial hazards from ground subsidence, collapsible soils, and expansive soils. FThresholds G -3 and G -4] Impact Analysis: Ground subsidence is the settling or sinking of the ground. Natural conditions, such as seismic ground shaking, and human activities, such as groundwater extraction, can cause subsidence. There is no indication that land surface changes caused or are likely to cause, any structural damage in the City of Santa Ana. However, most of the project area is mapped as an area of potential subsidence in Exhibit 4, Potential Subsidence Areas, of the City's General Plan. Therefore, future development in accordance with the October 2014 Page S.¢77 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis GEOLOGY AND SOILS Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan could subject people and structures to hazards from subsidence. Collapsible soils are unlikely on developed land where soils were previously engineered and compacted to support development. Collapsible soils would be more likely on vacant land. The project area is highly urbanized, and the majority of the area is developed. Only a few sparsely scattered vacant lots exist, mostly north of 1st Street. Fine - grained soils, such as silts and clays, may contain variable amounts of expansive clay minerals that can undergo significant volume changes with changes in moisture content. The upward pressures induced by the swelling of expansive soils can have significant harmful effects on structures and other surface improvements. Expansive soils could be present within the project area. However, individual projects developed pursuant to the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan would be required to meet the most current requirements of the CBC. For example, Chapter 18 of the CBC has requirements for excavation, grading, and fill; load bearing values of soils; and foundations, footings, and piles. Compliance with these requirements would ensure that there would not be substantial impacts related to ground subsidence, collapsible soils, or expansive soils. Additionally, as standard procedure by the City of Santa Ana, grading and soil compaction requires the preparation of site specific grading plans, soils and geotechnical reports (which must address ground subsidence, collapsible soils, expansive soils, and other potential soil stability hazards), and hydrology studies, which must be submitted to and reviewed and approved by the City before any grading activities. Each geotechnical investigation report would have recommendations for site grading and engineering of fill soils to minimize hazards from ground subsidence, collapsible soils, expansive soils, and other geologic hazards identified in that investigation. Submittal of these technical plans and studies would ensure that hazards arising from these potential geologic hazards would not occur, because they would be prepared in accordance with grading and engineering standards outlined in the most current CBC. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 5.4.4 Cumulative Impacts Impacts relating to soils and geologic influences are site specific and generally cannot be considered in cumulative terms. Mitigation of geologic, seismic, and soil impacts of other cumulative development projects in accordance with the City's General Plan (see Section 4.4, Assump ions Begar&ng Cumulatim Imps ir) would also be specific to each site and based on geotechnical studies. Additionally, as with the proposed project, other development projects in the City would be subject to compliance with modern building standards, such as the CBC, that reduce geologic and seismic related risks. Furthermore, as standard procedure by the City of Santa Ana, grading and soil compaction requires the preparation of site - specific grading plans, soils and geotechnical reports (which must address ground subsidence, collapsible soils, expansive soils, and other potential soil stability hazards), and hydrology studies, which must be submitted to and reviewed and approved by the City before any grading activities. Therefore, no adverse cumulative impacts related to soils and geology are anticipated. In consideration of the preceding factors, the project's contribution to Page 5.4 -12 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis GEOLOGY AND SOILS cumulative geology and soils impacts would be Tendered less than considerable, and therefore less than cumulatively significant. 5.4.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions State • California Building Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 2) Local • City of Santa Ana Municipal Code, Chapter 8 (Buildings and Structures), Article 2 (Building Code) 5.4.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, the following impacts would be less than significant: Impacts 5.4 -1, 5.42, and 5.43. 5.4.7 Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. 5.4.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation Implementation of existing regulations and standard conditions identified above would reduce potential impacts associated with geology and soils to a level that is less than significant. Therefore, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts relating to geology and soils have been identified. 5.4.9 References California Geological Survey (CGS). 2013, May 29. 2010 Geologic Map of California. http: //w .. quake. ca. gov/ gmaps /GMC /stategeologi=ap.htrnl. . 1998a, April 15. Seismic Hazard Zones Map, Anaheim Quadrangle. http: / /gmw.consrv.ca.gov /shmp/ download/ quad /ANAHEIM /maps /ozn_mah.pdf. . 1998b, April 15. Seismic Hazard Zones Map, Newport Beach Quadrangle. http: / /gmw.consrv.ca.gov /shmp/ download/ quad /NEWPORT_BEACH /maps /ozn_newb.pdf. Colorado Geological Survey (COGS). 2011, April 28. Definition of Swelling Soils. http: / /geosurvey.state.co.us /hazards /Swelling %20Soils /Pages /Def"tion.aspx. Orange County Water District. 2011, December 20. Groundwater Elevation Contours for the Principal Aquifer. http: //w ..ocwd.com/ Portals /0 /Pdf /jme_WL2011L2.pdf. 2009, July 9. Ground Water Management Plan 2009 Update. http: //w ..ocwd.com /Portals /0 /News/ PubhcationsReports /GWMPJuly2009Update.pdf. October 2014 Page 5.4 -13 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis GEOLOGY AND SOILS Southern California Earthquake Data Center (SCEDC). 2013, May 14. Significant Earthquakes and Faults: Chronological Earthquake Index. http: //w ..data.scec.org /significant /chron- index.html. US Geological Survey (USGS). 2006. Geologic Map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30'X 60' Quadrangles, California. http: // pubs. usgs. gov /of/2006/1217/of2006- 1217_map/ 42006- 1217 —geo1_map.pdf. US Geological Survey (USGS). 2012, July 24. The Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/mercalh.php. Wald, David J., et al. 1999, August. Relationships Between Peak Ground Acceleration, Peak Ground Velocity, and Modified Mercalli Intensity in California. Earthquake Spectra 15 No. 3. Page 5.4 -14 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis 5.5 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS This section of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) evaluates the potential for the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan project (proposed project) to cumulatively contribute to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Because no single project is large enough to result in a measurable increase in global concentrations of GHG emissions, climate change impacts of a project are considered on a cumulative basis. The chapter evaluates consistency of the project with the strategies outlined in the California Air Resources Board's (CARB) Scoping Plan in accordance with the GHG reduction goals of Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) and strategies proposed by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VM'I) in the region, in accordance with Senate Bill 375 (SB 375). 5.5.1 Environmental Setting Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change Scientists have concluded that human activities are contributing to global climate change by adding large amounts of beat trapping gases, known as GHG, to the atmosphere. Climate change is the variation of earth's climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activities. The primary source of these GHG is fossil fuel use. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has identified four major GHG water vapor,' carbon (CO2), methane (CHa), and ozone (Oz) —that are the likely cause of an increase in global average temperatures observed within the 20th and 21st centuries. Other GHG identified by the IPCC that contribute to global warming to a lesser extent include nitrous oxide (N2O), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and chlorofluorocarbons (IPCC 2001).2 Table 5.5- 1 lists the GHG applicable to the proposed project and their relative global warming potentials (GWP) compared to CO2. The major GHGs are briefly described below. Carbon dioxide (CO2) enters the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal), solid waste, trees and wood products, and respiration, and also as a result of other chemical reactions (e.g., manufacture of cement). Carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere (sequestered) when it is absorbed by plants as part of the biological carbon cycle. I Water vapor (1120) is the strongest GHG and the most variable in its phases (vapor, cloud droplets, ice crystals). However, water vapor is not considered a pollutant 2 Black carbon contributes to climate change both directly, by absorbing sunligbt, and indirectly, by depositing on snow (making it melt faster) and by interacting with clouds and affecting cloud formation. Black carbon is the most strongly ligbt�xbsorbing component of particulate matter (PM) emitted from burning fuels such as coal, diesel, and biomass. Reducing black carbon emissions globally can have immediate economic, climate, and public bealth benefits. California has been an international leader in reducing emissions of black carbon, with close to 95 percent control expected by 2020 due to existing progouns that target reducing PM from diesel engines and burning activities (GARB 2013). October 2014 Page 5.5 -1 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Table 5.5 -1 GHG and Their Relative Global Warminq Potential Compared to CO2 GHG Atmospheric Lifetime ears Global Warming Potential Relative to CO21 Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 50 to 200 1 Methane (CH4)2 12 ( ±3) 21 Nitrous Oxide (N20) 120 310 Hydrofluorocarbons: HFC -23 264 11,700 HFC -32 5.6 650 HFC -125 32.6 2,800 HFC -134a 14.6 1,300 HFC -143a 48.3 3,800 HFC -152a 1.5 140 HFC -227ea 36.5 2,900 HFC -236fa 209 6,300 HFC -4310mee 17.1 1,300 Peduoromethane: CFa 50,000 6,500 Peduoroethane: 02F6 10,000 9,200 Peduorobutane: 04ho 2,600 7,000 Peduoro-2- methylpentane: 06F14 3,200 7,400 Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) 3,200 23,900 Source: IPCC 2001. ' Based on 100 -Year Time Horizon of the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of the air pollutant relative to CO2. 2 The methane GWP includes the direct effects and those indirect effects due to the production of tropospheric ozone and stratospheric water vapor. The indirect effect due to the production of CO2 is not included. Methane (CH4) is emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil. Methane emissions also result from livestock and other agricultural practices and from the decay of organic waste in municipal landfills and water treatment facilities. Nitrous oxide (N20) is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities as well as during combustion of fossil fuels and solid waste. Fluorinated gases are synthetic, strong GHGs that are emitted from a variety of industrial processes. Fluorinated gases are sometimes used as substitutes for ozone - depleting substances. These gases are typically emitted in smaller quantities, but they are potent GHGs, sometimes referred to as high GWP gases. ■ Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are GHGs covered under the 1987 Montreal Protocol and used for refrigeration, air conditioning, packaging, insulation, solvents, or aerosol propellants. Since they are not destroyed in the lower atmosphere (troposphere, stratosphere), CFCs drift into the upper atmosphere where, given suitable conditions, they break down ozone. These gases are also ozone - depleting gases and are therefore being replaced by other GHG compounds covered under the Kyoto Protocol. ■ Perfluomcorbons (PFCs) are a group of human made chemicals composed of carbon and fluorine only. These chemicals (predominantly perfluoromethane [CFa] and perfluoroethane [C2F6]) were Page 5.5 -2 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS introduced as alternatives, along with HFCs, to the ozone - depleting substances. In addition, PFCs are emitted as by- products of industrial processes and are also used in manufacturing. PFCs do not harm the stratospheric ozone layer, but they have a high global warming potential. ■ Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) is a colorless gas soluble in alcohol and ether, slightly soluble in water. SF6 is a strong GHG used primarily in electrical transmission and distribution systems as an insulator. ■ Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) contain hydrogen, fluorine, chlorine, and carbon atoms. Although ozone - depleting substances, they are less potent at destroying stratospheric ozone than CFCs. They have been introduced as temporary replacements for CFCs and are also GHGs. ■ Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) contain only hydrogen, fluorine, and carbon atoms. They were introduced as alternatives to ozone - depleting substances to serve many industrial, commercial, and personal needs. HFCs are emitted as by- products of industrial processes and are also used in manufacturing. They do not significantly deplete the stratospheric ozone layer, but they are strong GHGs (USEPA 2012, IPCC 2001). California's GHG Sources and Relative Contribution California is the second largest emitter of GHG in the United States, only surpassed by Texas, and the tenth largest GHG emitter in the world. However, California also has over 12 million more people than the state of Texas. Because of more stringent air emission regulations, in 2001 California ranked fourth lowest in carbon emissions per capita and fifth lowest among states in CO2 emissions from fossil fuel consumption per unit of Gross State Product (total economic output of goods and services) (CEC 2006a). CARB's latest update to the statewide GHG emissions inventory was conducted in 2012 for year 2009 emissions.3 In 2009, California produced 457 million metric tons (NMfCO2C) of CO2- equivalent (CO2C) GHG emissions? California's transportation sector is the single largest generator of GHG emissions, producing 37.9 percent of the state's total emissions. Electricity consumption is the second largest source, comprising 22.7 percent. Industrial activities are California's third largest source of GHG emissions, comprising 17.8 percent of the state's total emissions. Other major sources of GHG emissions include commercial and residential, recycling and waste, high global warming potential GHGs, agriculture, and forestry (CARB 2012a). Human Influence on Climate Change For approximately 1,000 years before the Industrial Revolution, the amount of GHG in the atmosphere remained relatively constant During the 20th century, however, scientists observed a rapid change in the climate and climate change pollutants that are attributable to human activities. The amount of CO2 bas 3 Methodology for determining the statewide GHG inventory is not the same as the methodology used to determine statewide GHG emissions under Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32). ° COrequivalence is used to show the relative potential that different GHGs have to retain infrared radiation in the atmosphere and contribute to the greenhouse effect. The global warming potential of a GHG is also dependent on the lifetime, or persistence, of the gas molecule in the atmosphere. October 2014 Page 5.5 3 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS increased by more than 35 percent since preindustrial times and has increased at an average rate of 1.4 parts per million (ppm) per year since 1960, mainly due to combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation (IPCC 2007). These recent changes in climate change pollutants far exceed the extremes of the ice ages, and the global mean temperature is warming at a rate that cannot be explained by natural causes alone. Human activities are directly altering the chemical composition of the atmosphere through the buildup of climate change pollutants (CAT 2006). Climate change scenarios are affected by varying degrees of uncertainty. IPCC's 2007 Fourth Assessment Report projects that the global mean temperature increase from 1990 to 2100, under different climate change scenarios, will range from 1.4 to 5.8 °C (2.5 to 10.4 °F). In the past, gradual changes in the earth's temperature changed the distribution of species, availability of water, etc. However, human activities are accelerating this process so that environmental impacts associated with climate change no longer occur in a geologic timeframe but within a human lifetime (CAT 2006). Potential Climate Change Impacts for California Like the variability in the projections of the expected increase in global surface temperatures, the environmental consequences of gradual changes in the Earth's temperature are also hard to predict. In California and western North America, observations of the climate have shown: 1) a trend toward warmer winter and spring temperatures, 2) a smaller fraction of precipitation is falling as snow, 3) a decrease in the amount of spring snow accumulation in the lower and middle elevation mountain zones, 4) an advance snowmelt of 5 to 30 days earlier in spring, and 5) a similar shift (5 to 30 days earlier) in the timing of spring flower blooms (CAT 2006). According to the California Climate Action Team (CAT), even if actions could be taken to immediately curtail climate change emissions, the potency of emissions that have already built up, their long atmospheric lifetimes (sce Table 5.5 -2), and the inertia of the Earth's climate system could produce as much as 0.6 °C (Ll °F) of additional warming. Consequently, some impacts from climate change are now considered unavoidable. Global climate change risks are shown in Table 5.5 -2 and include impacts to public health, water resources, agriculture, sea level, forest and biological resources, and electricity impacts. Specific climate change impacts that could affect the project include health impacts from a reduction in air quality, water resources impacts from a reduction in water supply, and increased energy demand. Page 5.54 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Table 5.5 -2 Summary of Global Climate Change Risks to California Impact Category Potential Risk Public Health Impacts Poor air quality made worse • More severe heat Water Resources Impacts Decreasing Sierra Nevada snow pack • Challenges in securing adequate water supply • Potential reduction in hydropower • Loss of winter recreation Agricultural Impacts Increasing temperature • Increasing threats from pests and pathogens • Expanded ranges of agricultural weeds • Declining productivity • Irregular blooms and harvests Coastal Sea Level Impacts Accelerated sea level rise • Increasing coastal floods • Shrinking beaches • Worsened impacts on infrastructure Forest and Biological Resource Impacts Increasing risk and severity of wildfires • Lengthening ofthe wildfire season • Movement of forest areas • Conversion of forest to grassland • Increasing threats from pest and pathogens • Declining forest productivity • Shifting vegetation and species distribution • Altered timing of migration and mating habits • Loss of sensitive or slow- moving species Electricity Potential reduction in hydropower • Increased energy demand Sources: CEC 2006a; CEC 2008. Regulatory Setting Regulation of GHG Emissions on a National Level The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced on December 7, 2009, that GHG emissions threaten the public health and welfare of the American people and that GHG emissions from on- road vehicles contribute to that threat. The EPNs final findings respond to the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision that GHG emissions fit within the Clean Air Act definition of air pollutants. The findings do not in and of themselves impose any emission reduction requirements, but allow the EPA to finalize the GHG standards proposed m 2009 for new light duty vehicles as part of the joint rulemaking with the Department of Transportation (EPA 2009). The EPNs endangerment finding covers emissions of six key GHGs ---- CO2, C114, N20, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and SFb which have been the subject of scrutiny and intense analysis for decades by scientists in the United States and around the world (the fast three are applicable to the proposed project). October 2014 Page 5.5 S HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS In response to the endangerment finding, the EPA issued the Mandatory Reporting of GHG Rule that requires substantial emitters of GHG emissions (large stationary sources, etc) to report GHG emissions data. Facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons (NITCO2e) or more per year are required to submit an annual report. Regulation of GHG Emissions on a State Level Current State of California guidance and goals for reductions in GHG emissions are generally embodied in Executive Order 5- 03 -05, Assembly Bill 32, and Senate Bill 375. Executive Order-S-03-05 Executive Order 5 -3 -05, signed June 1, 2005, set the following GHG reduction targets for the state: ■ 2000 levels by 2010 ■ 1990 levels by 2020 ■ 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 AssemblyBill32, the Global Warming Solutions Act (2006) Current State of California guidance and goals for reductions in GHG emissions are generally embodied in Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the Global Warming Solutions Act. AB 32 was passed by the California state legislature on August 31, 2006, to place the state on a course toward reducing its contribution of GHG emissions. AB 32 follows the 2020 tier of emissions reduction targets established in Executive Order 5 -3 -05. AB 32 directed CARB to adopt discrete early action measures to reduce GHG emissions and outline additional reduction measures to meet the 2020 target. Based on the GHG emissions inventory conducted for the Scoping Plan by CARB, GHG emissions in California by 2020 are anticipated to be approximately 596 XMITCOze. In December 2007, CARB approved a 2020 emissions limit of 427 NMITCOze (471 million tons) for the state. The 2020 target requires a total emissions reduction of 169 MMTCOZe, 28.5 percent from the projected emissions of the business -as -usual (BAU) scenario for the year 2020 (i.e., 28.5 percent of 596 XMITCOZe) (CARB 2008) 5. In order to effectively implement the emissions cap, AB 32 directed CARB to establish a mandatory reporting system to track and monitor GHG emissions levels for large stationary sources that generate more than 25,000 MT of COze per year, prepare a plan demonstrating how the 2020 deadline can be met, and develop appropriate regulations and programs to implement the plan by 2012. The Climate Action Registry Reporting Online Tool was established through the Climate Action Registry to track GHG emissions. CA BB 2008 Scoping Plan The final Scoping Plan was adopted by CARB on December 11, 2008. Key elements of CARB's GHG reduction plan that may be applicable to the proposed project include: s CARB defines BAU in its Scoping Plan as emissions levels that would occur if California continued to grow and add new GHG emissions but did not adopt any measures to reduce emissions. Projections for each emission generating sector were compiled and used to estimate emissions for 2020 based on 2002 -2004 emissions intensities. Under CARB's definition of BAU, new growth is assumed to have the same carbon intensities as was typical from 2002 through 2004. Page 5.56 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ■ Expanding and strengthening existing energy efficiency programs as well as building and appliance standards (adopted and cycle updates in progress). ■ Achieving a mix of 33 percent for energy generation from renewable sources (anticipated by 2029. ■ A California cap- and -trade program that links with other Western Climate Initiative (WCI) partner programs to create a regional market system for large stationary sources (adopted 2011). ■ Establishing targets for transportation related GHG emissions for regions throughout California, and pursuing policies and incentives to achieve those targets (several Sustainable Communities Strategies have been adopted. ■ Adopting and implementing measures pursuant to state laws and policies, including California's clean car standards (amendments to the Pavley Standards adopted 2009; Advanced Clean Car standard adopted 2012), goods movement measures, and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) (adopted 2009.6 ■ Creating target fees, including a public goods charge on water use, fees on high global warming potential gases, and a fee to fund the administrative costs of the state's long -term commitment to AB 32 implementation (in progress). While local government operations were not accounted for in achieving the 2020 emissions reduction, CARB estimates that land use changes implemented by local governments that integrate jobs, housing, and services result in a reduction of 5 MNffCO2e, which is approximately 3 percent of the 2020 GHG emissions reduction goal. In recognition of the critical role local governments play in the successful implementation of AB 32, CARB is recommending GHG reduction goals of 15 percent of today's levels by 2020 to ensure that municipal and community -wide emissions match the state's reduction target.? Measures that local governments take to support shifts in land use patterns are anticipated to emphasize compact, low impact growth over development in greenfields, resulting in fewer VM f (CARB 2008). 6 On December 29, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California issued several rulings in the federal lawsuits challenging the LCFS. One of the court's rulings preliminarily enjoins the CARB from enforcing the regulation during the pendency of the litigation. In January 2012, CARB appealed the decision and on April 23, 2012, the Ninth Circuit Court granted CARB's motion for a stay of the injunction while it continues to consider CARB's appeal of the lower court's decision. 7 Although the Scoping Plan references a goal for local governments to reduce community GHG emissions by 15 percent from current (interpreted as 2008) levels by 2020, it does not rely on local GHG reduction targets established by local governments to meet the state's GHG reduction target of AB 32 Table 5.6 -3 lists the recommended reduction measures, which do not include additional reductions from local measures. October 2014 Page 5.5 -7 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Table 5.5 -3 Scoping Plan GHG Reduction Measures and Reductions toward 2020 Target Recommended Reduction Measures Reductions Counted toward 2020 Target of 169 MMTCO2e Percentage of Statewide 2020 Target Cap and Trade Program and Associated Measures California Light -Duty Vehicle GHG Standards 31.7 19% Energy Efficiency 26.3 16% Renewable Portfolio Standard (33 percent by 2020) 21.3 13% Low Carbon Fuel Standard 15 9% Regional Transportation-Related GHG Targets' 5 3% Vehicle Efficiency Measures 4.5 3% Goods Movement 3.7 2% Million Solar Roofs 2.1 1% Medium/Heavy Duty Vehicles 1.4 1% High Speed Rail 1.0 1% Industrial Measures 0.3 0% Additional Reduction Necessary to Achieve Cap 34.4 20% Total Cap and Trade Program Reductions 146.7 87% Uncapped Sources/Sectors Measures High Global Warming Potential Gas Measures 20.2 12% Sustainable Forests 5 3% Industrial Measures (for sources not covered under cap and trade program) 1.1 1% Recycling and Waste (landfill methane capture) 1 1% Total Uncapped Sources/Sectors Reductions 27.3 16% Total Reductions Counted toward 2020 Target 174 100% Other Recommended Measures - Not Counted toward 2020 Target State Government Operations 1.0 to 2.0 1% Local Government Operations To Be Determined NA Green Buildings 26 15% Recycling and Waste 9 5% Water Sector Measures 4.8 3% Methane Capture at Large Dairies 1 1% Total Other Recommended Measures - Not Counted toward 2020 Target 42.8 NA Source: CARB 2008. Notes: The percentages in the right -hand column add up to more than 100 percent because the emissions reduction goal is 169 MMTCOze and the Scoping Plan identifies 174 MMTCOze of emissions reductions strategies. MMTCOze: million metric tons of COze ' Reductions represent an estimate of what may be achieved from local land use changes. It is not the SIB 375 regional target. 2 According to the Measure Documentation Supplement to the Scoping Plan, local government actions and targets are anticipated to reduce vehicle miles by approximately 2 percent through land use planning, resulting in a potential GHG reduction of 2 million metric tons of CO2, (or approximately 1.2 percent of the GHG reduction target). However, these reductions were not included in the Scoping Plan reductions to achieve the 2020 target. Scoping Plan Update Since release of the 2008 Scoping Plan, CARB has updated the statewide GHG emissions inventory to reflect GHG emissions in light of the economic downturn and of measures not previously considered in the 2008 Scoping Plan baseline inventory. The updated forecast predicts emissions to be 507 MNfl'CO2e by 2020. The Page 5.5-8 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS new inventory identifies that an estimated 80 MMTCO2C of reductions are necessary to achieve the statewide emissions reduction of AB 32 by 2020, 15.7 percent of the projected emissions compared to BAU in year 2020 (i.e., 15.7 percent of 507 MMTCO2C) (CARB 2012b). CARB is in the process of completing a five -year update to the 2008 Scoping Plan, as required by AB 32. A discussion draft of the 2013 Scoping Plan was released on October 1, 2013. The 2013 Scoping Plan update defines CARB's climate change priorities for the next five years and lays the groundwork to reach post 2020 goals in Executive Orders 5 -3 -05 and B -16 -2012. The update includes the latest scientific findings related to climate change and its impacts, including short -lived climate pollutants. The GHG target identified in the 2008 Scoping Plan is based on IPCC's GWPs identified in the Second and Thud Assessment Reports. IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report identified more recent GWP values based on the latest available science. CARB recalculated the 1990 GHG emission levels with these updated GWPs, and the 427 MMTCO2e 1990 emissions level and 2020 GHG emissions limit, established in response to AB 32, is slightly higher, at 431 MMTCO2C (CARB 2013). The 2013 update highlights California's progress toward meeting the near term 2020 GHG emission reduction goals defined in the original 2008 Scoping Plan. As identified in the 2013 Scoping Plan update, California is on track to meeting the goals of AB 32. However, the 2013 Scoping Plan also addresses the state's longer -term GHG goals within a post 2020 element. The post 2020 element provides a high level view of a long -term strategy for meeting the 2050 GHG goals, including a recommendation for the state to adopt a midterm target. According to the 2013 Scoping Plan update, reducing emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels will require a fundamental shift to efficient, clean energy in every sector of the economy. Progressing toward California's 2050 climate targets will require significant acceleration of GHG reduction rates. Emissions from 2020 to 2050 will have to decline several times faster than the rate needed to reach the 2020 emissions limit (CARB 2013). Senate Bi11375 Senate Bill 375. In 2008, SB 375 was adopted to achieve the GHG reduction targets in the Scoping Plan for the transportation sector through local land use decisions that affect travel behavior. Implementation is intended to reduce VMf and GHG emissions from light duty trucks and automobiles (excludes emissions associated with goods movement) by aligning regional long -range transportation plans, investments, and housing allocations with local land use planning. Specifically, SB 375 requires CARB to establish GHG emissions reduction targets for each of the 17 regions in California managed by a metropolitan planning organization (MPO). Pursuant to the recommendations of the Regional Transportation Advisory Committee, CARB adopted per capita reduction targets for each of the MPOs rather than a total magnitude reduction target. SCAG is the MPO for the southern California region, which includes the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, and Imperial. SCAG's targets are an 8 percent per capita reduction from 2005 GHG emission levels by 2020 and a 13 percent per capita reduction from 2005 GHG emission levels by 2035. The 2020 targets are smaller than the 2035 targets because a significant portion of the built environment in 2020 has been defined by decisions that have already been made. In general, the 2020 scenarios reflect that more time is needed for large land use and transportation infrastructure changes. Most of the reductions in October 2014 Page 5.5 -9 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS the interim are anticipated to come from improving the efficiency of the region's existing transportation network. The targets would result in 3 MMTCO2e of GHG reductions by 2020 and 15 MMTCO2e of GHG reductions by 2035. Based on these reductions, the passenger vehicle target in CARB's Scoping Plan (for AB 32) would be met (CARB 2010). SB 375 requires the MPOs to prepare a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) in their regional transportation plan. For the SCAG region, the SCS was adopted April 2012 (SCAG 2012). The SCS establishes a development pattern for the region, which, when integrated with the transportation network and other transportation measures and policies, would reduce GHG emissions from transportation (excluding goods movement). The SCS is meant to provide growth strategies that will achieve the regional GHG emissions reduction targets. The SCS does not require that local general plans, specific plans, or zoning be consistent with the SCS, but provides incentives for consistency for governments and developers. Assembly Bill 1493 California vehicle GHG emission standards were enacted under AB 1493 ( Pavley I). Pavley I is a clean-car standard that reduces GHG emissions from new passenger vehicles (light -duty auto to medium duty vehicles) from 2009 through 2016 and is anticipated to reduce GHG emissions from new passenger vehicles by 30 percent in 2016. California implements the Pavley I standards through a waiver granted to California by the EPA. In 2012, the EPA issued a Final Rulemaking that sets even more stringent fuel economy and GHG emissions standards for model year 2017 through 2025 light -duty vehicles. Executive Order S -01 -07 On January 18, 2007, the state set a new Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) for transportation fuels sold within the state. Executive Order S -1 -07 sets a declining standard for GHG emissions measured in CO2e gram per unit of fuel energy sold in California. The LCFS requires a reduction of 2.5 percent in the carbon intensity of California's transportation fuels by 2015 and a reduction of at least 10 percent by 2020. The LCFS applies to refiners, blenders, producers, and importers of transportation fuels and would use market based mechanisms to allow these providers to choose how they reduce emissions during the fuel cycle using the most economically feasible methods. Senate Bills 1078 and 107, and Excutive Order S -14 -08 A major component of California's Renewable Energy Program is the renewable portfolio standard (RPS) established under Senate Bills 1078 (Sher) and 107 (Simitim). Under the RPS, certain retail sellers of electricity were required to increase the amount of renewable energy each year by at least 1 percent in order to reach at least 20 percent by December 30, 2010. Executive Order S -14 -08 was signed in November 2008, which expands the state's renewable energy standard to 33 percent renewable power by 2020. In 2011, the state legislature adopted this higher standard in SBX1-2. Renewable sources of electricity include wind, small hydropower, solar, geothermal, biomass, and biogas. The increase in renewable sources for electricity production will decrease indirect GHG emissions from development projects, because electricity production from renewable sources is generally considered carbon neutral. Page 5.5 -10 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS California Building Code Energy conservation standards for new residential and nonresidential buildings were adopted by the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission in June 1977 and updated triannually (Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Title 24 requires the design of building shells and building components to conserve energy. The standards are updated periodically to allow for consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. On May 31, 2012, the California Energy Commission (CEC) adopted the 2013 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards, which go into effect on January 1, 2014. Buildings that are constructed in accordance with the 2013 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards are 25 percent (residential) to 30 percent (nonresidential) more energy efficient than the 2008 standards as a result of better windows, insulation, lighting, ventilation systems, and other features that reduce energy consumption in homes and businesses. On July 17, 2008, the California Building Standards Commission adopted the nation's first green building standards. The California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) was adopted as part of the California Building Standards Code (Part 11, Title 24, California Code of Regulations). CALGreen established planning and design standards for sustainable site development, energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code requirements), water conservation, material conservation, and internal air contammants.8 The mandatory provisions of the California Green Building Code Standards became effective January 1, 2011. 2006 Appliance Effzciencg Regulations The 2006 Appliance Efficiency Regulations (Title 20, CCR Sections 1601 through 1608) were adopted by the California Energy Commission on October 11, 2006, and approved by the California Office of Administrative Law on December 14, 2006. The regulations include standards for both federally regulated appliances and non - federally regulated appliances. Existing Setting The existing land uses within the boundaries of the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Corridor Transit Plan includes residential, retail, commercial, and light industrial land uses (see Table 5.1 -4). These land uses currently generate GHG emissions from mobile sources, natural gas and electricity use, generation of wastewater and solid waste, and from area sources such as household consumer products and landscaping equipment. 5.5.2 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: GHG -1 Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. a The green building standazds became mandatory in the 2010 edition of the code. October 2014 Page 5.5- 11 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS GHG -2 Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. South Coast Air Quality Management District SCAQMD has adopted a significance threshold of 10,000 metric tons (MTCO2C) per year for permitted (stationary) sources of GHG emissions for which SCAQMD is the designated lead agency. To provide guidance to local lead agencies on determining significance for GHG emissions in their CEQA documents, SCAQMD has convened a GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group (Working Group). Based on the last Working Group meeting (Meeting No. 15) in September 2010, SCAQMD is proposing to adopt a tiered approach for evaluating GHG emissions for development projects where SCAQMD is not the lead agency: ■ Tier 1. If a project is exempt from CEQA, project level and cumulative GHG emissions are less than significant. ■ Tier 2. If the project complies with a GHG emissions reduction plan or mitigation program that avoids or substantially reduces GHG emissions in the project's geographic area (i.e., city or county), project level and cumulative GHG emissions are less than significant. For projects that are not exempt or where no qualifying GHG reduction plans are directly applicable, SCAQMD requires an assessment of GHG emissions. SCAQMD is proposing a "bright line" screening level threshold of 3,000 MTCO2C annually for all land use types or the following land- use - specific thresholds: 1,400 MTCO2e for commercial projects, 3,500 MTCO2C for residential projects, or 3,000 MTCO2e for mixed use projects. This bright line threshold is based on a review of the Governor's Office of Planning and Research database of CEQA projects. Based on their review of 711 CEQA projects, 90 percent of CEQA projects would exceed the bright line thresholds identified above. Therefore, projects that do not exceed the bright line threshold would have a nominal, and therefore, less than cumulatively considerable impact on GHG emissions: ■ Tier 3. If GHG emissions are less than the screening level threshold, project level and cumulative GHG emissions are less than significant. ■ Tier 4. If emissions exceed the screening threshold, a more detailed review of the project's GHG emissions is warranted. SCAQMD has proposed an efficiency target for projects that exceed the screening threshold. The current recommended approach is per capita efficiency targets. SCAQMD is not recommending use of a percent emissions reduction target. Instead, SCAQMD proposes a 2020 efficiency target of 4.8 MTCO2e per year per service population (MTCO2C /year /SP) for project level analyses and 6.6 MTCO2e /year /SP for plan level projects (e.g., program level projects such as general plans). Service population is defined as the sum of the residential and employment populations provided by a project. The per capita efficiency targets are based on the AB 32 GHG reduction target and 2020 GHG emissions inventory prepared for CARB's 2008 Scoping Page 5.5 -12 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Plan.9 For the purpose of this project, SCAQMD's project level thresholds are used because the plan level thresholds are more applicable at a General Plan level. If projects exceed these per capita efficiency targets, GHG emissions would be considered potentially significant in the absence of mitigation measures. 5.5.3 Environmental Impacts Methodology The analysis in this section is based on buildout of the proposed land use plan as modeled using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod); trip generation provided by IBI Group (Appendix H of this EIR) as modeled using the Orange County Transportation Analysis Model (OCTAM) (see Appendix H to this EIR); waste generation based on waste generation rates provided by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle); and water and wastewater generation based on the Santa Ana Water Utility's 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). Life cycle emissions are not included in this analysis because not enough information is available for the proposed project, and therefore life cycle GHG emissions would be speculative. 10 GHG modeling is included in Appendix C. The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study disclosed potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement. Impact 5.5 -1: Development of the proposed land uses within the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan would not result in a substantial increase of GHG emissions that would exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District's proposed efficiency target of 4.8 MTCO2e. [Threshold GHG -11 impact Analysis: A project does not generate enough GHG emissions on its own to influence global climate change; therefore, the GHG chapter measures a project's contribution to the cumulative environmental impact. The development contemplated by the proposed project would contribute to global climate change through direct emissions of GHG from onsite area sources and vehicle trips generated by the project, and indirectly through offsite energy production required for onsite activities, water use, and waste disposal. Annual GHG emissions were calculated for construction and operation of the project. Construction emissions were amortized into the operational phase in accordance with SCAQMD's proposed methodology. The total and net increases in GHG emissions associated with the proposed project are shown in Table 5.5 -4. 9 SCAQMD took the 2020 statewide GHG reduction target for land - use -only GHG emissions sectors and divided it by the 2020 statewide employment for the land use sectors to derive a per capita GHG efficiency metric that coincides with the GHG reduction targets of AB 32 for year 2020. 10 Life cycle emissions include indirect emissions associated with materials manufacture. However, these indirect emissions involve numerous parties, each of which is responsible for GHG emissions of their particular activity. The California Resources Agency, in adopting the CEQA Guidelines Amendments on GHG emissions found that lifecycie analyses was not warranted for project specific CEQA analysis in most situations, for a variety of reasons, including lack of control over some sources, and the possibility of double - counting emissions (see Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action, December 2009). Because the amount of materials consumed during the operation or construction of the proposed project is not known, the origin of the raw materials purchased is not known, and manufacturing information for those raw materials are also not known, calculation of life cycle emissions would be speculative. A life<ycie analysis is not warranted (OPR 2008). October 2014 Page 5.5 -13 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Table 5.5 -4 Annual Operational Phase GHG Emissions Source GHG Emissions MTCO2elyear: 2035 Existing Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan' Change Area 554 3,468 2,914 Energy2 10,752 14,805 4,052 Transportation 15,625 41,270 25,644 Waste 2,859 6,818 3,959 Water 577 2,432 1,855 Construction - Amortized 0 5,323 5,323 Total All Sectors 30,368 74,115 43,747 Per Service Population (SP)3 4,638 20,138 NA Project Efficiency (MTCO2e/SP) 6.55 3.68 NA Proposed SCAQMD Efficiency Metric 4.8 4.8 NA Exceeds Efficiency Metric NA No NA Source: Cal EEMod Version 2011.1.1. Based on 2035 transportation emission rates. ' For purposes of this GHG analysis, buildings on proposed land uses are assumed to comply with the 2013 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards, which are 25 and 30 percent more energy efficient for residential and nonresidential buildings, respectively, than the 2008 standards. This analysis assumes new buildings of all land use types exceed the 2008 standards by 25 percent. Includes water efficiency improvements required under CALGreen. 2 For the purposes of this GHG analysis, existing buildings are assumed to achieve the 2005 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards. However, it is likely, that based on the existing housing stock many of the units were constructed prior to the modem building and energy efficiency standards and are therefore even less efficient. 3 Service population based on: Existing - 3,252 residents and 1,386 employees within the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan boundaries. Future - 18,579 residents and 1,559 employees within the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Condor Plan boundaries. As shown in this table, the net increase in GHG emissions of 43,747 MTCO2e from Project related operational activities would exceed SCAQMD's draft bright line screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e for all land use types. The increase in residential and retail land uses within the specific plan boundary is the main factor for the increase in overall GHG emissions. Since the draft bright line screening threshold would be exceeded, a detailed emissions analysis of the project's efficiency compared to the draft SCAQMD GHG per capita threshold is included. The project's efficiency is determined from the total emissions divided by the project's service population, which is the number of people who live or work within the specific plan area. At buildout, the project would generate approximately 74,115 MTCO2C of GHG per year and exceed the SCAQMD draft bright line screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e. However, buildout of the proposed project would decrease the per capita GHG emissions within the specific plan area to 3.68 MTCO2e per service population (employees and residents), which would be below the SCAQMD efficiency standard of 4.8 MTCO2e per service population. Although implementation of the proposed project would increase overall emissions, it would also increase the land use intensity along the Harbor Boulevard corridor resulting in a reduction of per capita emissions. The corridor is currently served by public transit bus lines, and there are plans within the coming decade for the establishment of a bus rapid transit route and stops along the section of the corridor within the proposed project plan area (see Impact 5.5 -2 discussion). In addition, development of residential and nonresidential land uses in proximity to each other along with the public transportation options would likely reduce VM'17. Furthermore, construction of new structures would introduce buildings Page 5.5 -14 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS that would be more energy efficient than existing structures. These facets of the proposed project would contribute to the overall reduction of GHG emissions on a per capita basis. Therefore, the project related GHG emissions are not considered substantial enough to result in a significant cumulative impact of GHG emissions. The project's cumulative contribution from GHG emissions would be less than significant. Impact 5.5 -2: The Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan would not conflict with plans adopted with the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. [Threshold GHG -2] impact Analysis: The City of Santa Ana is in the process of preparing but has not yet adopted a climate action plan. Applicable plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions include CARB's Scoping Plan and SCAG's 2012 RTP /SCS. A consistency analysis with these plans is presented below: CARB Scoping Plan In accordance with AB 32, CARB developed the Scoping Plan to outline the state's strategy to achieve 1990 level emissions by year 2020. To estimate the reductions necessary, CARB projected statewide 2020 BAU GHG emissions and identified that the state as a whole would be required to reduce GHG emissions by 28.5 percent from year 2020 BAU to achieve the targets of AB 32 (CARB 2008). Since release of the 2008 Scoping Plan, CARB has updated the 2020 GHG BAU forecast to reflect GHG emissions in light of the economic downturn and measures not previously considered in the 2008 Scoping Plan baseline inventory. The revised BAU 2020 forecast shows that the state would have to reduce GHG emissions by 21.6 percent from BAU without Pavley and the 33 percent RPS, or 15.7 percent from the adjusted baseline (i.e., with Pavley and 33 percent RPS) (CARB 2012b). Since adoption of the 2008 Scoping Plan, state agencies have adopted programs identified in the plan, and the legislature has passed additional legislation to achieve the GHG reduction targets. Statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions include the LCFS and changes in the corporate average fuel economy standards (e.g., Pavley I and 2017 -2025 CAFE standards). The GHG emissions in Table 5.5 -4 include reductions associated with the Pavley fuel efficiency improvements (adopted in 2009). SCAG's 2012 RTP /SCS SCAG's 2012 RTP /SCS was adopted April 4, 2012. It identifies multimodal transportation investments, including bus rapid transit (BRT), light rail transit, heavy rail transit, commuter rail, high -speed rail, active transportation strategies (e.g., bike ways and sidewalks), transportation demand management (MA4) strategies, transportation systems management, highway improvements (interchange improvements, high - occupancy vehicle lanes, high- occupancy toll lanes), arterial improvements, goods movement strategies, aviation and airport ground access improvements, and operations and maintenance to the existing multimodal transportation system. SCAG's RTP /SCS identifies that land use strategies that focus new housing and job growth in areas served by high quality transit areas and other opportunity areas would be consistent with a land use development pattern that supports and complements the proposed transportation network, which emphasizes system preservation, active transportation, and transportation demand management measures (SCAG 2012). October 2014 Page 5..5 -15 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS The Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan is a mixed used project that would increase land use intensity along the Harbor Boulevard corridor. Harbor Boulevard and intersecting roadways such as Westminster Avenue, West First Street, and McFadden Avenue are currently served by local bus lines. In the coming decade, the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) plans to establish BRT routes along segments of Westminster Avenue and Harbor Boulevard that are within the City of Santa Ana. As shown in Figure 5, Proposed Zoning Designations, three proposed BRT stops are within the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan area. With the existing bus service and planned BRT routes and stops, intensifying residential, office, and commercial land uses along this corridor would be consistent with the SCS. Therefore, the project would not conflict with the 2012 RTP /SCS. 5.5.4 Cumulative Impacts Project related GHG emissions are not confined to a particular air basin but are dispersed worldwide. Therefore, impacts identified under Impact 5.5 -1 are not project specific impacts to global warming, but the proposed projects contribution to this cumulative impact. Because the projects GHG emissions are not considered substantial, the projects GHG emissions and contribution to global climate change impacts are not considered cumulatively considerable, and therefore less than significant. 5.5.5 Existing Plans, Policies, and Programs ■ AB 32: California Global Warming Solutions Act ■ Executive Order 5 -3 -05: Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets ■ Pavley Fuel Efficiency Standards (AB1493) ■ Title 24 California Code of Regulations, Part 6 (Building and Energy Efficiency Standards) ■ Title 24 California Code of Regulations, Part 11 (California Green Building Code) ■ Title 20 California Code of Regulations (Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards) ■ Title 17 California Code of Regulations (Low Carbon Fuel Standard) ■ California Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (AB 1881 ■ Statewide Retail Provider Emissions Performance Standards (SB 1368 ■ Renewable Portfolio Standards (SB 1078) 5.5.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, the following impacts would be less than significant: 5.5 -1 and 5.5 -2. 5.5.7 Mitigation Measures No potentially significant impacts have been identified and no mitigation measures are required Page 5.5 -16 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 5.5.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation No mitigation measures have been identified and impacts are less tban significant. 5.5.9 References California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2013, October. Climate Change Scoping Plan First Update, http: //w ..a b.ca.gov /cc /scopingplan/2013 _update /discussion_clraft.pdf. .2012a, April. California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000 -2009. By Category as Defined by the Scoping Plan. . 2012b. Status of Scoping Plan Recommended Measures. http : //w .. orb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/status—of-scoping—plan—measuces.pdf . 2010, August. Staff Report Proposed Regional Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets for Automobiles and Light Trucks Pursuant to Senate Bill 375. 2008, October. Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan, a Framework for Change. California Climate Action Team (CAT). 2006, March. Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature. California Energy Commission (CEC). 2008. The Future Is Now, An Update on Climate Change Science, Impacts, and Response Options for California, CEC- 500.2008 -0077. 2006a, December. Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990 to 2004. Report CEC- 600 - 2006 - 013 -SF. . 2006b. Our Changing Climate, Assessing the Risks to California, 2006 Biennial Report, California Climate Change Center, CEC -500- 2006 -077 .2006c, December. Refining Estimates of Water Related Energy Use in California. CEC- 500 -2006- 118. Prepared by Navigant Consulting, Inc. Based on the electricity use for Southern California. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2001.2001 IPCC Tbird Assessment Rep rt Climate Cbange 2001. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2012, April. 2012 -2035 Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP /SCS). http: / /rtpscs.scag.m.gov /Pages /default.aspx South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2010, September 28. Greenhouse Gases (GHG) CEQA Significance Thresholds Working Group Meeting 15. http: //w ..agmd.gov /ceqa /handbook /GHG /2010 /sept28mtg /sept29.htrnl. October 2014 Page 5..5 -17 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2012. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. http: //w .. epa. gov/ climatechmge /ghgenlissions /gases.htrnl. Modeling South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2012. California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2011.1.1. Page 5.5 -18 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis 5.6 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS This section of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) evaluates the potential for implementation of the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan to result in hazardous impacts in the project area and the City of Santa Ana. More specifically, this section evaluates environmental and safety hazards associated with development of the project site, including waste disposal hazards, chemical hazards, and emergency preparedness programs. Background information on safety hazards provides a basis for the siting of land uses that would reduce unreasonable risks and protect public health and welfare. Various federal, state, regional, and local laws and programs that regulate the use, storage, and transportation of hazardous materials are also discussed in this section. The analysis in this section is based, in part, on the following technical report: • Radius Mali [Environmental Database Search], Environmental Data Resources, Inc, March 19, 2013 A complete copy of this report is included in Appendix E of this EIR. 5.6.1 Environmental Setting Hazardous Materials and Waste Hazardous materials refer generally to substances that have corrosive, toxic, flammable, and /or reactive properties and have the potential to harm human health and /or the environment. Hazardous materials are components of products (household cleaners, industrial solvents, paint, pesticides, etc) and used in the manufacturing of products (e.g., electronics, newspapers, plastic products). Hazardous materials can include petroleum products, natural and synthetic gases, acutely toxic chemicals, and other toxic chemicals. They are used in agriculture, commercial, and industrial uses; businesses; hospitals; and households. Accidental releases of hazardous materials can occur from a variety of causes, including construction and demolition activities, highway /roadway incidents, building /structure foes, shipping accidents, and industrial incidents. Regulatory Setting Several federal, state, and local programs regulate the use, storage, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials and hazardous waste. Federal and state statutes, as well as local ordinances and plans, regulate hazardous waste management. These regulations reduce the hazard that such substances may pose to people and businesses under normal daily circumstances and as a result of emergencies and disasters. Potentially relevant federal, state, regional and local laws, regulations, programs, and plans applicable to the proposed project are summarized below. Federal Comprehensive EnvironmentalResponse, Compensation and Liabi& &Act The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) is a law developed to protect the water, air, and soil resources from the risks created by past chemical - disposal October 2014 Page 5.6 -1 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS practices. This law is also referred to as the Superfund Act and regulates sites on the National Priority List (NPL), which are called Superfund sites. Emergency Planning and Comm unity, Right -To -Know Act In 1986, Congress passed the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act. Title III of this regulation may be cited as the "Emergency Planning and Community Right -to -Know Act of 1986" ( EPCRA). EPCRA required the establishment of state commissions, planning districts, and local committees to facilitate the preparation and implementation of an emergency plan. Under the requirements, local emergency planning committees (LEPCs) are responsible for developing a plan for preparing for and responding to a chemical emergency, including. • An identification of local facilities and transportation routes where hazardous materials are present. • The procedures for immediate response in case of an accident (this must include a community wide evacuation plan). • A plan for notifying the community that an incident has occurred. • The names of response coordinators at local facilities. • A plan for conducting drills to test the plan The emergency plan is reviewed by the State Emergency Response Commission and publicized throughout the community. The LEPC is required to review, test, and update the plan each year. The Orange County Environmental Health Department (EHD) is responsible for coordinating hazardous material and disaster preparedness planning and appropriate response efforts with city departments and local and state agencies. The goal is to improve public and private sector readiness and mitigate local impacts resulting from natural or man -made emergencies. Another purpose of the EPCRA is to inform communities and citizens of chemical hazards in their areas. Sections 311 and 312 of EPCRA require businesses to report to state and local agencies the location and quantities of chemicals stored onsite. Under section 313, manufacturers are required to report chemical releases for more than 600 chemicals. In addition to chemical releases, regulated facilities are also required to report offsite transfers of waste for treatment or disposal at separate facilities, pollution prevention measures, and chemical recycling activities. The EPA maintains the Toxic Release Inventory database, which documents the information that regulated facilities report annually. Resource Consermtion and RecoveryAct The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) is the principal federal law that regulates generation, management, and transportation of hazardous waste. Hazardous waste management includes the treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous waste. Page 5.6 -2 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 1926.62 Title 29, CFR Section 1926.62, sets standards for occupational health and environmental controls for lead exposure in construction, regardless of the lead content of paints and other materials. The standard includes requirements addressing exposure assessment, methods of compliance, respiratory protection, protective clothing and equipment, hygiene facilities and practices, medical surveillance, medical removal protection, employee information and training, signs, recordkeeping, and observation and monitoring. Occupational Safety and Health Administration Regulation 29 CFR Standard 192662 The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Regulation 29 CFR Standard 1926.62 regulates the demolition, renovation, or construction of buildings involving lead materials. It includes requirements for the safe removal and disposal of lead and the safe demolition of buildings containing lead based paint or other lead materials. State Hazardous Materials Release Noti&cation Many state statutes require emergency notification of a hazardous chemical release • California Health and Safety Codes Sections 25270.7, 25270.8, and 25507 • California Vehicle Code Section 23112.5 • California Public Utilities Code Section 7673, (PUC General Orders #22 -B, 161) • California Government Code Sections 51018, 8670.25.5 (a) • California Water Codes Sections 13271, 13272, • California Labor Code Section 6409.1 (b) 10 Requirements for immediate notification of all significant spills or threatened releases cover owners, operators, persons in charge, and employers. Notification is required regarding significant releases from facilities, vehicles, vessels, pipelines, and railroads. In addition, all releases that result in injuries or harmful exposure to workers must be immediately reported to the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration pursuant to the California Labor Code Section 6409.1(b). Hazardous Materials Disclosure Programs The Unified Program administered by the State of California consolidates, coordinates, and makes consistent the administrative requirements, permits, inspections, and enforcement activities for environmental and emergency management programs, which include: Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventories (business plans), the California Accidental Release Prevention (CaIARP) Program, and the underground storage tank (UST) program. The Unified Program is implemented at the local government level by Certified Unified Program Agencies (CUPAs). October 2014 Page 5.6 -3 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS The CUPA for the City of Santa Ana is the Orange County EHD, which is responsible for regulating hazardous materials business plans and chemical inventory; hazardous waste and tiered permitting; underground storage tanks; aboveground storage tanks; and risk management plans. Hazardous Materials Business Plans Both the federal government (Code of Federal Regulations) and the State of California (California Health and Safety Code) require all businesses that handle more than a specified amoumt or "reporting quantity" of hazardous or extremely hazardous materials to submit a hazardous materials business plan to its CUPA. According to the EHD guidelines, the preparation, submittal, and implementation of a business plan is required by any business that handles a hazardous material or a mixture containing a hazardous material in specified quantities. Business plans must include an inventory of the hazardous materials at the facility. Businesses must update their business plan at least every three years and the chemical portion every year. Also, business plans must include emergency response plans and procedures to be used in the event of a significant or threatened significant release of a hazardous material. These plans need to identify the procedures for immediate notification of all appropriate agencies and personnel, identification of local emergency medical assistance appropriate for potential accident scenarios, contact information for all company emergency coordinators, a listing and location of emergency equipment at the business, an evacuation plan, and a training program for business personnel. The EHD currently reviews submitted business plans and updates. Businesses that handle hazardous materials are required by law to provide an immediate verbal report of any release or threatened release of hazardous materials if there is a reasonable belief that the release or threatened release poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety, property, or the environment. The EHD is also responsible for conducting compliance inspections of regulated facilities in Orange County. California Accidental Release Prevention Program CaIARP became effective on January 1, 1997, in response to Senate Bill 1889. CaIARP aims to be proactive and therefore requires businesses to prepare risk management plans, which are detailed engineering analyses of the potential accident factors present at a business and the mitigation measures that can be implemented to reduce this accident potential. This requirement is coupled with the requirements for preparation of hazardous materials business plans under the Unified Program, implemented by the CUPA. Leaking [Underground Storage Tanks Leaking USTs have been recognized since the early 1980s as the primary cause of groundwater contamination from gasoline compounds and solvents. In California, regulations aimed at protecting against UST leaks have been in place since 1983 (Health and Safety Code). This occurred one year before RCRA was amended to add Subtitle I, requiring UST systems to be installed in accordance with standards that address the prevention of future leaks. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) is the lead California regulatory agency in the development of UST regulations and policy. Page 5.64 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Older tanks are typically single walled steel tanks. Many of these have leaked as a result of corrosion, punctures, and detached fittings. As a result, the State of California required the replacement of older tanks with new double walled fiberglass tanks with flexible connections and monitoring systems. UST owners were given 10 years to comply with the new requirements�until December 22, 1998. However, many UST owners did not act by the deadline, so the state granted an extension till January 1, 2002. The California Regional Water Resources Control Board (RWQCB), in cooperation with the Office of Emergency Services (OES), maintain an inventory of leaking USTs in a statewide database. Califomia Code ofRegrulations Title 22, Division 4.5, of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) sets the requirements for hazardous waste generators; transporters; and owners or operators of treatment, storage, or disposal facilities. These regulations include the requirements for packaging, storage, labeling, reporting, and general management of hazardous waste prior to shipment. In addition, the regulations identify standards applicable to transporters of hazardous waste. These regulations specify the requirements for transporting shipments of hazardous waste, including manifesting, vehicle registration, and emergency accidental discharges during transportation. California Fire Code The 2010 California Fire Code (CCR Title 24 Part 9) sets requirements for building materials and methods pertaining to fire safety and life safety, fire protection systems in buildings, emergency access to buildings, and handling and storage of hazardous materials. California Health and Safety Code Sections 17920.10 and 105255 of the California Health and Safety Code require that lead be contained during demolition activities. Regional South Coast-Air Quality Management Distn�ctRule 1403 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1403 governs the demolition of buildings containing asbestos materials. Rule 1403 specifies work practices with the goal of minimizing asbestos emissions during building demolition and renovation activities, including the removal and associated disturbance of asbestos- containing material (ACM). The requirements for demolition and renovation activities include asbestos surveying, notification, ACM removal procedures and time schedules, ACM handling and cleanup procedures, storage, and disposal requirements for asbestos- containing waste materials. Should ACM be identified, Rule 1403 requires that ACM be safely removed and disposed of, if possible. If it is not possible to safely remove ACM, Rule 1403 requires that safe procedures be used to demolish the building with asbestos in place without resulting in a significant release of asbestos. Environmental Conditions As shown in Figures 3 -1, Regional Location, and 3 -2, Local Vicinity, the project area generally includes parcels adjacent to Harbor Boulevard between Westminster Avenue and Lilac Way and parcels along Westminster October 2014 Page 5.6 5 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Avenue, 1st Street, and 5th Street one -half mile east of Harbor Boulevard. The corridor's northern and southern ends are adjacent to the city boundaries of Garden Grove and Fountain Valley, respectively. Existing Land Uses The project area currently has roughly two million square feet of commercial uses distributed fairly evenly along the corridor. Existing commercial uses occur both midblock and at intersections and are dominated by auto service and sales, but also include grocery stores, service businesses, and restaurants. The project area contains 739 residential units, including multifamily residential and mobile home communities accessed from Harbor Boulevard and single - family residential areas along Jackson Street. The project area also contains the Willowick Golf Course (an operating 18 hole public golf course), Cesar Chavez /Campesmo Park, and Santa Anita Park. Existing uses are shown in Figure 3 -3, Aerial Photograph. Historic Uses Historic topographic maps described below were obtained from the US Geological Survey's website. The project area is shown on the Newport Beach and Anaheim quadrangles (Garden Grove quadrangle of Anaheim quadrangle in 1935); the border between the two quadrangles is between 5th Street and Hazard Avenue. • 1896 Santa Ana quadrangle and 1898 Anaheim quadrangle, scale (each) 1:62,500 (0.98 mile per inch): Approximately 15 structures are scattered in and near the project area. One north south roadway and several cast t west roadways are shown. • 1932 Newport Beach and 1935 Garden Grove quadrangles, scale (each) 1:31,680 (two inches per mile): Development in the project area is still sparse and scattered. The main north south roadway in the project area is Buaro Street, where Harbor Boulevard is now. There is a two- square -block subdivision between 1st and 5th Streets in the eastern part of the project area. A Pacific Electric railroad track' passes through the northeast part of the project area. • 1949 Newport Beach and Anaheim quadrangles, scale (each) 1:24,000 (2.65 inches per mile): much of the site is shown in agricultural use. Harbor Boulevard now extends through the middle of the project area, and Willowick Golf Club is shown in the northeast portion. Development is still scattered and relatively sparse through much of the project area, including along Harbor Boulevard. Ten square blocks that appear to be residential development are west and south of Willowick Golf Club. The Pacific Electric railroad track remains in the northeast part of the project area. • 1965 Newport Beach and Anaheim quadrangles, scale (each) 1:24,000 (2.65 inches per mile): Much of the project area is now shown as urbanized, especially the portion east of Harbor Boulevard. No agricultural use is shown within the project area, although there are small areas of agricultural use offsite near the east and north site boundaries. Much of the project area west of Harbor Boulevard is shown as I The Paufic Electric Railway was an electric interurban trolley system in southern California. Page 5.66 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS vacant. The Garden Grove Municipal Golf Course and several radio towers are shown where the Willowick Golf Club was shown m 1949. Database Search Results Environmental databases were searched for listings on and within specified radii of the project site by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) on March 19, 2013 (see Appendix E). Listings within the project area are shown in Table 5.6 -1 and mapped in Figure 5.6 -1, Hazardous Materials Sites. Listings are clustered; due to the scale of the map and the clustering of multiple hazardous materials sites represented by single map reference numbers, some sites listed as onsite in Table 5.6 -1 may be offsite within a few hundred feet of the project area boundary. Table 5.6 -1 Environmental Database Listinas within the Proiect Area Map No. Address Name Database' Reason for Listing and Regulatory Status 14 1417 N Susan St Ecco Equipment Corporation LUST: Leaking Underground Storage Tank Case closed UST: Registered Underground Storage Tank(s) AST: Registered aboveground storage tank RCRA -SQG Resource Conservation and Recovery Ad (RCRA) Small Quantity Generator of Hazardous Waste (SQG) Marco Rentals Inc. AST 1501 N Susan St Anderson Asphalt Paving Co. LUST Case closed UST Union Car Wash /Beacon Bay LUST Case closed 1514 N Susan Street #B Re -Store Furniture EMI: Toxic and criteria air pollutant emissions 1602 N Susan Street #A Rick's Cabinet Mfg EMI 3300 Westminster Ave Thien Tao Auto Service Center RCRA -SQG 3400 W Westminster Ave Auto Collision Works EMI RCRA -SQG 3636 Westminster Ave Bowers Tractor Sery Inc UST 3630 Westminster Ave Bicknell Property LUST Case closed 3628 Westminster Ave Bowers Tractors RCRA -SQG 3500 Westminster Ave Two -Tone Body & Paint EMI RCRA -SQG Jessie's Autobody & Paint EMI Mustang Specialists RCRA -SQG 3526 W Wesminster Ave Auto Collision & Frame, Inc. RCRA -SQG 3630 W Westminster Ave Westminster Asia Plaza NPDES: October 2014 Page 5.6 -7 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Table 5.6 -1 Environmental Database Listings within the Project Area Map Reason for Listing and No. Address Name Database' Regulatory Status NPDES Wastewater Discharge permit 3412 Westminster Ave Milo Equipment Corp UST 12031 W Westminster AI's Foreign Car Repair RCRA -SQG Ave 16 3800 Westminster Ave Pieper - Schroeder Prop. LUST Case Closed 3802 Westminster Ave Hasty Alignment RCRA -SQG 3822 W 17th St Quaker State Minit -Lube UST RCRA -SQG 13950 Harbor Blvd Jiffy Lube Store #1991 UST 18 3230 W Westminster Ave 1 -0ay Paint & Body Centers EMI SWRCY: Recycling Center CHMIRS: Release of natural gas California Hazardous Material Incident from pipe. Reporting System Jan. 2012. No cleanup needed. PROC: Hazardous Waste Processor RCRA -SQG 3122 Westminster Ave Adonai Body Works EMI International Body Works RCRA -SQG 3132 W 17th St McCalla Div Layne Western RCRA -SQG Co 19 4200 W Westminster Ave Not listed CDL: Clandestine Drug Lab 4214-4302 Westminster Northern Trust Property LUST Case closed Ave 4214 Westminster Blvd Vacant lot UST 25 1506 N Clinton St Oasis Drinking Waters LUST Release of gasoline affected drinking water aquifer. Cleanup in 2011 and 2012 via soil vapor extraction; pumping and treating of groundwater; and air sparging 2 Case open. Verification monitoring ongoing early 2013. UST 1600 N Clinton Wade's Automotive RCRA -SQG 26 815 N Harbor Blvd Frodson RV Repair Service RCRA -SQG 890 Harbor Blvd Service Station CHMIRS Car repair shop alleged to have been allowing various fluids to go down a storm drain. 925 N Harbor Blvd Statewide Inc RCRA -SQG Page 5.6-8 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Table 5.6 -1 Environmental Database Listings within the Project Area Map No. Address Name Database' Reason for Listing and Regulatory Status 980 N Harbor Blvd #C The Transmission Specialist RCRA -SQG 1000 N Harbor Blvd Not listed ERNS: Emergency Response Notification System Automotive Fluid: brake shop suspected of intentionally dumping. 1991. Oneway Auto & Transmission RCRA -SQG 1020 N Harbor Blvd A & J Auto Body EMI 1122 N Harbor Blvd Dick's Vacuum Truck Service HWP: Permitted Hazardous Waste Facilities Geraldine DUrston RCRA -SQG 1310 N Harbor Blvd Orange County Pump Co. UST 1314 N Harbor Blvd Not listed US CDL: US Clandestine Drug Lab 1514 N Harbor Blvd Appliance Refinishing Co. EMI RCRA -SQG 28 3424 W Washington Ave Not listed CDL Abandoned drug lab waste 30 1001 N Jackson St Tony's Recycling Registered Waste Tiro Hauler (HAULERS) 36 510 N Harbor Blvd Eceno Lube and Tune UST 37 3117 W 5th St Rice Auto Parts NPDES 3125 W 5th St Rocco's Truck Wrecking WDS RCRA -SQG NPDES 3017 W 5th St Willowick Golf Course UST AST 3101 W 5th St Lieberman Broadcasting, Inc. FTTS INSP: Inspection(s) pursuant to Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and /or Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) 39 2818 W 5th St Durham Transportation Co. UST Orce Steel & Supply UST 40 517 N Susan St Not listed CDL 3226 W 5th St Chevy Truck & Foreign Auto WDS NPDES 3311 W 5th St Not listed CDL Abandoned drug lab waste 3297 W 5th St Not listed CHMIRS A cylinder of hydrogen chloride gas from drug lab was left in park. The pads was evacuated for five hours. No one was hospitalized. 41 3426 W 5th St A&A Paint & Body Shop EMI October 2014 Page 5.6 -9 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Table 5.6 -1 Environmental Database Listings within the Project Area Map No. Address Name Database' Reason for Listing and Regulatory Status 3409 W 5th St Ferman's Truck Wrecking NPDES WDS 43 3617 W 5th St OC Auto Parts Rebuilder RCRA -SQG 46 402 N Laurel Ave Not listed. ERNS Cyanide (20lbs.), hydrochloric acid (10lbs.), sulfuric acid (15 lbs.) abandoned on roadside, cleaned up by contractor. 50 125 S Harbor Blvd Rodriguez Tires & Wheels HAULERS 101 S Harbor Blvd Mobil Station 18 -F34 UST Pieper Property LUST Case closed Metro Cars UST 200 S Harbor Blvd B Recycling SWRCY 115 N Harbor Blvd Advantage Auto Repair RCRA -SQG 205 N Harbor Blvd Hi Q Engine RCRA -SQG 228 N Harbor Blvd CVS Pharmacy RCRA -LQG 312 N Harbor Blvd A A Fredds Auto Service RCRA -SQG 51 226 N Jackson St Not listed CDL 52 222 N Laurel Ave Not listed CDL 53 221 N Figueroa St Not listed CDL 56 3411 W isth St Bolsa Appliance EMI 58 3621 W 1st St Presto-Matic Auto Supply CERC -NFRAP 60 36351st St #A Not listed CDL 3625 W 1st St Not listed CDL 3701 W 1st St C & RAppliance, Rose Baclet EMI 63 3312 W 1st St JNJ Enterprises LUST Case closed Toritos Market LUST Case closed UST 66 288 S Harbor Blvd Our Lady of Lavang Catholic Church NPDES 69 406 S Gunther Ave Not listed OPS: US Dept. of Transportation Office of Pipeline Safety Incident and Accident Data Release of natural gas & consequent fire from valve failure. 1983. 70 423 S Harbor Blvd Carbel Inc. ERNS Discharge of paint sludge from closing car dealership 411 S Harbor Blvd McJacks Auto Restoration EMI 71 3411 Camille St Not listed CDL 72 3618 W Camille St #A Not listed CDL 73 520 S Harbor Blvd Harbor Medical Plaza NPDES 76 3700 W McFadden Ave La Altenita Recycling Center SWRCY 3701 W McFadden Ave J & M Muffler & Radiator RCRA -SQG 3701 W McFadden Ave J & J Machine RCRA -SQG Page 5.6 -10 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Table 5.6 -1 Environmental Database Listings within the Project Area Map No. Address Name Database' Reason for Listing and Regulatory Status #G 3721 W McFadden Ave Not listed CHMIRS 28 gallons of drug lab waste removed CDL Rick Krohers Kustoms RCRA -SQG 3685 W McFadden Ave Classic Custom Finishing Inc. EMI 3695 W McFadden Ave H & W Mfg EMI 3655 W McFadden Ave Sherwood Shutter Corp. EMI RCRA -SQG 3617 W McFadden Ave Pro Japanese Auto Repair RCRA -SQG 78 3701 McFadden Ave Rob's Auto Body RCRA -SQG 79 3600 W McFadden Ave Wal -Mart #2517 AST RCRA -LQG, RCRA -SQG 80 822 S Harbor Blvd Harbor Moving Center LUST Case closed UST U -Haul Center #715-50 LUST Case closed UST 752 S Harbor Blvd Elegant Cleaners EMI RCRA -SQG 702 S Harbor Blvd Shell #702 LUST Case closed UST KrkorTutunjian LUST 83 914 S Harbor Blvd Withers Tire RCRA -SQG 1101 S Harbor Blvd Holiday Word RCRA -SQG 1107 S Harbor Blvd The Pep Boys RCRA -SQG 1111 S Harbor Harbor Blvd Car Wash UST Orange Harbor Car Wash LUST Case closed UST Hi -Tech Car Wash LUST Case closed Source. EDR 2013. Database abbreviations: AST = Aboveground Storage Tank CDL = Clandestine Drug Lab CERC- NFRAP= Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System No Further Remedial Action Planned CHMIRS = California Hazardous Material Incident Reporting System EMI = Toxic and criteria air pollutant emissions EnviroStor = Muftiple types of sites ERNS = Emergency Response Notification System FTTP IN SP = Inspection(s) pursuant to Federal Insectickte, Fungicide, & Rodentickte Ad(FIFRA) and /or Toxic Substances Control Ad(TSCA) HAULERS = Registered Waste Tire Haulers HWP = Hazardous Waste Processor LUST = Leaking Underground Storage Tank NPDES = Wastewater Discharge Permit OPS =US Dept. of Transportation Office of Pipeline Safety Incident and Accident Data PROC = Hazardous Waste Processor RCRA -LQG = Resource Conservation and Recovery Ad (RCRA) Large Quantity Generator of Hazardous Waste (LQG) RCRA -SQG = Resource Conservation and Recovery Ad (RCRA) -Small Quantity Generator of Hazardous Waste (SQG) US CDL= US Clandestine Drug Lab UST = Underground Storage Tank WDS = Waste Discharge System, State Water Resources Control Board. Air sparging is the injection of clean err into a site where groundwater is contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The VOCs evaporate into the injected air, which is then vented out for treatment October 2014 Page 5.6 -77 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Additional environmental database listings were in the EDR Radius Map. These listings document generation, or shipment of hazardous wastes from a project site; however, these listings do not document existing or past releases of hazardous materials, or an imminent threat of release of hazardous materials. These listings include 144 sites for which manifests of hazardous waste shipments are listed in the Haznet database maintained by the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal /EPA). Addresses for each of these listings are provided in the Executive Summary (pages 1 -32) of the EDR Radius Report included as Appendix E; details for each listing are provided in the Map Findings section of the EDR Radius Report. Also note that leaking underground storage tank (LUST) and registered UST sites are usually listed on more than one database. For instance, a UST site may be listed on the UST, Statewide Environmental Evaluation and Planning System (SWEEPS), Facility Inventory (FTD), and Cortese databases; for brevity, those listings are condensed in Tables 5.6 -1 and 5.6 -2 into a single UST database listing. There are 16 LUST listings and 21 UST listings in the project area. 011site Environmental Database Listings Environmental database listings within 0.25 mile of the project area are listed in Table 5.6 -2. Table 5.6 -2 Offsite Environmental Database Lis tin s within 0.25 Mile of the Project Site Map No. Address Name Database Reason for Listing and Regulatory Status 6 13732 Clinton Ave Orangewood Academy LUST Case closed 7 13731 Harbor Blvd, Garden Grove Five Star Dealership LUST Case closed Nissan of Garden Grove UST RCRA -SQG Quality Nissan UST 9 13741 Clinton St Emerald Isle Mobile Home Park EnviroStor No Further Action determination 2010 VCP (Voluntary Cleanup Program) 10 13811 A Better Way Ideal Uniform Rental Service SLIC (Spills, Leaks, Investigation, and Cleanup) Release of tetrachloroethylene, tdchloroethylene affected groundwater other than drinking water aquifer. Site remediation 2012. Case is open. RCRA -LQG 13812 A Better Way Seal Black Co. UST NPDES EMI Not reported AST 13782 A Better Way Parsons/Bubeck Trust SLIC Case closed. 11 13861 Harbor Blvd, Garden Grove Santa Ana Suzuki RCRA -SQG Harbor Auto Collision UST RCRA -SQG Freeway RV UST Page 5.6 -12 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Table 5.6 -2 Offsite Environmental Database Listings within 0.25 Mile of the Project Site Map Reason for Listing and No. Address Name Database Regulatory Status 13831 Harbor Blvd, Toyota /Garden Grove Used RCRA -SQG Garden Grove Cars Target Datsun UST 13812 Harbor Blvd, Bobs Radiator RCRA -SQG Garden Grove 12 13901 West St, Hot Wire Electric Co. RCRA -SQG Garden Grove 13881 West St, DeLorean Motor Center RCRA -SQG Garden Grove 13841 West St, Expertee Jaguar RCRA -SQG Garden Grove 13821 West St, J & F Manufacturing RCRA -SQG Garden Grove 13832 West St, Ebbtide Maune RCRA -SQG Garden Grove 13812 West St, Garden Grove Auto Ctr RCRA -SQG Garden Grove 13781 West St, H -Auto Dismantling WDS Garden Grove UST South Coast Bobcat LUST Case Closed NPDES 14 13931 Enterprise Dr, Coast Chemical Industries RCRA -LQG Garden Grove ECI RCRA -SQG 13932 Enterprise Dr, Electron Plating CERC- NFRAP: Garden Grove Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System No Further Remedial Action Planned WDS: Waste Discharge System, State Water Resources Control Board NPDES UST Envirostor Operations & Maintenance (0&M) agreement related to completed cleanup, land use restrictions. RCRA -LQG Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Large Quantity Generator of Hazardous Waste (LQG) 12191 Manners Way, Alphanetics LUST Case Closed Garden Grove 12161 Mariners Way, Sea and Sun Textile RCRA -SQG Garden Grove Punters October 2014 Page 5.6 -13 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Table 5.6 -2 Offsite Environmental Database Listings within 0.25 Mile of the Project Site Map No. Address Name Database Reason for Listing and Regulatory Status 13961 Nautilus Dr, Garden Grove SR Engineering RCRA -SQG 13962 Nautilus Dr, Garden Grove T A Tung Superior Engines RCRA -SQG 15 11901 Westminster Ave, Garden Grove B & D Metal Finishing CERC -NFRAP 4002 Westminster Ave Adohr Farms LUST Case closed UST RCRA -SQG TRIS (Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System) Release of nitrate compounds, nitric acid FTTS NPDES EMI Stremick's Heritage Foods WDS UST Not reported AST 13962 Seaboard Circle, Garden Grove Renew Construction RCRA -SQG Garcia Recycling UST WDS NPDES SWRCY 13961 Seaboard Circle, Garden Grove Envirospectrum, Inc. PADS (PCB Activity Database): generators, transporters, storers, or disposers of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) 13902 Seaboard Circle, Garden Grove Custom Floors Inc. UST 16 13960 Harbor Blvd, Garden Grove Statueland- Fountainland UST 13972 Harbor Blvd, Garden Grove City of Garden Grove UST 19 11701 Westminster Ave, Garden Grove S I Auto UST Spee Dee Oil Change & Tune -Up UST 20 4320 Westminster Ave Autech Auto Center RCRA -SQG 11611 Westminster Ave, Garden Grove Coast Yellow Cab RCRA -SQG Snow House Movers Inc. UST Not reported AST 11621 Westminster Ave, Garden Grove Rogers Grading LUST Case closed UST 21 12610 Westminster Ave Allstar Remanufacturing RCRA -SQG 12650WestminsterAve, Garden Grove Shurflo RCRA -SQG Page 5.6 -14 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Table 5.6 -2 Offsite Environmental Database Listings within 0.25 Mile of the Project Site Map No. Address Name Database Reason for Listing and Regulatory Status 22 4518 Westminster Ave Archies Texaco LUST Release of gasoline affected drinking water aquifer. Site assessment 2004. Case open. UST Arohies Tires & Towing LUST Case closed RCRA -SQG UST Arohies Market & Exxon UST Arohies Valero UST 11541 Westminster Ave, Garden Grove NB Body -Paint and Mechanic LUST Case closed UST RCRA -SQG EMI 23 14300 Clinton St, Garden Grove Not listed CDL 27 1522 N Newhope St Sparkletts Dunking Water Corp LUST Case closed UST RCRA -SQG EMI McKesson Water Products Inc. UST 1522 E Warner Ave Copley Investors LP LUST 32 802 N Fairview St Otsuka Farms UST 33 625 N Fairview St Ada Auto Repair & Electric RCRA -SQG 711 N Fairview St GG Express Inc. SWRCY 34 4322 W Silver Dr Luno Waste Oil HWi (Hazardous Waste Transporters) 44 501 N Newhope St Santa Ana Fire Station q8 LUST Case closed UST 45 4108 W 5th St Kens Oil Co. RAATS: RCRA Administration Action Tracking System (enforcement actions - major violators) 47 410 N Fairview Ave Goodwill Industries Orange Co. LUST Case closed UST RCRA -SQG 414 N Fairview Ave Shell Service Station Richard Yegencan LUST Case closed UST 61 2926 W 1st St M C Nottingham Co. LUST Case closed UST 65 4426 W 1st St Bee Petroleum Svc Station LUST Case closed UST Superior Propane LUST Case closed October 2014 Page 5.6 -75 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Table 5.6 -2 Offsite Environmental Database Listinas within 0.25 Mile of the Proiect Site Map Reason for Listing and No. Address Name Database Regulatory Status 4505 W 1st St G & M Oil #30 LUST Release of gasoline affected drinking water aquifer. Cleanup by pump & treat groundwater 2004, site assessment 2007. Case is open. Database abbremations: AST = Aboveground Storage Tank CDL = Clandestine Drug Lab CERC -NFRAP = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System No Further Remedial Action Planned CHMIRS = California Hazardous Material Incident Reporting System EMI = Toxic and criteria air pollutant emissions EnviroStor = Multiple types of sites ERNS = Emergency Response Notification System FTTP IN SP = Inspection(s) pursuant to Federal Insectickle, Fungicide, & Rodentickle Ad (FIFRA) and/or Toxic Substances Control Ad (TSCA) HAULERS = Registered Waste Tire Haulers HW P = Hazardous Waste Processor Existing Hazardous Materials in the Project Area Asbestos - Containing Materials LUST = Leaking Underground Storage Tank NPDES = Wastewater Discharge Permit OPS = US Dept. of Transportation Office of Pipeline Safety Incklent and Accident Data PROC = Hazardous Waste Processor RCRA -LQG = Resource Conservation and Recovery Ad (RCRA) Large Quantity Generator of Hazardous Waste (LQG) RCRA -SQG = Resource Conservation and Recovery Ad (RCRA) -Small Quantity Generator of Hazardous Waste (SQG) US CDL= US Clandestine Drug Lab UST = Underground Storage Tank Asbestos is the name of a group of silicate minerals that are heat resistant, and thus were commonly used as insulation and fire retardant Inhaling asbestos fibers has been shown to cause lung disease (asbestosis) and lung cancer (mesothelioma (DTSC 2010). Beginning in the early 1970s, a series of bans on the use of certain ACMs in construction were established by the EPA and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Most US manufacturers voluntarily discontinued the use of asbestos in certain building products during the 1980s. Requirements for limiting asbestos emissions from building demolition and renovation activities are specified Page 5.6 -16 PlaceWorkr UST Station 004 UST 75 626 S Newhope St U C Auto Service LUST Case closed UST 87 15872 Harbor Blvd, Fountain Valley Roy Mitsuuchi NPDES UST 88 12300 Lilac St Santa Ana City Dump (closed) SWF/LF (Solid Waste Facility /Landfill Facility Housing tract and mobile home park developed over site. 89 11470 Edinger Ave 1X Arco Station LUST Case closed United Oil UST 11520 Edinger Ave Fountain Valley Mobil LUST Case closed UST 90 16031 Harbor Blvd Grand Auto Store #110 LUST Case closed 91 16142 S Harbor Blvd Withers Tire Inc. LUST Case closed RCRA -SQG Database abbremations: AST = Aboveground Storage Tank CDL = Clandestine Drug Lab CERC -NFRAP = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System No Further Remedial Action Planned CHMIRS = California Hazardous Material Incident Reporting System EMI = Toxic and criteria air pollutant emissions EnviroStor = Multiple types of sites ERNS = Emergency Response Notification System FTTP IN SP = Inspection(s) pursuant to Federal Insectickle, Fungicide, & Rodentickle Ad (FIFRA) and/or Toxic Substances Control Ad (TSCA) HAULERS = Registered Waste Tire Haulers HW P = Hazardous Waste Processor Existing Hazardous Materials in the Project Area Asbestos - Containing Materials LUST = Leaking Underground Storage Tank NPDES = Wastewater Discharge Permit OPS = US Dept. of Transportation Office of Pipeline Safety Incklent and Accident Data PROC = Hazardous Waste Processor RCRA -LQG = Resource Conservation and Recovery Ad (RCRA) Large Quantity Generator of Hazardous Waste (LQG) RCRA -SQG = Resource Conservation and Recovery Ad (RCRA) -Small Quantity Generator of Hazardous Waste (SQG) US CDL= US Clandestine Drug Lab UST = Underground Storage Tank Asbestos is the name of a group of silicate minerals that are heat resistant, and thus were commonly used as insulation and fire retardant Inhaling asbestos fibers has been shown to cause lung disease (asbestosis) and lung cancer (mesothelioma (DTSC 2010). Beginning in the early 1970s, a series of bans on the use of certain ACMs in construction were established by the EPA and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Most US manufacturers voluntarily discontinued the use of asbestos in certain building products during the 1980s. Requirements for limiting asbestos emissions from building demolition and renovation activities are specified Page 5.6 -16 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS in SCAQMD Rule 1403 (Asbestos Emissions from Demolition /Renovation Activities). Due to the age of many of the buildings in the project area, they have a high potential for containing ACME. Lead Lead was formerly used as an ingredient in paint (before 1978) and as a gasoline additive; both of these uses have been banned. Lead is listed as a reproductive toxin and a cancer- causing substance; it also impairs the development of the nervous system and blood cells in children (DTSC 2010). Those demolishing pre 1978 structures may presume the buildings contain lead based paint (LBP) without having an inspection for LBP. Due to the age of many of the buildings in the project area, they have a high potential of containing LBP. Potential Hazardous Materials on the Project Site Much of the project area is shown in agricultural use (orchards and row crops) in aerial photographs from 1953 (whole site), 1958 (central and south parts of site), and 1961 (north part of site). Scattered areas of row crop agriculture are shown onsite in 1972 aerial photographs (NETR 2013). Therefore, project site soils may be contaminated with agricultural chemicals, including pesticides and fertilizers, remaining from past agricultural uses. 5.6.2 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: H -1 Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. H -2 Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. H -3 Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substance, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. H -4 Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. H -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, would result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. H -6 For a project in the vicinity of a private airstrip, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. H -7 Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. October 2014 Page 5.6 -17 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS H -8 Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland foes, including where wildlands are adjacent to the urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands. The Initial Study, included as Appendix A, substantiates that impacts associated with the following thresholds would be less than significant: H -1, H -5, H -6, H -7, and H -8. These impacts will not be addressed in the following analysis. 5.6.3 Environmental Impacts The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement. The term "hazardous material' is defined in different ways by different regulatory programs. For purposes of this environmental document, the definition of "hazardous material' is similar to that in the California Health and Safety Code, Section 25501: Hazardous materials that, because of their quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, pose a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment "Hazardous waste" is a subset of hazardous materials, and the definition is essentially the same as that in the California Health and Safety Code, Section 25517, and in the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Section 66261.2: Hazardous wastes are those that, because of their quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, may either cause, or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious illness, or pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed. Hazardous materials can be categorized as hazardous nonradioactive chemical materials, radioactive materials, and biohazardous materials (infectious agents such as microorganisms, bacteria, molds, parasites, viruses, and medical waste). Impact 5.6 -1: Future development that would be accommodated under the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor could create significant hazards through accidental release of hazardous materials. [Thresholds H -2 and H -31 ImpactAnalysis: The project area is in a highly urbanized, built out portion of the City. It is generally surrounded by residential uses, which vary widely in character and density and include single - family neighborhoods, apartment complexes, and mobile home communities. There are two schools adjacent to the southern boundary of the project area (Harbor Learning Center and Russell Elementary) and six schools within one- Page 5.6 -18 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS quarter mile of the project area (Clinton Mendenhall Elementary, Hazard Elementary, Newhope Elementary, Orangewood Academy, Spurgeon Intermediate, and Community Day Intermediate and High School). Individual development projects that would be accommodated by the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor would involve the use, storage, and transport of hazardous materials, in varying quantities, during the construction and operation phases of each project. Additionally, future development of individual projects would involve demolition of existing buildings that could contain ACM and LBP, and disturbance of soil that could be contaminated with hazardous materials from current and historic industrial and commercial land uses and with agricultural chemicals from historic agricultural land uses. Following is a discussion of the impacts of the use of hazardous materials and potential release of hazardous materials on schools, people, and the environment from operation and construction of the project. Hazardous Materials Associated with Project Construction and Operation Project Operation Operation of individual development projects accommodated by the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor (which would consist of mostly residential and commercial uses) would involve the use of small quantities of hazardous materials for cleaning and maintenance purposes, such as paints, solvents /cleaners, fuels /greases, and landscaping products. Hazardous materials typically used in residences and commercial uses anticipated under the proposed project would be present but would not be used or disposed of in large enough quantities to pose a hazard. Project implementation would not result in a substantial net increase in the use of hazardous materials or generation of hazardous waste. Additionally, when used correctly, these cleaning and maintenance materials would not result in a significant hazard to residents in the project area. Project residents and commercial businesses would also have access to the City's various hazardous waste and recycling programs, including the Universal Waste Program. Through this program, residents are provided with collection of universal waste, such as electronics, batteries, and fluorescent tubes. Residents can also take their universal waste to the Household Hazardous Waste Collection centers at the county landfills. The County of Orange also offers free disposal for hazardous waste materials at locations throughout the county. Additionally, the use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials by residents and commercial businesses of the proposed project would also be required to comply with existing regulations of several agencies, including the DTSC, EPA, State of California Occupational Safety & Health Administration (CalOSHA), Orange County EHD (the CUPA for Santa Ana), and City of Santa Ana Fire Department (SAID). Compliance with applicable laws and regulations governing the use, storage, and transportation of hazardous materials would ensure that all potentially hazardous materials are used and handled in an appropriate manner and would minimize the potential for safety impacts to occur. Furthermore, the individual development project that would be accommodated by the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor would be constructed and operated with strict adherence to all emergency response plan requirements of the City and SAID. The permitted land uses under the proposed project would also not generate air toxics that would require a permit by SCAMQD. October 2014 Page 5.6 -19 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Therefore, long -term operations of the proposed project would not involve routine transport, storage, use, and disposal of substantial amounts of hazardous materials, and no impacts would occur. Project Construction Construction activities of the individual development projects that would be accommodated under the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor would use larger amounts of hazardous materials than would project operation, such as fuels, lubricants, and greases in construction equipment and coatings used in construction. However, the materials used would not be in such quantities or stored in such a manner as to pose a significant safety hazard. These activities would also be short term or one time. Additionally, as with project operation, the use, transport, and disposal of construction related hazardous materials would be required to conform to existing laws and regulations. Compliance with applicable laws and regulations governing the use, storage, and transportation of hazardous materials would ensure that all potentially hazardous materials are used and handled in an appropriate manner and would minimize the potential for safety impacts to occur. For example, all spills or leakage of petroleum products during construction activities are required to be immediately contained, the hazardous material identified, and the material remediated in compliance with applicable state and local regulations. All contaminated waste would be required to be collected and disposed of at an appropriately licensed disposal or treatment facility. Furthermore, strict adherence to all emergency response plan requirements of the City and SAID would be required through the duration of the construction of each individual development project. Therefore, no hazards to the public or the environment would arise from the routine use of hazardous materials during project construction, and no impacts would occur. Hazardous Materials Existing Onsite Building Materials Construction of individual development projects that would be accommodated under the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor would involve the demolition of the existing buildings, structures, parking area and drive aisles, and other site improvements. Due to the age of many of the buildings and structures throughout the project area, it is likely that ACM and LBP were used in the construction of these structures. Demolition can cause encapsulated ACM to become friable and, once airborne, it is considered a carcinogen. Such releases could pose significant risks to persons living and working in and around the project site. However, all demolition activities would be required to comply with the SCAQMD's Rule 1403, OSHA Rule 29 CFR Part 1926.62, and Sections 17920.10 and 105255 of the California Health and Safety Code. Rule 1403 requires that buildings be surveyed for ACM prior to any demolition or renovation activities. If ACM is identified, it must be safely removed and disposed of. If this is not possible, Rule 1403 requires that safe procedures be used to demolish the building with asbestos in place without resulting in a significant release of asbestos. The OSHA Regulation 29 CFR Standard 1926.62 regulates the demolition, renovation, or construction of buildings involving lead materials. It includes requirements for the safe removal and disposal of lead and the safe demolition of buildings containing LBP or other lead materials. Sections 17920.10 and Page 5.6 -20 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 105255 of the California Health and Safety Code require that lead be contained during demolition activities. Compliance with SCAQMD's Rule 1403, OSHA Regulation 29 CFR Standard 1926.62, and Sections 17920.10 and 105255 of the California Health and Safety Code would ensure that no significant impacts related to existing ACM or LBP in the project area, if encountered, would occur. However, to further prevent impacts from the potential release of ACM or LBP associated with individual development projects under the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor, an ACM and LBP survey of existing buildings and structures would be required prior to demolition activities, as outlined in Mitigation Measure 6 -1. With adherence to existing regulations and implementation of this mitigation measure, no impacts related to ACM or LBP would occur. soils Grading and construction activities of the individual development projects that would be accommodated under the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor would involve the disturbance of onsite soils. Soils on certain sites of the project area could be contaminated with hazardous materials due to current and historical industrial and commercial land uses and agricultural chemicals from historical agricultural land uses. Exposure of contaminated soils to workers and the surrounding environment would result in a significant impact. Any contaminated soils encountered on individual development project sites would be required to be removed prior to grading activities and disposed of offsite in accordance with all applicable regulatory guidelines. However, to ensure that impacts from contaminated soils do not occur, Mitigation Measure 6 -2 has been provided at the end of this section. With adherence to existing regulations and implementation of this mitigation measure, impacts arising from the potential of encountering contaminated soils onsite during project grading activities would not occur. Impact 5.6 -2: Certain sites of the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor are included on a list of hazardous materials sites. [Threshold H -4] Impact Analysis: Individual development projects that would be accommodated under the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor would involve ground disturbance that could encounter existing hazardous materials in site soils from listed hazardous materials sites. There are several hundred hazardous materials sites listed within the project area. More specifically, there are 144 Haznet site (hazardous waste shipment manifest), and Table 5.6 -1, Environmental Database Listings ndthin the Project Area, lists 135 sites. Additionally, LUST and registered UST sites are usually listed on more than one database. For brevity, those listings are condensed in Tables 5.6 -1 and 5.6 -2 into a single UST database listing. There are 16 LUST listings and 21 UST listings within the project area. Fifty -three database listings document onsite hazardous materials releases into the environment: 16 LUST cases, 17 emissions inventory (EMI) toxic and criteria air pollutant emissions sites; 13 clandestine drug lab (CDL) sites; three California Hazardous Material Incident Reporting System (CHNIIRS) sites; three Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) sites; and one Office of Pipeline Safety Incident and Accident Data (OPS case. October 2014 Page 5.6 -21 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS There is one open LUST case onsite: Oasis Drinking Waters at 1506 North Clinton Street in Santa Ana. A release of gasoline affected the drinking water aquifer. Cleanup was conducted in 2011 and 2012 via soil vapor extraction, pumping and treating of groundwater, and air sparging.2 The case is open; verification monitoring was ongoing in early 2013. One UST with the associated fuel dispenser and piping were removed from the site in 1997. A site workplan written in 2005 does not document subsequent removal of additional tanks, dispensers, and /or piping (Frey 2005), suggesting that the release stopped no later than 1997. Some of the EMI listings document ongoing emissions. Whether emissions have stopped or are ongoing is not documented in the EDR report; therefore, as a conservative estimate, it is assumed that all 17 EMI listings document ongoing emissions. The 16 closed LUST cases, 3 CHMIRS sites, 3 ERNS sites, and 1 OPS site all document past hazardous materials releases. All of the hazardous materials releases documented in Table 5.6 -1 are known to regulatory agencies. Apart from the 17 EMI listings, the only listing documenting further required action is the open LUST case. Therefore, the project would not cause a substantial hazard to people or the environment related to listed hazardous materials sites onsite. Due to the fact that there are numerous sites within and in proximity of the project area that have been listed in a hazardous materials database, the potential for impacts exists from hazardous substance contamination. Individual development projects that would be accommodated under the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor may be impacted by hazardous substance contamination remaining from historical operations on a particular site that may pose a significant health risk resulting a significant impact. Hazardous substance contaminated properties are regulated at the federal, state, and local level, and are subject to compliance with stringent laws and regulations for investigation and remediation. For example, compliance with the CERCLA, RCRA, California Code of Regulations, Title 22, and related requirements would remedy any potential impacts caused by hazardous substance contamination. Future development would be required to comply with these existing laws and regulations. In addition, mitigation has been incorporated to ensure that contaminated sites are remediated prior to construction. 5.6.4 Cumulative Impacts Implementation of the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor would not combine with other cumulative development in accordance with the City's General Plan (see Section 4.4, Assumptions Regarding Cumulative lVacts, in Chapter 4) to result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. As outlined in the previous regulatory setting discussion in Section 5.6.1, Enrimnmental Setting, numerous federal, state and local laws and regulations ensure that hazardous materials and wastes are used, stored, transported, and disposed of appropriately. Similar to the proposed project, development of other planned projects within the City of Santa Ana, in accordance with the City's General Plan, would be required to adhere to the existing local, state, and federal laws and regulations governing the use, storage, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials and waste. 2 Air sparging is the injection of dean air into a site where groundwater is contaminated with VOCs. The VOCs evaporate into the injected air, which is then vented out for treatment Page 5.6 -22 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Moreover, with compliance to regulatory requirements and implementation of mitigation measures, the proposed project would not result in any hazardous conditions with regard to building materials or soil contamination and would not combine with other development projects to result in a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to these potential hazards. Therefore, the proposed project's contribution to cumulative impacts related to hazardous materials and Nvaste or the creation of any health hazards would not be significant and less than cumulatively considerable. 5.6.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions • South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1403 • Occupational Safety and Health Administration Regulation 29 CFR Standard 1926.62 • California Health and Safety Code Sections 17920.10 and 105255 • California Health and Safety Codes Sections 25270.7, 25270.8, and 25507 • California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5 5.6.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Without mitigation, the following impacts would be potentially significant: ■ Impact 5.6 -1 Significant hazards through accidental release of hazardous materials could occur as a result of demolition and grading activities. ■ Impact 5.6 -2 Sites within the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor are included on a list of hazardous materials sites. 5.6.7 Mitigation Measures Impact 5.6 -1 6 -1 Prior to the issuance of demolition permits for any buildings or structures that would be demolished in conjunction with individual development projects that would be accommodated by the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor, the project applicant shall conduct the following inspections and assessments for all buildings and structures onsite and shall provide the City of Santa Ana's Planning and B10dinP Agency with a copy of the report of each investigation or assessment ■ The project applicant shall retain a certified lead inspector /assessor to inspect buildings and structures onsite for lead based paint "P). The inspector /assessor's report shall include requirements for abatement, containment, and disposal of LBP, if encountered, in accordance with the State of California Occupational Safety & Health Administration Rule 29 CFR Part 1926. October 2014 Page 5.6 -23 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ■ The project applicant shall retain a licensed or certified asbestos consultant to inspect buildings and structures onsite for asbestos- containing materials (ACM). The consultant's report shall include requirements for abatement, containment, and disposal of ACM, if encountered, in accordance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District's Rule 1403. 6 -2 Prior to the issuance of grading permits for new development within the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor, the project applicant shall submit a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) to identify environmental conditions and determine whether contamination is present. The Phase I ESA shall be prepared by a Registered Professional Engineer and in accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard E 1527.05, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. If recognized environmental conditions related to soils are identified in the Phase I ESA, the project applicant shall perform soil sampling as a part of a Phase II ESA. If contamination is found at significant levels, the project applicant shall remediate all contaminated soils in accordance with state and local agency requirements (DTSC, RWQCB, Orange County Fire Authority, etc.). All contaminated soils and /or material encountered shall be disposed of at a regulated site and in accordance with applicable laws and regulations prior to the completion of grading. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a report documenting the completion, results, and any follow -up remediation on the recommendations, if any, shall be provided to the Building Official and the City of Santa Ana's Planning and Building--Agency evidencing that all site remediation activities have been completed. Impact 5.6 -2 Mitigation Measure 6 -2 applies to this impact. 5.6.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation Compliance with regulatory requirements and implementation of mitigation measures identified above would reduce potential impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials to a less than significant level. Therefore, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts relating hazards have been identified. 5.6.9 References Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2010, September 13. Glossary of Environmental Terms. http: //w .. dtsc. ca. gov/ InformationResources /Glossary_of Enviro=ental_Terms.cfm. Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR). 2013, March 19. Radius Map [Environmental Database Search]. Frey Environmental, Inc. 2005, November 29. Workplan, Additional Soil and Groundwater Investigation, Former Oasis Drinking Waters, 1506 N. Clinton Street, Santa Ana, California. http: / / geotracker .waterboards.ca.gov /esi /uploads /geo_ report /7797209024/TO605902113.PDF. Page 5.6 -24 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis 5.7 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY This section of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) evaluates the potential impacts to hydrology and water quality conditions in the City of Santa Ana from implementation of the proposed Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan. Hydrology deals with the distribution and circulation of water, both on land and underground. Water quality deals with the quality of surface and groundwater. Surface water is water on the surface of the land and includes lakes, rivers, streams, and creeks. Groundwater is water below the surface of the earth. The analysis in this section is based, in part, on the following technical studies: • Harbor Corridor Mixed Um Transit Corridor Drainage Study, IBI Group, March 18, 2013 A complete copy of this study is included in Appendix F to this EIR. 5.7.1 Environmental Setting Relevant federal, state, and local laws, regulations, plans, or guidelines that are potentially applicable to the proposed project are summarized below. They are designed to achieve regional water quality objectives and thereby protect the beneficial uses of the region's surface water and groundwater. Regulatory Setting Federal Clean Water-Act The federal Water Pollution Control Act (also known as the Clean Water Act [CWA]) is the principal statute governing water quality. The CWA establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States and gives the EPA the authority to implement pollution control programs, such as setting wastewater standards for industry. The statute's goal is to end all discharges entirely and to restore, maintain, and preserve the integrity of the nation's waters. The CWA regulates both the direct and indirect discharge of pollutants into the nation's waters. The CWA sets water quality standards for all contaminants in surface waters and makes it unlawful for any person to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters, unless a permit is obtained under its provisions. The CWA mandates permits for wastewater and stormwater discharges, requires states to establish site specific water quality standards for navigable bodies of water, and regulates other activities that affect water quality, such as dredging and the filling of wetlands. The CWA also funded the construction of sewage treatment plants and recognized the need for planning to address nonpoint sources of pollution. Section 402 of the CWA requires a permit for all point source (a discernible, confined, and discrete conveyance, such as a pipe, ditch, or channel) discharges of any pollutant (except dredge or fill material) into waters of the U.S. National PollutantDischarge Elimination System Under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) program promulgated under Section 402 of the CWA, all facilities that discharge pollutants from any point source into waters of the U.S. are required to obtain an NPDES permit. The term pollutant broadly includes any type of industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste discharged into water. Point sources are discharges from publicly owned treatment October 2014 Page 5.7 -1 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY works (POTWs), discharges from industrial facilities, and discharges associated with urban runoff While the NPDES program addresses certain specific types of agricultural activities, the majority of agricultural facilities are defined as nonpoint sources and are exempt from NPDES regulation. Pollutant contributors come from direct and indirect sources. Direct sources discharge directly to receiving waters, whereas indirect sources discharge to POTWs, which in turn discharge to receiving waters. Under the national program, NPDES permits are issued only to direct point source discharges. The National Pretreatment Program addresses industrial and commercial indirect dischargers. Municipal sources are POTWs that receive primarily domestic sewage from residential and commercial customers. Specific NPDES program areas applicable to municipal sources are the National Pretreatment Program, the Municipal Sewage Sludge Program, Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs), and the Municipal Storm Water Program. Nonmunicipal sources include industrial and commercial facilities. Specific NPDES program areas applicable to these industrial /commercial sources are: Process Wastewater Discharges, Non - Process Wastewater Discharges, and the Industrial Storm Water Program. NPDES issues two basic permit types: individual and general. Also, the EPA has recently focused on integrating the NPDES program further into watershed planning and permitting (USEPA 2004). The NPDES has a variety of measures designed to minimize and reduce pollutant discharges. All counties with storm drain systems that serve a population of 50,000 or more, as well construction sites one acre or more in size, must file for and obtain an NPDES permit. Another measure for minimizing and reducing pollutant discharges to a publicly owned conveyance or system of conveyances (including roadways, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, man -made channels and storm drains, designed or used for collecting and conveying stormwater) is the EPAs Storm Water Phase II Final Rule. The Phase II Final Rule requires an operator (such as a city) of a regulated small municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) to develop, implement, and enforce a program (e.g., best management practices [BMPs], ordinances, or other regulatory mechanisms) to reduce pollutants in post construction runoff to the City's storm drain system from new development and redevelopment projects that result in the land disturbance of greater than or equal to one acre. The City of Santa Ana Public Works Agency is the local enforcing agency of the MS4 NPDES permit. National Flood Insurance Program The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 mandate the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to evaluate flood hazards. FEMA provides Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS) for local and regional planners to promote sound land use and floodplam development, identifying potential flood areas based on the current conditions. To delineate a FIRM, FEMA conducts engineering studies referred to as Flood Insurance Studies (FISs). The most recent FIS and FIRM was completed and published for Santa Ana on December 3, 2009. Using information gathered in these studies, FEMA engineers and cartographers delineate Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) on FIRMS. The Flood Disaster Protection Act (FDPA) requires owners of all structures in identified SFHAs to purchase and maintain flood insurance as a condition of receiving federal or federally related financial assistance, such as mortgage loans from federally insured lending institutions. Community members within designated areas are able to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) afforded by FEMA. The NEW is required to offer federally subsidized flood insurance to property owners in those communities that adopt and enforce floodplam management ordinances that meet minimum criteria established by FEMA. The Page 5.7 -2 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994 further strengthened the NFIP by providing a giant program for state and community flood mitigation projects. The act also established the Community Rating System (CRS), a system for crediting communities that implement measures to protect the natural and beneficial functions of their floodplams, as well as managing erosion hazards. The City of Santa Ana, under NEW, has created standards and policies to ensure flood protection. These policies address development and redevelopment, compatibility of uses, required predevelopment drainage studies, compliance with discharge permits, enhancement of existing waterways, cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the Orange County Flood Control District for updating, and method consistency with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and proposed BMPs. State Porter - Cologne Water QuabtyAct The Porter - Cologne Water Quality Act (Water Code sections 13000 et seq.) is the basic water quality control law for California. Under this act, the State Water Resources Control Board ( SWRCB) has ultimate control over state water rights and water quality policy. In California, the EPA has delegated authority to issue NPDES permits to the SWRCB. The state is divided into nine regions related to water quality and quantity characteristics. The SWRCB, through its nine RWQCBs carries out the regulation, protection, and administration of water quality in each region. Each regional board is required to adopt a Water Quality Control Plan or Basin Plan that recognizes and reflects the regional differences in existing water quality, the beneficial uses of the region's ground and surface water, and local water quality conditions and problems. The City of Santa Ana is in the Santa Ana River Basin, Region 8, in the Lower Santa Ana River Watershed. The Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin (8) was updated in 2008. This Basin Plan gives direction on the beneficial uses of the state waters within Region 8, describes the water quality that must be maintained to support such uses, and provides programs, projects, and other actions necessary to achieve the standards established in the Basin Plan. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans Pursuant to the CWA, in 2009, the SWRCB issued a statewide general NPDES Permit for stormwater discharges from construction sites (Order No. 2009- 0009 -DWQ; NPDES No. CAS000002). Under this Statewide General Construction Activity Permit (GCP), discharges of stormwater from construction sites with a disturbed area of one or more acres are required to either obtain individual NPDES permits for storm water discharges or to be covered by the GCE Coverage by the GCP is accomplished by completing and filing a Notice of Intent with the SWRCB and developing and implementing a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP). Each applicant under the GCP must ensure that a SWPPP is prepared prior to grading and is implemented during construction. The SWPPP must list BMPs implemented on the construction site to protect stormwater runoff, and must contain a visual monitoring program; a chemical monitoring program for "non- visible" pollutants to be implemented if there is a failure of BMPs; and a monitoring plan if the site discharges directly to a water body listed on the state's 303(d) list of impaired waters. October 2014 Page 5.7 -3 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Existing Conditions Regional Drainage The project area is in the Santa Ana River Watershed (see Figure 5.7 -1, Santa Ana River Watershen). The Santa Ana River Watershed includes much of Orange County, much of western Riverside County, part of southwestern San Bernardino County, and a small portion of Los Angeles County. The watershed is bounded by the Santa Margarita watershed to the south, on the east by the Salton Sea and Southern Mojave watersheds, and on the north /west by the Mojave and San Gabriel watersheds, respectively. The watershed covers approximately 2,800 square miles in area with about 700 miles of rivers and major. The Santa Ana River extends 96 miles from the San Bernardino Mountains in San Bernardino County to the Pacific Ocean at the boundary between the cities of Huntington Beach and Newport Beach. The part of the Santa Ana River Watershed in Orange County is apportioned into several smaller watersheds by OCWatersheds, an agency of the County of Orange Department of Public Works. The project area is in two of the watersheds designated within Orange County: the Anaheim Bay — Huntington Harbor Watershed and the Orange County portion of the Santa Ana River Watershed.' Anaheim Bag — Huntington Ha Lb or Watershed The Anaheim Bay — Huntington Harbor Sub watershed spans much of central and western Orange County. Drainage in the Anaheim Bay — Huntington Harbor Sub watershed is via the East Garden Grove - Wintersburg Channel, Westminster Channel, Anaheim Barber City Cbannel, and Bolsa Chica Channel, southwest to Bolsa Bay /Huntington Harbor, which is contiguous with the Pacific Ocean (see Figure 5.7 -2, Regional Drainage. Bolsa Bay, Huntington Harbor, and Anaheim Bay (in order from southeast to northwest) are all contiguous. The main outlet to the Pacific Ocean is at the west end of Anaheim Bay on the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station in the City of Seal Beach. An inlet channel connects the southeast end of Bolsa Bay to the ocean. Bolsa Bay is in the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve managed by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDF)V. Most of Anaheim Bay is in the Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge administered by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Huntington Harbor is a developed, small craft marina with mostly residential and some commercial land uses alongside channels. The outermost part of Anaheim Bay (nearest the ocean is an engineered port used by the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station. Santa Ana Raver Watershed, Orange Count? Portion The Santa Ana River Watershed spans most of northeastern Orange County and part of central Orange County (see Figure 5.7 -2, Regional Drainage. Drainage in the Santa Ana River Watershed is southwest via the Santa Ana River to the Pacific Ocean. I The Santa Ana River Watershed designated by OCWatersheds is only pact of the section of the Santa Ana River Watershed in Orange County (see Figure 2, Regional Drainage). Page 5.74 PlaceWorkr wQ O O U) ca > 0 Co A= LU ca ui ca LL. v ai O Cn ol 04 r J9 O Cn ol HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Tbisliage intentionally left blank. Page 5.76 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA Figure 5.7 -2 Regional Drainage 5. Environmental Analysis Harbor Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan ® Conventional Zoning Basemap Source: OC PlanninglGlS 2010 o z Scale (Miles) PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Tbisliage intentionally left blank. Page 5.7-8 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Local Surface Waters and Drainage The majority of the project area is developed, with only a few vacant lots remaining. The project area consists of predominantly impervious areas, with a few unpaved back lots where cars are stored. The existing runoff coefficient for the project area was calculated to be approximately 70 percent (IBI 2013). As noted in the drainage study prepared by IBI, it is assumed that the lots in the project area surface -drain to Harbor Boulevard and other side streets, and the runoff is captured and conveyed in the storm drain systems. Runoff is managed by a combination of closed and open drainage channels. A 90 -inch culvert crosses Harbor Boulevard at Washington Street. A second large closed drainage system is midway between fast and fifth Streets. All drainage ultimately discharges into the Orange County Flood Control Cbannel (sce Appendix F). Boyle Engineering prepared a Drainage Engineering Report m 1993 for the entire City of Santa Ana. The results of the report for the existing drainage system in the project area are provided in Table 5.7 -1. The existing drainage system in the project area is shown in the detailed drainage maps contained in the drainage study prepared by IBI (sce Appendix F). As shown in the table, many of the drainage pipes in the project area are currently deficient. A storm drain project was completed along Harbor Boulevard in 1996. Many of the deficiencies shown in the 1993 Boyle Report and summarized in Table 5.7 -1 were remedied with the 1996 storm drain project (IBI 2013). Table 5.7 -1 Existing Proiect Area Drainage Svstem and Pipe ID Ez Diam. Roadway Pipe Total Location Node teD Node (inches) Runoff, (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) I Deficiency (cfs) 17th Street to 5th Street Northeast from south end of Harper St 0302 -0303 - 13.3 0 0 0.0 -13.3 Harbor Boulevard from 17th St to Washington Ave 0325 -0326 - 26.4 2.3 39.6 41.9 0.0 0326 -0327 - 26.4 29.2 39.6 68.8 0.0 0327 -0328 - 26.4 29.2 39.6 68.8 0.0 17th St From Seaboard Cir to East Garden Grove - Wintersburg Channel 0330 -0377 - 17.5 6.6 0 6.6 -10.9 Near intersection of Harbor Blvd /1st St 0406 -0407 - 15.2 12.5 0 12.5 -2.7 0407 -0408 36 15.2 12.5 21.3 33.8 0.0 0426 -0427 - 20.7 12.5 0 12.5 -8.2 0427 -0428 - 20.7 12.5 0 12.5 -8.2 0428 -0408 - 28.2 12.5 0 12.5 -15.7 0408 -0409 48 54.0 12.5 87.6 100.1 0.0 Harbor Blvd south of 1st St 0581 -0582 - 15.6 12.5 0 12.5 -3.1 West of Harbor Blvd just north of Camile St 0582 -0586 TxF 309.2 0 1128.3 1128.3 0.0 Harbor Blvd north of McFadden Ave 0571 -0572 - 18.3 12.5 0 12.5 -5.8 0572 -0573 - 18.3 12.5 0 12.5 -5.8 October 2014 Page 5.7 -9 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Table 5.7 -1 Existing Project Area Drainage System and Capacities Existinq q. i Runoff, cfs Cap ity 21.2 Deficiency cfs Location Pipe ID Node to Node Ex Diana. inches Roadway cfs Pipe cfs Clinton St and 5th St 0717 -0718 - 38.7 3.1 0 F76.9 -35.6 5th St east from Jackson St 0718 -0715 - 68.7 3.1 0 - -65.6 5th St, Jackson St to Figueroa St 0715 -0723 60 86.0 3.1 73.8 48 -9.1 0723 -0724 66 120.7 3.1 95.2 54 -22.4 0724 -0705 66 121.8 3.1 95.2 98.3 -23.5 Harbor Blvd, 11th St to 5th St 0702 -0703 - 29.2 12.5 20.6 33.1 0.0 0703 -0704 - 39.6 12.5 33.4 45.9 0.0 5th St east from Harbor Blvd 0704 -0705 36 50.7 0 75.6 75.6 0.0 Figueroa St south from 5th St 0705 -0734 72 177.1 25.3 120.0 145.3 -31.8 0734 -0736 72 180.8 25.3 120.0 145.3 -35.5 0736 -0737 72 180.8 0 120.0 120.0 -60.8 0737 -0735 72 180.8 12.5 120.0 132.5 -48.3 1st St from Harper St to Figueroa St 0743 -0744 48 28.5 12.5 91.1 103.6 0.0 0744 -0745 54 36.7 12.5 88.2 100.7 0.0 0745 - 0746 54 45.3 12.5 162.5 175.0 0.0 0746 - 0747 54 54.3 12.5 124.7 137.2 0.0 Harbor Blvd between 1st St and Camile St 0747 - 0748 54 62 0 124.7 124.7 0.0 0748- 0735 54 62 12.5 124.7 137.2 0.0 McFadden Ave, Jackson St to Harbor Blvd 0804 -0805 - 28.7 4.6 0.0 4.6 -24.1 0805 -0806 - 45.3 4.6 0.0 4.6 -40.7 McFadden Ave west of Harbor Blvd 0573 -0574 - 18.3 1.6 0 1.6 -16.7 0574 -0575 36 1 19.6 1.6 1 29.9 31.5 0.0 McFadden Avenue to south HCP boundary Dennis St near Kent St 0651 -0652 - 21.2 25.3 0 25.3 0.0 Kent St near Elliot PI 0652 -0653 - 21.2 25.3 0 25.3 0.0 Dennis St and Lenhardt Ave 0661 -0662 - 13.1 25.3 0 25.3 0.0 0662 -0663 - 13.1 25.3 0 25.3 0.0 Harbor Blvd, McFadden Ave to south project area boundary 0806 - 0807 48 58.2 29.2 64.4 93.6 0.0 0807- 0808 54 62.1 29.2 88.2 117.4 0.0 0808 -0819 63 103.1 29.2 133 162.2 0.0 Soumz:1B12013. Surface Water Quality Beneficial Uses Beneficial uses are uses to which water can be put for the benefit of people and /or wildlife. Beneficial uses for surface waters and groundwater in the Santa Ana River Basin are set forth in the Basin Plan. Beneficial uses of receiving waters are listed below in Table 5.7 -2. Page 5.7 -10 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Table 5.7 -2 Beneficial Uses of Receiving Waters Soumz: SARWQCB 2008. 1 Access pmhibiled by US Navy. 3 Access limned to one day per month by US Navy. 3 Access to pad or all of area pmhibiled by OC Public World. Water Quality Impairments Water quality impairments in receiving waters included on the EPA 2010 Section 303(d) list of Water Quality Limited Segments are listed in Table 5.7 -3. The Santa Ana River (Reach 1) is not included on the EPAs list. October 2014 Page 5.7-77 Beneficial Uses p 13 'o p t= d rn _O 9 Z _p C p - � E LL E p)S N - � 6 m ` E " c w o p o C Water Bodyv Anaheim Bay — Outer X 3 X X X X X X Bay Anaheim Bay - Seal Beach National Wildlife z X X X X X X X Refuge Huntington Harbor X X X X X X X X Bolsa Bay X X X X X X X X X Bolas Chica Ecological X X X X X X X X Reserve Santa Ana River Reach 1 (from just south of Victoria Street 3 X X X in Costa Mesa to 17th Street in Santa Ana) Soumz: SARWQCB 2008. 1 Access pmhibiled by US Navy. 3 Access limned to one day per month by US Navy. 3 Access to pad or all of area pmhibiled by OC Public World. Water Quality Impairments Water quality impairments in receiving waters included on the EPA 2010 Section 303(d) list of Water Quality Limited Segments are listed in Table 5.7 -3. The Santa Ana River (Reach 1) is not included on the EPAs list. October 2014 Page 5.7-77 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Table 5.7 -3 Water Quality Impairments Water Body Pollutant Total Maximum Daily Load (rMDL) Status Anaheim Bay Dielddn (tissue) Required, expected completion date 2019 Nickel Required, expected completion date 2019 PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) (tissue) Required, expected completion date 2019 Sediment Toxicity Required, expected completion date 2019 East Garden Grove Wintersburg Channel Ammonia (un- ionized) Required, expected completion date 2021 Huntington Harbor Chlordane Required, expected completion date 2019 Copper Required, expected completion date 2019 Lead Required, expected completion date 2019 Nickel Required, expected completion date 2019 PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) (tissue) Required, expected completion date 2019 Pathogens Required, expected completion date 2019 Sediment Toxicity Required, expected completion date 2019 Soumz: USEPA 2011a. Dieldrin and chlordane are organochlorine insecticides. Poydibrinated biphenyls (PCBs) are chlorinated hydrocarbons that were lonnerly used as insulation and coolant in electrical equipment Groundwater The project area lies over the Main Orange County Groundwater Basin (Basin) that underlies most of north and central Orange County (see Figure 5.7 -3, Main Orange County Groundwater Basin). Groundwater Quality Most water pumped from the Basin for municipal use is of potable quality. Five water treatment systems treat groundwater ffom the Basin for four types of contaminants: salinity; total dissolved solids (IDS); nitrate; and color from the remains of ancient vegetation. The facilities, and contaminants that each facility treats, are: ■ Tustin Main Street Desalter: nitrate ■ Tustin 17� Street Desalter: nitrate, TDS ■ Mesa Colored Water Treatment Facility: colored water ■ Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) Deep Aquifer Treatment System: color • IRWD Irvine Desalter: salt In 2010, the total volume of water treated at seven treatment facilities in Orange County, five of which are within the Basin, was 17,864 acre -feet. This is less than 10 percent of the 201,075 acre -feet of groundwater pumped from the Basin that year. The Basin provides 60 to 70 percent of the domestic water for 2.55 million people (Malcolm -Punic 2011). Page 5.7 -12 PlaceWorkr R'Q —z w� ¢a zz LL� �o a� o° v z 0 X_ O K O K x != N � T CO N (6 � E � d C O O 0 W C � I!'1 O U Z� S_ WE lJ S_ M L( 7 t� LL h m m cn 0 I N 1 m❑ C C 10 1 � � Z U 0 o . O o Y LL o `N U E . �•'�„'h S � ST � .� I �.�Q a dyT ♦Q � Y N I �Of gqyfC W mY Ql 1 L s c c y $ ysc i �q m 6 O4 ed `+F ♦4 _ o �M+21 Io��IFg uz$ HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Tbisliage intentionally left blank. Page 5.7 -14 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Flood Hazards Designated Flood Zones Much of the northern half of the project area is in Zone A, a 100 year flood zone designated by FEMA, as shown in Figure 5.7 -4, Flood Hazard Zones. Areas along the west side of Harbor Boulevard from 1st Street north to 5th Street are in Zone A, as are areas along both sides of Harbor Boulevard from 5th Street north to Westminster Avenue. The remainder of the project area, south of the above - specified areas, is in Shaded Zone X, meaning that it is protected from 100 year floods by levees (FEMA 2009a, 2009b). Seismically Induced Dam Inundation Approximately the west half of the City of Santa Ana is in the dam inundation area for Prado Dam, which is located on the Santa Ana River 18 miles northeast of the project area. The following information and analysis is from a dam inundation analysis prepared by The Planning Center I DC&E for a proposed charter school at 2840 West 1st Street in Santa Ana, just east of the 1st Street Bridge over the Santa Ana River (The Planning Center I DC&E 2013). Prado Dam is owned and operated by the Los Angeles District of the Army Corps of Engineers and was completed in 1941. It provides flood control and groundwater recharge capability for Orange County. The dam is on the Santa Ana River approximately two miles west of the City of Corona near the head of Santa Ana Canyon. Its primary purpose is to reduce the risk of damage from floods in the metropolitan areas of Orange County, and it was built after a catastrophic flood on the Santa Ana River in 1938. Prado Dam is an earth filled dam with a height of 106 feet and a reservoir capacity of 217,000 acre -feet. Its functioning capacity was recently increased due to the construction of the Seven Oaks Dam, which was completed in 1999 and is approximately 40 miles upstream on the Santa Ana River. During a flood, Seven Oaks Dam will store water destined for Prado Dam for as long as the reservoir pool at Prado Dam is rising. When the flood threat at Prado Dam has passed, Seven Oaks Dam will begin to release its stored flood water at a rate that does not exceed the downstream channel capacity. Working in tandem, the Prado and Seven Oaks Dams provide increased protection to Orange County. Flood protection improvements along the Santa Ana River are being implemented as part of the Santa Ana River Mamstem Project, including improvements to Prado Dam: raising the dam height 28.4 feet; constructing a new outlet works to more than triple the existing outlet capacity; raising the concrete spillway 20 feet; constructing levees or dikes in the basin to protect properties; and stabilizing approximately 1.5 miles of bluff along the Santa Ana River downstream of the Interstate 15 bridge in the City of Norco. These improvements will increase Prado Dam's current 70 year level of protection to 190 -year protection and will increase the reservoir capacity from 217,000 to 362,000 acre -feet. In addition, the downstream channel capacity of the Santa Ana River will be increased from 9,350 cubic feet per second (cfs) to approximately 30,000 cfs, further reducing the potential for flooding (CCCD 2012). All work on the Santa Ana River Channel is scheduled for completion in 2014, and all work on Prado Dam is scheduled for completion by 2018. Completion of these projects will significantly reduce flood risks on the Santa Ana River and the October 2014 Page 5.7 15 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY potential for flood inundation from Prado Dam. The Army Corps of Engineers is also planning to update the dam inundation maps by 2020 (USACE 2013). The latest available dam inundation map for Prado Dam was produced in 1985 by the Army Corps of Engineers (USACE 1985). Note that this map was prepared prior to all of the improvements to the dam and the Santa Ana River and therefore overestimates the flood potential and dam inundation area. The peak outflow of the hypothetical flood wave would be contained within Santa Ana Canyon and then spread out across the alluvial plain to encompass an area more than 10 miles wide by the time it reached the project site. The nearest cross - section to the project area shows that the first arrival time of the flood wave would be approximately 6.25 hours with a maximum depth of flow of 4 feet at 7.25 hours. With improvements in the Santa Ana River, which can now convey 30,000 cfs (3.2 times the previous capacity), this could result in a proportional decrease in the flow depth to 1.25 feet in the vicinity of the project area. 5.7.2 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: HYD -1 Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. HYD -2 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. HYD -3 Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in a substantial erosion or siltation on or off site. HM-4 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. HYD -5 Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff HYD -6 Otherwise substantially degrade water quality. HYD -7 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. HYD -8 Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows. HM-9 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. HYD -10 Be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Page 5.7 -16 PlaceWorkr NAR90R BL U MILKED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA Figure 5.7-0 Flood Hazard Zones 5. Environmental Analysis a 1paa S— FEMA 2013 Scale (Feel) HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Tbisliage intentionally left blank. Page 5.7 -7% PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY The Initial Study, included as Appendix A, substantiates that impacts associated with the following thresholds would be less than significant: HYD -10. This impact will not be addressed in the following analysis. 5.7.3 Environmental Impacts The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study disclosed potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement. Buildout of the proposed Harbor Corridor Plan would involve the following net increases: 3,884 dwelling units; 15,327 persons; 13,721 square feet of commercial uses; and 173 employees. All of the changes in development potential would occur throughout various areas of the Harbor Corridor Plan. No changes to development potential would occur in the 120 -acre Conventional Zoning Area. There would be no hydrology or water quality impacts to the Conventional Zoning Area since no new development would occur in this area and the existing land uses would remain. As a result, the analysis below focuses on the portion of the project that covers the Harbor Corridor Plan. Impact 5.7 -1: Development pursuant to the Harbor Corridor Plan would not substantially change the amount of impervious surfaces in the project area and would therefore not substantially Impact Analysis: The project area is in a highly urbanized area of the City, it is not used for groundwater recharge and is not in or near any groundwater recharge areas. Additionally, much of the existing commercial and automotive land uses in the project area are developed with buildings and paved parking lots with minimal landscaping. Approximately 11.6 acres of the project area are vacant and 4.5 acres are open space, for a total of approximately 16.1 acres of land uses consisting of pervious surfaces. Development standards for landscaping outlined in the Harbor Corridor Plan would result in approximately 20 percent, or 50.6 acres, of parcelized area within the project area being landscaped at project buildout. This area would include private yards; common areas in private development projects; and landscaping in public rights- of-way such as parkways and medians. This does not include Willowick Golf Course, which is outside of the Harbor Corridor Plan area. Project implementation would therefore increase impervious surfaces in the project area. Furthermore, priority development projects as defined in the MS4 Permit2 would be required to infiltrate, filter, or treat runoff flow rates or volumes specified in the MS4 Permit. Therefore, implementation of the Harbor Corridor Plan would not substantially reduce groundwater recharge. 2 Priority development projects for which WQMPs are required include: • Redevelopment projects adding or replacing 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surfaces. • Development projects creating 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surfaces. • Restaurants of 5,000 or more square feet area. • Puking lots of 5,000 square feet or more. October 2014 Page 5.7 -19 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Impact 5.7 -2: Development pursuant to the Harbor Corridor Plan would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the project area in a manner that would result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite. [Thresholds HYD -3] Impact Analysis: Erosion and siltation impacts potentially resulting from individual development projects that would be accommodated by the Harbor Corridor Plan would, for the most part, occur during the construction phase, which would include site preparation and grading activities. However, there is a potential for erosion and siltation to occur during project operation. Construction Impacts Individual development projects that would be accommodated by the Harbor Corridor Plan would be required to prepare and implement a SWPPP pursuant to the GCP during grading and construction. The SWPPP would specify BMPs that individual project applicants would implement prior to and during grading and construction to minimize erosion and siltation impacts on and offsite. Adherence to the 13MPs in the SWPPP would reduce, prevent, or minimize soil erosion from project related grading and construction activities. Therefore, project implementation would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of individual development sites or the project area in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite. Operation Impacts The majority of the project area is developed and consists of impervious surfaces (buildings, driveways, and other paved areas). Currently, approximately 11.6 acres of the project area are vacant and consist of bare soil. However, these areas are slated for development under the Harbor Corridor Plan and would not always remain undeveloped bare soil. Additionally, development standards for landscaping outlined in the Harbor Corridor Plan would result in approximately 20 percent, or 50.6 acres, of parcelized area within the project area being landscaped at project buildout. There would be no substantial areas of bare or disturbed soil onsite at project completion that would be vulnerable to erosion. Therefore, implementation of the Harbor Corridor Plan would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area m a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or offsite. Impact 5.7 -3: Development pursuant to the Harbor Corridor Plan would increase the amount of impervious surfaces in the project area and would therefore increase surface water flows into drainage systems within the watershed. [Thresholds HYDA and HYD -5] Impact Analysis: Implementation of the Harbor Corridor Plan would increase impervious surfaces in the project area through the development of individual project sites. The majority of impervious surfaces would come from development of the existing vacant lots, which make up approximately 11.6 acres of the project area. At project completion, the Harbor Corridor Plan area is estimated to generate 15 percent more runoff than in current conditions; that is, approximately 80 percent of stormwater within the project area would be expected to run off ( 131 2013). With project drainage volumes were forecast by adding 15 percent to existing estimated drainage volumes. Needed storm drain improvements for project generated drainage were identified by comparing with project drainage volumes to existing capacities. Page 5.7 -20 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY The Drainage Engineering Report prepared in 1993 by Boyle Engineering has shown that the existing drainage system is deficient and unable to convey the current runoffs. Table 5.7 -4 reveals the pipe capacities and deficiencies if the recommendations of the Drainage Engineering Report were implemented and the existing flows were increased by 15 percent to account for the implementation of the proposed project. As shown in the table, after completion of specified drainage improvements, no drainage deficiencies would remain, with the exception of the pipe segment from 0702 to 0703, which would be deficient by 0.5 cfs. All other capacities would be sufficient to handle the project development flows. The recommendations made in the Drainage Engineering Report prepared by Boyle Engineering would need to be implemented in order to convey existing runoff as well as future Harbor Boulevard corridor flows from implementation of the Harbor Corridor Plan. Mitigation has been provided at the end of this section requiring that improvements outlined in the Drainage Engineering Report, which are summarized in the drainage study prepared by IBI and highlighted in the detailed storm drain maps provided in the study (see Appendix F), be implemented by the City of Santa Ana. Additionally, during the City's development review process, individual development projects that would be accommodated by the Harbor Corridor Plan would be required to comply with the requirements in effect at the time building permits are issued, including payment of the required Drainage Area Master Plan Fees, as outlined in Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 34193. The Drainage Area Master Plan Fees are necessary in order to fund needed improvements to the City's drainage system to reduce the cumulative impacts caused by new development, and are apportioned to new development based on new development's fair share of the estimated costs of the improvements. These fees are payable at the rates in place at the time of building permit issuance. October 2014 Page 5.7 -21 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Table 5.7 -4 Future Pipe Capacity 17th Street to 5th Street Northeast from south end of 0406 -0407 Exist Future Capacity Total 1 15 % Fu[. I Future 0.0 I 0302 -0303 0.00 Capacity Prop. Pipe I Capacity Capacity Flow Deficiency Location Pipe ID (cfs) (inches) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) 17th Street to 5th Street Northeast from south end of 0406 -0407 12.50 18 5.8 18.3 17.5 0.0 Harper St 0302 -0303 0.00 27 17.0 17.0 15.3 0.0 17th St From Seaboard Cir to 12.50 24 12.4 24.9 23.8 0.0 0428 -0408 East Garden Grove - Wintersburg 0330 -0377 6.60 27 17.0 23.6 20.1 0.0 Channel 18 5.8 18.3 17.9 0.0 Harbor Blvd north of McFadden Ave 0571 -0572 5th Street to McFadden Avenue Near Harbor Blvd /1st St intersection 0406 -0407 12.50 18 5.8 18.3 17.5 0.0 1st St West of Harbor Blvd to Mountain View St 0426 -0427 12.50 24 12.4 24.9 23.8 0.0 0427 -0428 12.50 24 12.4 24.9 23.8 0.0 0428 -0408 12.50 30 22.5 35.0 32.4 0.0 Harbor Blvd south of 1st St 0581 -0582 12.50 18 5.8 18.3 17.9 0.0 Harbor Blvd north of McFadden Ave 0571 -0572 12.50 21 8.7 21.2 21.0 0.0 0572 -0573 12.50 21 8.7 21.2 21.0 0.0 Harbor Blvd, 11th St to 5th St 0702 -0703 33.06 - - 33.1 33.6 -0.5 Clinton St and 5 St 0717 -0718 3.10 39 45.3 48.4 44.5 0.0 5 St east from Jackson St 0718 -0715 3.10 51 92.7 95.8 79.0 0.0 5th St, Jackson St to Figueroa St 0715 -0723 76.90 51 92.7 169.6 98.9 0.0 0723 -0724 98.30 57 124.7 223.0 138.8 0.0 0724 -0705 98.30 57 124.7 223.0 140.1 0.0 Figueroa St south from 5th St 0705 -0734 145.30 63 162.9 308.2 203.7 0.0 0734 -0736 145.30 48 78.9 224.2 207.9 0.0 0736 -0737 120.00 57 124.7 244.7 207.9 0.0 0737 -0735 132.50 54 108.0 240.5 207.9 0.0 McFadden Ave, Jackson St to Harbor Blvd 0804 -0805 4.60 36 36.6 41.2 33.0 0.0 0805 -0806 4.60 42 55.3 59.9 52.1 0.0 McFadden Ave west of Harbor Blvd 0573 -0574 1.60 30 22.5 24.1 21.0 0.0 Soumz:1B12013. Page 5.7 -22 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Impact 5.7 -4: During the construction phase of the individual development projects that would be accommodated by the Harbor Corridor Plan, adherence to the General Construction Activity Permit would reduce short-term pollutant concentrations from individual development sites. [Thresholds HYD -1 (part) and HYD -6 (part)] impact Analysis: Grading and construction activities of individual development projects that would be accommodated by the Harbor Corridor Plan could generate oil and grease, trash and debris, pesticides, other organic compounds such as solvents, degreasers, and compounds in coatings. This would result in a short - term significant impact on stormwater quality. However, project applicants for individual development projects would be required to comply with existing water quality standards and waste discharge requirements during all grading and construction activities. The GCP issued by SWRCB regulates construction activities on sites of one acre or greater to minimize water pollution, including sediment and pollutants. Individual development sites would be subject to the GCP, including the development and implementation of a SWPPP. Project applicants of individual development projects in the project area would be required to prepare and implement SWPPPs. The SWPPP would specify BMPs that individual project applicants would implement for protecting water quality by eliminating and /or minimizing stormwater pollution prior to and during grading and construction and show the placement of those BMPs. Typical categories of BMPs included in SWPPPs are described in Table 5.7 -5. Table 5.7 -5 Construction BMPs Category Purpose Examples Cover and /or bind soil surface, to prevent soil Mulch, geotextiles, mats, hydroseeding, Erosion Controls particles from being detached and transported by earth dikes, swales water or Wind such as straw bales, sandbags, Sediment Controls Filter out soil particles that have been detached and fiber rolls, and gravel bag berms, desilting transported in water. basin, cleaning measures such as street sweeping Wind Erosion Controls The aims and methods of wind erosion control are See Erosion Controls above. similar to those of erosion control described above. Stabilized construction roadways and Tracking Controls Minimize the tracking of soil offsite by vehicles construction entrances/exits, entrance/outlet tire wash. Prohibit discharge of materials other than stormwater, such as discharges from the cleaning, BMPs specifying methods for g maintenance, and fueling of vehicles and paving and grinding operations, cleaning, NonStorm Water Management equipment. Conduct various construction fueling, and maintenance of vehicles and Controls operations, including paving, grinding, and concrete equipment, concrete curing, concrete curing and finishing, in ways that minimize non - finishing. stormwater discharges and contamination of any such discharges. Waste Management and Controls Management of materials and wastes to avoid Spill prevention and control, stockpile (i.e., good housekeeping practices) contamination of stormwater. management, and management of solid wastes and hazardous wastes. October 2014 Page 5.7 -23 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Adherence to the BMPs in the SWPPP would reduce, prevent, minimize, and /or treat pollutants and prevent degradation of downstream receiving waters. BMPs identified in the SWPPP would reduce or avoid contamination of stormwater with sediment and would also reduce or avoid contamination with other pollutants such as trash and debris; oil, grease, fuels, and other toxic chemicals; pesticides; and nutrients. Therefore, water quality and waste - discharge impacts from grading and construction activities associated with individual development projects that would be accommodated by the Harbor Corridor Plan would not occur. Impact 5.7 -5: Operation of individual development projects would reduce or avoid contamination of stormwater through implementation of the Water Quality Management Plan consistent with the MS4 Permit. [Thresholds HYD -1 (part) and HYD -6 (part)] ImpactAnalysis: Anticipated and Potential Pollutants Proposed development and redevelopment land use types in the project area include single - family attached, multifamily, and single - family detached residential uses; retail; office; restaurant; entertainment; and neighborhood serving commercial land uses. Anticipated and potential pollutants of these uses are listed in Table 5.7 -6. Table 5.7 -6 Anticipated and Potential Pollutants Generated by Land Use Type Notes: X = anticipated; P = potential Potential pollutant if landscaping is onsite 3 Potential pollutant if the project includes uncovered parking areas Including solvents ^ The commemialAndustrial land use category in the source table is speci5c to developments over 100,000 square feet in building area. Such developments would not be permitted under the Harbor Corridor Plan. While the soak of new permitted commercial land uses under the Harbor Corridor Plan would be smaller than that evaluated in the table, the types of anticipated and potential pollutants would be generally similar to those listed above. 5 The project would not permit parking lots as stand -alone land uses, but would permit parlang lots accessory to other land uses within individual project sites. Pollutants of Concern Pollutants of concern are anticipated or potential pollutants that are listed by EPA as impairing receiving water bodies. Page 5.7 -24 PlaceWorkr C rn vm o c o E m � 'r^ E l Z d N H 3 0 Land Use o Detached Residential X X X X X X X Attached Residential X X X X PF) P(2) Commercial /Industrial^ Pty) Pty P(4 PI) X pn X Restaurants X X X X Parking Lots5 X PF) P(4 PI) X P(3) X Notes: X = anticipated; P = potential Potential pollutant if landscaping is onsite 3 Potential pollutant if the project includes uncovered parking areas Including solvents ^ The commemialAndustrial land use category in the source table is speci5c to developments over 100,000 square feet in building area. Such developments would not be permitted under the Harbor Corridor Plan. While the soak of new permitted commercial land uses under the Harbor Corridor Plan would be smaller than that evaluated in the table, the types of anticipated and potential pollutants would be generally similar to those listed above. 5 The project would not permit parking lots as stand -alone land uses, but would permit parlang lots accessory to other land uses within individual project sites. Pollutants of Concern Pollutants of concern are anticipated or potential pollutants that are listed by EPA as impairing receiving water bodies. Page 5.7 -24 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Pollutants listed as impairing receiving water bodies are in Table 5.7 -3, Abater Quality lVedrments. Of those pollutants, dieldrin and chlordane are not anticipated or potential pollutants from the proposed project because they are mainly used as agricultural insecticides and because nearly all uses of these two pesticides have been halted in the United States. Most uses of dieldrin were banned in the United States in 1987 (USEPA 2011b), and most uses of chlordane were voluntarily halted in the United States in 1988 (NPIC 2001). Therefore, pollutants of concern for the proposed project include: pathogens, heavy metals (copper, lead, and nickel), nutrients (un- ionized ammonia), organic compounds (PCBs), and sediment toxicity. Operation of projects within the Harbor Corridor Plan could result in a significant impact on stormwater quality, because of the potential pollutants that may be generated from the proposed land uses. Water Quality Management Plans Priority development projects within the Harbor Corridor Plan would be required to prepare and implement water quality management plans (WQMPs) specifying BMPs to minimize water pollution by the project. Categories of BMPs included in WQMPs are described in Table 5.7 -7. Table 5.7 -7 Cateqories of BMPs in WQMPs Category I Purpose Examples BMPs Used in Project Design • Minimizing impervious areas and directly connected Site Design BMPs Reduce or eliminate postproject runoff impervious areas. • Inclusion of infiltration basins and detention or retention basins in project designs. October 2014 Page 5.7 25 • Roof runoff controls Structural Source Control BMPs Reduce the potential for pollutants to Protection of slopes and channels enter runoff Efficient irrigation • Storm drain system signage • Biofiltration through constructed project landscape Treatment Control BMPs Treat contaminated stoonwater before the elements such as bioswales, infiltration trenches, water is discharged offsite and /or infiltration basins. • Filters BMPs Used in Project Operation • Education of owners and employees Reduce the potental for pollutants Activity restrictons, such as requiring that trash can Nonstructural Source Control resulting from activites onsite to enter lids be closed at all times and prohibiting outdoor BMPs runoff. cooking. • Periodic inspections of water quality features such as catch basins and filters. October 2014 Page 5.7 25 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Adherence to the BMPs in the WQMP would reduce, prevent, minimize, and /or treat pollutants and prevent degradation of downstream receiving waters. BMPs identified in the WQMP would reduce or avoid contamination of stormwater with sediment and would also reduce or avoid contamination with other pollutants such as pathogens, heavy metals, nutrients, organic compounds, and sediment toxicity. Therefore, water quality and waste discharge impacts from operation activities associated with individual development projects that would be accommodated by the Harbor Corridor Plan would not occur. Impact 5.7 -6: Development of projects pursuant to the Harbor Corridor Plan would place people and structures in a 100 -year flood zone. [Thresholds HYD -7 and HYD -8] Impact Analysis: Buildout of the proposed Harbor Corridor Plan would increase numbers of residents, residential units, commercial square footage, and employees in the project area. Much of the northern half of the project area is a 100 -year flood zone, as shown in Figure 5.7 -4, Flood Zones. Areas along the west side of Harbor Boulevard from 1st Street north to 5th Street are in Zone A, as are areas along both sides of Harbor Boulevard from 5th Street north to Westminster Avenue. However, multiple flood control improvements have been completed, are under construction, or are planned, as part of the Santa Ana River Mainstem Project ( SARMP) described above in the Seismically Induced Dam Inundation discussion of Section 5.7 -1, Envimnmental Setting. The flood insurance rate maps (PTRMs) for the project area were issued in 2009. The SARMP is scheduled for completion in 2018; some elements of which, including Seven Oaks Dam, have already been completed. At completion of the SARMP, 100 year flood zones for flooding from the Santa Ana River are expected to be substantially smaller than they are at present. For example, channel improvements are underway on a segment of the East Garden Grove- Wintersburg Channel between Warner Avenue and Bolsa Bay, downstream from the project area in the City of Huntington Beach, and an area of unincorporated Orange County (OC Public Works 2013). At completion of improvements under construction and planned along the Santa Ana River and the East Garden Grove - Wintersburg Channel, it is expected that flood hazards in the project area would be reduced compared to flood zones designated in the 2009 FIRMS. Prior to completion of the SARMP improvements, impacts would be significant. Hydrology studies for individual development projects that would be accommodated by the Harbor Corridor Plan would be required; the studies would have to include estimates of 100 -year flood depth on each respective site from FEMA. Geotechnical investigations for each such project would also be required to provide recommendations for grading to raise building pads above 100 -year flood elevations, as required. Alternatively, individual development projects could request a Letter of Map Correction from FEMA if the respective project applicants provide substantial evidence that the lowest adjacent grade elevation is already above the 100 -year flood elevation at that site. Page 5.7 -26 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Impact 5.7 -7: Project implementation would introduce development in an area of the City that is within the dam inundation area of Prado Dam. [Threshold HYD -9] ImpactAna7ysis: The project area is in the dam inundation area for Prado Dam. A dam inundation analysis for a proposed charter school at 2840 West 1st Street in Santa Ana, approximately 1,230 feet east of the project area is summarized above in the Seismically Induced Dam Inundation discussion of Section 5.7 -1, Environmental Setting. Flood control improvements to the Santa Ana River channel and to Prado Dam and Seven Oaks Dam, both of which are along the Santa Ana River, are described in the Section 5.7 -1. The US Army Corps of Engineers is planning to update dam inundation maps for Prado Dam by 2020. At that time, the project area will either be out of the dam inundation area for Prado Dam altogether, or the maximum flood depth at the project area from dam inundation will be substantially lower than the four feet shown on the current dam inundation map issued in 1985. Considering the warning time between dam failure and a flood reaching the project site approximately 6.25 hours—people within the project area would be able to evacuate or be evacuated before flooding from dam inundation reached the project area. Additionally, the probability of a catastrophic failure of the Prado Dam during an earthquake or other natural disaster is very low, and emergency evacuation procedures are in place in the event of dam failure. The dam is also required by Division 3 of the California Water Code to be monitored periodically for structural safety. Surveillance measurements of dams in California are the responsibility of the owner and are subject to supervision by the Department of Water Resources, as specified in the California Water Code. Impacts are less than significant. 5.7.4 Cumulative Impacts The area analyzed for water quality impacts is the part of Orange County in the Santa Ana River Watershed, including the Anaheim Bay — Huntington Harbor Watershed. Water Quality Impacts Operation and construction of cumulative development projects in accordance with the City's General Plan (See Section 4.4, AsmVfions Regarding Cumulative Impacts, in Chapter 4) in the Santa Ana River Watershed would each generate pollutants of types varying by land use. However, as with individual development projects that would be accommodated by the Harbor Corridor Plan, cumulative projects would be required to prepare and implement WQMPs covering the design and operation phases of the project, and SWPPPs covering project construction. BMPs implemented by cumulative projects would reduce water quality impacts of those projects to less than significant levels; therefore, significant cumulative water quality impacts are not anticipated, and project water quality impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. Drainage Impacts Cumulative development projects in accordance with the City's General Plan within the Santa Ana River Basin would change amounts of impervious surfaces and thus change amounts of runoff entering storm drainage systems within the watershed. Priority development projects as defined in the MS4 Permit would be required to infiltrate, filter, or treat runoff flow rates or volumes specified in the MS4 Permit. Therefore, October 2014 Page 5.7 -27 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY cumulative projects in conjunction with individual development projects that would be accommodated by the Harbor Corridor Plan are not expected to cause substantial cumulative impacts to storm drainage capacity in the region. Flood Hazard Impacts Cumulative projects would increase the numbers of people and buildings in 100 -year flood zones and in dam inundation zones within the Santa Ana. River Watershed. Flood control improvements along the Santa Ana River would reduce hazards from 100 year floods and from potential dam inundation throughout 100 year flood zones in the Santa Ana River Watershed in Orange County, and throughout the dam inundation zone for Prado Dam. Therefore, the proposed projects flood hazard impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. 5.7.5 Existing Regulations State • General Construction Activity Permit, Order No. 2009- 0009 -DWQ; NPDES No. CAS000002 City of Santa Ana • MS4 NPDES permit • Drainage Area Master Plan Fees 5.7.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, the following impacts would be less than significant: 5.7 -1, 5.7 -2, and 5.7 -7. Without mitigation, the following impacts would be potentially significant: ■ Impact 5.7 -3 Significant impacts to the storm drain system in the project area could occur as a result of project implementation. ■ Impact 5.7 -4 Construction could result in a short -term increase in pollutant concentrations in runoff. ■ Impact 5.7 -5 Project implementation could result in a change to the quality of stormwater runoff ■ Impact 5.7 -6 Individual projects within the Harbor Corridor Plan may be located within a 100 year flood zone. Page 5.7 -2% PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 5.7.7 Mitigation Measures Impact 5.7 -3 - -1 Prior to issuance of grading permits for future development projects in the Harbor Corridor Plan, applicants shall submit site - specific hydrology and hydraulic Studies to the Public Works Agency for review and approval. If existing facilities are not adequate to handle runoff generated by the proposed development, then the applicant shall construct storm drain improvements. T€-a�Storm drain upgrades shallearfftet be implemented prior to issuance of occupancy permits, , 7 -2 During the design of individual projects, applicants shall minimize impervious area by incorporating landscaped areas over substantial portions of a proposed project area. Furthermore, impervious areas shall be directly connected to landscaped areas or bioretention facilities to promote filtration and infiltration of stormwater. The nwhcan t must comply with the latest Orange County Model Water Quality Management Plan (WOMP. Impact 5.7 -4 - -3 Notice of Intent (NOI). Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for construction sites with a disturbed area of one or more acres, the project applicant shall provide the City Engineer with evidence that a NOI has been filed with the State Water Resources Control Board. Such evidence shall consist of a copy of the NOI stamped by the State Water Resources Control Board or Regional Water Quality Control Board, or a letter from either agency stating that the NOI has been filed. 7 -4 Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Prior to the issuance of grading permits for construction sites with a disturbed area of one or more acres, the project applicant shall prepare a SWPPP that will: ■ Require implementation of best management practices (BMPs) designed with a goal of preventing a net increase in sediment load in stormwater discharges relative to preconstruction levels; ■ During the construction period, prohibit discbarges of stormwater or non -storm water at levels which would cause or contribute to an exceedance of applicable water quality standards contained in the Basin Plan; ■ Discuss in detail the BMPs planned for the project related to control of sediment and erosion, nonsediment pollutants, and potential pollutants in non -storm water discharges; ■ Describe post construction BMPs for the project; October 2014 Page 5.7 -29 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY • Explain the maintenance program for the projects BMPs; • During construction, require reporting of violations to the Regional Board; • List the parties responsible for SWPPP implementation and BMP maintenance during and after grading. The project proponent shall implement the SWPPP and will modify the SWPPP as directed by the Storm Water Permit. Impact 5.7 -5 -5 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). Prior to the issuance of building permits, project specific WQMPs shall be submitted for review and approved by the Building Department. The WQMP shall identify the best management practices (BMPs) that will be used on the site to control predictable pollutant runoff More specifically, the WQMP shall: • Describe the routine and special post construction BMPs to be used at the proposed development site (including both structural and non - structural measures); • Describe responsibility for the initial implementation and long -term maintenance of the BMPs; • Provide narrative with the graphic materials as necessary to specify the locations of the structural BMPs; • Certify that the project applicant will seek to have the WQMP carried out by all future successors or assigns to the property. Impact 5.7 -6 Mitigation Measure 7 -1 applies. 7 -6 Prior to the issuance of precise grading permit for any lot or parcel wholly or partially located within the 100 -year floodplain, the applicant shall furnish to the City Engineer documentation required by FEMA for approval of the Conditional Letter of Map Revision /Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR /LOMR) process. The FEMA for revision to the FIRM and Flood Insurance Study (FIS). The applicant shall pay all preliminary and subsequent fees as required by FEMA. 5.7.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation Compliance with regulatory requirements and implementation of mitigation measures identified above would reduce potential impacts associated with hydrology and water quality to a less than significant level. Therefore, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts relating to hydrology and water quality have been identified. Page 5.7 -30 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 5.7.9 References Coast Community College District (CCCD). 2012. Hazard Mitigation Plan. III -D — Dam Failure. http: //w ..cccd.edu /haz d_mitigation /docs / Community %2OForum %20PP.pdf. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2009a, December 3. Flood Zone Map 06059CO256J. http: / /mapl.msc.fema.gov /idms /IntraVie ..cgi ?KEY- 84033771&IFIT —l. .2009a, December 3. Flood Zone Map 06059C0143J. http: / /mapl.msc.fema.gov /idms /IntraVie ..cgi ?KEY- 65262003&IFIT —l. IBI Group (1131). 2013, March 18. Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor. Drainage Study. Malcolm Punic. 2011, June. Municipal Water District of Orange County: 2010 Final Urban Water Management Plan. http: //w .. mwdoc. com/ filsgallery /MWDOC_Final_2010_RUWMP.pdf. National Pesticide Information Center (NPIC). 2001. Chlordane. http://npic.orst.edu/factshmts/cblordmegen.pdf. OC Public Works. 2013, July 3. East Garden Grove- Wintersburg Channel Improvement Project. http: / /ocflood.com /nfc /projects / construction /east —g rden— rove_faciiity_cO5 /. The Planning Center I DC&E. 2013, February. Initial Study for: Pacific Technology School. Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB). 2008, February. Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin (Basin Plan). http: //w ..swrcb .ca.gov /r gcb8 /water_issues/ programs /basin_plan/index.shtml. US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2011a, December 21. 2010 Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List. http: //w ..waterboards.m.gov /water_ issues / programs /tmdl /integrated2010.shtrnl. .2011b, April 18. Aldrin /Dieldrin. http: //w ..epa.gov /pbt /pubs /alclrin.htm. 2004, September. Water Permitting 101. http: //w ..epa.gov /npdes /pubs /101pape.pdf. US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2013. Dam Safety Pmgram — Prado Dam. http: //w ..spl.usam.armyrnii /Missions /CivilWorks/ Media /FactShmts /tabid /1321 /Article /2710 /dam- safety- program. aspx. 1985, August. Prado Dam Emergency Inundation Map, Plate No. 4. October 2014 Page 5.7 -31 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Tbisliage intentionally left blank. Page 5.7 -32 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis 5.8 LAND USE AND PLANNING This section of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) evaluates the potential impacts to land use in the City of Santa Ana from implementation of the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan. This section is based on the proposed zoning designations and land uses described in detail in Chapter 3, Project Desenpfion, and shown in Figure 3 -4, Proposed Land Use Districts and Zoning Designations. The proposed project has been evaluated to determine its consistency with relevant goals and policies of the City of Santa Ana General Plan and for consistency with the City's zoning code. In addition, the proposed project has been evaluated for consistency with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP /SCS) and Compass Growth Vision. Land use impacts can be direct or indirect. Direct impacts are land use incompatibilities, division of neighborhoods or communities, or interference with other land use plans, including habitat or wildlife conservation plans. This section focuses on direct land use impacts. Indirect impacts are secondary effects resulting from land use policy implementation, such as an increase in demand for public utilities or services, or increased traffic on roadways. Indirect impacts are addressed in other topical sections of this EIR. 5.8.1 Environmental Setting As shown in Figures 3 -2, Local Vicinity, and 3 -3, Aerial Photograph, the project area comprises approximately 425 acres oriented to Harbor Boulevard in the City of Santa Ana, which is in central Orange County. The project area generally includes parcels adjacent to Harbor Boulevard between Westminster Avenue and Lilac Way and parcels along Westminster Avenue, 1st Street, and 5th Street one -half mile east of Harbor Boulevard. The corridor's northern and southern ends are adjacent to the city boundaries of Garden Grove and Fountain Valley, respectively. Existing Land Uses The project area currently contains roughly two million square feet of commercial uses distributed fairly evenly along the corridor. Existing commercial uses occur both at midblock locations and at intersections and are dominated by auto service and sales, but also include grocery stores, service businesses, and restaurants. The project area contains 739 residential units, including multifamily residential and mobile home communities accessed from Harbor Boulevard and single - family residential areas along Jackson Street. The project area also contains the Willowick Golf Course (an operating 18 hole public golf course), Cesar Chavez /Campesino Park, and Santa Anita Park. Existing uses are shown in Figure 3 -3, Aerial Photograph. Surrounding Land Uses The project area is in a highly urban, built out portion of the City. It is generally surrounded by residential uses, which vary widely in character and density and include single - family neighborhoods, apartment complexes, and mobile home communities. Most of the surrounding residential uses are accessed from streets perpendicular to Harbor Boulevard and not from Harbor Boulevard itself. October 2014 Page 5.8 -1 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Existing General Plan and Zoning Designations Zoning Adopted in 1992, the North Harbor Specific Plan (NHSP) planned for approximately 345 residential units and five million square feet of commercial uses on 425 acres. Under the NHSP, land within the project area falls under seven specific plan zoning districts: General Commercial, Recreational Vehicle /Automotive, Entertainment, Industrial, Open Space, Single Family Residential, and Townhomes. The existing zoning designations for the project area are also shown in Figure 41, Current Zoning Designations. General Plan General Plan designations for the project area include: Low Density Residential (LR -7), Low Medium Density Residential (I.MR -11), Medium Density Residential (MR 15), General Commercial (GC), Industrial (IND), and Open Space (0). A vast majority of the project area, including most parcels adjacent to Harbor Boulevard, McFadden Avenue, 1st Street, and 5th Street, are designated for General Commercial uses. The largest exceptions are the Willowick Golf Course, which is designated for Open Space uses, and the northeastern portion of the area along Westminster Avenue, which is designated for Office uses. The Santa Ana General Plan also discusses the NHSP and its application to the project area. It states that the NHSP was intended to promote commercial development along Harbor Boulevard while minimizing land use incompatibilities. Applicable Plans and Regulations Regional and local laws, regulations, plans, or guidelines that are potentially applicable to the proposed project are summarized below. Regional Soutbem Cahfomra Ass oeiaaon of Govemments SCAG is a council of governments representing Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura counties. SCAG is the federally recognized metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for this region, which encompasses over 38,000 square miles. SCAG is a regional planning agency and a forum for addressing regional issues concerning transportation, the economy, community development, and the environment. SCAG is also the regional clearinghouse for projects requiring environmental documentation under federal and state law. In this role, SCAG reviews proposed development and infrastructure projects to analyze then impacts on regional planning programs. As the southern California region's MPO, SCAG cooperates with the Southern California Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and other agencies in preparing regional planning documents. SCAG has developed regional plans to achieve specific regional objectives. The plans most applicable to the proposed project are discussed below. The proposed project is considered a project of regionwide significance pursuant to the criteria outlined in SCAG's Intergovernmental Review Procedures Handbook November 1995 and Section 15206 of the Page 5.% -2 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, as it encompasses more than 500 residential units. Therefore, this section addresses the project's consistency with the applicable regional planning guidelines and policies. Regional Transportation Ilan /Sustarnable Communities Strategy On April 4, 2012, SCAG adopted the 2012 -2035 RTP /SCS: Towards a Sustainable Future. SCAG has placed a greater emphasis than ever on sustamability and integrated planning in the 2012 -2035 RTP /SCS. The 2012 -2035 RTP /SCS vision encompasses three principles that collectively work as the key to the region's future: mobility, economy, and sustamability. The 2012 -2035 RTP /SCS includes a strong commitment to reduce emissions from transportation sources to comply with Senate Bill 375, improve public health, and meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards as set forth by the federal Clean Air Act. The 2012 -2035 RTP /SCS provides a blueprint for improving quality of life for residents by providing more choices for where they will live, work, and play and how they will move around (SCAG 2012). Compass Growth Vision In 2004, SCAG adopted the Compass Growth Vision (CGV), which is a response, supported by a regional consensus, to the land use and transportation challenges facing southern California. SCAG developed the CGV in an effort to maintain the region's prosperity, continue to expand its economy, house its residents affordably, and protect its environmental setting as a whole. The CGV is a framework that helps local jurisdictions address growth management cooperatively and also helps coordinate regional land use and transportation planning. In conjunction with the CGV, SCAG also adopted the Compass Blueprint 2% Strategy, which is the part of the 2004 regional growth forecast policy that attempts to reduce emissions and increase mobility through strategic land use changes. The 2% Strategy is a guideline for how and where the CGV for southern California's future can be implemented toward improving measures of mobility, livability, prosperity, and sustainability for local neighborhoods and their residents. Through extensive public participation and land use and transportation modeling and analysis, the program has resulted in a plan that identifies strategic growth opportunity areas (2% Strategy Opportunity Areas). These opportunity areas are roughly 2 percent of the land area in the southern California region. With the adoption of the 2012 RTP /SCS, the areas previously known as 2% Strategy Opportunity Areas were updated by SCAG and replaced with what are now called High Quality Transit Areas (HQTAs), which are a part of, and integrated into, the SCS portion (Chapter 4) of the 2012 RTP /SCS. An HQTA is generally a walkable transit village or corridor that is within a half mile of a well- serviced transit stop or a transit corridor with 15 minute or less service frequency during peak commute hours. The overall land use pattern of the 2012 RTP /SCS focuses jobs and housing in the region's designated HQTA (SCAG 2013). The majority of the project area is designated a HQTA (SCAG 2013). 5.8.2 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: October 2014 Page 5.% -3 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING LU -1 Physically divide an established community. LU -2 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. LU -3 Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. The Initial Study, included as Appendix A, substantiates that impacts associated with the following thresholds would be less than significant: LU -1 and LU -3. 5.8.3 Environmental Impacts The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study disclosed potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement. Impact 5.8 -1: Implementation of the Harbor Corridor Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan would not conflict with applicable plans adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating and environmental effect. [Threshold LU -21 Impact Analysis: The Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan would replace the existing 425 - acre NHSP. The plan would change the NHSP so that the project would consist of two separate areas: 1) 305 acres within the boundaries of the existing NHSP generally along Harbor Boulevard (or "Harbor Corridor Plan", and 2) 120 acres within the existing NHSP in the Willowick Golf Course area (or "Conventional Zoning Area". The Harbor Corridor Plan introduces land use and circulation changes to approximately 302 acres of the NHSP, which includes 252 acres of parcelled lots and approximately 50 acres of right- of-way outside of parcels. Land use changes under the Harbor Corridor Plan would replace the NHSP's zoning districts with four Harbor Corridor Plan zones: Transit Node, Corridor, Neighborhood Transitional, and Open Space (described in detail in Chapter 3, Project Desaip ion). Each zone would include its own development standards, preferred building and frontage types, landscape palette, and strategies promoting integration between new development and the existing neighborhood. Table 3 -1, Zoning and Buildout Projections far the Proposed Harbor Corridor Plan, outlines the proposed zoning designations and summarizes buildout projections of the Harbor Corridor Plan. Proposed zoning is also shown in Figure 34, Proposed Land Use Districts and Zoning Designations. Adoption of the Harbor Corridor Plan would allow for the development of up to 4,623 residential units and 1,967,982 square feet of commercial space within the plan. Buildout of the plan would generate 3,884 additional dwelling units, 15,327 new residents, 13,721 additional square feet of commercial space, and approximately 173 additional employees in the plan area over existing uses. Page 5.84 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Implementation of the Harbor Corridor Plan would also include improvements to Harbor Boulevard and its cross - streets: 5th Street, 1st Street, McFadden Avenue, and Westminster Boulevard. Proposed improvements include the enlargement of sidewalk and parkway areas to facilitate safe bicycle and pedestrian travel along Harbor Boulevard and efficient connections to the regional bicycle network The improvements would maintain the same rights- of-way and number of travel lanes on the affected roadways. The remaining 120 acres in the existing NHSP would to be extracted from the NHSP and converted to conventional zoning. This area would not be included in the Harbor Corridor Plan. Land uses in the area consist of the Willowick Golf Course and Cesar Chavez /Campesino Park, residential properties along Jackson Street, and commercial properties along 5th Street. Zoning designations for the parcels in question were determined based on existing conditions and would be adopted upon repeal of the NHSP. Willowick Golf Course, Cesar Chavez /Campestno Park, and the properties in between would be zoned Open Space Area (0), and residential properties along Jackson Street would be zoned Two Family Residential (R2). As previously stated, no new development is expected in the conventional zoning area, and the proposed land use designations are consistent with the existing developed condition. Therefore, removing this area from the NHSP would not result in any land use compatibility impacts. General Plan Consistency Per the City's general plan, land use designations for the project area include: Low Density Residential (LR -'), Low Medium Density Residential (LMR -11), Medium Density Residential (MR -15), General Commercial (GC), Industrial (IND), and Open Space (0). A vast majority of the project area, including most parcels adjacent to Harbor Boulevard, McFadden Avenue, 1st Street, and 5th Street, are designated for General Commercial uses. The largest exceptions are the Willowick Golf Course, which is designated for Open Space uses, and the northeastern portion of the area along Westminster Avenue, which is designated for Office uses. The City's general plan also discusses the NHSP and its application to the project area. The proposed project requires a general plan amendment to designate land uses consistent with the proposed zoning. A detailed analysis of Harbor Corridor Plan's consistency with the applicable policies of the various elements of the City's general plan is in Table 5.8 -1. This analysis concludes that the proposed project would be consistent with the applicable policies of the City's general plan. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant land use impacts to relevant general plan policies. Table 5.8 -1 General Plan Circulation Element Policy 1A: Maintain at least a level of service "D" I Consistent: As outlined in Section 5.13, Transportation and Traffic, all intersections on arterial street intersections, except in major would operate at a level of service D or better, and no significant traffic impacts would development areas. occur with project implementation. Section 5.13 contains further information about the proposed project's traffic and circulation improvements and an analysis of the project's potential traffic impacts. Policy 1.11: Minimize travel impediments on Consistent: Project implementafion would not cause any impediments to bicycle and bicycle and pedestrian paths. pedestrian paths. In contrast, the proposed project would lead to the development of an improved bicycle and pedestrian circulafion system along Harbor Boulevard and its October 2014 Page 5.8 5 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 5.8 -1 General Plan Consistency Analysis Applicable City of Santa Ana General Plan Policies Pro ect Compliance with Policy cross - streets: 5th Street, 1st Street, McFadden Avenue, and Westminster Boulevard. Proposed improvements include the enlargement of sidewalk and parkway areas to facilitate safe bicycle and pedestrian travel along Harbor Boulevard and efficient connections to the local and regional bicycle network. Policy 3.1: Support the efforts of regional, state, Consistent: Bravo! Route 543 —the new limited -stop Orange County Transportation and federal agencies to enhance local and express Authority (OCTA) bus service along Harbor Boulevard—began operating June 10, bus services. 2013, and is designed for more efficient travel down Harbor Boulevard. Project implementation would not impede or affect OCTA's ability to provide adequate and efficient bus service along Harbor Boulevard. No project design features would be implemented that would intrude into or impede the existing bus stops or travel lanes that are used by the buses. In contrast, the Harbor Corridor Plan outlines improvements (e.g., provisions for enhanced parkways and streetscapes) that would help enhance the public right -of -way along the corridor, including the areas around and near existing bus stops. Project implementation would also enhance OCTA's ability to increase ridership, because the high -density and mixed -use residential uses permitted along the corridor would increase the number of people that would use of multimodal forms of transportation, including OCTA's Bravo! Route 543 and other local bus lines. Policy 3.5: Enhance sidewalks and pedestrian Consistent: See response to Circulation Element Policy 1. 11, above. systems to promote their use as a means of travel. The design and layout of the land uses in the Harbor Corridor Plan would encourage safe and convenient pedestrian activity through the creation of pedestrian- scaled development. Additionally, the enhancements called for along the existing roadway - adjacent sidewalks (e.g., transition of existing sidewalks to parkway - separated walkways) that front the corridor would help provide a safe, pedestrian- friendly environment, with strong connectivity to adjacent commercial, residential, and mixed - use areas. Policy 3.6: Maximize the use of public rights-of-way Consistent: See responses to Circulation Element Policies 1.11 and 3.5, above. for pedestrian and bicycle paths. Policy 3.7: Support system enhancements and Consistent: See response to Circulation Element Policy 1.11, above. bikeway support facilities that encourage bicycle usage. Policy 3.8: Develop bicycle paths that maximize Consistent: See response to Circulation Element Policy 1.11, above. access to major activity centers, neighboring jurisdictions, and regional bicycle paths. Policy 5.2: Enhance street design standards to Consistent: The Harbor Corridor Plan includes streetscape development standards promote attractive circulation corridors. and design guidelines geared toward the visual improvement of Harbor Boulevard and its cross - streets: 5th Street, 1st Street, McFadden Avenue, and Westminster Boulevard. More specifically, the plan calls for standards and guidelines that would enhance the attractiveness of the corridor, such as the need for parkway - separated sidewalks and enhanced landscaping treatments. The plan also calls for strong architectural and landscape development standards and design guidelines for development proposed along the corridor frontage (e.g., residential, commercial, mixed use), which would ensure the provision of an enhanced and attractive corridor. Conservation Element Support local and regional land use and Consistent: See response to Policy 3.1, above. Additionally, as project implementation transportation plans that increase mass transit is anticipated to increase the number of individuals that would seek to make use of usage and reduce vehicle trips. OCTA's Bravo! Route 543 and other local bus lines, it is expected that the increase in ridership would lead to a reduction in vehicle trips along the Harbor Boulevard corridor and its cross - streets (5th Street, 1st Street, McFadden Avenue, and Westminster Boulevard), as well as other roadways throughout the City and region. Minimize changes in hydrology and pollutant I Consistent: The proposed project's impacts on hydrology and water quality are Page 5. 86 PlaceWorkr Table 5.8 -1 General Plan General Plan Policies structural and non - structural and Best Management Practices to mitigate the projected increases in pollutant loads and flows. Ensure that post -development runoff rates and velocities from a site have no significant adverse impact on downstream erosion and stream habitat. Element HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING ,.,.,.,rte .... ... ........... .... . ..�,...,..,y� .,..,....,..,. ��.,.. y. ,.., ..,.,,,.....,,... ,,..,.,...,,..,..,,., individual development projects would be required to comply with the City's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit requirements, including the submittal and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and best management practices. Additionally, hydrology studies and would be required for individual development projects at the time development plans are submitted to the City for review and approval. Consistent: As noted above, hydrology studies would be required for individual development projects at the time development plans are submitted to the City for review and approval. The studies would be required to demonstrate that post -development runoff rates and velocities from development sites would not have a significant adverse impact on downstream erosion and stream habitat. Refer to Section 5.7, Hydrology and Water Quality, for a detailed analysis of the proposed projects potential impacts related to increased site runoff. Provide energy efficient modes of transportation Consistent: The project area is served by OCTA's Bravo! Route 543 and other local and fixed facilities to encourage transit, bicycle and bus lines, which would be readily available and accessible to future residents and walking as regularly used modes of travel. workers that would be generated by the proposed project. Project implementation would also lead to the development of an improved bicycle and pedestrian circulation system along Harbor Boulevard and its cross - streets: 5th Street, 1st Street, McFadden Avenue, and Westminster Boulevard. Proposed improvements include the enlargement of sidewalk and parkway areas to facilitate safe bicycle and pedestrian travel along Harbor Boulevard and efficient connections to the local and regional bicycle network. Encourage higher densities of housing and office Consistent: Project implementation would permit the development of a mix of rental (mixed use) development to relate to areas of and for sale higher -density housing and mixed -use development opportunities along the higher transportation access and capacity. corridor. For example, the proposed Transit Node zone is characterized by a wide range of building intensity, including mixed -use flex blocks, liners, stacked flats, courtyard housing, and live -work units. The zone accommodates retail, restaurant, entertainment, and other pedestrian -oriented uses at street level, with offices and flats above in the mixed -use building types, at high intensities and densities. Additionally, the proposed Corridor zone is applied to properties along Harbor Boulevard between bus rapid transit stations and is intended to provide housing options and neighborhood serving uses within walking distance of a transit node. The zone also identifies areas set aside exclusively for moderate- and high -density residential projects. Growth Manaqement Element All new development shall pay its share of the Consistent: All new development would be required to pay its share of the street street improvement costs associated with that improvement costs in accordance with adopted City regulations and ordinances. development including regional traffic mitigation. Payment of the fees would be ensured during the City's building plan check and development review process. Refer to Section 5.13, Transportation and Traffic, for a detailed discussion of the proposed projects local and regional traffic impacts. October 2014 Page 5.8-7 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 5.8 -1 General Plan General Plan Policies Housinq Element HE -2.3: Encourage the construction of rental Consistent: Project implementation would permit the development of a mix of rental housing for Santa Ana's residents and workforce, and for sale higher -density housing development opportunities along the corridor. For including a commitment to very low, low, and example, the proposed Transit Node zone is characterized by a wide range of building moderate income residents and moderate income intensity, including mixed -use flex blocks, liners, stacked flats, courtyard housing, and Santa Ana workers. live -work units. Additionally, the proposed Corridor zone identifies areas set aside exclusively for moderate- and high -density residential projects to facilitate a range of affordable housing options. Section 5.10, Population and Housing, further information about the proposed project's population and housing needs and impacts. HE -2.4: Facilitate diverse types, prices, and sizes of Consistent: See response to Housing Element Policy HE -2.3, above. housing, including single - family homes, apartments, townhomes, mixed /multiuse housing, transit- oriented housing, multigenerational housing, and live -work opportunities. HE -2.5: Require excellence in architectural design Consistent: The Harbor Corridor Plan calls for strong architectural and landscape through the use of materials and colors, building development standards and design guidelines for development proposed along the treatments, landscaping, open space, parking, and corridor (e.g., residential, commercial, mixed use), which would ensure the provision of environmentally sensitive ( "greenj building and an enhanced and attractive corridor. The standards and guidelines ouflined in the plan design practices. would ensure the visual improvement of Harbor Boulevard and its surroundings. Implementation of the standards and guidelines would be ensured during the City's development review process as individual development projects are submitted to the City for review and approval. Land Use Element Policy 1.6: Support "live /work" opportunities within Consistent: Project implementation would permit the development of a mix of housing specifically defined areas. and mixed -use development opportunities along the corridor, including live -work. For example, the proposed Transit Node zone is characterized by a wide range of building intensity, including mixed -use flex blocks, liners, stacked flats, courtyard housing, and live -work units. Policy 1.9: Coordinate street and parkway designs Consistent: See responses to Circulation Element Policies 1.11, 3.5, and 5.2, above. that are attractive, functional, and compatible with adjacent onsite development. Policy 2.2: Support commercial land uses in Consistent: Table 3 -1, Zoning and Buildout Projections for the Proposed Harbor adequate amounts to accommodate the City's Corridor Plan, outlines the proposed zoning designations and summarizes buildout needs for goads and services. projections of the plan. Buildout of the Harbor Corridor Plan would generate up to 13,721 additional square feet of commercial space and approximately 173 additional employees in the plan area over existing uses. The proposed Transit Node zone accommodates retail, restaurant, entertainment, and other pedestrian -oriented uses at street level. Policy 2.4: Support pedestrian access between Consistent: Project implementation would support pedestrian access between commercial uses and residential neighborhoods commercial uses and nearby residential neighborhoods. The mix of commercial uses which are in close proximity. (up to 13,721 additional square feet) that would be accommodated along Harbor Boulevard as a result of project development would not only be within walking distance of the residential uses permitted by the proposed project, but also within walking distance of the adjacent and nearby residential neighborhoods that abut and surround the project area. Additionally, the enhancements called for along the existing roadway - adjacent sidewalks (e.g., transition of existing sidewalks to parkway - separated walkways) that front the corridor would help provide a safe, pedestrian- friendly environment, with strong connectivity to adjacent commercial, residential, and mixed - use areas. Furthermore, the design and layout of the land uses outlined in the Harbor Page 5.%-% PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 5.8 -1 General Plan Consistency Analysis Applicable City of Santa Ana General Plan Policies Pro ect Compliance with Policy Corridor Plan would encourage safe and convenient pedestrian activity through the creation of pedestrian - scaled development. Policy 2.6: Encourage the creation of new Consistent: See responses to Land Use Element Policies 2.2 and 2.4, above. employment opportunities in developments which are compatible with surrounding land uses, and provide a net community benefit. Policy 2.10: Support new development which is Consistent: Project implementation would allow for the development of a mix of harmonious in scale and character with existing residential, commercial, and mixed uses that would be harmonious in scale and development in the area. character with existing development along Harbor Boulevard and the surrounding neighborhoods. A transition of land uses would be implemented under the proposed project to ensure compatibility with the surrounding uses. For example, the Neighborhood Transitional zone provides standards for development that transitions between the single - family neighborhoods to the north and south of 1st and 5th streets and the corridor and transit node zones. The Harbor Corridor Plan also calls for strong architectural and landscape development standards and design guidelines for development proposed along the corridor (e.g., residential, commercial, mixed use), which would help enhance the visual character of not only the corridor, but also of the adjacent and surrounding neighborhoods. The standards and guidelines in the plan would ensure the visual improvement of Harbor Boulevard and its surroundings. Implementation of the standards and guidelines would be ensured during the City's development review process as individual development projects are submitted to the City. Policy 3.1: Support development which provides a Consistent: See response to Land Use Element Policy 2.10, above. positive contribution to neighborhood character and identity. Policy 4.5: Encourage development of employment Consistent: Project implementation would allow for the development of a mix of centers and mixed -use projects within targeted residential, commercial, and mixed uses along Harbor Boulevard. The project area is areas adjacent to major arterial roadways, transit served by OCTA's Bravo! Route 543 and other local bus lines, which would be readily and freeway corridors. available and accessible to future residents and workers that would be generated by the proposed project. Policy 5.5: Encourage development which is Consistent: See response to Land Use Element Policy 2. 10, above. compatible with, and supportive of surrounding land uses. Policy 5.10: Support a circulation system which is Consistent: The proposed projectwould lead to the developmentof an improved pedestrian responsive to the needs of pedestrians and circulation system along Harbor Boulevard and its cross-streets: 5th Street, 1st Street, vehicular travel. McFadden Avenue, and Westminster Boulevard. Proposed improvements include the enlargement of sidewalk and parkway areas to facilitate safe pedestrian travel along Harbor Boulevard. The Harbor Condor Plan also calls for development standards and design guidelines applicable to the proposed project's pedestrian and vehicular circulation system improvements. All new access drives, roadways, and circulation improvements would be designed and constructed in accordance with the standards and guidelines in the plan to ensure that an efficient and safe vehicular circulation system is provided. Policy 5.11: Encourage development which does Consistent: Implementation of the Harbor Corridor Plan would not lead to the not generate obnoxious fumes, toxins, or hazardous development of uses that would generate obnoxious fumes, toxins, or hazardous materials. materials, such as industrial plants or manufacturing businesses. Project implementation calls for the development of residential, commercial, and mixed uses. Commercial uses would include retail, restaurant, entertainment, and other pedestrian - oriented uses at street level. Sections 5.1, Air Quality, and 5.6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, provide a discussion on potential project impacts related to odors and hazardous materials, respectively. October 2014 Page 5.% -9 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 5.8 -1 General Plan General Plan Policies Noise Element Require consideration of noise generation potential Consistent: A detailed noise analysis (construction and operation related) was and susceptibility to noise impacts in the sitting, completed for the proposed project and is included in Appendix G of this EIR. design and construction of new developments. Additionally, refer to Section 5.9, Noise, for a detailed noise analysis and the proposed project's design features/elements and mitigation measures that would ensure minimal noise impacts. As outlined in Section 5.9, project implementation would ensure that all individual development projects adhere to applicable exterior and interior noise standards during construction and operation. Urban Design Element Policy 1.1: New development and redevelopment Consistent: The Harbor Corridor Plan calls for strong architectural and landscape projects must have the highest quality design, development standards and design guidelines for development proposed along the materials, finishes, and construction. corridor (e.g., residential, commercial, mixed use), which would ensure that individual development projects provide the highest quality design, materials, finishes, and construction. Implementation of the standards and guidelines would be ensured dudng the City's development review process as individual development projects are submitted to the City for review and approval. Policy 1.5: Enhanced architectural forms, textures, Consistent: See response to Urban Design Element Policy 1.1, above. colors materials are expected in the design of all projects. Policy 1.11: Visual and physical links between Consistent: Projectimplementation callsforthe development of visual and physical links districts, nodes, significant sites, landmarks, and along the various areas of the condor and its surroundings. Visual links would be provided in other points of interest, are to be provided in all the form ofenhanced landscaping and architectural improvements. Forexample, the Harbor public and private projects. Condor Plan outlines improvements (e.g., provisions for enhanced parkways and streetscapes) that would help enhance the visual and physical linkages and quality along the corridor and to surrounding areas. The plan also calls for strong architectural and landscape development standards and design guidelines for development proposed along the corridor (e.g., residential, commercial, mixed use), which would help enhance the visual character of not only the condor, but the adjacent and surrounding neighborhoods. Policy 2.1: Projects must acknowledge and Consistent: See responses to Urban Design Element Policies 1.1 and 1.11, above. improve upon their surroundings with the use of creative architectural design, streetscape treatments, and landscaping. Policy 2.2: New development must be consistent Consistent: The mix of residential, commercial, and mixed uses that would be permitted with the scale, bulk, and pattern of existing under the Harbor Corridor Plan would be consistent and compatible with the existing uses development. along the condor and its surroundings. The plan also calls for strong architectural and landscape development standards and design guidelines for development proposed along the corridor (e.g., residential, commercial, mixed use), which would regulate the scale, bulk, design, and layout of individual development projects. Policy 3.1: Landscaping will be promoted on Consistent: The Harbor Corridor Plan includes streetscape development standards freeway slopes, roadway medians, and parkways. and design guidelines geared toward the visual improvement of Harbor Boulevard and its cross - streets: FifSthth Street, 1st Street, McFadden Avenue, and Westminster Boulevard. More specifically, the plan calls for standards and guidelines that would enhance the attractiveness of the corridor, such as parkway - separated sidewalks and enhanced landscaping treatments. The plan also calls for strong architectural and landscape development standards and design guidelines for development proposed along the corridor (e.g., residential, commercial, mixed use), which would ensure an enhanced and attractive corridor. Policy 3.2: Street improvements and adjacent Consistent: See responses to Urban Design Element Policies 1.11 and 3.1, above. development, should be consistently designed to eliminate a haphazard look and visual clutter along corridors. Page 5.% -10 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 5.8 -1 General Plan Consistency Analysis Applicable City of Santa Ana General Plan Policies Pro ect Compliance with Policy Policy 3.3: Enhanced streetscapes, architectural Consistent: See responses to Urban Design Element Policies 1.11 and 3. 1, above. themes, and landscaping are to be provided to visually strengthen the path and enhance adjacent development. Policy 3.4: Stroetscape improvements are to be Consistent: See responses to Urban Design Element Policies 1.11 and 3. 1, above. redesigned to provide a pleasant and safe Additionally, the proposed project would lead to the development of an improved environment and to improve pedestrian circulation. pedestrian circulation system along Harbor Boulevard and its cross - streets: 5th Street, 1st Street, McFadden Avenue, and Westminster Boulevard. Proposed improvements include the enlargement of sidewalk and parkway areas to facilitate safe pedestrian travel along Harbor Boulevard and the surrounding pedestrian network. Policy 3.6: Stroetscape design should be used to Consistent: See response to Urban Design Element Policy 1.1, above. link major destination points, landmarks, and local activity nodes. Policy 3.10: Safe and pleasant bicycle and Consistent: See responses to Circulation Element Policy 1.11 and Urban Design pedestrian routes are to be provided and they Element Policy 1.1, above. should link activity nodes and places of interest. Policy 3.11: Maximize the use of street trees and Consistent: See response to Urban Design Element Policy 3.1, above. parkway landscaping to create a pleasant travel experience and positive City image. Soumz: Santa Ana General Plan. Zoning Code Consistency Existing zoning for the project area is covered under the NHSP, which was adopted by the City in 1992. Under the NHSP, land within the project area falls under seven specific plan zoning districts: General Commercial, Recreational Vehicle /Automotive, Entertainment, Industrial, Open Space, Single Family Residential, and Townhomes. Land use changes under the Harbor Corridor Plan (252 acres of parcelled lots and 50 acres of nonparcelled right-of-way within the NHSP) would involve replacing the NHSP's zoning districts for the area covered under the Harbor corridor plan with four zones: Transit Node, Corridor, Neighborhood Transitional, and Open Space (described in detail in Chapter 3, Project Descrip ion). Each zone would include its own development standards, preferred building and frontage types, landscape palette, and strategies promoting integration between new development and the existing neighborhood. The remaining 120 acres within the existing NHSP is proposed to be extracted from the NHSP and converted to conventional zoning. W&owick Golf Course, Cesar Chavez /Campesmo Park, and the properties in between would be zoned Open Space Area (0), and residential properties along Jackson Street would be zoned Two Family Residential (R2). Local jurisdictions may adopt specific plans by resolution or ordinance. The Harbor Corridor Plan (which would replace the existing NHSP) would be adopted by ordinance and would serve as the zoning for the project area. The provisions in the Harbor Corridor Plan would control the use and development of property in the plan area to the same extent as if set forth in in the City's Zoning Code. The plan would be the regulatory document that the City of Santa Ana would use to guide development within the project area, systematically implement the City's general plan, and help maintain consistency with and carry out the goals, October 2014 Page 5.8-11 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING objectives, and policies of the general plan. The plan would provide flexibility; innovative use of land resources and development; a variety of housing and other development types; and an equitable method of vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle access for development of the project area. Additionally, the plan would establish the necessary plans, development standards (cg., parking requirements, setbacks, building heights, etc), regulations, infrastructure requirements, design guidelines (e.g., architectural styles, landscaping, etc), financing methods, and implementation programs for subsequent, project related development activities. The plan would combine these necessary components into a single document that would be tailored to meet the needs of the project area. It is intended that local public works projects, design review plans, detailed site plans, grading and building permits, or any other action requiring ministerial or discretionary approval applicable to the project site be consistent with the Harbor Corridor Plan. The remaining 120 acres within the existing NHSP that would be converted to conventional zoning would be regulated by the provisions of the Open Space Area (0) and Two Family Residential (R2) zoning designations of the City's zoning code, as well as applicable provisions outlined in other sections of the zoning code. SCAG 2012 -2035 RTP /SCS Consistency Table 5.8 -2 provides an assessment of the proposed project's relationship to pertinent 2012 -2035 SCAG RTP /SCS goals. The analysis in Table 5.8 -2 concludes that the proposed project would be consistent with the applicable RTP /SCS goals. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant land use impacts related to relevant RTP /SCS goals. Table 5.8 -2 Consistency with SCAG's 2012 -2035 Regional Transportation Plan /Sustainable Communities Strategy Goals RTPISCS Gl: Align the plan investments and Nat Applicable: This is not a project- specific goal and is therefore not applicable. policies with improving regional economic development and competitiveness. RTPISCS G2: Maximize mobility and accessibility for all people and goads in the region. RTPISCS G3: Ensure travel safety and reliability for all people and goods in the region. RTPISCS G4: Preserve and ensure a sustainable regional transportation system. RTPISCS G5: Maximize the productivity of our transportation system. Consistent. Project implementation would maximize mobility accessibility, travel safety, and reliability for people and goads. The vehicular and pedestrian circulation improvements called for in the Harbor Corridor Plan would be designed, developed, and maintained to meet the needs of local and regional transportation and to ensure efficient mobility and accessibility. A number of regional and local plans and programs (e.g., Orange County Congestion Management Program, Caltrans Traffic Impact Studies Guidelines, and City of Santa Ana Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines) would be used to guide development and maintenance of traffic and circulation improvements along the corridor and its surrounding roadway network. All modes of public and commercial transit throughout the corridor would be required to follow safety standards set by corresponding state, regional, and local regulatory documents. For example, pedestrian walkways and bicycle routes must follow safety precautions and standards established by local (e.g., City of Santa Ana, County of Orange) and regional (e.g., SCAG, Caltrans) agencies. Roadways for motorists must follow safety standards established for the local and regional plans noted above. All new roadway developments and improvements to the existing transportation networks along the corridor must be assessed with some level of traffic analysis (e.g., traffic assessments, traffic impact studies) to determine how individual development oroiects accommodated by the or000sed oroiect would imoact existing traffic caoacities Page 5.8 -12 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 5.8 -2 Consistency with SCAG's 2012 -2035 Regional Transportation Plan /Sustainable Communities Strategy Goals RTP /SCS Goal Pro em compliance with Goal regional plans mentioned above would be applicable to the design and development of any proposed roadway improvements. The proposed project would also help ensure a sustainable transportation system and help maximize the productivity of the transportation system. For example, project implementation would lead to the development of an improved bicycle and pedestrian circulation system along Harbor Boulevard and its cross - streets: 5th Street, 1st Street, McFadden Avenue, and Westminster Boulevard. Proposed improvements include the enlargement of sidewalk and parkway areas to facilitate safe bicycle and pedestrian travel along Harbor Boulevard and efficient connections to the local and regional bicycle network. The project area is also served by OCTA's Bravo! Route 543 and other local bus lines. RTPISCS G6: Protect the environment and health Consistent. The CEOA process ensures that plans at all levels of government consider of our residents by improving air quality and all environmental impacts. Various sections of this EIR appropriately address the encouraging active transportation (non{notorized potential environmental impacts related to development of the proposed project. For transportation, such as bicycling and walking). example, Sections 5.2, Air Quality, and 5.5, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, address air quality, energy, and global climate impacts that would occur as a result of implementation of the proposed project, and apply mitigation measures and regulatory requirements to reduce any impacts, as applicable and feasible. The reduction of energy use, improvement of air quality, and promotion of more environmentally sustainable development would be encouraged through the development of alternative transportation methods, green design techniques for buildings, and other energy-reducing techniques. For example, individual development projects accommodated by the proposed project would be required to comply with the provisions of the 2013 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards and the 2010 Green Building Standards Cade (CALGreen). Compliance with these provisions would be ensured through the City's development review and building plan check process. Project implementation would also strive to maximize the protection of the environment and improvement of air quality by encouraging and improving the use of the region's public transportation system (.e., bus and bicycle) for residents and workers that would be generated by the proposed project. As noted above under RTP Goals G2 through G5, the proposed project calls for the enhancement of the existing pedestrian and bicycle circulation system. The project area is also served by OCTA's Bravo! Route 543 and other local bus lines. Further, the close proximity of existing and future housing units along the corridor and its surroundings to existing employment and commercial uses and also future commercial and mixed uses envisioned by the Harbor Corridor Plan would reduce vehicle miles traveled by offering alternative modes of traveling (e.g., walking, bicycling) throughout the corridor and surrounding area, thereby reducing air quality and traffic impacts and greenhouse gas emissions. RTPISCS G7: Actively encourage and create Not Applicable: This is not a project- specific goal and is therefore not applicable. incentives for energy efficiency, where possible. RTPISCS G8: Encourage land use and growth Consistent. See response to RTP /SCS Goals G2 through G5. patterns that facilitate transit and non - motorized transportation. RTPISCS G9: Maximize the security of our Not Applicable: This is not a project- specific goal and is therefore not applicable. transportation system through improved system monitoring, rapid recovery planning, and coordination with other security agencies. Soumz: 2012 -2305 SCAG Regional Transportation Plan /Sustainable Communities Strategy. October 2014 Page 5.8-13 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING SCAG Compass Blueprint Consistency Analysis Table 5.8 -3 provides an assessment of the proposed project's relationship to advisory SCAG Compass Blueprint principles. The analysis in Table 5.8 -3 concludes that the proposed project would be consistent with the advisory SCAG Compass Blueprint principles. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant land use impacts related to the advisory SCAG principals. Table 5.8 -3 SCAG Compass Growth Vision for All Residents GV P1.1: Encourage transportation investments and land use decisions that are mutually supportive. GV P1.2: Locate new housing near existing jobs and new jobs near existing housing. with Consistent: See responses to RTP /SCS Goals G2 through G5 in Table 5.8 -2, above, and Compass Blueprint Principle GV P1.3, below. Land uses and any public transportation investments, including traffic and circulation improvements, that would be accommodated by the proposed project would complement each other and would follow overarching goals of local and regional transportation plans. For example, future project residents and workers would have access to adequate multimodal forms of transportation, including OCTA's Bravo! Route 543 and other local bus lines, thereby providing residents and employees with a convenient and altemative way to commute to jobs and locations throughout the corridor and beyond. Residents and employees would also have access to a pedestrian and bicycle circulation system. The proposed project would lead to the development of an improved bicycle and pedestrian circulation system along Harbor Boulevard and its cross - streets: 5th Street, 1st Street, McFadden Avenue, and Westminster Boulevard. Proposed improvements include the enlargement of sidewalk and parkway areas to facilitate safe bicycle and pedestrian travel along Harbor Boulevard and efficient connections to the local and regional bicycle network. The City will also continue to work with OCTA to develop and enhance the transit corridors along Harbor Boulevard (as needed) to maintain an acceptable level of service, support the growth and diversity of land uses, and reduce the need for additional vehicle trips. Consistent: The proposed project would provide a mix of land uses with the capability for people to live close to work, shopping, entertainment, and other support services and uses. As outlined in the Harbor Corridor Plan, the housing types would include a wide range of rental and for -sale housing. For example, the proposed Transit Node zone would allow for the development of mixed -use flex blacks, liners, stacked flats, courtyard housing, and live -work units. The zone also accommodates retail, restaurant, entertainment, and other pedestrian -oriented uses at street level. Additionally, the proposed Corridor zone is applied to properties along Harbor Boulevard between bus rapid transit stations and is intended to provide housing options and neighborhood serving uses within walking distance of a transit node. The zone also identifies areas set aside exclusively for moderate- and high -density residential projects. The proposed project would provide new jobs near existing housing as well as new housing near existing and future jobs. For example, because of the mixed -use nature of the proposed project and the proposed array of retail, restaurant, entertainment, and other pedestrian -oriented uses, the proposed housing units and existing housing in the area would be adjacent to or near these jobs, providing residents with convenient and easy access to jobs. Furthermore, future residents of the proposed project would have access to OCTA's Bravo! Route 543 and other local bus lines, providing residents and employees of the proposed project with a convenient and alternative way to commute to jobs and locations throughout the project and Page 5.8 -14 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 5.8 -3 SCAG Compass Growth Vision Consistency Analysis Foster Livability in All Communities GV P2.1: Promote infill development and Revised Plan of development Compass Blueprint Principles Compliance with Principle surrounding areas. GV P2.2: Promote developments, which provide a The proposed project's impacts on housing and employment are discussed in detail in mix of uses Section 5.10, Population and Housing. GV P1.3: Encourage transit -oriented development. Consistent: Project implementation encourages the use of public transportation that communities. supports transit -oriented development. See responses to Compass Growth Principles GV P2.4: Support the preservation of stable, GV P1.1 and 1.2, above. GV P1.4: Promote a variety of travel choices. Consistent: See responses to Compass Growth Principles GV P1.1 and 1.2, above. Foster Livability in All Communities GV P2.1: Promote infill development and Consistent: Implementation of the Harbor Corridor Plan would be consistent with this redevelopment to revitalize existing communities. policy, since all development activity that would be accommodated by the Harbor plan would involve infill development. GV P2.2: Promote developments, which provide a Consistent: See response to Compass Blueprint Principle GV P1.2, above. mix of uses GV P2.3: Promote "people scaled," walkable Consistent: See responses to Compass Growth Principles GV P1.1 and 1.2, above. communities. GV P2.4: Support the preservation of stable, Consistent: The majority of the project area is surrounded by single - family single - family neighborhoods. neighborhoods. Additionally, a portion of the project area has single - family residences along Jackson Street. Implementation of the Harbor Corridor Plan would help preserve the existing surrounding single - family neighborhoods by facilitating and encouraging balanced growth and minimizing adverse environmental impacts on these neighborhoods through the use of buffers and transition zones to prevent the placement of incompatible uses. Additionally, no development is proposed for the area that comprises the single - family residences along Jackson Street. This area would be zoned Two Family Residential (R2) and would therefore remain. Enable Prosperity for All GV P3.1: Provide, in each community, a variety of housing types to meet the housing needs of all income levels. GV P3.2: Support educational opportunities that promote balanced growth. Consistent: Project implementation would permit the development of a mix of rental and for -sale higher -density housing opportunities along the corridor. For example, the proposed Transit Node zone is characterized by a wide range of building intensity, including mixed -use flex blocks, liners, stacked flats, courtyard housing, and live -work units. Additionally, the proposed Corridor zone identifies areas set aside exclusively for moderate- and high -density residential projects to facilitate a range of affordable housing options. The proposed housing types would accommodate a broad range of income levels and lifestyles and respond to local and regional housing needs. Additionally, the development standards and design guidelines outlined in the Harbor Corridor Plan (e.g., permitted residential uses, densities, setbacks, and building heights) would ensure that a diversity of housing types are developed, consistent with the City's vision of creating an exemplary community environment for the corridor. Section 5.10, Population and Housing, contains further information about the proposed project's population and housing needs and impacts. Not Applicable: This is not a project- specific principle and is therefore not applicable GV P3.3: Ensure environmental justice regardless Consistent: The proposed project strives to mitigate environmental impacts and in of race, ethnicity or income class. doing so upholds environmental justice regardless of race, ethnicity, or income class. For example, the Harbor Corridor Plan accommodates the development of a variety of housing types, styles, tenure, and densities that are accessible to and meet preferences for different residential types (e.g., stacked flats, courtyard housing, live - work, rowhouses, mixed -use), lifestyles, physical abilities, and income levels, thereby responding to a wide range local and regional housing needs. October 2014 Page 58-15 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 5.8 -3 SCAG Compass Growth Vision Consistency Analysis Promote Sustainability for Future Generations GV P4.1: Preserve rural, agricultural, recreational, Revised Plan of Development Compass Blueprint Principles Compliance with Principle Additionally, a variety of transportation modes currently exist and would be made available to future residents and workers that would be generated by the proposed project, including bicycle and bus routes, thereby offering access to the proposed land GV P4.2: Focus development in urban centers uses to a broad range of income levels. and existing cities. Furthermore, implementation of the Harbor Corridor Plan would to not only improve GV P4.3: Develop strategies to accommodate the prosperity of the existing uses along the corridor, but would also improve the growth that uses resources efficiently, eliminate prosperity and quality of life of the existing surrounding residential communities by pollution and significantly reduce waste. facilitating and encouraging balanced growth and minimizing adverse environmental impacts through the use of buffers and transition zones to prevent the placement of incompatible uses. GV P3.4: Support local and state fiscal policies Consistent: The Harbor Corridor Plan facilitates and encourages balanced growth that encourage balanced growth. throughout the corridor through the development of a unique mix of uses that would provide for residential, retail, entertainment, restaurant, and other support uses. The Harbor Corridor Plan would also follow applicable local and state policies that guide GV P4.4: Utilize "green" development techniques the responsible growth of the corridor. GV P3.5: Encourage civic engagement Consistent: As part of the project process, residents and business owners are actively encouraged to participate through notices, meetings, and workshops. Additionally, the CEOA process and the City's development review process, by their very nature, foster civic involvement and public participation. Furthermore, the proposed project promotes social and civic engagement through inclusion of a mix of uses (e.g., retail, restaurant, entertainment, and other pedestrian -oriented uses at street level), which would foster community interaction. Promote Sustainability for Future Generations GV P4.1: Preserve rural, agricultural, recreational, Consistent: There are no rural, agricultural, or environmentally sensitive areas within and environmentally sensitive areas. the project area. However, the project area contains the Willowick Golf Course (an operating 18 -hole public golf course), Cesar Chavez /Campesino Park, and Santa Anita Park. Under the proposed project, the golf course and packs would be zoned as Open Space and would therefore remain. GV P4.2: Focus development in urban centers Consistent: Implementation of the Harbor Corridor Plan would accommodate the and existing cities. development of a mix of land uses in a highly urbanized area of the City. GV P4.3: Develop strategies to accommodate Consistent: The CEOA process ensures that plans at all levels of government growth that uses resources efficiently, eliminate consider all environmental impacts. Sections 5.2, Air Quality, 5.5, Greenhouse Gas pollution and significantly reduce waste. Emissions, and 5.15, Utilities and Service Systems, appropriately address and mitigate (where necessary) the potential environmental impacts related to resource efficiency, pollution, and solid waste. Additionally, as outlined in these EIR sections, implementation of the proposed project would adhere to local, state, and federal environmental and climate change policies to comply with strategies to eliminate pollution and reduce waste. See also response to RTP /SCS Goal G6 in Table 5.8-2, above. GV P4.4: Utilize "green" development techniques Consistent: See response to RTP /SCS Goal G6 in Table 5.8 -2, above. Refer also to Section 5.5, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, which includes a detailed energy analysis. Soumz: SCAG Compass Bluepnnt 5.8.4 Cumulative Impacts Development of the proposed project, in conjunction with other cumulative development in accordance with the City's general plan (see Section 4.4, AssvV ions Regarding Cumuaatvm Impacts, in Chapter 4), could cause citywide land use and planning impacts. However, upon adoption of the Harbor Corridor Plan, the proposed Page 5.8-16 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING project would be consistent with applicable plans, goals, policies, and regulations of the City's general plan and zoning code and SCAG's RTP /SCS and CGV, as shown in detail above. In accordance with the City's objectives, the project area would be developed pursuant to the Harbor Corridor Plan, which would allow for a wide range of residential, commercial, and mixed uses in four zones: Transit Node, Corridor, Neighborhood Transitional, and Open Space. Each zone would include its own development standards, design guidelines, preferred building and frontage types, landscape palette, and strategies promoting integration between new development and the existing neighborhood. In addition, a host of jobs, restaurants, retail, entertainment, and other support services and uses would be within walking distance of many of the existing and future residential uses. Therefore, development of the proposed project would create a cohesive community of residential and other support uses, thereby contributing to the development of a sustainable urban area of the City. As with the proposed project, cumulative projects would be subject to compliance with the regional and local plans reviewed in this section, and would also be subject to the City's Development Impact Fees. Therefore, implementation of cumulative development in accordance with the City's General Plan would not combine with the Harbor Corridor Plan to result in cumulatively considerable land use impacts. 5.8.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions ■ City of Santa Ana Municipal Code and Zoning Code 5.8.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, the following impacts would be less than significant: ■ Impact 5.8 -1 5.8.7 Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. 5.8.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation No significant unavoidable adverse impacts relating to land use and planning would result on a project specific or cumulative basis. 5.8.9 Reference Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2013. Compass 2% Strategy Opportunity Areas. http: //w ..compassblueprint.org /toolbox /opportunityareas. 2012, April. 2012 -2035 Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy. http://rtpscs.smg.m.gov/Pages/default.aspx. October 2014 Page 5.8 -17 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Tbisliage intentional# left blank. Page 5.8-78 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis 5.9 NOISE This section discusses the fundamentals of sound; examines federal, state, and local noise guidelines, policies, and standards; reviews noise levels at existing receptor locations; and evaluates potential noise impacts associated with the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan project. This analysis is based on noise calculations in Appendix G, Noise Monitoring and Modeling Data 5.9.1 Terminology and Noise and Vibration Descriptors Noise is most often defined as unwanted sound. Although sound can be easily measured, the perception of noise and the physical response to sound complicate the analysis of its impact on people. People judge the relative magnitude of sound sensation in subjective terms such as "noisiness" or "loudness." The following are brief definitions of terminology used in this chapter: ■ Sound. A disturbance created by a vibrating object, which, when transmitted by pressure waves through a medium such as air, is capable of being detected by a receiving mechanism, such as the human ear or a microphone. ■ Noise. Sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or otherwise undesirable. ■ Decibel (dB). A unitless measure of sound on a logarithmic scale. ■ A- Weighted Decibel (dBA). An overall frequency weighted sound level in decibels that approximates the frequency response of the human ear. ■ Equivalent Continuous Noise Level (1,J. The mean of the noise level averaged over the measurement period, regarded as an average level. ■ Day -Night Level (Lm). The energy average of the A- weighted sound levels occurring during a 24hour period, with 10 dB added to the sound levels occurring during the period from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM. ■ Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The energy average of the A- weighted sound levels occurring during a 24 -hour period with 5 dB added to the levels occurring during the period from 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM and 10 dB added to the sound levels occurring during the period from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM. L� and CNEL values rarely differ by more than 1 dB. As a matter of practice, L� and CNEL values are considered equivalent and are treated as such in this assessment. Characteristics of Sound When an object vibrates, it radiates part of its energy as acoustical pressure in the form of a sound wave. Sound can be described in terms of amplitude (loudness, frequency (pitch), or duration (time). The human October 2014 Page 5.9 -1 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE hearing system is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies. Therefore, to approximate the human, frequency dependent response, the A- weighted filter system is used to adjust measured sound levels. The normal range of human hearing extends from approximately 0 dBA to 140 dBA. Unlike linear units such as inches or pounds, decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale, represented by points on a sharply rising curve. Because of the physical characteristics of noise transmission and perception, the relative loudness of sound does not closely match the actual amounts of sound energy. Table 5.9 -1, Change in Sound Pressure Level dB, shows the subjective effect of changes in sound pressure levels. Table 5.9 -1 Change in Sound Pressure Level, dB Chanqe in Apparent Loudness ±3dB Threshold of human perceptibility ± 5 dB Clearly noticeable change in noise level ± 10d13 Half or twice as loud ± 20 dB Much quieter or louder Soumz: Bies and Hansen 1988. Sound is generated from a source, and the decibel level decreases as the distance from that source increases. Sound dissipates exponentially with distance from the noise source. This phenomenon is known as spreading loss. When sound is measured for distinct time intervals, the statistical distribution of the overall sound level during that period can be obtained. The energy- equivalent sound level (Ley is the most common parameter associated with such measurements. The Ley metric is a single- number noise descriptor of average sound level over a given period of time. For example, L50 is the noise level that is exceeded 50 percent of the time: half the time the noise exceeds this level and half the time it is less than this level. This is also the level that is exceeded 30 minutes in an hour. Similarly, the 42, Los, and L25 values are exceeded 2, 8, and 25 percent of the time or 1, 5, and 15 minutes per hour. Other values typically noted during a noise survey are the L. and L. These values are the minimum and maximum root mean square noise levels obtained over the measurement period. 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 the CNEL /Lao. Psychological and Physiological Effects of Noise Physical damage to human hearing begins at prolonged exposure to noise levels higher than 85 dBA. Exposure to high noise levels affects the entire system, with prolonged noise exposure in excess of 75 dBA increasing body tensions, thereby affecting blood pressure and functions of the heart and the nervous system. Extended periods of noise exposure above 90 dBA would result in permanent cell damage. The ambient or background noise problem is widespread and generally more concentrated in urban areas than in outlying, less developed areas. Elevated ambient noise levels can result in noise interference (e.g., speech Page 5.9 -2 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE interruption /masking, sleep disturbance, disturbance of concentration) and cause annoyance. Table 5 -9 -2 shows Typical Noise LemLr from Noise Sources. Table 5.9 -2 Tvoical Noise Levels from Noise Sources Common Outdoor Activities Noise Level (dBA) Common Indoor Activities 110 Rack Band Jet Flyover at 1,000 feet 100 Gas Lawn Mower at three feet 90 Diesel Truck at 50 feet, at 50 mph Food Blender at 3 feet 80 Garbage Disposal at 3 feet Noisy Urban Area, Daytime 70 Vacuum Cleaner at 10 feet Commercial Area Normal speech at 3 feet Heavy Traffic at 300 feet 60 Large Business Office Quiet Urban Daytime 50 Dishwasher Next Room Quiet Urban Nighttime 40 Theater, Large Conference Room (background) Quiet Suburban Nighttime 30 Library Quiet Rural Nighttime Bedroom at Night, Concert Hall (background) 20 Broadcast/Recording Studio 10 Lowest Threshold of Human Heading 0 Lowest Threshold of Human Heading Soumz: California Department of Transpodation. Technical Noise Supplement 2009. Vibration Fundamentals Vibration is an oscillatory motion through a solid medium in which the motion's amplitude can be described in terms of displacement, velocity, or acceleration. Vibration is normally associated with activities such as railroads or vibration intensive stationary sources, but can also be associated with construction equipment such as jackhammers, pile drivers, and hydraulic hammers. Vibration displacement is the distance that a point on a surface moves away from its original static position. The instantaneous speed that a point on a surface moves is the velocity, and the rate of change of the speed is the acceleration. Each of these descriptors can be used to correlate vibration to human response, building damage, and acceptable equipment vibration levels. During project construction, the operation of construction equipment can cause groundborne vibration. During the operational phase of a project, receptors may be subject to levels of vibration that can October 2014 Page 5.9 -3 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE cause annoyance due to noise generated from vibration of a structure or items within a structure. This type of vibration is best measured in velocity and acceleration. The three main wave types of concern in the propagation of groundborne vibrations are surface or Rayleigh waves, compression or P- waves, and shear or S- waves. Surface or Rayleigh waves travel along the ground surface. They carry most of their energy along an expanding cylindrical wave front, similar to the ripples produced by throwing a rock into a lake. The particle motion is more or less perpendicular to the direction of propagation (known as retrograde elliptical). ■ Compression or P -waves are body waves that carry their energy along an expanding spherical wave front. The particle motion in these waves is longitudinal, in a push -pull motion. P -waves are analogous to airborne sound waves. ■ Shear or S -waves are also body waves, carrying their energy along an expanding spherical wave front. Unlike P- waves, however, the particle motion is transverse, or perpendicular to the direction of propagation. The peak particle velocity (PPV) or the root mean square (RMS) velocity is usually used to describe vibration amplitudes. PPV is the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal, and RMS is the square root of the average of the squared amplitude of the signal. PPV is more appropriate for evaluating potential building damage, whereas RMS is typically more suitable for evaluating human response. The units for PPV and RMS velocity are normally inches per second (in /sec). Often, vibration is presented and discussed in dB units in order to compress the range of numbers required to describe the vibration. In this study, all PPV and RMS velocity levels are in m /sec, and all vibration levels are in dB relative to one microinch per second (abbreviated as VdB). The threshold of perception is approximately 65 VdB. Typically, ground borne vibration generated by human activities attenuates rapidly with distance from the source of the vibration. Even the more persistent Rayleigh waves decrease relatively quickly as they move away from the source of the vibration. Therefore, manmade vibration problems are usually confined to short distances (500 feet or less) from the source. Construction operations generally include a wide range of activities that can generate ground borne vibration. In general, blasting and demolition of structures generate the highest vibrations. Vibratory compactors or rollers, pile drivers, and pavement breakers can generate perceptible amounts of vibration at up to 200 feet. Heavy trucks can also generate ground borne vibrations, which vary depending on vehicle type, weight, and pavement conditions. Potholes, pavement joints, discontinuities, differential settlement of pavement, etc., all increase the vibration levels from vehicles passing over a road surface. Construction vibration is normally of greater concern than vibration of normal traffic on streets and freeways with smooth pavement conditions. Trains generate substantial quantities of vibration due to their engines, steel wheels, and heavy loads. Page 5.94 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE 5.9.2 Regulatory Framework To limit population exposure to physically and /or psychologically damaging as well as intrusive noise levels, the federal government, the State of California, various county governments, and most municipalities in the state have established standards and ordinances to control noise. The City of Santa Ana regulates noise through the City of Santa Ana Noise Element and the City of Santa Ana Municipal Code, Article Vl, Noise Control. Potential noise impacts were evaluated based on the noise element, and municipal code. Because the City does not have standards to control vibration, vibration impacts are evaluated according to Federal Transit Administration IFTA criteria to determine whether a significant adverse vibration impact would result from the construction and operation of the proposed project. City of Santa Ana Noise Element The City of Santa Ana, through its general plan, has adopted noise standards for sensitive uses, shown in Table 5.9 -3. Table 5.9 -3 City of Santa Ana Noise Element Standards Category Land Use Category Noise Level (dBA CNEL) Interior' Exteriors Residential Single-family, duplex, multi - family 453 65 Institutional Hospital, school classroom /playgrounds 45 65 Church, library 45 65 Open Space Parks - 65 Source. City of Santa Ana General Plan Noise Element. 1 Interior areas include but are not limited to: bedrooms, bathrooms, kitchens, living rooms, dining rooms, closets, mmdors/hallmys, private offices, and conference rooms. s Exterior areas are private yards of single- family homes, park picnic areas, school playgrounds, common areas, and private open space such as atriums a balconies. 3 Interior noise level requirements are based on a'tlosed window" condition. Mechanical ventilation system or other means of natural ventilation shall be provided per Chapter 12, Section 1305, of the Uniform Building Code. City of Santa Ana Stationary Noise Standard: Noise Nuisance Pursuant to the municipal code, the City restricts noise levels generated at a property from exceeding certain noise levels for extended periods of time. The City applies the noise control ordinance standards (summarized in Table 5.9 -4) to nontransportation fans, blowers, pumps, turbines, saws, engines, and other like machinery. Table 5.9 -4 City of Santa Ana Exterior Noise Standards Receptor /Land Use Time of Day Maximum Permissible Noise Levels (dBA)r•s Lm Las Le La 1 L.. 10 10 PM to 7 AM 50 55 60 65 70 Residential Properties AM to 10 PM 55 1 60 65 70 1 75 Source: Santa Ana Municipal Cade, Article VI, Section 1 8-312. 1 In the eventrhe alleged offensive noise consists entirelyofimpact noise, simple tone noise, speech, music, noise levels shall be reduced by 5dBA. October 2014 Page 5.9 5 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE The City of Santa Ana exempts noise associated with construction, repair, remodeling, or grading of any zeal property from the noise limitations of the municipal code, provided that construction activities do not take place between the hours of 8:00 PM and 7:00 AM on weekdays, including Saturdays, or any time on Sundays or federal holidays. FTA Vibration Criteria Vibration Annoyance Ground borne noise is the vibration of floors and walls that may cause rattling of items such as windows or dishes on shelves, or a rumbling noise. The rumbling is created by the motion of the room surfaces, which act like a giant loudspeaker. The FTA provides criteria for acceptable levels of ground borne vibration based on the relative perception of a vibration event for vibration - sensitive land uses (see Table 5.9 -5). Table 5.9 -5 Ground -bome Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria: Human Annovance Land Use Caterlory Max 6 dB Description Workshop 90 Distinctly felt vibration. Appropriate to workshops and nonsensitive areas Office 84 Felt vibration. Appropriate to offices and nonsensitive areas. Residential - Daytime 78 Barely felt vibration. Adequate for computer equipment. Residential - Nighttime 72 Vibration not felt, but groundborne noise may be audible inside quiet rooms. SouRR. IF I A Nlxi 1 As measured in V3adave bands of frequency oeer the frequency ranges of 8 to 80 Hz Vibration- Related Structural Damage The level at which ground borne vibration is strong enough to cause structural damage has not been determined conclusively. The most conservative estimates are reflected in the FTA standards, shown in Table 5.9 -6. Table 5.9 -6 Ground -Borne Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria: Structural Damaqe Building Category PPV (in/sec) VdB I. Reinforced concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster) 0.5 102 II. Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.3 98 III. Nonengineered timber and masonry buildings 0.2 94 IV. Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 90 SouRR. IF I A ZM. Note. RIMS eelocity calculated from vibration leeel (VdB) using the reference of one micreinc[Vs ond. Vibration related problems generally occur due to resonances in the structural components of a building. The maximum vibration amplitudes of the floors and walls of a building will often be at the resonance frequencies of various components of the building. In other words, structures amplify ground borne vibration. Resonant response is frequency dependent, and 1 /3- octave band charts are best for describing vibration behavior. Wood frame buildings, such as typical residential structures, are more easily excited by Page 5.96 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE ground vibration than heavier buildings. According to Caltrans's Transportation Related Eartbborne Vibration (2002), extreme care must be taken when sustained pile driving occurs within 25 feet of any building; the threshold at which there is a risk of architectural damage to normal houses with plastered walls and ceilings is 0.2 in /sec. 5.9.3 Existing Noise Environment The major source of noise in the study area is traffic on study area roads. Harbor Boulevard is a six lane divided roadway with posted speed limits of 45 miles per hour. Other major roads in the study area are the east west streets such as Westminster Avenue, Hazard Avenue, 5th Street, 1st Street, McFadden Avenue, and Gloxinia Avenue. Certain land uses are particularly sensitive to noise and vibration. These uses include residential, school, and open space /recreation areas where quiet environments are necessary for enjoyment, public health, and safety. Commercial and industrial uses are not considered noise- and vibration - sensitive uses. The project area currently contains roughly two million square feet of commercial uses distributed fairly evenly along the corridor. Existing commercial uses occur at both midblock locations and intersections and are dominated by auto service and sales, but also include grocery stores, service businesses, and restaurants. The project area contains 739 residential units, motels, a church, and a park. The residential areas are multifamily units west of Harbor between Westminster Avenue and Hazard Avenue, mobile homes west of Harbor Boulevard between 1st Street and McFadden Avenue, and single - family residential areas along Jackson Street and north of 5th Street. In addition to transportation related noise, nontransportation sources generate noise within the project area. Residential uses would generate noise from landscaping, maintenance activities, and air conditioning systems. Commercial uses would generate noise from heating, ventilation, air conditioning (HVAC) systems; auto sales and repair; car wash equipment; drive thin speakerphones; and other sources. Noise from stationary sources is regulated through the City's noise ordinance. 5.9.4 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on he environment if the project would result in: N -1 Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. N -2 Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive gioundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. N -3 A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. October 2014 Page 5.9 -7 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE N -4 A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. N -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, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. N -6 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, expose people residing or working the project area to excessive noise levels. The Initial Study, included as Appendix A, substantiates that impacts associated with the following thresholds would be less than significant: ■ Threshold N -5 ■ Threshold N -6 These impacts will not be addressed in the following analysis. 5.9.5 Environmental Impacts The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the initial study disclosed potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement. Impact 5.9 -1: Implementation of the Harbor Corridor Plan would not cause a substantial increase in noise related to additional vehicular traffic. [Thresholds N -1 and N -31 impact Analysis: The proposed project would have the potential to generate project related traffic noise impacts to noise - sensitive uses along roadways evaluated in the traffic impact analysis prepared for the proposed project (IBI Group 2013). The following analysis describes the anticipated noise levels from traffic generated by buildout of the Harbor Corridor Plan. Traffic noise modeling was compiled for the following scenarios, according to the traffic study prepared for this project: ■ Existing: Existing conditions (2013 traffic county without the proposed project. ■ Existing With Project: Existing volumes plus the new traffic generated by buildout of the Harbor Corridor Plan. ■ Buildout -Year 2035 Without Project: Future 2035 volumes without implementation of the Harbor Corridor Plan, obtained from the Orange County Transportation Analysis Model. ■ Buildout -Year 2035 With Project: Future 2035 volumes with implementation of the Harbor Corridor Plan. Page 5.9-% PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE The traffic noise levels for this project were estimated using the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (RD -77 -108). The FHWA model predicts noise levels through a series of adjustments to a reference sound level. These adjustments account for distances from the roadway, traffic flows, vehicle speeds, car /truck mix, length of exposed roadway, and road width. The distances to the 70, 65, and 60 CNEL contours for selected roadway segments in the vicinity of proposed project site are in Appendix G. Tables 5.9 -7 and 5.9 -8 compare the noise levels at 100 feet from the centerline of each roadway segment without and with the project for existing and 2035 conditions. As discussed previously (see Table 5.9 -1), changes of 3 dBA are barely perceptible to the average human ear, and changes of 5 dBA are readily perceptible. A noise impact may occur if three conditions are met: (1) there is a noise increase of 5 dB or more from existing conditions, (2) project related traffic noise is greater than 1 dBA, and (3) the CNEL is 65 dBA or greater in the vicinity of noise - sensitive land uses. Existing Conditions Table 5.9 -7 shows the projects noise increases over existing conditions without and with implementation of the project. Traffic noise increases due to the project range from -1.6 to 0.8 dBA. The reduction in noise is caused by a reduction in traffic volumes on some of the segments due to changes in land uses and the corresponding trip generation at some areas of the Harbor Corridor Plan. The greatest noise increase of 0.8 dBA would occur on Edinger Avenue from Fairview Street to Harbor Boulevard. The calculated noise increases of up to 0.8 dBA at study area roadways due to the project would not result in a perceivable noise increase at receptors along roadways. Table 5.9 -7 Project - Related Traffic Noise, Existinq Conditions Roadway Segment CNEL at 100 feet (dBA) Increase above Existing (dBA) No Project With Project Harbor Blvd. Trask Ave. to Westminster Ave. 71.4 71.1 -0.3 Harbor Blvd. Westminster Ave. to Hazard Ave. 71.1 70.7 -0.4 Harbor Blvd. Hazard Ave. to First St. 71.2 70.9 -0.3 Harbor Blvd. First St. to McFadden Ave. 71.1 71.1 0.0 Harbor Blvd. McFadden Ave. to Edinger Ave. 71.0 71.3 0.3 Harbor Blvd. Edinger Ave. to Warner Ave. 70.5 70.6 0.1 Harbor Blvd. Segerstrom Ave. to MacArthur Blvd. 70.5 70.4 -0.1 Westminster Ave. Newhope St. to Harbor Blvd. 68.4 68.5 0.1 Westminster Ave. Fairview St. to Harbor Blvd. 67.8 67.7 -0.1 1st Street Newhope St. to Harbor Blvd. 67.2 67.5 0.3 1st Street Fairview St. to Harbor Blvd. 69.3 69.5 0.2 McFadden Ave. Newhope St. to Harbor Blvd. 65.8 66.1 0.3 McFadden Ave. Fairview St. to Harbor Blvd. 67.0 66.4 -0.6 Edinger Ave. Newhope Ave. to Harbor Blvd. 66.0 66.1 0.1 Edinger Ave. Fairview St. to Harbor Blvd. 1 67.5 1 68.3 1 0.8 Source. FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model based on traffic volumes provided by IBI Group 2013. October 2014 Page 5.9 -9 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE 2035 Conditions Table 5.9 -8 shows the project's noise increases over 2035 conditions, without and with implementation of the project. With the project, the overall increase over existing conditions would range from —1.5 to 1.3 dBA CNEL. Traffic noise increases due to the project at 2035 conditions range from —0.8 to 0.7 dBA. The reduction in noise is caused by a reduction in traffic volumes due to changes in land uses and the corresponding trip generation at some areas of the Harbor Corridor Plan, and due to a new roadway that would run northwest to southeast that would alleviate traffic on some of the existing study area roads. The overall noise increase of up to 1.3 dBA would occur on Edinger Avenue from Fairview Street to Harbor Boulevard. At all other segments, the increase would 1.0 dBA or less. The calculated noise increases at study area roadways due to the project would occur over more than 20 years and would be less than 3 dBA, and therefore would not result in a substantial noise increase at receptors along roadways. Page 5.9 -10 PlaceWorkr wQ < wz 0< 0 < ¢o a� wl 00 0 It 0 0 rn w ' N 5, Oz (6 C Q ca C N E C O C W m N N N L U d N O Z U L d O J W �i N a H i 0 °m y 0 0 x0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 dw c N N N 0 V 0 0 m 0 o 0 m 0 N 0 o 0 V 0 m 0 m 0 m 0 0 r 0 {� C O L_ o a` r r r r r r r m m m m m m m m Q m a 0 z J W Z U o` r r r r r r r m m m m m m m m 0 z a C N 0] > > ¢ > > E ¢ -o ¢ t 'o -o -0 2 > > r > -o > -o > -o m 'o 0 `o 0 a > LL N O j O Z O Z O Z Z ¢ > ¢ O O O d O 0 O ¢ m y y y > Q ° m ¢ E o y y y ¢ y > c -o m a 3 m a 3 m a 3 m a 3 ¢E a y a m O m O m O m O m EV 2E W f7 Z LL Z LL Z LL Z LL 3 a o ai ai E E y y m m a a a a a a a .f .f LL LL C C h 0 Y. N N 0 X ¢ � Q Q O F � Z 0 (n K 00 K} Q ~ 'u Ln cn a Q cc E 0 .j � W W N z a� O C w y Il n h O HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Summary of Traffic Noise Impacts As shown on the table above, the highest noise level increase would be at the segment of Edinger Avenue from Fairview Street to Harbor Boulevard noise increase of 1.3 over existing conditions and a project contribution of 0.7 dBA. These increases would be below the thresholds discussed above; as a result, traffic- related project noise impacts would be less than significant. Impact 5.9 -2 Noise levels at proposed residential areas would be above the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standards. [Thresholds N -1 and N -31 Impact Analysis: The Harbor Corridor Plan proposes to gradually convert existing commercial and RV /auto - related land uses to allow for approximately 4,600 residential units and 2 million square feet of commercial space in the plan area. Land use changes under the Harbor Corridor Plan would involve replacing the North Harbor Specific Plan's (NHSP) zoning districts with four Harbor Corridor Plan zones, as described in Section 3, Project Description. Mixed use opportunities (commercial /residential would be introduced along the corridor. The transit node and corridor areas would include high- density and medium density housing primarily on areas along Harbor Boulevard. Neighborhood transitional zoning along 1st Street and 5th Street would allow for low- to medium - density residential development. As shown on Tables 5.9 -7 and 5.9 -8 above, these areas would be exposed to exterior noise levels at the edge of the right- of-way on Harbor Boulevard ranging from 65.5 to 71.3 dBA CNEL. The City's adopted noise standards (shown in Table 5.9 -3) for residential areas, parks, and outdoor living areas such as private yards, balconies, and park picnic areas shall not exceed 65 dBA CNEL. Without mitigation, outdoor living areas at residential uses and parks would have the potential to be exposed to noise levels above the 65 dBA CNEL exterior noise standard. This would be a significant impact. For noise - sensitive residential uses, habitable rooms including bedrooms, living rooms, and dining rooms shall not exceed the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard. Since standard construction materials and methods provide an exterior -to- interior noise reduction of approximately 25 dBA for new residential structures, the expected interior noise level at rooms facing the major roads within the Harbor Corridor Plan would be approximately 47 dBA CNEL (72 dBA CNEL exterior minus 25 dB for insulation reduction. With standard construction, the interior noise levels at habitable homes could exceed the 45 dBA CNEL noise standard. This would be a significant impact. Impact 5.9 -3: Noise from the operation of commercial uses could cause the noise level at the property line of any adjacent residential property to exceed the City of Santa Ana noise standards. [Thresholds N -1 and N -3] Impact Analysis: Adoption of the Harbor Corridor Plan would allow for approximately 2 million square feet of commercial space in the plan area. Retail uses would accommodate retail, restaurant, entertainment, and other pedestrian- oriented uses at street level, with offices and flats above in the mixed use building types. The City of Santa Ana's Municipal Code includes noise standards for residential properties, summarized in Table 5.9 -4. October 2014 Page 5.9 -13 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE The operation of proposed commercial, office, and retail uses next to residential uses would have the potential to introduce new stationary sources of noise, such as HVAC units, and noise from entertainment establishments such as live music, patrons voices, and speakerphones. These sources could have the potential to cause sporadic exceedances of the noise standards in the municipal code or to generate noise levels that would be readily perceptible (greater than 5 dBA over the ambient noise) at residential properties immediately adjacent to future commercial, office, and retail uses. It should be noted that the existing uses in the project area are predominantly commercial and RV /auto - related uses. The Harbor Corridor Plan would not necessarily introduce new sources of stationary noise, but would increase the residential density in the area, which would have the potential to expose persons to stationary noise above the City's noise ordinance criteria (see Table 5.9 -4). No site - specific development is proposed at this time. Therefore, the specifications, design features, and /or location of these potential noise sources and the resulting effect of future development on nearby sensitive receptors cannot be quantified at this time. Noise from the operation of commercial, office, and retail uses on nearby sensitive receptors would be potentially significant. Impact 5.9 -4: Construction activities would generate high levels of ground -bome vibration. [Threshold Impact Analysis: There would be no long -term operational sources of vibration with the project, but project construction may expose people to ground borne vibration and noise. Buildout of the Harbor Corridor Plan would occur over a period of several years and would consist of several projects with their own construction time frames and equipment. It should be noted that although the total length of construction activities for the buildout of the entire Harbor Corridor Plan is estimated at approximately 20 years, individual construction activities for each project would have their own schedule and would only affect areas near the construction site The closest vibration - sensitive structures are the existing and future residential uses in the project area. In addition, residential areas immediately adjacent to the boundaries of the project area are also considered vibration sensitive and would have the potential to be affected by construction activities during implementation of the Harbor Corridor Plan. No properties within the project site were identified as potential historic resources, which have lower thresholds for vibration. Construction activities can generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the construction procedures, construction equipment used, and proximity to vibration - sensitive uses. Operation of construction equipment generates vibrations that spread though the ground and diminish in amplitude with distance from the source. Vibration is typically noticed nearby when objects in a building generate noise from rattling windows or picture frames. It is typically not perceptible outdoors, and therefore impacts are based on the distance from the vibration source to the nearest building. The effect on buildings further varies depending on soil type, ground strata, and building construction. The generation of vibration can range from no perceptible vibrations at the lowest levels to slight damage at the highest levels. Ground vibrations from construction activities rarely reach levels that can damage structures, but can reach the audible and perceptible ranges in buildings closest to a construction site. Page 5.9 -14 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Vibration - Induced Architectural Damage Building damage is not a factor for normal projects, with the occasional exception of blasting and pile driving during construction (FTA 2006). According to Caltrans, extreme care must be taken when sustained pile driving occurs within 25 feet of any building. The thresholds at which there is a risk of architectural damage is 0.5 m /sec PPV for reinforced concrete, steel, or timber buildings, and 0.2in /sec PPV for wood framed structures, including historic structures. Vibration levels from typical construction equipment are shown in Table 5.9 -9. Table 5.9 -9 Construction Equipment Vibration Levels Equipment Approximate RMS' Velocity Level at 25 Feet (VdB) Approximate PPV Velocity at 25 Feet (in /sec) Pile Dover (impact) Upper Range 112 1.518 Pile Dover (impact) Lower Range 104 0.644 Pile Dover sonic Upper Range 105 0.734 Pile Dover sonic Lower Range 93 0.170 Vibratory Roller 94 0.210 Large Bulldozer 87 0.089 Caisson Drilling 87 0.089 Jackhammer 79 0.035 Small Bulldozer 58 0.003 Loaded Trucks 86 0.076 FTA Criteria: Human Annoyance Da time 78 — FTA Criteria: Architectural Damage — 0.200 Wood - Framed 0.500 Reinforced Masonry Soumz: FfA M. 1 RIMS velocity calculated from vibration level (VdB) using the reference of 1 micrctndi /second and arrest factor of 4. This is a program level analysis, and no site - specific development is being proposed at this time. Therefore, the precise locations of demolition and construction activities and type of construction equipment is unknown, but would be determined for each individual project within the Harbor Corridor Plan. Depending on distance and the equipment used, vibration levels could potentially exceed the 0.5 in /sec vibration induced architectural damage threshold for reinforced masonry buildings and the 0.2 m /sec criteria for wood - framed buildings. If future, individual projects under the Harbor Corridor Plan exceeded these thresholds, vibration - induced architectural damage impacts would be significant. Vibration Annoyance As discussed above, the nearest sensitive receptor structures subject to annoyance from the construction of individual projects are existing and future residential uses in and adjacent to the project area. Levels of vibration produced by construction equipment are based on the FTAs significance threshold for vibration annoyance of 78 VdB for barely perceptible levels of vibration during the daytime (note that construction would be limited to daytime hours to comply with the City's municipal code). Table 5.9 -9 shows the potential vibration levels (VdB) that can be generated by heavy construction equipment at receptors 25 feet away. As October 2014 Page 5.9 -15 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE shown in this table, the operation of pile driving equipment and vibratory rollers would cause vibration levels that would exceed the thresholds for annoyance to residential uses. Since vibration levels dissipate rapidly with distance, pile driving at 350 feet or a vibratory roller at 100 feet from a sensitive receptor would not exceed the 78 VdB threshold for vibration annoyance. For equipment that produced lower vibrational energy, the vibration annoyance threshold distance would be considerably closer to the sources (e.g., for a large bulldozer, the annoyance threshold distance would be less than 50 feet between the source and the receiver). Construction that involves typical heavy construction equipment vibratory rollers, bulldozers, loaders, excavators, and jack hammers would result in vibration impacts when operated less than 100 feet from a given receptor. Several residences would be within 100 feet of parcels that may be redeveloped or within 100 feet of the street right- of-way and would be temporarily affected by the use of heavy construction equipment during the daytime. A review of aerial photographs shows that several residential buildings are at least 50 feet from the project boundaries. Because equipment would move around each construction site and vibration levels dissipate rapidly, vibration impacts at a given receptor would be sporadic and short -term; therefore, these impacts would be less than significant. However, the operation of pile driving equipment, which is a stationary equipment item, could potentially cause vibration levels that would be above thresholds at receptors up to 350 feet away. This would be a significant impact. Impact 5.9 -5: Construction activities would result in temporary noise increases in the vicinity of the proposed project. [Threshold NA] ImpactAnalysis: A project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if it would result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Buildout of the Harbor Corridor Plan would occur over a period of several years and would consist of several smaller projects with their own construction time frame and equipment. Although the length of construction activities for buildout of the entire Harbor Corridor Plan is estimated at approximately 20 years, individual construction activities in each project would have their own schedule, and each project would only affect the area near it. Therefore, exposure of any one sensitive receptor to elevated construction noise levels would be from a few to several months in duration. Two types of short -term noise impacts could occur during construction: (1) mobile- source noise from transport of workers, material deliveries, and debris and soil haul and (2) stationary source noise from use of construction equipment. The closest noise - sensitive structures are the existing and future residential uses in the project area, churches, and the Santa Anita Park. Residential areas immediately adjacent to the boundaries of the project area are also considered vibration sensitive and would have the potential to be affected by construction activities during implementation of the Harbor Corridor Plan. Several residences would be temporarily affected by the use of heavy construction equipment during the daytime. Commercial and retail uses within the project area are not considered noise - sensitive uses. Page 5.9 -16 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Mobile- Source Noise The transport of workers and equipment to the construction site and truck haul associated with demolition debris and soil haul would incrementally increase noise levels along roadways in the vicinity of the project site. Construction of projects could generate substantial truck trips for removal of debris and soil export or import for the construction of underground parking structures. It is not known at this point the amount of haul truck trips that would be required, when it would occur, or for how long. There would be a relatively high single -event noise exposure potential with passing trucks. Construction related traffic would likely use the major roads that provide regional access —such as Harbor Boulevard, Westminster Avenue, 5th Street, 1st Street, McFadden Avenue, and Gloxma Avenue which currently carry over 14,000 average daily traffic volumes. Typically, a doubling of vehicle trips would increase noise levels by 3 dB, which could be perceived adjacent to truck haul routes. Because of the relatively small size of the parcels, construction not would result in a doubling of traffic volumes. Though construction related truck traffic could cause substantial noise increases at sensitive uses along residential streets and collector roads, noise impacts from construction- related truck traffic would be limited to uses along haul routes along local and residential roads. Because construction related traffic is sporadic and short term, and because construction traffic is typically routed toward major roads, noise impacts related to construction traffic would be less than significant. Onsite Construction Equipment Noise The other type of short -term noise impact is related to demolition, grading, and building construction. Construction equipment can be considered to operate in two modes: stationary and mobile. Stationary equipment operates in one location for one or more days; mobile equipment moves around a construction site with variations in power settings and loads. To determine the energy average Ieq sound level from the equipments operation under varying power settings, the equipments noise rating at a reference distance, while operating at full power, is adjusted by considering the duty cycle of the activity. Table 5.9 -10 lists maximum construction equipment noise levels from 50 feet away and the industry standard duty cycles for typical development activities. October 2014 Page 5.9 -17 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Table 5.9 -10 Construction Equipment Noise Levels Equipment Noise Level (dBA) at 50 ft Typical Duty Cycle Auger Drill Rig 85 20% Backhoe 80 40% Blasting 94 1% Chain Saw 85 20% Clam Shovel 93 20% Compactor (ground) 80 20% Compressor (air) 80 40 % Concrete Mixer Truck 85 40% Concrete Pump 82 20% Concrete Saw 90 20% Crane (mobile or stationary) 85 20% Dozer 85 40% Dump Truck 84 40% Excavator 85 40% Front End Loader 80 40% Generator (25 KVA or less) 70 50% Generator (more than 25 KVA) 82 50% Grader 85 40% Hydra Break Ram 90 10% In situ Soil Sampling Rig 84 20% Jackhammer 85 20% Mounted Impact Hammer (hoe ram) 90 20% Paver 85 50% Pneumatic Tools 85 50% Pumps 77 50% Rack Drill 85 20% Scraper 85 40 % Tractor 84 40% Vacuum Excavator (vac-truck) 85 40% Vibratory Concrete Mixer 80 20% Soume: Thalheimer 2000. KVA = kilovolt amps Each stage of construction has a different equipment mix, depending on the work to be accomplished during that stage. The noise produced at each stage is determined by combining the Ley contributions from each piece of equipment used at a given time. In the construction of residential and mixed use projects, demolition and grading activities generate the highest noise levels. Because of the effects of noise attenuation due to distance, the number and type of equipment, and the load and power requirements to accomplish different tasks during each construction phase, construction activities Page 5.9 -78 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE would result in different noise levels at a given sensitive receptor. Heavy equipment, such as a dozer or a loader, can have maximum, short duration noise levels in excess of 80 dBA at 50 feet from the equipment. The average noise levels at noise - sensitive receptors would be much lower because noise from construction equipment is intermittent and diminishes at a rate of at least 6 dB per doubling distance, and because mobile construction equipment would move around the site and be operated with different loads and power requirements. Although the Harbor Corridor Plan would take several years to build out, it is anticipated that exposure of individual receptors to elevated construction noise levels would be for much shorter periods (e.g., a few months). Furthermore, construction of new residential and nonresidential land uses would depend on market conditions, resulting in intermittent construction activities in the project area. Construction noise impacts would depend on the distance from the receptor to the location of individual construction activities and on the presence of intervening structures. The specific locations, duration, and equipment required for individual projects are unknown. Therefore, it cannot be specifically determined how noise - sensitive uses in the project area and surroundings would be affected. Construction of individual developments associated with buildout of the Harbor Corridor Plan would temporarily increase the ambient noise environment at nearby existing and future residential areas, churches, and parks. At each individual receptor, the temporary increase would likely last for a few months. The City of Santa Ana exempts noise associated with construction, repair, remodeling, or grading of any real property from the noise limitations of the municipal code, provided that construction activities do not take place between the hours of 8:00 PM and 7:00 AM on weekdays, including Saturdays, or any time on Sundays or federal holidays. Even with these time- of-day constraints, construction activities associated with any individual development may occur in dose proximity to noise sensitive receptors, and noise disturbances may occur for prolonged periods of time. Therefore, construction noise impacts are considered potentially significant. 5.9.6 Cumulative Impacts Cumulative noise impacts occur when multiple sources of noise, though individually not substantial, combine to result in excessive, cumulative noise exposure at noise sensitive uses. Short -Term Construction Noise and Vibration Cumulative construction noise impacts have the potential to occur when multiple construction projects in the same general area generate noise within the same time frame and contribute to the increases in the ambient noise environment. Based on noise levels generated by construction activities associated with the project site, the duration of construction activities that would occur intermittently within the approximately 20 -year buildout period, and the proximity of the sensitive receptors, construction noise from the project could substantially elevate ambient noise levels. This would significantly contribute to the cumulative noise environment. Cumulative construction noise impacts are considered potentially significant. October 2014 Page 5.9 -19 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Long -Term Operation Mobile- Source Noise A significant cumulative noise impact would occur where cumulative noise increases by 5 dB or more, the projects cumulative contribution is 1 dB or more, and the ambient noise levels exceed the 65 dBA CNEL noise compatibility standard in the vicinity of existing noise - sensitive land uses. Cumulative noise impacts due to traffic sources are a combination of noise levels in the area due to the proposed project along with all other traffic growth projected during the Harbor Corridor Plan buildout. Cumulative increases in traffic noise levels were estimated by comparing the 2035 With Project scenario to existing conditions. Table 5.9 -8 show the projects noise increases from existing conditions for 2035 conditions, without and with implementation of the project. As discussed previously, no segments would result in a significant noise increase. As a result, project related traffic noise impacts would be less than significant. Stationary- Source Noise Unlike traffic noise, whose effects can extend well beyond the limits of the project site, stationary- source noise (mechanical equipment, loading /unloading activities, etc.) would typically only impact noise - sensitive receptors near the project site. Because there are no existing major stationary noise sources in the vicinity of the project site, and project related stationary noise would be less than significant, cumulative noise impacts due to stationary noise sources would also be less than significant. 5.9.7 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions ■ City of Santa Ana Municipal Code, Article yq, Noise Control. 5.9.8 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, Impact 5.9 -1 would be less than significant. Without mitigation, the following impacts would be potentially significant ■ Impact 5.9 -2 Noise levels at proposed residential areas would be above the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standards. ■ Impact 5.9 -3 Noise from the operation of commercial /retail and office uses could cause the noise level at the property line of any adjacent residential property to exceed the City of Santa Ana noise standards or cause noise levels to increase above existing ambient noise. ■ Impact 5.9 -4 Construction activities would generate high levels of ground borne vibration. Page 5.9 -20 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE ■ Impact 5.9 -5 Construction activities would result in temporary noise increases in the vicinity of the proposed project. 5.9.9 Mitigation Measures Impact 5.9 -2 9 -1 Prior to issuance of a building permit, applicants for new residential development in the Harbor Corridor Plan shall submit an acoustic report prepared to the satisfaction of the Building Official or their designee to ensure that noise levels at outdoor living areas such as private yards, balconies, and park picnic areas shall not exceed 65 dBA CNEL, and all residential habitable rooms would meet the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard. These noise studies would need to be submitted after the precise grading and architectural plans are prepared, but prior to issuance of building permits. The required exterior noise reduction can be accomplished with sound walls or berms, or by site plan/building layout design. The required interior noise reduction can be accomplished with enhanced construction design or materials such as upgraded dual glazed windows and /or upgraded exterior wall assemblies. These features shall be shown on all building plans and incorporated into construction of the project. City inspectors shall verify compliance of the building with the acoustic reports recommendations prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Impact 5.9 -3 9 -2 Prior to issuance of a building permit, applicants for new commercial, office, or retail developments in the Harbor Corridor Plan shall submit an acoustic report prepared to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and Building Official or their designee to ensure that the operation of stationary noise sources (i.e., HVAC units, truck deliveries) would not cause a noise increase of more than 5 dBA over the ambient noise levels at any adjacent property. These noise studies would need to be submitted after the precise grading and architectural plans are prepared, but prior to issuance of building permits. This requirement can be accomplished with selection of quieter equipment, judicious site layouts and equipment positioning, and /or equipment enclosures, sound screening, or parapet walls. These features shall be shown on all building plans and incorporated into the construction of the project. City inspectors shall verify compliance of the building with the acoustic reports recommendations prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Impact 5.9 -4 9 -3 Prior to issuance of a building permit, applicants for projects within the Harbor Corridor Plan that involve high- vibration construction activities, such as pile driving or vibratory rolling /compacting, shall be evaluated for potential vibration impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. The project developer shall submit a vibration report prepared to the satisfaction of the City of Santa Ana Building Official or their designee to determine if the use of pile October 2014 Page 5.9 -21 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE driving and /or vibratory rolling /compacting equipment would exceed the Federal Transit Administration's (FTAs) vibration - annoyance criteria of 78 VdB during the daytime or FTAs vibration induced architectural damage PPV criteria of 0.2 inches /second for wood - framed structures or 0.5 inches /second for reinforced masonry buildings. The construction contractor shall require the use of lower- vibration - producing equipment and techniques. Examples of lower vibration equipment and techniques would include avoiding the use of vibratory rollers near sensitive areas and /or the use of drilled piles, sonic pile driving, or vibratory pile driving (as opposed to impact pile driving). Impact 5.9 -5 9 -4 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall ensure the following notes are included on the grading plan cover sheet, and the construction contractor shall comply with these measures during the duration of all construction activities. ■ Properly maintain and time all construction equipment to minimize noise. Fit all equipment with properly operating mufflers, air intake silencers, and engine shrouds, no less effective than as originally equipped by the manufacturer, to minimize noise emissions. Locate all stationary noise sources (e.g., generators, compressors, staging areas) as far from noise sensitive receptors as possible. Material delivery, soil haul trucks, and equipment servicing shall be restricted to the hours between 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM Mondays through Saturdays, and not at all on Sundays or federal holidays. 9 -5 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, each project applicant within the project area shall prepare a construction management plan that shall be approved by the City of Santa Ana Public Works. The construction management plan shall: ■ Establish truck haul routes on the appropriate transportation facilities. Truck routes that avoid congested streets and sensitive land uses shall be considered. ■ Provide Traffic Control Plans (for detours and temporary road closures) that meet the minimum City criteria. Traffic control plans shall determine if dedicated turn lanes for movement of construction truck and equipment on- and offsite are available. ■ Minimize offsite road closures during the peak hours. ■ Keep all construction related traffic onsite at all times. Page 5.9 -22 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Provide temporary traffic controls, such as a flag person, during all phases of construction to maintain smooth traffic flow. 5.9.10 Level of Significance After Mitigation The mitigation measures identified above would reduce potential impacts associated with noise to a level that is less than significant. Therefore, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts relating to noise remain. 5.9.11 References Bies and Hansen. 2003. Engineering Noire Contmh Theory and Practice. New York: Spon Press. Bolt, Beranek and Newman. 1971. Noise from Construction Equ pment and Operations, Building Equ pment and Home Appliances. Prepared for the United States Environmental Protection Agency. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Division of Environmental Analysis. 2002. Transportation Related Eartbborne Vibration: Callrans Experiences. Technical Advisory, Vibration. TAV- 02- 01- R9601. Prepared by Rudy Hendricks. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1978, December. Federal Highway Traffic Noire Prediction Model U.S. Department of Transportation. Report No. FHWA -RD77 -108. Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2006, May. Transit Noire and Vibration lVactAssessment. United States Department of Transportation. October 2014 Page 5.9 -23 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Tbisliage intentional# left blank. Page 5.9 -24 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis 5.10 POPULATION AND HOUSING This section of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) examines the potential for socioeconomic impacts on the City of Santa Ana from the proposed Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan, including changes in population, employment, and demand for housing, particularly housing cost /rent ranges defined as "affordable." 5.10.1 Environmental Setting Population The population of the City of Santa Ana was 329,915 on January 1, 2013, as estimated by the California Department of Finance (CDF; CDF 2013). The 2010 US Census counted 324,528 people in the City (USCB 2013a). The Center for Demographic Research (CDR) at California State University, Fullerton, projected populations for the City of Santa Ana and Orange County from 2010 to 2035, presented below in Table 5.10 -1. By 2035, the population of the City of Santa Ana is forecast to grow by 11,856, or 3.6 percent of the 2010 population. Over the same period, the county's population is estimated to increase by 401,872, or 13.3 percent of its 2010 population. The CDR projections are based on city and county general plan land use designations, 2010 US Census data, and 2010 California Employment Development Department employment benchmark data. Table 5.10 -1 Population Projections, 2010 -2035 Souw. Center for Demographic Research 2012. Demographic data for part of the City in and surrounding the project site were obtained from six census tracts, which together are bounded by the Santa Ana River on the east, Westminster Avenue on the north, Newhope Street on the west, and the City of Fountain Valley on the south (Tracts 891.04, 890.04, 891.05, 992.48, 992.49, and 992.02; tract 992.02 also includes part of Fountain Valley). According to the 2010 Census, the six census tracts combined had a population of 36,836 (USCB 2013a). Population Onsite There are 739 residential units and 3,252 residents in the Harbor Corridor Plan area. The current number of residents is generally consistent with the average household size in Santa Ana for 2013 of 4.43 persons (CDF 2013), taking housing vacancy into account. The housing vacancy rate in Santa Ana in 2013 is 4.8 percent, which would result in an estimated 704 occupied housing units onsite. Based on the above rates, the Harbor Corridor Plan area could house between 3,119 and 3,273 residents. The Conventional Zoning Area has 92 residential units and 405 residents. The total population within the project area is 3,657. October 2014 Page 5.10 -1 2010 1 2015 2020 2025 1 2030 2035 City of Santa Ana 1 324,858 1 333,494 1 337,568 1 337,215 1 340,198 1 336,714 Orange Couniy 1 3,019,356 1 3,154,580 1 3,266,107 1 3,349,157 1 3,410,773 1 3,421,228 Souw. Center for Demographic Research 2012. Demographic data for part of the City in and surrounding the project site were obtained from six census tracts, which together are bounded by the Santa Ana River on the east, Westminster Avenue on the north, Newhope Street on the west, and the City of Fountain Valley on the south (Tracts 891.04, 890.04, 891.05, 992.48, 992.49, and 992.02; tract 992.02 also includes part of Fountain Valley). According to the 2010 Census, the six census tracts combined had a population of 36,836 (USCB 2013a). Population Onsite There are 739 residential units and 3,252 residents in the Harbor Corridor Plan area. The current number of residents is generally consistent with the average household size in Santa Ana for 2013 of 4.43 persons (CDF 2013), taking housing vacancy into account. The housing vacancy rate in Santa Ana in 2013 is 4.8 percent, which would result in an estimated 704 occupied housing units onsite. Based on the above rates, the Harbor Corridor Plan area could house between 3,119 and 3,273 residents. The Conventional Zoning Area has 92 residential units and 405 residents. The total population within the project area is 3,657. October 2014 Page 5.10 -1 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis POPULATION AND HOUSING Housing Housing units and households in Santa Ana and Orange County in January 2013, as estimated by the CDF, are shown in Table 5.10 -2. In 2010, 47.5 percent of occupied housing units in the City were owner occupied and 52.5 percent renter occupied (USCB 2013a). Table 5.10 -2 Housing Units and Households, Santa Ana and Orange County, 2013, CDF Estimate Source CDF 2013. Numbers of housing units in Santa Ana and Orange County over the 2010 -2035 period, as forecast by the CDR, are shown in Table 5.10 -3. The number of housing units in the City is forecast to grow by 1,405 units, or 1.8 percent, between 2010 and 2035, and the number of units in the county by 130,599 units, or 12.4 percent. Table 5.10 -3 Housing Units Projections, 2010 -2035 Single- Single- Multifamily,2 Multifamily, 1 2030 2035 City of Santa Ana 76,918 77,521 Family Family to 4 units per 5+ units per Orange County 1,050,330 1,076,158 Vacancy 1 1,140,571 Detached Attached structure structure Mobile Homes Total Occupied Rate Santa Ana 35,481 5,657 7,499 24,283 4,048 76,968 73,242 4.8% Orange County 536,562 127,833 92,145 266,124 33,531 1,056,195 999,552 5.4% Source CDF 2013. Numbers of housing units in Santa Ana and Orange County over the 2010 -2035 period, as forecast by the CDR, are shown in Table 5.10 -3. The number of housing units in the City is forecast to grow by 1,405 units, or 1.8 percent, between 2010 and 2035, and the number of units in the county by 130,599 units, or 12.4 percent. Table 5.10 -3 Housing Units Projections, 2010 -2035 Source Center for Demographic Research 2012. In the six census tracts containing the part of Santa Ana bounded by the Santa Ana River, Westminster Avenue, Newhope Street, and the City of Fountain Valley, 8,666 housing units and 8,285 occupied housing units were counted in the 2010 Census, for a vacancy rate of 4.4 percent. Occupied housing units comprised 47.7 percent owner - occupied units and 52.3 percent renter - occupied units (USCB 2013a). Housing Onsite The project area contains 831 residential units, 739 units in the Harbor Corridor Area and 92 units in the Conventional Zoning Area, including multifamily residential and mobile -home communities accessed from Harbor Boulevard and single - family residential areas along Jackson Street. Zoning for residential uses onsite are located within three areas of the Harbor Corridor Plan, shown in Figure 41, Current Zoning Designations. ■ Along the west side of Harbor Boulevard between Washington Avenue and 17th Street ■ Along Jackson Street next to the east side of Willowick Golf Course Page 5.10 -2 PlaceWorkr 2010 1 2015 2020 2025 1 2030 2035 City of Santa Ana 76,918 77,521 1 77,521 1 77,521 1 77,949 1 78,323 Orange County 1,050,330 1,076,158 1 1,105,238 1 1,140,571 1 1,160,556 1 1,180,929 Source Center for Demographic Research 2012. In the six census tracts containing the part of Santa Ana bounded by the Santa Ana River, Westminster Avenue, Newhope Street, and the City of Fountain Valley, 8,666 housing units and 8,285 occupied housing units were counted in the 2010 Census, for a vacancy rate of 4.4 percent. Occupied housing units comprised 47.7 percent owner - occupied units and 52.3 percent renter - occupied units (USCB 2013a). Housing Onsite The project area contains 831 residential units, 739 units in the Harbor Corridor Area and 92 units in the Conventional Zoning Area, including multifamily residential and mobile -home communities accessed from Harbor Boulevard and single - family residential areas along Jackson Street. Zoning for residential uses onsite are located within three areas of the Harbor Corridor Plan, shown in Figure 41, Current Zoning Designations. ■ Along the west side of Harbor Boulevard between Washington Avenue and 17th Street ■ Along Jackson Street next to the east side of Willowick Golf Course Page 5.10 -2 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis POPULATION AND HOUSING ■ The Bali Hi Mobile Home Lodge at 432 South Harbor Boulevard opposite Harbor Boulevard from its intersection with Camille Street. Other residential uses in the project site are within commercial and entertainment zoning districts for instance, the California Palms Apartments at 901 South Harbor Boulevard in a General Commercial district and the Liberty Mobile Home Court at 329 South Harbor Boulevard in an Entertainment district. Scattered single - family houses are also within commercial and other nonresidential districts for instance, seven houses in a motor court (one of the houses is at 223 South Harbor Boulevard). A single - family house at 1221 North Harbor Boulevard, in an RV /Auto district, is vacant. Employment There were 150,523 jobs in Santa Ana in 2011, as estimated by the US Census Bureau. Estimated employment in Orange County in 2011 was 1,326,589. Santa Ana residents held 99,973 jobs in 2011 (USCB 2013b). The numbers of jobs in the City per industrial sector are shown in Table 5.10 -4. Table 5.10 -4 Emplovment by Industrial Sector, Santa Ana, 2011 �.z�nraxrizin:>..arrm Employment projections from the CDR for Santa Ana and Orange County from 2010 through 2035 are shown in Table 5.10 -5. The unemployment rate in Orange County in July 2013 was estimated at 6.5 percent, and the unemployment rate in Santa Ana was estimated at 10.4 percent for the same month by the Employment Development Department (EDD 2013a; EDD 2013b). October 2014 Page 5.10 -3 Jobs in Santa Ana Jobs of Santa Ana Residents Percent of Industrial Sector Jobs Total Jobs Jobs Percent of Total Jobs Agriculture, Mining, Oil and Gas Extraction 100 0.1% 1,124 1.2% Manufacturing, Construction, and Utilities 26,341 17.5% 20,943 21.0% Wholesale Trade, Retail Trade, 21,735 14.4% 18,576 18.6% Transportation and Warehousing Information, Finance and Insurance, and 13,388 9.0% 7,917 8.0% Real Estate Professional, Scientific, and Technical 10,502 7.0% 5,887 5.9% Services Management of Companies, and 19,114 12.7% 11,846 11.9% Administrafion & Support, Waste Management and Remediation Educational Services, Health Care, and 23,437 15.6% 15,077 15.0% Social Assistance Arts, Entertainment, and Recreafion; 11,794 7.8% 15,365 15.4% Accemmodafion and Food Services. and Other Services Public Administration 24,112 16.0% 3,238 3.2% Total 150,523 100% 99,973 100% �.z�nraxrizin:>..arrm Employment projections from the CDR for Santa Ana and Orange County from 2010 through 2035 are shown in Table 5.10 -5. The unemployment rate in Orange County in July 2013 was estimated at 6.5 percent, and the unemployment rate in Santa Ana was estimated at 10.4 percent for the same month by the Employment Development Department (EDD 2013a; EDD 2013b). October 2014 Page 5.10 -3 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis POPULATION AND HOUSING Table 5.10 -5 Employment Projections, 2010 -2035 Soumz: Center far Demographic Research 2012. Employment Onsite The project area contains 1,389 employees -1,386 employees within the Harbor Corridor Plan area, and 3 employees in the Conventional Zoning Area. Jobs - Housing Balance The jobs housing ratio is a general measure of the total number of jobs and housing units in a defined geographic area, without regard to economic constraints or individual preferences. The balance of jobs and housing in an area in terms of the total number of jobs and housing units as well as the type of jobs versus the price of housing has implications for mobility, air quality, and the distribution of tag revenues. The jobs /housing ratio is one indicator of a project's effect on growth and quality of life in the project area. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) applies the jobs - housing ratio at the regional and subregional levels to analyze the fit between jobs, housing, and infrastructure. A major focus of SCAG's regional planning efforts has been to improve this balance. SCAG defines the jobs housing balance as follows: Jobs and housing are in balance when an area has enough employment opportunities for most of the people who live there and enough housing opportunities for most of the people who work there. The region as a whole is, by defirution, balanced.... job rich subregions have ratios greater than the regional average; housing rich subregions have ratios lower than the regional average. Ideally, job - housing balance would... assure not only a numerical match of jobs and housing but also an economic match in type of jobs and housing. (SCAG 1989, 1997) jobs housing goals and ratios are advisory only. No ideal jobs housing ratio is adopted in state, regional, or city policies. However, SCAG considers an area balanced when the jobs - housing ratio is 1.36; communities with more than 1.36 jobs per dwelling unit are considered jobs rich; those with fewer than 1.36 are housing - rich (SCAG 2004). A job - housing imbalance can indicate potential air quality and traffic problems associated with commuting. As shown in Table 5.10 -6, the jobs housing balance in Santa Ana is forecast to increase slightly between 2010 and 2035, from 1.87 to 1.91; both figures are jobs rich. The jobs - housing balance in Orange County is estimated to increase slightly from 1.42 to 1.51 during the same period; both figures are slightly jobs rich compared to SCAG's suggested 1.36 jobs housing balance. Page 5.104 PlaceWorkr 2010 1 2015 2020 2025 1 2030 2035 City of Santa Ana 1 143,987 1 144,951 1 146,001 1 148,099 1 149,250 1 149,440 Orange County 1 1,490,296 1 1,546,865 1 1,625,805 1 1,684,908 1 1,738,032 1 1,778,845 Soumz: Center far Demographic Research 2012. Employment Onsite The project area contains 1,389 employees -1,386 employees within the Harbor Corridor Plan area, and 3 employees in the Conventional Zoning Area. Jobs - Housing Balance The jobs housing ratio is a general measure of the total number of jobs and housing units in a defined geographic area, without regard to economic constraints or individual preferences. The balance of jobs and housing in an area in terms of the total number of jobs and housing units as well as the type of jobs versus the price of housing has implications for mobility, air quality, and the distribution of tag revenues. The jobs /housing ratio is one indicator of a project's effect on growth and quality of life in the project area. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) applies the jobs - housing ratio at the regional and subregional levels to analyze the fit between jobs, housing, and infrastructure. A major focus of SCAG's regional planning efforts has been to improve this balance. SCAG defines the jobs housing balance as follows: Jobs and housing are in balance when an area has enough employment opportunities for most of the people who live there and enough housing opportunities for most of the people who work there. The region as a whole is, by defirution, balanced.... job rich subregions have ratios greater than the regional average; housing rich subregions have ratios lower than the regional average. Ideally, job - housing balance would... assure not only a numerical match of jobs and housing but also an economic match in type of jobs and housing. (SCAG 1989, 1997) jobs housing goals and ratios are advisory only. No ideal jobs housing ratio is adopted in state, regional, or city policies. However, SCAG considers an area balanced when the jobs - housing ratio is 1.36; communities with more than 1.36 jobs per dwelling unit are considered jobs rich; those with fewer than 1.36 are housing - rich (SCAG 2004). A job - housing imbalance can indicate potential air quality and traffic problems associated with commuting. As shown in Table 5.10 -6, the jobs housing balance in Santa Ana is forecast to increase slightly between 2010 and 2035, from 1.87 to 1.91; both figures are jobs rich. The jobs - housing balance in Orange County is estimated to increase slightly from 1.42 to 1.51 during the same period; both figures are slightly jobs rich compared to SCAG's suggested 1.36 jobs housing balance. Page 5.104 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis POPULATION AND HOUSING Table 5.10 -6 Jobs - Housing Balance Soumz: CDR 2012. Regulatory Setting State Regulations California Housing Element Law California planning and zoning law requires each city and county to adopt a general plan for future growth (California Government Code Section 65300). This plan must include a housing element that identifies housing needs for all economic segments and provides opportunities for housing development to meet that need. At the state level, the Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) estimates the relative share of California's projected population growth that would occur in each county based on CDF population projections and historical growth trends. These figures are compiled by HCD in a Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) for each region of California. Where there is a regional council of governments, the HCD provides the RHNA to the council. The council then assigns a share of the regional housing need to each of its cities and counties. The process of assigning shares gives cities and counties the opportunity to comment on the proposed allocations. The HCD oversees the process to ensure that the council of governments distributes its share of the state's projected housing need. State law recognizes the vital role local governments play in the supply and affordability of housing. To that end, California Government Code requires that the housing element achieve legislative goals to: ■ Identify adequate sites to facilitate and encourage the development, maintenance, and improvement of housing for households of all economic levels, including persons with disabilities. ■ Remove, as legally feasible and appropriate, governmental constraints to the production, maintenance, and improvement of housing for persons of all incomes, including those with disabilities. ■ Assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of low and moderate income households. ■ Conserve and improve the condition of housing and neighborhoods, including existing affordable housing. Promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability. October 2014 Page 5.10 5 Year Em to ment Housing Units Jobs-Housing Rata Santa Ana 2010 143,987 76,918 1.87 2020 146,001 77,521 1.88 2035 149,440 78,323 1.91 Orange County 2010 1,490,296 1,050,330 1.42 2020 1,625,805 1,105,238 1.47 2035 1,778,845 1,180,292 1.51 Soumz: CDR 2012. Regulatory Setting State Regulations California Housing Element Law California planning and zoning law requires each city and county to adopt a general plan for future growth (California Government Code Section 65300). This plan must include a housing element that identifies housing needs for all economic segments and provides opportunities for housing development to meet that need. At the state level, the Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) estimates the relative share of California's projected population growth that would occur in each county based on CDF population projections and historical growth trends. These figures are compiled by HCD in a Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) for each region of California. Where there is a regional council of governments, the HCD provides the RHNA to the council. The council then assigns a share of the regional housing need to each of its cities and counties. The process of assigning shares gives cities and counties the opportunity to comment on the proposed allocations. The HCD oversees the process to ensure that the council of governments distributes its share of the state's projected housing need. State law recognizes the vital role local governments play in the supply and affordability of housing. To that end, California Government Code requires that the housing element achieve legislative goals to: ■ Identify adequate sites to facilitate and encourage the development, maintenance, and improvement of housing for households of all economic levels, including persons with disabilities. ■ Remove, as legally feasible and appropriate, governmental constraints to the production, maintenance, and improvement of housing for persons of all incomes, including those with disabilities. ■ Assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of low and moderate income households. ■ Conserve and improve the condition of housing and neighborhoods, including existing affordable housing. Promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability. October 2014 Page 5.10 5 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis POPULATION AND HOUSING ■ Preserve for lower income households the publicly assisted multifamily housing developments in each community. The State of California Housing Element laws (Section 65580 to 65589 of the California Government Code) require that each city and county identify and analyze existing and projected housing needs within its jurisdiction and prepare goals, policies, and programs to further the development, improvement, and preservation of housing for all economic segments of the community, commensurate with local housing needs. Regional Planning Southern California Association of Governments SCAG is a council of governments representing Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura counties. SCAG is the federally recognized metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for this region, which encompasses over 38,000 square miles. Regional Transportation Plan /Sustainable Communities Strategy On April 4, 2012, SCAG adopted the 2012 -2035 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP /SCS). SCAG has placed a greater emphasis than ever on sustamability and integrated planning, and the RTP /SCS vision encompasses three principles that collectively work as the key to the region's future: mobility, economy, and sustamability. The RTP /SCS includes a strong commitment to reduce emissions from transportation sources to comply with Senate Bill 375, improve public health, and meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. It provides a blueprint for improving quality of life for residents by providing more choices for where they will live, work, and play and how they will move around (SCAG 2012). 5.10.2 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: P -1 Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure). P -2 Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. P -3 Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Page 5.106 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis POPULATION AND HOUSING The initial study, included as Appendix A, substantiates that impacts associated with the following thresholds would be less than significant: • Threshold P -2 • Threshold P -3 These impacts will not be addressed in the following analysis. 5.10.3 Environmental Impacts The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the initial study disclosed potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement. Impact 5.10 -1: The proposed project would directly result in population growth in the project area. [Threshold P -11 ImpactAnalysis: The project would not result in a change in land uses or redevelopment within the Conventional Zoning Area. The change in zoning designations for this area would be consistent with the existing land uses. Therefore, no change in the number of residential units, population, building square footage, or employees are anticipated for this area. Since no change in population would occur in the Conventional Zoning Area, the analysis below focuses on the impacts related to the proposed growth within the Harbor Corridor Plan area only. Population Growth Harbor Corridor Plan buildout would add an estimated net increase of 15,327 residents to the project site over a 20 -year period or more. The total forecast increase in population in the City of Santa Ana between 2010 and 2035, based on General Plan land use designations, is 11,856 (CDR 2012). The corresponding forecast population increase for Orange County is 401,872 (CDR 2012). Since the project's population increase would exceed the projected increase for the City by 3,471 residents, it would induce substantial population growth in the area. However, the project's population growth is well within the projected increase for Orange County. As a result, there would not be a substantial impact on growth within Orange County through 2035. Employment- Generating Land Uses Buildout of the Harbor Corridor Plan would add an estimated 173 net new employees to the project area. The project related employment increase would be well within the CDR forecast of 5,453 jobs in the City of Santa Ana over the 2010 -2035 period. As a result, there would not be a substantial impact. October 2014 Page 5.10 -7 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis POPULATION AND HOUSING Impact of Employment on Population Growth Buildout of the Harbor Corridor Plan would add 13,721 square feet of commercial uses to the project area. The types of businesses and employment that would occupy the commercial uses are currently unknown, but are expected to support new retail stores, restaurants, office buildings, hotels, and museums. There are substantial numbers of workers in the region with skills needed for retail., restaurant, hotel, and general office work, along with many other kinds of work performed in commercial uses. The unemployment rate in the City of Santa Ana in July 2013 was 10.4 percent, and 6.5 percent in Orange County (EDD 2013a; EDD 2013b). In addition, the project would add 3,884 new homes within close proximity of the new employment generating land uses. Therefore, it is expected that employment generated by the project would be absorbed by the available regional and local labor force and would not attract substantial numbers of new employees to the region. As a result, the new employment uses are not expected to adversely affect population growth in the area. Jobs - Housing Balance Effects of the Harbor Corridor Plan buildout on jobs - housing balance in the City of Santa Ana are estimated by adding project generated jobs and housing units to forecasts of employment and housing in the City of Santa Ana in 2035 (see Table 5.10 -7). As shown in the table, Santa Ana's existing jobs housing ratio is 1.87 or jobs rich. The jobs - housing ratio is forecast to become slightly more jobs -rich (1.91) by 2035. HCP buildout would develop up to 4,623 housing units, a net increase of 3,884 units over the existing 739 units onsite; and would add an estimated net increase of 173 jobs to the site. The jobs - housing balance in Santa Ana with HCP buildout added to existing forecast would be reduced to 1.82, slightly more housing rich than the existing forecast, a favorable impact. Table 5.10 -7 Jobs - Housinq Balance in Santa Ana, 2035, with Harbor Corridor Plan Buildout ' Soumz: CDR 2012 Transit - Supportive Development The Harbor Corridor Plan emphasizes a sustainable multimodal approach consistent with the City's Go Local Transit Vision, which aims to link downtown, employment centers, educational facilities, and expanded housing choices. The Plan proposes mixed -use and residential, pedestrian- oriented development at high densities that would support increased transit use within the three transit nodes surrounding the intersections of Harbor Boulevard at 17th Street, 1st Street, and McFadden Avenue. A limited stop bus route, Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Route 543, began service on Harbor Boulevard between Fullerton and Santa Ana, through the project site, in June 2013. Route 543 has stops at each of the three proposed transit nodes. Development of a light rail transit line on the Pacific Electric right- of-way that passes Page 5.10 -8 PlaceWorkr Employment' Housing Units' Jobs-Housing Rata 2010 143,987 76,918 1.87 2035 existing forecast 149,440 78,323 1.91 2035 with HCP Buildout 149,613 82,207 1.82 ' Soumz: CDR 2012 Transit - Supportive Development The Harbor Corridor Plan emphasizes a sustainable multimodal approach consistent with the City's Go Local Transit Vision, which aims to link downtown, employment centers, educational facilities, and expanded housing choices. The Plan proposes mixed -use and residential, pedestrian- oriented development at high densities that would support increased transit use within the three transit nodes surrounding the intersections of Harbor Boulevard at 17th Street, 1st Street, and McFadden Avenue. A limited stop bus route, Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Route 543, began service on Harbor Boulevard between Fullerton and Santa Ana, through the project site, in June 2013. Route 543 has stops at each of the three proposed transit nodes. Development of a light rail transit line on the Pacific Electric right- of-way that passes Page 5.10 -8 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis POPULATION AND HOUSING through the north end of the project site was recommended by an Alternatives Analysis completed by the Southern California Association of Governments in February 2013 (SCAG 2013). A fixed guideway transit project on the part of the Pacific Electric right- of-way in Santa Ana and Garden Grove is part of the Preferred Plan in OCTAs Long Range Transit Plan (OCTA 2011). Completion of a transit line on the portion of the right- of-way in Los Angeles County is scheduled for 2027 (Metro 2009). In addition to providing jobs and housing near a major transportation corridor, the Harbor Corridor Plan continues to recognize the important role Harbor Boulevard plays in circulating vehicular traffic through the region by maintaining the number of traffic lanes. The Plan also encourages consolidated vehicular access points along the corridor. The Harbor Corridor Plan proposes improved pedestrian and bicycle facilities and linkages by creating a pedestrian- friendly streetscape, encouraging a variety of building frontages and decreased setbacks. New street designs facilitate safe bicycle and pedestrian travel along Harbor Boulevard and efficient connections to the regional bicycle network, including the Santa Ana River Trail. Although the Harbor Corridor Plan would result in substantial population growth, it would provide an overall benefit to the community by encouraging walkability and alternative transportation. The Harbor Corridor Plan is a sustainable multimodal plan that at buildout encourages the reduction of per - capita vehicle miles traveled for the region, which is one of the goals of SCAG's Compass Blueprint for High Quality Transit Areas. By providing additional commercial square footage in the area, commuters would not need to travel outside the City to other areas of Orange County for employment. As a result, the project would not result in an adverse impact related to population growth. 5.10.4 Cumulative Impacts Other projects would develop housing and nonresidential land uses in Santa Ana; projections for net increases in population, housing, and employment in the City between 2010 and 2035 are discussed above in Section 5.10.1. Although the project in combination with General Plan buildout would exceed the growth projections for the City, it would result in a favorable impact on the jobs - housing balance. The City is predominantly built out; thus, other projects within the City would redevelop land or reuse existing structures rather than build on large open space lands. Further redevelopment and reuse conforming to existing General Plan land use designations is forecast to increase the jobs - housing ratio in the City slightly, from 1.87 in 2010 to 1.91 in 2035. As discussed above, the project in combination with development in the General Plan would reduce the jobs housing balance to 1.82, which is considered a favorable impact. As a result, impacts are less than significant. In accordance with state law, the City is in the process of adopting its 2014 -2021 Housing Element. The housing element must address the RNHA carryover balance of 201 lower income units (111 very low and 90 low income level units) from the last adopted housing element. These units would be accommodated through land rezoned in the Harbor Corridor Plan area exclusively for residential development. October 2014 Page 5.10 -9 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis POPULATION AND HOUSING 5.10.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions State ■ California Government Code Section 65300: Housing Element Law Regional ■ 2012 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, Southern California Association of Governments 5.10.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, the following impacts would be less than significant: ■ Impact 5.10 -1 5.10.7 Mitigation Measures No mitigation is required. 5.10.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation Impacts would be less than significant. 5.10.9 References California Department of Finance (CDF). 2013, May. E -5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 2011 -2013. http: //w ..dof.m.gov /research /demographic /reports /estimates /e -5 /2011- 20 /view.php. Center for Demographic Research (CDR). 2012. Orange County Projections, 2010 Modified. California State University, Fullerton. Metropolitan Transportation Authority of Los Angeles County (Metro). 2009. 2009 Long Range Transit Plan. http://media.metro.net/projects—studies/images/fmal 2009-lRTPpdf. Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA. 2013, June 3. Bravo! Bus Speeds Up Harbor Boulevard Commute. http: //w ..octa. net /News/ Bus /Bravo!- Bus - Speeds -Up- Harbor - Boulevard - Commute /. 2011, February 15. Destination 2035. http: //w ..octa.net /pdf /fmaUrtp.pdf. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2013, February 7. Pacific Electric ROW /West Santa Ana Branch Corridor Alternatives Analysis. http : //w ..smg.m.gov/perow/project- documents.html. Page 5.10 -10 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis POPULATION AND HOUSING 2012, April 4. 2012 -2035 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. http: / /rtpscs.s cog. m.gov /Documents / 2012 /fmal /f2012RTPSCS.pdf. 2004, April. Destination 2030, 2004 Regional Transportation Plan. US Census Bureau (USCB). 2013a, September 3. DP -1: Profile of General Population and Housing Characteristics: 2010. http: / /factfmder2.crosus.gov /faces /tableservices /jsf/ pages /productviewghtmhpid— DEC_10_SF1 _SF1DP1 TrorHype —table 2013b, September 3. Longitudinal Employment Household Dynamics (LEHD). OnTh0dap. http://onthemap.ces.cmsus.gov/. October 2014 Page 5.10 -11 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis POPULATION AND HOUSING Tbisliage intentional# left blank. Page 5.10 -12 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis 5.11 PUBLIC SERVICES This section addresses public services including. Fire Protection and Emergency Services, Police Protection, School Services, and Library Services. Park Services are addressed in Section 5.12, Recreation. Public and private utilities and service systems, including water, Nvastewater, and solid waste services and systems; are addressed in Section 5.14, Utilities and Service Systems. 5.11.1 Fire Protection and Emergency Services 5.11.1.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Fire protection and emergency medical services in the City of Santa Ana are provided by the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA). OCFA provides fire suppression, emergency medical, rescue and fire prevention, hazardous materials coordination, and wildland management services. OCFA is one of the largest regional fire service organizations in California and serves 23 cities in Orange County and all unincorporated areas. OCFA protects over 1,680,000 residents from its 71 fire stations located throughout Orange County. OCFAs staff includes 1,101 full -time firefighters and 290 reserve firefighters. The project site is in the lust -in service area of Station No. 78 at 501 North Newhope Street, approximately 0.25 miles to the west. Additional OCFA stations near the Harbor Corridor Plan area are Station No. 73 at 419 South Franklin Street, approximately 1 mile to the east; and Station No. 77 at 2317 South Greenville Street, approximately 1 mile to the southeast; and Station 71 at 1029 West 17� Street, about 2.5 miles to the east (OCFA 2013). Fire stations in Santa Ana are owned by the City. Two additional fire stations operated by the cities of Fountain Valley and Westminster are within one mile of the project area. Existing equipment and staffing at the three OCFA fire stations listed above are described below in Table 5.11 -1, Fire Stations. Table 5.11 -1 Fire Stations Station No. Location E ui ment Daily Staffing 78 501 N Newhope St Paramedic Assessment Engine Paramedic Van 3 2 73 419 Franklin Paramedic Engine 4 71 1029 W 17th Paramedic Engine Paramedic Truck 4 4 77 2317 S Greenville Paramedic Assessment Engine Paramedic Van 3 2 Soumz: Hernandez 2013 OCFA's goals for the provision of fire services are listed below. Response times are from receipt of the call to on scene of the call: ■ First in engines should arrive on -scene to medical aids and /or fires within 7 minutes and 20 seconds 80 percent of the time. October 2014 Page 5.11 -1 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES ■ First in truck companies should arrive on -scene to foes within 12 minutes 80 percent of the time ■ First in paramedic companies should arrive on -scene at all medical aids within 10 minutes 80 percent of the time. The current emergency response time standard is for the first unit from receipt of call to on scene of incident is within 7 minutes 20 seconds 90 percent of the time. The existing response time to emergency calls from the project site is less than five minutes drive time. Firefighting units serving the project site and surrounding communities are approaching their maximum capacity, thus, continuing growth in the area is expected to require addition of firefighting units, but would not require construction of additional fire stations (Hernandez 2013). Regulatory Setting California Fire Code The California Fire Code (CFC; California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 9) sets forth requirements including emergency access, emergency egress routes, interior and exterior design and materials, fire safety features including sprinklers, and hazardous materials. The CFC is issued on a three -year cycle; the 2013 CFC is scheduled to take effect January 1, 2014. Fire flow requirements are set forth in CFC Appendix B. Orange County Fire Authority Fire Prevention Guidelines OCFA issues Fire Prevention Guidelines to help residents and businesses in Orange County understand and comply with fir e and life safety regulations. 5.11.1.2 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: FP -1 Result in a substantial adverse physical impact associated with the provisions of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection services. 5.11.1.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study disclosed potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement. Page 5.112 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES Impact 5.11 -1: The proposed project would introduce new structures, residents, and workers into the 0CFA's service boundaries, thereby increasing the requirement for fire protection equipment and personnel. [Threshold FP -1] Impact Analysis: Harbor Corridor Plan buildout would increase demands for fire protection and emergency medical services in the project site through development of net increases of 3,884 residential units and 13,721 square feet of commercial land uses. Thus, the project would result in an increase in demand for OCFA fire protection and emergency medical services. The project is expected to create the typical range of fire service calls that other similar uses create, such as structure foes, garbage bin foes, car foes, various accidents causing injuries or medical emergencies, and electrical foes. The project is not located within a high fire hazard zone and is not subject to potentially significant impacts associated with wildland foes. Existing fire protection facilities and staffing are expected to be sufficient to provide fire protection and emergency medical services to the project, and project development is not anticipated to require the OCFA to construct new or expanded facilities, although increases in staff would be required (Hernandez 2013). Individual projects developed pursuant to the proposed Harbor Corridor Plan would be required to comply with existing regulations and standard conditions, including the California Fire Code, as amended by the Santa Ana Fire Code (Pasadena Municipal Code, Chapter 14). Therefore, the proposed project would not have substantial impacts on fire protection services. As recommended by OCFA, all electrically operated gates in developments built pursuant to the Harbor Corridor Plan would have emergency operating devices installed conforming with OCFA Fire Prevention Guideline B -09, Fire Master Plans far Commercial dam' Residential Development Additionally, all traffic signals shall be equipped with optical preemption devices enabling Fire Authority and police vehicles to preempt signals (Hernandez 2013). 5.11.1.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Buildout of the Harbor Corridor Plan, combined with buildout of General Plan land use designations in surrounding neighborhoods in Santa Ana, would increase demands for fire protection and emergency medical services. Such increase would require additional firefighting units at fire stations serving the affected parts of the City. Addition of firefighting units is expected to require expansion of one or more existing fire stations listed above in Table 5.11 -1; however, no new fire stations are expected to be needed (Hernandez 2013). If additional firefighting units were not provided, response times in the affected parts of the City would be increased. The cumulative impact of new development and intensified land uses in the City will exacerbate the strain on OCFA resources. However, proposed development in the Harbor Corridor Plan area is not expected to contribute a substantial impact on City -wide fire protection services. Further, the City is largely built out with existing urban development and the project area has adequate nearby facilities to serve the project. Therefore, despite the increased need for fire protection and emergency services in the City, no significant cumulative impacts related to fire protection and emergency services are anticipated. October 2014 Page 5.113 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES Fire stations in Santa Ana are City owned, therefore funding of fire station expansion would occur through the City and not OCFA. Since OCFA does not control the development of fire stations within the City, OCFA recommends implementation of a fire facility fee payable by project developers to the City. 5.11.1.5 EXISTING REGULATIONS AND STANDARD CONDITIONS State ■ California Code of Regulations Title 24 Part 9: California Fire Code Regional ■ Orange County Fire Authority Fire Prevention Guideline B -09: Fire Master Plans for Commercial & Residential Development Local ■ Santa Ana Fire Code (Municipal Code, Chapter 14) 5.11.1.6 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE BEFORE MITIGATION Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, the following impacts would be less than significant: 5.11 -1. 5.11.1.7 MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation measures are required. 5.11.1.8 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Impacts would be less than significant. 5.11.2 Police Protection 5.11.2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The Santa Ana Police Department (SAPD) provides police services to the project area. The SAPID headquarters is at City Hall (60 Civic Center Plaza) and the Westend Substation is at 3750 West McFadden Avenue. The SAPID has a staff of 566 employees, 109 of whom work in jail operations (McCoy 2013). The response time standard is seven minutes for Priority 1 calls. The existing average response time for emergency calls is 6.94 minutes (McCoy 2013). 5.11.2.2 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: Page 5.114 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES PP -1 Result in a substantial adverse physical impact associated with the provisions of new of physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police protection services. 5.11.2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Impact 5.11 -2: The proposed project would introduce new structures, residents, and workers into the Santa Ana Police Department service boundaries. The Santa Ana Police Department could provide police protection to the project site at buildout of the Harbor Corridor Plan with existing levels of staff and equipment. [Threshold PP -1] Impact Analysis: Harbor Corridor Plan buildout would increase demands for police protection in the project site through development of net increases of 3,884 residential units and 13,721 square feet of commercial land uses. During the construction and operation of the project, the need for police and emergency services is expected to grow due to the increase in population and associated potential for additional crime and accidents. Crime and safety issues during project construction may include: theft of building materials and construction equipment, malicious mischief, graffiti, and vandalism. After construction, the proposed project is anticipated to generate a typical range of police service calls as similar developments, such as vehicle burglaries, residential thefts, disturbance, driving under the influence (DiT1). The Santa Ana Police Department officials have indicated that the increase in demands on law enforcement services resulting from Harbor Corridor Plan implementation would not be significant when compared to the current demand levels based on the nature and character of the proposed development (McCoy 2013). Therefore, law enforcement personnel will be able to respond in a timely manner to emergency calls in the affected area; impacts are less than significant. According to the Santa Ana Police Department, buildout of the proposed Harbor Corridor Plan would not require the Santa Ana Police Department to build new or expanded facilities, expand staff levels, or add equipment such as police vehicles (McCoy 2013). During the development review and permitting process for projects built pursuant to buildout of the proposed Harbor Corridor Plan, the police department would review and approve any new development plans to ensure that adequate facilities and personnel are provided to allow the police department to serve the needs of all City residents. Therefore, no significant impacts related to police services are anticipated (McCoy 2013). Harbor Corridor Plan Design Guidelines require Crime Prevention through Environmental Design ( CPTED) design measures to ensure safer environments in all new development unless a legitimate reason or acceptable design substitute is deemed acceptable through the design review process. Security concerns should be addressed by creating well lit, well used streets and active residential frontages; physically intimidating security measures such as window grills or spiked gates should be avoided. Future development would be required to incorporate CPTED design measures as recommended by the Santa Ana Police Department (McCoy 2013). October 2014 Page 5.115 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES 5.11.2.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Harbor Corridor Plan buildout, combined with buildout of General Plan land use designations in surrounding neighborhoods in Santa Ana, would increase demands for police protection. Other developments, as well as developments pursuant to the Harbor Corridor Plan, would pay City taxes accruing to the City's General Fund including business taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, and utility users' taxes; the Police Department is funded from the City's General Fund. Additional personnel and associated equipment would be provided through the continued implementation of the City's Five Year Strategic Plan and the annual budget review process. Therefore, despite the increased need for police services in the City, no significant cumulative impacts related to police services are anticipated 5.11.2.5 EXISTING REGULATIONS AND STANDARD CONDITIONS The following measures are standard conditions that apply to the Harbor Corridor Plan and will help to reduce and avoid potential impacts related to police services: • The City will assess the need for additional police services as part of its annual budgeting process. • All new developments will be evaluated by the City on a project specific basis to determine whether those developments present new or increased needs for police services. ■ All new developments shall incorporate CPTED design measures 5.11.2.6 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE BEFORE MITIGATION Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, the following impacts would be less than significant: 5.11 -2. 5.11.2.7 MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation measures are required. 5.11.2.8 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Impacts would be less than significant. 5.11.3 School Services 5.11.3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project area is in the Garden Grove Unified School District ( GGUSD). The GGUSD provides educational services to 47,960 students in grades K-12 in 70 schools. The District is the third largest among 28 public school districts in the Orange County, ranks 11th in size among 1,000 school districts in California, and is the 96th school district out of 17,900 in the United States. GGUSD provides support to students in 47 elementary, 10 intermediate, 7 high schools, 2 continuation high school, 2 adult education centers, and 2 Page 5.116 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES special education schools. The district serves students from the cities of Anaheim, Cypress, Fountain Valley, Garden Grove, Santa Ana, Stanton, and Westminster. The project area is in the attendance areas of ten elementary schools (Carrillo, Clinton - Mendenhall, Hazard, Marshall, Newhope, Northcutt, Paine, Peters, Russell, and Simmons); three intermediate schools (Doig, Irvine, and Fitz); and two high schools (Los Amigos and Santiago) (GGUSD 2013). The location, enrollments and capacities at each of the schools are shown in Table 5.11 -2 below. Table 5.11 -2 Schools School Grades Academic Enrollment Capacity' Year 2012 -2013 Elementary Schools Carrillo K -6 609 - 15270 Bushard Ave, Westminster Clinton - Mendenhall K -6 800 - 13641 Clinton St, Garden Grove Hazard K -6 652 - 4218 W Hazard Ave, Santa Ana Marshall K -6 583 - 15791 Bushand, Westminster Newhope K -6 573 - 4419 W Regent Dr, Santa Ana Northcutt K -6 431 - 11303 Sandstone, Fountain Valley Paine K -6 539 - 15792 Ward St, Garden Grove Peters K -6 1,242 - 13162 Newhope St, Garden Grove Russell K -6 738 - 600 S Jackson, Santa Ana Simmons K -6 399 - 11602 Steele Dr, Garden Grove Middlellntermediate Schools Doig 7 -8 850 - 12752 Trask Ave, Garden Grove Irvine 7-8 846 - 10552 Hazard Ave, Garden Grove Fitz 7 -8 786 - 4600 McFadden, Santa Ana High Schools Los Amigos 9 -12 1,907 - 16566 Newhope St, Fountain Valley Santiago 9 -12 2,367 - 12342 Trask Ave, Garden Grove Souw.EnmllmentinformEdimprmidedbywww.ggusd.us/apps/pagesAride . dsp ?uREC_ID= 2159948type= dBpREC_I0= 477076. The Garden Grove Unified Sdiool Dishid does not have capacity information at this time. Repeated attempts were made to obtain this information from the Distrid. October 2014 Page 5.77 -7 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES Regulatory Setting State Califomia State AssemblyEi112926 School Facilities Act of 1986 In 1986, AB 2926 was enacted to authorize the levy of statutory fees on new residential and commercial /industrial development in order to pay for school facilities. AB 2926 was expanded and revised in 1987 through the passage of AB 1600, which added Sections 66000 et seq. to the Government Code. Under this statute, payment of statutory fees by developers serves as CEQA mitigation to satisfy the impact of development on school facilities. California Senate Eiff 50 The passage of SB 50 in 1998 defined the needs analysis process that is codified in Government Code Sections 65995.5 through 65998. Under the provisions of SB 50, school districts may collect fees to offset the costs associated with increasing school capacity as a result of development. Level I fees are assessed based upon the proposed square footage of residential, commercial /industrial, and /or parking structure uses. Level II fees require the developer to provide one -half of the costs of accommodating students in new schools, and the state provides the other half. Level III fees require the developer to pay the frill cost of accommodating the students in new schools and are implemented at the time the funds available from Proposition lA (approved by the voters in 1998) are expended. School districts must demonstrate to the state their long -term facilities needs and costs based on long -term population growth in order to qualify for this source of funding. However, voter approval of Proposition 55 on March 2, 2004, precludes the imposition of the Level III fees for the foreseeable future. Therefore, once qualified, districts may impose Level I and Level II fees. Local City of Santa Ana General Flan- Education Element The Education Element of the General Plan is designed to provide sufficient cultural, recreational, and educational services and facilities to the residents of the City. It is also to provide a cooperative foundation within each school district to meet the City's educational needs. The following policies are related to educational needs for the project area. • Objective 1 Provide social, recreational and educational services that complement those provided by public and private schools. • Objective 2 Provide adequate measures in the City's planning process to promote adequate and appropriate school sites for new schools and /or expansion of existing schools. • Objective 3 Create an ongoing partnership with each school district within the City to enhance service and facility planning. ■ Objective 4 Evaluate City policies and City's General Plan in light of their effects on school planning, forecasting, and their ability to provide services. Page 5.118 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES 5.11.3.2 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on he environment if the project would: SS -1 Result in a substantial adverse physical impact associated with the provisions of new of physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for school services. 5.11.3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Impact 5.11 -3: The proposed project would generate new students who would impact the school enrollment capacities of GGUSD schools. [Threshold SS -1] Impact Analysis: The project would allow for an increase of up to 3,884 new residential units (3,705 multifamily and 179 single - family) in the GGUSD. For planning purposes, student generation by number of dwelling units in the project area were determined using student generation rates from the Santa Ana Unified School District. The student generation rate multiplied by the number of new units provides an estimate of the maximum number of students that would be generated in the project area. The proposed project would generate approximately 223 additional students (115 elementary school, 40 middle school, and 68 high school), according to the districtwide student generation rates, as shown in Table 5.11 -3. Table 5.11 -3 Student Generation by Grade Level Grade Level Total Units Student Generation Rate New Students K£ 3,705 Multifamily attached 0.0076 28 179 Single - Family detached 0.4863 87 7-8 3,705 Multifamily attached 0.0017 6 179 Single - Family detached 0.1922 34 9 -12 3,705 Multifamily attached 0.0028 10 179 Single - Family detached 0.3255 58 Total 3,884 0.7022 223 Sour m. City of Santa Anal ransa Loning Code(SL) 84A and SO 8413) tIH (2UHB. The addition of 223 students to the schools serving the project area has the potential to exceed the available capacity for some schools. The addition of new students to these schools could contribute to overcrowding. However, the need for additional services is addressed through compliance with school impact fee assessment. S13 50 (Chapter 407 of Statutes of 1998) sets forth a state school facilities construction program that includes restrictions on a local jurisdiction's ability to condition a project on mitigation of a projects impacts on school facilities in excess of fees set forth in Education Code Section 17620. These fees are collected by school districts at the time of issuance of building permits for commercial, industrial, and residential projects. The current GGUSD development fees, as of 2014, are $3.36 per square foot for October 2014 Page 5.119 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES residential development and $0.54 per commercial and senior housing square foot. GGUSD may need to place relocatable classrooms at each of the schools in this projects assigned attendance area to accommodate this development. 5.11.3.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The project and other development within the GGUSD service area would generate additional students resulting in the need to expand or construct new schools. As school district enrollments expand, short -term and long -term plans must be made to accommodate the additional students. As stated above, the State Legislature provided authority for school districts to assess impact fees for both residential and nonresidential development projects. Fees collected in accordance with Education Code Section 17620(a) and Government Code Section 65995(b) allows GGUSD to plan and construct for future growth. Although the fees are seldom adequate to accommodate the true costs incurred by affect districts to construct new facilities the Legislature has declared that the payment of those fees constitutes full mitigation for the impacts generated by new development, per Government Code Section 65995. 5.11.3.5 EXISTING REGULATIONS AND STANDARD CONDITIONS Government Code Section 65995 requires individual applicants shall pay developer fees to the appropriate school districts at the time building permits are issued; payment of the adopted fees would provide full and complete mitigation of school impacts. 5.11.3.6 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE BEFORE MITIGATION Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, the following impacts would be less than significant: 5.11 -3. 5.11.3.7 MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation measures are required. 5.11.3.8 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Impacts would be less than significant. 5.11.4 Library Services 5.11.4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The City of Santa Ana is served by the Santa Ana Public Library (SAPL). There are two libraries in the project area: 1) the Main Library at 26 Civic Center Plaza and 2) the branch library of the Newhope Library Learning Center at 122 North Newhope Street. The Newhope Library Learning Center is nearest to the project area, approximately 1.5 miles to the southwest. Both the Main library and the Newhope Library Learning Center would serve as the primary libraries for use by the residents of the project area. Page 5.11 -10 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES The Santa Ana Public Library system provides extensive resources to Santa Ana residents. It has more than 240,000 Books; 10,000 audio recordings; 12,000 videos; 300 magazine subscriptions and 8 newspapers, including microfilm copies of the Orange County Register going back to 1906; over 1300 e- books. (SAPL, 2014). The SAPL also has computers for adults, children and youth and tutoring at the Newhope Library Learning Center. The SAPL also includes an online library (17 online databases) with which cardholders can access information online in eBooks, newspapers, magazines, and reference works. In addition, the City of Santa Ana has a Santa Ana History Room that provides Santa Ana residents with information about the history of the city, county, and state in which they live. The Santa Ana Public Library includes a Bookmobile at Friendship Park which is located east of the project area between Fairview Street and Raitt Street. The Bookmobile provides books, CDs, book and tape sets, videos, and DVDs to the residents in Santa Ana. The Main Library has 39,790 sf of floor area, and the branch library has 8,987 sf. The combined resources of these libraries and bookmobiles include over 720,000 books and other resources, plus some 150,000 resources for in -house use, which serves the City population of 329,915. Regulatory Setting The Public Facilities Element of the General Plan is designed to provide sufficient public, cultural, recreational, educational, social service and related facilities to meet the community's needs. It is also to promote active and sustained involvement by the public in the pursuit of excellence in the City's public facilities and programs. The following policies are directly applicable to the public facilities resources for the Harbor Corridor Plan: Objective 1.1 Provide adequate public facilities which are economical, convenience, and which reinforce community identity. Objective 1.2 Create an on going public- private partnership in cultural, educational, recreational and social service facilities and programs. 5.11.4.2 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: LS -1 Result in a substantial adverse physical impact associated with the provisions of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for library services. October 2014 Page 5.11 -11 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES 5.11.4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Impact 5.11 -4: The proposed project would generate additional population increasing the service needs for the local libraries. [Threshold LS -1] ImpactAnalysis: Buildout of the Harbor Corridor Plan has the potential to generate 15,327 new residents. SAPL does not have an adopted service ratio for book volumes and library square footage. Based on the Orange County Public Libraries service ratio of 1.5 book volumes and 0.2 sf of library space per capita, the project would result in the need for approximately 22,991 book volumes and 3,065 sf of library space. The City's library system is funded through the general fund and does not have a fee collection system in place to obtain fees from a developer. The tax base afforded by the additional development within the Harbor Corridor Plan area would contribute to the City's general fund, which is distributed to various City services, including libraries. Therefore, any necessary improvements or modifications to the existing SAPL would be implemented using the general fund and determined on an as- needed annual basis by the City. As such, any increase in the need for library resources would be implemented by the City irrespective of the project. Impacts would be less than significant. 5.11.4.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Development of the project in combination with build out of the City's General Plan would increase the demand for library services, particularly for residential development. However, the City is largely built out and a relatively minor increase in residential development throughout the City would have an incremental effect on library services. As stated previously, future development would increase the tax based contributing to the City's general fund, which is distributed to various City services, including libraries. Any necessary improvements or modifications to the existing SAPL would be implemented using the general fund and determined on an as needed annual basis by the City. No significant cumulative impacts on library services are anticipated. 5.11.4.5 EXISTING REGULATIONS AND STANDARD CONDITIONS There are no existing regulations or standard conditions relating to library services the apply to the proposed project. 5.11.4.6 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE BEFORE MITIGATION Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, the following impacts would be less than significant: 5.11 -4. 5.11.4.7 MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation measures are required. 5.11.4.8 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Impacts would be less than significant. Page 5.11 -12 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES 5.11.4.9 REFERENCES Brown, Margaret (Director of Facilities). 2014, March. Telephone conversation. Garden Grove Unified School District. Hernandez, Michele (Management Analyst, Strategic Services). 2013, August 26. Questionnaire response. Orange County Fire Authority. McCoy, Mike (Police Community Services Specialist). 2013, November 5. Questionnaire response. Santa Ana Police Department. Santa Ana Public Library (SAPL). 2014. http: //w ..ci.smta- ana.ca.us /library (accessed March 1, 2014). October 2014 Page 5.11 -13 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES Tbispage is intentionally le, ft blank. Page 5.77 -14 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis 5.12 RECREATION This section of the FIR analyzes the proposed project's environmental impacts concerning recreational services and facilities. 5.12.1 Environmental Setting 5.12.1.1 REGULATORY BACKGROUND City of Santa Ana Park Dedication Requirements The City of Santa Ana has a park dedication standard of two acres of public park and /or recreational space per 1,000 residents. As outlined in the City's Municipal Code (Part II, Chapter 34, Article VIII, Regulations for Dedication of Land for Park or Recreational Purposes), the City may require this standard as a condition of approval for subdivision projects involving 50 parcels or more of residential land use. The City Engineer determines the need for park dedication based on a project's development characteristics. The City is allowed to enforce this requirement per the provisions of the Quimby Act. Quimby Act The Quimby Act of 1975 is state legislation that requires the dedication of land and /or fees for public park and recreational purposes as a condition of approval of a tentative map or parcel map. The Quimby Act establishes procedures that can be used by local jurisdictions to provide neighborhood and community parks and recreational facilities and services for new residential subdivisions. It allows cities and counties to require up to five acres of park per every 1,000 residents. 5.12.1.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS Based on the recreation element of the City's general plan, the City has approximately 400 acres of public park and recreational space. The 2010 US Census shows that the City has 324,528 people, which means there are 1.23 acres of public park and /or recreational space per every 1,000 residents. This is relatively low compared to other cities in Orange County. Parks There are 35 city parks, 4 joint use (public school public park facilities, and 19 recreational facilities in the City of Santa Ana. Two of the City parks, Santa Anita Park and Cesar Chavez Campesino Park (Campesino Park, are within the proposed project site boundaries. Santa Anita Park is just south of First Street and east of Harbor Boulevard at South Figueroa Street. This approximately 4.7 -acre park has a basketball court, soccer fields, picnic areas, a handball court, a playground, and onsite parking and restrooms. The onsite Santa Anita Center also has an outdoor swimming pool and provides a variety of recreational classes. The park is walking distance (one mile) from the Santa Ana River Trail. Santa Anita Park is currently zoned Entertainment under the current National harbor Specific Plan (NHSP). October 2014 Page 5.12 -1 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis RECREATION Campesmo Park is an approximately six -acre pack that borders the Willowick Golf Course on the south. It is east of Harbor Boulevard and north of Fifth Street at the intersection of North Susan Street and Fifth Street. This park has a basketball court, a bandball court, a playground, and open grass areas for multipurpose use. Other parks and recreational facilities in the area include Rosita Park, the Salgado Recreation Center, and Heritage Park. Rosita Park and the Salgado Recreation Center occupy the same space and cover approximately nine acres at 706 North Newhope Street, 0.43 mile west of the project boundary. Rosita Park has a baseball diamond, onsite parking and restrooms, and picnic areas; Salgado Recreation Center has a pool and a variety of recreational classes. Heritage Park is 0.47 mile west of the project site boundary. It covers approximately seven acres adjacent to the Heritage Elementary School at 426 South Anders Place. Amenities include a small baseball diamond, covered picnic areas, onsite bathrooms and parking, and a playground. 5.12.2 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project: R -1 Would increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. R -2 Includes recreational facilities or requires the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. The Initial Study, included as Appendix A, determined that the proposed project would have potentially significant impacts related to both of these thresholds. Additional analysis is included below. 5.12.3 Environmental Impacts The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study disclosed potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement. Impact 5.12 -1: The proposed project would generate additional residents, which would increase the use of existing park and recreational facilities and result in the need for new or expanded recreational facilities. (Thresholds R -1 and R -2] ImpactAnalysis: The proposed project would allow for the development of up to 4,623 dwelling units and 1,967,982 square feet of building space. Compared to existing conditions, this would be an increase of 3,884 dwelling units and 13,721 square feet of building space. The additional residential units would increase the number of people living in the area by approximately 15,327, resulting in increased use of existing park and recreational facilities. The City of Santa Ana currently has a citywide deficit of park and recreational space: 1.23 acres of public park and /or recreational space for every 1,000 residents. This is less than the City's standard of 2 acres per Page 5.12 -2 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis RECREATION 1,000 residents. Additional use of onsite recreational facilities, Santa Anita Park and Campestno Park, and nearby parks may cause deterioration over time. However, increased use of existing and surrounding parks would be offset by the provision of new and expanded recreational facilities required by new residential development. The Harbor Corridor Plan requires park dedication or in lieu fee equivalent of 3 acres per 1,000 residents, which is greater than the City's park dedication standard of 2 acres per 1,000 residents. Based on the City's park standard, the project would be required to dedicate approximately 30.7 acres of new park and /or recreation space or pay of in -lieu fees. Based on the corridor plan, new residential development is required to contribute an in -lieu fee equivalent to 2 acres of open space per 1,000 residents, or approximately 50 acres. In lieu fees must be applied to create new park space within a half mile of the corridor plan boundaries. The Harbor Corridor Plan encourages new development to provide open spaces through improvement of public park space and public rights- of-way. Areas contemplated for additional park space include land adjacent to Santa Anita and Campesmo Parks or the conversion of land within the Santa Ana River Channel to passive open space. Conversion of park space around the channel would be an ideal location because it is publicly owned, designated open space, contains bicycle facilities, and is directly accessible by foot and bicycle to homes and businesses around Harbor Boulevard. In addition, it would be consistent with the regional "Mountains to the Sea" effort. The corridor plan establishes substantial improvements for the rights- of-way so that they are more attractive, safer, and functional for all to use and see. Open space in the public right -of- way may consist of pedestrian and bicycle space, outdoor dining, landscaping, benches, and public art. The concepts and standards in this plan require high quality design, materials, and landscaping. Rights- of-way would be treated as an extension of public park space. The Harbor Corridor Plan also encourages new development to provide private, onsite open space by allowing an offset of up to one acre of public park requirement through the provision of a green roof on top of a building or parking area. In addition to open space and recreation opportunities, green roofs are readily accessible to residents, reduce the heat island effect, provide filtration of pollutants, and reduce stormwater runoff. The required in lieu park fee will provide greater park opportunities than the City's existing park standard and meet future residents' park needs. Parkland dedication and the payment of in lieu fees requiring development of public parks within a half mile of the project area would ensure impacts to existing park facilities are less than significant. New facilities on the project site would be constructed at the same time as proposed housing projects, and the environmental impacts of their construction have been analyzed throughout this EIR. The specific locations of new offsite parks that would be constructed from in lieu fees are unknown at this time. However, new public parks and /or recreational facilities constructed outside the NHSP boundaries would be required to comply with environmental review per CEQA. October 2014 Page 5.12 -3 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis RECREATION Conventional Zoning Area The Willowick Golf Course and Canrpesino Park would be removed from the North Harbor Specific Plan would be converted to conventional zoning consistent with its existing use. Therefore, these areas would remain unchanged and would be zoned Open Space. The project would not change land uses for these areas and the existing uses would remain. 5.12.4 Cumulative Impacts The project would result in a population increase of approximately 15,327 people and a need for approximately 30 acres of parks based on the City's park dedication standards. To determine the cumulative public park and recreational impacts, citywide growth forecasts are considered. Based on the adopted 2012 Regional Transportation Plan, the City would have up to 74,800 housing units in 2035, an increase of 1,700 over existing conditions (SCAG 2012). During this time, the City's population would increase from the existing 324,528 to approximately 336,700 (SCAG 2012). This increase, approximately 12,172 people, would create a cumulative need for up to 24 acres of public park and recreation space in addition to the project generated need. Recreational needs of future residents of the Harbor Corridor Plan area, in conjunction with cumulative development in accordance with the adopted general plan, would add to citywide and regional demand for parks and recreational facilities. Per the City's park dedication requirements, the City may enforce the construction of new park and recreational space or in hen fees on projects involving 50 parcels or more. Overall, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. 5.12.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions ■ Quimby Act of 1975 ■ City of Santa Ana Municipal Code Chapter 34, Article VIII, Regulations for Dedication of Iand for Park or Recreational Purposes 5.12.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, Impact 5.12 -1 would be less than significant. 5.12.7 Mitigation Measures No potentially significant impacts have been identified and no mitigation measures are required. 5.12.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation No mitigation measures have been identified and impacts are less than significant. Page 5.124 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis 5.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC This section of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) evaluates the potential for implementation of the Harbor Boulevard Specific Plan to result in transportation and traffic impacts in the City of Santa Ana. The analysis in this section is based in part on the following technical report: ■ Harbor Corridor Speeafic Plan Traffic Impact Study, IBI Group, July 2013. A complete copy of this study is included in the Technical Appendix to this MR (Appendix H]. 5.13.1 Methodology The traffic analysis was prepared in accordance with the City of Santa Ana requirements and the Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP) guidelines. The intersection analysis methodology and performance criteria conform to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines for a traffic impact analysis. The traffic analysis includes an assessment of traffic conditions for 29 existing intersections and 15 roadway segments for the following analysis time frames: ■ Existing Condition No Project: Year 2013 • Existing Condition With Project (HCP): Year 2013 • Future Year No Project: Year 2035 • Future Year With Project (HCP): Year 2035 The efficiency of traffic operations is measured in terms of level of service (LOS). The LOS refers to the quality of traffic flow along roadways and at intersections. Evaluation of roadways and intersections involves the assignment of grades from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions, and LOS F representing extremely congested and restricted operations. Descriptions of operation and the range of volume -to- capacity ratios for each LOS grade are presented in Table 5.13 -1. October 2014 Page 5.13 -1 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Table 5.13 -1 Level of Service Descriptions Level of Range of Vic Service Ratios Definition Free Flow. Individual users are virtually unaffected by the presence of others in the traffic stream. A 0.00 -0.60 Freedom to select desired speeds and to maneuver within the traffic stream is extremely high. The general level of comfort and convenience provided to the motorist, passenger, or pedestrian is excellent. Stable flow. The presence of other users in the traffic stream begins to be noticeable. Freedom to select desired speeds is relatively unaffected, but there is a slight decline in the freedom to maneuver B 0.61 -0.70 within the traffic stream with LOS A. The general level of comfort and convenience provided is somewhat less than that of LOS A, because the presence of others in the traffic stream begins to affect individual behavior. Stable flow. This LOS marks the beginning of the range of flow in which the operation of individual users becomes significantly affected by interactions with others in the traffic stream. The selection of C 0.71 -0.80 speed is affected by the presence of others, and maneuvering within the traffic stream requires substantial vigilance on the part of the user. The general level of comfort and convenience declines noticeably at this level. High density, but stable flow. Speed and freedom to maneuver are severely restricted, and the drive D 0.81 -0.90 or pedestrian experiences a generally poor level of comfort and convenience. Small increases in traffic flow will generally cause operational problems at this level. Operating conditions at or near the capacity level. All speeds are reduced to a slow but relatively uniform value. Freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream is extremely difficult, and generally E 0.91 -1.00 accomplished by forcing a vehicle or pedestrian to "give way" to accommodate such maneuvers. Comfort and convenience levels are extremely poor, and drivers or pedestrian frustration is generally high. Operations at this level are usually unstable because small increases in flow or minor variations within the stream will cause a breakdown. Forced or breakdown flow. This condition exists wherever the amount of traffic approaching a point F > 1.00 exceeds the amount which can traverse that point. Queues form up behind such locations as arrival flow exceeds discharge flow. boulCe: Itll[ut J. Roadway Level of Service Arterial roadway segment performance is based on the capacity of the facility (as determined by the functional classification, roadway geometries, and number of through lanes) and the average daily traffic (ADT) volumes. The City of Santa Ana General Plan Circulation Element evaluates roadway segment performance in terms of LOS, where the thresholds for each LOS grade are based on daily volume -to- capacity (V /C) ratios. The maximum average daily volumes for arterial roadways by street classification and lane configuration and the corresponding level of service are summarized in Table 5.13 -2. The minimum acceptable level of service for roadway segments established by the circulation element is LOS D. Page 5.13 -2 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Table 5.13 -2 Maximum Averaqe Dailv Traffic and LOS for Arterial Roads Soumz: IBI 2013. Intersection Level of Service Traffic conditions at signalized intersections are evaluated using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICq methodology consistent with the City of Santa Ana traffic analysis procedures. The ICU methodology is based on intersection V/C ratios. The V/C value for each movement is the observed or forecast volume divided by the saturation flow volume. The intersection ICU value is the sum of the V/C values for the critical movement on each leg, where critical movements are the pairs of conflicting movements with the highest combined V/C values. ICU is usually expressed as a decimal value (e.g., 0.74), and 1.00 represents the saturated condition where the volume of traffic flow is equal to the capacity. The V/C ratios for each LOS grade are presented above in Table 5.13 -1. Consistent with City of Santa Ana guidelines, this study uses maximum saturation volumes of 1,600 vehicles per hour per lane (VPHPL) for turn lanes and 1,700 VPHPL for through lanes for the study intersection analysis. All freeway ramp termini intersections are evaluated using the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM 2000) operations methodology consistent with Caltrans guidelines. The operations methodology for signalized intersections evaluates LOS based on delay per vehicle. Consistent with HCM 2000 methodology, the maximum saturation flow rate for intersections analyzed using HCM 2000 is 1,900 VPHPL. The relationship between controlled delay per vehicle and LOS for signalized intersections is summarized in Table 5.13 -3. October 2014 Page 5.13 -3 Lane Street Classification Configuration A B C D E F Principal Arterial 8 Lanes 85,000 52,500 60,000 67,500 75,000 >75,000 Divided Major Arterial 6 Lanes 33,900 39,400 45,000 50,600 56,300 >56,300 Divided Primary Arterial 4 Lanes 22,500 26,300 30,000 33,800 37,500 >37,500 Divided Secondary Arterial 4 Lanes 15,000 17,500 20,000 22,500 25,000 >25,000 Undivided Divided Collector 2lanes 9,000 12,000 15,000 20,000 22,000 >22,000 Arterial Divided Commuter Street 2Lanes 7,500 8,800 10,000 11,300 12,500 >12,500 Undivided Soumz: IBI 2013. Intersection Level of Service Traffic conditions at signalized intersections are evaluated using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICq methodology consistent with the City of Santa Ana traffic analysis procedures. The ICU methodology is based on intersection V/C ratios. The V/C value for each movement is the observed or forecast volume divided by the saturation flow volume. The intersection ICU value is the sum of the V/C values for the critical movement on each leg, where critical movements are the pairs of conflicting movements with the highest combined V/C values. ICU is usually expressed as a decimal value (e.g., 0.74), and 1.00 represents the saturated condition where the volume of traffic flow is equal to the capacity. The V/C ratios for each LOS grade are presented above in Table 5.13 -1. Consistent with City of Santa Ana guidelines, this study uses maximum saturation volumes of 1,600 vehicles per hour per lane (VPHPL) for turn lanes and 1,700 VPHPL for through lanes for the study intersection analysis. All freeway ramp termini intersections are evaluated using the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM 2000) operations methodology consistent with Caltrans guidelines. The operations methodology for signalized intersections evaluates LOS based on delay per vehicle. Consistent with HCM 2000 methodology, the maximum saturation flow rate for intersections analyzed using HCM 2000 is 1,900 VPHPL. The relationship between controlled delay per vehicle and LOS for signalized intersections is summarized in Table 5.13 -3. October 2014 Page 5.13 -3 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Table 5.13 -1 HCM 2000 Level of Service Descriptions Level of Service Description of Traffic Conditions Controlled Delay (seclveh) A Insignificant delays: no approach phase is fully utilized and no vehicle waits longer < 10 than one red indication. B Minimal delays: an occasional approach phase is fully utilized. Drivers begin to feel > 10-20 restricted. C Acceptable delays: major approach phase may become fully utilized. Most drivers > 20-35 feel somewhat restricted. D Tolerable delays: drivers may wait through more than one red indication. Queues > 35-55 may develop but dissipate rapidly, without excessive delays. E Significant delays: volumes approaching capacity. Vehicles may wait through > 55-80 several cycles and long vehicle queues form upstream. F Excessive delays: represents conditions at capacity, with extremely long delays. > 80 Queues may black upstream intersections. Soumz:1B12013. The minimum acceptable level of service established by the cuculation element is LOS D for major intersections in the City, except in major development areas, where LOS E is the minimum acceptable LOS. Intersections are considered significantly impacted if an unacceptable peak hour level of service is created by the project or if the project increases the V/C at the study intersection by 1 percent of capacity (0.010 when the intersection already operates at an unacceptable level. Congestion Management Plan Facilities The Orange County Congestion Management Program requires that a traffic impact analysis be conducted for any project generating 2,400 or more daily trips, or 1,600 or more daily trips for projects that directly access the CMP highway system. Per the CMP guidelines, this number is based on the desire to analyze any impacts that add 3 percent or more of the existing CMP highway system facilities' capacity. The CMP highway system includes designated CMP intersection and CMP arterial monitoring locations. The CMP monitors the level of service at all designated CMP intersections in the county. The Congestion Management Plan establishes LOS E as the minimum level of operation for CMP roadways (freeways and Smart Streets). A significant impact is caused by a 1 percent increase in V/C (0.010 if the CMP intersection already operates at LOS E Harbor Boulevard, 1st Street, and Warner Avenue west of Harbor Boulevard are designated CMP arterials. Designated CMP intersections include: Page 5.134 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC • ( #10) SR 22 WB Ramps and Harbor Boulevard • ( #16) Harbor Boulevard and 1st Street • ( #19) Harbor Boulevard and Warner Avenue • ( #24) Harbor Boulevard and I -405 Northbound Off Ramp • ( #25) Harbor Boulevard and I -405 Southbound Off Ramp Traffic Counts and Travel Demand Forecasting To determine the existing traffic conditions in the study area, intersection turning movement counts were taken during the morning peak period (6:00 AM to 9:00 AM) and the afternoon peak period (4:00 PM to 7:00 PM). In addition, ADT counts were taken on study area roadway segments. All traffic counts were taken between February 2011 and February 2013. A 1 percent annual growth rate was applied to counts collected prior to 2013 to bring volume levels consistent with 2013. The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) is responsible for regional transportation modeling in Orange County. OCTAs role as the regional modeling agency is to evaluate multimodal transportation alternatives to support regional planning activities. The Orange County Transportation Authority Model (OCTAM) is a regional model that is based on traditional four step sequential modeling methodology with "feedback loops" procedures to ensure internal modeling consistency. The model incorporates multimodal analytical capabilities to analyze local and express bus transit, urban rail, commuter rail, toll roads, carpools, truck traffic, and nonmotorized transportation such as pedestrian and bicycle. The model responds to changes in land use types, household characteristics, transportation infrastructure, and travel costs such as transit fares, parking costs, tolls, and auto operating costs. The horizon year 2035 volumes were derived based on existing peak hour count data and forecast link volumes obtained from OCTAM. Growth factors for each intersection approach and departure were interpolated from OCTAM link plots for 2010 and 2035. These growth factors were then applied to existing counts to forecast future turning movement volumes. 5.13.2 Environmental Setting 5.13.2.1 EXISTING ROADWAY NETWORK Selected arterials in the vicinity of the project corridor are described in this section. Items of note include existing geometry, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and adjacent land uses. • Harbor Boulevard is classified as a Major Arterial that travels north and south through the study area. Within the study area, there are three travel lanes in each direction with a raised, landscaped median. The posted speed limit is 45 miles per hour. On -street parking is not permitted, and bike facilities are not provided. OCTA provides bus service along this corridor via Route 43 at approximately 20- minute headways and Route 534, operating at 10- minute headways. • Euclid Street is classified as a Major Arterial that travels north and south through the study area. Within the study area, there are three travel lanes in each direction with a striped center median functioning as a two -way left turn lane. The posted speed limit is 45 miles per hour. On street parking is not permitted October 2014 Page 5.13 5 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC and no bike facilities are provided. OCTA provides bus service along this corridor via Route 37 at approximately 30 minute headways. ■ Newhope Street is classified as a Secondary Arterial that travels north and south on the west end of Santa Ana. Within the study area, there are two travel lanes in each direction with a striped center median functioning as a two -way left turn lane. The posted speed limit is 40 miles per hour. On -street parking is not permitted. Class II bike lanes were recently implemented between Westminster Avenue and McFadden Avenue. There are currently no bus routes that serve this corridor. ■ Fairview Avenue is classified as a Major Arterial that travels north and south through the study area. Within the study area, there are three lanes in each direction with a raised, landscaped median. The posted speed limit is 45 miles per hour. On -street parking is not permitted and bike facilities are not provided. OCTA provides bus service along this corridor via Route 47 at approximately 15- minute headways. ■ 17th Street / Westminster Avenue is classified as a Major Arterial traveling east and west through the northern region in Santa Ana. There are three lanes in each direction divided by a center median. The posted speed limit is 40 miles per hour. On street parking is not permitted and there are currently no bike facilities provided along the corridor. Several OCTA bus routes serve this corridor, including Routes 51 and 60 with approximately 15- to 20- minute headways. ■ Hazard Avenue is classified as a Secondary Arterial that travels east and west through the study area. Within the study area, Hazard Avenue is a four lane undivided roadway. Limited on -street parking is permitted adjacent to Rosita Park. The posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour and 25 miles per hour near the school zone. No bus routes or bike facilities are provided along this corridor. ■ 5th Street is a four lane undivided roadway east of Harbor Boulevard and a two -lane undivided roadway west of Harbor Boulevard. On -street parking is not permitted immediately east and west of Harbor Boulevard, but is allowed further down the street. The posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour. 5th Street is classified as a local collector west of Harbor Boulevard. East of Harbor Boulevard, 5th Street is classified as a Secondary Arterial. There are pedestrian sidewalks on both sides of the roadway. West of Harbor Boulevard, the sidewalk consists of landscaped buffers adjacent to the curb. East of Harbor Boulevard, there is minimal landscaping. ■ 1st Street is classified as a Major Arterial that travels east and west through the study area. Within the study area, there are three lanes in each direction with a raised, landscaped median. The posted speed limit is 40 miles per hour. On -street parking is not permitted along this corridor. There are currently no bike lanes or bike routes provided. OCTA provides bus service along this corridor via Route 64 at approximately 15 minute headways. ■ McFadden Avenue is classified as a Secondary Arterial (between Euclid Street and Grand Avenue) and a Primary Arterial (east of Grand Avenue) that travels east and west through the study area. Within the Page 5.136 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC study area, there are two travel lanes in each direction with a raised, landscaped median. The posted speed limit is 40 to 45 miles per hour. On street parking is not permitted along most of the corridor. No bike facilities are provided. OCTA provides bus service along this corridor via Route 66 and Route 145 at approximately 15- to 45 minute headways. ■ Edinger Avenue is classified as a Major Arterial that travels east and west through the study area. The roadway is a four -lane divided roadway between Euclid Street and Main. The posted speed limit is 40 miles per hour. On -street parking is not permitted along the corridor within the study area. There are currently no bike facilities provided along the corridor. OCTA provides bus service along Edinger Avenue via Route 70 at approximately 30- minute headways. ■ Warner Avenue is classified as a Major Arterial that travels east and west through the study area. Within the study area, Warner Avenue is a four lane undivided roadway. The posted speed limit is 40 to 45 miles per hour. On -street parking is not permitted and there are currently no bike lanes provided along the corridor. There are two OCTA bus routes that serve Warner Avenue in the study area. Routes 72 and 463 operate with headways at approximately 20- to 30- minutes. Segerstrom Avenue is classified as a Major Arterial that travels east and west through the study area. Segerstrom Avenue is a six -lane divided roadway between Susan Street and Harbor Boulevard and a four lane divided roadway along the rest of the corridor. The posted speed limit is 40 miles per hour. On- street parking is not permitted and there are currently no bike facilities provided along this corridor. There are currently no transit services that operate along Segerstrom Avenue within the study area. ■ MacArthur Boulevard is classified as a Major Arterial that travels east and west through the study area. Within the study area, there are three travel lanes in each direction with a raised, landscaped median. The posted speed limit is 40 miles per hour. On -street parking is not permitted throughout the corridor and there are currently no bike facilities provided. OCTA operates four bus routes along this corridor Routes 53, 55, 76, and 173. Headways are 10 minutes for Route 53, 30 minutes for Route 55, 60 minutes for Route 76, and 45 minutes for Route 173. Sunflower Avenue is classified as a Primary Arterial with two lanes in each direction traveling east and west. Posted speed limit is 40 mph. On street parking is not permitted within the study area. Class II bike lanes are provided within the study area. OCTA operates four bus routes along this corridor Routes 172, 216, 464 and 794. ■ South Coast Drive is classified as a Primary Arterial with two lanes in each direction traveling east and west. Posted speed limit is 40 mph. On street parking is not permitted within the study area. Class II bike lanes are provided within the study area. No bus routes operate along this roadway. 5.13.2.2 EXISTING ROADWAY TRAFFIC LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS Table 5.13 -4 includes the existing traffic volumes and corresponding roadway segment LOS. As shown, all study roadway segments currently operate at an acceptable level of service. October 2014 Page 5.13 -7 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Table 5.13 -4 Existing Roadway Segment LOS # Street Name Limits Lanes' Type LOS E Capacity ADT2 LOS 1 Harbor Blvd Trask Ave to Westminster Ave 6D Major 56,300 49,123 D 2 Harbor Blvd Westminster Ave to Hazard Ave 6D Major 56,300 46,044 D 3 Harbor Blvd Hazard Ave to First St 6D Major 56,300 47,651 D 4 Harbor Blvd First St to McFadden Ave 6D Major 56,300 47,014 D 5 Harbor Blvd McFadden Ave to Edinger Ave 6D Major 56,300 45,385 D 6 Harbor Blvd Edinger Ave to Warner Ave 6D Major 56,300 40,832 C 7 Harbor Blvd Segerstrom Ave to MacArthur Blvd 6D Major 56,300 40,403 C 8 Westminster Ave Newhope St to Harbor Blvd 6D Major 56,300 25,111 A 9 Westminster Ave Fairview St to Harbor Blvd 6D Major 56,300 29,244 A 10 1st Street Newhope St to Harbor Blvd 6D Major 56,300 25,568 A 11 1st Street Fairview St to Harbor Blvd 6D Major 56,300 30,221 A 12 McFadden Ave Newhope St to Harbor Blvd 4D Secondary 25,000 14,539 A 13 McFadden Ave Fairview St to Harbor Blvd 4D Secondary 25,000 19,044 C 14 Edinger Ave Newhope St to Harbor Blvd 6D Major 56,300 20,407 A 15 Edinger Ave Fairview St to Harbor Blvd 6D Major 1 56,300 1 28,992 A Souw.IB12013. Notes: Bold indica&s an unacceptable level of service. 1 D= Divided U= Undivided. Example: 00=6 lanes, divided roadmy. 3 ADT= average daily traffw volumes 5.13.2.3 EXISTING INTERSECTION TRAFFIC LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS Twenty -nine existing intersections were selected in consultation with the City of Santa Ana for analysis based on traffic impact and vehicle volumes. The study area intersections and turn lane geometries are shown in Figure 5.13 -1. A summary of the AM and PM peak -hour LOS analysis for the year 2013 existing condition is in Table 5.13 -5. All 29 study intersections currently operate at an acceptable level of service during both peak -hour periods, with the exception ofi ■ ( #12) Harbor Boulevard and Trask Avenue: LOS F (PM) Peak -hour turning movement volumes during the AM and PM peak hour are shown in Exhibits 4.2 and 4.3, respectively, of the traffic study in Appendix H. The LOS calculations worksheets are in Appendix D of the traffic study. Page 5.13 -8 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Table 5.13 -5 Existing Intersection LOS Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour V/C or Delay (sec)32 LOS3 V/C or Delay (sec)32 LOSS 1 Euclid St and Westminster Ave 0.798 C 0.810 D 2 Euclid St and McFadden Ave 0.737 C 0.796 C 3 Euclid St and Edinger Ave 0.768 C 0.765 C 4 Newhope St and Westminster Ave 0.696 B 0.851 D 5 Newhope St and Hazard Ave 0.481 A 0.586 A 6 Newhope St andlst St 0.698 B 0.831 D 7 Newhope St and McFadden Ave 0.689 B 0.774 C 8 Newhope Stand Edinger Ave 0.708 C 0.796 C 9 Harbor Blvd and Garden Grove Ave 0.530 A 0.670 B 10 Harbor Blvd and Westhound SR -22 Off-Ramp 25.8s C 24.6s C 11 Trask Ave and Eastbound SR -22 On -Ramp 9.9s A 10.7s B 12 Harbor Blvd and Trask Ave 0.888 D 1.058 F 13 Harbor Blvd and Westminster Ave 0.692 B 0.744 C 14 Harbor Blvd and Hazard Ave 0.635 B 0.539 A 15 Harbor Blvd and 5th St 0.672 B 0.648 B 16 Harbor Blvd and 1st St 0.713 C 0.804 D 17 Harbor Blvd and McFadden Ave 0.729 C 0.717 C 18 Harbor Blvd and Edinger Ave 0.672 B 0.683 B 19 Harbor Blvd and Warner Ave 0.668 B 0.729 C 20 Harbor Blvd and Segerstrom Ave/Slater Ave 0.750 C 0.804 D 21 Harbor Blvd and MacArthur Ave 0.741 C 0.767 C 22 Harbor Blvd and Sunflower Ave 0.588 A 0.785 C 23 Harbor Blvd and South Coast Dr 0.459 A 0.587 A 24 Harbor Blvd and Northbound 1 -405 Off-Ramp 17.6s B 20.0 s B 25 Harbor Blvd and Southbound 1 -405 Off -Ramp 18.7s B 28.0 s C 26 Fairview Stand 17th St 0.754 C 0.824 D 27 Fairview St and lstSt 0.794 C 0.806 D 28 Fairview St and McFadden Ave 0.705 C 0.694 B 29 Fairview St and Edinger Ave 0.733 C 0.649 B Souw.IB12013. 1 All intersections are evaluated in ter ms of V/C, except freeway ramps, which are evaluated by delay in seconds. Y V /C= vdumetocapwity 3 Bold indica &san unaccepta61elevelofservice. 5.13.2.4 PUBLIC TRANSIT Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA Route 543, a limited -stop bus route, began service through the project site�on Harbor Boulevard between Fullerton and Santa Ana in June 2013. Development of a light rail transit line on the Pacific Electric right- of-way that passes through the north end of the project site was recommended by an Alternatives Analysis completed by the Southern California Association of Governments in February 2013 (SCAG 2013). A fixed guideway transit project on the Pacific Electric right October 2014 Page 5.13 -9 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC of way in Santa Ana and Garden Grove is part of the preferred plan in OCTAs Long Range Transit Plan (OCTA 2011). Completion of a transit line on the portion of the right- of-way in Los Angeles County is scheduled for 2027 (Metro 2009). 5.13.3 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project could: T-1 Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit. T-2 Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. T-3 Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks. T-4 Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). T-5 Result in inadequate emergency access. T-6 Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. The Initial Study, included as Appendix A, substantiates that impacts associated with the following thresholds would be less than significant: ■ Threshold T-3 ■ Threshold T-4 ■ Threshold T-5 These impacts will not be addressed in the following analysis. Page 5.13 -10 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF SANTA ANA Figure 5.13 -1 Study Area Intersections and Existing Turn Lane Geometries 5. Environmental Analysis ,1 •t �, = 1 � � Eucld St &Edinger Ave �1t4 101 0_ 11i r _ MEN 12 ; 3 + —Wet1 1 4 1 ar Ave 26 !1 I l= 1, + 1 t Wtl - 15 r JI — 6 1 st 27 _� Newhope 5t &1st 5t Ave 7 111� clEa�, 2 Mt 28 r —` -18 EtliIn Aves.~29 4 i +il 6 V mer 4 A, 'a — 19• V Q� 2fl S®gerstrom ve � = 21 Newhope St &McFadden Ave t ac vrthur Slv - f v . 22 Sunflower Av 4L, _ 23 South Coast r: Blvd 24 �- 25 r wroo,evmwwcvr<uo. (r. Qa sv�arlmaxcmi ,1 1 11 rR aawrwnr 1 �e ht� Euclid St &Westminster Ave Euclid St &McFadden Ave Eucld St &Edinger Ave �1t4 � X114 r d1t44 r 3 r)tt Fit z Wtl Newhope St &Westminster Newhope St &Hazard Ave Newhope 5t &1st 5t Ave r 4 +il 6 4 htf hff� Newhope St &McFadden Ave Newhope St &Edinger Ave Harbor Blvd &Garden Grove Blvd dl4 r 114 r AIN r 7 ht� 8 � htt► � 71t Harbor Blvd&Wesibound Trask Ave &Eastbound Harbor Blvd& Trask Ave SR -22O1f-Ramp SR -22 M -Ramp tl r r 10 +;;E 12 ,- httt z htti� Harbor BIW &WCSlminfMr AVe Herbnr Blvd&Hdtard Ave Harbor Rlvd &5th5t �Itl4 � �i114 r X114 r 13 14 15 httt► _ It* Harbor Mixed Use Conventional Zoning Transit Corridor Plan 0 Basemap Source: 1131 Group 2013, Updated August 2014 Scale (Miles) PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Tbisliage intentional# left blank. Page 5.13 -12 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 5.13.4 Environmental Impacts The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the initial study disclosed potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement. Impact 5.13 -1: Project - related trip generation would impact levels of service for the existing area roadway system. [Threshold T -1] Impact Analysis: Two scenarios are used in evaluating project traffic impacts. Direct impacts are evaluated using existing conditions as a baseline, in accord with a 2010 Appellate Court decision (Sunnyvale West NeigbborboodAssociation P. City of Sunnyvale City Council 190 Cal.App.4� 1351). Cumulative impacts are assessed using forecast traffic conditions in the project future year (2035). Existing (2013) With Project Roadway Segments A summary of the forecast roadway segment volumes and corresponding level of service results for the Existing Year 2013 With Project condition is shown in Table 5.13 -6. All study roadway segments are forecast to operate at an acceptable level of service. The project is not forecast to create a deficient level of service for any studied roadway segment. October 2014 Page 5.13 -13 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Table 5.13 -6 Existing Year 2013 With Project, Roadway Segment LOS k Street Name Limits Lanes' Type LOS E Capacity 2013 No Pro ect 2013 With Pro ect OS ADT2 LOS 1 Harbor Blvd Trask Ave to Westminster Ave 6D Major 50,600 49123 D 46698 D 2 Harbor Blvd Westminster Ave to Hazard Ave 6D Major 50,600 46044 D 42341 C 3 Harbor Blvd Hazard Ave to First St 6D Major 50,600 47651 D 44033 C 4 Harbor Blvd First St to McFadden Ave 6D Major 50,600 47014 D 46807 D 5 Harbor Blvd McFadden Ave to Edinger Ave 6D Major 50,600 45385 D 48517 D 6 Harbor Blvd Edinger Ave to Warner Ave 6D Major 50,600 40832 C 41367 C 7 Harbor Blvd Segerstrom Ave to MacArthur Blvd 6D Major 50,600 40403 C 39935 C 8 Westminster Ave Newhope St to Harbor Blvd 6D Major 50,600 25111 A 25626 A 9 Westminster Ave Fairview St to Harbor Blvd 6D Major 50,600 29244 A 28656 A 10 1st Street Newhope St to Harbor Blvd 6D Major 50,600 25568 A 26940 A 11 1st Street Fairview St to Harbor Blvd 6D Major 50,600 30221 A 31760 A 12 McFadden Ave Newhope St to Harbor Blvd 4D Secondary 22,500 14539 A 15327 B 13 McFadden Ave Fairview St to Harbor Blvd 4D Secondary 1 22,500 1 19044 C 16612 B 14 Edinger Ave Newhope St to Harbor Blvd 6D Major 50,600 20407 A 20871 A 15 Edinger Ave Fairview St to Harbor Blvd 6D Major 50,600 28992 1 A 34886 B Souw.IB12013. Notes: Bold indica&s an unacceptable eeel of service. D= Divided U= Undivided. Example: 60= 13 anes, divided roadway. 3 ADT= average daily traffw volumes Intersection Levels of Service Existing year with project traffic conditions were estimated by adding project generated trips assigned to the study area roadways to the existing traffic conditions. Adoption of the Harbor Corridor Plan would allow for approximately 4,600 residential units and 2 million square feet of commercial space in the plan area. Table 5.13 -7 summarizes the land uses proposed in the Harbor Corridor Plan by traffic analysis zone (TAZ) in the OCTAM model. Page 5.13 -14 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Table 5.13 -7 Harbor Corridor Plan Land Uses TAZ Retail SF Service F Other SF Residential DU 622 125,000 375,000 - 1,229 718 102,000 - 161,000 708 724 88,827 - - 628 732 208,271 - - 272 747 83,000 - 34,000 749 748 115,000 - - 544 765 185,600 - - 268 766 490,284 - - 224 Total 1,397,982 375,000 195,000 4,622 Souw.IB12013. Summaries of the AM and PM peak hour LOS analyses with and without the project are shown in Tables 5.13 -8 and Table 5.13 -9, respectively. As previously stated, intersections are considered significantly impacted if an unacceptable peak hour level of service is created by the project or if the project increases the V/C ratio at the study intersection by 1 percent of capacity (0.010 or greater if the intersection already operates at an unacceptable level. All intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable levels of service if the project were implemented today. It should be noted that implementation of the projects proposed land uses would generate a net reduction in traffic volumes at some study area intersections, causing an improvement in LOS. Traffic volume reductions at the intersection of Harbor Boulevard at Trask Avenue would allow the intersection to operate at acceptable LOS B during the PM peak hour under existing plus project conditions, as compared to LOS F for existing conditions. Peak hour Owning movement volumes during the AM and PM peak hour, respectively, are shown in Exhibits 4.4 and 4.5 of the traffic study in Appendix H. The LOS calculations worksheets are in Appendix D of the traffic study. October 2014 Page 5.13 -15 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Table 5.13 -8 Existing With Project Intersection LOS: AM Peak Hour Intersection No Project With Pro ect Change in VIC Impact VIC LOS v/C LOS 1 Euclid St and Westminster Ave 0.798 C 0.786 C -0.012 No 2 Euclid St and McFadden Ave 0.737 C 0.819 D 0.082 Yes 3 Euclid St and Edinger Ave 0.768 C 0.806 D 0.038 No 4 Newhope St and Westminster Ave 0.696 B 0.728 C 0.032 No 5 Newhope St and Hazard Ave 0.481 A 0.500 A 0.019 No 6 Newhope St andist St 0.698 B 0.711 C 0.013 No 7 Newhope St and McFadden Ave 0.689 B 0.687 B -0.002 No 8 Newhope Stand Edinger Ave 0.708 C 0.751 C 0.043 No 9 Harbor Blvd and Garden Grove Ave 0.530 A 0.529 A -0.001 No 10 Harbor Blvd and Westbound SR -22 Off -Ramp 25.8s C 25.8s C 0.0 s No 11 Trask Ave and Eastbound SR -22 On -Ramp 9.9s A 9.9s A 0.0 s No 12 Harbor Blvd and Trask Ave 0.888 D 0.859 D -0.029 No 13 Harbor Blvd and Westminster Ave 0.692 B 0.682 B -0.010 No 14 Harbor Blvd and Hazard Ave 0.635 B 0.631 B -0.004 No 15 Harbor Blvd and 5th St 0.672 B 0.669 B -0.003 No 16 Harbor Blvd and lst St 0.713 C 0.735 C 0.022 No 17 Harbor Blvd and McFadden Ave 0.729 C 0.735 C 0.006 No 18 Harbor Blvd and Edinger Ave 0.672 B 0.674 B 0.002 No 19 Harbor Blvd and Warner Ave 0.668 B 0.674 B 0.006 No 20 Harbor Blvd and Segerstrom Ave/Slater Ave 0.750 C 0.758 C 0.008 No 21 Harbor Blvd and MacArthur Ave 0.741 C 0.736 C -0.005 No 22 Harbor Blvd and Sunflower Ave 0.588 A 0.586 A -0.002 No 23 Harbor Blvd and South Coast Dr 0.459 A 0.466 A 0.007 No 24 Harbor Blvd and Northbound 1 -005 Off -Ramp 17.6s B 17.4s B -0.2s No 25 Harbor Blvd and Southbound 1 -005 Off -Ramp 18.7s B 18.5s B -0.2s No 26 Fairview Stand 17th St 0.754 C 0.767 C 0.013 No 27 Fairview St and lstSt 0.794 C 0.829 D 0.035 No 28 Fairview St and McFadden Ave 0.705 C 0.030 A -0 .675 No 29 Fairview St and Edinger Ave 0.733 C 0.740 C 0.007 No Souw.IB12013. Notes: All inberseclions are evaluated in berms of V /C, except freeway romps, which are evaluabed in tens of delay in seconds. Bold indicabes an unacceptable level of service Page 5.73 -76 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Table 5.13 -9 Existing With Project Intersection LOS, PM Peak Hour Intersection No Pro ect With Pro ect Change in VIC Impact VIC LOS V/C LOS 1 Euclid St and Westminster Ave 0.810 D 0.830 D 0.020 No 2 Euclid St and McFadden Ave 0.796 C 0.790 C -0.006 No 3 Euclid St and Edinger Ave 0.765 C 0.755 C -0.010 No 4 Newhope St and Westminster Ave 0.851 D 0.853 D 0.002 No 5 Newhope St and Hazard Ave 0.586 A 0.573 A -0.013 No 6 Newhope St andlst St 0.831 D 0.828 D -0.003 No 7 Newhope St and McFadden Ave 0.774 C 0.807 D 0.033 No 8 Newhope Stand Edinger Ave 0.796 C 0.783 C -0.013 No 9 Harbor Blvd and Garden Grove Ave 0.670 B 0.689 B 0.019 No 10 Harbor Blvd and Westbound SR -22 Off -Ramp 24.6s C 23.0 s C -1.6s No 11 Trask Ave and Eastbound SR -22 On -Ramp 10.7s B 2.1 s A -8.6s No 12 Harbor Blvd and Trask Ave 1.058 F 0.687 B -0.371 No 13 Harbor Blvd and Westminster Ave 0.744 C 0.775 C 0.031 No 14 Harbor Blvd and Hazard Ave 0.539 A 0.559 A 0.020 No 15 Harbor Blvd and 5th St 0.648 B 0.671 B 0.023 No 16 Harbor Blvd and 1st St 0.804 D 0.803 D -0.001 No 17 Harbor Blvd and McFadden Ave 0.717 C 0.738 C 0.021 No 18 Harbor Blvd and Edinger Ave 0.683 B 0.708 C 0.025 No 19 Harbor Blvd and Warner Ave 0.729 C 0.735 C 0.006 No 20 Harbor Blvd and Segetstrom Ave/Slater Ave 0.804 D 0.806 D 0.002 No 21 Harbor Blvd and MacArthur Ave 0.767 C 0.788 C 0.021 No 22 Harbor Blvd and Sunflower Ave 0.785 C 0.794 C 0.009 No 23 Harbor Blvd and South Coast Dr 0.587 A 0.594 A 0.007 No 24 Harbor Blvd and Northbound 1 -005 Off -Ramp 20.0 s B 20.3s C 0.3s No 25 Harbor Blvd and Southbound 1 -005 Off-Ramp 28.0 s C 28.0 s C 0.0 s No 26 Fairview Stand 17th St 0.824 D 0.866 D 0.042 No 27 Fairview St and lstSt 0.806 D 0.847 D 0.041 No 28 Fairview St and McFadden Ave 0.694 B 0.711 C 0.017 No 29 Fairview Stand Edinger Ave 0.649 B 0.661 B 0.012 No Souw.IB12013. Notes: All inberseclions are evaluated in berms of V /C, except freeway ramps, which are evaluabed in tens of delay in seconds. Bold indicabes an unacceptable level of service 2035 Without Project The Future Year 2035 Without Project condition is based on existing land uses in the project study area plus cumulative projects and ambient area wide traffic growth. The cumulative projects and ambient area -wide traffic growth is based on Orange County Projects data that is updated every four years and accounted for in OCTAM. This scenario will be a base for comparison and establish impacts for the With Project condition. The Future Year 2035 Without Project intersection geometry and control is consistent with the Existing Year 2013 intersection geometry and control. The OCTAM Year 2035 traffic forecasts assume implementation of projects consistent with the Year 2035 Preferred Plan from the OCTA 2010 Long Range Transportation Plan October 2014 Page 5.13 -17 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC and the completion of the new four lane arterial roadway along the Pacific Electric fight- of-way between SR- 22 and Santa Ana Boulevard. The Future Year 2035 Without Project volumes for the AM and PM peak hours are shown in Exhibits 6.1 and 6.2, respectively, of the traffic study in Appendix H. The project study area is made up of eight TAZs in the OCTA model. The total daily trips within the project area are: ■ Existing = 88,063 ■ Existing + Cumulative (2035 Without Project) = 91,133 ■ 2035 Harbor Corridor Plan (2035 With Project) = 121,267 Roadway Network Assumptions The Future Year 2035 roadway network assumptions are based on buildout of roadways consistent with the City of Santa Ana's Master Plan of Streets and Highways and OCTAs Master Plan of Arterial Highways. In the study area, most of these roadway assumptions are consistent with existing roadway configurations, with the exception of the extension of Santa Ana Boulevard as a four lane (two lanes in each direction) arterial along the Pacific Electric right- of-way from Fairview Street to SR -22. The extension of Santa Ana Boulevard would pass through the intersection of Harbor Boulevard and Westminster Avenue as a grade- separated overpass. Existing intersection geometry at Harbor Boulevard and Westminster Avenue is expected to remain the same. The Future Year 2035 network also consists of freeway and transit improvements considered in the Preferred Alternative of OCTAs 2010 Long Range Transportation Plan, including the Santa Ana Fixed Guideway project and bus rapid transit Santa Ana Fixed Guideway. The Santa Ana Fixed Guideway is a proposed streetcar service that would travel between the Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center and downtown Garden Grove. The streetcar is proposed to travel along an exclusive path on rails that are embedded in the pavement. There are currently two alignment options being evaluated, but the streetcar is proposed to travel primarily along Santa Ana Boulevard and the Pacific Electric right-of-way. ■ Bus Rapid Transit. These improvements include the BRT projects along Harbor Boulevard, Bristol Street, and Westminster Avenue /17th Street. BRT is a bus service whose design features, stops and schedule provide faster, more efficient transit service than local bus routes. 2035 With Project The Future Year 2035 With Project condition is based on the proposed Harbor Corridor Plan described previously in Existing With Project conditions. Page 5.13 -18 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Roadway Segments A summary of the forecast roadway segment volumes and corresponding level of service results for the Future Year 2035 With Project condition is shown in Table 5.13 -10. All study roadway segments are forecast to operate at an acceptable level of service. The project is not forecast to create a deficient level of service on any studied roadway segment. Table 5.13 -20 Future Year 2035 With Project Roadwav Segment LOS k Street Name Limits Lanes' Type LOS E Capacity 2035 No Pro ect 2035 With Project ADT2 LOS ADT2 LOS 1 Harbor Blvd Trask Ave to Westminster Ave 6D Major 50,600 44,687 C 42,262 C 2 Harbor Blvd Westminster Ave to Hazard Ave 6D Major 50,600 40,641 C 36,938 B 3 Harbor Blvd Hazard Ave to First St 6D Major 50,600 42,749 C 39,131 B 4 Harbor Blvd First St to McFadden Ave 6D Major 50,600 44,443 C 44,236 C 5 Harbor Blvd McFadden Ave to Edinger Ave 6D Major 50,600 45,349 D 48,481 D 6 Harbor Blvd Edinger Ave to Warner Ave 6D Major 50,600 39,552 B 40,087 C 7 Harbor Blvd Segerstrom Ave to MacArthur Blvd 6D Major 50,600 35,941 B 35,473 B 8 Westminster Ave Newhope St to Harbor Blvd 6D Major 50,600 26,594 A 27,109 A 9 Westminster Ave Fairview St to Harbor Blvd 6D Major 50,600 26,526 A 25,938 A 10 1st Street Newhope St to Harbor Blvd 6D Major 50,600 24,887 A 26,259 A 11 1st Street Fairview St to Harbor Blvd 6D Major 50,600 30,343 A 31,882 A 12 McFadden Ave Newhope St to Harbor Blvd 4D Secondary 22,500 14,194 A 14,982 A 13 McFadden Ave Fairview St to Harbor Blvd 4D Secondary 22,500 16,345 B 13,913 A 14 Edinger Ave Newhope St to Harbor Blvd 6D Major 50,600 20,720 A 21,184 A 15 Edinger Ave Fairview St to Harbor Blvd 6D Major 50,600 33,761 A 39,655 B Sou W. 1131 2113. Notes: Bald indicates an unacceptable level of service. D= Divided U= Undivided. Example. 33 =13 anes, divided roadway. 3 ADT= average daily traffic volumes Intersection Level of Service Summaries of the AM and PM peak hours intersection LOS for the Future Year 2035 Without and With Project condition are in Tables 5.13 -11 and 5.13 -12. Two intersections are forecast to operate at an unacceptable level of service and result in a significant impact: ■ ( #26) Fairview St and 17th St - LOS E/F (AM and PM Peak Hours) ■ ( #27) Fairview St and 1st St - LOS F (PM Peak Hour) October 2014 Page 5.13 -19 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Table 5.13 -11 Future Year 2035 Intersection LOS Without and With Project: AM Peak Hour Intersection Without Project With Pro ect Change in VIC Project Impact VIC or Bela (sec) LOSS VIC or Delay (sec) LOS 1 Euclid St and Westminster Ave 0.864 D 0.844 D -0.020 No 2 Euclid St and McFadden Ave 1.258 F 1.249 F -0.009 No 3 Euclid St and Edinger Ave 1.086 F 1.093 F 0.007 No 4 Newhope St and Westminster Ave 0.699 B 0.732 C 0.033 No 5 Newhope St and Hazard Ave 0.537 A 0.536 A -0.001 No 6 Newhope St andist St 0.630 B 0.644 B 0.014 No 7 Newhope St and McFadden Ave 0.607 B 0.612 B 0.005 No 8 Newhope Stand Edinger Ave 0.660 B 0.741 C 0.081 No 9 Harbor Blvd and Garden Grove Ave 0.518 A 0.517 A -0.001 No 10 Harbor Blvd and Westbound SR -22 Off -Ramp 25.4s C 25.7 C 0.300 No 11 Trask Ave and Eastbound SR -22 On -Ramp 9.0 s A 9.0 A 0.000 No 12 Harbor Blvd and Trask Ave 0.969 E 0.939 E -0.030 No 13 Harbor Blvd and Westminster Ave 0.630 B 0.660 B 0.030 No 14 Harbor Blvd and Hazard Ave 0.908 E 0.904 E -0.004 No 15 Harbor Blvd and 5th St 0.690 B 0.703 C 0.013 No 16 Harbor Blvd and lst St 0.728 C 0.741 C 0.013 No 17 Harbor Blvd and McFadden Ave 0.748 C 0.747 C -0.001 No 18 Harbor Blvd and Edinger Ave 0.672 B 0.674 B 0.002 No 19 Harbor Blvd and Warner Ave 0.707 C 0.692 B -0.015 No 20 Harbor Blvd and Segetstrom Ave/Slater Ave 0.721 C 0.729 C 0.008 No 21 Harbor Blvd and MacArthur Ave 0.871 D 0.865 D -0.006 No 22 Harbor Blvd and Sunflower Ave 0.552 A 0.541 A -0.011 No 23 Harbor Blvd and South Coast Dr 0.480 A 0.487 A 0.007 No 24 Harbor Blvd and Northbound 1 -405 Off -Ramp 18.1s B 17.9 B -0.200 No 25 Harbor Blvd and Southbound 1 -405 Off-Ramp 18.7s B 18.5 B -0.200 No 26 Fairview Stand 17th St 0.893 D 0.906 E 0.013 Yes 27 Fairview St and lstSt 0.797 C 0.817 D 0.020 No 28 Fairview St and McFadden Ave 0.722 C 0.720 C -0.002 No 29 Fairview St and Edinger Ave 0.789 C 0.797 C 0.008 No Souw.IB12013. Notes: All intersections are evaluabed in terms of V/C, except freeway ramps, which are evaluated in berms of delay in seconds. Bold indicabes an unacceptable level of service Page 5.13 -20 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Table 5.13 -12 Future Year 2035 Intersection LOS Without and With Project: PM Peak Hour Intersection Without Project With Pro ect Change in VIC Project Impact r ec LOSS VIC or Delay sec LOS 1 Euclid St and Westminster Ave D 0.827 D 0.020 No 2 Euclid St and McFadden Ave C 0.733 C 0.018 No 3 Euclid St and Edinger Ave 1 E 0.891 D -0.010 No 4 Newhope Stand Westminster Ave D 0.877 D 0.047 No 5 Newhope St and Hazard Ave [24.7 C 0.734 C -0.003 No 6 Newhope St andist St D 0.813 D -0.003 No 7 Newhope St and McFadden Ave C 0.747 C 0.033 No 8 Newhope Stand Edinger Ave 1 C 0.754 C -0.037 No 9 Harbor Blvd and Garden Grove Ave D 0.867 D -0.001 No 10 Harbor Blvd and Westbound SR -22 Off -Ramp s C 23.3 s C -1.4 s No 11 Tmsk Ave and Eastbound SR -22 On -Ramp s B 8.8s A -4.1s No 12 Harbor Blvd and Trask Ave 1.431 F 0.895 D -0.536 No 13 Harbor Blvd and Westminster Ave 0.712 C 0.726 C 0.014 No 14 Harbor Blvd and Hazard Ave 0.717 C 0.773 C 0.056 No 15 Harbor Blvd and 5th St 0.737 C 0.769 C 0.032 No 16 Harbor Blvd and lst St 0.863 D 0.859 D -0.004 No 17 Harbor Blvd and McFadden Ave 0.680 B 0.694 B 0.014 No 18 Harbor Blvd and Edinger Ave 0.694 B 0.720 C 0.026 No 19 Harbor Blvd and Warner Ave 0.720 C 0.726 C 0.006 No 20 Harbor Blvd and Segerstrom Ave/Slater Ave 0.853 D 0.851 D -0.002 No 21 Harbor Blvd and MacArthur Ave 0.841 D 0.860 D 0.019 No 22 Harbor Blvd and Sunflower Ave 0.815 D 0.823 D 0.008 No 23 Harbor Blvd and South Coast Dr 0.611 B 0.608 B -0.003 No 24 Harbor Blvd and Northbound 1 -405 Off -Ramp 18.5s B 18.8s B 0.3s No 25 Harbor Blvd and Southbound 1 -405 Off-Ramp 24.9s C 25.0 s C 0.1s No 26 Fairview Stand 17th St 1.064 F 1.112 F 0.048 Yes 27 Fairview St and lstSt 1.032 F 1.080 F 0.048 Yes 28 Fairview St and McFadden Ave 0.683 B 0.700 B 0.017 No 29 Fairview St and Edinger Ave 0.783 C 0.794 C 0.011 No Souw.IB12013. Notes: All intersections are evaluabed in terms of V/C, except freeway ramps, which are evaluated in berms of delay in seconds. Bold indicabes an unacceptable level of service October 2014 Page 5.73 -27 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Impact 5.13 -2: Project - related trip generation in combination with existing and proposed cumulative development would not result in designated road and intersections exceeding County Congestion Management Agency service standards. [Threshold T -2] Impact Analysis: The Orange County CMP monitors the level of service at all designated CMP intersections in the county. The CMP requires that a traffic impact analysis be conducted for any project generating 2,400 or more daily trips, or 1,600 or more daily trips for projects that directly access the CMP highway system. Per the CMP guidelines, this number is based on the desire to analyze any impacts that will add 3 percent or more of the existing CMP highway system facilities' capacity. The CMP highway system includes designated CMP intersection and arterial monitoring locations. Harbor Boulevard, 1st Street, and Warner Avenue west of Harbor Boulevard are designated CMP arterials. Study intersections that are designated CMP intersections are: • ( #10) SR 22 WB Ramps and Harbor Boulevard • ( #16) Harbor Boulevard and 1st Street • ( #19) Harbor Boulevard and Warner Avenue • ( #24) Harbor Boulevard and I -405 Northbound Off f -Ramp • ( #25) Harbor Boulevard and I -405 Southbound Off f-Ramp Table 5.13 -13 summarizes the LOS at the nine study area CMP roadway segments for the Year 2035 Without Project and Year 2035 With Project conditions. CMP roadway segments in the study area are forecast to operate at an acceptable level of service in the With Project condition. Table 5.1 -33 CMP Arterial LOS # Street Name Limits #Lanes' CMP Guideline 2035 W/O P 2035 WP ADT2 LOS ADT2 LOS 1 Harbor Blvd Trask Ave to Westminster Ave 6D 50,600 44,687 C 42,262 C 2 Harbor Blvd Westminster Ave to Hazard Ave 6D 50,600 40,641 C 36,938 B 3 Harbor Blvd Hazard Ave to First St 6D 50,600 42,749 C 39,131 B 4 Harbor Blvd First St to McFadden Ave 6D 50,600 44,443 C 44,236 C 5 Harbor Blvd McFadden Ave to Edinger Ave 6D 1 50,600 45,349 D 48,481 D 6 Harbor Blvd Edinger Ave to Warner Ave 6D 50,600 39,552 B 40,087 C 7 Harbor Blvd Segerstrom Ave to MacArthur Blvd 6D 50,600 35,941 B 35,473 B 10 1st Street Newhope St to Harbor Blvd 6D 50,600 24,887 A 26,259 A 11 1st Street Fairview St to Harbor Blvd 6D 50,600 30,343 A 31,882 A Souw.IB12013. Notes: Bold indica&s an unacceptable level of service. D= Divided U= Undivided. Example: 60= 61anes, divided roadway. 3 ADT= average daily traffic volumes Page 5.13 -22 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Tables 5.13 -14 and 5.13 -15 summarize the LOS at the CMP intersections for the Year 2035 Without Project and Year 2035 With Project conditions. The Congestion Management Plan establishes LOS E as the minimum level of operation for CMP roadways (freeways and Smart Streets). A significant impact is caused by a 1 percent increase in V/C (0.010) if the CMP intersection already operates at LOS E All CMP intersections within the study area are forecast to operate at an acceptable level of service. Table 5.13 -14 CMP Intersection Year 2035 LOS: AM Peak Hour Intersection Without Project With Pro ect Change in VIC Project Impact VIC or Delay (sec)1,2 LOS3 VIC or Delay (sec)1,2 LOSS 10 Harbor Blvd and Westbound SR -22 Off -Ramp 25.4s C 25.7s C 0.3s No 16 Harbor Blvd and 1st St 0.728 C 0.741 C 0.013 No 19 Harbor Blvd and Warner Ave 0.707 C 0.692 B -0.015 No 24 Harbor Blvd and Norlhbound 1 -005 Off -Ramp 18.1s B 17.9s B -0.2s No 25 Harbor Blvd and Southbound 1 -005 Off-Ramp 18.7s B 18.5s B -0.2s No SouRR. 1131 2113. All intersections are evaluated in tens of VIC, except freeway Ramps, which are evaluated in tens of delay in seconds. Y VIC = Volume to Capacity 3 Bold indicates an unacceptable level of service Table 5.13 -15 CMP Intersection Year 2035 LOS: PM Peak Hour Intersection Without Project With Proect Change in VIC Project Impact VIC or Delay (sec)1,2 LOS3 VIC or Delay (sec)3•2 LOS3 10 Harbor Blvd and Westbound SR -22 Off -Ramp 24.7 s C 23.3s C -1.4s No 16 Harbor Blvd and 1st St 0.863 D 0.859 D -0.004 No 19 Harbor Blvd and Warner Ave 0.720 C 0.726 C 0.006 No 24 Harbor Blvd and Norlhbound 1 -005 O Ramp 18.5 s B 188s B 0.3 s No 25 Harbor Blvd and Southbound 1 -005 Off Ramp 24.9 s C 25.0 s C 0.1 s No SouRR. 1131 2113. 1 All intersections are evaluated in tens of VIC, except freeway Ramps, which are evaluated in tens of delay in seconds. Y VIC -Volume to Capacity 3 Bold indicates an unacceptable level of service In summary, the proposed project would not result in designated roads and intersections exceeding CMP service standards. There would be no impact. Impact 5.13 -3: The proposed project complies with adopted policies, plans, and programs for alternative ImpactAnalysist One of the primary goals of the project is to improve pedestrian and bicycle facilities and linkages within the project area to create a robust, multimodal corridor. Implementation of the Harbor Corridor Plan would modify land uses and add improvements to Harbor Boulevard and its cross - streets: 5th Street, 1st Street, McFadden Avenue, and Westminster Boulevard. These improvements are designed to create October 2014 Page 5.13 -23 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC a robust multimodal corridor that accommodates the movement of vehicular traffic through the City and region as well as other modes of travel. New street designs enlarge the sidewalk /parkway areas to facilitate safe bicycle and pedestrian travel along Harbor Boulevard and efficient connections to the regional bicycle network, including the Santa Ana River Trail. The Harbor Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan also recognizes how building form impacts the pedestrian and bicycle network and encourages a variety of frontages and setbacks to create a comfortable environment for walking and biking. The improvements would maintain the same rights- of-way and number of travel lanes on the affected roadways. OCTA is planning to introduce six routes of BRT service over the next decade three of which will directly serve Santa Ana. Known as the `Bravo!" service, OCTA plans to introduce the first line along Harbor Boulevard, followed by a line on Westminster /17th Street, and then a line running from Brea to Irvine. The BRT service on Harbor Boulevard would operate along a 22 -mile route, linking the study area to Fullerton, Anaheim, Garden Grove, Fountain Valley, Costa Mesa, and Newport Beach. The service would provide regional connections to Metrolink and Amtrak rail services as well as other OCTA bus services at the Fullerton Transportation Center. Proposed bus stop locations within the study area include the intersections of Harbor Boulevard at Westminster Avenue, 1st Street, and McFadden Avenue. Implementation of the proposed project would promote the use of alternative transportation modes. The project would be implemented to incorporate and facilitate the use of public transit, pedestrian, and bicycle modes of travel. No conflict with policies, plans, and programs for alternative transportation would occur from the project. There would be no impact. 5.13.5 Cumulative Impacts Cumulative traffic impacts are addressed above under Impacts 5.13 -1 and 5.13 -2. Cumulative impacts are assessed using forecast traffic conditions in the project future year (2035) because the OCTAM Year 2035 traffic forecasts assume implementation of projects consistent with the Year 2035 Preferred Plan from the OCTA 2010 Long Range Transportation Plan. As discussed in Impacts 5.13 -1 and 5.13 -2, the project combined with reasonable and foreseeable projects would not result in substantial impacts. 5.13.6 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions City of Santa Ana ■ City of Santa Ana Circulation Element ■ Municipal Code, Chapter 36, Traffic Control Devices and Marking 5.13.7 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, the following impacts would be less than significant: 5.13 -2 and 5.13 -3. Without mitigation, the following impact would be potentially significant: Page 5.13 -24 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ■ Impact 5.13 -1 Project related trip generation would impact levels of service at three intersections in the study area. 5.13.8 Mitigation Measures Impact 5.13 -1 13 -1 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall evaluate the potential for any neighborhood cut through traffic. Neighborhood cut through traffic shall be minimized through implementation of traffic calming measures as approved by the Public Works Agency. 13 -2 The City of Santa Ana shall implement a program for traffic improvements in the Harbor Corridor Plan. The program shall prescribe the method of participation in the mitigation program in the mitigation program by individual projects and guide the timely implementation of mitigation measures. The program shall include the following elements: • A funding and improvement program should be established to identify financial resources adequate to construct all identified mitigation measures in a timely basis. • All properties that redevelop within the Harbor Corridor Plan should participate in the program on a fair share per new development trip basis. The fair share shall be based upon the total cost of all identified mitigation measures (see Mitigation Measure 13 -3), divided by the peak our trip generation increase forecast. This rate per peak hour trip should be imposed upon the incremental traffic growth for any new development within the Harbor Corridor Plan. ■ The project shall raise fund from full development of the Harbor Corridor Plan to fund all identified mitigation measures. ■ The project shall monitor phasing development of the Harbor Corridor Plan and defer or eliminate improvements if the densities permitted in the Harbor Corridor Plan are not occurring. ■ Program phasing shall be monitored through preparation of specific project traffic studies for any project that is expected to include more than 100 dwelling units or 100,000 sf of non - residential development. Traffic impact studies should use traffic generation rates that are deemed to be most appropriate for the actual development proposed. - eeeaaesA��r�r� `c��s�.n�rr�sar�sAe October 2014 Page 5.13 25 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC The City may elect to implement appropriate mitigation measures as a condition of approval of the proposed developments, where appropriate. All or part of the costs of these improvements may be considered to be a negotiated credit toward the program, however the program must be administered in a manner that assures that it can fund necessary improvements to maintain adequate level of service at all intersections within the study. If funding of priority improvements cannot be assured, credit for construction of lower priority improvements may not be assured or may be postponed until more program funds are available. 13 -3 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall participate in the program for traffic improvements in the Harbor Corridor Plan Per MM 13 -2�ie these The traffic improvement program includes the following improvements: ■ Intersection #26: Fairview Street and 17th Street (Year 2035) . Improvements are to add a northbound through lane. ■ Intersection #27: Fairview Street and 1st Street (Year 2035) Improvements are to add a southbound right turn lane. 5.13.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation The mitigation measures identified above would reduce potential impacts associated with transportation and traffic to a level that is less than significant. The proposed mitigation measures would not require right- of-way acquisitions and are consistent with proposed buildout of the intersection per the City's Circulation Element Master Plan of Streets and Highways. Therefore, no significant impacts would remain. Page 5.13 -26 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis 5.14 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS This section of the Draft EIR analyzes the proposed project's potential impacts to utilities and service systems, including water providers and infrastructure, wastewater infrastructure and treatment systems, and solid waste landfills. The analysis in this section is based, in part, on the following technical reports: • Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Abater Study, IBI Group, July 12, 2013 • Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Sewer Study, IBI Group, March 25, 2014 • Abater SuppAAssessment Harbor Boulevard Mviced Use Transit Corridor far City of Santa Ana, April 2014 A complete copy of these reports is included in Appendix J of this EIR. 5.14.1 Environmental Setting 5.14.1.1 WATER SUPPLY AND DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS Water Supplies The City of Santa Ana Water Resources Division (WRD) supplies water to the City including the project area. The WRD has two main sources of water: groundwater from the Main Orange County Groundwater Basin; and surface water from northern California and the Colorado River imported by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). Groundwater comprises about 62 percent of total City water supplies; imported water about 38 percent; and recycled water about 0.4 percent; those proportions are expected to remain about the same through 2035. Groundwater Most of northern and central Orange County, including Santa Ana, overlie the Main Orange County Groundwater Basin (`Basin". Groundwater in the Basin is managed by the Orange County Water District (OCWD). The City produces groundwater through 20 wells; groundwater production in 2009, the latest year for which data are available, was 28,894 acre -feet' The fraction of each groundwater producer's total water supply that the producer is allowed to obtain through groundwater from the Basin, the Basin Production Percentage, is set by the OCWD. The Basin Production Percentage was 62 percent in the 2010 -2011 water year; and is assumed to be 62 percent throughout the 2010 -2035 planning period of the City's 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. Water quality in the Basin is not expected to constrain groundwater supplies available to the City. Groundwa ter Rechasge The OCWD owns and operates a network of recharge facilities covering 1,067 acres. Water is recharged into the Basin to control seawater intrusion into the Basin as well as to provide part of municipal water supplies in OCWD's service area. The Groundwater Replenishment System, with capacity to treat 72 million gallons per day (mgd) of wastewater for groundwater recharge, is the largest facility of its kind. r 1 acre -foot is about 325,851 gallons. October 2014 Page 5.7¢7 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS MWD sells surplus water — when available — to member agencies, who reduce groundwater production in exchange for the surplus water. Thus, groundwater is left in local storage for future use. Imported Water The City of Santa Ana is a member agency of MWD. Imported water provided to Santa Ana is treated at MWD's Robert Diemer Filtration Plant north of Yorba Linda. The City participates in MWD's Conjunctive Use Program, which uses allows for the storage of surplus imported MWD water in the Basin to maintain reliability during dry, drought, and emergency conditions. Imported WaterRedrabiht7 MWD's State Water Project (SWP) supplies have been impacted in recent years by restrictions on SWP operations pursuant to biological opinions of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fishery Service in 2008 and 2009, respectively. In dry, below normal conditions, MWD has increased the supplies received from the California Aqueduct by developing flexible Central Valley /SWP storage and transfer programs. The goal of the storage /transfer programs is to develop additional dry year supplies that can be conveyed through the available Banks pumping capacity to maximize deliveries through the California Aqueduct during dry hydrologic conditions and regulatory restrictions. In June 2007, MWD's Board approved a Delta Action Plan that provides a framework for staff to pursue actions with other agencies and stakeholders to build a sustainable Delta and reduce conflicts between water supply conveyance and the environment. The Delta action plan aims to prioritize immediate short -term actions to stabilize the Delta while an ultimate solution is selected, and mid -term steps to maintain the Bay Delta while the long -term solution is implemented. The City projects that imported water available to the City will increase slightly from 18,050 acre -feet per year (afy) in 2015 to 19,038 afy in 2035. Projected City Water Demand Existing and forecast water demands available to the City are shown below in Table 5.14 -1. In Santa Ana, water demand equals supply, due to the fact that unaccounted -for system losses are aggregated with distribution deliveries and because of the presence of a large groundwater basin, it is not necessary for the City to maintain any large aboveground storage reserves for consumptive uses. As shown in Table 5.141, the current demand is estimated to be 46,800 ACY for the year 2010, increasing to a demand of 50,400 ACY in the year 2035. The City's demand is currently met through a combination of 62 percent local groundwater, 38 percent imported water, and less than 1 percent recycled water. This assumes a 7.7 percent growth rate within the next 25 years, which equates to an annual growth of 0.30 percent per year. Table 5.14 -1 Existinq and Forecast Water Supplies Soumz: Malcolm Pirnle 2011 Page 5.14 -2 PlaceWorkr 2010 1 2015 1 2020 1 2025 1 2030 1 2035 Groundwater 28,894 29,450 29,822 30,256 30,628 31,062 Imported Water 17,710 18,050 18,278 18,544 18,772 19,038 Recycled Water 196 300 300 300 300 300 Total Demands 46,800 47,800 48,400 49,100 49,700 50,400 Soumz: Malcolm Pirnle 2011 Page 5.14 -2 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEM Projected City Water Supply Table 5.142 shows the City of Santa Ana's supply and demand for normal conditions for the years 2015 through 2035. Additional water supplies are projected to be available but are not included in this table because projected supplies meet projected demands. Table 5.14 -2 Projected Normal Year Water Supply and Demand for the City of Santa Ana (ACY) ACY = Acre4eet/year Soumz: City d Santa Ana, 2011.2010 Urban Water Management Plan. The City has determined that it is 100 percent reliable for single dry year demands from 2015 to 2035 with a demand increase of 7.2 percent, using FY 2003 -2004 as the single dry year. The available imported supply is greater than shown on Table 5.143, but is not included because all demands are met. Table 5.14 -3 Projected Sinqle Dry Year Water Supply and Demand for the City of Santa Ana (ACY) 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Total Demand 47,800 48,400 49,100 49,700 50,400 Groundwater 29,450 29,822 30,256 30,628 31,062 Imported Water 18,050 18,278 18,544 18,772 19,038 Recycled Water 300 300 300 300 300 Total Supply 47,800 48,400 49,100 49,700 50,400 ACY = Acre4eet/year Soumz: City d Santa Ana, 2011.2010 Urban Water Management Plan. The City has determined that it is 100 percent reliable for single dry year demands from 2015 to 2035 with a demand increase of 7.2 percent, using FY 2003 -2004 as the single dry year. The available imported supply is greater than shown on Table 5.143, but is not included because all demands are met. Table 5.14 -3 Projected Sinqle Dry Year Water Supply and Demand for the City of Santa Ana (ACY) ACY = Acre4eet/year Soumz: City d Santa Ana, 2011. 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. The City is also capable of providing their customers with the water demand with significant reserves in multiple dry years from 2015 to 2035, with a demand increase of 7.2 percent using FY 2003 -2004 as the multiple dry years. This is true even if the demand projections were to increase by a large margin. The projected multiple dry year period supply and demand numbers for the first, second and thud year supply are the same as those provided in Table 7 for a single dry year (2010UWAV). Water Storage and Distribution Santa Ana has approximately 444 miles of transmission and distribution mains, 8 storage reservoirs totaling 49.3 million gallons capacity, including its one million gallon elevated storage tank, and 20 city owned groundwater wells. There are seven MWD connections in the city that can supply a combined total of 56,250 gallons per minute (gpm) into the city's main distribution system. Water system pipe sizes within the project area are shown on Figure 5.14 -1, Existing lhater System Poe Sides. October 2014 Page 5.14 -3 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Total Demand 51,242 51,885 52,635 53,278 54,029 Groundwater 31,770 32,169 32,634 33,033 33,498 Imported Water 300 300 300 300 300 Recycled Water 19,172 19,416 19,701 19,946 20,231 Total Demands 51,242 51,885 52,635 53,278 54,029 ACY = Acre4eet/year Soumz: City d Santa Ana, 2011. 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. The City is also capable of providing their customers with the water demand with significant reserves in multiple dry years from 2015 to 2035, with a demand increase of 7.2 percent using FY 2003 -2004 as the multiple dry years. This is true even if the demand projections were to increase by a large margin. The projected multiple dry year period supply and demand numbers for the first, second and thud year supply are the same as those provided in Table 7 for a single dry year (2010UWAV). Water Storage and Distribution Santa Ana has approximately 444 miles of transmission and distribution mains, 8 storage reservoirs totaling 49.3 million gallons capacity, including its one million gallon elevated storage tank, and 20 city owned groundwater wells. There are seven MWD connections in the city that can supply a combined total of 56,250 gallons per minute (gpm) into the city's main distribution system. Water system pipe sizes within the project area are shown on Figure 5.14 -1, Existing lhater System Poe Sides. October 2014 Page 5.14 -3 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Pipes that distribute water to the project area are cast iron pipe, clay pipe, ductile iron pipe, cement mortar lined and coated steel pipe or asbestos - cement and range in size from 6- inches to 16- inches. Existing water pressures vacv between 70 to 85 psi. Regulatory Setting State Un5an Water Management Planning Act The Urban Water Management Planning Act of 1983, California Water Code Sections 10610 et seq., requires preparation of a plan that: • Plans for water supply and assesses reliability of each source of water, over a 20 year period, in five -year increments. • Identifies and quantifies adequate water supplies, including recycled water, for existing and future demands, in normal, single -dry, and multiple -dry years. • Implements conservation and the efficient use of urban water supplies. Significant new requirements for quantified demand reductions have been added by the Water Conservation Act of 2009 (Senate Bill 7 of Special Extended Session 7 (SBX7 -7)), which amends the act and adds new water conservation provisions to the Water Code. 20x2020 WaterConsermizon Plan The 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan, issued by the Department of Water Resources (DWR) in 2010 pursuant to the Water Conservation Act of 2009 (SBX7 -7), established a water conservation target of 20 percent reduction in water use by 2020 compared to 2005 baseline use. Senate Bills 610 and 221 To assist water suppliers, cities, and counties in integrated water and land use planning, the state passed Senate Bill (SB) 610 (Chapter 643, Statutes of 2001) and SB 221 (Chapter 642, Statutes of 2001), effective January 1, 2002. SB 610 and SB 221 improve the link between information of water supply availability and certain land use decisions made by cities and counties. SB 610 and SB 221 are companion measures that promote more collaborative planning between local water suppliers and cities and counties. Both statutes require detailed information regarding water availability to be provided to city and county decision makers prior to approval of specified large development projects. This detailed information must be included in the administrative record as the evidentiary basis for an approval action by the city or county on such projects. The statutes recognize local control and decision making regarding the availability of water for projects and the approval of projects. Under SB 610, water supply assessments (WSA) must be furnished to local governments for inclusion in any environmental documentation for certain projects subject to CEQA, as defined in Water Code Section 10912[a]. Under SB 221, approval by a city or county of certain residential subdivisions requires an affirmative verification of sufficient water supply. SB 221 is intended as a fail -safe mechanism to ensure that collaboration on finding the needed water supplies to serve a new large subdivision occurs before construction begins. Page 5.144 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA Figure 5.14 -1 Existing Water System Pipe Sizes 5. Environmental Analysis D wD Source: IBI Group 2013 Scale (Feet) PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Tbisliage intentionally left blank. Page 5.146 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEM The Urban Water Management Planning Act states that every urban water supplier that provides water to 3,000 or more customers or provides over 3,000 acre -feet (af) of water annually, should make every effort to ensure the appropriate level of reliability in its water service to meet the needs of its various categories of customers during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. Both SB 610 and SB 221 identify the urban water management plan (UWMP) as a planning document that can be used by a water supplier to meet the standards in both statutes. Thorough and complete UWMPs are foundations for water suppliers to fulfill the specific requirements of these two statutes, and they are important source documents for cities and counties as they update their General Plans. Conversely, General Plans are source documents as water suppliers update the UWMPs. These planning documents are linked, and their accuracy and usefulness are interdependent. (CDWR 2003) City of Santa Ana Required permanent water conservation measures, and temporary water conservation measures in the event of a water shortage, are set forth in Sections 39 -105 et seq. of the City's Municipal Code. Landscape water use standards are set forth in Section 41 -1503 of the Municipal Code. Water Efficiency Standards There are many water efficiency strategies that have been implemented in the City of Santa Ana that would also reduce potable water demands for the Harbor Corridor Plan. A Water Conservation Ordinance was adopted by the City Council in 2009. The City also participates in MWDOC's Water Use Efficiency Program and is a signatory in the California Urban Water Conservation Council. The City has implemented the following demand management measures (DMMs): • Water survey programs for single -family residential and multi -family residential customers • Residential plumbing retrofit (low flow showerheads and ultra low flow toilet rebate program) • System water audits, leak detection and repair • Metering with commodity rates • Large landscape conservation program and incentives • High- efficiency washing machine rebate programs • Public information programs • School education programs • Conservation programs for commercial, industrial, and institutional accounts • Conservation pricing for water bills • Appointment of a water conservation coordinator • Water waste prohibition (in accordance with the Water Conservation Ordinance) October 2014 Page 5.14 -7 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 5.14.1.2 WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND COLLECTION Wastewater Treatment The Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) provides wastewater treatment for the project site Reclamation Plant No. 2 is adjacent to the Santa Ana River and approximately 1,500 feet from the Pacific Ocean in Huntington Beach. This plant provides a mix of advanced primary and secondary treatment. The plant receives raw wastewater through five major sewers. Approximately 33 percent of the influent receives secondary treatment through an activated sludge system, and all of the effluent is discharged into the ocean disposal system. OCSD's treated wastewater is discharged through a 120 inch outfall at 200 feet below sea level and nearly five miles offshore. Current capacity for Reclamation Plant No. 2 is 168 mgd of primary treated wastewater and 90 mgd of secondary treated wastewater. The current average flow is 151 mgd; thus, remaining capacity at this plant is approximately 17 mgd. Expansion plans by OCSD are ongoing and designed to address the incremental increase in sewage generation as a result of a new development. The secondary treatment capacity at this plant is currently being increased by 60 mgd for a future total capacity of 150 mgd. Wastewater Collection City sewers discharge into Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) trunk sewers. One OCSD trunk sewer passes along the Santa Ana River next to parts of the east site boundary; the next nearest OCSD trunk sewer to the site is in Newhope Street west of the site. The majority of sanitary sewer pipes in the city are vitrified clay pipe and range in size from 8- inches to 15- inches in diameter. Existing pipes within the project area are mapped on Figures 2.3A and 2.3B of the Sewer Study included as Appendix J of this EIR. The project area is within Sewer Basin 1 where the majority of the pipe was previously modeled (IBI 2014). Several existing city sewer segments in the project site are undersized based on Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) sizing requirements, particularly in 5u' Street, Washington Avenue, Green Drive, and McFadden Avenue. It should be noted that this is a design consideration and does not reflect the actual flow in the pipes as compared to pipe capacity. 5.14.1.3 STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEMS The majority of the project area is developed with only a few vacant lots remaining. The project area consists of predominantly impervious areas with a few back lots that are unpaved where cars are stored. The existing runoff coefficient for the project area was calculated to be approximately 70 percent (1131 2013). Lots in the project area surface drain to Harbor Boulevard and other side streets and the runoff is captured and conveyed in the storm drain systems. Run -off is managed by a combination of closed and open drainage channels. A 90 inch reinforced concrete pipe crosses Harbor Boulevard at Washington Street. A second large closed drainage system is located midway between 1st and 5th Streets. All drainage ultimately discharges into the Orange County Flood Control Channel (see Appendix F). Boyle Engineering prepared a Drainage Engineering Report in 1993 for the entire City of Santa Ana. The results of the report for the existing drainage system in the project area are provided in Table 5.144. The Page 5.14 -8 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEM existing drainage system in the project area is shown in the detailed drainage maps contained in the drainage study prepared by IBI (see Appendix F). As shown in the table, many of the drainage pipes in the project area are currently deficient. A storm drain project was completed along Harbor Boulevard in 1996. Many of the deficiencies shown in the 1993 Boyle Report and summarized in Table 5.144 were remedied with the 1996 storm drain project (IBI 2013). Table 5.14 -4 Existing Storm Drain Pipe Deficiency Existinq Pie Existing Capacity Pipe ID Ex Diam. Roadway Pipe Total Location Node to Node (inches) Runoff (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) Deficiency (cfs) 17th Street to 5th Street Northeast from south end of Harper St 0302 -0303 - 13.3 - - - -13.3 0407 -0408 0325 -0326 - 26.4 2.3 39.6 41.9 - Harbor Boulevard from 17th St To 0326 -0327 - 26.4 29.2 39.6 68.8 - Washington Ave 0327 -0328 - 26.4 29.2 39.6 68.8 - 12.5 17th St From Seaboard Cirto East 0330 -0377 - 17.5 6.6 - 6.6 -10.9 Garden Grove - Wintersburg Channel - Harbor Blvd south of 1st St 0581 -0582 - 15.6 12.5 - 5th Street to McFadden Avenue Near intersection of Harbor Blvd /1st St 0406 -0407 - 15.2 12.5 - 12.5 -2.7 0407 -0408 36 15.2 12.5 21.3 33.8 - 0426 -0427 - 20.7 12.5 - 12.5 -8.2 0427 -0428 - 20.7 12.5 - 12.5 -8.2 0428 -0408 - 28.2 12.5 - 12.5 -15.7 0408 -0409 48 54.0 12.5 87.6 100.1 - Harbor Blvd south of 1st St 0581 -0582 - 15.6 12.5 - 12.5 -3.1 West of Harbor Blvd just north of Camile St 0582 -0586 56 309.2 - 1128.3 1128.3 - Harbor Blvd north of McFadden Ave 0571 -0572 - 18.3 12.5 - 12.5 -5.8 0572 -0573 - 18.3 12.5 - 12.5 -5.8 Clinton St and 5th St 0717 -0718 - 38.7 3.1 - 3.1 -35.6 5th St east from Jackson St 0718 -0715 - 68.7 3.1 - 3.1 -65.6 5th St, Jackson St to Figueroa St 0715 -0723 60 86.0 3.1 73.8 76.9 -9.1 0723 -0724 66 120.7 3.1 95.2 98.3 -22.4 0724 -0705 1 66 121.8 3.1 95.2 1 98.3 -23.5 Harbor Blvd, 11th St to 5th St 0702 -0703 - 29.2 12.5 20.6 33.1 - 0703 -0704 - 39.6 12.5 33.4 45.9 - 5th St east from Harbor Blvd 0704 -0705 36 50.7 - 75.6 75.6 - Figueroa St south from 5th St 0705 -0734 72 177.1 25.3 120.0 145.3 -31.8 0734 -0736 72 180.8 25.3 120.0 145.3 -35.5 0736 -0737 72 180.8 - 120.0 120.0 -60.8 0737 -0735 1 72 180.8 12.5 120.0 132.5 -48.3 1st St from Harper St to Figueroa St 0743 -0744 48 28.5 12.5 91.1 103.6 - 0744 -0745 54 36.7 12.5 88.2 100.7 - 0745 -0746 54 45.3 12.5 162.5 175.0 - October 2014 Page 5.14 -9 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS McFadden Avenue to South HCP Boundary Dennis St near Kent St 0746 - 0747 54 54.3 12.5 124.7 137.2 - Harbor Blvd between 1st Stand Camile St 0747 - 0748 54 62 - 124.7 124.7 - 0748- 0735 54 62 12.5 124.7 137.2 - McFadden Ave, Jackson St to Harbor Blvd 0804 -0805 - 28.7 4.6 - 4.6 -24.1 0805 -0806 - 45.3 4.6 - 4.6 -40.7 McFadden Ave west of Harbor Blvd 0573 -0574 - 18.3 1.6 - 1.6 -16.7 0574 -0575 36 19.6 1.6 29.9 31.5 - McFadden Avenue to South HCP Boundary Dennis St near Kent St 0651 -0652 - 21.2 25.3 - 25.3 - Kent St near Elliot PI 0652 -0653 - 21.2 25.3 - 25.3 - Dennis St and Lenhardt Ave 0661 -0662 - 13.1 25.3 - 25.3 - 0662 -0663 - 13.1 25.3 - 25.3 - Harbor Blvd, McFadden Ave to south project area boundary 0806- 0807 48 58.2 29.2 64.4 93.6 - 0807 - 0808 54 62.1 29.2 88.2 117.4 - 0808 -0819 1 63 103.1 29.2 1 133 1 162.2 - Soumz:1B12013. Regulatory Setting Water quality requirements for discharges to municipal storm drainage systems are set forth in the General Construction Permit, Order No. 2009- 0009 -DWQ, issued by the State Water Quality Control Board; and the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit, Order No. R8- 2009 -0030, issued by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. Both permits are pursuant to National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations implementing the federal Clean Water Act. 5.14.1.4 SOLID WASTE Waste Management Inc. (WM[) collects solid waste in Santa Ana where it is then disposed in landfills operated by Orange County Waste and Recycling (OCWR). OCWR operates a network of three active landfills and four household hazardous waste collection centers serving 34 cities and over three million residents. In 2012, about 97 percent of solid waste landfilled from Santa Ana was disposed of at two facilities: the Frank Bowerman Landfill in the City of Irvine, and the Olinda Alpha Landfill near Brea (CalRecycle 2013a); the two landfills are described in Table 5.145 below. Page 5.14 -10 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEM Table 5.14 -5 Landfill Capacity Source CalRecycle 2013x, Calrecyde 2013b, CalRecyde 2013c, CalRecycle 2013d. Average daily disposal based on 300 operating days per year. The Bowerman and Olinda Alpha landfills are eadi open six days per week, Monday through Saturday, except certain holidays. Solid Waste Diversion There ace 39 solid waste diversion programs in Santa Ana, including composting, household hazardous waste, recycling, and special waste materials programs for materials such as tires, scrap metal, and concrete /asphalt /rubble (CalRecycle 2013e). Local jurisdictions in California ace required to divert at least 50 percent of solid waste generated within their jurisdictions from landfills under AB 939, the Integrated Waste Management Act (California Public Resources Code Sections 40000 et seq). One measure of compliance with AB 939 is actual disposal rates equal to or lower than target disposal rates. In 2011, the last year for which data ace available, target disposal rates in Santa Ana were 7.5 pounds per day (ppd) per resident and 16.9 ppd per employee; actual disposal rates were 4.8 ppd per resident and 11.3 ppd per employee. Thus, disposal rates were consistent with AB 939. Regulatory Setting State AB 939 (Integrated Solid Waste Management Act of 1989; Public Resources Code 40050 et seq.) established an integrated waste - management system that focused on source reduction, recycling, composting, and land disposal of waste. AB 939 required every California city and county to divert 50 percent of its waste from landfills by the year 2000. Compliance with AB 939 is measured in part by comparing solid waste disposal rates for a jurisdiction with target disposal rates; actual rates at or below target rates are consistent with AB 939. AB 939 also requires California counties to show 15 years disposal capacity for all jurisdictions within the county; or show a plan to transform or divert its waste. Assembly Bill 341 (2011) increases the statewide goal to increase waste diversion to 75 percent by 2020 and mandates commercial and multi -family recycling. 5.14.1.5 ELECTRICITY Southern California Edison (SCE) provides electricity to the project area. Estimated existing electricity usage on the project site is about 30.7 million kilowatt -hours per year (kWh /yr), as shown below in Table 5.14 -6. October 2014 Page 5.7¢77 Current Remaining Maximum Average Daily Capacity Estimated Daily Load Disposal, 2012 Landfill Location (Cubic Yards) Close Date (Tons) (Tons)i Frank R. Bowerman 11002 Bee Canyon Access Road 205,000,000 2053 11,500 4,825 Irvine, CA 92602 Olinda Alpha 1942 North Valencia Avenue 38 2021 8,000 5,210 Brea, CA 92823 ,578,383 243,578,383 Total (129,827,278 tons) NIA 19,500 10,035 Source CalRecycle 2013x, Calrecyde 2013b, CalRecyde 2013c, CalRecycle 2013d. Average daily disposal based on 300 operating days per year. The Bowerman and Olinda Alpha landfills are eadi open six days per week, Monday through Saturday, except certain holidays. Solid Waste Diversion There ace 39 solid waste diversion programs in Santa Ana, including composting, household hazardous waste, recycling, and special waste materials programs for materials such as tires, scrap metal, and concrete /asphalt /rubble (CalRecycle 2013e). Local jurisdictions in California ace required to divert at least 50 percent of solid waste generated within their jurisdictions from landfills under AB 939, the Integrated Waste Management Act (California Public Resources Code Sections 40000 et seq). One measure of compliance with AB 939 is actual disposal rates equal to or lower than target disposal rates. In 2011, the last year for which data ace available, target disposal rates in Santa Ana were 7.5 pounds per day (ppd) per resident and 16.9 ppd per employee; actual disposal rates were 4.8 ppd per resident and 11.3 ppd per employee. Thus, disposal rates were consistent with AB 939. Regulatory Setting State AB 939 (Integrated Solid Waste Management Act of 1989; Public Resources Code 40050 et seq.) established an integrated waste - management system that focused on source reduction, recycling, composting, and land disposal of waste. AB 939 required every California city and county to divert 50 percent of its waste from landfills by the year 2000. Compliance with AB 939 is measured in part by comparing solid waste disposal rates for a jurisdiction with target disposal rates; actual rates at or below target rates are consistent with AB 939. AB 939 also requires California counties to show 15 years disposal capacity for all jurisdictions within the county; or show a plan to transform or divert its waste. Assembly Bill 341 (2011) increases the statewide goal to increase waste diversion to 75 percent by 2020 and mandates commercial and multi -family recycling. 5.14.1.5 ELECTRICITY Southern California Edison (SCE) provides electricity to the project area. Estimated existing electricity usage on the project site is about 30.7 million kilowatt -hours per year (kWh /yr), as shown below in Table 5.14 -6. October 2014 Page 5.7¢77 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS SCE serves much of southern California; its service area extends from Orange and Riverside counties in the south to Santa Barbara County in the northwest and Mono County in the north. SCE estimates that total electricity consumption in its service area will increase from 99,224 GWh in 2011 to 109,888 GWh in 2020 (CEC 2012); one GWh is one million kWh. Table 5.14 -6 Estimated Existinq Electricity Demands Land Use Amount (DU or BSF) Electricity Demands, kWh ear Per Unit (BSF or DU)' Total Demand Office Park 815,346 17.97 14,651,768 General Light Industrial 505,037 9.65 4,873,607 Apartments Mid Rise 739 3589 2,652,360 Strip Mall 633,878 13.44 8,519,320 Total 30,697,055 1 Soumz: SCAQMD 2011 5.14.1.6 NATURAL GAS The Southern California Gas Company (SCGC) provides natural gas to most of southern California, from Imperial County in the south to part of Fresno County in the north. Total natural gas supplies available to SCGC are forecast to remain constant at 3.875 billion cubic feet per day from 2010 through 2030 (CGEU 2012). Estimated existing natural gas demands in the project site are about 32.9 million kBTU per year. One kBTU is equivalent to about 1.03 cubic feet of natural gas. 5.14.2 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project: U -1 Would exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board. U -2 Would 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. U -3 Would 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. U -4 Would not have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, and new and /or expanded entitlements would be needed. U -5 Would result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that is has inadequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments. Page 5.14 -12 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEM U -6 Would be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs. U -7 Would not comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. The Initial Study, included as Appendix A, substantiates that impacts associated with the following thresholds would be less than significant: ■ Thresholds U -1 and U -7 These impacts will not be addressed in the following analysis. 5.14.3 Environmental Impacts The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study disclosed potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement. Impact 5.14 -1: Project - generated wastewater could be adequately treated by the wastewater service provider for the project, however the existing sewer system is deficient and does not have adequate capacity to serve the project. [Thresholds U -2 (part) and U -51 Impact Analysis: Forecast Project Wastewater Generation Buildout of the Harbor Corridor Plan would result in a net increase in wastewater generation of 1,292 acre - feet per year or about 1.15 million gallons per day, as shown below in Table 5.147. No change in wastewater generation would occur in the Conventional Zoning Area, which is omitted from the table below. As stated, there is approximately 17 mgd of remain treatment capacity at OCSD's Reclamation Plant No. 2. Project generated wastewater represents less than seven percent of this remaining capacity. Therefore, there is adequate existing and planned wastewater treatment capacity in the region to treat project generated wastewater, and buildout of the Corridor Plan would not require construction of new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities. Impacts would be less than significant. Table 5.14 -7 Forecast Proiect Wastewater Generation Per resident/ Harbor Corridor Plan Total Existing (2013) 3,252 residents 75 243,900 273 1,386employees 25 34,650 39 Subtotal 278,550 312 Buildout(2035) 18,579 residents 75 1,393,425 1,561 1,559 employees 1 25 38,975 44 October 2014 Page 5.14 -13 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Soumz:1B12014 Wastewater Conveyance The project sewer study modeled wastewater flows compared to sewer capacities in the Harbor Corridor Plan buildout conditions. Upgrades were recommended to 48 sewer segments of 119 segments that were modeled. The segments are in Westminster Drive from the Pacific Electric right- of-way west to just west of Harbor Boulevard; in 11T Street from Harbor Boulevard east to Jackson Street; and near the intersection of Harbor Boulevard and McFadden Avenue (see Figures 4.1A and 4.1E in the Sewer Study, Appendix J of this EIR). The existing sewer segments are each 10 or 12 inches diameter, and are all recommended for upgrade to 15 inches diameter (1131 2014). This is a significant impact. Wastewater Treatment Requirements Wastewater treatment requirements for discharges to municipal storm drainage systems (MS4s) are contained in the General Construction Permit, Order No. 2012 - 0006 -DWQ, issued by the State Water Resources Control Board in 2012; and in Order No. 118- 2009 -0030 issued by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board in 2009. Plans for water quality protection that would be required for projects developed pursuant to the Corridor Plan — Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans for construction projects, and Water Quality Management Plans for design and operation of projects — are discussed in Section 5.7, Hydrology and Water Quality, as are Best Management Practices that would be specified in such plans for implementation in those projects. Impacts would be less than significant. Impact 5.14 -2: Adequate water supply and delivery systems are adequate to meet project requirements, however the existing water system may not provide adequate capacity. [Thresholds U -2 (part) and U -4] Impact Analysis: Forecast Project Water Demands The Harbor Corridor Plan consists of an approximately 305 -acre redevelopment within the boundaries of the existing North Harbor Specific Plan (NHSP). The new plan allows for new housing and mixed use development opportunities. Buildout of the Harbor Corridor Plan would generate an additional 3,884 dwelling units, 15,327 residents, 13,721 square feet of commercial space, and approximately 173 additional employees in the plan area. The existing and proposed water use was calculated using two methods. The fast method used the water generation factors, based on data in the City of Santa Ana's 2010 UWMP. The UWMP projects a baseline water usage of 128.1 gallons per capita per day (GPCD), based on a 10 -year range from 1995 to 2005. The Page 5.14 -14 PlaceWorkr Subtotal 1,432,400 1,604 Difference +15,327 residents — +1,149,525 +1,288 +173 employees — +4,325 +5 Subtotal +1,153,850 +1,292 Soumz:1B12014 Wastewater Conveyance The project sewer study modeled wastewater flows compared to sewer capacities in the Harbor Corridor Plan buildout conditions. Upgrades were recommended to 48 sewer segments of 119 segments that were modeled. The segments are in Westminster Drive from the Pacific Electric right- of-way west to just west of Harbor Boulevard; in 11T Street from Harbor Boulevard east to Jackson Street; and near the intersection of Harbor Boulevard and McFadden Avenue (see Figures 4.1A and 4.1E in the Sewer Study, Appendix J of this EIR). The existing sewer segments are each 10 or 12 inches diameter, and are all recommended for upgrade to 15 inches diameter (1131 2014). This is a significant impact. Wastewater Treatment Requirements Wastewater treatment requirements for discharges to municipal storm drainage systems (MS4s) are contained in the General Construction Permit, Order No. 2012 - 0006 -DWQ, issued by the State Water Resources Control Board in 2012; and in Order No. 118- 2009 -0030 issued by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board in 2009. Plans for water quality protection that would be required for projects developed pursuant to the Corridor Plan — Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans for construction projects, and Water Quality Management Plans for design and operation of projects — are discussed in Section 5.7, Hydrology and Water Quality, as are Best Management Practices that would be specified in such plans for implementation in those projects. Impacts would be less than significant. Impact 5.14 -2: Adequate water supply and delivery systems are adequate to meet project requirements, however the existing water system may not provide adequate capacity. [Thresholds U -2 (part) and U -4] Impact Analysis: Forecast Project Water Demands The Harbor Corridor Plan consists of an approximately 305 -acre redevelopment within the boundaries of the existing North Harbor Specific Plan (NHSP). The new plan allows for new housing and mixed use development opportunities. Buildout of the Harbor Corridor Plan would generate an additional 3,884 dwelling units, 15,327 residents, 13,721 square feet of commercial space, and approximately 173 additional employees in the plan area. The existing and proposed water use was calculated using two methods. The fast method used the water generation factors, based on data in the City of Santa Ana's 2010 UWMP. The UWMP projects a baseline water usage of 128.1 gallons per capita per day (GPCD), based on a 10 -year range from 1995 to 2005. The Page 5.14 -14 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEM City estimates that the water usage will be 108.9 GPCD by the year 2020 in order to meet the SBx7 -7 water use target. This 2020 water usage rate was used to calculate the increase in water demand for the proposed development for the buildout year 2035. The water demand was determined by calculating the difference in existing population in the plan area and the proposed population with implementation of the Harbor Corridor Plan. The results are summarized in Table 5.148. As shown in Table 5.148, the water demand within the Harbor Corridor Plan area is estimated to be 2,266 acre -feet per year (ACY), which is an increase of 1,800 ACY from current conditions. Table 5.14 -8 Existing and Future Water Demands Based on Population Harbor Corridor Plan Population Water Usage Rate (GPCD) Total Daily Water Usage ( allda ) Total Demand Acre- FeetlYf Existing Conditions (2013) 3,252 128.1- 416,581 467 Buildout (2035) 18,579 108.98 2,023,253 2,266 Difference +15,327 - +1,606,672 +1,800 Total Project Net Increase 1,386 104- 144,144 1,800 Soumz: City d Santa Ana 2010 UWMP, 2011. GPCD = Gallons per capita per day -Baseline mbar use of 128.1 GPCD is from the 2010 UWMP for the 10-year period from 1995 to 2005. ^Future water use of 108.9 GPCD is the 2020 target water usage from the 2010 UWMP. The net increase in water demand shown above does not include the Conventional Zoning Area, since this area would not result in a change or increase in development. However, due to the reduction in the per capita water usage rate established in the City's UWMP for the buildout year, including the Conventional Zoning Area would reduce the projects net increase in water demand. The net increase of 1,800 AFY would be 1,790 AFY with incorporation of the Conventional Zoning Area. This estimate does not take into account the conservation measures that have been implemented by the City of Santa Ana and the actual water usage rates within the City. Information obtained from the Metropolitan Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) indicates that the most current (FY2011 -2012 municipal, commercial and industrial, and institutional water usage rate is 104 GPCD and residential water usage is 66 GPCD.2 Therefore, an additional and more accurate water demand analysis was performed, using the existing water usage rates within the City. The buildout demand rate is conservative because no further conservation efforts were considered in the analysis. The results are provided in Table 5.149. Table 5.14 -9 Existing and Future Water Demands Based on Existing Water Usage Rates Harbor Corridor Plan Residential Population Water Usage Rate (GPCD) Total Daily Water Usage allda Total Demand Acre feetlYr Residential Population - Existing (2013) 3,252 66- 214,632 240 Residential Population- Buildout(2035) 18,579 66b 1,226,214 1,374 Difference +15,327 - +1,011,582 +1134 CII Population - Existing (2013r 1,386 104- 144,144 161 2 Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC), 2013. Orange Counp WaterSupplien, Water Rater &Finanaallolomation. October 2014 Page 5.14 -15 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Table 5.14 -9 Existing and Future Water Demands Based on Existing Water Usage Rates Harbor Corridor Plan Residential Population Water Usage Rate (GPCD) Total Daily Water Usage ( allda ) Total Demand Acre-FeeLfYr CII Population - Buildout (2035) 1,559 1041, 162,136 182 Difference 173 - +17,992 +20 Total Project Net Increase 1,154 Source: MWDOG_ 2013.Oranoe County Water Suodiers Watur Ratesand Financiallnformaton GPCD = Gallons per capita per day Existing residential water use of 66 GPCD and C 1 wa&r use of 104 GPCD is from MWDOC for FY 2011 -2012. b.Conservatisely assumed to be the same as existing water usage with no further conservation efforts. °CII = Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional As shown in Table 5.14 -9, this method of calculating water demand within the Harbor Corridor Plan area is estimated to be 1,556 acre -feet per year (ACY), which is an increase of 1,154 ACY from current conditions. This estimate, which is based on actual water usage rates within Santa Ana, is approximately 36 percent lower than the estimate using the I JWMP baseline and projected water usage rates. In order to evaluate water supply reliability, California statutes require the consideration of water supplies and demands in three types of water conditions: normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years. There is no statute or regulation that dictates the proper method for calculating demands in single dry and multiple dry years, and no consistent approach has been developed by water professionals within the State. Consistent with the 2010 i1WMP, the water demands in single dry and multiple dry years are projected to be equal to demands in normal water years. This is a conservative approach and overestimates water demands for the City and the project because it does not take into account any water demand reductions that would be expected to occur, based on the City's conservation efforts and the implementation of its Water Supplies Contingency Plan (WSCP) and Emergency Water Conservation Plan (EWCP). The water demand presented in Table 5.14 -10 assumes a buildout year of 2035. Table 5.14 -10 Normal, Single Dry; and Multiple Dry Year Demands (ACY) Harbor Corridor Plan Normal Year Demand Single Year Demand Multiple Dry Year Demand - Year 1 Multiple Dry Year Demand - Year 2 Multiple Dry Year Demand - Year 3 Total Project Demand 1,154 1 1,154 1 1,154 1,154 1,154 Source. Total demand at buldout calculated from Table 5.14-3. Water Availability A Water Supply Assessment (WSA) was prepared to assess the water demand and supply conditions with implementation of the proposed Harbor Corridor Plan. As shown in Table 5.14 -9, the water demand for overall buildout of the proposed project is a projected net increase of 1,154 ACY. Nearly all of the total water demands (98 percent) can be attributed to residential uses. Within the context of the City of Santa Ana's projected demands through 2035, the overall project demand represents just 2.3 percent of anticipated Page 5.14 -16 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEM demands in the City. This project water demand also represents less than 33 percent of the anticipated 7.7 percent increase in the City's total anticipated demand between 2010 and 2035. Since the City is nearly built out and there are no other currently planned large scale development projects that were not accounted for in the 2010 UWMP, the City will be able to meet the project's water demand. In addition, implementation of the proposed Harbor Corridor Plan would occur in phases so that the increased demand would be a gradual increase over time. According to the City's UWMP, the City has adequate supplies to serve 100 percent of its customers during normal., dry year, and multiple dry year demand through 2035 with projected population increases and accompanying increases in water demand. If MWDOC were to impose Stage 3 water restrictions, the City could anticipate the potential supply shortfall of imported water and would implement its Water Supply Contingency Plan. This would balance demand against reduced supply by imposing water conservation measures and subsequent stages of demand reduction. This WSA concludes that the City will have sufficient water supplies available during normal, single dry, and multiple dry years during a 25 year period to meet all projected water demands associated with its existing and future customers, including the proposed project. In the unlikely event of a water shortage, implementation of the City's Water Supply Contingency Plan and Emergency Water Conservation Plan would ensure that sufficient water supplies were available to serve its customers, including the project and existing and future users. Therefore, the proposed projects impact on water supply is less than significant. Water Conveyance The City of Santa Ana has indicated that while the existing water system adequately meets the current demand and flow requirements, future projects may require upgrades to the existing network Segments that exceed the capacity of the network would be a significant impact. Impact 5.14 -3: Existing and/or proposed storm drainage systems are not adequate to serve the drainage requirements of the proposed project. [Threshold U -3] Impact Analysis: Implementation of the Harbor Corridor Plan would be increase impervious surfaces in the project area through the development of individual project sites. The majority of impervious surfaces would come from development of the existing vacant lots, which make up approximately 11.6 acres of the project area. At project completion, the Harbor Corridor Plan area is estimated to generate 15 percent more runoff than in current conditions (BI 2013). With project drainage volumes were forecast by adding 15 percent to existing estimated drainage volumes. Needed storm drain improvements for project generated drainage were identified by comparing with - project drainage volumes to existing capacities. The Drainage Engineering Report prepared in 1993 by Boyle Engineering has shown that the existing drainage system is deficient and unable to convey the current runoffs. Table 5.14 -11 shows the pipe capacities and deficiencies if the recommendations of the Drainage Engineering Report were implemented and the existing flows were increased by 15 percent to account for the implementation of the proposed project. As shown in the table, after completion of specified drainage improvements, no drainage deficiencies would October 2014 Page 5.14 -17 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS remain, with the exception of the pipe segment from 0702 to 0703, which would be deficient by 0.5 cfs. All other capacities would be sufficient to handle the project development flows. The recommendations made in the Drainage Engineering Report prepared by Boyle Engineering would need to be implemented in order to convey existing runoff as well as future Harbor Boulevard corridor flows from implementation of the Harbor Corridor Plan. Mitigation has been provided at the end of this section requiring that improvements outlined in the Drainage Engineering Report, which are summarized in the drainage study prepared by IBI and highlighted in the detailed storm drain maps provided in the study (see Appendix F), be implemented by the City of Santa Ana. Additionally, the Public Works Agency is working on an updating its drainage master plan, which is anticipated to be available July 2014. During the City's development review process, individual development projects that would be accommodated by the Harbor Corridor Plan would be required to comply with the requirements in effect at the time building permits are issued, including payment of the required Drainage Area Master Plan Fees, as outlined in Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 34 -193. The Drainage Area Master Plan Fees are necessary in order to fund needed improvements to the City's drainage system to reduce the cumulative impacts caused by new development, and are apportioned to new development based on new development's fair share of the estimated costs of the improvements. These fees are payable at the rates in place at the time of building permit issuance. Table 5.14 -11 Future Pipe Capacities Location Pipe ID Exist. Capacity I (cfs) I Future Capacity Total Capacity (cfs) 1 15% Future Flow (cfs) Future Deficiency (cfs) Prop. Pipe I (inches) Capacity (cfs) 17th Street to 5th Street Northeast from south end of 0406 -0407 12.50 18 5.8 18.3 17.5 0.0 Harper St 0302 -0303 0.00 27 17.0 17.0 15.3 0.0 17th St From Seaboard Cir to 12.50 24 12.4 24.9 23.8 0.0 0428 -0408 East Garden Grove - Wintersburg 0330 -0377 6.60 27 17.0 23.6 20.1 0.0 Channel 18 5.8 18.3 17.9 0.0 Harbor Blvd north of McFadden Ave 0571 -0572 5th Street to McFadden Avenue Near Harbor Blvd /1st St intersection 0406 -0407 12.50 18 5.8 18.3 17.5 0.0 1st St West of Harbor Blvd to Mountain View St 0426 -0427 12.50 24 12.4 24.9 23.8 0.0 0427 -0428 12.50 24 12.4 24.9 23.8 0.0 0428 -0408 12.50 30 22.5 35.0 32.4 0.0 Harbor Blvd south of 1st St 0581 -0582 12.50 18 5.8 18.3 17.9 0.0 Harbor Blvd north of McFadden Ave 0571 -0572 12.50 21 8.7 21.2 21.0 0.0 0572 -0573 12.50 21 8.7 21.2 21.0 0.0 Harbor Blvd, 11th St to 5th St 0702 -0703 33.06 - - 33.1 33.6 -0.5 Clinton St and 5 St 0717 -0718 3.10 39 45.3 48.4 44.5 0.0 5 St east from Jackson St 0718 -0715 3.10 51 92.7 95.8 79.0 0.0 5th St, Jackson St to Figueroa St 0715 -0723 76.90 51 92.7 169.6 98.9 0.0 0723 -0724 98.30 57 124.7 223.0 138.8 0.0 0724 -0705 98.30 57 124.7 223.0 140.1 0.0 Figueroa St south from 5th St 0705 -0734 145.30 63 162.9 308.2 203.7 0.0 Page 5.14 -78 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEM Soumz:1B12013. Impact 5.14 -4: Existing and /or proposed facilities would be able to accommodate project - generated solid waste and comply with related solid waste regulations. [Thresholds U -6 and U -7] Impact Analysis: Estimated Project Solid Waste Generation Buildout of the Harbor Corridor Plan would generate an estimated net increase of 47,680 pounds (23.8 tons) of solid waste per day. Table 5.1412 shows the solid waste generated by buildout of the entire specific plan area and the increase over existing conditions. Table 5.14 -12 Estimated Net Increase in Solid Waste Generation by Harbor Corridor Plan Buildout Land Use I Quantity and Units I Per Unit/Souare Foot' I Total Residential 4,623 units 12.23 56,539 Commercial 1,967,982 square feet 0.013 25,584 Buildout Total 82,123 Existing Conditions Residential 07340736 145.30 48 78.9 224.2 207.9 0.0 0736 -0737 120.00 57 124.7 244.7 207.9 0.0 0737 -0735 132.50 54 108.0 240.5 207.9 0.0 McFadden Ave, Jackson St to Harbor Blvd 08040805 4.60 36 36.6 41.2 33.0 0.0 0805 -0806 4.60 42 55.3 59.9 52.1 0.0 McFadden Ave west of Harbor Blvd 0573 -0574 1.60 30 22.5 24.1 21.0 0.0 Soumz:1B12013. Impact 5.14 -4: Existing and /or proposed facilities would be able to accommodate project - generated solid waste and comply with related solid waste regulations. [Thresholds U -6 and U -7] Impact Analysis: Estimated Project Solid Waste Generation Buildout of the Harbor Corridor Plan would generate an estimated net increase of 47,680 pounds (23.8 tons) of solid waste per day. Table 5.1412 shows the solid waste generated by buildout of the entire specific plan area and the increase over existing conditions. Table 5.14 -12 Estimated Net Increase in Solid Waste Generation by Harbor Corridor Plan Buildout Land Use I Quantity and Units I Per Unit/Souare Foot' I Total Residential 4,623 units 12.23 56,539 Commercial 1,967,982 square feet 0.013 25,584 Buildout Total 82,123 Existing Conditions Residential 739 units 12.23 9,038 Commercial 1,954,261 square feet 0.013 25,405 Existing Total 34,443 Net Increase 47,680 1 Soumz: SCAQMB 2011. There is adequate landfill capacity in the region for project generated solid waste. Based on data in Table 5.14 -12 above, the combined residual daily disposal capacity (maximum permitted daily disposal less average daily disposal) for the Frank Bowerman and Olinda Alpha landfills is 9,465 tons per day. The project would generate up to 23.8 tons per day at buildout or 0.3 percent of the remaining residual disposal capacity. Therefore, there is adequate landfill capacity for project generated waste. Buildout of the Harbor Corridor Plan would not require OC Waste & Recycling to develop new or expanded landfills. Impacts would be less than significant. October 2014 Page 5.14 -19 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Solid Waste Diversion Future land uses developed pursuant to the Harbor Corridor Plan would include storage areas for recyclable materials awaiting solid waste collection. Future land uses would comply with existing regulations requiring diversion of solid waste from landfills, such as regulations regarding household hazardous waste disposal; disposal of special waste materials including tires; and recycling or reuse of construction and demolition debris. Buildout of the Harbor Corridor Plan would conform with compliance by the City of Santa Ana with AB 939, which requires that 50 percent of solid waste be diverted from landfills. Impact 5.14 -5: Existing and /or proposed facilities would be able to accommodate project - generated utility demands. [No specific threshold] Impact Analysis: Electricity As shown below in Table 5.14 -13, forecast electricity demands by buildout of the Harbor Corridor Plan are about 40.8 million kWh /yr, resulting in a net increase of 10.1 million kWh /year. SCE forecasts that it will have adequate electricity supplies to meet project electricity demands, and implementation of the Harbor Corridor Plan would not require SCE to obtain new or expanded electricity supplies. Table 5.14 -13 Estimated Electricity Demands by Specific Plan Buildout Land Use Scenario Amount (DU or BSF) Electricity Demands, kWh ear Per Unit (BSF or DU)' Total Office Park New 375,000 15.52 5,820,938 Old - N/A - Subtotal 375,000 15.52 5,820,938 General Light Industrial New 195,000 8.74 1,704,788 Old - N/A - Subtotal 195,000 8.74 1,704,788 Apartments Mid Rise New 3,884 3,433 13,335,627 Old 739 3,589 2,652,360 Subtotal 4,623 3,458 15,987,986 Strip Mall New 998,721 11.91 11,889,774 Old 399,261 13.44 5,366,068 Subtotal 1,397,982 12.34 17,255,841 Total 40,769,553 Existin 30,697,055 Difference 1 10,072,498 Sourm: SCAQMD 2011. Natural Gas As shown in Table 5.1414, buildout of the Harbor Corridor Plan would result in an estimated net increase of about 22.27 million kBTU per year; one kBTU is equivalent to 0.971 cubic foot of natural gas. The SCGC forecasts that it has adequate natural gas supplies to accommodate the estimated net increase in natural gas Page 5.14 -20 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEM demand due to project buildout. The project would not require SCGC to obtain new or expanded natural gas supplies beyond its existing and forecast supplies. Impacts would be less than significant. Table 5.14 -14 Estimated Natural Gas Demands by Harbor Corridor Plan Buildout Scenario Natural Gas Demands, kBTU per Yearr Existing Conditions 32,918,190 Harbor Corridor Plan Buildout Existing Land Uses to Remain 9,666,735 Future Land Uses 45,521,430 Total 55,188,165 Netlncrease 22,269,975 1 1 kBTU (that is, 1,000 BTU) is equivalent b 0.971 cubic foot d natural gas. 5.14.4 Cumulative Impacts Water Supplies Cumulative impacts on water supplies are considered for the City's water provider, MWD and OCWD. Water providers are required to prepare plans to ensure adequate water supplies exist for future growth. According to the WSA prepared for the project, MWD and OCWD have adequate water supplies to meet demands in the City between 2015 and 2035 in normal year, single- dry-year, and multiple- dry -year conditions. In addition, implementation of demand management measures in future projects and water shortage contingency plans would further reduce additional water demand. No significant cumulative impact would occur, and buildout of the Harbor Corridor Plan would not contribute to a cumulative impact on water supplies. Wastewater Treatment Cumulative impacts on wastewater treatment are considered for the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD)'s service area, which is most of north and central Orange County (from the City of Irvine north and west to the County boundaries). OCSD's service area is similar to eight combined Regional Statistical Areas (RSAs) used in the Orange County Projections 2010 by the Center for Demographic Research at California State University Fullerton.3 Estimated total net increases in population and employment in the eight RSAs between 2010 and 2035 from the Orange County Projections 2010 Modified are 317,515 and 245,859, respectively (CDR 2012). Current remaining capacity for primary treatment at Reclamation Plant No. 2 is 17 mgd; expansion of secondary treatment capacity at that facility by 60 mgd is under construction. OCSD is expected to have adequate wastewater treatment capacity for wastewater generation by cumulative developments in its service area. No significant cumulative impact is anticipated, and buildout of the Harbor Corridor Plan would not contribute to a significant cumulative impact. Storm Drainage Cumulative impacts on storm drainage are considered for the City of Santa Ana, as all of the proposed drain pipe upgrades needed to accommodate project generated increases in drainage (as well as to remedy existing 3 The Regional Statistical Areas are A -36, B -41, E -44, F -39, G -42, H-37,1-38, and J -35. October 2014 Page 5.14 -21 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS deficiencies) are City storm drains. Other projects in the City would increase impervious areas on those project sites, and thus could increase runoff rates and volumes. Each project would be required to ensure that it has adequate drainage to support off site flows. Each project would also be required to implement other Best Management Practices reducing runoff No significant cumulative drainage impact is anticipated, and buildout of the Harbor Corridor Plan would not contribute to a significant cumulative impact. Solid Waste Cumulative impacts to solid waste disposal are considered for Orange County, the service area of OCWR that operates the three landfills serving the County. Estimated net increases in population and employment in Orange County between 2010 and 2035 are 401,872 and 288,549, respectively (CDR 2012). Cumulative projects would increase solid waste generation in the County. The thud landfill in the County, Prima Deshescha landfill near San Juan Capistrano, provides landfill capacity in addition to the Bowerman and Olinda Alpha landfills described above, and has an estimated closing date of 2067. Given the total capacities and estimated closing dates�of the three landfills m Orange County, significant cumulative impacts to landfill capacity would not occur, and implementation of the Harbor Corridor Plan would not contribute to a significant impact. 5.14.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions Federal • United States Code, Title 33, Sections 1251 et seq.: Clean Water Act • Code of Federal Regulations Title 40 Parts 122 et seq.: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) State • California Water Code Sections 10610 et seq.: Urban Water Management Planning Act • Senate Bill X7 -7: Water Conservation Act of 2009 • California Water Code Sections 10910 et seq: SB 221 and SB 610: Water Supply Assessments • Public Resources Code Sections 40050 et seq.: Integrated Solid Waste Management Act of 1989 • Assembly Bill 341 (Chapter 476, Statutes of 2011): Recycling and Solid Waste Diversion City of Santa Ana • Municipal Code Sections 39 -105 et seq.: Water conservation measures • Municipal Code Section 41 -1503: Iandscape Nvater use standards 5.14.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, the following impacts would be less than significant: 5.14 -4 and 5.145. Page 5.14 -22 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEM Without mitigation, the following impacts would be potentially significant: ■ Impact 5.14 -1 Buildout of the Harbor Corridor Plan would exceed the wastewater capacity of the sewer pipelines. ■ Impact 5.14 -2 Buildout of the Harbor Corridor Plan may exceed the water capacity of the existing water pipelines. ■ Impact 5.14 -3 Buildout of the Harbor Corridor Plan would increase runoff from the site, requiring drainage improvements to accommodate project generated runoff as well as to remedy existing deficiencies. 5.14.7 Mitigation Measures Impact 5.14 -1 14 -1 Prior to the first building permit pursuant to the proposed project, the City of Santa Ana shall prepare a "Nexus" Study that will serve as the basis for requiring development impact fees under AB 1600 legislation, as codified by California Code Government Section 66000 et seq. The established procedures under AB 1600 require that a "reasonable relationship" or nexus exist between the water and sewer infrastructure improvements and facilities required to mitigate the sewer impacts of new development pursuant to the proposed project. The sewer segment improvements shown on Table 5.1411 of the DEIR are necessary to mitigate project impacts and shall be included, among other improvements, in the AB 1600 nexus study. 14 -2 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit pursuant to the proposed project, the City of Santa Ana shall prepare a Development Fee program pursuant to the AB 1600 Nexus Study identified in Mitigation Measure 141, above. The Development Fee program would fund the Harbor Corridor Plan area wide water and sewer infrastructure improvements. The fee program shall stipulate that fees are assessed when there is new construction or when there is an increase in square footage within an existing building or the conversion of existing square footage to a more intensive use. Fees are calculated by multiplying the proposed square footage or dwelling unit by the rate identified. The fees are included with any other applicable fees payable at the time the building permit is issued. The City will use the development fees to fund construction (or to recoup fees advanced to fund construction) of the infrastructure improvements identified in Mitigation Measure 141. 14 -3 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall prepare water and sewer studies and identify the sizing and location of backbone facilities necessary to serve the proposed project, in accordance with City standards. The water and sewer plans shall be submitted to the City's Public Works Agency for review and approval. Design of facilities that serve the project shall be sufficient to meet the projected service demands. October 2014 Page 5.14 -23 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Impact 5.14 -2 Refer to Mitigation Measures 14 -1 through 14 -3. Impact 5.14 -3 Refer also to mitigation measure 7 -1 in Section 5.7, Hydrology and Water Quality, repeated below. 7 -1 Prior to issuance of grading permits for future development projects in the Harbor Corridor Plan, applicants shall submit site - specific hydrology and hydraulic Studies to the Public Works Agency for review and approval. If existing facilities are not adequate to handle runoff generated by the proposed development, then the applicant shall construct storm drain improvements. If necessary storm drain upgrades cannot be implemented prior to issuance of occupancy permits, the applicant shall provide onsite detention facilities, or other methods to ensure that post construction runoff does not exceed pre development quantities. 5.14.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation The mitigation measures identified above would reduce potential impacts associated with utilities and service systems to a level that is less than significant. Therefore, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts relating to utilities remain. Page 5.14 -24 PlaceWorkr 6. Siqnificant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Chapter 1, Executire Summary, contains Table 1 -1, which summarizes the impacts, mitigation measures, and levels of significance before and after mitigation. Though mitigation measures would reduce the level of impact, the following impacts would remain significant, unavoidable, and adverse after mitigation measures are applied: Air Quality Construction Emissions ■ Impact 5.2-1: Construction activities associated with the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan would generate short-term emissions that exceed the South Coast An Quality Management District's regional thresholds for volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrous oxides (NOx) and would significantly contribute to the South Coast Air Basin's nonattamment designations for particulate matter (PM3o and M5), ozone (03), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). Implementation of Mitigation Measures 2 -1, 2 -2, and 2 -3 would reduce adverse effects, but this impact would remain significant and unavoidable after mitigation. ■ Impact 5.2 -3: Construction activities related to buildout of the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 2 -1 through 2 -3 would reduce adverse effects, but this impact would be significant and unavoidable after mitigation. Operational Emissions ■ Impact 5.2 -2: Long -term criteria air pollutant emissions associated with the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan would exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District's regional significance thresholds for VOC, CO, PM3o, and PM2 s and significantly contribute to the South Coast An Basin's nonattamment designations for PM3o and PM?s, 03, and NO2. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 2 -4 through 2 -9 would reduce this effect; however, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable after mitigation. ■ Impact 5.2-6: The Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan is a regionally significant project that would contribute to an increase in frequency or severity of air quality violations in the South Coast Air Basin and would conflict with the assumptions of the applicable air quality management plan. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 2 -1 through 2 -9 would reduce this impact, but it would be significant and unavoidable after mitigation. October 2014 Page 6 -1 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 6. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts This page intentionally left blank. Page 6 -2 PlaceWorkr 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Proiect 7.1 INTRODUCTION 7.1.1 Purpose and Scope The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR ) include a discussion of reasonable project alternatives that would "feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project, but would avoid or substantially lessen any significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives" (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6). This chapter identifies potential alternatives to the proposed project and evaluates them, as required by CEQA. Key provisions of the CEQA Guidelines on alternatives (Section 15126.6[a] through [f]) are summarized below to explain the foundation and legal requirements for the alternatives analysis in the EIR. ■ "The discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly' (15126.6[b]). ■ "The specific alternative of `no project' shall also be evaluated along with its impact" (15126.6[c][1]). ■ "The no project analysis shall discuss the existing conditions at the time the Notice of Preparation (NOP) is published, and at the time the environmental analysis is commenced, as well as what would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services. If the environmentally superior alternative is the `no project' alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives" (15126.6[e] [2]). ■ "The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a `rule of reason' that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project" (15126.6[f]). ■ `Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site (or the site is already owned by the proponent)" (15126.6 [f] [1]). October 2014 Page 7 -1 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project ■ "For alternative locations, "only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR" (15126.6[f] [2] [A]). ■ `An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative" (15126.6[f] [3]). For each development alternative, this analysis: ■ Describes the alterative, ■ Analyzes the impact of the alternative as compared to the proposed project, ■ Identifies the impacts of the project that would be avoided or lessened by the alternative, • Assesses whether the alternative would meet most of the basic project objectives, and • Evaluates the comparative merits of the alternative and the project. Per the CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(d), additional significant effects of the alternatives are discussed in less detail than the significant effects of the project as proposed. 7.1.2 Project Objectives As described in Section 3.2, the following objectives have been established for the proposed project and will aid decision makers in their review of the project, the project alternatives, and associated environmental impacts: ■ Provide for the development of the site consistent with City's General Plan. • Provide for new housing and mixed use development opportunities. • Expand development opportunities that respond to transit investments. • Create economic vitality by providing new opportunities for businesses and residents. • Provide a variety of safe and efficient travel choices and access to multi modal transportation. • Create a sense of place. • Enhance community health and wellness by creating safer street design for multiple modes of travel, increase walkability and encourage live /work along the corridor. 7.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED DURING THE SCOPING /PROJECT PLANNING PROCESS The following is a discussion of the land use alternatives considered during the scoping and planning process and the reasons why they were not selected for detailed analysis in this Draft EIR (EIR). Page 7 -2 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project 7.2.1 Alternative Development Areas CEQA requires that the discussion of alternatives focus on alternatives to the project or its location that are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project. The key question and first step in the analysis is whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project in another location. Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR (Guidelines Sec. 15126[5][3][1]). In general, any development of the size and type proposed by the project would have substantially the same impacts on air quality, land use/planning, noise, population/ housing, public services, recreation, transportation /traffic and utilities /service systems. Impacts related to aesthetics, cultural resources, geology /soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology /water quality and mineral resources would need a site specific analysis to determine if another location would reduce impacts. These impacts were found to be less than significant and less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Another location would not avoid or substantially lessen the effects of the project. The purpose of the project is to create a transit corridor plan and would enhance an underutilized area and expand development opportunities that response to transit investments. The project area is served by a number of existing and future transit opportunities. A Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) route, Orange County Transportation Authority Route (OCTA) 543, began operating on Harbor Boulevard through the project site in June 2013. An intercounty express bus route, OCTA 722, is scheduled to begin operation in early 2014 and would serve the intersection of Harbor Boulevard and Westminster Avenue at the north end of the project site. A Santa Ana /Garden Grove Fixed Guideway transit project is planned that would pass just north of the north site boundary. A second BRT route is planned on Edinger Boulevard that would cross Harbor Boulevard 0.5 mile south of the project site (OCTA 2011). The recent and planned transit improvements along this segment of Harbor Boulevard help create an opportunity for redevelopment of this largely commercial corridor with mixed land uses. While the proposed transit improvements extend beyond the project site, the above mentioned combination of transit improvements is unique to this segment of Harbor Boulevard. Since other sites would not meet the basic objectives of the project they were not considered. 7.2.2 Reduced Nonresidential Intensity Alternative At buildout of the proposed project, nonresidential development intensity would only be approximately one percent greater than existing conditions. This change is not great enough to differentiate a reduced nonresidential project from the proposed project. Furthermore, because the proposed project is intended to permit development of a mixed use community on the project site, reducing permitted nonresidential intensity would be contrary to objectives of the proposed project, including those objectives that advocate for provision of new opportunities for mixed use development and businesses. Therefore, a reduced nonresidential intensity alternative was considered but rejected. October 2014 Page 7 -3 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project 7.3 ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS Based on the criteria listed above, two alternatives have been determined to represent a reasonable range of alternatives which may avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. These alternatives are analyzed in detail in the following sections. • No Project /NHSP Alternative • Reduced Residential Intensity Alternative Each alternative's environmental impacts are compared to the proposed project and determined to be environmentally superior, neutral, or inferior. However, only those impacts found significant and unavoidable are used in making the final determination of whether an alternative is environmentally superior or inferior to the proposed project. Only the impacts involving air quality were found to be significant and unavoidable. Section 7.6 identifies the Environmentally Superior Alternative. 7.4 NO PROJECT /NHSP ALTERNATIVE The No Project /NHSP Alternative assumes that the Harbor Corridor Plan would not be adopted, the NHSP would remain in effect, the Conventional Zoning Area would remain within the NHSP, and the existing onsite buildings would remain. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3)(A), where a project is the revision of an existing regulatory plan the "no project" alternative assumes continuation of the existing plan, policy or operation into the future. Therefore, this alternative assumes that new development and redevelopment would continue to occur in the project area consistent with the adopted NHSP land use designations, development standards and design guidelines. Buildout of the NHSP would allow for 320 residential units and 4,867,789 square feet of nonresidential land uses. Note that the NHSP results in a reduction of residential units compared to existing uses since some residential uses were existing in the area prior to adoption of the NHSP. As compared to the proposed project, buildout of the NHSP would result in a reduction of 4,395 residential units and an increase of 2,896,107 of commercial and other nonresidential square footage. 7.4.1 Aesthetics Under the No Project /NHSP Alternative, redevelopment would be allowed to continue consistent with the NHSP, which would allow for redevelopment of the area to commercial nodes. Specifically, the NHSP land use designations include General Commercial at the north, south and central portions of the corridor; entertainment and single family residential uses between the commercial zones south of First Street; and Recreational vehicle /automotive commercial, residential and open space north of Fifth Street. As compared to the project, the buildout under this alternative would result in lower building height. The aesthetic quality of the site would be somewhat similar to the existing buildings, in height and scale. The character would be more automobile related uses with commercial shopping centers. While this alternative would be required to meet the NHSP development standards and design guidelines, it would not be required to comply with the Harbor Corridor Plan development standards and design guidelines. New development under this alternative would not be required to incorporate the same level of design that would encourage pedestrian Page 74 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project improvements, accessibility and safety to create and activate the street scene. Aesthetic impacts would be less than significant under this alternative; however, impacts would be greater than the proposed project because the aesthetic quality of the area would be enhanced by implementation of the Harbor Corridor Plan. 7.4.2 Air Quality Under this alternative, demolition, grading, soil export, and building construction would continue to occur as individual projects are approved in accordance with the City's General Plan and NHSP. Therefore, short term construction impacts would be similar to the proposed project. Operational impacts would be less than the project because buildout of the NHSP would result in a decrease in vehicle trips. However, development would not occur with the guidance of a comprehensive plan for the area that encourages pedestrian activity, and therefore reliance on cars will be perpetuated. The reduction in residential units within an area with existing and potential employment opportunities would result in the loss of potential to increase internal trip capture, which may offset the decrease in vehicle trips as compared to the project. The decrease in traffic would reduce air emissions, however, the emissions would still exceed the SCAQMD thresholds and impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. 7.4.3 Cultural Resources This alternative would allow development and redevelopment to occur in accordance with the NHSP. The excavation required to build out the area would result in similar potential to encounter archeological or paleontological during grading. Therefore, impacts to cultural resources would be similar to the proposed project. Upon implementation of Mitigation Measure 3 -1, potential impacts to cultural resources would be less than significant. 7.4.4 Geology and Soils Geology and soils impacts would be similar to the project. Although the site would be developed with fewer housing units, there would be a substantial increase of commercial uses. Overall, the development area would be similar, except under the proposed project the Conventional Zoning Area is assumed to remain under its existing uses. Therefore, construction on soils that have the potential to experience liquefaction, subsidence, or expansion would be similar to the project. However, under both scenarios, potential impacts related to geology and soils would be less than significant without mitigation. 7.4.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Under this alternative, redevelopment of the project area in accordance with the NHSP would generate less GHG emissions as compared to the proposed project because it would reduce vehicle trips. However, it would not reduce VMT because it would not place additional housing near employment and encourage pedestrian friendly modes of travel. Therefore, GHG emissions would be less than the proposed project and would result in a significant impact. October 2014 Page 7 -5 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project 7.4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Past and present uses and activities within the project area have known or suspected contamination of soils. Development and redevelopment in accordance with the NHSP would result in similar impacts to health and safety impact related to the presence of known or suspected on site contamination. Future development has the potential to be exposed to suspected sites, and demolition activities may expose construction workers to asbestos containing materials or lead based paints. This alternative would result in the same impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials as the proposed project. 7.4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality The project area is currently developed. Development and redevelopment in accordance with the NHSP would result in a similar amount of impervious surfaces as the proposed project. No changes to the volume or velocity of stormwater would occur because the project area is built out and the area of impervious surfaces is not expected to change. Short -term construction related and long -term water quality would be similar to the proposed project since future projects under this alternative would be required to comply with the Construction General Permit, requiring implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP for projects one acre in size or more, and prepare a Water Quality Management Plan for all for all projects that meet the thresholds. Therefore, this alternative would be less than significant with mitigation and have similar hydrology and water quality impacts as the proposed project 7.4.8 Land Use and Planning Unlike the proposed project, this alternative would not require a zoning ordinance amendment, a zone change, or a General Plan amendment. However, this alternative would not meet the goals of the housing element to the same degree because this alternative would not result in an increase in affordable housing allowed on site. In addition, this alternative would not support the Iand Use Element Policy 2.4 to the same degree as the project because it would not result in enhancements to the existing sidewalks. This alternative would not provide a catalyst for revitalizing the corridor. As a result, impacts related to land use would greater, but less than significant. Under this alternative, grading and construction noise would be similar to the proposed project since development would continue to be allowed in accordance with the NHSP. Stationary noise sources associated with new commercial development would have the potential to increase noise levels at adjacent properties, similar to the proposed project. Operational traffic related noise would be less since this alternative would generate less vehicle trips. Overall, noise impacts would be less than the proposed project. 7.4.10 Population and Housing Population and housing impacts would be increased by this alternative. This alternative would result in approximately 10,000 employees due to the increase in approximately 4.9 million square feet of commercial uses. This alternative would allow 320 residential units. As a result, the jobs - housing balance for the project Page 76 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project area would be extremely jobs -rich and not in balance with the City overall. The jobs housing ratio within the NHSP area at buildout would be 31, far higher than the existing, already jobs -rich jobs - housing ratio of 1.87 in the City of Santa Ana in 2010. As a result, impacts would be greater than the proposed project. 7.4.11 Public Services Total development intensity in square feet would be lower in this alternative: assuming the 345 residential units permitted by this alternative averaged 1,500 square feet, the units would total about 518,000 square feet. Total permitted development would be about 5.52 million square feet including five million square feet of nonresidential development. In the proposed project, 4,623 permitted residential units at an average of 1,500 square feet per unit gives a total of 6.93 million square feet of housing units, and a total of 8.90 million square feet including permitted nonresidential land uses. Thus, demands for police and fire protection would be somewhat lower in this alternative. Demands for public services dependent on population, including schools, parks, and libraries would be lower in this alternative due to the reduction of proposed residential units. 7.4.12 Recreation Compared to the proposed project, this alternative would generate fewer residents in the project area. Fewer residents would generate reduced demand for recreational facilities and services. Furthermore, the deterioration of existing parks and recreational facilities would be reduced. Therefore, impacts related to recreation would be reduced under this alternative and would remain less than significant. 7.4.13 Transportation and Traffic Bailout of this alternative would generate slightly less vehicle trips on study area roadways as compared to the proposed project. Buildout of the NHSP land uses would generate 41,802 daily trips, while buildout of the project would generate 54,357 daily trips. The alternative would generate 12,555 fewer trips at buildout. This would result in a significant impact to the following intersections: • Euclid St and Edinger Ave — LOS F (AM Peak Hour) • Harbor Blvd and Trask Ave — LOS E (AM Peak Hour) • Harbor Blvd and Hazard Ave — LOS E (AM Peak Hour) • Fairview St and 17� St — LOS E/F (AM and PM Peak Hour) • Fairview St and V St — LOS F (PM Peak Hour) Similar to the proposed project, all 15 study roadway segments are forecast to operate at an acceptable level of service E or better with buildout of the NHSP. However, this alternative would not involve the development of improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the project area that would be developed by the proposed project. Overall, transportation and traffic impacts of this alternative would be slightly less than those of the proposed project. October 2014 Page 7 -7 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project 7.4.14 Utilities and Service Systems Utilities and service systems impacts would be reduced by this alternative due to an overall reduction in residents. Fewer residents would generate less solid waste and wastewater, and would have reduced demand for water supplies. With mitigation, impacts related to utilities and service systems under this alternative would remain less than significant. 7.4.15 Conclusion Ability to Reduce Impacts This alternative would reduce impacts to air quality (operation), greenhouse gas emissions, noise (operation), public services, recreation, transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems. This alternative would increase impacts to aesthetics, land use, and population and housing. Impacts of this alternative related to construction related air quality and noise, cultural resources, geology and soils, and hydrology and water quality would be similar to the proposed project. Ability to Achieve Project Objectives This alternative would not achieve any of the following five project objectives: it would not provide for new housing and mixed use development opportunities; create economic vitality by providing new opportunities for businesses and residents; provide access to multi modal transportation; create a sense of place; or enhance community health and wellness. This alternative would achieve one project objective, provide for the development of the site consistent with City's General Plan. However, the Harbor Corridor Plan would change General Plan designations for the project site to provide consistency with the general plan and zoning. 7.5 REDUCED RESIDENTIAL INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE The Reduced Residential Intensity Alternative would reduce permitted residential units by 25 percent in the Transit Node district and by 50 percent in the Corridor district; the permitted number of residential units in the Neighborhood Transition district would be the same as in the proposed project. Total permitted nonresidential development intensity in this alternative would remain the same as in the proposed project. The total number of residential units permitted by this alternative would be 2,908, or 37 percent less than that of the proposed project. 7.5.1 Aesthetics Aesthetics impacts would be reduced by this alternative. Maximum permitted building heights would be reduced to four stories in the Transit Node district and three stories in the Corridor district, compared to six stories and four stories, respectively, in the proposed project. This alternative would permit redevelopment of the Harbor Corridor Plan area, similar to the proposed project. Impacts would be similar but slightly less due to the reduction in building heights. Page 7-8 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project 7.5.2 Air Quality This alternative would reduce both construction and operational emissions of the proposed project due to the reduction in permitted development intensity. However, it is expected that emissions of some air pollutants would remain above regional thresholds. An quality impacts of this alternative would remain significant and unavoidable. 7.5.3 Cultural Resources This alternative and the proposed project would both permit redevelopment of the Harbor Corridor Plan area. Although depths of grading and excavation could be slightly reduced in this alternative due to decreased permitted building heights, cultural resources impacts of this alternative would be similar to those of the proposed project. As under the proposed project, potential impacts to cultural resources would remain less than significant with mitigation. 7.5.4 Geology and Soils Geology and soils impacts of this alternative, including impacts related to liquefaction, soil subsidence, and soil expansion, would be similar to those of the proposed project; both scenarios would permit redevelopment of the Harbor Corridor Plan area. Therefore, potential impacts related to geology and soils would remain less than significant. 7.5.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Greenhouse gas emissions would be reduced by this alternative due to the reduction in permitted development intensity. As under the proposed project, impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions would be less than significant. 7.5.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hazards and hazardous materials impacts of this alternative would be slightly reduced compared to those of the proposed project due to the lower numbers of residents that could be exposed to hazardous materials which could be present in site soils. Hazards and hazardous materials impacts of the proposed project would be less than significant after implementation of mitigation. 7.5.7 Hydrology and Water Quality This alternative would result in a similar amount of impervious surfaces as the proposed project. No changes to the volume or velocity of stormwater would occur because the project area is built out and the area of impervious surfaces is not expected to change. Short -term construction related and long -term water quality would be similar to the proposed project since future projects under this alternative would be required to comply with the Construction General Permit, requiring implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for projects one acre in size or more, and prepare a Water Quality Management October 2014 Page 7 -9 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Plan for all for all projects that meet the thresholds. Therefore, this alternative would be less than significant with mitigation and have similar hydrology and water quality impacts as the proposed project. 7.5.8 Land Use and Planning Land use and planning impacts of this alternative would be similar to those of the proposed project; this alternative would require all of the discretionary permits required for the proposed project by the City of Santa Ana. As under the proposed project, a zoning ordinance amendment, zone change, and General Plan amendment would be required. 7.5.9 Noise Noise impacts of this alternative would be reduced by the proposed project due to reduced construction activities. The reduction of residents would reduce traffic- generated noise during the projects operational phase. Noise impacts of the proposed project would be less than significant after implementation of mitigation. 7.5.10 Population and Housing This alternative would increase population onsite by 8,568 to a total of 11,687, or 6,892 less than the proposed project. The net population increase would be within the forecast increase in population in the City of Santa Ana between 2010 and 2035, based on General Plan land use designations, of 11,856 (CDR 2012). Since the proposed project would exceed the growth projections in the city, this alternative reduces the impact to population growth. The jobs - housing ratio of the City in 2035 with buildout of this alternative would be 1.86, which is more jobs rich than the proposed project with a jobs - housing ratio of 1.82. Therefore, this alternative would not have the same benefit to the jobs - housing ratio in the city. Overall, this alternative would reduce population and housing impacts compared to those of the proposed project; impacts of the proposed project would be less than significant. 7.5.11 Public Services Because implementation of this alternative would result in a lower number of housing units than the project area, it would generate fewer residents. This alternative would result in a reduction of 6,892 residents as compared to the project, which would generate reduced demand for fire protection, police, school, and library services. Therefore, public service impacts would be reduced. As with the proposed project, impacts related to public services would be less than significant. 7.5.12 Recreation Compared to the proposed project, this alternative would generate 6,892 fewer residents in the project area resulting in a reduced demand for recreational facilities and services. The deterioration of existing parks and Page 7 -10 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project recreational facilities would occur at a slower pace due to reduced demand. Therefore, impacts related to recreation would be reduced under this alternative and would remain less than significant. 7.5.13 Transportation and Traffic Transportation and traffic impacts would be reduced in this alternative due to the 37- percent reductions in residential units and associated trips. Similar to the project, transportation and traffic impacts of the proposed project would be less than significant after implementation of mitigation. 7.5.14 Utilities and Service Systems Utilities and service systems impacts would be reduced by this alternative due to an overall reduction in residents. Fewer residents would generate less solid waste and wastewater, and would have reduced demand for water supplies. Impacts of the project related to utilities and service systems would remain less than significant. 7.5.15 Conclusion Ability to Reduce Impacts This alternative would reduce impacts to aesthetics, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems. Impacts to cultural resources, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, and land use and planning would be similar to the proposed project. Ability to Achieve Project Objectives This alternative would achieve most of the objectives of the proposed project. This alternative would achieve the following throe objectives to a lesser degree due to the 37 percent reduction in residential units: provide for new housing and mixed use development opportunities; create economic vitality by providing new opportunities for businesses and residents; and provide access to multi -modal transportation. 7.6 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE CEQA requires a lead agency to identify the "environmentally superior alternative" and, in cases where the "No Project" Alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed project, the environmentally superior development alternative must be identified. One alternative has been identified as "environmentally superior" to the proposed project: ■ Reduced Intensity Alternative The Reduced Intensity Alternative has been identified as the environmentally superior alternative. This alternative would lessen impacts associated with aesthetics, au quality, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems. The remaining impacts are generally the same as the proposed project. Although October 2014 Page 7 -11 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project this alternative would reduce impacts to air quality, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. In addition, this alternative would meet most of the project objectives, but to a lesser degree tban the project. Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are: (i) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, (n) infeasibility, or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts." [Guidelines Sec. 15126.6(c)] Table 7 -5 Summary of Impacts of Alternatives Compared to the Pr000sed Proiect Topic Proposed Project No Project Alternative Reduced Residential Intensity Alternative Aesthetics ITS H H Air Quality Construction Operation SU SU N H H H Cultural Resources LTS/M N N Geology and Soils ITS N N Greenhouse Gas Emissions ITS H H Hazards and Hazardous Materials LTS /M N H Hydrology and Water Quality ITS N N Land Use and Planning ITS H N Noise - Construction - Operation LTS/M LTS /M N H H H Population and Housing ITS H H Public Services ITS H H Recreation ITS H H Transporhation/Traffc LTS/M H H Utilities and Service Systems LTS /M H H Notes: C I b: Less man signmcam; a stM: Less man slgnlncant wan Mitigation Inmiporam; su: slgnnlcara ana unavowaule H The alternative would result in less of an impact than the proposed project ( +) The alternative would result in greater impacts than the proposed project. (_) The alternative would result in the same/similar impacts as the proposed project . Page 7 -12 PlaceWorkr 8. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant California Public Resources Code Section 21003 (f) states: "...it is the policy of the state that... [a]ll persons and public agencies involved in the environmental review process be responsible for carrying out the process in the most efficient, expeditious manner in order to conserve the available financial, governmental, physical, and social resources with the objective that those resources may be better applied toward the mitigation of actual significant effects on the environment" This policy is reflected in the State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines (Guidelines) Section 15126.2(a), which states that "[a]n EIR [Environmental Impact Report] shall identify and focus on the significant environmental impacts of the proposed project" and Section 15143, which states that "[t]he EIR shall focus on the significant effects on the environment" The Guidelines allow use of an Initial Study to document project effects that are less than significant (Guidelines Section 15063[a]). Guidelines Section 15128 requires that an EIR contain a statement briefly indicating the reasons that various possible significant effects of a project were determined not to be significant, and were therefore not discussed in detail in the Draft EIR. 8.1 ASSESSMENT IN THE INITIAL STUDY The Initial Study prepared for the proposed project in June 2013 determined that impacts listed below would be less than significant. Consequently, they have not been further analyzed in this Draft EIR. Please refer to Appendix A for explanation of the basis of these conclusions. Impact categories and questions below are summarized directly from the CEQA Environmental Checklist, as contained in the Initial Study. Table 8 -1 Impacts Found Not to Be Significant Environmental Issues Initial Study Determination I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? I No Impact b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rack No Impact II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology Drovided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the Droiect: Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the No Impact Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? I No Impact October 014 Page 8 -1 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 8. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant Table 8 -1 Impacts Found Not to Be Significant III. AIR QUALITY. 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: e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less Than Significant Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the oroiect: a) Environmental Issues Initial Study Determination c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in No Impact fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Public Resources Cade section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public No Impact No Impact Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as Less Than Significant Impact b) defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non - forest use? No Impact e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non - agricultural use or No Impact c) conversion of forest land to non - forest use? III. AIR QUALITY. 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: e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less Than Significant Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the oroiect: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat Alquist -Prlolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the State Less Than Significant Impact modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special No Impact fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the iv Landslides? No Impact California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant Impact b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for No Impact natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or No Impact by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal No Impact pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife Less Than Significant Impact corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, No Impact such asatree reservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, orother approved local, regional, orstate No Impact habitat conservation Ian? V. CULI URAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource No Impact as defined in 15064.5? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside offormal No Impact Como +o io.9 P VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist -Prlolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the State Less Than Significant Impact Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. iv Landslides? No Impact b Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for No Impact the disposal of waste water? VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine Less Than Significant Impact transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Page 8 -2 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 8. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant Table 8 -1 Impacts Found Not to Be Significant IX. HYDROLOGY AND WAI ER QUALI I Y. Would the project: I) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? I No Impact a) Environmental Issues Initial Study Determination e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has No Impact not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, Less Than Significant Impact A. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a project area? No Impact f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a No Impact Ressult in the loss, of availability of a locally important minerQal resource recovery safety hazard for people residin or working in the project area? b) g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency Less Than Significant Impact construction of replacement housing elsewhere? response lanoremer en evacuation Ian? c) h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving replacement housing elsewhere? wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacentto urbanized areas or No Impact where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic IX. HYDROLOGY AND WAI ER QUALI I Y. Would the project: I) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? I No Impact a) Physically divide an established community? No Impact c) Conflictwith any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community No Impact conservation plan? A. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: excessive noise levels? a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a No Impact No Impact value to there ion and the residents of the state? people residing orworking in the project area to excessive noise levels? b) Ressult in the loss, of availability of a locally important minerQal resource recovery No Impact b) ond Less Than Significant Impact e) ror a progea locaiea wlmin an airport Jana use plan or, wnere sucn a plan nas not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, Less Than Significant Impact 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 No Impact people residing orworking in the project area to excessive noise levels? All. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the Less Than Significant Impact construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of Less Than Significant Impact replacement housing elsewhere? XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic No Impact levels or a thane in location that results in substantial safety risks? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? I Less Than Significant Impact XVIL UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed waste water treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Less Than Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact October 2014 Page 8 -3 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 8. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant This page intentionally left blank. Page 84 PlaceWorkr 9. Significant Irreversible Changes Due to the Proposed Proiect Section 15126.2(c) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) describe any significant irreversible environmental changes that would be caused by the proposed project should it be implemented. Implementation of the proposed project would cause the following significant irreversible changes: ■ Development of future projects within the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan would include construction and demolition activities that would entail the commitment of nonrenewable and /or slowly renewable energy resources; human resources; and natural resources such as lumber and other forest products, sand and gravel, asphalt, steel, copper, lead, other metals, water, and fossil fuels. Demolition of existing commercial uses would occur over time and would be irreversible. ■ Future development in accordance with the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan is a long- term irreversible commitment of existing developed land in the City of Santa Ana.. Operation of the project, which would allow an additional 13,721 square feet of commercial uses and 3,884 residential units, would require the use of natural gas and electricity, fossil fuels, and water. The commitment of resources required for the operation of the proposed project would limit the availability of such resources for future generations or for other uses during the life of the project. ■ An increased commitment of social services and public maintenance services (e.g., police, fire, schools, libraries, and sewer and water services) would also be required. The energy and social service commitments would be long-term obligations in view of the low likelihood of returning the land to its original condition once it has been redeveloped. ■ An increase in project related vehicle trips would accompany project related population growth. Over the long term, emissions associated with such vehicle trips would continue to contribute to the South Coast Air Basin's nonattainment designation for ozone (03) and particulate matter (PM?s and PM3o), nonattainment for lead (l.os Angeles County only) under the California and National Ambient An Quality Standards (AAQS), and nonattainment for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) under the California AAQS. Given the low likelihood that the land would revert to lower intensity uses or to its current form, the proposed project would generally commit future generations to these environmental changes. October 2014 Page 9 -1 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 9. Significant Irreversible Changes Due to the Proposed Project This page intentional# left blank. Page 9 -2 PlaceWorkr 10. Growth - Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Proiect Pursuant to Sections 15126(d) and 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, this section is provided to examine ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Also required is an assessment of other projects that would foster other activities which could affect the environment, individually or cumulatively. To address this issue, potential growth inducing effects will be examined through analysis of the following questions: ■ Would this project remove obstacles to growth, e.g., through the construction or extension of major infrastructure facilities that do not presently exist in the project area, or through changes in existing regulations pertaining to land development? ■ Would this project result in the need to expand one or more public services to maintain desired levels of service? ■ Would this project encourage or facilitate economic effects that could result in other activities that could significantly affect the environment? ■ Would approval of this project involve some precedent setting action that could encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment? Please note that growth inducing effects are not to be construed as necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment. This issue is presented to provide additional information on ways in which this project could contribute to significant changes in the environment beyond the direct consequences of developing the land use concept examined in the preceding chapters of this EIR. Would this project remove obstacles to growth, e.g., through the construction or extension of major infrastructure facilities that do not presently exist in the project area, or through changes in existing regulations pertaining to land development? This project would not remove obstacles to growth. The project would not extend infrastructure into currently unserved areas. As discussed in section 5.14, Utilities and Service Systems, the project site and its area are already developed, and existing utilities and service systems are available to provide service to the proposed project with upgrades. Although upgrades to the existing utilities are necessary, major infrastructure is already present in the area, and there are no known obstacles to growth. Approval of the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan would not remove an existing regulatory obstacle to growth, but would October 2014 Page 10 -1 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 10. Growth - Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Project redefine the nature of future growth in the area. Therefore, the project is not considered growth inducing with respect to removal of obstacles to growth within the project site. Would this project result in the need to expand one or more public services to maintain desired levels of service? The Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan is in an urbanized area, and public services are currently provided to the site. As discussed in Section 5.11, Public Services, the increased development intensity at the project site would require further commitment of public services in the form of fire and police protection, public schools, and parks in order to maintain a desired level of service. This would be considered a long -term commitment. However, as discussed in Section 5.11, none of the public service agencies consulted during the preparation of this EIR indicated that the proposed project would necessitate the immediate expansion of its existing services and facilities in order to maintain desired levels of service. Additionally, implementation of the existing fees requirement and mitigation measures would ensure that the service capability would grow proportionate to the increase in uses and would not result in a significant environmental impact. The proposed project would not, therefore, have significant growth - inducing consequences with respect to public services. Would this project encourage or facilitate economic effects that could result in other activities that could significantly affect the environment? During project construction, a number of design, engineering, and construction - related jobs would be created. This would last until each project is completed over an approximately 20 -year span and would be a direct but temporary growth inducing impact of the project. The increased number of employees and residents in the area would spur new economic investment in commercial uses serving the project area. This would represent an increased demand for economic goods and services and could, therefore, encourage the creation of new businesses and /or the expansion of existing businesses that address these economic needs. However, this effect would be less than significant since future projects will be required to comply with the intensity allowed in the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan and City zoning code. Furthermore, the intent of the specific plan is to encourage redevelopment of old commercial uses and underutilized parcels to accommodate local business growth along the corridor and provide a more diverse range of retail and neighborhood oriented commercial uses. Therefore, while the proposed project would have an indirect growth- inducing effect, this would be accommodated by the surrounding neighborhood's current land uses and its ability to absorb local business growth. Would approval of this project involve some precedent - setting action that could encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment? The project would include a General Plan amendment and a zoning code amendment to replace existing zoning districts for the project site with new zoning districts in the project area. General Plan and zoning code amendments are common actions, and the project would not set a precedent that could lead to significant environmental effects. Page 10 -2 PlaceWorkr 11. Organizations and Persons Consulted City of Santa Ana Planning and Building Agency Kasen Haluza, AICP, Interim Director, Planning and Building Agency Sergio Klotz, AICP, Principal Planner Melanie G. McCann, AICP, Associate Planner Public Works Agency Taig Higgins, Interim City Engineer Zed Kekula, Interim Principal. Engineer Rudy Rosas, PE, Senior Civil. Engineer Nabil Saba, PE, Senior Civil. Engineer Phillip Vakili, PE, Civil. Engineer Police Department Mike McCoy, Police Community Services Specialist Orange County Fire Authority Michele Hernandez, Management Analyst, Strategic Services Garden Grove Unified School District Margaret Brown, Director of Facilities OC Waste & Recycling John Arnau, CEQA & Habitat Program Manager October 2014 Page 11 -1 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 11. Organizations and Persons Consulted This page intenlional# left blank. Page 112 PlaceWorkr 12. Qualifications of Persons Pre CITY OF SANTA ANA Karen Hazula, AICP Interim Director, Planning and Building Agency Sergio Klotz, AICP Principal Planner, Planning Division Melanie G. McCann, AICP Associate Planner, Planning Division PLACEWORKS Nicole Morse, Esq. Associate Principal Colin Drukker Associate Principal Nicole Vermilion Associate Principal Bob Mantey Manager, Noise, Acoustics, and Vibration Fernando Sotelo, INCE Senior Associate, Noise, Vibration and Acoustics 110 :ZION • BS, Applied Ecology, University of California, Irvine • JD, Business law, Whittier law School • BA, Urban Studies and Planning, University of California, San Diego • MURP, University of California, Irvine • BA Environmental Studies and BS Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Santa Cruz, 2002 ■ MURP, University of California, Irvine, 2005. ■ BS, Engineering, Harvey Mudd College, 1979 • BS, Naval Engineering, University of Sao Paulo, Brazil, 1998 • MS, Transportation Engineering, University of Southern California, 2001 October 2014 Page 12 -1 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 12. Qualifications of Persons Preparing EIR Michael Milroy ■ BS, Biological Science California State University, Associate Long Beach ■ MS, Interdisciplinary Studies: Neuroscience, California State University, Long Beach Ryan Potter ■ BS, City and Regional Planning, California Associate Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo ■ MURP, University of California, Irvine Cary Nakama ■ AA, Computer Graphic Design, Platt College of Graphic Artist Computer Graphic Design ■ BA, Business Administration: Data Processing and Marketing, California State University, Long Beach IBI GROUP William Delo, AICP ■ BA, Environmental Analysis and Design, University Associate of Irvine Colleen Hsieh ■ BA, Environmental Analysis and Design, University Transportation Planner of California, Irvine Page 12 -2 PlaceWorkr 13. Biblioqra Bies and Hansen. 2003. Engineering Noise ControL- Theory and Practice. New York: Spon Press. Bolt, Beranek and Newman. 1971. Noise fiom Construction Equ pment and Operations, Building Equ pment and Home Appliances. Prepared for the United States Environmental Protection Agency. California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2005, April. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. 2006, November 1. ENMAC2007 Computer Model. Version 2.3. 2007, February. Ambient Air Quality Standardr. http: / /www.arb.ca.gov /research /nags /aags2.pdf. 2007, April 20. Proposed Early Actions to Mitigate Climate Change in California. . 2007, July. Area Designations: Activities and Maps. http : / /www.arb.ca.gov /desig /desig.htm. 2007. Air Pollution Data Monitoring Cardr (2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006). http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/cgi-bin/db2www /adamtop4b.d2w/start. California Climate Action Team (CAT). 2006, March. Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature. California Environmental Protection Agency. 2007, April 20. CAT Proposed Early Actions to Mitigate Climate Change in California. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Division of Environmental Analysis. 2002. Transportation Related Earthborne Vibration: Callrans Experiences. Technical Advisory, Vibration. TAV-02- 01- R9601. Prepared by Rudy Hendricks. California Department of Finance (CDF). 2013, May. E -5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 2011 -2013. http: / /www.dof. m.gov /research /demographic /reports /estimates /e -5/ 2011 -20 /view.php. California Energy Commission. (CEC). 2006. Our Changing Climate: Assessing the Risks to California. California Climate Change Center. Report CEC -500- 2006 -077. California Geological Survey (CGS). 2013, May 29. 2010 Geologic Map of California. http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/GMC/stategeologi=ap.htrnl. . 1998, April 15. Seismic Hazard Zones Map, Anaheim Quadrangle. http: / /gmw. consrv. ca.gov/ shmp /download /quad /ANAHEIM /maps /ozn_Mah.pdf. 1998, April 15. Seismic Hazard Zones Map, Newport Beach Quadrangle. http://gmw.consrv.ca.gov/shmp/download/quad/NEWPORT BEACH/ maps / ozn_newb. p df. October 2014 Page 13 -1 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 13. Bibliography Center for Demographic Research (CDR). 2012. Orange County Projections: 2010 Modified. California State University, Fullerton. Coast Community College District (CCCD). 2012. Hazard Mitigation Plan. III D: Dam Failure. http: //w .cccd.edu /hazard_n itigation /dots /Community %2OForum %2OPP.pdf. Cogstone, Inc. 2013, May. Archaeological Assessment for the Warner Avenue from Main Street to Grand Avenue Widening Project. Colorado Geological Survey (COGS). 2011, April 28. Defuution of Swelling Soils. http: / /geosurvey.state.co.us /hazards /Swelling %20Soils /Pages /Def"tion.aspx. Cooper, John. 2011, August 30. Geology and Paleontology of Orange County. http: / /coopercmter.f dlerton. edu/ pdfs/ GEOLOGYmdPALEONTOLOGYofORANGECOUNT Y.pdf. Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2010, September 13. Glossary of Environmental Terms. http: //w .dtsc.ca.gov /InformationResou ms /Glossary_of Enviro=ental_Terms.cfm. Employment Development Department (EDD). 2013, September 3. Monthly Labor Force Data for Counties: July 2013 — Preliminary. http: / /www.cahy is.ca.gov /file /lfmonth /comtyur- 400c.pdf. 2013, September 3. Monthly Labor Force Data for Cities and Census Designated Places: July 2013 — Preliminary. http: //w labormarkettnfo .edd.ca.gov /Contmt.asp ?pageid -1006. Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR). 2013, March 19. Radius Map. Environmental Database search. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2009, December 3. Flood Zone Map 06059CO256J. http: / /map l . ms c. fema.gov /idms /IntraView. cgi? KEY— 84033771 &IFIT— l . 2009, December 3. Flood Zone Map 06059C0143J. http: / /map l.msc.fema.gov /idms /IntraView. cgi ?KEY- 65262003&IFIT —1 . Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1978, December. Federal Highway Traffic Noise Prediction ModeZ U.S. Department of Transportation. Report No. FHWA -RD77 -108. Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2006, May. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment United States Department of Transportation. Frey Environmental, Inc. 2005, November 29. Workplan, Additional Soil and Groundwater Investigation, Former Oasis Drinking Waters, 1506 N. Clinton Street, Santa Ana, California. http: / /geotracker.waterboards. ca.gov/ esi /uploads /geo_ report/7797209024/TO605902113.PDF. Hernandez, Michele (Management Analyst, Strategic Services). 2013, August 26. Questionnaire response. Orange County Fire Authority. IBI Group (1131). 2013, March 18. Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor: Drainage Study. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC). 2001. 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report. Page 13 -2 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 13. Bibliography Malcolm Punic. 2011, June. Municipal Water District of Orange County: 2010 Final Urban Water Management Plan. http: //w .mwdoc. com/ filesgallery/MWDOC_Final_2010_RUWMP.pdf. McCoy, Mike (Police Community Services Specialist). 2013, November 5. Questionnaire response. Santa Ana Police Department. Metropolitan Transportation Authority of Los Angeles County (Metro). 2009. 2009 Long Range Transit Plan. http: / /media.meLro.net / projects_ studies /images /fni l- 2009- LRTP.pdf. National Pesticide Information Center (NPIC). 2001. Chlordane. http://npic.orst.edu/facLshmLs/cblordmegen.pdf. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (NHN!). 2013, May 23. Vertebrate Paleontology Records Search. Orange County Public Works. 2013, July 3. East Garden Grove- Wintersburg Channel Improvement Project. http: / /ocflood.com /nfc /projects /consLruction /east —g rden—grove_facility _ c05 /. Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). 2013, June 3. Bravo! Bus Speeds Up Harbor Boulevard Commute. http: //w .ocLa. net /News/ Bus /Bravo!- Bus - Speeds -Up- Harbor - Boulevard- Commute /. 2011, February 15. Destination 2035. http: / /www.ocLa.net /pdf /fnialirtp.pdf. Orange County Water District. 2011, December 20. Groundwater Elevation Contours for the Principal Aquifer. http: //w .ocwd. com / Portals /0 /Pdf /jme_WL2011L2.pdf. 2009, July 9. Ground Water Management Plan 2009 Update. http: //w .ocwd. com /Portals /0 /News/ PublicationsReports /GWMPJuly2009Update.pdf. Planning Center I DC&E, The. 2013, February. Initial Study for: Pacific Technology School. Rimpo and Associates. URBENUS2007 Computer ModeL Version 9.2.2. Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB). 2008, February. Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin (Basin Plan). http: //w .swrcb.ca.gov /rwgcb8 /water issues /programs /basin plan/index.shtml. Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. (SAE). 1971, October. House Noise : Deduction Measurements for Use in Studies ofAircraft FlyomrNoise. AIR 1081. Sonoma Technology. CALINE4 Computer Model, Version 1.31. South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC). 2013, May 1. Cultural Records Search and Historical Resources Inventory. California State University, Fullerton. South Coast Air Quality Management District. (SCAQMD). 1993, April. CEQAAir Quality Handbook. 2003, June. Final L.oca&ed Significance Threshold Methodology. 2006, October. Final Methodology to Calculate PM25 and PM25 Significance Thresholds. 2007, June. Fina12007,4ir Quality Management Plan. October 2014 Page 13 -3 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 13. Bibliography South Coast AQMD List of Current Rules. Califomia Air ResourcesBoard. http: //w .arb.ca.gov /clrdb /sc /=.htm. Accessed 2007. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2013, February 7. Pacific Electric ROW /West Santa Ana Branch Corridor Alternatives Analysis. http: //w .scag.m.gov/perow/project- documents.html. 2013. Compass 2% Strategy Opportunity Areas. http: //w .compassblueprint.org /toolbox /opportuni"eas. 2012, April 4. 2012 -2035 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. http: / /rtpscs. scag.ca.gov /Documents /2012 /fmal /f2Ol2RTPSCS.pdf. . 2004, April. Destination 2030:2004 Regional Transportation Plan. Southern California Earthquake Data Center (SCEDC). 2013, May 14. Significant Earthquakes and Faults: Chronological Earthquake Index. http: //w .data.scec.org /significant /chron- index.html. United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 2013. Dam Safety Program: Prado Dam. Los Angeles District. http: //w .spl.usace.army.n it /Missions /CivilWorks /Media /FactSheets /tabid /1321 /Article /2710/ dam- safety - program. aspx. . 1985, August. Prado Dam Emergency Inundation Map, Plate No. 4. United States Census Bureau (USCB). 2013, September 3. DP -1: Profile of General Population and Housing Characteristics: 2010. http: / /factfmder2.crosus.gov /faces /tableservims /jsf /pages / productview .xhtml ?pid— DEC_10_SF1 _SF1DP1 TrodType =table . 2013, September 3. Longitudinal Employment Household Dynamics (LEHD). OnTheMap. http://onthemap.ces.mnsus.gov/. US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2011, December 21. 2010 Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List. http: //w .waterboa ds.m.gov /water_ issues / programs /tmdl /integrated2010.shtrnl. 2011, April 18. Aldrin /Dieldrin. http: //w .epa.gov /pbt /pubs /alclrin.htm. 2004, September. Water Permitting 101. http: //w .epa.gov /npdes /pubs /101pape.pdf. Industrial Source Complex Short Term Dispersion Model (ISCST3). United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2013. Topovie . http: / /ngmdb.usgs.gov /maps /TopoView /. .2012, July 24. The Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/1earn/topics/mercalh.php. 2006. Geologic Map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30'X 60' Quadrangles, California. http: / /pubs.usgs.gov /of/ 2006 / 1217/ of2006- 1217 _map /of2006- 1217 —geo1_map.pdf. 1981. 7.5- minute topographic map, Anaheim quadrangle. Page 134 PlaceWorkr HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 13. Bibliography 1981. 7.5- minute topographic map, Newport Beach quadrangle. Wald, David J., et al. 1999, August "Relationships between Peak Ground Acceleration, Peak Ground Velocity, and Modified Mercalh Intensity in California." Earthquake Spectra 15 No. 3. October 2014 Page 13 -5 HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 13. Bibliography This page intentionally left blank. Page 136 PlaceWorkr Exhibit "B" SEE LASERFICHE RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -069 FOR EXHIBIT Resolution No. 2014 -069 Page 7 of 8 Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS FOR THE HARBOR BOULEVARD MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2013061027 The California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21081, and the State CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations, Section 15091 (collectively, CEQA) require that a public agency consider the environmental impacts of a project before a project is approved and make specific findings. The State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 provides: (a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can or should be adopted by such other agency. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. (b) The findings required by subdivision (a) shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (c) The finding in subdivision (a)(2) shall not be made if the agency making the finding has concurrent jurisdiction with another agency to deal with identified feasible mitigation measures or alternatives. The finding in subsection (a)(3) shall describe the specific reasons for rejecting identified mitigation measures and project alternatives. (d) When making the findings required in subdivision (a)(1), the agency shall also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects. These measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. July 2014 Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations (e) The public agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other materials which constitute the record of the proceedings upon which its decision is based. (f) A statement made pursuant to Section 15093 does not substitute for the findings required by this section. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 further provides: (a) CEQA requires the decision - making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposal project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable." (b) Where the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and /or other information in the record. This statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section 15091. Having received, reviewed, and considered the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) and the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) for the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan project, SCH No. 201 3061 02 7 (collectively, the EIR), as well as all other information in the record of proceedings on this matter, the following Findings and Facts in Support of Findings (Findings) and Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) are hereby adopted by the City of Santa Ana (City) in its capacity as the CEQA Lead Agency. These Findings set forth the environmental basis for the discretionary actions to be undertaken by the City for the development of the project. These actions include the approval and /or certification of the following: • the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan (HCP); • Environmental Impact Report No. (SCH #2013061027); • Zoning Ordinance Amendment to replace development standards from the adopted North Harbor Specific Plan (NHSP) to the HCP; • Zoning Map Amendment to replace zoning district designations with the new HCP zoning districts; and 2 July 2014 Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations • Zone Change to replace the NHSP land use designations with conventional zoning designations to match existing land uses. These actions are collectively referred to herein as the "project ". A. DOCUMENTFORMAT These Findings have been organized into the following sections (1) Section 1 provides an introduction to these Findings. (2) Section 2 provides a summary of the project, overview of the discretionary actions required for approval of the project, and a statement of the project's objectives. (3) Section 3 provides a summary of public participation in the environmental review for the project. (4) Section 4 sets forth findings regarding the environmental impacts that were determined to be —as a result of the Initial Study, consideration of comments received during the Notice of Preparation (NOP) comment period, and analysis in the EIR— either not relevant to the project or less than significant without mitigation. (5) Section 5 sets forth findings regarding significant or potentially significant environmental impacts identified in the EIR. These impacts include those that the City has determined are either not significant or can feasibly be mitigated to a less than significant level through the imposition of existing regulations, standard conditions and /or mitigation measures. In order to ensure compliance and implementation, all mitigation measures will be included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the project and adopted as conditions of the project by the Lead Agency. Section 5 also includes findings regarding those significant or potentially significant environmental impacts identified in the EIR that will or may result from the project and which the City has determined cannot feasibly be mitigated to a less than significant level. (6) Section 6 sets forth findings regarding alternatives to the proposed project. B. CUSTODIAN AND LOCATION OF RECORDS The documents and other materials that constitute the administrative record for the City's actions related to the project are at the City of Santa Ana, Planning and Building Agency, 20 Civic Center, Room M -20, Santa Ana, California 92701. The City of Santa Ana is the custodian of the Administrative Record for the project. 3 July 2014 Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 2. PROJECTSUMMARY A. PROJECT LOCATION The project area comprises approximately 425 acres oriented to Harbor Boulevard in Santa Ana in central Orange County. The project area generally includes parcels adjacent to Harbor Boulevard between Westminster Avenue and Lilac Way and parcels along Westminster Avenue, 1st Street, and 5th Street one -half mile east of Harbor Boulevard. The corridor's northern and southern ends are adjacent to the city boundaries of Garden Grove and Fountain Valley, respectively. The project areas consists of two areas 1) an approximately 305 -acre portion that directly fronts Harbor Boulevard or perpendicular arterial streets and 2) 120 acres consisting of the Willowick Golf Course and Campesino Park, residential properties along Jackson Street, and commercial properties along 5th Street. The 120 -acre portion of the project area is east of the Harbor Boulevard corridor and abuts the Santa Ana River to the east. B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan would replace the existing 425 - acre NHSP. The plan would change the boundaries of the NHSP so that the project would consist of two separate areas: 1) 305 acres within the boundaries of the existing 425 -acre NHSP generally along Harbor Boulevard ( "Harbor Corridor Plan" or "Specific Plan "), and 2) 120 acres within the existing NHSP in the Willowick Golf Course area (or "Conventional Zoning Area "). Both of these areas constitute the "project" for purposes of CEQA, but are described separately below. Harbor Corridor Plan Specific Plan Land Uses The Harbor Corridor Plan introduces land use and circulation changes to approximately 305 acres of land within the boundaries of the existing 425 -acre NHSP, including approximately 50 acres of right -of -way outside of parcels. The Harbor Corridor Plan lays the foundation for a more livable and sustainable corridor by creating zoning to allow for new housing and mixed -use development opportunities, providing development flexibility to meet market demands, using a multimodal approach to circulation, and creating a stronger identity for the area. The Harbor Corridor Plan creates a land use and development framework to support from 1,700 to 4,600 residential units and 2 million square feet of commercial and employment space. The project area may attract a variety of new retail stores, restaurants, office buildings, hotels, museums, and housing options in a more walkable, safe, and attractive environment. Land use changes under the Harbor Corridor Plan would involve replacing the NHSP's zoning districts with four Harbor Corridor Plan land use districts: Transit Node, Corridor, Neighborhood Transitional, and Open Space (described below). Each district has its own development standards, preferred building and frontage types, and strategies promoting integration between new development and the existing neighborhood. Circulation improvements introduced by the Harbor Corridor Plan emphasize a multimodal approach to circulation and a dynamic relationship between the transportation corridor and 4 July 2014 Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations adjacent land uses. Development of the Harbor Corridor Plan was guided by the following five principles: 1) Expanded development opportunities that respond to transit investments 2) A variety of safe and efficient travel choices 3) Economic vitality and new opportunities for businesses and residents 4) A sense of place 5) Community health and wellness The four Harbor Corridor Plan land use districts are described below: • Transit Node (TN). The Transit Node district is intended to provide standards for compact, transit- supportive mixed -use and residential development with a focus on creating pedestrian activity at the street. This district offers the most significant opportunities to respond to the regional and local transit investments, with direct access to three existing BRT stations and proximity to one or more future fixed guideway stations. The district allows for a wide range of building types, including mixed -use flex blocks, liners, stacked flats, courtyard housing, and live -work units. The district accommodates shops, restaurants, and active commercial uses at street level, with office and residential uses permitted on upper floors. • Corridor (CDR). The Corridor district is applied to properties along Harbor Boulevard between BRT stations and is intended to provide housing options and neighborhood serving uses within walking distance of a transit node. The district also identifies areas set aside exclusively for moderate- and high - density residential projects to facilitate a range of affordable housing options. Building types include lined block, stacked flats, courtyard housing, live -work, rowhouses, and tuck -under units. Mixed - use and nonresidential projects are centered on key intersections, while residential and public /quasi - public uses infill at midblock locations. • Neighborhood Transitional (NT). The Neighborhood Transitional district provides standards for development that acts as a transition between the single - family neighborhoods to the north and south of 1st and 5th streets and the Corridor and Transit Node districts. Designated for the lowest scale and the lowest intensity of uses in the Harbor Corridor Plan, development in this district is limited to residential, live -work, or neighborhood- serving commercial uses. These uses may combine commercial on the ground floor with residential above or in freestanding single -use buildings on the same site at between two and three stories in height. • Open Space (OS). The Open Space and Recreation district identifies areas reserved for community parks and other open spaces. Allowable structures in this district are limited to those necessary to support the specific open space and 5 July 2014 Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations recreation purposes, such as sport -court enclosures, multipurpose buildings, and trails. Additional open space will be required as new development occurs or close to the Specific Plan area. Harbor Corridor Plan Buildout Buildout of the Harbor Corridor Plan could generate an additional 3,884 additional dwelling units, 15,327 residents, 13,721 square feet of commercial space, and approximately 173 employees in the plan area. Table 1 outlines the proposed zoning designations and summarizes maximum buildout projections. Table 1 Land Use Districts and Buildout Projections for the Harbor Corridor Plan Harbor Corridor Plan Land Use Districts Acres Dwelling Units Population Commercial Building, Square Feet Employees Transit Node (TN) 125 2,029 8,114 1,836,155 1,463 Corridor (CDR) 108 2,416 9,751 131,827 96 Neighborhood Transitional (NT) 15 178 714 - - Open Space & Recreation (OS) 4 - - - - ROW 53 - Subtotal 305 4,623 18,579 1,967,982 1,559 Existing Land Uses - 739 3,252 1,954,261 1,386 Difference Compared to Existing Land Uses _ 3,884 15,327 13,721 173 Development Standards /Design Guidelines New development within the project area will need to comply with the development standards within the specific plan. The development standards detail the allowable building type and form for each district, including lot size, maximum building height, maximum stories, frontage type, building placement (setback requirements), and parking standards. In addition, there are open space, public right -of -way, and landscaping standards. The Harbor Corridor Plan also includes design guidelines. The design guidelines are intended to promote quality design, consistent with the overall vision, while providing a level of flexibility to encourage creative design. The guidelines direct the physical design of building sites, architecture, and landscape elements within the specific plan boundary. This comprehensive approach represents a more understandable and predictable way to shape the physical future by emphasizing building form and landscape design that reinforce urban and transit - oriented development patterns. July 2014 Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Mobility Implementation of the Harbor Corridor Plan would also include improvements to Harbor Boulevard and its cross - streets: 5th Street, 1st Street, McFadden Avenue, and Westminster Avenue. These improvements are designed to create a robust multimodal corridor that accommodates the movement of vehicular traffic through the City and region as well as other modes of travel. Proposed improvements include the enlargement of sidewalk and parkway areas to facilitate safe bicycle and pedestrian travel along Harbor Boulevard and efficient connections to the regional bicycle network. The improvements would maintain the same rights -of -way and number of travel lanes on the affected roadways. Phasing The project will be developed in multiple phases over the next 20+ years. Development of the project area and time frames would be controlled by both City decisions on public improvements to streets and infrastructure as well as landowner decisions on the development of privately owned properties. Implementation of the specific plan will require collaborative efforts among local businesses, institutions, residents, the City, and developers. A variety of funding sources beyond City General Fund resources can be used to implement the Harbor Corridor Plan. District -based and contractual assessment tools are options that would allow areas in this plan to benefit from the funding they collect. Developer contributions, impact fees, and standard agreements can all be used by the City to initiate public right -of -way improvements. Regional, state, and federal grants as well as City funds such as the capital improvement program are also potential funding sources. Flexibility in project implementation is also required to respond to changing economic conditions and trends, which may require that the City revisit and reprioritize the specific plan's implementation steps. For purposes of evaluating environmental impacts, buildout of the specific plan is anticipated to occur by 2035. Conventional Zoning Area The remaining 120 acres of land within the existing NHSP is proposed to be extracted from the NHSP and converted to conventional zoning. This area would not be included in the proposed Harbor Corridor Plan. Land uses in the area consist of the Willowick Golf Course and Cesar Chavez /Campesino Park, residential properties along Jackson Street, and commercial properties along 5th Street. Zoning designations for the parcels in question were determined based on existing conditions and would be adopted upon repeal of the NHSP. Willowick Golf Course, Cesar Chavez /Campesino Park, and the properties in between would be zoned Open Space Area (0), and residential properties along Jackson Street would be zoned Two Family Residential (R2). Conventional Zoning Area Buildout Conventional zoning designations were chosen to be consistent with the existing land uses. No new development is intended for this area. The R2 designation was chosen for 7 July 2014 Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations existing residential uses because it is consistent with the established character of the neighborhood. There is one exception of two parcels along 5th Street (2.5 acres total). Based on the City's OS zone, these parcels could be developed for commercial recreation /entertainment and public /quasi - public facilities. However, the existing intensity of development is not expected to change. Therefore, buildout projections for NHSP areas proposed for conversion to conventional zoning assume no change in numbers of dwelling units or population. Buildout projections for the parcels proposed for conversion to conventional zoning are shown in Table 2. Table 2 Buildout Projections for Parcels Proposed to Be Converted to Conventional Zoning Assumes no change from existing conditions. Zoning Amendment A Zoning Ordinance Amendment is required to replace the NHSP zoning designations with the new Harbor Corridor Plan zoning districts. An amendment to the Zoning Map will also be required to reflect the new specific plan zone. Zone Change A Zone Change is required to replace the NHSP zoning designations within the Conventional Zoning Area to conventional zoning consisting of Open Space Area (0) and Two Family Residential (R2). General Plan Amendment A General Plan Amendment would provide consistency between the City of Santa Ana General Plan and the proposed Harbor Corridor Plan. Although the Harbor Corridor Plan is consistent with the objectives and policies in the General Plan, new land uses are proposed. Therefore, the project will require an amendment to the land use element to update the land use map to include the boundaries of the Harbor Corridor Plan with a land use designation allowing both residential and commercial uses. C. DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS Implementation of the project will require several actions by the City, including: • Certification of the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2013061027). An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to evaluate the environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), July 2014 Existing Land Uses Buildout of Proposed Project Difference Dwelling Units 92 92 - Population 405 4051 - Commercial Building, Square Feet 3,700 3,7001 - Employees 3 3 - Assumes no change from existing conditions. Zoning Amendment A Zoning Ordinance Amendment is required to replace the NHSP zoning designations with the new Harbor Corridor Plan zoning districts. An amendment to the Zoning Map will also be required to reflect the new specific plan zone. Zone Change A Zone Change is required to replace the NHSP zoning designations within the Conventional Zoning Area to conventional zoning consisting of Open Space Area (0) and Two Family Residential (R2). General Plan Amendment A General Plan Amendment would provide consistency between the City of Santa Ana General Plan and the proposed Harbor Corridor Plan. Although the Harbor Corridor Plan is consistent with the objectives and policies in the General Plan, new land uses are proposed. Therefore, the project will require an amendment to the land use element to update the land use map to include the boundaries of the Harbor Corridor Plan with a land use designation allowing both residential and commercial uses. C. DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS Implementation of the project will require several actions by the City, including: • Certification of the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2013061027). An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to evaluate the environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), July 2014 Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations as amended (Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.), and the State CEQA Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000 et seq.). • Adoption of the Harbor Corridor Plan ( "Specific Plan ") • General Plan Amendment to the Land Use Element • Zoning Ordinance Amendment. Amendment to replace development standards from NHSP with those in the HCP. • Zoning Map Amendment. Amendment to replace zoning district designations with the new HCP zoning districts • Zone Change. Replace NHSP land use designations with conventional zoning designations to match existing land uses The Final EIR would also provide environmental information to responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and other public agencies that may be required to grant approvals and permits or coordinate with the City of Santa Ana as a part of project implementation. These agencies include, but are not limited to: • Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. Issuance of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permits, as necessary. • South Coast Air Quality Management District ( SCAQMD). Issuance of any air quality permits required to implement the project consistent with SCAQMD Rules 201. 403, and 1403. D. STATEMENT OF PROJECT OBJECTIVES The statement of objectives sought by the project and set forth in the Final EIR is provided as follows: • Provide for the development of the site consistent with City's General Plan. • Provide for new housing and mixed -use development opportunities. • Expand development opportunities that respond to transit investments. • Create economic vitality by providing new opportunities for businesses and residents. • Provide a variety of safe and efficient travel choices and access to multi -modal transportation. • Create a sense of place. 9 July 2014 Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations • Enhance community health and wellness by creating safer street design for multiple modes of travel, increase walkability and encourage live /work along the corridor. 3. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The Final EIR includes the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) dated April 2014, written comments on the Draft EIR that were received during the 45 -day public review period, and written responses to those comments and clarifications /changes to the EIR. In conformance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City conducted an extensive environmental review of the Harbor Corridor Plan project: • Completion of the Notice of Preparation (NOP), which was released for a 30 -day public review period from June 13, 2013 through July 15, 2013. The NOP for the Draft EIR was published in the June 15, 2013 edition of the Orange County Register, a newspaper of general circulation. The NOP was sent to all responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and the Office of Planning Research and posted at the Orange County Clerk- Recorder's office and on the City's website on June 11, 2013. • During the NOP review period, a Scoping Meeting was held to solicit additional suggestions on the content of the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan EIR. Attendees were provided an opportunity to identify verbally or in writing the issues they felt should be addressed in the EIR. The scoping meeting was held on Tuesday, June 25, 2013, at 6:00 pm at Santa Ana Union Hall, 3904 West First Street, Santa Ana, CA 92701. The notice of the public scoping meeting was included in the NOP. • Preparation of a Draft EIR by the City that was made available for a 45 -day public review period (April 18, 2014, to June 2, 2014). The Draft EIR consisted of analysis of the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan project and appendices used to prepare that analysis. Appendices included the Initial Study and Notice of Preparation, NOP comment letters, and technical appendices. The Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft EIR was distributed April 18, 2018. The NOA was sent to all interested persons, agencies and organizations. The Notice of Completion (NOC) was sent to the State Clearinghouse in Sacramento for distribution to public agencies. The NOA was posted at the Orange County Clerk- Recorder's office on April 18, 2014. Copies of the Draft EIR were made available for public review at the City of Santa Ana Planning Counter (20 Civic Center Plaza) and the Santa Ana Public Library (26 Civic Center Plaza). The Draft EIR was available for download via the City's website: http:/( www .cisanta- ana.ca.us /harborplan /. • The Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 12, 2014 to receive public input on the Draft EIR during the 45 -day public review period. The hearing was held at the Santa Ana City Council Chambers at 22 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, California, 92701. Notices of time, place, and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was provided in accordance with CEQA and the City's Municipal Code. Oral testimony was presented by the public this this hearing. Notice for the May 14, 2014 meeting was published along with the NOA. Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for these meetings, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. • Preparation of a Draft Final EIR including Draft EIR, comments on the Draft EIR, responses to those comments, clarifications /revisions to the Draft EIR, Mitigation 10 July 2014 Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Monitoring and Reporting Program and appended documents. The Draft Final EIR was made available for download via the City's website: http://www.ci.santa - ana.ca.us /harborplan/ on April 17, 2014. Responses to commenters were sent on August 14, 2014. • The Planning Commission held public hearings for the EIR on August,25, 2014 and May 12, 2013 in the Santa Ana City Council Chambers at 22 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, California, 92701. Notices of time, place, and purpose of the aforesaid meetings were provided in accordance with CEQA and the City's Municipal Code. The Draft EIR, staff report, and evidence, both written and oral, were presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at these hearings. Notice for the August 25, 2014 meeting was published along with the NOA. Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for these meetings, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. • In compliance with Section 15088(b) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (State CEQA Guidelines), the City has met its obligation to provide written Responses to Comments to public agencies, at least 10 days prior to certifying the Final EIR. • The City Council public hearing on the EIR is tentatively scheduled for to be held on September 16, 2014, in the Santa Ana City Council Chambers at 22 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, California, 92701. A notice of the time, place and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was provided in accordance with CEQA and the City's Municipal Code. The Final EIR, staff report, and evidence, both written and oral, were presented to and considered by the City Council at this hearing. • The City held several public meetings and hearings on the project from December, 2010 to May, 2014, including the following: • 8 neighborhood meetings; • 2 open house events, including the Harbor Corridor Idea Fair in September 2011; • 2 community workshops; • 3 Planning Commission study sessions; and • 2 City Council meetings. For purposes of CEQA and these Findings, the Record of Proceedings for the proposed project consists of the following documents and other evidence, at a minimum: • All information collected by City and its representatives relating to the project and /or the Final EIR, including but not limited to the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan; • NOP and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the proposed project; • The Scoping Meeting notes held during the 30 -day NOP period; • The Final EIR, including the Draft EIR and all appendices, the Responses to Comments, Revisions to the Draft EIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) and all supporting materials referenced therein. All documents, studies, 11 July 2014 Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations EIRs, or other materials incorporated by reference in the Draft EIR and Final EIR. The reports and technical memoranda included or referenced in the Response to Comments of the Final EIR; • All written comments submitted by agencies and members of the public during the 45 -day public review comment period on the Draft EIR and testimony provided at the May 12, 2014 Planning Commission public hearing; • All responses to written comments submitted by agencies and members of the public; • All testimony provided by agencies and members of the public at the City Council public hearings tentative scheduled on September 15, 2014, • All final City Staff Reports relating to the Draft EIR, Final EIR, and the project; • All other public reports, documents, studies, memoranda, maps, or other planning documents relating to the project, the Draft EIR, and the Final EIR prepared by the City, consultants to the City, or Responsible or Trustee Agencies. • The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) adopted by the City for the project; the Ordinances and Resolutions adopted by the City in connection with the proposed project; and all documents incorporated by reference therein; • These Findings of Fact and Overriding Considerations adopted by the City for the project, any documents expressly cited in these Findings of Fact; • Any other relevant materials required to be in the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code Section 21167.6(e). The documents and other material that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings are based are located at the City of Santa Ana Planning and Building Agency. The custodian for these documents is the City of Santa Ana. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(2) and 14 California Code Regulations Section 15091(e). 4. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES THAT WERE DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT Impacts Determined Less than Significant in the Initial Study As a result of the Notice of Preparation circulated by the City on June 11, 2013, in connection with preparation of the EIR, the City determined, based upon the threshold criteria for significance, (Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines) that the project would have no impact or a less than significant impact on the following potential environmental issues, and therefore, determined that these potential environmental issues would not be addressed in the Draft EIR. Based upon the environmental analysis presented in the EIR, and the comments received by the public on the Draft EIR, no substantial evidence was submitted or identified by the City which indicated that the project would have an impact on the following environmental areas: 12 July 2014 Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 1. Aesthetics. a. Development allowed under the project would not have the potential to obstruct or otherwise impact public views of scenic vistas. b. There are no scenic resources onsite and the project area does not include a state scenic highway. 2. Agriculture and Forest Resources. a. There is no Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance in or near the project area. b. No portion of the project area conflicts with existing zoning for agricultural use or is covered by a Williamson Act Contract. c. The project area does not include forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned for Timberland Production. d. The project does not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non - forest use. e. The project does not result in changes in the existing environment that could result in the conversion of farmland to non - agricultural use or forest land to non - forest land use. 3. Air Quality. a. Land uses allowed in the project area are not expected to generate objectionable odors. During construction of future projects allowed under the Harbor Corridor Plan, emissions of odors may occur. However, these would be temporary and are not expected to be highly objectionable. 4. Biological Resources. a. Although there are vacant parcels in the project area, these parcels are graded, disturbed land and do not feature native habitat. The area is surrounded by urban land uses and isolated from areas supporting suitable habitat for sensitive species. b. No riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities occur in the project area. The project area is not included in any local or regional plans, policies, or regulations that identify riparian habitat or any other sensitive natural community. c. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designates one waterway in the project area as a riverine wetland. However, this waterway, which drains into the East Garden Grove - Wintersburg Channel, consists of a fenced, man -made concrete channel with limited vegetation. The channel would not be altered by development built pursuant to the proposed project. The channelized Santa Ana River, approximately 1,000 feet east of the project area, is also designated a riverine wetland area. However, the river is adjacent to the Willowick Golf Course, which would not be available for redevelopment under the Open Area (0) zoning designation proposed for the course. Project implementation would not involve direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other direct or indirect impact to these drainages or other wetlands under jurisdiction of regulatory agencies. 13 July 2014 Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations d. The project area is almost entirely developed and is surrounded by developed urban uses. Thus, the project area is not available for overland wildlife movement or migration. The project area contains some trees, but these are primarily ornamental street trees and small groupings of other ornamental trees that do not provide suitable nesting habitat for migratory birds. e. Projects developed under the Harbor Corridor Plan may involve the removal of existing ornamental trees, including street trees. However, these projects would be required to comply with Chapter 33, Article VII of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, which regulates the planting, maintenance, and removal of trees in the city. f. The project area is in the plan area of the Orange County Transportation Authority Natural Community Conservation Plan Habitat Conservation Plan (OCTA NCCP /HCP), which will include the entirety of Orange County once adopted. However, the OCTA NCCP /HCP is still under development and will apply only to habitat restoration projects on land acquired to offset impacts to 13 freeway improvements funded through Measure M2, which was approved by voters in 2006 (OCTA 2012). The project area does not contain any lands that are being considered for habitat restoration. 5. Cultural Resources. a. The project area does not include historically important resources, is not within the City's three designated historic districts, and does not contain any of the historic resources listed in the Santa Ana Register of Historic Properties. b. There are no known human remains in the project area. The project area is not part of a formal cemetery and is not known to have been used for disposal of historic or prehistoric human remains. In addition, ground has been disturbed on almost all of the project area by construction of existing land uses. Thus, human remains are not expected to be encountered during construction of projects built pursuant to the proposed project. Implementation of the proposed project would comply with provisions of state law regarding discovery of human remains. 6. Geology and Soils. a. There are no Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones in or near the project area; the nearest such zone is 2.9 miles southwest of the project area along the Newport - Inglewood Fault. The risk of surface rupture of a known fault in or near the project area is very low due to the lack of known active faults. Furthermore, future projects developed pursuant to the project would be required to comply with all applicable Building Safety Division requirements and impacts are less than signficant. b. The project area is generally flat with no significant slopes on or adjacent to the project area and no impact related to landslides would result. c. The project area is in a highly urbanized, built -out portion of central Orange County and is largely flat; soils have already been disturbed by development. Although soils in the project area could experience erosion during construction of improvements to Harbor Boulevard and during development of individual projects pursuant to the Harbor Corridor Plan, implementation of the proposed project would not cause substantial soil erosion. Furthermore, future development within 14 July 2014 Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations the project area is required to comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System regulations by preparing and implementing a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan specifying best management practices for minimizing pollution of stormwater with soil and sediment during project construction. d. The project would not involve the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. 7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. a. Industrial uses requiring the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would be prohibited in the project area under the zoning designations identified for the site as part of the project. Land uses planned for the project area would only use limited amounts of hazardous materials for cleaning and maintenance purposes. Furthermore, individual projects built in accordance with the project would be required to adhere to the existing regulations of local, state, and federal agencies regarding the use and storage of hazardous substances and therefore, less than significant. b. The project area is not within the area covered by the John Wayne Airport land use plan, or that of any other airport. c. The project area is not in the vicinity of a private airstrip. d. Implementation of the project would not conflict with the City of Santa Ana or Orange County's emergency response or evacuation plans. Although construction of physical improvements to Harbor Boulevard may result in temporary rerouting of vehicular traffic— including emergency response vehicles — police and fire services could be provided without interruption. The proposed reconfiguration of and improvements to Harbor Boulevard would not decrease its number of travel lanes, ensuring continued access to the project area and surrounding areas by emergency access vehicles. e. The project area is in a highly urbanized, built -out portion of central Orange County outside of fire hazard severity zones designated by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. No impacts would occur. 8. Hydrology and Water Quality. a. There are no inland water bodies near enough to the project area to pose a flood hazard to the site through a seiche. The project area is also approximately six miles from the Pacific Ocean, outside of the Tsunami Hazard Zone identified by the California Emergency Management Agency. Lastly, the project area is relatively flat and would not be susceptible to any mudflow. 9. Land Use and Planning. a. Land use changes proposed by the project would not divide an established community. b. The project does not conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan. 10. Mineral Resources. a. The project area is developed with commercial, residential, and other urban uses and is not available for mining. 15 July 2014 Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations b. The project area and the surrounding vicinity are highly urbanized, and they are not in or near a mining or oil or gas field site identified by the City of Santa Ana General Plan. The project would not impact any locally important mineral resources. 11. Noise. a. The project area is not located in John Wayne Airport's land use plan area. The project would not expose people to excessive aircraft noise. b. The project area is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip. 12. Population or Housing. a. Implementation of the project would gradually convert existing vacant land, auto - related businesses, and other land uses into a transit - oriented mixed -use district. The Harbor Corridor Plan would not convert existing residential areas to nonresidential areas. Additionally, buildout of the proposed Harbor Corridor Plan would result in an increase of 3,884 dwelling units in the project area. There are 739 dwelling units within the Harbor Corridor Plan area. Although these land uses may be redeveloped as the corridor is revitalized, the existing dwelling units would be allowed within the proposed zoning. b. Implementation of the Harbor Corridor Plan could result in the redevelopment of parcels containing existing housing. However, buildout of the Harbor Corridor Plan would result in a net increase of 3,884 dwelling units in the project area. 13. Transportation/Traffic. a. The project area is not within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. Implementation of the project would not affect any airport facilities and would not cause a change in the directional patterns of aircraft. b. Improvements to Harbor Boulevard would improve pedestrian and bicycle mobility in the project area. The risk of hazards caused by traffic exiting onto Harbor Boulevard from driveways and local collector streets would be minimized by an expanded center median. Therefore, impacts are less than significant. c. The proposed reconfiguration of and improvements to Harbor Boulevard would not decrease its number of travel lanes, ensuring continued access to the project area and surrounding areas by emergency access vehicles. Therefore, impacts are less than significant. 14. Utilities and Service Systems. a. The project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region ( SARWQCB). The Harbor Corridor Plan would not allow land uses requiring treatment other than that provided at municipal wastewater treatment plants. Furthermore, individual projects developed pursuant to the Harbor Corridor Plan would be subject to an Orange County Sanitation District fee when they are hooked up to a sewer line and would be required to comply with SARWQCB requirements governing discharges to municipal storm drainage systems. 16 July 2014 Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations b. As of 2011, which is most recent year for which data is available, the City of Santa Ana is not currently meeting its waste diversion rate prescribed. However, future development of the project would comply with laws and regulations governing solid waste, including AB 939, AB 32, and AB 341. Impacts Determined to be Less than Significant in the DER The following impacts were evaluated in the DER and determined to be less than significant through implementation of the Specific Plan, its development standards and design guidelines, and adherence with existing laws, codes, and statutes. Based upon the environmental analysis presented in the EIR (which is incorporated herein by this reference), and the comments received by the public on the Draft EIR, no substantial evidence was submitted to or identified by the City indicating that the project would have a potentially significant impact on the following environmental areas: 1. Aesthetics. a. The proposed project would alter the visual appearance of the project area, however it would not deteriorate the existing visual character or conflict with any existing architectural characteristics specific to the area. [Threshold AE -3] b. The proposed project would generate additional light and glare, however, it would not affect day or nighttime views with the implementation of the Harbor Corridor Plan Design Guidelines. [Threshold AE -4] 2. Air Quality. a. Onsite operational - related emissions associated with the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. [Threshold AQ -4] 3. Geology and Soils. a. Future development in accordance with the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan would not subject people and structures to substantial adverse hazards from ground shaking. [Threshold G -1.ii] b. Future development in accordance with the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan would not expose people and structures to substantial adverse hazards from liquefaction or other seismic - related ground failure. [Threshold G- 1.iii] c. Project buildout would not expose people or structures to substantial hazards from ground subsidence, collapsible soils, and expansive soils. [Thresholds G -3 and G -4] 4. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. a. Development of the proposed land uses within the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan would not result in a substantial increase of GHG emissions that would exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District's proposed efficiency target of 4.8 MTCOze. [Threshold GHG -1] b. The Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan would not conflict with plans adopted with the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. [Threshold GHG -2] 5. Hydrology and Water Quality. 17 July 2014 Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations a. Development pursuant to the Harbor Corridor Plan would not substantially change the amount of impervious surfaces in the project area and would therefore not substantially impact groundwater recharge. [Threshold HYD -2] b. Development pursuant to the Harbor Corridor Plan would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the project area in a manner that would result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite. [Threshold HYD -3] c. Project implementation would introduce development in an area of the City that is within the dam inundation area of Prado Dam, however, it would not expose people and structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death due to the low probability of a catastrophic event, continual surveillance and established emergency evacuation procedures. [Threshold HYD -9] 6. Land Use and Planning. a. Implementation of the Harbor Corridor Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan would not conflict with applicable plans adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. [Threshold LU -2] 7. Noise. a. Implementation of the Harbor Corridor Plan would not cause a substantial increase in noise related to additional vehicular traffic. [Thresholds N -1 and N -3] 8. Population and Housing. a. The proposed project would directly result in population growth in the project area, however, it would not result in a substantial impact on growth in the county or region and would improve the city's jobs- housing balance. [Threshold P -1] 9. Public Services. a. The proposed project would introduce new structures, residents, and workers into the OCFA's service boundaries, thereby increasing the requirement for fire protection equipment and personnel, but would not cause a significant environmental impact. [Threshold FP -1] b. The proposed project would introduce new structures, residents, and workers into the Santa Ana Police Department service boundaries. The Santa Ana Police Department could provide police protection to the project site at buildout of the Harbor Corridor Plan with existing levels of staff equipment, but would not cause a significant environmental impact. [Threshold PP -1] c. The proposed project would generate new students effecting the school enrollment capacities of GGUSD schools, but would not cause a significant environmental impact. [Threshold SS -1] d. The proposed project would generate additional population increasing the service needs for the local libraries, but would not cause a significant environmental impact. [Threshold LS -1] 10. Recreation: a. The proposed project would generate additional residents, which would increase the use of existing park and recreational facilities and result in the need for new or is July 2014 Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations expanded recreational facilities, but would not cause a significant environmental impact. [Thresholds R -1 and R -2] 11. Transportation and Traffic: a. Project - related trip generation in combination with existing and proposed cumulative development would not result in designated road and intersections exceeding County Congestion Management Agency service standards. [Threshold T -2] b. The proposed project complies with adopted policies, plans, and programs for alternative transportation. [Threshold T -6] 12. Utilities and Service Systems: a. Existing and /or proposed facilities would be able to accommodate project - generated solid waste and comply with related solid waste regulations. [Thresholds U -6 and U- 7] b. Existing and /or proposed facilities would be able to accommodate project - generated utility demands. [No specific threshold] 5. FINDINGS REGARDING POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS The following potentially significant environmental impacts were analyzed in the EIR, and the effects of the project were considered (the analyses and conclusions in the DEIR and FEIR are incorporated herein by reference to support the findings below). Because of the environmental analysis of the project; compliance with existing laws, codes, and statutes; and the identification of feasible mitigation measures, some potentially significant impacts have been determined by the City to be reduced to a level of less than significant, and the City has found —in accordance with CEQA Section 21081(a)(1) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a) (1) —that "Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. This is referred to herein as "Finding 1." Where the City has determined — pursuant to CEQA Section 21081(a)(2) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(2) —that "Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency," the City's finding is referred to herein as "Finding 2." Where, as a result of the environmental analysis of the project, the City has determined that either: (1) even with the compliance with existing laws, codes and statutes, and /or the identification of feasible mitigation measures, potentially significant impacts cannot be reduced to a level of less than significant, or (2) no feasible mitigation measures or alternatives are available to mitigate the potentially significant impact, the City has found in accordance with CEQA Section 21081(a)(3) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3) that "Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report." This is referred to herein as "Finding 3." A. AIR QUALITY (1) Potential Impact: Construction activities associated with the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan would generate short -term emissions that exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District's VOC and NOx regional thresholds 19 July 2014 Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations and would significantly contribute to the particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), ozone (03), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) nonattainment designations of the SoCAB. Finding: 3. The City makes Finding 3 and determines that this impact is significant and unavoidable. Facts in Support of Finding Mitigation Measures 2 -1 through 2 -3 would reduce criteria air pollutants generated from project - related construction activities. Buildout of the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan would occur over a period of approximately 20 years or longer. Construction time frames and equipment for individual site specific projects are not available. There is a potential for multiple developments to be constructed at any one time, resulting in significant construction related emissions. Therefore, despite adherence to Mitigation Measures 2 -1 through 2 -3, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measures MM 2 -1 Applicants for new development projects within the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan shall require the construction contractor to use equipment that meets the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)- Certified emissions standards according to the following schedule. • From the end of 2011 to December 31, 2014, all project - related off -road diesel - powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower shall meet Tier 3 off -road emissions standards. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine, as defined by CARB regulations. After January 1, 2015, all off -road diesel - powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower shall meet the Tier 4 Final emission standards. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 4 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine, as defined by CARB regulations. Prior to construction, the project engineer shall ensure that all demolition and grading plans clearly show the requirement for EPA Tier 3 or higher emissions standards for construction equipment over 50 horsepower. During construction, the construction contractor shall maintain a list of all operating equipment in use on the project site for verification by the Building Safety Division. The construction equipment list shall state the makes, models, and numbers of construction equipment onsite. 20 July 2014 Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Equipment shall properly service and maintain construction equipment in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. Construction contractors shall also ensure that all nonessential idling of construction equipment is restricted to five minutes or less in compliance with California Air Resources Board's Rule 2449. MM 2 -2 Applicants for new development projects within the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan shall require the construction contractor to prepare a dust control plan and implement the following measures during ground- disturbing activities in addition to the existing requirements for fugitive dust control under South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403 to further reduce PM10 and PM2.5 emissions. The Building Safety Division shall verify compliance that these measures have been implemented during normal construction site inspections. • Following all grading activities, the construction contractor shall reestablish ground cover on the construction site through seeding and watering. • During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall sweep streets with Rule 1186— compliant, PM10- efficient vacuum units on a daily basis if silt is carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares or occurs as a result of hauling. • During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall maintain a minimum 24 -inch freeboard on trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials and tarp materials with a fabric cover or other cover that achieves the same amount of protection. • During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall water exposed ground surfaces and disturbed areas a minimum of every three hours on the construction site and a minimum of three times per day. • During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall limit onsite vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to no more than 15 miles per hour. MM 2 -3 Applicants for new development projects within the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan shall require the construction contractor to use coatings and solvents with a volatile organic compound (VOC) content lower than required under Rule 1113 (i.e., super compliant paints). All architectural coatings shall be applied either by (1) using a high - volume, low- pressure spray method operated at an air pressure between 0.1 and 10 pounds per square inch gauge to achieve a 65 percent application 21 July 2014 Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations efficiency; or (2) manual application using a paintbrush, hand - roller, trowel, spatula, dauber, rag, or sponge, to achieve a 100 percent applicant efficiency. The construction contractor shall also use precoated /natural colored building materials, where feasible. Use of low -VOC paints and spray method shall be included as a note on architectural building plans and verified by the Building Safety Division during construction. (2) Potential Impact: Long -term criteria air pollutant emissions associated with the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan would exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District's VOC, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 regional significance thresholds and significantly contribute to the particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), ozone (03), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) nonattainment designations of the SoCAB. Finding: 3. The City makes Finding 3 and determines that this impact is significant and unavoidable. Facts in Support of Finding Incorporation of Mitigation Measures 2 -4 through 2 -9 would reduce operation - related criteria air pollutants generated from stationary and mobile sources. Mitigation Measures 2 -5 through 2 -9 would encourage and accommodate use of alternative - fueled vehicles and non - motorized transportation. However, despite adherence to Mitigation Measures 2 -4 through 2 -9, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measures MM 2 -4 Applicants of residential developments which are designed to include shared community barbeques shall only install electric powered barbeque units. These units shall be specified on site and building plans and shall be verified by the Building Safety Division prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. MM 2 -5 Applicant - provided appliances shall be Energy Star appliances (dishwashers, refrigerators, clothes washers, and dryers). Installation of Energy Star appliances shall be verified by the Building Safety Division during plan check. MM 2 -6 Applicants of residential developments which include garage and /or car port parking shall ensure that garage and /or car port parking are electrically wired to accommodate a Level 2 (240 volt) electric vehicle charging outlet per dwelling unit. The location of the electrical outlets shall be specified on building plans and proper installation shall be verified by the Building Safety Division prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. MM 2 -7 Applicants of retail, commercial, office, and other non - residential development shall provide Level 2 vehicle charging stations for public use and where feasible, coordinate with the City of Santa 22 July 2014 Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Ana to install Level 3 (480 volt or higher) charging stations. The location of the charging station(s) shall be specified on site and building plans and proper installation shall be verified by the Building Safety Division prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. MM 2 -8 Applicants for non - residential projects within the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan, that employ 20 or more people — which is equivalent to 16,000 square feet of retail space or 10,000 square feet of office space —shall implement an employee commute trip reduction (CTR) program. The CTR program shall identify alternative modes of transportation to the project, including transit schedules, bike and pedestrian routes, and carpool /vanpool availability. Information regarding these programs shall be readily available to employees and clients. The project applicant or designee shall consider the following incentives for commuters as part of the CTR program: • Ride - matching assistance (e.g., subsidized public transit passes) • Vanpool assistance or employer - provided vanpool /shuttle • Car - sharing program (e.g., Zipcar) • Bicycle end -trip facilities, including bike parking and lockers. MM 2 -9 Applicants of commercial, office, retail, and other non - residential development within the specific plan area shall provide the following features to reduce project - related mobile- source air pollutant emissions: • Preferential parking for carpools and vanpools. • Preferential parking for alternative -fuel vehicles (e.g., compressed natural gas or hydrogen). • Secure bicycle parking and storage facilities for visitors. • Commuter information boards identifying bicycle paths and public transit routes and schedules. (3) Potential Impact: Construction activities related to buildout of the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Finding: 3. The City makes Finding 3 and determines that this impact is significant and unavoidable. 23 July 2014 Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Facts in Support of Finding Mitigation Measures 2 -1 and 2 -2 would reduce the project's regional construction emissions and therefore also reduce the project's localized construction- related criteria air pollutant emissions to the extent feasible. However, because existing sensitive receptors may be close to project - related construction activities, construction emissions generated by individual projects have the potential to exceed SCAMQD's localized significance thresholds. Therefore, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures 2 -1 and 2 -2 apply to this impact. (4) Potential Impact: The Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan could site sensitive land uses in proximity to major air pollution sources. Finding: 1. The City makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is less than significant with the implementation of the proposed mitigation measure Facts in Support of Finding The proposed project would result in construction of up to 3,884 new residential units within the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan boundaries at buildout. The exact locations of new sensitive land uses are not known at this time, although residential uses would be allowed near existing onsite light industrial land uses in the interim period until these industrial sites transition into new land uses. In addition, residential uses would also be allowed near existing offsite light industrial land uses. Light industrial land uses with sources of toxic air contaminants have the potential to affect new sensitive land uses within the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 2 -10 would ensure that new residential land uses proximate to major sources of toxic air contaminants reduce risk by installing high- efficiency MERV filters to reduce indoor concentrations particulates (including diesel particulate matter, which comprises the majority of risk) below SCAQMD's threshold. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 2 -10, this impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures MM 2 -10 Applicants for residential or residential mixed -use projects within: 1) 1,000 feet from the truck bays of an existing distribution centers that accommodate more than 100 trucks per day, more than 40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration units, or where transport refrigeration unit operations exceed 300 hours per week; or 2) 1,000 feet of an SCAQMD permitted facility, or an industrial facility which emits toxic air contaminants shall submit a health risk assessment (HRA) prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and the South Coast Air Quality Management District ( SCAQMD). 24 July 2014 Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations The HRA shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator prior to approval of any future discretionary residential or residential mixed -use project. If the HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk exceeds one in one hundred thousand (1.0E -05), PM concentrations would exceed 2.5 fag /m3, or the appropriate noncancer hazard index exceeds 1.0, the HRA shall identify the level of high- efficiency Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) filter required to reduce indoor air concentrations of pollutants to achieve the cancer and /or noncancer threshold. The Applicant shall be required to install high efficiency MERV filters in the intake of residential ventilation systems, consistent with the recommendations of the HRA. Heating, air conditioning and ventilation (HVAC) systems shall be installed with a fan unit power designed to force air through the MERV filter. To ensure long -term maintenance and replacement of the MERV filters in the individual units, the following shall occur: • Developer, sale, and /or rental representative shall provide notification to all affected tenants /residents of the potential health risk for affected units. • For rental units, the owner /property manager shall maintain and replace MERV filters in accordance with the manufacture's recommendations. The property owner shall inform renters of increased risk of exposure to diesel particulates when windows are open. • For residential owned units, the Homeowner's Association (HOA) shall incorporate requirements for long -term maintenance in the Covenant Conditions and Restrictions and inform homeowners of their responsibility to maintain the MERV filter in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. The HOA shall inform homeowners of increased risk of exposure to diesel particulates when windows are open. (5) Potential Impact: The Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan is a regionally significant project that would contribute to an increase in frequency or severity of air quality violations in the South Coast Air Basin and would conflict with the assumptions of the applicable air quality management plan. Finding: 3. The City makes Finding 3 and determines that this impact is significant and unavoidable. Facts in Support of Finding Mitigation Measures 2 -1 through 2 -5 would reduce the project's regional construction - related and operational phase criteria air pollutant emissions to the extent feasible. However, given the potential increase in growth and associated 25 July 2014 Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations increase in criteria air pollutant emissions, the project would continue to be potentially inconsistent with the assumptions in the AQMP. This impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures 2 -1 through 2 -5 apply this impact. B. CULTURAL RESOURCES (1) Potential Impact: Future development that would be accommodated by the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan could impact unknown archeological and /or paleontological resources during grading and construction activities. Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is less than significant with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measure. Facts in Support of Finding Mitigation Measure 3 -1 requires that project applicants in the plan area document that they have retained qualified professionals to be on call during ground- disturbing activities. Implementation of the measure also ensures that local, state, and federal regulations are followed in the event that cultural resources are discovered. Adherence to regulatory requirements and implementation of Mitigation Measure 3 -1 would reduce the potential impacts to cultural resources to less than significant levels. Therefore, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts relating to cultural resources would result from project implementation. Mitigation Measures MM 3 -1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, and for any subsequent permit involving excavation to increased depth, the project applicant for each development or redevelopment project considered for approval pursuant to the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan shall provide letters to the City of Santa Ana from a qualified archaeologist and paleontologist (for excavations six feet below ground surface and deeper) who meet the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards. The letters shall state that the project applicant has retained these individuals, and that the consultant(s) will be on call during all grading and other significant ground- disturbing activities. In the event archeological or paleontological resources are discovered during ground- disturbing activities, the professional archeological or paleontological monitor shall have the authority to halt any activities adversely impacting potentially significant cultural resources until they can be formally evaluated. Suspension of ground disturbances in the vicinity of the discoveries shall not be lifted until the archaeological or paleontological monitor, in coordination with the construction contractor, has evaluated discoveries to assess whether they are 26 July 2014 Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations significant cultural resources, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). If significance criteria are met, then the project shall be required to perform data recovery, professional identification, radiocarbon dates as applicable, and other special studies; they shall be offered for curation or preservation to a repository with a retrievable collection system and an educational and research interest in the materials, such as the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History or California State University, Fullerton, or other local museum or repository. If no museum or repository is willing to accept the resource, the resource shall be considered the property of the City, and may be stored, disposed of, transferred, exchanged, or otherwise handled by the City at its discretion. C. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS (1) Potential Impact: Future development that would be accommodated under the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor could create significant hazards through accidental release of hazardous materials. Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is less than significant with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures. Facts in Support of Finding Construction of individual development projects that would be accommodated under the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor would involve the demolition of the existing buildings, structures, parking area and drive aisles, and other site improvements. Due to the age of many of the buildings and structures throughout the project area, it is likely that asbestos - containing materials (ACM) and lead -based paint were used in the construction of these structures. Demolition can cause encapsulated ACM to become friable and, once airborne, it is considered a carcinogen. Such releases could pose significant risks to persons living and working in and around the project site. Furthermore, exposure of contaminated soils to workers and the surrounding environment could result in a significant impact. However, all demolition activities would be required to comply with the SCAQMD's Rule 1403, OSHA Rule 29 CFR Part 1926.62, and Sections 17920.10 and 105255 of the California Health and Safety Code. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 6 -1 would also further prevent impacts related to the potential release of ACM or LBP in the project area by requiring that such materials are surveyed prior to demolition activities. Lastly, implementation of Mitigation Measure 6 -2 would ensure that soil contaminants are properly identified and disposed of in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. Compliance with regulatory requirements and implementation of mitigation measures 6 -1 and 6 -2 identified above would reduce potential impacts associated with accidental release of hazardous materials to a less than significant level. Therefore, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts would occur. 27 July 2014 Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Mitigation Measures MM 6 -1 Prior to the issuance of demolition permits for any buildings or structures that would be demolished in conjunction with individual development projects that would be accommodated by the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor, the project applicant shall conduct the following inspections and assessments for all buildings and structures onsite and shall provide the City of Santa Ana's Community Development Agency with a copy of the report of each investigation or assessment. • The project applicant shall retain a certified lead inspector /assessor to inspect buildings and structures onsite for lead -based paint (LBP). The inspector /assessor's report shall include requirements for abatement, containment, and disposal of LBP, if encountered, in accordance with the State of California Occupational Safety & Health Administration Rule 29 CFR Part 1926. • The project applicant shall retain a licensed or certified asbestos consultant to inspect buildings and structures onsite for asbestos - containing materials (ACM). The consultant's report shall include requirements for abatement, containment, and disposal of ACM, if encountered, in accordance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District's Rule 1403. MM 6 -2 Prior to the issuance of grading permits for new development within the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor, the project applicant shall submit a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) to identify environmental conditions and determine whether contamination is present. The Phase I ESA shall be prepared by a Registered Professional Engineer and in accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard E 1527.05, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase / Environmental Site Assessment Process. If recognized environmental conditions related to soils are identified in the Phase I ESA, the project applicant shall perform soil sampling as a part of a Phase II ESA. If contamination is found at significant levels, the project applicant shall remediate all contaminated soils in accordance with state and local agency requirements (DTSC, RWQCB, Orange County Fire Authority, etc.). All contaminated soils and /or material encountered shall be disposed of at a regulated site and in accordance with applicable laws and regulations prior to the completion of grading. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a report documenting the completion, results, and any follow -up remediation on the recommendations, if any, shall be provided to the Building Official and the City of Santa Ana's Community 28 July 2014 Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Development Agency evidencing that all site remediation activities have been completed. (2) Potential Impact: Certain sites of the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor are included on a list of hazardous materials sites. Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is less than significant with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measure. Facts in Support of Finding There are several hundred hazardous materials sites listed within the project area. Individual development projects that would be accommodated under the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor may be impacted by hazardous substance contamination remaining from historical operations on a particular site that may pose a significant health risk. However, hazardous substance contaminated properties are regulated at the federal, state, and local level, and are subject to compliance with stringent laws and regulations for investigation and remediation. This includes compliance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980; Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; California Code of Regulations, Title 22; and related requirements that would remedy any potential impacts caused by hazardous substance contamination. Future development would be required to comply with these existing laws and regulations. In addition, implementation of Mitigation Measure 6 -2 would ensure that previously identified soil contaminants are properly identified and disposed of in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. Therefore, impacts related to listed hazardous materials sites would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure 6 -2 applies to this impact. D. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY (1) Potential Impact: Development pursuant to the Harbor Corridor Plan would increase the amount of impervious surfaces in the project area and would therefore increase surface water flows into drainage systems within the watershed. Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is less than significant with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures. Facts in Support of Finding At project completion, the Harbor Corridor Plan area is estimated to generate 15 percent more runoff than in current conditions. The existing drainage system is deficient and unable to convey the current runoff volumes. Mitigation Measure 7 -1 would reduce this impact by requiring that project applicants in the project area construct storm drain improvements necessary to serve new land uses. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 7 -2 would further reduce runoff by requiring 29 July 2014 Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations project applicants to minimize impervious areas, aiding infiltration of stormwater. Upon compliance with these measures and the applicable provisions of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures MM 7 -1 Prior to issuance of grading permits for future development projects in the Harbor Corridor Plan, applicants shall submit site - specific hydrology and hydraulic Studies to the Public Works Agency for review and approval. If existing facilities are not adequate to handle runoff generated by the proposed development, then the applicant shall construct storm drain improvements. If necessary storm drain upgrades cannot be implemented prior to issuance of occupancy permits, the applicant shall provide onsite detention facilities, or other methods to ensure that post- construction runoff does not exceed pre - development quantities. MM 7 -2 During the design of individual projects, applicants shall minimize impervious area by incorporating landscaped areas over substantial portions of a proposed project area. Furthermore, impervious areas shall be directly connected to landscaped areas or bioretention facilities to promote filtration and infiltration of stormwater. (2) Potential Impact: During the construction phase of the individual development projects that would be accommodated by the Harbor Corridor Plan, adherence to the General Construction Activity Permit would reduce short -term pollutant concentrations from individual development sites. Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is less than significant with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures. Facts in Support of Finding Grading and construction activities of individual development projects that would be accommodated by the Harbor Corridor Plan could generate oil and grease, trash and debris, pesticides, other organic compounds such as solvents, degreasers, and compounds in coatings. This would result in short -term impacts on stormwater quality. However, project applicants for individual development projects would be required to comply with existing water quality standards and waste discharge requirements during all grading and construction activities. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 7 -3 and 7 -4 require compliance with such requirements, including those of the State Regional Water Quality Control Board and those requiring project applicants to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP). The SWPPP would specify BMPs that would protect water quality by eliminating and /or minimizing stormwater pollution prior to and during grading and construction. 30 July 2014 Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Adherence to the BMPs in the SWPPP would reduce, prevent, minimize, and /or treat pollutants and prevent degradation of downstream receiving waters. Therefore, water quality and waste - discharge impacts from grading and construction activities associated with individual development projects that would be accommodated by the Harbor Corridor Plan would not occur. Upon implementation of the aforementioned mitigation measures, this impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures MM 7 -3 Notice of Intent (NOI). Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for construction sites with a disturbed area of one or more acres, the project applicant shall provide the City Engineer with evidence that a NOI has been filed with the State Water Resources Control Board. Such evidence shall consist of a copy of the NOI stamped by the State Water Resources Control Board or Regional Water Quality Control Board, or a letter from either agency stating that the NOI has been filed. MM 7 -4 Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP). Prior to the issuance of grading permits for construction sites with a disturbed area of one or more acres, the project applicant shall prepare a SWPPP that will: • Require implementation of best management practices (BMPs) designed with a goal of preventing a net increase in sediment load in stormwater discharges relative to preconstruction levels; • During the construction period, prohibit discharges of stormwater or non -storm water at levels which would cause or contribute to an exceedance of applicable water quality standards contained in the Basin Plan; • Discuss in detail the BMPs planned for the project related to control of sediment and erosion, nonsediment pollutants, and potential pollutants in non -storm water discharges; • Describe post- construction BMPs for the project; • Explain the maintenance program for the project's BMPs; • During construction, require reporting of violations to the Regional Board; • List the parties responsible for SWPPP implementation and BMP maintenance during and after grading. The project proponent shall implement the SWPPP and will modify the SWPPP as directed by the Storm Water Permit. 31 July 2014 Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations (3) Potential Impact: Operation of individual development projects would reduce or avoid contamination of stormwater through implementation of the Water Quality Management Plan consistent with the MS4 Permit. Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation measure 7 -5. Facts in Support of Finding Land use and development types allowed in the project area under the Harbor Corridor Plan would be expected to generate stormwater pollutants, including pollutants of concern as defined by the Environmental Protection Agency. However, priority development projects within the project area would be required to prepare and implement water quality management plans (WQMPs) specifying BMPs to minimize water pollution by the project. Adherence to the BMPs in the WQMP would reduce, prevent, minimize, and /or treat pollutants and prevent degradation of downstream receiving waters. BMPs identified in the WQMP would reduce or avoid contamination of stormwater with sediment and would also reduce or avoid contamination with other pollutants such as pathogens, heavy metals, nutrients, organic compounds, and sediment toxicity. Mitigation Measure 7 -5 includes special provisions for WQMPs prepared for projects in the project area. Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and Mitigation Measure 7 -5, water quality and waste- discharge impacts from operation activities associated with individual development projects accommodated by the Harbor Corridor Plan would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures MM 7 -5 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). Prior to the issuance of building permits, project- specific WQMPs shall be submitted for review and approved by the Building Department. The WQMP shall identify the best management practices (BMPs) that will be used on the site to control predictable pollutant runoff. More specifically, the WQMP shall: • Describe the routine and special post- construction BMPs to be used at the proposed development site (including both structural and non - structural measures); • Describe responsibility for the initial implementation and long- term maintenance of the BMPs; • Provide narrative with the graphic materials as necessary to specify the locations of the structural BMPs; • Certify that the project applicant will seek to have the WQMP carried out by all future successors or assigns to the property. 32 July 2014 Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations (4) Potential Impact: Development of projects pursuant to the Harbor Corridor Plan would place people and structures in a 100 -year flood zone. Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is less than significant with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures. Facts in Support of Finding Much of the northern half of the project area is a 100 -year flood zone. However, multiple flood control improvements have been completed, are under construction, or are planned, as part of the Santa Ana River Mainstem Project (SARMP). At completion of the SARMP, 100 -year flood zones for flooding from the Santa Ana River are expected to be substantially smaller than they are at present, including the project area. Furthermore, hydrology studies for individual development projects that would be accommodated by the Harbor Corridor Plan would be required; the studies would have to include estimates of 100 -year flood depth on each respective site from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Alternatively, individual development projects could request a Letter of Map Correction from FEMA if the respective project applicants provide substantial evidence that the lowest adjacent grade elevation is already above the 100 -year flood elevation at that site. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 7 -1 requires that project applicants comply with FEMA requirements regarding flood zones and requires that evidence of this compliance be supplied to the City. Upon compliance with regulatory requirements, and Mitigation Measures 7 -1 and 7 -6, this impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure 7 -1 applies to this impact. MM 7 -6 Prior to the issuance of precise grading permit for any lot or parcel wholly or partially located within the 100 -year floodplain, the applicant shall furnish to the City Engineer documentation required by FEMA for approval of the Conditional Letter of Map Revision /Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR /LOMR) process for revision to the FIRM and Flood Insurance Study (FIS). The applicant shall pay all preliminary and subsequent fees as required by FEMA. E. NOISE (1) Potential Impact: Noise levels at proposed residential areas would be above the 45 dBA community noise equivalent level (CNEL) interior and 65 dBA CNEL exterior noise standards. Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is less than significant with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measure. 33 July 2014 Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Facts in Support of Finding Without mitigation, outdoor living areas at residential uses and parks in the project area would have the potential to be exposed to noise levels above the City's 65 dBA CNEL interior noise standard. Additionally, with standard construction, interior noise levels in residences could exceed the 45 dBA CNEL noise standard. Mitigation Measure 9 -1 requires that project applicants incorporate architectural features that reduce interior noise levels into their projects and design features to reduce noise levels at outdoor living areas. Upon implementation of Mitigation Measure 9 -1, this impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures MM 9 -1 Prior to issuance of a building permit, applicants for new residential development in the Harbor Corridor Plan shall submit an acoustic report prepared to the satisfaction of the Building Official or their designee to ensure that noise levels at outdoor living areas such as private yards, balconies, and park picnic areas shall not exceed 65 dBA CNEL, and all residential habitable rooms would meet the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard. These noise studies would need to be submitted after the precise grading and architectural plans are prepared, but prior to issuance of building permits. The required exterior noise reduction can be accomplished with sound walls or berms, or by site plan /building layout design. The required interior noise reduction can be accomplished with enhanced construction design or materials such as upgraded dual - glazed windows and /or upgraded exterior wall assemblies. These features shall be shown on all building plans and incorporated into construction of the project. City inspectors shall verify compliance of the building with the acoustic report's recommendations prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. (2) Potential Impact: Noise from the operation of commercial uses could cause the noise level at the property line of any adjacent residential property to exceed the City of Santa Ana noise standards. Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is less than significant with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measure. Facts in Support of Finding The operation of proposed commercial, office, and retail uses next to residential uses would have the potential to introduce new stationary sources of noise, such as HVAC units, and noise from entertainment establishments such as live music, patrons voices, and speakerphones. These sources could have the potential to cause sporadic exceedances of the noise standards in the municipal code or to generate noise levels that would be readily perceptible (greater than 5 dBA over the ambient noise) at residential properties immediately adjacent to future commercial, office, and retail uses. The Harbor Corridor Plan would not necessarily introduce new sources of 34 July 2014 Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations stationary noise, but would increase the residential density in the area, which would have the potential to expose persons to stationary noise above the City's noise ordinance criteria. No site - specific development is proposed at this time. Therefore, the specifications, design features, and /or location of these potential noise sources and the resulting effect of future development on nearby sensitive receptors cannot be quantified at this time. However, Mitigation Measure 9 -2 would require project applicants to submit acoustic reports that demonstrate that operation of proposed land uses would not excessively increase noise levels. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 9 -2, this impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures MM 9 -2 Prior to issuance of a building permit, applicants for new commercial, office, or retail developments in the Harbor Corridor Plan shall submit an acoustic report prepared to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and Building Official or their designee to ensure that the operation of stationary noise sources (i.e., HVAC units, truck deliveries) would not cause a noise increase of more than 5 dBA over the ambient noise levels at any adjacent property. These noise studies would need to be submitted after the precise grading and architectural plans are prepared, but prior to issuance of building permits. This requirement can be accomplished with selection of quieter equipment, judicious site layouts and equipment positioning, and /or equipment enclosures, sound screening, or parapet walls. These features shall be shown on all building plans and incorporated into the construction of the project. City inspectors shall verify compliance of the building with the acoustic report's recommendations prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. (3) Potential Impact: Construction activities would generate high levels of ground -borne vibration. Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is less than significant with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measure. Facts in Support of Finding The closest vibration - sensitive structures are existing and future residential uses in the project area. In addition, residential areas immediately adjacent to the boundaries of the project area are also considered vibration sensitive and would have the potential to be affected by construction activities during implementation of the Harbor Corridor Plan. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure 9 -3 would ensure that project applicants minimize construction - related vibration related to their projects. The measure requires applicants to prepare a vibration report to the satisfaction of the City and use equipment that produces low levels of vibration. Upon implementation of Mitigation Measure 9 -3, this impact would be less than significant. 35 July 2014 Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Mitigation Measures MM 9 -3 Prior to issuance of a building permit, applicants for projects within the Harbor Corridor Plan that involve high- vibration construction activities, such as pile driving or vibratory rolling /compacting, shall be evaluated for potential vibration impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. The project developer shall submit a vibration report prepared to the satisfaction of the City of Santa Ana Building Official or their designee to determine if the use of pile driving and /or vibratory rolling /compacting equipment would exceed the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA's) vibration - annoyance criteria of 78 VdB during the daytime or FTA's vibration - induced architectural damage PPV criteria of 0.2 inches /second for wood - framed structures or 0.5 inches /second for reinforced masonry buildings. The construction contractor shall require the use of lower- vibration - producing equipment and techniques. Examples of lower- vibration equipment and techniques would include avoiding the use of vibratory rollers near sensitive areas and /or the use of drilled piles, sonic pile driving, or vibratory pile driving (as opposed to impact pile driving). (4) Potential Impact: Construction activities would result in temporary noise increases in the vicinity of the proposed project. Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is less than significant with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures. Facts in Support of Finding Construction of individual developments associated with buildout of the Harbor Corridor Plan would temporarily increase the ambient noise environment at nearby existing and future residential areas, churches, and parks. At each individual receptor, the temporary increase would likely last for a few months. Even upon compliance with time -of -day constraints established in the City's Municipal Code, construction activities associated with any individual development may occur in close proximity to noise - sensitive receptors, and noise disturbances may occur for prolonged periods of time. The specific locations, duration, and equipment required for individual projects are unknown. Mitigation Measures 9 -4 and 9 -5 require that project applicants employ specific construction noise reduction strategies and prepare a construction management plan that requires implementation of additional noise reduction strategies. Compliance with these measures would reduce this impact to less than significant. Mitigation Measures MM 9 -4 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall ensure the following notes are included on the grading plan cover sheet, and the construction contractor shall comply with these measures during the duration of all construction activities. 36 July 2014 Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations • Properly maintain and tune all construction equipment to minimize noise. • Fit all equipment with properly operating mufflers, air intake silencers, and engine shrouds, no less effective than as originally equipped by the manufacturer, to minimize noise emissions. • Locate all stationary noise sources (e.g., generators, compressors, staging areas) as far from noise - sensitive receptors as possible. Material delivery, soil haul trucks, and equipment servicing shall be restricted to the hours between 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM Mondays through Saturdays, and not at all on Sundays or federal holidays. MM 9 -5 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, each project applicant within the project area shall prepare a construction management plan that shall be approved by the City of Santa Ana Public Works. The construction management plan shall: • Establish truck haul routes on the appropriate transportation facilities. Truck routes that avoid congested streets and sensitive land uses shall be considered. • Provide Traffic Control Plans (for detours and temporary road closures) that meet the minimum City criteria. Traffic control plans shall determine if dedicated turn lanes for movement of construction truck and equipment on- and offsite are available. • Minimize offsite road closures during the peak hours. • Keep all construction - related traffic onsite at all times. • Provide temporary traffic controls, such as a flag person, during all phases of construction to maintain smooth traffic flow. F. TRANSPORTATION /TRAFFIC (1) Potential Impact: Project - related trip generation would impact levels of service for the existing area roadway system. Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is less than significant with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures. Facts in Support of Finding Project - related trip generation would result in unacceptable levels of service at two intersections: Fairview Street and 17`h Street and Fairview Street and 1'` Street. 37 July 2014 Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Mitigation Measure 13 -2 would require the City to implement a traffic mitigation program that would identify and fund necessary improvements to the street network that serves the project area. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 13 -1 and 13 -2 would not require right -of -way acquisitions and are consistent with proposed buildout of the intersection per the City's Circulation Element Master Plan of Streets and Highways. Therefore, this is impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures MM 13 -1 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall evaluate the potential for any neighborhood cut through traffic. Neighborhood cut through traffic shall be minimized through implementation of traffic calming measures as approved by the Public Works Agency. MM 13 -2 The City of Santa Ana shall implement a program for traffic improvements in the Harbor Corridor Plan. The program shall prescribe the method of participation in the mitigation program in the mitigation program by individual projects and guide the timely implementation of mitigation measures. The program shall include the following elements: • A funding and improvement program should be established to identify financial resources adequate to construct all identified mitigation measures in a timely basis. • All properties that redevelop within the Harbor Corridor Plan should participate in the program on a fair share per new development trip basis. The fair share shall be based upon the total cost of all identified mitigation measures (see Mitigation Measure 13 -3), divided by the peak our trip generation increase forecast. This rate per peak hour trip should be imposed upon the incremental traffic growth for any new development within the Harbor Corridor Plan. • The project shall raise fund from full development of the Harbor Corridor Plan to fund all identified mitigation measures. • The project shall monitor phasing development of the Harbor Corridor Plan and defer or eliminate improvements if the densities permitted in the Harbor Corridor Plan are not occurring. • Program phasing shall be monitored through preparation of specific project traffic studies for any project that is expected to include more than 100 dwelling units or 100,000 sf of non- residential development. Traffic impact studies should use traffic generation rates that are deemed to be most appropriate for the actual development proposed. 38 July 2014 Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations • Properties within Santa Ana and within one -half mile of the Harbor Corridor Plan that redevelop to result in higher traffic generation should also participate in the program to ensure equity. • The City may elect to implement appropriate mitigation measures as a condition of approval of the proposed developments, where appropriate. All or part of the costs of these improvements may be considered to be a negotiated credit toward the program, however the program must be administered in a manner that assures that it can fund necessary improvements to maintain adequate level of service at all intersections within the study. If funding of priority improvements cannot be assured, credit for construction of lower priority improvements may not be assured or may be postponed until more program funds are available. 13 -3 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall prepare a traffic study, subject to review and approval of the City. The traffic study will verify whether the project within the Harbor Corridor Plan impacts the intersection locations identified below. For those intersections, which are projected to exceed the City's adopted performance criteria, the project will be conditioned to construct or provide fair share funding toward those improvements. The improvements are as follows: • Intersection #26: Fairview Street and 17th Street (Year 2035) — Improvements are to add a northbound through lane. • Intersection #27: Fairview Street and 1st Street (Year 2035) — Improvements are to add a southbound right -turn lane. G. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS (1) Potential Impact: Project - generated wastewater could be adequately treated by the wastewater service provider for the project; however the existing sewer system is deficient and does not have adequate capacity to serve the project. Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is less than significant with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures. Facts in Support of Finding Buildout of the Harbor Corridor Plan would result in a net increase in wastewater generation of approximately 1,292 acre feet per year, or about 1.15 million gallons per day. No change in wastewater generation is anticipated to occur in the Conventional Zoning Area of the project area. Several existing city sewer segments in the project site are undersized based on Orange County Sanitation District 39 July 2014 Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations (OCSD) sizing requirements, particularly in 5th Street, Washington Avenue, Green Drive, and McFadden Avenue. Several segments that serve the project area would be further impacted by buildout of the Harbor Corridor Plan. These are each 10 or 12 inches in diameter, and are all recommended for upgrade to 15 inches in diameter. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 14 -1 and 14 -2 would ensure that a development fee program is created to fund construction of necessary infrastructure requirements. Furthermore, Mitigation Measure 14 -3 requires that project applicants supply the City with necessary information regarding the sizing and location of backbone facilities necessary to serve their proposed projects. Implementation of these measures would reduce this impact to less than significant. Mitigation Measures MM 14 -1 Prior to the first building permit pursuant to the proposed project, the City of Santa Ana shall prepare a "Nexus" Study that will serve as the basis for requiring development impact fees under AB 1600 legislation, as codified by California Code Government Section 66000 et seq. The established procedures under AB 1600 require that a "reasonable relationship" or nexus exist between the water and sewer infrastructure improvements and facilities required to mitigate the sewer impacts of new development pursuant to the proposed project. The sewer segment improvements shown on Table 5.14 -11 of the DER are necessary to mitigate project impacts and shall be included, among other improvements, in the AB 1600 nexus study. MM 14 -2 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit pursuant to the proposed project, the City of Santa Ana shall prepare a Development Fee program pursuant to the AB 1600 Nexus Study identified in Mitigation Measure 14 -1, above. The Development Fee program would fund the Harbor Corridor Plan area -wide water and sewer infrastructure improvements. The fee program shall stipulate that fees are assessed when there is new construction or when there is an increase in square footage within an existing building or the conversion of existing square footage to a more intensive use. Fees are calculated by multiplying the proposed square footage or dwelling unit by the rate identified. The fees are included with any other applicable fees payable at the time the building permit is issued. The City will use the development fees to fund construction (or to recoup fees advanced to fund construction) of the infrastructure improvements identified in Mitigation Measure 14 -1. MM 14 -3 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall prepare water and sewer studies and identify the sizing and location of backbone facilities necessary to serve the proposed project, in accordance with City standards. The water and sewer plans shall be submitted to the City's Public Works Agency for 40 July 2014 Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations review and approval. Design of facilities that serve the project shall be sufficient to meet the projected service demands. (2) Potential Impact: Adequate water supply and delivery systems are adequate to meet project requirements; however the existing water system may not provide adequate capacity. Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is less than significant with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures. Facts in Support of Finding The City of Santa Ana has indicated that while the existing water system adequately meets the current demand and flow requirements, future projects in the project area may require upgrades to the existing network. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures 14 -1 and 14 -2 would ensure that a development fee program is created to fund construction of necessary infrastructure requirements. Furthermore, Mitigation Measure 14 -3 requires that project applicants supply the City with necessary information regarding the sizing and location of backbone facilities necessary to serve their proposed projects. Implementation of these measures would reduce this impact to less than significant. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures 14 -1 through 14 -3 apply to this impact. (3) Potential Impact: Existing and /or proposed storm drainage systems are not adequate to serve the drainage requirements of the proposed project. Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is less than significant with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measure. Facts in Support of Finding At project completion, the Harbor Corridor Plan area is estimated to generate 15 percent more runoff than in current conditions. The existing drainage system is deficient and unable to convey the current runoffs. However, Mitigation Measure 7 -1 would reduce this impact by requiring that project applicants in the project area construct storm drain improvements necessary to serve new land uses. Upon implementation of Mitigation Measure 7 -1 and the applicable provisions of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure 7 -1 applies to this project. 41 July 2014 Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 6. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES A. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED DURING THE SCOPING /PROJECT PLANNING PROCESS The following is a discussion of the land use alternatives considered during the scoping and planning process and the reasons why they were not selected for detailed analysis in the DEIR. Alternative Development Areas CEQA requires that the discussion of alternatives focus on alternatives to the project or its location that are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project. The key question and first step in the analysis is whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project in another location. Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR (Guidelines Sec. 15126[5][6][1]). In general, any development of the size and type proposed by the project would have substantially the same impacts on air quality, land use /planning, noise, population /housing, public services, recreation, transportation /traffic and utilities /service systems. Impacts related to aesthetics, cultural resources, geology /soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology /water quality and mineral resources would need a site specific analysis to determine if another location would reduce impacts. These impacts were found to be less than significant and less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Another location would not avoid or substantially lessen the effects of the project. The purpose of the project is to create a transit corridor plan and would enhance an underutilized area and expand development opportunities that response to transit investments. The project area is served by a number of existing and future transit opportunities. A Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) route, Orange County Transportation Authority Route (OCTA) 543, began operating on Harbor Boulevard through the project site in June 2013. An intercounty express bus route, OCTA 722, is scheduled to begin operation in early 2014 and would serve the intersection of Harbor Boulevard and Westminster Avenue at the north end of the project site. A Santa Ana /Garden Grove Fixed Guideway transit project is planned that would pass just north of the north site boundary. A second BRT route is planned on Edinger Boulevard that would cross Harbor Boulevard 0.5 mile south of the project site (OCTA 2011). The recent and planned transit improvements along this segment of Harbor Boulevard help create an opportunity for redevelopment of this largely commercial corridor with mixed land uses. While the proposed transit improvements extend beyond the project site, the above - mentioned combination of transit improvements is unique to this segment of Harbor Boulevard. Since other sites would not meet the basic objectives of the project they were not considered. 2. Reduced Nonresidential Intensity Alternative At buildout of the proposed project, nonresidential development intensity would only be approximately one percent greater than existing conditions. This change is not great enough to differentiate a reduced nonresidential project from the proposed project. 42 July 2014 Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Furthermore, because the proposed project is intended to permit development of a mixed -use community on the project site, reducing permitted nonresidential intensity would be contrary to objectives of the proposed project, including those objectives that advocate for provision of new opportunities for mixed -use development and businesses. Therefore, a reduced nonresidential intensity alternative was considered but rejected. B. ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS The following three alternatives have been determined to represent a reasonable range of alternatives that could potentially attain most of the basic objectives of the project and have the potential to avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects of the project. No Project/NHSP Alternative Reduced Residential Intensity Alternative 1. Alternatives Comparison a) No ProjectNHSP Alternative Description: The No Project/NHSP Alternative assumes that the Harbor Corridor Plan would not be adopted, the NHSP would remain in effect, the Conventional Zoning Area would remain within the NHSP, and the existing onsite buildings would remain. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3)(A), where a project is the revision of an existing regulatory plan the "no project' alternative assumes continuation of the existing plan, policy or operation into the future. Therefore, this alternative assumes that new development and redevelopment would continue to occur in the project area consistent with the adopted NHSP land use designations, development standards and design guidelines. Buildout of the NHSP would allow for 320 residential units and 4,867,789 square feet of nonresidential land uses. Note that the NHSP results in a reduction of residential units compared to existing uses since some residential uses were existing in the area prior to adoption of the NHSP. As compared to the proposed project, buildout of the NHSP would result in a reduction of 4,395 residential units and an increase of 2,896,107 of commercial and other nonresidential square footage. Environmental Effects: The No Project/NHSP Alternative would reduce impacts to air quality (operation), greenhouse gas emissions, noise (operation), public services, recreation, transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems. This alternative would increase impacts to aesthetics, land use, and population and housing. Impacts of this alternative related to construction - related air quality and noise, cultural resources, geology and soils, and hydrology and water quality would be similar to the proposed project. Ability to Achieve Project Objectives: This alternative would not achieve any of the following five project objectives: it would not provide for new housing and mixed -use development opportunities; create economic vitality by providing new opportunities for businesses and residents; provide access to multi -modal transportation; create a sense of place; or enhance community health and wellness. This alternative would achieve one project objective to provide for the development of the site consistent with City's General 43 July 2014 Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Plan. However, the Harbor Corridor Plan would change General Plan designations for the project site to provide consistency with the general plan and zoning. Feasibility: Since the No Project/NHSP Alternative would allow the continuation of the adopted specific plan, the feasibility of this alternative would rely upon the feasibility of the allowed land uses. However, new development under the existing specific plan would be limited by the existing deficient stormwater, wastewater, and water infrastructure. Finding: While the No Project/NHSP Alternative would lessen some of the environmental effects of the proposed project, it would not eliminate any significant and unavoidable impacts and would increase impacts to three environmental issue areas. For these reasons, the City rejects this alternative. b) Reduced Residential intensity Alternative Description: The Reduced Residential Intensity Alternative would reduce permitted residential units by 25 percent in the Transit Node district and by 50 percent in the Corridor district; the permitted number of residential units in the Neighborhood Transition district would be the same as in the proposed project. Total permitted nonresidential development intensity in this alternative would remain the same as in the proposed project. The total number of residential units permitted by this alternative would be 2,908, or 37 percent less than that of the proposed project. Environmental Effects: This alternative would reduce impacts to aesthetics, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems. Impacts to cultural resources, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, and land use and planning would be similar to the proposed project. Ability to Achieve Project Objectives: This alternative would achieve most of the objectives of the proposed project. This alternative would achieve the following three objectives to a lesser degree due to the 37 percent reduction in residential units: provide for new housing and mixed -use development opportunities; create economic vitality by providing new opportunities for businesses and residents; and provide access to multi - modal transportation. Feasibility: This alternative is considered physically feasible. Finding: While the Reduced Residential Intensity Alternative would lessen some of the environmental effects of the proposed project, it would not eliminate the significant and unavoidable air quality impacts. For these reasons, the City rejects this alternative. 44 July 2014 1 Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE HARBOR BOULEVARD MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2013061027 The City is the Lead Agency under CEQA for preparation, review, and certification of the Final EIR for the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan. As the Lead Agency, the City is also responsible for determining the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action and which of those impacts are significant, and which can be mitigated through imposition of mitigation measures to avoid or minimize those impacts to a level of less than significant. CEQA then requires the Lead Agency to balance the benefits of a proposed action against its significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts in determining whether or not to approve the proposed Project. In making this determination the City is guided by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 which provides as follows: CEQA requires the decision - making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region - wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region -wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposal (sic) project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable. " When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and /or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. In addition, Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) requires that where a public agency finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in an EIR and thereby leave significant unavoidable effects, the public agency must also find that overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects of the project. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) and the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City has balanced the benefits of the proposed project against the following unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the proposed Project and has 45 July 2014 Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted all feasible mitigation measures with respect to these impacts. The City also has examined alternatives to the proposed Project, none of which both meet the Project objectives and is environmentally preferable to the proposed project for the reasons discussed in the Findings and Facts in Support of Findings. The Santa Ana City Council, the Lead Agency for this Project, having reviewed the Final EIR for the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan, and reviewed all written materials within the City's public record and heard all oral testimony presented at public hearings, adopts this Statement of Overriding Considerations, which has balanced the benefits of the Project against its significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts in reaching its decision to approve the Project. 2. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Although most potential project impacts have been substantially avoided or mitigated, as described in the Findings and Facts in Support of Findings, there remain some project impacts for which complete mitigation is not feasible. For some impacts, mitigation measures were identified and adopted by the Lead Agency, however, even with implementation of the measures, the City finds that the impact cannot be reduced to a level of less than significant. The impacts and alternatives are described below and were also addressed in the Findings. The EIR identified the following unavoidable adverse impacts of the proposed project: A. AIR QUALITY (1) Construction activities associated with the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan would generate short -term emissions that exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District's VOC and NO, regional thresholds and would significantly contribute to the particulate matter (PM10 and PM25), ozone (03), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) nonattainment designations of the South Coast Air Basin. Proposed mitigation measures would reduce criteria air pollutants generated from project - related construction activities. Buildout of the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan would occur over a period of approximately 20 years or longer. Construction time frames and equipment for individual site specific projects are not available. However, there is a potential for multiple developments to be constructed at any one time, resulting in significant construction related emissions. Therefore, despite adherence to proposed mitigation, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. (2) Long -term criteria air pollutant emissions associated with the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan would exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District's VOC, CO, PM10, and PM25 regional significance thresholds and significantly contribute to the particulate matter (PM10 and PM25), ozone (03), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) nonattainment designations of the South Coast Air Basin. Proposed mitigation measures would reduce operation - related criteria air pollutants generated from stationary and mobile sources. They would encourage and accommodate use of alternative - fueled vehicles and non - motorized transportation. 46 July 2014 Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations However, despite adherence to these measures, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. (3) Construction activities related to buildout of the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Proposed mitigation measures would reduce the project's regional construction emissions and therefore also reduce the project's localized construction- related criteria air pollutant emissions to the extent feasible. However, because existing sensitive receptors may be close to project - related construction activities, construction emissions generated by individual project have the potential to exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District's localized significance thresholds. Despite reductions resulting feasible mitigation measures, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. (4) The Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan is a regionally significant project that would contribute to an increase in frequency or severity of air quality violations in the South Coast Air Basin and would conflict with the assumptions of the applicable air quality management plan. Proposed mitigation measures would reduce the project's regional construction - related and operational phase criteria air pollutant emissions to the extent feasible. However, given the potential increase in growth and associated increase in criteria air pollutant emissions, the project would continue to be potentially inconsistent with the assumptions in the Air Quality Management Plan. Upon implementation of proposed mitigation measures, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. B. ALTERNATIVES The EIR evaluated two alternatives to the project and analyzed whether these alternatives could avoid or substantially lessen the unavoidable environmental impacts of the proposed project. The alternatives lessened some or all of the unavoidable air quality impacts of the proposed project. The Reduced Residential Intensity Alternative was determined to be environmentally superior to the project and feasible. Although this alternative would reduce impacts to air quality, those impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Furthermore, this alternative would not fully meet most of the project objectives. 3. CONSIDERATIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The following section describes the benefits of the project that outweigh the project's unavoidable adverse effects and provides specific reasons for considering the project acceptable even though the Final EIR has indicated that there will be significant project impacts that are infeasible to mitigate. 47 July 2014 Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations A. IMPLEMENTS THE OBJECTIVES ESTABLISHED FOR THE PROJECT The City established the following objectives for the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan project to aid decision - makers in their review of the project and associated environmental impacts: • Provide for the development of the site consistent with City's General Plan. • Provide for new housing and mixed -use development opportunities. • Expand development opportunities that respond to transit investments. • Create economic vitality by providing new opportunities for businesses and residents. • Provide a variety of safe and efficient travel choices and access to multi -modal transportation. • Create a sense of place. • Enhance community health and wellness by creating safer street design for multiple modes of travel, increase walkability and encourage live /work along the corridor. Implementation of the project would meet all of these objectives. B. IMPLEMENTS THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT'S HIGH QUALITY TRANSIT AREAS The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is a council of governments representing Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura counties. SCAG is the federally recognized metropolitan planning organization for this region, which encompasses over 38,000 square miles. SCAG is a regional planning agency and a forum for addressing regional issues concerning transportation, the economy, community development, and the environment. On April 4, 2012, SCAG adopted the 2012 -2035 Regional Transportation Plan /Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP /SCS). The RTP /SCS provides a blueprint for improving quality of life for residents by providing more choices for where they will live, work, and play and how they will move around. With the adoption of the 2012 RTP /SCS, the areas previously known as 2% Strategy Opportunity Areas were updated by SCAG and replaced with what are now called high quality transit areas (HQTA), which are a part of and integrated into the SCS portion (Chapter 4) of the 2012 RTP /SCS. An HQTA is generally a walkable transit village or corridor that is within a half mile of a well- serviced transit stop or a transit corridor with 15- minute or less service frequency during peak commute hours. The overall land use pattern of the 2012 RTP /SCS focuses jobs and housing in the region's designated HQTAs (SCAG 2012). The entire project site is identified as an HQTA in the 2012 RTP /SCS. 48 July 2014 Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations The Harbor Corridor Plan emphasizes a sustainable multimodal approach consistent with the City's Go Local Transit Vision, which aims to link downtown, employment centers, educational facilities, and expanded housing choices. The project proposes mixed -use and residential, pedestrian- oriented development at high densities that would support increased transit use — within the three transit nodes surrounding the intersections of Harbor Boulevard at 17th Street, 1st Street, and McFadden Avenue. A limited -stop bus route, Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Route 543, began service on Harbor Boulevard between Fullerton and Santa Ana, through the project site, in June 2013. Route 543 has stops at each of the three proposed transit nodes. Development of a light -rail transit line on the Pacific Electric right -of -way that passes through the north end of the project site was recommended by an Alternatives Analysis completed by the Southern California Association of Governments in February 2013 (SCAG 2013). A fixed guideway transit project on the part of the Pacific Electric right -of -way in Santa Ana and Garden Grove is part of the Preferred Plan in OCTA's Long Range Transit Plan (OCTA 2011). Completion of a transit line on the portion of the right -of -way in Los Angeles County is scheduled for 2027 (Metro 2009). In addition to providing jobs and housing near a major transportation corridor, the Harbor Corridor Plan continues to recognize the important role Harbor Boulevard plays in circulating vehicular traffic through the region by maintaining the number of traffic lanes. The Harbor Corridor Plan also encourages consolidated vehicular access points along the corridor. The Harbor Corridor Plan proposes improved pedestrian and bicycle facilities and linkages by creating a pedestrian - friendly streetscape, encouraging a variety of building frontages and decreased setbacks. New street designs facilitate safe bicycle and pedestrian travel along Harbor Boulevard and efficient connections to the regional bicycle network, including the Santa Ana River Trail. Although the Harbor Corridor Plan would result in substantial population growth, it would provide an overall benefit to the community by encouraging walkability and alternative transportation. The Harbor Corridor Plan is a sustainable multimodal plan that at buildout encourages the reduction of per- capita vehicle miles traveled for the region, which is one of the goals of SCAG's Compass Blueprint for HQTAs. By providing additional commercial square footage in the area, commuters would not need to travel outside the City to other areas of Orange County for employment. C. THE HARBOR CORRIDOR PLAN IMPROVES THE JOBS -TO- HOUSING BALANCE IN THE CITY Implementation of the project would improve Santa Ana's jobs- housing balance. Effects of Harbor Corridor Plan buildout on jobs- housing balance in the City are estimated by adding project - generated jobs and housing units to forecasts of employment and housing in the City of Santa Ana in 2035 (see Table 3). As shown in the table, Santa Ana's existing jobs- housing ratio is 1.87, or jobs -rich. The jobs- housing ratio is forecast to become slightly more jobs -rich (1.91) by 2035. Buildout of the Harbor Corridor plan would develop up to 4,623 housing units, a net increase of 3,884 units over the existing 739 units onsite; and would add an estimated net increase of 173 jobs to the site. The jobs- housing balance in Santa Ana with project buildout added to existing forecast would 49 July 2014 Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations be reduced to 1.82, slightly more housing -rich than the existing forecast, resulting in a more favorable jobs- housing balance. Table 3 Jobs - Housing Balance in Santa Ana, 2035, with Harbor Corridor Plan Buildout D. PROVISIONS OF THE HARBOR CORRIDOR PLAN WORK TO IMPROVE QUALITY OF LIFE, THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT, AND DEFICIENT INFRASTRUCTURE Although buildout of the project area would result in significant environmental impacts on related to air quality, the Harbor Corridor Plan encourages and promotes more environmentally sustainable development and reduced vehicle miles traveled than would otherwise result in the development of the area. The project would improve Harbor Boulevard and its cross - streets: 5th Street, 1st Street, McFadden Avenue, and Westminster Avenue in order to create a robust multimodal corridor that accommodates the movement of vehicular traffic through the City and region as well as other modes of travel. The project would encourage bicycle and pedestrian safety along the corridor by enlarging the sidewalk and parkway areas (planting new landscaping and trees) and creating efficient connections to the regional bicycle network. Infrastructure improvements would maintain the same rights -of -way and number of travel lanes on the affected roadways. These improvements would result due to the promotion of transit alternatives reducing vehicle miles traveled and encourage walkability by improving pedestrian safety. The project area has identified existing deficiencies in its stormwater and wastewater conveyance system. Adoption of the specific plan would require the establishment of a nexus study and development fee program to fund water and wastewater infrastructure improvements. Future development within the Harbor Corridor Plan would be required to upgrade these facilities through physical improvements or payment of fees (see mitigation measures 7 -1, 7 -2, and 14 -1 through 14 -3). These upgrades would benefit the existing residences and businesses in the area. E. THE HARBOR CORRIDOR PLAN SUPPORTS THE CITY'S REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT (RHNA) The Harbor Corridor Plan provides an opportunity to allow for affordable homes in the City, which can be counted towards the lower income RHNA requirement. The State of California Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) estimates the relative share of California's projected population growth that would occur in each county based on CDF population projections and historical growth trends. These figures are compiled by HCD in a Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) for each region of California. Where there is a regional council of governments, the HCD provides the 50 July 2014 Employment Housing Units Jobs - Housing Ratio 2010 143,987 76,918 1.87 2035 existing forecast 149,440 78,323 1.91 2035 with Harbor Corridor Plan Buildout 149,613 82,207 1.82 D. PROVISIONS OF THE HARBOR CORRIDOR PLAN WORK TO IMPROVE QUALITY OF LIFE, THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT, AND DEFICIENT INFRASTRUCTURE Although buildout of the project area would result in significant environmental impacts on related to air quality, the Harbor Corridor Plan encourages and promotes more environmentally sustainable development and reduced vehicle miles traveled than would otherwise result in the development of the area. The project would improve Harbor Boulevard and its cross - streets: 5th Street, 1st Street, McFadden Avenue, and Westminster Avenue in order to create a robust multimodal corridor that accommodates the movement of vehicular traffic through the City and region as well as other modes of travel. The project would encourage bicycle and pedestrian safety along the corridor by enlarging the sidewalk and parkway areas (planting new landscaping and trees) and creating efficient connections to the regional bicycle network. Infrastructure improvements would maintain the same rights -of -way and number of travel lanes on the affected roadways. These improvements would result due to the promotion of transit alternatives reducing vehicle miles traveled and encourage walkability by improving pedestrian safety. The project area has identified existing deficiencies in its stormwater and wastewater conveyance system. Adoption of the specific plan would require the establishment of a nexus study and development fee program to fund water and wastewater infrastructure improvements. Future development within the Harbor Corridor Plan would be required to upgrade these facilities through physical improvements or payment of fees (see mitigation measures 7 -1, 7 -2, and 14 -1 through 14 -3). These upgrades would benefit the existing residences and businesses in the area. E. THE HARBOR CORRIDOR PLAN SUPPORTS THE CITY'S REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT (RHNA) The Harbor Corridor Plan provides an opportunity to allow for affordable homes in the City, which can be counted towards the lower income RHNA requirement. The State of California Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) estimates the relative share of California's projected population growth that would occur in each county based on CDF population projections and historical growth trends. These figures are compiled by HCD in a Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) for each region of California. Where there is a regional council of governments, the HCD provides the 50 July 2014 Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations RHNA to the council. The council then assigns a share of the regional housing need to each of its cities and counties. The process of assigning shares gives cities and counties the opportunity to comment on the proposed allocations. The HCD oversees the process to ensure that the council of governments distributes its share of the state's projected housing need. The State of California Housing Element laws (Section 65580 to 65589 of the California Government Code) require that each city and county identify and analyze existing and projected housing needs within its jurisdiction and prepare goals, policies, and programs to further the development, improvement, and preservation of housing for all economic segments of the community, commensurate with local housing needs. The City's recently adopted 2014 -2021 Housing Element addressed the RHNA carryover balance of 201 lower income units from the last adopted housing element. These units would be accommodated through land rezoned in the Harbor corridor Plan area exclusively for residential development. E. CONCLUSION For the abovementioned reasons, implementation of the Harbor Corridor Plan would have environmental, economic, and social benefits that outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts of the project. The Harbor Corridor Plan would help reach regional goals for land use, transportation, and economic stability; improve the jobs -to- housing ratio; require more environmentally sustainable development; reduce regional VMT; improve deficient infrastructure, and provide a guiding framework for future development. 51 July 2014 Exhibit °C° SEE LASERFICHE RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -069 FOR EXHIBIT Resolution No. 2014 -069 Page 8 of 8 August 2014 ( Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program HARBOR BOULEVARD MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN for City of Santa Ana Prepared for: City of Santa Ana Contact: Melanie G. McCann, AICP Associate Planner 20 Civic Center Plaza, M -20 Santa Ana, California 92701 714.667.2796 Prepared by: Place Works Contact: Nicole Morse, Esq., Associate Principal 3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100 Santa Ana, California 92707 714.966.9220 info @placeworks.com www.placeworks.com HARBOR BOULEVARD MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN MMRP CITY OF SANTA ANA Table of Contents SectionPage 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ ..............................1 1.1 PURPOSE OF LITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM .................................... ..............................1 1.2 PROJECT LOCATION ...................................................................................................... ..............................1 1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................... ............................._2 1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ...................................................................................... ............................._2 2. MITIGATION MONITORING PROCESS ........................................................... ..............................5 2.1 MITIGATIONMONEFORING PROGRAM ORGAN IZATION ........................... ..............................5 2.2 MITIGATIONMONEFORING TEANI ........................................................................ ..............................5 2.3 ARBITRATION RESOLUTION ...................................................................................... ..............................6 2.4 ENFORCEMENT ................................................................................................................ ..............................6 3. MITIGATION MONITORING REQUIREMENTS ................................................ ..............................7 3.1 PRE- NfITIGATIONMEETING ..................................................................................... ............................._7 3.2 CATEGORIZEDMITIGATIONME ASURES/ MdTRLK ........................................ ............................._7 3.3 IN -FIELD MONITORING .............................................................................................. ............................._7 3.4 DATABASE NLANAGEMENT ........................................................................................ ............................._7 35 COORDINATION WITH CONTRACTORS ............................................................... ............................._7 3.6 LONG- TERNIMONITORING ....................................................................................... ............................._7 4. MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTS .......................................................... .............................25 4.1 FIELD CHECK REPORT ............................................................................................... ............................_23 4.2 IMPLEMENTATION COMPLIANCE REPORT ..................................................... .............................23 4.3 ARBITRATION /ENFORCEMENT REPORT .......................................................... .............................23 S. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT ......................................................................... .............................27 6. REPORT PREPARATION ................................................................................ .............................29 6.1 LIST OF PREPARERS ..................................................................................................... ............................... 29 August 2014 Page i HARBOR BOULEVARD MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN MMRP CITY OF SANTA ANA Table of Contents List of Tables Table 3 -1 Mitigation Monitoring Requirements .................................................................. ..............................9 Page ii PlareWorkr 1. Introduction 1.1 PURPOSE OF MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM This bfitigation Monitoring Program has been developed to provide a vehicle by which to monitor mitigation measures and conditions of approval outlined in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), State Clearinghouse No. 2013061027. The Mitigation Monitoring Program has been prepared in conformance with Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code and Insert Cite Monitoring Requirements. Section 21081.6 states: (a( V -hen making findings required by paragraph (1) of subdivision (a( of Section 21081 or when adopting a mitigated negative declaration pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c( of Section 21080, the following requirements shall apply: (1) The public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. For those changes which have been required or incorporated into the project at the request of a responsible agency or a public agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the project, that agency shall, if so requested by the lead or responsible agency, prepare and submit a proposed reporting or monitoring program. (2) The lead agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which its decision is based. 1.2 PROJECT LOCATION The project area comprises approximately 425 acres oriented to Harbor Boulevard in Santa Ana in central Orange County. The project area generally includes parcels adjacent to Harbor Boulevard between Westminster Avenue and Lilac Way and parcels along Westminster Avenue, 1st Street, and 5th Street one -half mile east of Harbor Boulevard. The corridor's northern and southern ends are adjacent to the cite boundaries of Garden Grove and Fountain Valley, respectively. The project areas consists of two areas 1) an approximately 305 -acre portion that directly fronts Harbor Boulevard or perpendicular arterial streets and 2) 120 acres consisting of the Willowick Golf Course and Campesino Park, residential properties along Jackson Street, and commercial properties along 5th Street. The 120 -acre area is east of the Harbor Boulevard corridor and abuts the Santa Ana River to the east. August 2014 Page 1 HARBOR BOULEVARD MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN MMRP CITY OF SANTA ANA 1. Introduction 1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan (Harbor Corridor Plan( mould replace the existing 425 -acre North Harbor Specific Plan (NHSP). The plan mould change the boundaries of the NHSP so that the project mould consist of the two separate areas: 1) 305 acres within the boundaries of the existing 425 acre NHSP generally along Harbor Boulevard ( "Harbor Corridor Plan" or "Specific Plata"), and 2) 120 acres within the existing NHSP in the Willowick Golf Course area (or "Conventional Zoning Area"). Both of these areas constitute the "project" for purposes of CEQA. The Harbor Corridor Plan mould allow up to 4,623 dwelling units and 1,954,261 square feet of commercial units within four land use districts: Transit Node (TN), Corridor (CDR), Neighborhood Transitional (NT), and Open Space (OS). Buildout mould allow for a net increase of 3,884 dwelling units and 13,721 square feet of commercial uses. The 120 -acre Conventional Zoning area would be removed from the NHSP and redesignated to match existing land uses. In this area, the intensity of development is not expected to change and buildout would match the existing uses with 92 dwelling units and 3,700 square feet of commercial space. A detailed project description is provided in Section 3.3.2, De.rmption of the Project, of the DEIR. 1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The EIR identified adverse impacts that would be potentially significant without mitigation, and recommended mitigation that mould eliminate these impacts or reduce them to a less than significant level. 1.4.1 Impacts Considered Less Than Significant Before Mitigation The CEQA Guidelines have significance thresholds for environmental impacts. Impacts in the following topic areas were identified as less than significant without mitigation in either the Initial Study or the DEIR: ■ Aesthetics ■ Agriculture and Forestry Resources • Geology and Soils • Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Land Use and Planning • 1\lineral Resources • Population and Housing • Public Services • Recreation Page 2 PlaceWorkr PROJECT TITLE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM CLIENT 1. Introduction 1.4.2 Potentially Significant Adverse Impacts That Can Be Mitigated, Avoided, or Substantially Lessened Impacts in the following topic areas were identified in the DEIR as less than significant after implementation of mitigation measures set forth in the DEIR and listed in Table 3 -1: • Cultural Resources • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Hydrology and Water Quality • Noise • Transportation and Traffic • Utilities and Service Systems 1.4.3 Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts Four impacts in the following topic area were identified as significant and unavoidable: ■ Air Quality August 2014 Page 3 HARBOR BOULEVARD MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN MMRP CITY OF SANTA ANA 1. Introduction This page intentional) , l ft blank. Page 4 PlareWorkr 2. Mitigation Monitorina Process 2.1 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ORGANIZATION CEQA requires that a reporting or monitoring program be adopted for the conditions of project approval that are necessary to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment (Public Resources Code 21081.6. The mitigation monitoring and reporting program is designed to ensure compliance with adopted mitigation measures during project implementation. For each mitigation measure recommended in the DEIR, specifications are made herein that identify the action required and the monitoring that must occur. In addition, a responsible agency is identified for verifying compliance with individual conditions of approval contained in the bfitigation Monitoring Program. In order to effectively track and document the status of mitigation measures, a mitigation matrix has been prepared and includes: ■ Responsibility for implementation ■ Timing ■ Responsibility for monitoring ■ Monitor bfitigation measure timing of verification has been apportioned into several specific timing increments. Information pertaining to compliance with mitigation measures or any necessary modifications or refinements will be documented in the comments portion of the matrix. 2.2 MITIGATION MONITORING TEAM 2.2.1 City of Santa Ana The City of Santa Aria Planning and Building Agency is the designated lead agency for the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The City is responsible for review of all monitoring reports, enforcement actions, and document disposition. The Planning and Building Agency shall designate a Project bfitigation Monitor for the proposed project 2.2.2 Recognized Experts The use of recognized experts as a component of the monitoring team is required to ensure compliance with scientific and engineering mitigation measures. VlAe recognized experts may assess compliance with required mitigation measures, consultation with the City planning staff shall take place in the event of a dispute. August 2014 Page 5 HARBOR BOULEVARD MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN MMRP CITY OF SANTA ANA 2. Mitigation Monitoring Process 2.3 ARBITRATION RESOLUTION If the mitigation monitor identifies a mitigation measure that, in the opinion of the monitor, has not been implemented or has not been implemented correctly, the problem mill be brought before the Cite Planner for resolution. The decision of the Cite Planner is final, unless appealed to the Cite Manager. The Cite Planner mill have the authority to issue stop work orders until the dispute is resolved. 2.4 ENFORCEMENT Agencies may enforce conditions of approval through their existing police power, using stop -work orders, fines, infraction citations, loss of entitlements, refusal to issue building permits or certificates of use and occupancy or, in some cases, notice of violation for tax purposes. Criminal misdemeanor sanctions could be available where the agency has adopted an ordinance requiring compliance with the monitoring program, similar to the provision in many zoning ordinances that affirm the enforcement power to bring suit against violators of the ordinances. Page 6 PlareWorkr 3. Mitigation Monitoring Requirements 3.1 PRE - MITIGATION MEETING A pre -mon toxin( meeting will be scheduled to review mitigation measures, implementation requirements, schedule conformance, and mitigation monitoring committee responsibilities. Committee rules are established, the entire mitigation monitoring program is presented, and any misunderstandings are resolved. 3.2 CATEGORIZED MITIGATION MEASURES/MATRIX Project - specific mitigation measures have been categorized in matrix format, as shown in Table 3 -1. The matrix identifies the environmental factor, specific mitigation measures, schedule, and responsible monitor. The mitigation matrix will serve as the basis for scheduling the implementation of, and compliance with, all mitigation measures. 3.3 IN -FIELD MONITORING Project monitors and technical subconsultants shall exercise caution and professional practices at all times when monitoring implementation of mitigation measures. Protective wear (e.g. hard hat, glasses) shall be worn at all times in construction areas. Injuries shall be immediately reported to the mitigation monitoring committee. 3.4 DATABASE MANAGEMENT All mitigation monitoring reports, letters, and memos shall be prepared utilizing Microsoft Word software. 3.5 COORDINATION WITH CONTRACTORS The construction manager is responsible for coordination of contractors and for contractor completion of required mitigation measures. 3.6 LONG -TERM MONITORING Long -term monitoring related to several mitigation measures will be required, including fire safety inspections. Post - construction fire inspections are conducted on a routine basis by the Orange County Fire Authority. August 2014 Page 7 HARBOR BOULEVARD MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN MMRP CITY OF SANTA ANA 3. Mitigation Monitoring Requirements This page intentional) , l ft blank. Page 8 PlareWorkr E .% � / \ .q k � Cr LEO IL t5 0 \� \ \ \�\ 0. 0 Q � Z Q Q W Q � F 0 Z O Q m �n K 00 m K Q ~ I CJ N C d dd E G d N a' Qi S C � O C � O O c 0 O c, m O CH_ C O co � M G � ~ M dd o a U m O c d N O c v N v N 0 c LEO c LEO o m m m m a m Q a m Q C 0 m o m c y c m m o c m o 2 m'o 2 o °_ o m E ° a E ° U ° m ° m 0 0 LL LL c li5 m i5 m _T = a a C a a C N N O d n- d d a o 0 m m c a y° y y° y �° O V C% C `-' m (V C (V O).� E 2 E N N U m.2 O E O C d i V U U N U U O C d 2 ° O m O ° ° C d C O O N O Y . N O (V C C O O (V S C N E" V N L O O " LL O ` 0 dL '= . C � E C O d> O) 2 "°--' N C C L > m 0 N mO > f2 E C E (V C N N � O d n d -O m o � N O O A> > (V C> 2 E L ` i o (V ` d m O) -° (V N U N E U O O U N p_ N > U (V O C C O N d L - C N~ V m Oa O O E w o `-' LO S y o E t5 N t5 t5 15 U -O C "- LL i N O L O E N w° a O >i O N N N K Q 2 U E 2E W :E w N • • • • • Q f ° N �z z� J< K O O 0 ) K ~ K O U) E C O O c O co 0) _9 y N C E l Q d C O C O C O O'. M d a H �d d� o a U m O c m a+ N O 0 mC m C m C m C °�O] 0 °gym 0 °gym 0 °gym 0 o m m m m m m m m a ¢ a ¢ a ¢ a C a `o 5 a `o c a `o 5 a `o 5 m a m a m a m a m m m m o m o m 0 o m o m a r 0 a r 0 a r 0 a r 0 c li5 m li5 m li5 m i5 m _T = a a a a C n N n N n N n N C O d n- d d d d a o o o o v O (V C 'O m> O° 0 O _ _ O VV w _ d m° `o m m m ° m om' - w m s c m y m aci .n c v v c 2 0._ ~ L `. M46 W U °) (V 2,L v C Q o U N N U` L d (V N L d 'O d d N ° °° U C N K L °' (V U L Q� O= m C C N O O 2 C w- >. C O "5 C N (V a j N m N O'O C J N (p O m d m o a O] (p EFE O 6 m m a> m "O .> ° C m 0 E N ? N L a E N C tC m U E (V a C N L O O L' E n F j L N N >> a U d U > C� N U J O L a > (V O (V �° >O �_ -O N �.' N i E O) -O d O O C¢ L y O) N 'O N - m m N C N° - a ° m !_° O m m o d N U- N >. - c m "� �-° E 'O O y E "> ai �• m -- s° °� y' m a c cLi m 3 a °� c o o- o .n a> a m.� s o a °- °- o - c "m o V c= o m m �• a m co m m a m m. 0? c m o 0 o a m° U ° m m m m m c m 0 ._ m o._ m -_ V E'2 N m o N �3 $ O C m °'v N °' O) (V (V N E d N N m N n L N C N 2 E N d N °U m m d o a m m m m'o m c C. c- m cc°a E n L N L C o L C n m C N n N W'- n d U m o y m o5 EvHa E> QLi�a a.'i' Q °`00 Q v m v N >U Qv 5$ N N N N a O N o¢ �z ¢¢ w¢ �F 0 z o¢ m �n K 00 m K I CJ N C d dd E yam+ N E � O d N a' =3 Q. S C O C � O � O c 0 m O � c O co � M G � ~ M dd o a U m O c d N O o d C N C N C f2 m O) O] O) O] C1 0 c c m� c c a= - a c d c d c N a c o c d m e c d m e c c 0 m m a d m a d m a m Q � Q Q m o ° m Vaci m a a °,2 d � o 0 o m a m a r a a � m m m _T = a a a C n n n C N N N O d n- d d d a o 0 0 N w O °O � w' n d C O) 0> E o m U £ m m m m. m- E O a s= v - (V L n O w O n'O O O Od N co O° o> ° Q m s °- E m m m E V ` a'Eo a -O v m d d n (V N L (V C C N d v-i d d - N a° .o m o c m c o o m m a m m a a a` °° m m co m `o a O" v m mm v m m m m m Y c ` o o aa o w ? m 2 � 2 £ o m U a m o m d° C C E L O m y u o > o E E S cm `o ` E � s a m aci m o b o° m o E 5 a 6 o m c d E a �- d m m o N N a ci o f - K o N N N �z z� J< K O O D ) K ~ K O U) E C O O C O co 0) y N C E v Q d C O C CO C C O Qi C M d a �d d� o a U m ° c m a+ N O c 0 c � c 0 a C > y O CE d p N d C j v - Z5 2 E E y c _T C C O d n- a E C - (� C N o C 'O N N E R_ L R O p R O N C N R R O N y O X_ (V ._ d I E Y C 'O W -O > _ C_ q N I C V Q Q E U O R `° -O d L n� W > O` 2 > C R C o N d L n R d C E O C o U d f n O L C° O -O U N Q U C O) C? V R N R C E N E N >i N d C OQ R L E V d y R C C N" 8,2 d Q N >. O N N E R _ m" L w >w C �. L N N V N O > y - (V N C C O i N d N N E N O O R C O> d C R y V E L O R E E Q O)E O N N d w C L r O m N U O R> K �p L - `--' N E� C �N`. N'OQN O C'OC�'C =WO 'O O N O N _61,- R y p) C dN n y N2iN C ° oC S E N N C° N C>= -E O N m d U > > U L O p p p M >i S N y -O c6= d d R N N° d 42— o w d L LVRi d -� � o `o o `o .9 2 w d R y > 2,,,< K S m s a o y a .m � N R d> m m cTi `2 E c E o £_ N s .°-� m m w` o Q m 3 w wO P °_ n 5 C N N R E C E._ W R �: O O r ._ R C C C N w (V E N O Q E' N R N O U ¢ U K R O 'O d 'O R C w d C E L-' t5 N C w O (V O O O n E O R (V C N Q N E_ O)" O C LL d LL o x O x C_ C C y O O N R n O N 4 R O N �i N f C C H S� i> '° E O O N 0 Q � Z ¢Q wQ � F 0 Z O Q m �n K 00 m> Q ~ I CJ U) E C � N � E O d N a' = O S C O � C � O O c O O C � O co � M G � M ~ d Q o� �m o L � O � N W � m � a £ v x m E `o � � s � o . � m v o m � o- - o o `o a 0 E o m m � , -o a s o £ m L_ E N O E o m o mo m - E ° m r O y m L m d N w U K O N K J Q K J_ U Ci N a �z z� J< 0 0 0 o> 0 U 0 U U) E O O c O co O) y M d a d o� �d o i `o m _T O L d O r O o - r m a � a v N N r a °m m `m ya � m � o b o m `O m a v y - m y O � a .= U 'O N O � v m y 5 o a a c°i > o E v - m m m m (V (V L J 6 Q N O D K 6 2 D z Q N K 6 2 N a m� m w aN m m o mm 0 � a � U m ami a `o m E m a m .N o o :o °m E 2 m Q a m m 0 2 'O 2 a m m y N m O m V U E m m O 0 y 0 o E a U o y U E E m m a C m E N m O N S m m o £ o m � ` o m E m m ° 6 o> u 2 m o 46 m c 2 > m 0 p C N o r`oU W O -O wp U d (V d N °m 2 y m n o m y E V K ° m m -E N V ° o- wE v Q M a o V o V m m m s a m m N C t5 U C d N V d O U - u m w 16 Q m o m c m o `O O w O L V � O N O O O N 'O O N C v m w m E $ m �'0 3 ° `o .n o m m o ° t5 m o N O L 0 K C C O d i ~_ O U � y m �Q a-o0 m m m m .-F o m m - v c E L '5 N C O O am aEi ami m U O C w 2E d U - d C V 'M. o ° v Q O m ° o L° o m y o - O m m a m a m H ° m y"v U EFE O m v m O E o E d C d a a. °_ `o a Q m m a m cn m� my W o m mo a s m L° E o m m m m a m m � 2 m a E m "- 0 o m a o v ,on cn " - m Q a m m 0 2 C N 2i N L d W E d O N O E E o N d a£ a Q E m m E a o n a>i `o N _ -2 H N O Q C C V Q U ,`o U E cn m ` - - ° `m v v m C L m o m x a E~ W p O N C U V E C O N O y o N m .n ° mm Li�v "�vN o a 0 E N o m _ E S - Q co m E d $ m w K a O N o� � Z Q Q w Q � F 0 Z O Q m �n K 00 0 m> Q �- xo N C d U) C l_ _a E Q m O d c a � m m N O Qi S C 0 C E O H C � O _T O c C O n � a E c, cO G m 0 a C C C O O 0�- co E m y .,d E � M E `5 N E q C N a ~ M `O m" d dd _a o a U � m O m m Q c a � m m N O c 0 c a 0 C E a H LL c _ a _T C m c m m `O C m c m m `O n � a E m m 0 1'- m 0 a m m m m C d a C L i 0 li5 m Q a N N 0 a O 0�- c - 2 m N `o v E m y .,d E o o c > U `o -o o a 0 °> E `5 N E q C N a E c m U -" a o m c V u`� Z m m o `O m" d .E v a `m E m m > 2 m -m o ° aci ,°� o> w C v C y° E a 3 >. �.N E d C U d ° m O y O- -o C N E C O m d C (V m " v� w C O (V E W -05 W -° ay d 0 w --s d tp N— C M W— 'O >i 'O Q �° .-a m m 2 y d E 6 a a 0 E U m m a a m c c O O N N d O �2 C m ma m$ m£ -o E 00 UO N iv O (V �. l` N w m O y D) C (V C E 0 V o P O` -O Q >: O N c N a m m d d U c !C W O N O (V ml V) C 2m W a>i N m ` m c m 2 a o O O o _ a E d (V O L C° U °� U �LL d W LL a3U m m � �O]Q H 6 Cr Cr 6 0 z Q O J O K Y 2 N _a � � a m m Q m m Q � m m Q a a LL LL _ a a m c m m `O m c m m `O m c m m `O m m 0 m m 0 m 0 a a a li5 m Q a N N 0 a li5 m Q a N N 0 a i5 m Q a N N 0 a c - 2 m N `o v m y o o v E `5 E q C N a m y- m m w u`� Z m m o m .E m > m m 2E ° o d� y m 0VSV`a`� y° E a 3 >. m > .n a c c o a m `m `o m y U o m mad ° m d y- d o a N E. m m a a m c c N d O �2 C i N O O N d w N iv O E 0 V V C LL C O ._ ' N o m O (V ml V) C 2m N £ m ` m c m 2 a o O O a s C O E (V d (V O L O) (p w ° L o o O N x 'O C o a o > o ` d LL � mLLm C� -O �� 7. LL n -�Eo `o ° _cNCwa� p o v` > a ` a o >' o' E d m Z m y >. O, ... L d O w 'O a O E _ m o 2 >. E N C N � `o m $= $ o °� co a m m v m t m ° m I "> gym - "� ar m --am o LL$s 2 2 r r' oayw mU N r' Z M r' �z z� J< K O O D ) K ~ K O U) E C O O C O co 0) y N C d d Q d C O C O C O Qi M d a �d d� o a U m O c N O c o > U � m � a 0 c o a C d m c m w m `o `o E € a � m m m y _ m 0 `o 0 m `o a a c o m 0 m _T = a a C a a N c E 5 O d n- d d a E o 0 m w y P o o a �2E o a C7 y a .—aCy 2, 15 _ £ c m y m _ N° a 15 _ O 0 0 0 0 o E o- o- E s v d co m w V a Q w w >. c .- m �. o m y �. o a E C7 ° W t5 w O V L V O m d O m -o 5 O(O E m m m a N CY >2 m N O) d O N d�NNOOE wt5L CdL dW o0O`CO'�� mom (V aNL N> O C` C C O co d N � "v o 4 "w U '� - d" O N m m `o O a :-• m a O7 C d m C d m _ C o �° N E d a a (V a L U w o `o `o d `) K m w m E- E w v y c a V U O]° a-Ei a o- m a o K v mo m m n n m',�`o O] w a E v m Z5 - c c m o x w - o � 4e5 w ° J E w 'O w> ._ d o "O c6 w N� lO N I a O N 0 ¢ � Z W ¢ � F 0 Z O ¢ m �n K 00 0 my I CJ N C d dd l_ E O d N a' Qi S C O C � O � O c O 0 Qi 0 co � M N O ~ M dd o a U � o c a N O c 0 c 0 m EFE _ O m a c 0 n] C m a `o E � c v a � � m ° y v y m o m `o a c � m _T = O_ C n N C O U n- � a � o c- a cy° cVv o LL - N > L m m -o d d W i d OmO O0O ">0 QLL U m O m m m w s m m E -° Q T E LL o E C L (V 'O 1 U C d N N O LL n` y V V "� LL N (� L (V N v N (p - O L_ O d °mm �mEa ° m E - o m "_ m o ° m � 45 m ° c� m o- o 2 o > m _ °O n U a o N L c m C 'c E v ,� m m N m n L m o ash o�m mw maUU�� CY L N w K N a m� c w = N m m C .o "v o c - y mm 0 c a � U c c m m LL m c v a `o U c m m � a 0 `o a m Q a N N a 0 v N V EF w E O m >> H N v �_ m `m m C a y c y v m E y a y d o V o o o = ot5� O C � W E E 0 o O O ° n a m dv Ev avva n N O m N � �z z� J< K O O D ) K ~ K O U) E C O O C O co 0) y N C d E v Q d C O C O C O Q. M d a �d d� o a U m O c m a+ N O EF O a m m m m mm v o m Q cUE m U O a v a m C Q m w c o m c c o c H o m a Q m LL a LL c o m 0 m _T = a a C n N n N C O d n- d d a ° O 'O1 �p N N N V Q C o C N 'O L .� N d N O) 5 0 "O >i O C E a m d E o W °- CO N N L� N a H a� `o v m c 0-= w m o v m s o c b m a� a > o 3 m o °� w s `o N m v- v s .o ` m a E m 0 N O �. d L O) N d (p N N i O_ �• y d p_ O d L i N 'O O 2i d d C N d �. U 0 0 N O~ N (V " O' 6 C N r 'O C E> d >i O d O U C d d c LL m L N m E N U O O N O5 > o w n N N N O' U C o N O C d NOLONCC C�nUC U�nCd� >-O L O)d -w w w VUOI `o m - - -_ o" a a s E w "v `o m v 3 s o y m._:E m aog .n a- o m om m 0 o L w H c m y c �: m w `o m "d m v 5 w m U O 'E a c "o °m o c'> c- m m- ao�� m o •"d•-o aP_? w ° m� m a� N a> o mQ ° °- o- m O m a y 'n m o °- 3 c m E m= m o- '5 s w a�i m.c ? N u= N f ? m ?� Q N E i' `° m w o. c Aw C o E d Q c d ann-o mma m._om "vU `o o a� >E -oo- o m m o m .� Z > o d E- a - m m 2 w ° m ., adci m c a .� o m° o y U o m �w m.� v d m m o m> m m m o ° v w w= c c L" w d d V c m C- E n o m o m m E - N c m m °� m 2 ... c- w o v °- E E o ? L - o' a o -- w u E m °' y o >. y m ° `0 3 o m s .� °_ °= y m m> c w y o o o m `o y o o a 3~ m u 15 v i E o N E m€ y m a a o v `o d m E o� �° E d -o d axi a c v °- m E O d o m Q o v $"i� `m a Q m H o a 2 2 ai ° a a°i o 0 a O N 0 Q � Z Q Q W Q � F 0 Z O Q m �n K 00 m K Q ~ I O N C d dd E yam+ N E � G d N a' =3 Q. S C � O � C O O c .c� G m O Cai C O co � M G � ~ M dd o a U m O c d m." N O c c c m s c c m a a m m a C Q m c m m `o m c m m `o 0 0 `o a `o a c li5 m i5 m _T = a a C a N a N C O d n— d d a o 0 m m y c m C V C N L : a o `m d LLJ " — o y _O °' O N O '5 d N N C d N (V d L I O) N N c m = .Ni O L Z5 a C y a (V E O d U 'O O U V N a N L-' E N] (V m m° m m >> H a > y m R m m E E w 0 o w- > ° w v o v a`o m° o 2 m -O ° °> N o o a od 3 mIS E > o E .°n y `o IL o N m m m a a v o "o m m c m o -° v °� v£ oa y � a y£ m o _> a ° `o S° 2 m c v S m a m m a`ai m ? fO ¢>m��vm°� m a o m L a W m o w o s m m L N C 2 E m N (V p N 'm m 2N . m N V) O Ln >. C m N O V d O E N m L~ N N i E O O a C N _ O N O (` U i. C�CN�d�Nd OOV� WE LE ° i OdL 2 Wwm E d L C -O m> O " 0 0 5 C Q v U C °U N m C O d • • • d L d N °U O n� E .% � / \ .q k rw-1 \ \ \ { \\�E C5 6 EF ) E 4i5 o \\ \\ \\\ \ / \\ / \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ 2 t5 o o £J=E Z{I)§ . . . OQ �z ¢Q wQ �F 0 Z O Q m �n K 00 m Q �- xo N C d dd E yam+ N E � O d N a' Qi S C o a U O C � O � O c O c a O c, N O C O co � M a c G � ~ M dd o a U m O c a N O c o c a c a `o c o a � a C m v a `o c c � H � a 0 `o a i5 _T = O_ C n N C O d n- � a � o c- a m t v m- 6" n o N N w O o �_ C .4�, O 0 0 'O (V n° O O O n._qN O) LCaNV>.dy n� o N O n n C E C E o (V n L O (V O N �. E O O N y O C N N c E >d L muo "v E o O ao n 2 'v O �O H =O O O E L O- E C O C (V E N N L N O o m .°n m �2 a m E -ovoi m m E °m E a` m m - c°a aNi m aE`� goads Edd °� aoUi mwEa >amvom> a� NmNm O N 'O_ >> ~ 'O O p_ O a N O m 0 m E m o m m o w O (V C o H m m m m d L N V N N a 2 m 2 m 0 E N N O N O L C N �p E C 'O (V C N d LL C LL C ._ o m 0 s m E o E `o, m° E w pm 2E aEi io o r o d N ( O C n" C C n d d >°- > > o E n o m E o a a t5 E -c6 aE E E 5 a o E N> N >i (V n N C n O N N U H U 'O d N- C i& (V H E 'O L O C E C V E E O n o 0 _ O= O ° `o m • • • a a c) M N N N w U N 6 N W H H V 0 a m 0 m a O 2 m m N a a m r' m m m N m 2E r' N m rc z z� ¢z K O O 0 ) K ~ K O N C N E N C O O C O co 0) _9 y N C d E v Q d Q. C O C CO C C O Q. M d a s a g m C E o a U m ° C m a+ N O c o p a N a N a N c a LL a LL a LL C w w m `o aoi o 0 a 0 a a o T_ m Q m Q = m m a � C N N n- a E > > o oo (O (V w E 21 n (V C LL O ~ O y (V C (V ` N o o -O ° C -O N m O N a o `m a m °) N N L O o o C O d vmi m E m o N o a oa'o m o$ m m w o L.. v (Cp o N C C d Q°� o N v o m aoi m o oa o� m " C d a t o m '= a o� o- m V O V ° E °o oaso av oo m "v c m o,2 24 ... m "'n ay `w �o m m v c H a 5 m 3 L� ... a E m o o m o m a c L o m m m° w w U' Q- m o o a o N E o m m E m o o m o m E m 'o 0 0 a-- a wo m V m >. m p m m a E �4? o'n3_� a y o> m vm °2' °mE,��m "vmm ono 'of 't N m m U "x - °- Lvoi '_' m m °�mzmm o `m °- y d m a m V` o "v Q m m. o E- N 3¢ m "o m Z a m m w C N o m o �� m (r L m w m° m .n N 2 m 6 O m C w '° N m n E . C m — m E+ N Q > O o L �O L m m` 2 .� '° -p m '° fC n E m ° m O) yj ` U o p m> �. w w m� = yj N 2i i O) L L C w� m o L$ m - m m 7 '-' m 2 v (V = m l o� v a ° ma- °a m� aE a°i 6 o Z o -U m m m ... a °v o o i° m m oa w� aoi�v S m> v m L o E o `o o o m Lm. o m :_. c a o _p w o N o y y o E '•- v y v m y w> m > m V m a> ° a E o m> t m m" y v O (V a O m n ,2 m `-' 0 11 O m C U m C m y Q: y o y m m E y m a m m E o o, L U C m N P N� (V y (V o w_ N m d m= O V £ ff m m o V C C m C m £ -° °- s > N V cn o m E `o `� �° o m m o o vmi m. o a> m v 2 m m> a Q v= c V `m a2i ` y m - m K o a m aEi m a !2 >> 0 m " m ami s w E °° m m o L° m` o m "E a m °- ° m a m o d U a d N C 0 m d d LL >j C (p C (p O m U w d d o (V 0 d 4 4 �i a O N o¢ `Y z w¢ �F 0 z o¢ m� K 00 0 my K xo U) E N O O C O co O) Cl) c C K l a 4. Mitigation Monitoring Reports bfitigation monitoring reports are required to document compliance with the Mitigation Monitoring Program and to dispute arbitration enforcement resolution. Specific reports include: ■ Field Check Report • Implementation Compliance Report • Arbitration/Enforcement Report 4.1 FIELD CHECK REPORT Field check reports are required to record in -field compliance and conditions. 4.2 IMPLEMENTATION COMPLIANCE REPORT The Implementation Compliance Report JCR) is prepared to document the implementation of mitigation measures on a phased basis, based on the information in Table 3 -1. The report summarizes implementation compliance, including mitigation measures, date completed, and monitor's signature. 4.3 ARBITRATION/ENFORCEMENT REPORT The Arbitration/Enforcement Report (AER) is prepared to document the outcome of arbitration committee review and becomes a portion of the ICR. August 2014 Page 25 HARBOR BOULEVARD MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN MMRP CITY OF SANTA ANA 4. Mitigation Monitoring Reports This page intentional) , l ft blank. Page 26 PlareWorkr 5. Communitv Involvement Monitoring reports are public documents and are available for review by the general public. Discrepancies in monitoring reports can be taken to the arbitration committee by the general public. August 2014 Page 27 HARBOR BOULEVARD MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN MMRP CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Community Involvement This page intentional) , l ft blank. Page 28 PlareWorkr 6. Report Preparation 6.1 LIST OF PREPARERS City of Santa Ana Melanie G. McCann, MCP, Associate Planner PlaceWorks Nicole Morse, Esq., Associate Principal Ryan Potter, Project Planner August 2014 Page 29 HARBOR BOULEVARD MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN MMRP CITY OF SANTA ANA 6. Report Preparation This page intentional) , l ft blank. Page 30 PlareWorkr